[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 135 (Thursday, October 7, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12155-S12176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Continued

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, is there time remaining on the amendment 
I have offered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not. All time has expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
occur in relation to the Bingaman amendment at 11:15, with 2 minutes 
equally divided prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, may we have 4 minutes equally divided?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I change the unanimous consent to ask that we have 4 
minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 1842

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the importance 
 of determining the economic status of former recipients of temporary 
                     assistance to needy families)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1842.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1842.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place add the following:
       Sec.   . It is the sense of the Senate that it is important 
     that Congress determine the economic status of former 
     recipients of assistance under the temporary assistance to 
     needy families program funded under part A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me first explain this amendment to 
colleagues and then marshal my evidence for it.
  I believe we will have a good, strong vote on the floor of the Senate 
for this amendment. I have introduced a similar amendment in the past, 
which lost by one vote, but I have now changed the amendment which I 
think will make it more acceptable to colleagues.
  In the 1996 welfare law we passed, we set aside $1 billion for high-
performance bonuses to go to States, and currently this money goes to 
States. The way it works is, it uses a formula that takes into account 
the State's effectiveness in enabling TANF recipients to find jobs, 
which is terribly important. The whole goal of the welfare bill was to 
move families from welfare dependency to becoming economically 
independent.
  This amendment would add three more criteria. We have had, in the 
last year or two, a dramatic decline in food stamp participation, about 
a 25-percent decline. This should be of concern to all of us because 
the Food Stamp Program has been the most important safety net program 
for poor children in our country. Indeed, it was President Nixon, a 
Republican President, who, in 1972, federalized this program and said: 
One thing we are going to do as a national community is make sure 
children aren't going hungry in our country. We are going to make sure 
we have a program with national standards and that those families who 
are eligible to participate are, indeed, able to obtain this 
assistance.
  In addition, what we want to find out is the proportion of families 
leaving TANF who were covered by Medicaid or health insurance. Families 
USA, which is an organization that has tremendous credibility with all 
of us, issued a disturbing report a few months ago. To summarize it, 
because of the welfare bill, there are about 670,000 Americans who no 
longer have any health care coverage.
  Maybe that is worth repeating. Because of the welfare bill, there are 
about 670,000 Americans who no longer have any coverage. Since about 
two-thirds of welfare recipients have always been children--this was, 
after all, mainly for mothers and children--we want to make sure these 
children and these families still have health care coverage.
  We want to also make sure we get some information about the number of 
children in these working families who receive some form of affordable 
child care. In other words, again, what we want to find out is, as 
families move from welfare to work, which is the goal--and I think work 
with dignity is terribly important--we also want to make sure the 
children are OK.
  Again, I will use but one of many examples. It will take me some time 
to develop my argument, but one very gripping example, I say to the 
Chair, is when I was in east LA, I was meeting with a group of Head 
Start mothers. As we were discussing the Head Start Program and their 
children, one of the mothers was telling me she had been a welfare 
mother and was emphasizing that she was working. Indeed, she was quite 
proud of working. In the middle of our discussion, all of a sudden she 
became upset and started to cry.
  I asked her: If I am poking my nose into your business, pay no 
attention to me, but can you tell me why you are so upset? She said: 
The one problem with my working is when my second grader goes home--she 
lived in a housing project; later I visited that housing project--it is 
a pretty dangerous area. It used to be I could walk my second grader to 
school, and then I could walk her home, make sure she was OK. I was 
there with her. Now I am always frightened, especially after school. I 
tell her to go home, and I tell her to lock the door. I tell her not to 
take any phone calls because no one is there.
  It makes us wonder how many children are in apartments where they 
have locked the door and can't take any phone calls and can't go 
outside to play, even when it is a beautiful day. I think we do need to 
know how the children are faring and what is going on. Again, this is a 
matter of doing some good policy evaluation.
  Finally, for those States that have adopted the family violence 
option, which we were able to do with the help of my wife Sheila and 
Senator Patty Murray, we want to know how well they are doing in 
providing the services for victims of domestic violence. This is 
important. The family violence option essentially said we are not 
saying these mothers should be exempt. What we are saying is there 
should be an opportunity for States to be able to say to the Federal 
Government--it would be up to States, and they would not be penalized 
for that--look, this woman has been battered and beaten over and over 
again and we are not going to get her to work as quickly as we are 
other mothers; there are additional support services she needs. When 
she goes to work, this guy is there threatening her. Because of these 
kinds of circumstances, please give us more flexibility.
  We want to find out how these States are dealing with that. 
Otherwise, what happens is if you don't have that kind of flexibility, 
then a mother finds herself sanctioned if she doesn't take the job; but 
she can't really take the job and, therefore, the only thing she ends 
up doing is going back into a very dangerous home. She has left, she 
has tried to get away, and she is trying to be safe. If you cut off her 
assistance, then she has no other choice but to go back into a very 
dangerous home.
  That should not happen in America. By the way, colleagues, I know it 
is an incredible statistic, but October is the month we focus on 
violence in homes. I wish it didn't happen. About the most conservative 
statistic is that every 13 seconds a woman is battered in her home in 
our country. I can't even grasp the meaning of that. A home should be a 
safe place.

[[Page S12156]]

  As I have said before--and I hope my colleagues, Senator Hollings and 
Senator Judd Gregg, will help me keep this in conference committee--
about 5 million children see this violence. So we talk about the fact 
children should not see the violence in movies and on television. A lot 
of them see the violence right in their homes. It has a devastating 
impact on their own lives. We need to make sure these kids don't fall 
between the cracks and that we provide some services.
  I am going to start out in a moment with some examples. I am talking 
about nothing more than good policy evaluation. Let me wear my teacher 
hat. All I am saying--and we can disagree or agree about the bill, on 
should we have passed it or not, and some things are working well but 
some have questions; I have questions--let's at least do some good 
thorough policy evaluation. We are saying that the States just merge 
their tapes --they have the data--and present it to Health and Human 
Services. We have a report. We know what is going on in these areas.
  This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment because, otherwise, I would 
have been subject to a rule XVI point of order. I hoped I would not 
have had to do a sense of the Senate because, under normal 
circumstances, we would have had the House bill over here. If the House 
bill had been over here, then I could have introduced this amendment, 
and I would not have been subject to any rule XVI challenge. Since that 
has not happened, what I am doing is bringing this amendment out, 
getting, I hope, a good, strong vote, and if the House does, in fact, 
move forward with some work and gets the Labor-Health and Human 
Services Appropriation bill passed, then I will bring this amendment 
back as a regular amendment. I say to colleagues, all the time I spend 
today will have been well spent, and we can have 5 minutes of debate 
and then vote on it. In a way, I am trying to move us forward in an 
expeditious manner.

  When we are talking about families that are worried about whether 
they can put food on the table or worried about whether they can pay 
the rent at the end of the month, I don't think they much care whether 
or not my amendment is subject to rule XVI; I don't think they much 
care whether or not this is an amendment on an appropriations bill; I 
don't think they much care about why the House hasn't sent an 
appropriations bill over to the Senate. What they care about are more 
pressing issues.
  What I am concerned about is that there is, indeed, a segment of our 
population who are very poor, the majority of whom are children, who 
are, indeed, falling between the cracks. Let me also say at the very 
beginning that I think this is the question: Since the welfare bill 
passed, we have reduced the rolls by about 4.5 million people, the 
majority of them children. That has been about a 50-percent reduction 
in the welfare population. The question is whether or not the reduction 
of the welfare rolls has led to a reduction of poverty because the goal 
of the legislation was to move these families to some kind of economic 
self-sufficiency and certainly not to put them in a more precarious 
situation.
  I think we ought to have the data. I think we ought to do the policy 
evaluation. I have said it before on the floor of the Senate, and I 
think it is worth saying again: One of my favorite sociologists, Gunnar 
Myrdal, a Swedish sociologist, once said, ``Ignorance is never random; 
sometimes we don't know what we don't want to know.'' I think we ought 
not to be ignorant about this. We ought to have the data.
  My appeal is to do the policy evaluation. This amendment will not 
cost additional money. It can be absorbed into the existing amount of 
money, according to CBO. There is no reason why we should not want to 
know--especially since, in many States, the drop-dead date certain is 
approaching where everyone will have used up the number of years they 
can receive an AFDC benefit and will be cut off assistance. Before we 
do that with the rest of the population, let's at least have some kind 
of policy evaluation. Let's understand what is happening to these 
families.
  By the way, I think among those families that are still on welfare, 
we are talking about a fair number of children who had children and who 
need, therefore, to get a high school diploma or are in need of job 
training. We are talking about single parents with severely disabled 
children. We are talking about a fair number of single parents who are 
women who struggle with substance abuse. I am being blunt about it. 
This is an issue I know well from work I have done all of my adult life 
in local communities. We are talking about women who have been victims 
of domestic violence. We need to be careful about what we are doing. 
Sometimes we forget it, but this is about the lives of people in the 
country and, in particular, poor women and children. I think we ought 
to have an honest policy evaluation.
  I want to put this in a very personal context now. Before I do this, 
I wish to start out with some art work that will speak to this part of 
my presentation. We had a group of high school students from 
Minneapolis here--it was incredible--who were working with the Harriet 
Tubman Center, which is a very special shelter. These high school 
kids--I think 300 or 400 of them submitted their art, and these 11 or 
12 students were the ones who had the best art, but all of it was 
exceptional--came to Washington, DC, 2 days ago. This display is now in 
the Russell Building Rotunda for a week. Every year, for the last 6 or 
7 years, Sheila and I have brought different works from around the 
country--sometimes from Minnesota and sometimes from other States--to 
the Nation's Capitol. I want to show a little bit of these students' 
work.
  So often the focus on students is so negative. These are inner-city 
high school students. It was a wonderful diversity, with all sorts of 
nationalities, cultures, histories, different colors, a great group of 
students. I was so pleased they came to Washington. This work I think 
speaks for itself. I will read from the top:

       Is a corner in your home the only place your child felt 
     safe today? Why is it always my fault? Stop it. Speak up. 
     Seeing or hearing violence among family members hurts 
     children in many ways. They do not have to be hit to feel the 
     pain of violence.

  I am going to hold this up for a moment so it can be seen by people 
who are watching this presentation. My colleagues can see this in the 
Russell Rotunda.
  Next picture. I will hold it up. It says:

       In the time it takes you to tie your shoe, a woman is 
     beaten. . ..Go ahead, now tie your other one! Speak up! 
     Domestic violence causes almost 100,000 days of 
     hospitalization, 30,000 emergency room visits, and 40,000 
     trips to the doctor every single year.
  I will just hold this up for a moment so it can be seen. This is 
pretty marvelous work. This is art from the heart. This is art from the 
heart of high school students. I say that to the pages; they are high 
school students.
  The next work:

       If we hear the violence and see the violence, why is it so 
     hard to speak of the violence?
       Is being a passer-by keeping a secret? ``Speak up.''

  Ninety-two percent of women who are physically abused by their 
partners do not discuss these incidents with a physician. Fifty-seven 
percent do not discuss the incidents with anyone.
  Finally, this is really powerful. I will show it this way, too.

       So . . . how do your kids behave on a date? Love isn't 
     supposed to hurt.

  Two high school kids.
  On average, 100 out of 300 school students are or have been in an 
abusive dating relationship. Only 4 out of 10 of these relationships 
end when the violence and abuse begin. One out of three high school 
students is or has been in an abusive dating relationship.
  I say to my colleague from Nevada this is marvelous artwork done by 
high school students in inner-city Minneapolis. Twelve of them came to 
Washington, DC. I thank my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada, for 
having the courtesy and graciousness to acknowledge this work.
  I want to tell you about a conversation I had. Maureen, who works 
with Interchange Food Pantry in Milwaukee, WI, told me about a phone 
call she received on Monday of this week--Monday this week. On Monday, 
Maureen received a phone call. It was a woman who was well known at the 
food pantry, a woman who has a file about an inch and a half thick 
documenting the domestic violence she has endured at the hands of an 
abusive husband.

[[Page S12157]]

  Yesterday, this woman--we are talking about this week, right now. I 
want everyone to understand that this debate is about people's lives.
  Yesterday, this woman ran out of her home with her 3-year-old child 
in her arms, fleeing her abusive husband. She went to school, and she 
picked up her three other young children. She went to a laundromat. She 
called Maureen. She was looking for help, and she didn't know where 
else to turn.
  The people at the food pantry tried to place this woman in a domestic 
violence shelter. But homelessness right now seems to have reached 
epidemic proportions in Milwaukee. So many women are becoming homeless 
that all of the battered women's shelters are full to overflowing, and 
desperate women are presenting themselves as victims of domestic 
violence so they can be placed in shelters. The shelters don't have any 
room because there are so many homeless women and children. Some of 
these women are basically pretending as if they are victims. Plenty of 
them are. Because they are so battered, they try to find shelter. What 
this means is there is no place left to go for homeless women and women 
who are victims of domestic violence.
  She couldn't find a shelter at this food pantry. They could find no 
shelter to place this woman. On the phone, they couldn't find anything 
for her.
  This is 1999 in America. The economy is booming. We don't have this 
kind of discussion on the floor of the Senate enough.
  All that food pantry was able to do was to give her some food 
vouchers and a bus ticket so they could go spend the night with her 
mother. But her mother lives in senior housing. She is not supposed to 
have overnight guests, and she could actually end up losing her house 
if they get caught.

  So this woman, who has a 15-year history of abuse, is going to have 
to return to her home. That is where she is going. She will have to go 
back to this abusive, violent, dangerous situation for herself and for 
her children because she lacks the economic independence to do anything 
else.
  No one should be forced to risk their life or the lives of their 
children because they are poor. This woman's story is a welfare 
nightmare. She is doing all she can. Her children are clean, and they 
are well cared for. But she is not making it economically. Her husband 
isn't willing to work. Therefore, the family has been sanctioned by the 
welfare department on and off. She has been forced to rely on the food 
pantry for help.
  So she sells her plasma as often as possible--about three times a 
week. She doesn't have a high school degree. But the welfare agency, 
instead of making sure she gets her GED and the training she needs to 
get some kind of a living-wage job, has put her into a training program 
so she can become a housekeeper in a hotel. Their idea of getting this 
woman to a life of economic independence is to place her as a 
housekeeper in a hotel.
  She has been in an abusive, dangerous situation for 15 years. Her 
caseworker is aware of her situation. But there is no help. There is no 
effort to make her economically independent so she can leave the 
marriage, and she is now being forced back into this home. She does not 
have the economic wherewithal to leave her home.
  This woman has tried. She went to the welfare office. She asked to be 
placed in a job. They put her to work in a light manufacturing job, a 
job for which she had no training whatsoever. Making the situation even 
worse, they placed her in a job that was way out in the suburbs with a 
45-minute commute each way on a bus.
  Listen to this. This is why I think we need to know what is going on 
in the country. She had to get up at 4:30 in the morning, drop her kid 
off at child care--child care is hard to find at 4:30 in the morning--
travel to her job, put in a full day's work, and ride all the way home, 
pick up her kids, and go back home to face her abusive husband. When 
she went to the welfare worker and explained the situation, she was 
told that if she quit this job, she would be sanctioned and she would 
lose her benefits.
  This woman's life and the lives of her children are not going to get 
better until she can get out of her situation. But under the current 
welfare program--at least the way it is working in one State, in one 
community--this isn't going to happen.
  Let me give a few examples from some of the studies that have been 
done. Then let me go into the overall debate.
  Applying for cash assistance has become difficult in many places. In 
one Alabama county, a professor found that intake workers gave public 
assistance applications to only 6 out of 27 undergraduate students who 
requested them despite State policy that says anyone who asks for an 
application should get one.
  This was from a Children's Defense Fund study. The study cited was by 
the professor who was doing fieldwork research on the application 
process in two Alabama counties.
  Before I actually give the examples, let me go to the debate. There 
are those who argue that we don't need to do any policy evaluation 
because we have cut the rolls in half. But the goal was never cutting 
the rolls in half. The goal was to reduce poverty.
  Let me cite some disturbing evidence: The reduction in the roles is 
not bringing a reduction in poverty. We want to know, what kind of jobs 
do the mothers have? What kind of wages? Are the families still 
receiving medical coverage? Is there affordable child care? Are 
children still participating in the Food Stamp Program? This is what we 
need to know.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask consent that following the vote 
which is to occur momentarily, Senator Wellstone be recognized for an 
additional 45 minutes, and following the use of or yielding back of 
time, Senator Coverdell be recognized to move to table amendment No. 
1842, no second-degree amendment be in order prior to the vote, and the 
vote would occur at 1:50.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I agree with the request and I am 
pleased to work within this framework. I have a judge I have to meet; 
he is going to be appearing before an important committee. I do not get 
done with that until a little bit after 2 o'clock. Could we say 2:15 
instead of 1:50?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I wonder if it could be 1:45? What I am dealing with 
is a total sequence of time. There are other amendments. I wonder if we 
voted at 1:45, would it give the Senator time to get to his 
introduction? It would be very helpful if we could do that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will figure out how to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1861

  Who yields time on the Bingaman amendment?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time is there at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me sum up what the amendment does. 
It is an amendment to set aside $200 million of title I funds to be 
targeted at helping schools that are failing. We give a lot of speeches 
about how we need to help failing schools. This is a chance to vote to 
help failing schools. The amendment does not add money to the bill. The 
amendment says we are serious about accountability. We are giving the 
States some funds, earmarking some funds so they also can be serious 
about accountability in the expenditure of title I funds.
  I have a letter from the National Governors' Association. I ask 
unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              National Governors' Association,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 1999.
     Hon. Senator Jeff Bingaman,
     703 Hart Senate Office Building,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the nation's Governors, 
     I write to express our

[[Page S12158]]

     strong support for your amendment to provide states with 
     additional funds to help turn around schools that are failing 
     to provide a quality education for Title I students.
       As you know, under current law, states are permitted to 
     reserve one-half of one percent of their Title I monies to 
     administer the Title I program and provide schools with 
     additional assistance. However, this small setaside does not 
     provide the states with sufficient funds to improve the 
     quality of Title I schools. A recent study by the U.S. 
     Department of Education noted that the ``capacity of state 
     school support teams to assist schools in need of improvement 
     of Title I is a major concern.'' The programs authorized to 
     fund such improvement efforts have not been funded. As a 
     result, states have been unable to provide such services. 
     According to ``Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The 
     Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I,'' in 
     1998, only eight states reported that school support teams 
     had been able to serve the majority of schools identified as 
     needing improvement. In twenty-four states, Title I directors 
     reported more schools in need of school support teams than 
     Title I could assist.
       Earlier this year, the National Governors' Association 
     (NGA) adopted an education policy that recognizes the 
     important role of the states in providing technical 
     assistance to local school districts to help them implement 
     federal education programs. In addition, the policy calls for 
     full implementation of the current Title I accountability 
     provisions, including the requirements that states intervene 
     in low performing schools. However, the policy calls on the 
     federal government to provide states with sufficient funds to 
     enable states to provide school districts with the tools to 
     meet federal program requirements. Your amendment would 
     provide such funding. Therefore, NGA supports your amendment 
     and will urge other Senators to support the adoption of it.
       We look forward to working with you towards the enactment 
     of this and other provisions that will help states improve 
     the quality of services provided to Title I students.
           Sincerely,
                                             Raymond C. Scheppach.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me read a few sentences from it. This is addressed 
to me, Senator Bingaman.

       On behalf of the nation's Governors, I write to express our 
     strong support for your amendment to provide states with 
     additional funds to help turn around schools that are failing 
     to provide a quality education for Title I students.

  It goes on to say:

       Earlier this year, the National Governors' Association 
     (NGA) adopted an education policy that recognizes the 
     important role of the states in providing technical 
     assistance to local school districts to help them implement 
     federal education programs.

  It goes on to say:

       . . . the policy calls on the federal government to provide 
     states with sufficient funds to enable states to provide 
     school districts with the tools to meet federal program 
     requirements. Your amendment would provide such funding. 
     Therefore, NGA supports your amendment and will urge other 
     Senators to support the adoption of it.

  This is a good amendment. The States support it. It will help 
dramatically in improving our schools. We should not postpone this. We 
should not kick this down the road and say we will deal with it 
sometime in the future. We should do it today.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the amendment would take money that 
currently goes directly to school districts and give it to States for 
accountability purposes. The authorizing committee, chaired by Senator 
Jeffords of Vermont, wants to have an opportunity to take a careful 
look at this issue during reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. While the letter from the National Governors' 
Association states that the association supports the amendment, the 
fact remains that funds would still be taken from local school 
districts. While this may be a decision the authorizing committee may 
ultimately make, it needs to be decided at the authorizing committee 
level. This is a significant decision, to take money directly from 
classrooms, and should be carefully reviewed.
  I yield the remainder of the majority's time, if any remains, and I 
move to table the Bingaman amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1861.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
absent because of family illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 317 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1842

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding of the previous 
unanimous consent that we now are ready to hear Senator Wellstone from 
Minnesota for up to 45 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. President, since I had a chance to speak on this amendment, I can 
be brief and probably will not need to take anywhere near the full 
amount of time.
  Let me remind Senators what the vote on this amendment will be: To 
express the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of determining 
the economic status of former recipients of temporary assistance to 
needy families. I am hoping not one Senator votes against this.
  Again, the purpose of this amendment is to express the sense of the 
Senate that we want to know, what is the economic status of welfare 
mothers no longer on welfare? What is happening with this legislation? 
It is called policy evaluation.
  It is a sense of the Senate because otherwise I would be subject to 
rule XVI. If the House had done their work and had sent over the Labor, 
Health and Human Services appropriations bill, I could do this 
amendment and I wouldn't have to do a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I 
certainly hope there is not a motion to table this. I can't imagine why 
it would be controversial.
  The Senate goes on record that we need to determine the economic 
status of these former recipients. We need to know how this legislation 
is working. We need to know whether or not these mothers, who have been 
sanctioned, actually have jobs. We need to know whether the jobs pay a 
living wage. We need to know whether these families have been cut off 
medical assistance when they are still eligible. We need to know 
whether or not families have been cut from food stamp assistance even 
when they are eligible, and we need to know what the child care 
situation is. We need to know the status of 2-year-olds and 3-year-
olds.

  This sense-of-the-Senate amendment has the support of some 120 
different organizations: from Catholic Charities USA; Center for 
Community Change; Food Research and Action Center; National Center on 
Poverty Law; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; NETWORK, a 
National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; YWCA of America--the list goes 
on and on--Children's Defense Fund; Women for Reform Judaism. There is 
a long list of organizations to which I think all of us give

[[Page S12159]]

some credibility as important justice organizations.
  Again, I had a chance to speak about this amendment earlier. I will 
just summarize. Yes, the welfare rolls have been reduced by about half. 
There are 4.5 million fewer Americans receiving any assistance. But the 
goal wasn't to basically reduce the welfare rolls; the goal was to 
reduce poverty. There are still some 34-, 35 million poor Americans. 
Unfortunately, some 6.5 million children live in households with 
incomes less than half of the official poverty level. Among one 
subgroup of our population, the poorest of poor people, poverty has 
gone up.
  Today, about 20 percent of all the children in our country and about 
a third of the children of color under the age of 6 are growing up 
poor. Still today the largest poverty-stricken group of Americans are 
children. Still today we have a set of social arrangements that allow 
children to be the most poverty-stricken group in our country. I cite 
as evidence, again, some disturbing studies. Families USA says we have 
about 670,000 fewer people who no longer receive medical coverage 
because of the welfare bill; 670,000 citizens no longer receiving any 
medical assistance because of the welfare bill. We have the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture telling us there has been about a 20- to 25-
percent drop in food stamp participation, which has been the most 
important safety net program for children.
  In addition, we have any number of different studies--NETWORK, 
Catholic Justice Organization being but one--which point out that most 
of the jobs these mothers are getting pay about $7 an hour. But if they 
don't have any health care coverage, they are worse off. There are too 
many examples I can give. Again, I want to make sure we have the data 
about children, 2 and 3 years old, who are not receiving adequate child 
care.
  The question I am asking is embodied in the wording of this 
amendment: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the importance 
of determining the economic status of these former recipients.
  What has happened to these women and children? How are they doing? Is 
this welfare bill working? We should do some honest policy evaluation. 
Today, at about quarter to 2, we will have a vote on an amendment every 
Senator should support. How can a Senator argue that it isn't important 
to know the economic status of these women and children? I don't see 
the case against it. I hope we get a strong vote, and then that will 
give us some momentum for finally moving forward with some legislation 
that eventually will have some teeth that will, in fact, call for this 
kind of policy evaluation.
  I say to colleagues I could give many State-by-State examples of ways 
in which I don't think this is working quite the way we want it to. I 
won't. I could say to Democrats and Republicans that, in some cases, in 
some communities, there is success; in other cases, in other 
communities, what is going on it is rather brutal.
  I can certainly say to all of my colleagues, in very good faith, we 
need to understand the drop in food stamp participation; they are so 
important to meeting the nutritional needs of children. We need to 
understand why so many people have been dropped from medical 
assistance. We need to know whether there is decent child care for 
these children, and we need to know whether or not these families are 
moving toward economic independence.
  It is extremely important that we do this policy evaluation. That is 
all this amendment calls for. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It 
is to get Senators on record with a good, strong vote that we ``express 
the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of determining the 
economic status of former recipients of temporary assistance in needy 
families.''
  Mr. President, I don't know that more needs to be said about this 
amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will allow the majority to go to another 
amendment and we will reserve the time of the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A vote is set for 1:50 on the Wellstone 
amendment.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1825

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the promulgation or issuing 
           of any standard relating to ergonomic protection)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1825.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The Department of Labor, through the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration (referred to in this section 
     as ``OSHA'') plans to propose regulations during 1999 to 
     regulate ergonomics in the workplace. A draft of OSHA's 
     ergonomics regulation became available on February 19, 1999.
       (2) A July 1997 report by the National Institute for 
     Occupational Safety and Health that reviewed epidemiological 
     studies that have been conducted of ``work related 
     musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and 
     low back'' showed that there is insufficient evidence to 
     assess the level of risk to workers from repetitive motions. 
     Such evidence would be necessary to write an efficient and 
     effective regulation.
       (3) An August 1998 workshop on ``work related 
     musculoskeletal injuries'' held by the National Academy of 
     Sciences reviewed existing research on musculoskeletal 
     disorders. The workshop showed that there is insufficient 
     evidence to assess the level of risk to workers from 
     repetitive motions.
       (4) In October 1998, Congress and the President agreed that 
     the National Academy of Sciences should conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the medical and scientific evidence 
     regarding musculoskeletal disorders. The study is intended to 
     evaluate the basic questions about diagnosis and causes of 
     such disorders.
       (5) To complete that study, Public Law 105-277 appropriated 
     $890,000 for the National Academy of Sciences to complete a 
     peer-reviewed scientific study of the available evidence 
     examining a cause and effect relationship between repetitive 
     tasks in the workplace and musculoskeletal disorders or 
     repetitive stress injuries.
       (6) The National Academy of Sciences currently estimates 
     that this study will be completed late in 2000 or early in 
     2001.
       (7) Given the uncertainty and dispute about these basic 
     questions, and Congress' intention that they be addressed in 
     a comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences, it 
     is premature for OSHA to propose a regulation on ergonomics 
     as being necessary or appropriate to improve workers' health 
     and safety until such study is completed.
       (b) Prohibition.--None of the funds made available in this 
     Act may be used by the Secretary of Labor or the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration to promulgate or issue, or 
     to continue the rulemaking process of promulgating or 
     issuing, any standard or regulation regarding ergonomics 
     prior to September 29, 2000.


                Amendment No. 2270 to Amendment No. 1825

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the promulgation or issuing 
    of any standard, regulation, or guideline relating to ergonomic 
                              protection)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2270 to amendment No. 1825.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 1 of the amendment, strike all after the first word 
     and insert the following:
       ____. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

[[Page S12160]]

       (1) The Department of Labor, through the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration (referred to in this section 
     as ``OSHA'') plans to propose regulations during 1999 to 
     regulate ergonomics in the workplace. A draft of OSHA's 
     ergonomics regulation became available on February 19, 1999.
       (2) A July 1997 report by the National Institute for 
     Occupational Safety and Health that reviewed epidemiological 
     studies that have been conducted of ``work related 
     musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and 
     low back'' showed that there is insufficient evidence to 
     assess the level of risk to workers from repetitive motions. 
     Such evidence would be necessary for OSHA and the 
     Administration to write an efficient and effective 
     regulation.
       (3) An August 1998 workshop on ``work related 
     musculoskeletal injuries'' held by the National Academy of 
     Sciences reviewed existing research on musculoskeletal 
     disorders. The workshop showed that there is insufficient 
     evidence to assess the level of risk to workers from 
     repetitive motions.
       (4) In October 1998, Congress and the President agreed that 
     the National Academy of Sciences should conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the medical and scientific evidence 
     regarding musculoskeletal disorders. The study is intended to 
     evaluate the basic questions about diagnosis and causes of 
     such disorders.
       (5) To complete that study, Public Law 105-277 appropriated 
     $890,000 for the National Academy of Sciences to complete a 
     peer-reviewed scientific study of the available evidence 
     examining a cause and effect relationship between repetitive 
     tasks in the workplace and musculoskeletal disorders or 
     repetitive stress injuries.
       (6) The National Academy of Sciences currently estimates 
     that this study will be completed late in 2000 or early in 
     2001.
       (7) Given the uncertainty and dispute about these basic 
     questions, and Congress' intention that they be addressed in 
     a comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences, it 
     is premature for OSHA to propose a regulation on ergonomics 
     as being necessary or appropriate to improve workers' health 
     and safety until such study is completed.
       (b) Prohibition.--None of the funds made available in this 
     Act may be used by the Secretary of Labor or the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration to promulgate or issue, or 
     to continue the rulemaking process of promulgating or 
     issuing, any standard, regulation, or guideline regarding 
     ergonomics prior to September 30, 2000.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the perfecting amendment corrects an error 
in the date in the language we provided in the original amendment.
  This is an amendment with respect to ergonomics. The issue of 
protecting employees against workplace injuries is critically 
important. We all can and must agree to that. However, we are concerned 
about the proposed actions of OSHA. Small businesses and concerned 
employers know that ensuring safe workplaces is critical to their 
employees and to their businesses. It is in their best interest to 
protect employees from workplace injury, but they can only accomplish 
that goal without regulations that are unduly harsh. They need to 
proceed on a basis that is carefully thought out, makes sense, and is 
based on sound science.
  Since the 1990s, OSHA has been trying to develop a rule that would 
tell employers what they are supposed to do to protect employees from 
ergonomic injuries. But the agency still has no answers to fundamental 
questions that need to be answered before a regulation can be issued or 
will be effective. These questions are basic: How much lifting is too 
much? How many repetitions are too many? How can an employer determine 
what part of an injury is due to workplace factors? And, perhaps most 
important: What can an employer do to prevent injuries or to cure an 
injury that has happened?
  After all the effort and time OSHA has spent on developing their 
proposal, there is not a single threshold or recommendation contained 
in it. Instead, it basically says to employers. ``We know there's a 
problem, and we can't figure it out. So we expect you to figure it out 
for us, and we will inspire you with fines and penalties if you 
don't.''
  That doesn't make much sense.
  As I said before, employers--particularly small businesses--know how 
much they can lose in lost time and lost employees through ergonomic 
injuries. They want help and good guidance. They don't want to say: 
Take your best guess and we will fine you if you are wrong. That is no 
way to do business.
  The amendment I propose today delays the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration's (OSHA) proposed standard on ergonomic 
protection until the essential scientific research to support this 
standard has been completed. Sound science to support a sound safety 
standard.
  Some opponents have tried to deflect attention from the flaws and 
lack of scientific basic for OSHA's proposal by mischaracterizing this 
amendment as ``anti-women.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. 
To use the words of several women construction business owners 
representing the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC): 
``Safety has no gender.''
  We all want to promote safe and healthy workplaces. To date, 
voluntary efforts by the business community have led to a 17 percent 
decline in repetitive stress injuries over the past 3 years, according 
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This includes a 29 percent decline 
in carpal tunnel syndrome cases and a 28 percent decline in tendinitis 
cases--two of the most commonly cited ergonomic injuries. Such injuries 
make up just 4 percent of all workplace injuries and illnesses.
  There are too many. We need to do better. But we need to do so based 
on sound science so employers, and particularly small businesses, will 
know what reasonable standards they should meet so they can protect 
their employees, which they, I believe, not only want to do but which 
is in their economic self-interest to do.
  Despite this decline in ergonomic injuries, OSHA is on a rampage to 
impose new mandates with no clear thresholds or guidance to address the 
causes of these injuries. This irresponsible behavior helps no 
employee--woman or man.
  Some proponents of OSHA's ergonomics standard have argued that 
because many large companies have been able to spend significant 
resources of time and money to solve ergonomic problems in their 
workplaces, all employers should now be required to do this. The 
problem with using these examples as the basis of a regulation is that 
each one of these companies approached the problem differently, and was 
able to address the problem in a way that made sense for them in their 
workplace and in their business with their employees. It does not 
follow from these examples that OSHA should seek to impose on all 
employers a regulation that will have to fit a wide variety of 
companies. There is a vast difference between Ford Motor Company being 
able to implement an ergonomics program and a small business being able 
to hire the necessary consultants, purchase the necessary equipment, 
and possibly redesign its processes to address ergonomic questions.
  OSHA'a ergonomics rule is different from all other OSHA regulations 
that establish a threshold for exposure to a specific hazard and then 
tell the employer that if an employee exceeds that threshold, certain 
measures must be taken, or exposure must be reduced.
  Because of this vagueness of OSHA's proposed standard, and the impact 
it would have on small businesses which would be forced to comply with 
it, I introduced the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific Evidence 
Act--the SENSE Act--S. 1070 on May 18 of this year.
  The amendment I offer today is fundamentally the same as that bill. 
It is simple and direct--it tells OSHA that it may not proceed with 
publishing a proposed rule on ergonomics until after fiscal year 2000. 
Why?
  Because by that time National Academy of Sciences is expected to have 
completed a study that Congress and the President agreed upon last 
year. This study is intended to determine whether there is sufficient 
evidence to answer those questions I just laid out and to support a 
regulation on ergonomics.
  We agreed to pay $890,000 for a study. As I said, Congress agreed, 
and the President signed it. If we are to disregard that, we waste the 
money, and we don't get the benefit of the investigation that has been 
going on during this period of time and is expected to make a sound 
basis for proceeding in a scientific manner to do something about 
workplace ergonomic injuries. But if OSHA publishes its proposal first, 
that is a classic example of what I have described as the bureaucracy's 
desire for, ready, fire, and aim. You need to figure out what you need 
to accomplish, and how you can do it before you start out and do it.
  My amendment would not preclude OSHA from continuing its study of 
this issue, and I urgently call on the agency

[[Page S12161]]

to redouble its efforts, especially in light of the report of the SBA 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy, which I received last week.
  That report is very critical of OSHA's estimates outlined in the 
agency's Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the proposed 
ergonomics standard. In fact, the report concludes that ``OSHA's 
estimates of the benefits of the proposed standard may be significantly 
overstated.'' In other words, this standard may not help employees--
women and men--as much as OSHA would have us believe.
  Equally troubling is the report's conclusion that the cost of the 
ergonomics standard to all businesses could be as much as 15 times more 
than what OSHA estimates. Moreover, the report emphasizes that the cost 
of the ergonomics standard could be as much as 10 times higher for 
small businesses than for large companies.
  So for what a large company would have to do for employees, if it had 
to pay $1,000 per employee, a small business might have to pay $10,000 
per employee. Those are some pretty significant margins of error. If 
this rule goes forward, small business, once again, is left holding the 
bag.
  The report also points out that ``a small business is not simply a 
large business with fewer employees. Many factors affect how a standard 
may impact a small business much differently than a large business.'' 
It goes on to discuss the fact that small businesses often have higher 
employee turnover rates meaning that any training requirement will have 
a more significant impact on the small firm than the large one.
  For women business owners, the cost issue is particularly worrisome. 
As AGC's women construction business owners put it: ``Women-owned 
companies are the fastest growing sector of our economy. Unfortunately, 
burdensome regulations are a barrier to women starting their own 
businesses. Often, these regulations discourage women from starting a 
new business or expanding an existing one.''
  Mr. President, one thing is very clear--this is an extremely 
complicated issue. And we must have more reliable cost and benefit 
estimates--not to mention sound science and thorough medical evidence--
before we push the Nation's small businesses into another maze of 
redtape.
  If there are regulations which are burdensome but which are necessary 
on the basis of sound science to protect against ergonomic injuries, 
then let OSHA set them out. Let everybody abide by those standards. But 
when we don't even know what best medical and scientific evidence 
provides, why are we going forward down a blind alley with nothing but 
a huge cost at the other end?
  Employees have a right to expect regulations will achieve realistic 
benefits to them--not exaggerated lofty goals that miss the mark and 
help no one.
  Let me be clear about something. When you talk to workers who are in 
businesses or in jobs where they do lifting and work, they are very 
much concerned about their medical care.
  They are very much concerned about their pension. They are also 
concerned about their job.
  We are talking about something that could be a job killer. If we are 
telling this employee--because we have issued a standard without 
scientific basis--the cost may be so great that your employer can't 
afford to continue to hire you, what favor have we done that employee? 
If she is put out of work because the unknown requirements of a very 
expensive regulation are too much for the employer to bear, that woman 
could lose her job and lose the means of livelihood in the name of 
lessening ergonomic injuries, without any proof that they do so.
  Let me stress again, we all agree in protecting employees from 
workplace injuries, it is extremely important. That is something we 
must do, we must assure. Employers want employees to be safe. If your 
mother, father, sister, or brother is working in a job with lifting or 
repetitive motions, the employers want them to be safe. However, small 
firms cannot accomplish the goal of worker protection through ill-
conceived and poorly supported proposals such as OSHA's ergonomic 
standard which has such potential burden for small business. If the 
burdens are too high, the business may not survive.
  As I indicated earlier, this has been a concern that women-owned 
businesses have shared. If a business folds, there are no employees to 
protect. Where is the sense in that? OSHA is doing everything in its 
power to get its proposal published soon. The House passed legislation 
on this issue, the Workplace Preservation Act, H.R. 987, by a vote of 
217-209. I think it is time for the Senate to add its voice to the call 
for OSHA to act responsibly, to act dispassionately, but to act in good 
science.
  To summarize: We don't have the science; we don't have the medical 
evidence; we don't have accurate cost figures; we don't know the 
benefits to employees; and we don't know what works in preventing 
injuries. Moreover, OSHA doesn't know those either. All we have is a 
potentially burdensome standard that small businesses, whether owned by 
a woman or a man, can ill afford.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to make certain that 
OSHA's ergonomic standard is based on sound science and ensure that we 
are protecting men and women in the workplace. I hope we can get a 
reasonable time agreement so views on both sides can be expressed and 
we can proceed to a vote on this very important amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek to propound a unanimous-consent 
request for a time limit. I have already had some informal indications 
that Members on the other side of the aisle intend to speak at some 
length. I will propound a request for consent when the manager returns 
to the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. For a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to propound a question. Does the Senator from 
Pennsylvania not understand, the complexity of this issue virtually 
prohibits a time agreement? We will continue the debate until it is 
fully explored.
  I think the Senator from Pennsylvania and Senator from Missouri are 
forewarned: Bringing an issue of this complexity to the floor invites a 
lengthy debate regarding worker safety, and we will object to a time 
limit.
  Mr. SPECTER. This Senator does not understand how this matter--for 
that matter, any matter--is so complicated as not to be subject to a 
time agreement. We are all here under time limitations. I only have 5 
years 3 months left on my term, for example. We all have some time 
limitations.
  I think it is possible to have a time agreement. However, if the 
other side intends to talk at length--I do not want to inject the word 
``filibuster'' into the discussion, but if the other side wishes to 
talk at length and is unwilling to enter into a time agreement, I do 
understand that; I do not understand that any matter is so complicated 
as to preclude a time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will speak since I have the floor and I am manager of 
the bill.
  Mr. President, this issue has been the subject of very contentious 
debate for years. Last year in the conference committee in the House 
and Senate, we debated at great length; the year before, we debated at 
great length. There is no doubt about emotions running high.
  The subject of ergonomics is an effort to have some way to stop 
repetitious motions which cause physical injury to workers. Many of the 
big companies have adopted procedures which will protect their 
employees because it is cost effective to do so in the long run. Small 
businesses face a little different situation, which I understand. The 
distinguished chairman of the Small Business Committee has offered this 
amendment. I understand the point he is making.
  I point out that there have been many studies on the issue. In 1998, 
a peer review of the National Academy of Sciences involving 85 of the 
world's leading ergonomic experts found ``research clearly 
demonstrates'' that specific interventions can reduce or prevent 
musculoskeletal disorders. The 6-month study answered the same seven 
questions the National Academy of Sciences is now reviewing.
  A 1997 review by NIOSH of 600 studies produced the same result and 
found that ergonomic solutions were being successfully applied in many 
work settings. During last year's negotiations,

[[Page S12162]]

Congress and the administration agreed, by funding the study, they did 
not intend to delay OSHA's ruling. House Appropriations Chairman 
Livingston and ranking member Obey--I think, on the record--made it 
clear that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jack 
Lew, also concurred. We have had a letter from the Secretary of Labor 
with a veto threat. That is not unusual.

  However, I believe there is a balance which can be obtained to 
protect workers and not to unduly burden businesses, including small 
businesses. That is why, as chairman of the subcommittee involved in 
the conference for several years, I have tried to work this out so we 
can find a way not to overburden small business and at the same time to 
protect workers from these musculoskeletal problems.
  Right now, the Office of Management and Budget has the regulation and 
we do not know what form it will finally take. But someday we have to 
come to grips with the issue and stop studying it. Studies are very 
important to find out what the facts are, and then we must act on the 
facts. When studies are used to interminably delay, it doesn't become a 
study; it is a filibuster by study on one side, as it is filibuster by 
an assertion that it is too complicated, too intricate, to be able to 
come to grips with it and decide.
  We are sent here to try to decide the issues. It is my hope we can 
debate the facts, try to understand what the underlying issues are, and 
then try to find a consensus on public policy. At some date, we will 
have to go ahead and act one way or another on the protection of the 
workers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the 
manager of the bill, and I also understand the Senate lingo that means 
if we offer this amendment, you will filibuster. That disappoints me 
greatly.
  I ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of the Bond amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank and compliment the Senator from Missouri for 
offering this amendment. It is needed. This amendment is needed because 
the administration is getting ready to promulgate some regulations in 
the near future that will cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, 
of dollars for American industry. When I say American industry, I am 
talking about small business, as well as, big business. I am talking 
about an unbelievably complex set of regulations and there is no 
telling how much it will cost to implement these regulations.

  These regulations consist of how many motions you should make. That 
if you do more than a certain amount, then maybe that is not safe; or 
if you lift something, it cannot be lifted more than this number of 
times, or it will be too heavy or too stressful. OSHA and the 
Department of Labor try to make these very regulations and at the same 
time they say they honestly do not know what they are doing, so in many 
cases they will wait until laborers complain and then they will try to 
come up with regulations to alleviate their pain. These methods are not 
successful.
  We have in fact already addressed this issue. The Senate houses the 
Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group, to research 
complex issues. There is a CRS study that was updated August 31, 1999. 
I will read from a copy of this report that addresses further ergonomic 
regulation:

       Due to the wide variety of circumstances, however, any 
     comprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and 
     costly, while scientific understanding of the problem is not 
     complete.
       It would be costly, it would be complex, and, frankly, it 
     would not be understandable. It would not be workable.
       The state of scientific knowledge about ergonomics--and 
     especially the role of non-work and psychological factors in 
     producing observed syndromes--has become a key issue in the 
     debate over how OSHA should proceed.
       Even if the problem were fully understood, the wide variety 
     of circumstances will bedevil efforts to frame simple cost-
     effective rules. What are called ``ergonomic'' injuries are 
     actually a range of distinct problems, much as ``cancer'' is 
     not one but a family of diseases.

  Throughout the summary of this report, the point is that, due to a 
lot of circumstances, any comprehensive rules would have to be complex 
and costly while scientific understanding of the problem is not 
complete.
  What about a scientific study? Why don't we ask the scientists? If 
Congress' research arm says this is going to be costly, we do not have 
the scientific basis to do it, why don't we have scientific basis? Why 
don't we ask the experts to take a look at it and see if there is 
something they can come up with that would be workable?
  Well, we did do that. Last year, Congress passed and almost every 
Member of this body, or the majority of the Members of both Houses of 
Congress, passed a bill that funded $900,000 for the National Academy 
of Sciences to complete a study and review the scientific literature as 
mandated by Congress and the President on ergonomics. They have not 
completed that study. They should complete the study in about a year, 
January 2001; in 13 or 14 months.
  We are spending almost a million dollars on the study to ask the 
scientists to do an in-depth review. Yet many people say they want OSHA 
to go forth and come up with these complex rules in spite of the 
unfinished study. They are saying that they trust OSHA to come up with 
rules and regulations without this study, without the basis for making 
such rules? You talk about repetitive motions--OSHA often tells 
companies that they may possibly be doing something wrong and a company 
could ask OSHA whether or not they are in violation of certain 
standards and OSHA would reply: ``We don't know.''
  These standards are almost impossible to define. What is repetitive 
motion? Standing at a machine on the job for 8 hours a day--that is 
ergonomic--is that too much? I grew up in a machine shop. I grew up in 
Nickles Machine Corporation. We lifted and moved a lot of heavy 
equipment. There is no way in the world some Federal bureaucrat knows 
what is the proper amount of weight that individuals should be moving 
around. There is no way to create a uniform standard that applies to 
each individual.

  Are they going to come in and supervise and say: You should not be 
standing there for that period of time? Maybe you should not be working 
at your computer for this amount of time. Maybe you should not be 
engaged in moving heavy objects.
  We are going to have the heavy hand of the Federal Government, 
Federal bureaucrats running all across the country trying to make those 
kinds of determinations, saying: If you do not comply with our infinite 
wisdom, we are going to fine you. We are going to close you down. 
Amazing. It is amazing that we would do such a thing.
  The proposed regulations by OSHA are not workable. They are 
unbelievably complex. Anybody who has looked at them from a standpoint 
of real-life experience in the workforce agrees that this is not 
workable. So what have we done if we succeed with this amendment? We 
have passed restrictions keeping this administration from going forward 
on this enormously complex, expensive, regulatory scheme.
  Last year, we said let's have this study, let's let this study go 
forward; let's look at real scientific facts before we implement a 
standard that could cost billions of dollars, and no telling how many 
jobs would be lost as a result. Let's let that happen. I regret that 
this was not already included in the committee bill.
  I think most people will acknowledge we have a majority vote on this. 
We have the votes to do this. We have Democrats and Republicans who 
will support this amendment. We have a majority; we have a majority 
vote in the House as well. Now we have this implied senatorial 
discussion: If you have this amendment, due to its complexity, we will 
discuss it for a long time; i.e. we will filibuster this amendment. We 
will not let this bill pass. We don't care if we bring down the largest 
appropriations bill, that deals with Education, Labor, Health and a 
multitude of Governmental agencies--we don't care if we bring down the 
whole thing.
  Why? Because organized labor wants this rule to go forward. I guess 
if the leadership of AFL/CIO wants this rule to go forward, we should 
absolutely let it go forward. That is what a few people are saying, 
although masked with niceties, in senatorial discussion: If

[[Page S12163]]

you insist on a vote on this amendment, we are going to talk for a long 
time and not let this bill pass.
  As I said, we passed related legislation in 1998. We authorized the 
study I previously mentioned, to look deeper into the problems 
employees and industry face. Let's let the study work. Let's find out 
what the scientists have to say. Let's listen to the experts.
  We had a couple of congressional hearings regarding this very issue. 
The following was concluded from a hearing in 1997:

       Any attempt to construct an ergonomic standard as a remedy 
     for regional musculoskeletal injuries in the workplace is not 
     just premature, it is likely to be counterproductive in its 
     application and enforcement.

  It is likely to be counterproductive. Does this give unions a chance 
to file complaints for harassment purposes? Has anybody thought of 
that? Of course they have. Does this increase people's leverage? ``If 
you work with us, maybe, a little bit, we will not be quite as vigorous 
in our complaints.'' Is this what we really want?
  Another statement was made by Dr. Stephen Atcheson and others with 
the American Medical Association:

       The debate concerning whether certain occupations actually 
     cause repetitive motion disorders is now well over a century 
     old and far from settled.

  This is complex business. You are talking about movements and actions 
in the workforce, and there are an unlimited number of movements and 
actions. Now we are going to have that regulated by the Federal 
Government? We are going to turn loose the Department of Labor, OSHA, 
to come up with regulations that have the force and the power to fine 
and assess and have bureaucrats telling people how to operate their 
businesses? As if people running those businesses could care less about 
their employees?
  The whole premise of this regulation is Government knows best; 
employers certainly don't care about their employees--which I do not 
believe. I have been an employer. You show me an employer who doesn't 
care about his employees, and I will show you somebody who is going out 
of business in a very short period of time and probably deservedly so. 
It is this presumption-- the Government knows best; we need Government 
as the caretaker for business operations--that I think is absurd. And 
we trust some bureaucrat in OSHA, who probably knows nothing about a 
particular operation, to come in and say: Here is how you should run 
your business. We know better than the people that have been managing 
that plant, working in that plant for years. There is no telling how 
much it will cost. No telling how many jobs will be lost, the costs 
that could be imposed, the costs that could result from unfair, 
unworkable regulations.
  I compliment my colleague from Missouri, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the Bond amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to be brief because other 
colleagues are going to speak, and then I will come back later as we go 
forward in this debate.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side, what Senator Durbin from 
Illinois said is right on the mark. As ranking minority member on the 
Labor Committee, now called HELP, which has jurisdiction over OSHA and 
occupational health and safety issues which are very important to 
working people, I have a lot to say about this amendment. What I will 
say, as this debate goes forward, will be substantive, and it will be 
important in determining how all of us vote. This is an incredibly 
important issue.
  I will start out for a few brief minutes right now and then turn it 
over to other colleagues. I will come back later as this debate 
develops.
  This Bond amendment will basically stop OSHA from doing its job, 
which is the mission of the mandate of keeping American workers from 
getting injured at work. It basically stops OSHA from doing its job, 
and OSHA's job is to prevent workers from being injured at work.
  This amendment will shut down the normal rulemaking process and stop 
OSHA from doing anything at all about ergonomic job hazards that are 
seriously injuring over 600,000 workers every year. That is a statistic 
my colleagues do not like to talk about. I have heard the arguments 
about bureaucrats and big government and all of the rest, but we ought 
not be too generous with the suffering of others. We are talking about 
600,000 workers who are seriously injured every year. That is what this 
debate is all about.
  Ergonomic injuries are serious injuries from repetitive motions, 
overexertion, and physical stress. They include carpal tunnel syndrome, 
back injuries, and tendonitis. The amendment before us will stop OSHA 
from issuing a standard to prevent these injuries until the National 
Academy of Sciences completes a new study which will take somewhere 
between 18 to 24 months. This amendment will stop OSHA from issuing not 
only a regulation, but even voluntary guidelines or standards. This 
amendment is an extreme amendment, extremely harsh in its impact on 
working people.
  Last week, Secretary of Labor Herman wrote that she would recommend a 
veto of S. 1650 if this amendment is adopted. By the way, I also say to 
my colleagues, the reason Senator Durbin was right in what he said 
earlier--that this debate will take some time--is because it is 
important to put a focus on the people and their lives and who is going 
to be affected by this.
  With all due respect, quite often--and this particular case is a 
perfect example--when we talk about OSHA or NIOSH, when we talk about 
occupational health and safety, we are talking about a group of 
Americans who are rarely in the Senate or the House. These are not in 
the main, our sons or daughters. These are not in the main, our 
brothers or sisters or our parents. In fact, I think if they were, this 
amendment would not even be before the Senate. I do not want to lose 
sight of about whom we are talking.
  There are four points I want to make as this debate develops. I will 
not develop any of these points right now, but I will mention them.
  First, I want to spend some time later on talking about the people, 
real people who are affected by this debate. As we speak, there are 
workers who are injured needlessly because of the continuing efforts by 
this Congress, as represented by the Bond amendment, to keep OSHA from 
doing its job. These are real people with real health problems who are 
hurt at the workplace with disabling injuries. I want to spend a lot of 
time talking about who these people are. I want to present stories. I 
want to talk about these people in the most personal terms possible so 
we know what is at stake.
  Second, I want to make the case that something can be done to stop 
people from being injured in this way, from stopping these physically 
disabling injuries, from stopping the pain. There is no need to wait 
another 2 years for another study. We do not need another study to show 
that ergonomic hazards cause injuries and these injuries can be 
prevented. We already know it. There are already reams of scientific 
evidence to prove it, and one more review of the scientific literature 
is not going to change anything. Later on in this debate, I will talk 
about the studies that have already taken place and what their 
conclusions are, all of which say we need to go forward right now.
  Third, I want to dispel the mistaken impression among some Senators 
that a deal was worked out last year whereby OSHA would delay this 
rulemaking until the National Academy of Sciences completes its second 
study. Actually, that appears to be just the opposite of what happened.
  According to the parties involved in those negotiations, there was an 
understanding that this new NAS study would not prevent OSHA from going 
forward. There was a clear understanding that this new NAS study would 
not prevent OSHA from going forward.
  Finally, I want to make it clear that the issue is not the substance 
of OSHA's proposal. There is already a process in place for addressing 
any criticisms or any modifications that Senators and others may have. 
It is the same rulemaking process that is used for any other 
regulation: Interested parties are encouraged to comment and suggest 
changes. Criticisms or quibbles with OSHA's current proposal should not 
be used as an excuse to stop OSHA from doing anything whatsoever, and 
that is exactly what is happening. This

[[Page S12164]]

ergonomic standard has been delayed for far too long.

  It was first proposed in 1990 by then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth 
Dole. I will go back through that history as well, but I will conclude 
right now by saying that this amendment just shuts down the normal 
rulemaking process. It stops OSHA from doing its job. It does not speak 
to the 600,000 workers right now who are being injured and who are 
struggling because, in fact, we do not have ergonomic job standards. 
These injuries are serious injuries. They are disabling injuries. 
Surely, we can take action right now.
  This is all about working people. It is all about making sure there 
is some safety at the workplace. It is all about our responsibility to 
move forward with a standard that will provide some protection. It is 
all about making sure OSHA is not gutted. It is all about making sure 
this amendment, which I view as a direct threat to many hard-working 
people, does not go forward.
  Yes, we are here to debate this. My colleague, Senator Durbin, is 
ready to speak. Senator Harkin is going to speak. Senator Kennedy will 
be here. And later on in the debate, I will come back and lay out story 
after story of families that will be affected by this amendment. I will 
talk about what this means in personal terms. I will talk about all the 
studies that have already taken place and what the science clearly 
suggests to us. We will have a major debate on this. I have no doubt 
the vast majority of people in this country expect the Senate to be on 
the side of providing some decent protection for hard-working 
Americans. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond 
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are a 
number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle who want to speak on 
the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we limit the debate to 1 
hour on this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I will speak for a moment about why I 
think this amendment is so important.
  When I travel through Arkansas and with the opportunities I have had 
to be in other parts of the country where we have had hearings on 
workforce protections, one of the complaints I hear so frequently from 
my constituents is that regulatory agencies in general exceed the 
authority that has been delegated by the Congress. One of the 
frustrations I hear expressed from so many small businesspeople and 
others is: If you in the Senate and the House are the ones elected by 
us to represent us, why do these regulatory agencies seem to go off on 
their own, contrary to what you have expressed in legislation?
  It is a question that is always difficult to answer. Frankly, too 
often we have allowed, whether it be OSHA or the IRS, regulatory 
agencies to exceed their statutory authority, and we have done an 
insufficient job in reining in what they are doing.
  In this particular case, I think we see exactly that. OSHA is an 
agency to which we have delegated power. It seems to be determined to 
extend its regulatory power in a negative way through the imminent 
implementation of this ergonomic standard, regardless of that 
standard's effectiveness in protecting workers or its cost to American 
industry.
  So, yes, there is an issue of safety; yes, there is an issue of cost; 
and, yes, there is an issue of what is the scientific basis for what 
OSHA is propounding to do.
  So often what we find regulatory agencies doing ends up having 
unintended consequences which the Congress must go back and try to 
rectify at some later date or which results in a reversal of the 
rulemaking process in these various agencies.
  We have already heard, in evidence presented on the floor of the 
Senate today, that there is concern that a premature ergonomic standard 
could have counterproductive consequences.
  I say to my colleagues, if you are concerned about the health and 
welfare of the American workplace, if you are concerned about the 
safety of the American worker, then let's be sure that when OSHA 
implements a rule, they do so with a sound scientific basis for what 
they are doing.
  Now, I don't know. If we can't count on the nonpartisan, highly 
respected Congressional Research Service, then who do we look to? That 
is why we pay them. That is why we have established them. They are 
well-respected. This is what they said. Senator Nickles earlier quoted 
part of the CRS report. Let me quote an additional part of what they 
said. They said:

       . . . because of the wide variety of tasks, equipment, 
     stresses and injuries involved, any comprehensive standard 
     would probably have to be complex and costly.

  They continue:

       . . . ergonomics is a difficult issue because, while there 
     is substantial evidence of a problem, it is very complex and 
     only partially understood.

  I think it is not prudent to move forward with a rule when the CRS 
has concluded the issue is complex and we do not understand it. It is 
only partially understood. How can you implement a rule that is in the 
best interest of the American worker, much less the American economy, 
if we do not understand what the problem is and we can only acknowledge 
it is partially understood and it is complex?
  As an example, the CRS cites that while a whole ``host of new 
products and services have become popular--such as back braces and 
newly designed keyboards--there is little in the way of scientific 
evidence about whether they do any good.''
  What the opponents of this amendment are suggesting is that though we 
do not understand the issue, though it is acknowledged to be complex, 
though the CRS says we have a host of new products and services out 
there but there is no scientific evidence as to whether they do any 
good or not, we should nonetheless give the green light for OSHA to 
move ahead in a rulemaking process without substantial scientific basis 
for that rule.
  Proponents of the ergonomics standard claim this issue has been 
adequately studied, if not overstudied--and that is what my friend and 
colleague from Minnesota was just saying--but it is simply not the 
case.
  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, 
after conducting an extensive review of the literature, stated that 
there are ``huge, fundamental gaps in our understanding'' which ``make 
it clear how little we really know about ergonomics.''
  So those who would say, well, we have studied it--we have studied it 
and studied it--we have studied it enough, so let's go ahead with the 
rule, they are ignoring the basic conclusion, the overwhelming 
conclusion of the evidence and the literature on this issue, which 
concludes we simply do not understand ergonomics.
  There are ``huge, fundamental gaps in our understanding.''
  To my colleagues, I say it is for that reason that the Congress 
wisely, I believe, last year, in the omnibus appropriations bill, 
appropriated $890,000 so that we could fill those huge, fundamental 
gaps in our understanding concerning the issue of ergonomics--$890,000 
for a more thorough review of literature by the National Academy of 
Sciences, a thorough study by the NAS, which, if there is a more 
respected group than the CRS, certainly in the area of science, it 
would be the NAS.
  We want a rule, but we want a rule to be based upon good science, not 
something that is moved forward without adequate study and without 
adequate scientific basis, that could have negative impacts upon 
workers, and certainly will have negative impacts upon the workplace 
and the economics of the workplace.
  Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that we authorized, we spent, we 
appropriated $890,000, OSHA has refused to wait for the results of that 
study. They already released a discussion draft of the ergonomic 
standard in February of this year.
  I simply find it inexplicable why OSHA cannot wait for this 
definitive study to be completed. To me, it does not seem prudent to 
rush to judgment. To me, it does not seem prudent to rush to implement 
a rule without knowing exactly what the consequence

[[Page S12165]]

of that rule would be, how much it would help workers, or how much it 
might hurt workers, or exactly how much of a burden it would be to 
businesses. We do not know the answers to those questions. We need to 
know the answers before we allow OSHA to move forward with the rule.

  Finally, I do not know that I can justify to my constituents in 
Arkansas, and to the average Arkansas worker who makes a median income 
of $27,000, how the Federal Government effectively wasted $890,000 of 
their hard-earned tax dollars by not even waiting for the completion of 
this study.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt the Bond amendment and make 
OSHA await the outcome of the NAS study so they can devise an 
ergonomics standard that will be effective in protecting American 
workers without unnecessarily burdening American businesses.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I rise in opposition to the amendment of my friend from 
Missouri and the Chairman of the Small Business Committee. I heard not 
all but most of the opening comments by the offerer of the amendment, 
Senator Bond. What I heard mostly was the concerns expressed by Senator 
Bond regarding its impact on small businesses.
  While I happen to serve on the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond 
is the chairman of that committee. It goes without saying that Senator 
Bond has had a long and intense interest in the impact of rules and 
regulations on small businesses. I think I can say without fear of 
contradiction that Senator Bond has done a very good job in protecting 
and defending the rights of small businesses. Quite frankly, I believe 
I have, too, and others on the committee. I can understand Senator 
Bond's concern, legitimate concern about what would happen with the 
small businesses.
  In that regard, I support his thrust in terms of making sure that we 
do not impact unduly on small businesses and that we fulfill our 
obligation to ensure that small businesses get the support whatever it 
might be, to help change and redesign a workplace that would be 
injurious to workers suffering from ergonomic types of illnesses.
  To say that it would have an impact on small businesses does not mean 
we can't do anything about it because I think we have an obligation to 
protect the health and the safety and the welfare of the workers of 
this country. Whether they work for IBM or General Motors or whether 
they work for a small concern that employs five people, I believe we 
have an obligation to be concerned about their health and their safety.
  Obviously, we also have an obligation to be concerned about the small 
businesses in this country. That is why I say, to the extent we can, we 
better be prepared to help small businesses to cut down on the 
illnesses and injuries to workers from musculoskeletal disorders and 
the results of ergonomic illnesses.
  So again, I hope this is not just the reason someone might vote 
against this, because of the impact on small businesses; think about 
the impact on the workers, what is happening to workers out there.
  I would also like to point out that if a small business has no 
workers with work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), is not in 
manufacturing and does not have workers with significant handling 
duties, that small business doesn't have to do a thing. Millions of 
small businesses (drycleaners, banks, advertising agencies, shoe 
repair) will have no obligation to comply unless a worker gets 
hurt. Then let us have a meeting of the minds to do both. Let's protect 
our workers, and then meet our obligation to help small businesses. It 
seems to me this is the way to go.

  I know the Senator from Illinois has been waiting to speak, but let 
me also comment upon the fact that Senator Bond had said something 
about women-owned businesses, that women-owned businesses will be at 
risk. Quite frankly, women are at risk.
  Here is a study done on ergonomics, called A Women's Issue, from the 
Department of Labor. The title says: Who is at Risk? Women experienced 
33 percent of all serious workplace injuries--those who required time 
off of work--in 1997, but they suffered 63 percent of repetitive motion 
injuries, including 91 percent of injuries resulting from repetitive 
typing or keying and 61 percent from repetitive placing. Women 
experienced 62 percent of work-related cases of tendonitis and 70 
percent of carpal tunnel syndrome cases. So this is a women's issue. It 
is women who are suffering more from repetitive injury diseases and 
illnesses than men are. We should keep that in mind.
  Secondly, we hear about doing a study and that we shouldn't 
promulgate or have these rules prior to the study being done. Well, 
first of all, for the record, there is no new study being done. The 
study being done by the National Academy of Sciences, which is referred 
to often, is just a study or a review of existing literature. They are 
not conducting any new research. All of the literature being reviewed 
by the National Academy of Sciences is already available to OSHA. The 
study the NAS is doing is a review of all the existing studies. We have 
studied this issue to death. There have been more than 2,000 ergonomic 
studies, and there have been 600 epidemiological studies done on 
ergonomics. We have more than enough information to move ahead in 
protecting workers. The study we keep hearing about is simply a study 
of all the studies. Let us keep that in mind.
  We have been a long time in this rulemaking process. We have had over 
8 years of study. I think it is well to note, too, the first Secretary 
of Labor who committed the agency to issuing an ergonomic standard. It 
was then-Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, who committed the agency to 
issuing an ergonomic standard. We have been studying it ever since.
  Also, keep in mind, no rule has been issued, not even a proposed 
rule. Again, that is all we are talking about, letting OSHA go ahead 
with a proposed rule. That is not the end of it. Once the proposal is 
issued, the public, people on all sides of the debate will have ample 
opportunity to comment on the proposal.
  Lastly, this really does kind of break the agreement we had last 
year. Our word is our bond around this place. If we don't keep our 
word, this place disintegrates. Last year, we had an agreement made 
with the House Members, Congressman Livingston, who at that time was 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and David Obey, who was the 
ranking member. They signed a letter dated October 19, 1998. What they 
said was: We understand that OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule on 
ergonomics late in the summer of 1999. We are writing to make clear 
that by funding the NAS study, it is in no way our intent to block or 
delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics. It was signed 
by Chairman Livingston and ranking member Obey.

  I happen to be a member of the Appropriations Committee. Obviously, 
we are on an appropriations bill. I was involved in the discussions on 
that last year. The agreement was made to go ahead and let the National 
Academy of Sciences do a review--that is all it is; it is not a new 
study--of the studies that have already been done.
  Let's keep that in mind; this is not a new study. During that time, 
OSHA was not prevented from going ahead and issuing a proposed rule--
not a final rule, a proposed rule, which I have pointed out, then, 
allows everyone to have their input and allows us in Congress to see 
it. Again, people talked about this study, and we had this agreement. 
We should live up to the agreement.
  They talk about the cost. Here is a whole packet--I will have them 
here if anybody wants to read them--of ergonomic changes made by 
companies, both large and small, to help reduce the significance and 
the number of injuries. These are what companies on their own did.
  One caught my eye. This is from Sun Microsystems. They make computer 
equipment and systems in California. Problem: In 1993, the average 
work-related musculoskeletal disorder disability claim was $45,000 to 
$55,000. The solution: Sun Microsystems purchased ergonomic chairs and 
provided education and work station assessments to all who requested 
them. The company also encouraged workers to adopt proper posture while 
working with computers. The impact: The average 
repetitive-strain-injury-related claim dropped from $45,000 to $55,000 
in 1993 to $3,500 in 1997.

[[Page S12166]]

  Does it work? Yes, it does. It works well. We ought to get on with 
it. Let OSHA issue their proposed rule. These delays hurt workers. More 
than 600,000 workers lose work each year because of ergonomic-related 
injuries. These are our cashiers, nurses, cleaning staff, assembly 
workers in manufacturing and processing plants, computer users, 
clerical staff, truck drivers, and meat cutters.
  This amendment should be defeated because the workers of this country 
deserve to have their health and their safety protected.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.
  During the course of this debate, we will hear many terms, which 
sound technical in nature, about the issue at hand. It has been 
described as ergonomics, musculoskeletal disorders. I think we ought to 
try to get this down to the real-world level of what this debate 
concerns.
  I have before me a study from the Centers for Disease Control and the 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services relative to this 
particular problem. They state, early in the study, the term 
``musculoskeletal disorders'' refers to conditions that involve the 
nerves, tendons, muscles, and supporting structures of the body.
  Another definition says: Ergonomic injuries have many names. They are 
called musculoskeletal disorders, repetitive stress injuries, 
cumulative trauma disorders, or just simply strains and sprains. These 
injuries occur when there is a mismatch between the physical 
requirements of a job and the physical capacity of a worker.
  I wanted to make sure we said that at the outset, so those who are 
following this debate will understand that what is at issue is not a 
highly technical, scientific issue but something that every one of us 
who do manual chores at home or at the workplace understands. If you 
sit there and have to peel a bag of potatoes, when it is all over your 
hand is a little sore. What if you had to peel a bag of potatoes every 
half hour, 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, 12 months a year? How would 
your hands react to it? That is what we are talking about--ergonomics; 
musculoskeletal disorders.
  I note that the Republican majority wants to limit this debate. They 
have asked on two occasions that we agree to a limitation. I hope they 
will reflect on the fact that we are talking about injuries that occur 
to 600,000 workers a year. It is only fair to those workers, when we 
consider this amendment by Senator Bond of Missouri, that this debate 
reflect the gravity of the issue. I will not make a unanimous consent 
request at this time, but I think it is reasonable that we allot in 
this debate perhaps 1 minute for every 250 workers who were injured 
each year by one of these conditions.
  That is 1 minute of debate for every 250 workers. By my calculation, 
that comes out to about 24,000 minutes, and it turns out to be a 40-
hour work week. Wouldn't it be interesting if the Members of the Senate 
had to stand in their workplaces 4 and 5 hours at a time debating this 
amendment and then talk about the aches and pains they suffer. Imagine 
the worker who puts up with that every single day.
  Each of us in the Senate brings our own personal experiences to this 
job. I am sure there are many colleagues in support of this amendment 
who have been engaged in manual labor. I oppose this amendment. I have 
had the experience, in my youth, of some pretty tough jobs. My folks 
were pretty adamant that I take on tough jobs so I would want to go 
back to school and finish my college and law school education.
  Well, it worked. I grew up in East St. Louis, IL, and spent several 
summers working in the stockyards, sometimes working the graveyard 
shift, from midnight until 8 in the morning, and other times during the 
day. I did all sorts of manual labor, such as moving livestock, 
cleaning up in areas that needed to be cleaned up. It was a lot of 
hard, tough work. At the end of each summer, I was darn glad to go back 
to school.
  But there were two jobs I had that educated me more than others about 
the workplace, and dangers, and why this debate is not about some dry 
concept but about real people who get up every single morning, pull 
themselves out of bed, brush their teeth, and head off to work to earn 
a paycheck to pay for their families' needs and maybe to realize the 
American dream.
  One job I had was on a railroad. It was considered a clerical job. It 
involved a lot of moving back and forth, sometimes in the middle of the 
night, in Brooklyn, IL, between trains that stopped. I was a bill clerk 
walking up and down with a lantern, trying to keep track of these 
trains. One night, in the middle of the night, I climbed a ladder on 
the side of one of these gondolas to see if it was empty or full. As I 
started to jump down from that ladder, my college graduation ring 
caught on a burr on the ladder, causing a pretty serious injury and a 
scar I still carry. That was a minor injury. I was back at work in a 
few days. Some workers aren't so lucky.

  But the job I had really educated me about this issue, so I 
understand it personally. I hope my colleagues can come to understand 
it. It is a fact that I worked four straight summers in a 
slaughterhouse, the Hunter Packing Company of East St. Louis, 
processing hogs and pork products. We were unionized, the Amalgamated 
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workers of Greater North America, and we had a 
contract. Thanks to that contract, I think I received $3.50 an hour, 
which, in the early 1960s, was a great wage for a college student. I 
could finish that summer and take $1,500 back to school and do my best 
to pay my bills. My kids, and a lot of college students today, laugh 
when they consider that amount of money, but that was a large amount of 
money in my youth. When you came to the slaughterhouse as a college 
student, you expected the worst jobs, and you took them if you wanted 
to make the salary you needed. So I worked all over this 
slaughterhouse.
  The union had entered into an agreement with the company, Hunter 
Packing Company, which said: You will work an 8-hour day, but we define 
an 8-hour day in terms of the number of hogs that are processed. If I 
recall correctly, our contract said we would process 240 hogs an hour, 
which meant slaughtering or processing on 2 different floors, 2 
different responsibilities.
  Some people who worked there said: Wait a minute, if 240 hogs equals 
an hour, and we are supposed to work 8-hour days, and at the end of the 
day we are supposed to have processed or slaughtered 1,920 hogs, if we 
can speed up the line that carries these hogs, or speed up the conveyor 
belt that carries the meat products, we might be able to get out in 7 
hours.
  So it was a race every day to get to 1,920 hogs. Hundreds of men and 
women who were standing on these processing lines were receiving that 
piece of the animal or piece of meat to process it, knowing another one 
was right behind it, just as fast as they could move--repetitive 
action, day in and day out.
  I saw injuries in that workplace because of the repetition and the 
speed. I can remember working on what we called the ``kill floor,'' 
where the first processing of a hog took place. I worked next to an 
elderly African American gentleman, a nice guy. He joked with me all 
the time because I was this green college student doing everything 
wrong. One day, I looked over as he slumped and fell to the floor; he 
passed out.
  I can recall another day when I was working on a line where they were 
putting hams on a table to be boned and then stuck into a can so we 
could enjoy them at home. These men were--it was all men at that time--
paid by the ham. The faster they could bone the hams, the more money 
they made. The knives they used were the sharpest they could possibly 
get their hands on. They covered the other hand with a metal mesh 
glove, and they would set out to bone the ham as quickly as they could. 
There were hams flying in every direction and hands flying in every 
direction. The next thing you know, there were injuries and cuts.
  Of course, if your hand is cut and you work as a piece worker, you 
really don't make much money until it heals. You can't go back too soon 
into an environment with a lot of meat juices and water because it 
won't heal. I

[[Page S12167]]

would see these men with bandaged hands standing over to the side 
waiting for another chance to make a living for their family.
  These images are as graphic in my mind today, in 1999, standing on 
the floor of the Senate, as they were in my experience as a kid in that 
packing house. As I looked around at the men and women who got up every 
single day and went to work--hard work, dirty work, but respectable 
work--and brought home a good paycheck for a hard day's work, I saw 
time and time again these injuries on the job.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, says to 
the Federal Government--in this case, it says to the Secretary of 
Labor--not to study and not to come up with regulations that would 
protect workers in the workplace from repetitive injuries.
  It is a common question in legislatures and on Capitol Hill: Who 
wants this amendment? Who is pushing for this amendment? Who would want 
to leave millions of American workers vulnerable in the workplace from 
repetitive stress injuries when we know that over 600,000 workers a 
year are injured? Who is it who wants to stop or slow down this 
process?
  Well, I am virtually certain it is some business interest. I don't 
know which one, because the curious thing is that every business that 
comes to talk to this Senator, or others, is quick to say: We care 
about our workers. We put things in place to protect our workers. We 
don't need the Federal Government to come in because safety in the 
workplace is No. 1 at our plant.

  I hear that over and over again. I don't dispute it. When I talk to 
you a little later on about some of the companies that have responded 
to this particular challenge, you are going to find big names, Fortune 
500 names, such as Caterpillar Tractor Company of Illinois, a big 
employer in my State. I am proud of what this company makes and exports 
around the world. You will hear about what they have done to deal with 
the problem. Chrysler Motor Company in Belvidere, IL. I have been 
there. We will talk about what they did.
  Finally, you are going to say, if the Fortune 500 companies and the 
ones that talk to you are the good guys, the companies that are really 
trying to protect workers and understand how expensive and serious it 
is to have injuries in the workplace, who in the world is pushing for 
this amendment that would eliminate holding every business in America 
responsible for safety in the workplace?
  My conclusion is that some bad actors out there in the business 
community who are not living up to the same standard as these companies 
are the ones behind this amendment. And the sad reality is, the larger 
companies, through the organizations that represent them in Washington, 
have joined ranks with the bad actors.
  They are playing down the lowest common denominator. They are trying 
in a way to protect their competitors that aren't living up to the same 
good standards for their workers. I think that is shameful. I think it 
is disgraceful.
  This Bond amendment--make no mistake--I want to read to you what it 
does--says after a lot of preparatory language:

       None of the funds made available in this act may be used by 
     the Secretary of Labor, or the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration, to promulgate, or to issue, or to continue 
     the rulemaking process of promulgating or issuing any 
     standard regulation or guideline regarding ergonomics prior 
     to September 30, 2000.

  In other words, turn out the lights downtown on establishing 
standards that you send down to businesses to protect workers.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for 
a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New York for a 
question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  As I go around my State of New York, I meet all kinds of people who 
are unable to use their hands anymore because of the kinds of jobs they 
have had. We have had, for instance, in New York City, workers from a 
variety of jobs come together to talk about the need for some kind of 
standard. Many have been disabled by workplace injuries and have had to 
limit the amount of hours they work. One woman, for instance, an editor 
for a local TV station, says she can't use her hands for cooking, for 
opening doors, or for carrying anything.
  I ask my colleague from Illinois, how would this amendment affect 
people in that position?

  Mr. DURBIN. The Bond amendment, offered by the Senator from Missouri, 
would basically say to those workers: Your Government can't establish a 
standard to protect you in the workplace. It stops the Government from 
establishing a standard for workers.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, if the Senator might yield for another 
question, I guess there is some talk about whether we need to study 
further; that they are not yet ready to have standards. Yet it is my 
understanding that scientific and medical journals have had over 2,000 
articles about the need for some kinds of standard, about what the 
problems are, and that it is pretty clear cut that in many new kinds of 
industries the problems that have developed at the workplace are so 
real that we have far more than enough information to develop 
standards.
  Would the Senator care to comment on whether or not the argument that 
we are not ready to have standards in ergonomics washes?
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from New York, he is correct. Over 
2,000 studies have established a causal relationship between certain 
work patterns and certain injuries.
  I also say to the Senator from New York that this large volume I 
referred to earlier from the Centers for Disease Control, which is not 
a political organization--it is an organization dedicated to public 
health in America--concluded after one of their more recent studies as 
follows:

       A substantial body of credible epidemiological research 
     provides strong evidence of an association between 
     musculoskeletal disorders and certain work-related physical 
     factors when there are high levels of exposure, and 
     especially in combination with exposure to more than one 
     physical factor; that is to say, repetitive lifting of heavy 
     objects in extreme or awkward postures.

  So the Senator from New York is correct. The evidence is in. There is 
need for standard of protection.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further 
question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I respect his 
expertise on this issue. I know he has been involved in it for a long 
time.
  It is my understanding that in 1990 the Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth 
Dole--not a member of our party, now a candidate for President--said 
that OSHA must take all the needed steps to develop an ergonomics 
standard. That was virtually 10 years ago. There has been lots of 
planning since. Am I correct in assuming that even at the beginning of 
the decade it was pretty clear we needed some kind of standard, and 
that we have delayed and delayed to the harm of thousands, tens of 
hundreds, and hundreds of thousands of workers?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from New York is accurate. At the conclusion 
of my remarks, I will ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record a 
news release from the U.S. Department of Labor that is dated Thursday, 
August 30, 1990, a release from then-Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth 
Dole, that says as follows in the opening paragraphs:

       Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole----

  The same person who is now a Republican candidate for President, I 
might add----

     * * * today launched a major initiative to reduce repetitive 
     motion trauma, one of the Nation's most debilitating across-
     the-board worker safety and health illnesses of the 1990s.

  She goes on with a quote that says:

       These painful and sometimes crippling illnesses now make up 
     48 percent of all recordable industrial workplace illnesses. 
     We must do our utmost to protect workers from these hazards, 
     not only in the red meat industry, but all U.S. industries.

  That was Secretary Elizabeth Dole, Republican administration, 1990.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
this news release in its entirety from the Department of Labor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S12168]]

Secretary Dole Announces Ergonomics Guidelines to Protect Workers from 
           Repetitive Motion Illnesses/Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

       Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole today launched a major 
     initiative to reduce repetitive motion trauma, once of the 
     nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and 
     health illnesses of the 1990's.
       ``These painful and sometime crippling illnesses now make 
     up 48 percent of all recordable industrial workplace 
     illnesses. We must do our utmost to protect workers from 
     these hazards, not only in the red meat industry but all U.S. 
     industries,'' Secretary Dole said.
       ``We are publishing these guidelines now because we want to 
     eliminate as many illnesses as possible, as quickly as 
     possible.
       ``The Department is committed to taking the most effective 
     steps necessary to address the problem of ergonomic hazards 
     on an industry-wide basis. Thus, I intend to begin the 
     rulemaking process by asking the public for information about 
     ergonomic hazards across all industry. This could be 
     accomplished through a Request for Information or an Advanced 
     Notice of Proposed Rulemaking consistent with the 
     Administration's Regulatory Program.
       ``We are emphasizing the need for employers to fit the job 
     to the employee rather than the employee to the job,'' 
     Secretary Dole said. ``This involves such measures as 
     designing flexible work stations which can be adjusted to 
     suit individuals and relying on tools developed to minimize 
     physical stress and eliminate crippling injuries. It begins 
     with organizing work processes with the physical needs of the 
     workers in mind.''
       Repetitive motion trauma, also referred to as cumulative 
     trauma disorders (CTD's), are disorders of the 
     musculoskeletal and nervous systems resulting from the 
     repeated exertion, or awkward positioning, of the hand, arm, 
     back, leg or other muscles over extended periods daily.
       They include lower back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome, 
     (a nerve disorder of the hand and wrist), and various tendon 
     disorders, among others.
       ``We are initially focussing on the red meat industry 
     because its problems are well-documented and very severe,'' 
     Secretary dole said.
       The guidelines for the red meat industry, being issued in 
     the form of a booklet by the Labor Department's Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), were developed to 
     assist employers in the industry in developing ergonomic 
     hazard abatement programs.
       ``The message in the guidelines is simple: repetitive 
     motion illnesses can be minimized through proper workplace 
     engineering and job design and by effective employee training 
     and education,'' Secretary Dole said. ``The guidelines list 
     the keys for success: commitment by top management, a written 
     ergonomics program, employee involvement and regular program 
     review and evaluation.
       ``We will be closely monitoring and assessing the success 
     of the Red Meat Guidelines in addressing ergonomic hazards to 
     give us more information on which to proceed as we deal with 
     these issues on an industry-wide basis.
       ``We owe a debt of thanks to the United Food and Commercial 
     Workers, AFL-CIO; the American Meat Institute, and the 
     National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for 
     their expert assistance in developing these guidelines. Their 
     willingness to join with us in finding and implementing 
     solutions to ergonomic problems has been most encouraging.''
       Assistant Secretary of Labor Gerard F. Scannel, who heads 
     OSHA, said his agency would begin an inspection program early 
     next year in the red meat industry as another phase of the 
     special emphasis program initiated by the issuance of the 
     guidelines.
       He said the special emphasis program for the meat industry 
     has been designed to ensure that the well-recognized 
     ergonomic hazards in the industry are being adequately 
     addressed and that ergonomic programs are in place in all 
     major meatpacking plants.
       Each red meat plant in the U.S. will be sent a copy of the 
     meatpacking guidelines. As part of the special emphasis 
     program, employers will be offered the opportunity to enter 
     into agreements with OSHA to abate their ergonomic hazards.
       Though those who sign such an agreement will be subject to 
     monitoring visits and OSHA inspections in response to 
     complaints, they will not be cited or penalized on ergonomic 
     issues if the monitoring visits show a comprehensive effort 
     and satisfactory progress in abating such hazards.
       Scannell said that while the guidelines are advisory, 
     ``compliance with them could demonstrate to an OSHA 
     inspection team that an employer is committed to addressing 
     ergonomic hazards.''
       Scannell said the guidelines include a list of questions 
     and answers about common problems to provide more specific 
     assistance to small businesses.
       ``Ergonomics Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking 
     Plants,'' the official title of the booklet, builds on the 
     cooperative approach of OSHA's safety and health program 
     management guidelines issued in January 1989. Although strict 
     adherence to today's guidelines is not mandatory, OSHA 
     believes following them can produce significant reductions in 
     repetitive motion illnesses.
       The recommended program begins with analysis of the 
     worksite to identify potential ergonomic problems. Ergonomic 
     solutions may include: engineering controls such as proper 
     work stations, work methods and tool designs, work practice 
     controls such as proper cutting techniques, new employee 
     training, monitoring adjustments and modifications, personal 
     protective equipment such as assuring proper fit of gloves 
     and appropriate protection against cold and administrative 
     controls such as reducing the duration, frequency and 
     severity of motions; slowing production rates; limiting 
     overtime; providing adequate rest pauses; increasing the 
     number of workers assigned to a particular task; rotating 
     workers among jobs with different stressors; ensuring 
     availability of relief workers; and maintaining equipment and 
     tools in top condition.
       Further, meatpackers need to develop an effective training 
     program to explain to employees the importance of working in 
     ways that limit stress and strain, and the need to report 
     symptoms of CTDs early so that preventive treatment can 
     forestall permanent damage.
       Employers must also instruct employees in the proper 
     techniques for their individual jobs. Annual retraining is 
     necessary to assure that employees continue to do their jobs 
     correctly.
       An effective ergonomics program also includes medical 
     management with trained health care providers to work with 
     those implementing the ergonomics program and to treat 
     employees. The guidelines describe helpful steps including 
     periodic workplace walkthroughs, symptoms surveys and lists 
     of light-duty jobs for employees recovering from repetitive 
     motion injuries.
       They stress the importance of a good health surveillance 
     program; the need to encourage early reporting of symptoms; 
     appropriate protocols for health care providers; and 
     evaluation, treatment and follow-up for repetitive motion 
     illnesses.
       Finally, the booklet offers suggestions for recordkeeping 
     and monitoring injury and illness trends.
       The guidelines also include a glossary of terms and a list 
     of references. Employers may contact OSHA regional offices 
     with questions about ergonomics, recordkeeping or other 
     safety and health issues by consulting the directory at the 
     end of the booklet.
       Single copies of ``Ergonomics Program Management Guidelines 
     for Meatpacking Plants'' are available free from OSHA 
     Publications, Room N3101, Frances Perkins Building, 200 
     Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20210 by sending a 
     self-addressed mailing label.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to state my opposition to 
this amendment.
  When people say government is not responsive to people's problems or 
that it gets nothing done--they are talking about this amendment which 
bars OSHA from issuing a standard on ergonomics.
  We know the facts. Ergonomics is no longer the mystery it once was. 
Over 2,000 articles related to this appear in scientific and medical 
journals.
  We do not need new studies. How many studies do we need before 
everyone recognizes the obvious--ergonomic injury is real?
  The 600,000 workers who experience severe back pain or hand and wrist 
pain have been studied ad nauseam.
  So let's move forward and develop a standard. It will ultimately save 
businesses money and it will protect workers, because a standard will 
keep people in the workplace.
  The Department of Labor has worked on formulating a standard since 
former-Secretary Elizabeth Dole said in 1990 that OSHA must take all 
the needed steps to develop an ergonomics standard. That's 10 years of 
planning. We don't need another year of delay.
  This shouldn't be a partisan issue. We need not pit business versus 
labor. All sides will benefit.
  If not now, I predict eventually we will develop an ergonomics 
standard. Because as this economy becomes more dependent on the 
computer, and more top level managers spend much of their day in front 
of a screen--they will develop the same injuries that are reserved now 
only for secretaries.
  And that will be impetus to develop a standard for them and for those 
in construction and factories that develop repetitive motion stress.
  Last April in New York City, workers from a variety of jobs came 
together to talk about the need for an ergonomics standard. Some have 
been permanently disabled by workplace injuries. Some have had to limit 
the hours they work.
  One woman, an editor at a local television station, said can't use 
her hands ``not for cooking, opening doors, carrying anything.''
  Passing this amendment means we believe these people are faking it. 
No wonder people are so frustrated by government.
  Let's defeat this amendment.
  Mr. President, will the Senator also answer another question?

[[Page S12169]]

  Mr. DURBIN. Certainly.
  Mr. SCHUMER. This is one other problem that I have heard from my 
constituents in New York. Workers who have labored long and hard who 
show up at the job day in, day out develop certain types of problems, 
and because there are no standards, all too often when they go to their 
supervisor, when they go to their boss, when they go to somebody of 
some authority in the company in which they work--it could be a large 
company, it could be a small company--and complain of these problems, 
they are told they are faking because these injuries are different. 
Many of them are the kinds of injuries we are used to where, God 
forbid, you see blood or bone or some bruise. These are injuries that 
hurt and affect their ability to work just as much, but they can't be 
seen in the same way.
  Has the Senator from Illinois come across the same type of problem, 
and wouldn't the promulgation and maintenance of standards help these 
people prove they have a real problem?
  Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator from New York identifies the real 
problem here in defining the issue because in many cases we are talking 
about what is characterized as a ``soft tissue injury.'' In other 
words, examination by an x ray or an MRI may not disclose any problem 
and yet there is a very serious and real problem.
  I used to find in my life experience people suffering neck and back 
injuries. You couldn't point to objective evidence of why this person 
was crippling up or why this person had a problem. In fact, the problem 
was very real.
  What we are trying to do is establish a standard so the worker is not 
accused of malingering and the worker is not accused of faking it, but 
the worker has a recourse when there is a very real and serious injury 
to at least get time off and at least go for some medical attention.
  The Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, with this amendment wants to 
stop this process, wants to say that this Government will not establish 
that standard of protection for American workers. The net result of it, 
of course, is that 600,000 victims of these injuries each year will not 
have the protection to which the Senator from New York has alluded.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me go on to say that the objective of 
continuing to study this matter is one of the oldest strategies on 
Capitol Hill. It is the way many people who object to a certain thing 
occurring delay the inevitable and prolong the process of review.
  I have been involved for years in the battle against the tobacco 
companies. I can't think of a product in America that has been studied 
more than tobacco. It shouldn't be. It is the No. 1 preventable cause 
of death in America today.
  When the tobacco companies ruled the roost on Capitol Hill, they 
would postpone health standards and warning labels, and banning smoking 
on airplanes, for example, by saying: We just need another study. If we 
can get another study, then maybe we will arrive at the truth about 
what to deal with, what to do in dealing with tobacco products.
  This is another good illustration. I listened to the Senator from 
Missouri. He said in his conclusion supporting this amendment, which I 
rise in opposition to: ``It is time for OSHA to act compassionately.''
  I understand the virtue of compassion, and I hope I have some in my 
life. But there is no compassion for millions of American workers if we 
do not set out to establish a standard of protection when it comes to 
these types of injuries.

  To postpone this for another year--which is what this amendment would 
do--is to put their health and safety at risk. For what? So that bad 
companies that care less about their worker injuries don't have to 
improve the workplace? That is what it is all about. That is the bottom 
line on this debate.
  As I said earlier, major companies already recognize the problem and 
respond to it. Go into many of your discount stores and one sees 
workers wearing back brace belts. I have seen them at Wal-Mart and 
other stores. Their employers understand reaching over and pulling 
groceries hour after hour can cause some back strain, so they have done 
something about it. Voluntarily, on their own, they have done 
something. They don't want the workers to be off work and an expense to 
the company. They want them to continue on the job with good morale and 
they provide them some protection.
  When I went to the Belvidere Chrysler plant where they make the Neon 
automobile in my State of Illinois, I was pleasantly surprised to see 
all the changes that had taken place on the assembly line. In the old 
days, a worker would turn around and pick up a piece of an automobile, 
move around, and put it on the automobile to fix it in place. That has 
changed. There are all sorts of cranes and devices so parts can be 
moved without strain or stress to the employee. That was done not just 
to protect the employee but to protect the bottom line of the company.
  Frankly, worker injuries cost the companies in terms of time lost and 
in terms of productivity as the experienced workers leave the line and 
someone new takes their place. That is being done by conscientious 
companies. OSHA needs to develop a standard for those that are not 
conscientious. The Bond amendment is not compassionate. The Bond 
amendment stops the Department of Labor from establishing that standard 
of protection.
  As I mentioned earlier, over 6 million workers have been injured in 
the course of keeping records on this particular type of injury, 
600,000 each year. Over 2,000 studies on these hazards have detailed 
how the hazards in the workplace harm people and put them out of work, 
and the devastating impact they have had on the American workforce.
  Yet the Bond amendment delays, stops it, says to the workers who go 
to work every single day, put your life and your earning capacity at 
risk in the workplace. And we in Congress, each year, for the sake of a 
handful of companies that refuse to act responsibly in dealing with 
their workers, will stop you from any standard of protection.
  The following disorders in 1997 accounted for more than 600,000 
workplace injuries. One is fairly common. In fact, some people who work 
in my office have dealt with this problem because of the nature of 
working on a keyboard. This type of musculoskeletal disorder is called 
carpal tunnel syndrome. It accounts for $20 billion annually in 
workers' compensation costs. As I am speaking now, there is a court 
reporter standing in front of me working away at her machine; she does 
that every single day. If she is not careful, she can develop problems, 
as people in ordinary clerical situations do on a regular basis.
  I don't think these people are malingerers. I don't think these 
people are faking. Ever seen the scars from the surgery? That strikes 
me as a great length to go to to fake an injury. I think these people 
are in real pain and seeking real relief.
  One of the things I have noticed, some of the keyboards have been 
changed now so there is less stress on the hands of workers who use 
them. Companies have decided in redesigning the keyboard that they will 
address that problem directly. It could be that the development of a 
standard by the Department of Labor will move our country in that 
direction and reduce the $20 billion paid out every year by American 
businesses for workers' compensation cases involving those with carpal 
tunnel syndrome.
  Who is affected the most by the Bond amendment? Which workers will be 
hurt the most by the Bond amendment? Women across America. Women 
workers suffer a much higher rate of carpal tunnel syndrome. According 
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 86 percent of repetitive motion 
injury increases were suffered by women; 78 percent of tendinitis 
increases were suffered by women. Yet women make up 46 percent of the 
workforce.
  What kind of jobs are these women in? We have talked about clerical 
jobs, obviously. But there are nurses, nurse's aides, cashiers, 
assemblers, maids, laborers, custodians, and, yes, many of these jobs 
employ minority workers. It is estimated between 25 and 50 percent of 
the workforce are Hispanic and African American workers in those 
particular jobs.
  A 6-month study by the National Academy of Sciences in 1998 stated,

[[Page S12170]]

``The positive relationship between the occurrence of musculoskeletal 
disorders and the conduct of work is clear.''
  We heard the Senator from Arkansas, we heard the Senator from 
Missouri--I am sure we hear others--stand up and defy this scientific 
conclusion. Despite 2,000 studies and this clear language, some would 
lead Members to believe that it is still a mystery how 600,000 workers 
could complain of this type of injury in America every single year. We 
know better. We know better from our life experience. That is why this 
amendment is so bad, why this amendment, in delaying protection for 
those workers, ignores the obvious, the injuries and the scientific 
conclusion that leads us to at least a standard of care to protect 
those same workers.

  A few minutes ago, I made reference to the press release from the 
Department of Labor, 1990, at a time when the Secretary was Elizabeth 
Dole. Elizabeth Dole is a person I came to know and respect when she 
was Secretary of Transportation and appeared before my subcommittee in 
the House of Representatives. There was a time when we spoke of worker 
protection issues as bipartisan issues. Sadly, with a very few 
exceptions, that is not the case anymore.
  If we are talking about increasing the minimum wage, which 
historically was a bipartisan issue--both Democrats and Republicans 
understanding that people who went to work every day deserve a living 
wage--that has changed. It has changed for the worse.
  This amendment, if it comes to a vote, will evidence that this has 
become a very partisan matter. Those offering the amendment on the 
Republican side of the aisle will generally, if not exclusively, vote 
in support of the amendment; those on the Democratic side of the aisle 
will generally vote against it. We have broken down on partisan lines.
  The sad reality is the workers we are talking about and the workers 
who were injured do not break down on partisan lines. The workers who 
come off that job with neck and back injuries and carpal tunnel 
syndromes are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and nonvoters. They 
deserve better than to let this issue break down to the partisan battle 
which it has.
  Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole said in August of 1990:

       We must do our utmost to protect workers from these hazards 
     in all U.S. industries.

  She said at that time, 9 years ago:

       We are publishing these guidelines now because we want to 
     eliminate as many illnesses as possible as quickly as 
     possible.

  She goes on to say:

       The Department [of Labor] is committed to taking the most 
     effective steps necessary to address the problem of ergonomic 
     hazards on an industry-wide basis.

  That was 9 years ago. Here we are today, without those standards of 
protection, and an effort underway by Senator Bond of Missouri to, once 
again, delay the establishment of these standards.
  Secretary Elizabeth Dole said in 1990:

       We are emphasizing the need for employers to fit the job to 
     the employee, rather than the employee to the job. This 
     involves such measures as designing flexible workstations 
     which can be adjusted to suit individuals and relying on 
     tools developed to minimize physical distress and eliminate 
     crippling injuries. It begins by organizing work processes 
     with the physical needs of the workers in mind.

  That is basically what I have seen applied to businesses in my home 
State of Illinois, by companies that care. This entire news release has 
now been agreed to be part of the Record. Those who review this debate 
will see that Secretary Dole was on the right track--a Republican 
Secretary of Labor.
  Why, today, the Republican Party, through the amendment of Senator 
Bond of Missouri, wants to take a different venue, a different tack, 
and to eliminate this responsibility, I cannot explain.
  This press release is from a different Labor Secretary, not our 
current Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, who said if the Bond 
amendment is adopted, she will veto this entire important bill; it is 
from Secretary Elizabeth Dole. But it is from Secretary Elizabeth Dole. 
Secretaries Dole, Reich, and Herman have support this issue, but they 
are not alone. Other endorsements establishing the standard of 
protection for American workers come from the American Nurses 
Association, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, the National 
Academy of Sciences, the American Public Health Association, and the 
National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
  I received a letter from the American Public Health Association, 
which I would like to make part of this record as well.
  I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   American Public


                                           Health Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 1999.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: We are deeply concerned about S. 1070, 
     legislation that would not only block OSHA from issuing an 
     ergonomics standard, but even from issuing voluntary 
     guidelines to protect working men and women from ergonomic 
     hazards, the biggest safety and health problem facing workers 
     today.
       We strongly support OSHA's efforts to promulgate a standard 
     to protect workers from ergonomic injuries and illnesses. 
     These disorders are real, they are serious and they account 
     for nearly a third of all serious job related injuries (more 
     than 600,000 workers a year); moreover, they are preventable. 
     One type, carpal tunnel syndrome, alone results in workers 
     losing more time from their jobs than any other type of 
     injury, including amputations. The workers' compensation 
     costs of ergonomic injuries are estimated at $20 billion 
     annually, the overall costs at $60 billion.
       For women workers, OSHA's efforts are particularly 
     important, because nearly half of all injuries and illnesses 
     among women workers result from ergonomic hazards. Though 
     these hazards are present in a variety of jobs, many of the 
     occupations predominantly occupied by women are among the 
     hardest hit by ergonomic injuries.
       Workplace musculoskeletal disorders can be prevented. There 
     is a clear and adequate foundation of scientific and 
     practical evidence, including a 1998 congressionally 
     requested National Academy of Sciences study demonstrating 
     that these disorders are work-related and that ergonomic 
     solutions in the workplace can prevent injuries. These 
     workplace solutions can protect workers, decrease workers' 
     compensation costs, and produce gains in productivity and 
     workplace innovation.
       We recognize that there is another National Academy of 
     Sciences study pending, and that this is the reason for the 
     legislation. We also recognize that useful information will 
     come out of that study that can be applied to improve 
     protections for workers. However, sufficient data already 
     exists to protect workers. Failure to act on adequate data in 
     this regard is irresponsible.
       After almost a decade of work, OSHA is finally moving 
     forward with a proposed ergonomics standard to prevent work-
     related musculoskeletal disorders. Upon official publication, 
     this proposal will allow a public debate on ergonomics before 
     a final rule is issued. We are aware of the differing views 
     surrounding this proposal. However, such debate is not unique 
     to ergonomics. Such differences in views have existed in 
     almost all of OSHA's major rulemaking, including other 
     serious workplace hazards such as asbestos, benzene and lead.
       The rulemaking process--the proper forum for debate over 
     regulatory proposals--will provide the opportunity for all 
     parties to present their views, opinions and evidence.
       We urge you to resist efforts to block OSHA from working on 
     the development and adoption of an ergonomics standard by 
     voting ``no'' on S. 1070 or any other effort to prevent OSHA 
     from protecting workers from ergonomic hazards. Blocking 
     these necessary safeguards will needlessly risk the health of 
     millions more working people.
           Sincerely,


                             organizations

       9-5, National Association of Working Women.
       Alaska Health Project.
       American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Inc.
       American Nurses Association.
       American Public Health Association.
       Central New York Occupational Health Clinical Center.
       Chicago Area Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
       Connecticut Council on Occupational Safety and Health.
       Johns Hopkins Education and Research Center.
       Montana Tech of the University of Montana, Safety, Health 
     and Industrial Hygiene Department.
       National Organization for Women.
       National Partnership for Women and Families.
       National Women's Law Center.
       New Hampshire Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health.
       New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health.
       North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Project.
       Northwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety 
     (University of Washington).
       Rhode Island Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.

[[Page S12171]]

       Rochester Council on Occupational Safety and Health.
       San Diego State University, Graduate School of Public 
     Health.
       South Central Wisconsin Committee on Occupational Safety 
     and Health.
       Southeast Michigan Coalition on Occupational Safety and 
     Health.
       University of Puerto Rico School of Public Health.
       Western New York Council on Occupational Safety and Health.
       Wider Opportunities for Women.
       Wisconsin Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
       Women Work! The National Network for Women's Employment.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this letter is dated September 27, 1999. 
It comes from a long list of organizations that comprise the American 
Public Health Association.
  Reading the introductory paragraphs will make it clear where they 
stand, in opposition to the Bond amendment:

       We are deeply concerned about S. 1070, legislation that 
     would not only block OSHA from issuing an ergonomics 
     standard, but even from issuing voluntary guidelines to 
     protect working men and women from ergonomic hazards, the 
     biggest safety and health problem facing workers today.
       We strongly support OSHA's efforts to promulgate a standard 
     to protect workers from ergonomic injuries and illnesses. 
     These disorders are real, they are serious and they account 
     for nearly a third of all serious job related injuries (more 
     than 600,000 workers a year); moreover, they are preventable. 
     One type, carpal tunnel syndrome, alone results in workers 
     losing more time from their jobs than any other type of 
     injury, including amputations. The worker's compensation 
     costs of ergonomic injuries are estimated at $20 billion 
     annually, the overall costs at $60 billion.
       For women workers, OSHA's efforts are particularly 
     important, because nearly half of all injuries and illnesses 
     among women workers result from ergonomic hazards. Though 
     these hazards are present in a variety of jobs, many of the 
     occupations predominantly occupied by women are among the 
     hardest hit by ergonomic injuries.

  Why is it when it comes to this floor and the battle is worth 
fighting, if the well-heeled special interest groups with the strongest 
lobbies can come in, whether it is an oil company trying to avoid 
paying its fair share of royalties to drill for oil on public lands or 
other large companies, we take the time and end up giving the special 
favors, but when it comes to women in the workplace, minorities in the 
workplace, time and time again this Senate, this Congress, will cut a 
corner and say, ultimately: Perhaps we ought to give the benefit of the 
doubt to the employer, perhaps we ought to ignore the 600,000 who are 
injured?
  As one who spent a small part of my life in the workplace, that 
standard is upside down. If the Senate in Washington, DC, is not here 
to protect those who are voiceless, then we have lost our bearings 
completely. This issue goes to the heart of that debate.
  The General Accounting Office has found employers can reduce costs 
and injuries associated with musculoskeletal disorders and improve not 
only employee health but productivity and product quality.
  When workers know their employer cares enough about them to make the 
workplace safer for them, it is a clear and strong message to them that 
increases employee morale. The time has come for the other side of the 
aisle to make good on its promise to the American people. The leader in 
the candidacy for the Presidency on the Republican side, Gov. George W. 
Bush of Texas, claims he is a compassionate conservative. During the 
course of this campaign, we will try to figure out what that means.
  Today, we can ask ourselves if we are seeing an exhibition of 
compassionate conservatism from the Republican side of the aisle. I 
think not. With this amendment, I think we see an effort to turn our 
backs on people who need compassion, understanding, and protection.
  Last year, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Robert 
Livingston of Louisiana, and his ranking Democratic member, David Obey 
of Wisconsin, made it clear in a letter to the Secretary of Labor:

       . . . by funding the National Academy of Sciences study [on 
     this issue], it is no way our intent to block or delay 
     issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics.

  The reason I raise that is so those who are following the debate 
understand that this attempt at delay is nothing new. I have the 
letter. The letter makes it clear that both the Democratic and 
Republican leaders on the House Appropriations Committee last year made 
it clear they wanted to go forward with the rule or a standard of 
protection on these types of injuries.
  I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                 Washington, DC, October 19, 1998.
     Hon. Alexis Herman,
     Secretary of Labor,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Secretary: Congress has chosen not to include 
     language in the Fiscal Year 1999 Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act that would prohibit OSHA from using funds to issue or 
     promulgate a proposed or final rule on ergonomics. As you are 
     well aware, the Fiscal Year 1998 Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act did contain such a prohibitiion, though OSHA was free to 
     continue the work required to develop such a rule.
       Congress has also chosen to provide $890,000 for the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services to fund a review by 
     the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the scientific 
     literature regarding work-related musculoskeletal disorders. 
     We understand that OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule on 
     ergonomics late in the summer of 1999. We are writing to make 
     clear that by funding the NAS study, it is in no way our 
     intent to block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule 
     on ergonomics.
           Sincerely,
     Bob Livingston,
       Chairman.
     David Obey,
       Ranking Member.
  Mr. DURBIN. Here we have the Bond amendment which says the deal is 
off. For the sake of some companies which do not protect their workers 
in the workplace and do not care to spend the money to do it, we are 
basically going to say we will establish no standards for workplaces 
across America. Senator Gregg, my colleague, proposed the new National 
Academy of Sciences study last September in committee. Then he stated, 
``. . . the study does not in any way limit OSHA'' in moving forward 
with the ergonomic standard.
  By the way, this study asks exactly the same seven questions the 
previous study asked. Even Chairman Stevens of Alaska stated, ``There 
is no moratorium under this agreement.''
  So we are told the Department is supposed to go forward in 
establishing these standards. Along comes the Bond amendment. I remind 
my colleagues, the Bond amendment stops the Department of Labor in its 
tracks. It prohibits that department, OSHA, from promulgating or 
continuing the rulemaking process, issuing any standard, regulation, or 
guidelines regarding ergonomics for a year.
  So the deal has been changed. The losers in this bargain are the 
workers across America who expect us to care and expect us to respond. 
I think it is time to bring an end to this charade. We have a real 
problem. We need real solutions. Workers across this country need real 
protection. The Bond amendment removes the possibility of establishing 
this standard of protection.
  A few weeks ago I was visited by Madeleine Sherod. Madeleine is a 
victim of these injuries, a mother of five children who are now all 
grown. She has worked for an Illinois paint company for 20 years.
  When she started, she literally lifted and moved work stations from 
one area of the plant to another. This job consisted of lifting several 
different sizes and weights of boxes. After several months of this type 
of work she transferred to the shipping department where she performed 
the duties of a warehouse worker. Her job consisted of driving a 
material handling truck and lifting cartons of paint that were packaged 
in various sizes and weights (5 gallon pails weighing approximately 20 
lbs-90 lbs). She performed this job for at least 13 years. She later 
transferred to a job where she now operates several different pieces of 
machinery. She must keep the equipment operating efficiently--if the 
machinery breaks down then manual labor must be performed.
  Her first injury occurred about 15 years ago. She was diagnosed with 
carpal tunnel syndrome and had surgery to relieve the pain. As a mother 
of 5 children her ability to perform the normal tasks as a parent was 
an everyday struggle. She was unable to comb her three daughters hair, 
wash dishes, sweep floors, or many other day-to-day tasks that working 
moms must perform.

[[Page S12172]]

  Her second injury occurred about 7 years ago. Madeleine was diagnosed 
with tendinitis and this time had tenon release surgery. Even today she 
has to wear a wrist brace to help strengthen her wrist. Being extra 
cautious has become part of her everyday life when it comes to the use 
of her wrist.
  She recently found a lump on her left wrist, and is preparing herself 
for yet another surgery.
  The company has not been able to make any adjustments for her at this 
time. They say that there really is nothing they can do to change the 
work that is preformed in the shipping department to curtail repetitive 
use of the hands, knees and back.
  And here's the clincher: the majority of the women who have worked 
for this company for more than 10 year have had similar surgeries for 
their injuries.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, we have an order 
to vote on the Wellstone amendment at 1:50.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will suspend.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1842

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1842. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
absent because of family illness.
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 318 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Enzi
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The amendment (No. 1842) was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1825

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the 
pending business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Amendment No. 2270, in the 
second degree, offered by Senator Bond.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support an amendment that I 
feel to be extremely important to the small business owners of Montana. 
That amendment is the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific Evidence 
Act, the SENSE Act. This amendment makes the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, OSHA, to do the sensible thing--wait for a 
scientific report before OSHA can impose any new ergonomics regulations 
on small business.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, the overall injury 
and illness rate is currently at its lowest level. Date shows that 
musculoskeletal disorders have declined by 17 percent over the past 3 
years. But OSHA continues to aggressively move forward with an 
ergonomics regulation and ignoring the intent of Congress.
  I have been hearing from small business owners of across the State of 
Montana. Businesses that range from construction companies to florists 
that fall under OSHA's mandated ergo-
nomics regulations are telling me something has to be done. They are 
being forced to comply with ridiculous rules and regulations that OSHA 
cannot prove to be harmful to employees.
  Before OSHA can move forward with any new regulations a few things 
need to be proven. First, OSHA needs to objectively define the medical 
conditions that should be addressed, not a broad category of all soft 
tissue and bone pains and injuries that might have resulted. Second, 
they need to identify the particular exposures in magnitude and nature 
which cause the defined medical conditions. Last they need to prescribe 
the changes necessary to prevent their recurrence. Right now OSHA 
cannot prove any of these things.
  We need to make sure that OSHA is not running free and loose. They 
cannot have free rein to enact new rules and regulations without having 
significant scientific evidence to back up their new mandate. This 
amendment, to put it simply, will delay moving forward with any 
ergonomics rule or guideline until completion of an independent study 
of the medical and scientific evidence linking on-the-job activities 
and repetitive stress injuries.
  This is a very complicated issue, and we need to make sure that there 
is sound science and through medical evidence to protect our small 
business and employees from misguided rules and regulations. The SENSE 
Act does not prohibit OSHA from continuing to research ergonomics or 
from exercising its enforcement authority, it just puts the small 
business owner on a level playing field. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. It is 
our responsibility as the Nation's leader to reduce the hazards that 
America's workers face--not putting roadblocks in the way of increased 
workers safety. Ergonomic injuries are the single largest occupational 
health crisis faced by men and women in our workforce today. We should 
let the OSHA issue an ergonomics standard.
  Ergonomic injuries hurt America's workers. Each year, more than 
600,000 private sector workers in America are forced to miss time from 
work because of musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs. These injuries hurt 
our America's companies because these disorders can cause workers to 
miss three full weeks of work or more. Employers pay over $20 billion 
annually in worker's compensation benefits due to MSDs and up to $60 
billion in lost productivity, disability benefits, and other associated 
costs.
  The impact of MSDs on women workers is especially serious. While 
women make up 46 percent of the total workforce and only make up 33 
percent of total injured workers, they receive 63 percent of all lost 
work time ergonomic injuries and 69 percent of lost work time carpal 
tunnel syndrome.
  In addition, women in the health care, retail and textile industries 
are particularly hard hit by MSDs and carpal tunnel syndrome. In fact 
women suffer over 90 percent of the MSDs among nurses, nurse aides, 
health care aides, and sewing machine operators. Women also account for 
91 percent of the carpal tunnel cases that occur among cashiers.
  Despite all the overwhelming financial and physical impacts of MSDs 
and the disproportionate impact they have on our Nation's women, there 
have been several efforts over the years to prevent the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, OSHA from issuing an ergonomics 
standard.
  Let's be clear, this amendment is intended to delay OSHA's ergonomic 
standard until yet another scientific study is performed on ergonomic 
injuries. We have examined the merits of this rule over and over again. 
Contrary to what those on the other side of this issue say, the science 
supports an ergonomics standard. We also had a bipartisan agreement 
that the current National Academy of Sciences, NAS, study would--in no 
way--impede implementation by OSHA.
  NAS has already studied this issue. The new study would address the 
exact same issues that were dealt with in the previous study. They are 
also using the same science. No new science. It is mind boggling.
  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, 
studied ergonomics and conclude that there is ``clear and compelling 
evidence''

[[Page S12173]]

that MSDs are caused by work and can be reduced and prevented through 
workplace interventions. The American College of Occupational and 
Environmental Medicine, the world's largest occupational medical 
society, agreed with NIOSH and saw no reason to delay implementation. 
The studies and science are conclusive in the Senator's mind.
  Further--and possibly most persuasive--last year, the administration 
and leaders in Congress on this side of the aisle only agreed to a new 
study because those on the other side said that this new study would 
not delay the issuance by OSHA of a rule on ergonomics. Now they are 
not standing by their word.
  We cannot afford to delay an important standard which will greatly 
improve workplace safety.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We should allow OSHA 
to issue an ergonomics standard. It will be an important first step in 
protecting our Nation's workers from crippling injuries.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to spend some time this afternoon 
speaking to my colleagues to vote against the amendment before us 
today, the amendment that would prohibit the Department of Labor or the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration from issuing any standard 
or regulation addressing ergonomic concerns in the workplace for one 
year.
  Mr. President, this prohibition would come just as OSHA prepares, in 
the next few weeks, to publish its proposed rule on ergonomics for 
public comment. This would be a blow to American workers and a real 
step backwards for the kind of cooperative approach to business and the 
workplace that we need in this country.
  Mr. President, let's be clear about the issue before us, the question 
of ergonomics and which workplace injuries will continue to occur if 
this amendment becomes law.
  Ergonomics is the science of fitting workplace conditions and job 
demands to the capabilities of the working population. The study of 
ergonomics is large in scope, but generally, the term refers to the 
assessment of those work-related factors that may pose a risk of 
musculoskeletal disorders. It is well-settled that effective and 
successful ergonomics programs assure high productivity, avoidance of 
illness and injury risks, and increased satisfaction among the 
workforce.
  Many businesses and trade associations have already implemented 
safety and health programs in the workplace and have seen productivity 
rise as fewer hours on the job are lost. According to Assistant 
Secretary of Labor Charles N. Jeffress in his testimony before the 
House Committee on Small Business, programs implemented by individual 
employers reduce total job-related injuries and illnesses by an average 
of 45 percent and lost work time injuries and illnesses by an average 
of 75 percent.
  Ergonomic disorders include sprains and strains, which affect the 
muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage, or spinal 
discs; repetitive stress injuries, that are typically not the result of 
any instantaneous or acute event but are usually chronic in nature, and 
brought on as a result of a poorly designed work environment (these 
injuries are common causes of muscoskeletal problems such as chronic 
and disabling lower-back pain); and carpal tunnel syndrome.
  And let's be clear that this, Mr. President, is a real problem for 
American businesses and workers. Industry experts have estimated that 
injuries and illnesses caused by ergonomic hazards are the biggest job 
safety problem in the workplace today, as each year more than 600 
thousand workers suffer from back injuries, tendinitis, and other 
ergonomic disorders. In fact, OSHA, estimates that injuries related to 
carpal tunnel syndrome alone result in more workers losing their jobs 
than any other injury. The worker compensation cost of all ergonomics 
injuries is estimated at over 20 billion dollars annually.
  What is most troubling, Mr. President, is that these types of 
injuries are preventable. There is something that can be done to 
protect the American worker. It should be noted that in drafting its 
proposed rule--a rule Mr. President, that is scheduled to be issued in 
just a few weeks--OSHA worked extensively with a number of 
stakeholders, including representatives from industry, labor, safety 
and health organizations, State governments, trade associations, and 
insurance companies. OSHA has drafted an interactive, flexible rule 
that allows managers and labor to work in unison to create a safer 
workplace environment. OSHA even placed on its Website a preliminary 
version of the draft proposed rule, in order to facilitate comments 
from the public. Mr. President, this is not a ``command and control'' 
regulatory action.
  As noted by Assistant Secretary Jeffress: ``An employer [should] work 
credibly with employees to find workplace hazards and fix them . . . 
the rule creates no new obligations for employers to control hazards 
that they have not already been required to control under the General 
Duty Clause under Section 5 of the Occupational Safety Act or existing 
OSHA standards.''
  In other words, Mr. President, this rule is simply an interactive 
approach between employee and manager to protect the assets of the 
company in ways that are either already being done, or should be done 
under existing rules. This new rule is a guide and a tool, not an 
inflexible mandate.

  According to the Department of Labor, thirty-two states have some 
form of safety and health program. Four States (Alaska, California, 
Hawaii, and Washington) have mandated comprehensive programs that have 
core elements similar to those in OSHA's draft proposal. In these four 
states, injury and illness rates fell by nearly 18 percent over the 
five years after implementation, in comparison with national rates over 
the same period.
  I'd like to share with my colleagues two examples from my home state 
of Massachusetts that show how business and labor can benefit from 
successful ergonomics programs. Crane & Company, a paper company 
located in Dalton, Massachusetts signed an agreement with OSHA to 
establish comprehensive ergonomics programs at each of their plants. 
According to the company's own report, within three years of starting 
this program, the company's musculoskeletal injury rate was almost cut 
in half.
  Lunt Silversmiths, a flatware manufacturer in Greenfield, was 
troubled by high worker's compensation costs. One OSHA log revealed 
that back injuries were the number one problem in three departments. By 
implementing basic ergonomic controls, lost workdays dropped from more 
that 300 in 1992 to 72 in 1997, and total worker's compensation costs 
for the company dropped from $192,500 in 1992 to $27,000 in 1997.
  That's the difference this common sense approach can make. And, Mr. 
President, in spite of the arguments for the Bond amendment, there bulk 
of the science and the research proves that an ergonomic standard is 
needed in the American workplace.
  The National Academy of Sciences, the same group directed in this 
amendment to complete a study on this issue, already has compiled a 
report entitled Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders. And the report 
tells us that workers exposed to ergonomic hazards have a higher level 
of pain, injury and disability, that there is a biological basis for 
these injuries, and that there exist today interventions to prevent 
these injuries.
  In 1997, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
completed a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related 
musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and lower back. 
This critical review of 600 studies culled from a bibliographic 
database of more than 2,000 found that there is substantial evidence 
for a causal relationship between physical work factors and 
musculoskeletal disorders.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, we are not talking about a new 
phenomenon, or the latest fad. In 1990, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth 
Dole, in response to evidence showing that repetitive stress disorders 
(such as carpal tunnel syndrome) were the fastest growing category of 
occupational illnesses, committed the agency to begin working on an 
ergonomics standard. This rulemaking has been almost ten years in the 
making. Now is the time to put something in place for the American 
worker.
  This rule has been delayed for far too long. In 1996, the Senate and 
the House

[[Page S12174]]

agreed to language in an appropriations conference report that would 
prevent OSHA from developing an ergonomics standard in FY 1997. In 
1997, Congress prevented OSHA from spending any of its FY 1998 budget 
on promulgating an ergonomics standard. Last year, money in the FY 1999 
budget was set aside for the new NAS study cited in this amendment, and 
the then-Chairman and Ranking Members of the House Appropriations 
Committee sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman, stating 
that this study ``was not intended to block or delay OSHA from moving 
forward with its ergonomics standard.''
  Mr. President, we should wait no longer for this standard to be 
proposed, and workers should not have to wait until a new study is 
completed to be directed from preventable injuries. The time to protect 
the American workplace is now.
  People on the other side of this issue may argue that this is an 
expensive rule, or that the science is inadequate. This is simply not 
true. The changes envisioned by the rule will increase productivity and 
save costs. The studies have been numerous. Preventing OSHA from even 
working on an ergonomic standard, much less issuing one, at the 
eleventh hour is not the right approach for American workers.
  This standard is a win-win for workers and management: the better 
that workers are protected, the more time they spend on the job. The 
more time they spend on the job, the more productive the workplace. And 
it is obvious, but it bears restating, the more productive the 
workplace, the more productive this country. Workers want to be at 
work, and their bosses want them at work.
  We ought to be capable--as a Senate--to put that common sense 
approach and this simple ergonomics standard into place and we all be 
able to vote against the Bond amendment and help out workers and our 
businesses move forward together.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Missouri. This amendment would needlessly 
delay OSHA from implementing regulations to prevent one of the leading 
causes of work place injuries, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).
  Each year, more than 600,000 American workers suffer work related 
MSDs and it is costing businesses $15 to $20 billion in workers' 
compensation costs alone. It is estimated that one out of every three 
dollars spent on worker's compensation is related to repetitive motion 
injuries.
  Many of the jobs that are disproportionately subject to ergonomic 
injuries are held by women. In fact, while women experience 33 percent 
of all serious workplace injuries, they suffer 61 percent of repetitive 
motion injuries. This includes:
  91 percent of all injuries related to repetitive typing;
  61 percent of repetitive placing injuries;
  62 percent of work related cases of tendinitis; and
  70 percent of carpal tunnel syndrome cases.
  The supporters of this amendment argue that OSHA should delay 
ergonomic protection until the National Academy of Sciences completes a 
second review of existing studies. This comes despite the fact that 
there is already substantial scientific evidence linking MSDs to the 
workplace.
  The first study completed by the National Academy of Sciences found 
that ``research clearly demonstrates that specific interventions can 
reduce the reported rates of musculoskeletal disorders for workers who 
perform high-risk tasks.'' That peer reviewed study was conducted just 
last year.
  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reviewed 
more than 2,000 studies of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. They 
concluded that ``compelling scientific evidence shows a consistent 
relationship between musculoskeletal disorders and certain work related 
factors.''
  In a letter to the Department of Labor, William Grieves, president of 
the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, notes 
that ``there is an adequate scientific foundation for OSHA to proceed 
with a proposal and, therefore, no reason for OSHA to delay the 
rulemaking process while the National Academy of Science panel conducts 
its review.''
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         American College of Occupational and Environmental 
           Medicine,
                                                February 15, 1999.
     Charles N. Jeffress,
     Assistant Secretary of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health, 
         U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Jeffress: The American College of Occupational and 
     Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) urges you to move forward with 
     a proposed Ergonomics Program Standard.
       The College represents over 7,000 physicians and is the 
     world's largest occupational medical society concerned with 
     the health of the workforce. Although the College and its 
     members may not agree with all aspects of the draft proposal, 
     we support the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administrations's (OSHA) efforts to promulgate a standard. An 
     ergonomics program standard that ensures worker protection 
     and provides certainty to employers is preferable to the 
     uncertainties of the general duty clause. As physicians, the 
     College's members will vigorously participate during 
     rulemaking to ensure that a final standard is protective of 
     workers, represents the best medical practices and is 
     supported by the science of musculoskeletal diseases.
       It is incumbent on OSHA to carefully consider the science 
     and to give all due consideration to the results that will 
     come from the National Academy of Science panel's review of 
     the scientific literature regarding musculoskeletal 
     disorders. However, there is an adequate scientific 
     foundation for OSHA to proceed with a proposal and, 
     therefore, no reason for OSHA to delay the rulemaking process 
     while the National Academy of Science panel conducts its 
     review.
       The College looks forward to its active participation in 
     this rulemaking. In the interim, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me or Dr. Eugene Handley, Executive Director.
           Sincerely,
                                                  William Greaves,
                                                        President.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. All of these studies have found links between 
repetitive motion injuries and workplace factors and suggest that OSHA 
must be permitted to go forward with sensible regulations to insure a 
safe workplace.
  Ergonomic programs have proven to be effective in reducing repetitive 
motion injuries in the workplace. Many businesses which have 
voluntarily instituted an ergonomic program have found the long term 
benefits to far outweigh the short term costs.
  Red Wing Shoes in Minnesota found that their workers' compensation 
costs dropped 75 percent in the 4 years after they began an ergonomic 
program.
  Fieldcrest-Cannon in Columbus, Georgia, saw the number of workers' 
suffering from repetitive motion injuries drop from 121 in 1993 to 21 
in 1996.
  By redesigning its workstations, OshKosh B'Gosh reduced workers' 
compensation costs by one-third.
  Mr. President, I certainly agree that decisions on government 
regulations should be based on sound science. In this case, there is 
already a substantial body of scientific evidence which concludes that 
there is a relationship between MSDs and the workplace and that 
ergonomic programs can significantly reduce these injuries.
  During this decade, more than 6.1 million workers have suffered from 
serious workplace injuries as a result of ergonomic hazards. As we move 
into the next century, American workers must be given adequate 
protection from these preventable injuries. Congress must allow OSHA to 
move forward with sensible ergonomic regulations. I urge my colleagues 
to vote to defeat this amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bond 
Amendment. It's bad for American workers and bad for our economy.
  OSHA must move forward with an ergonomics standard. Each year, more 
than 600,000 individuals in our private sector work force miss time due 
to ergonomic injuries, or musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). These 
injuries cost our economy over $80 billion annually, including 
approximately $60 billion on lost productivity costs. Nearly $1 out of 
every $3 in worker's compensation payments result from MSDs.
  More importantly, these injuries cause terrible pain and suffering--
as well as increased health care costs. OSHA's ergonomics standard is 
supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. The National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) study concluded that workplace interventions can reduce 
the incidence of MSDs. When this study

[[Page S12175]]

was funded in 1998, the Appropriations Committee and the Administration 
agreed that funding this study was not a mechanism for delaying the 
OSHA standard. We must honor our agreement and let OSHA do it's work on 
behalf of working men and women in our country.
  Mr. President, ergonomics is also a women's issue. Women account for 
nearly 75% of lost work time due to carpal tunnel syndrome and 62% of 
lost time due to tendinitis. Many of the women affected by MSDs are in 
the health care industry, including nurses, nurse aides and health care 
aides. Women in the retail industry are also disproportionately 
affected by ergonomic injuries.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to help improve workplace safety by 
joining me in opposing this amendment. As a great nation, it is our 
duty to protect our most valuable resource--our working men and women.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, we 
have been debating for the last hour or so--although we did have a 
discussion on the Wellstone amendment--the issue of the Bond amendment 
dealing with ergonomics. We have been debating it for a significant 
period of time. I personally am ready to vote on the amendment. I know 
there has been some discussion on both sides, but I ask unanimous 
consent that we have 30 additional minutes equally divided on the Bond 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, again, I think most things have been said 
on this amendment that need to be said. I don't know if Members want 
more debate. I will make an additional request, and that is that we 
have 2 hours of debate on the Bond amendment equally divided.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I say to my 
friend from Oklahoma, this deserves some attention. We have 600,000 
people a year who are injured as a result of these accidents. We had 
over 2,000 studies. The time is here to go forward with some rules and 
regulations to protect American workers. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will make one additional try. I ask 
unanimous consent that we have 4 hours equally divided on this bill.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I have been on the floor--
this is the fifth or sixth day--trying to work with the majority to 
move this bill along. We have worked with the Members on the minority. 
We have moved a significant number of amendments, probably 65 or 70. We 
are to a point now where this bill could be completed but for this one 
contentious issue. From the very beginning, we have said this is an 
issue that deserves a lot of attention. We say, again, we are willing 
to work with the majority on this bill, but if this matter is here, we 
are going to have to discuss it. The American people, 600,000 a year, 
are injured with these accidents. It deserves more than 2 hours or 4 
hours. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a minimum 
wage amendment be in order and that we have 1 hour of debate on that.
  Mr. NICKLES. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in light of the fact that we are not 
going to get a time agreement on ergonomics, on the Bond amendment, in 
a moment I will move to table, as manager. First, I would like to move 
ahead on sequencing after the vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. 
Byrd, be recognized at the conclusion of the vote and then, following 
Senator Byrd's statement, we move to the amendment to be offered by the 
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, so we will be on notice that 
that will be the next order of business.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there objection to the 
request?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is it the 
intention to withdraw the amendment, then, if it is not tabled?
  Mr. NICKLES. Let's have the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is it the intention to withdraw the amendment if it is 
not tabled?
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond to the Senator from Massachusetts, it 
is not my amendment, but it is my hope, as manager of the bill, that 
that would happen. But that is up to the offeror of the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, unless such is clear, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to table the Bond amendment No. 
1825 and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, was the unanimous consent request agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was objected to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the vote, I be recognized for not to exceed 30 minutes to 
speak on another matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator will have 30 minutes 
following the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
absent because of family illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 2, nays 97, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 319 Leg.]

                                YEAS--2

     Jeffords
     Specter
       

                                NAYS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The motion to table was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in view of the time that has been spent 
discussing this very important issue, and also the fact there have been 
several attempts to find ways to limit the debate, and now in view of 
the vote on the motion to table which was unanimous against tabling it, 
putting the Senate back to exactly the position we were in before, I 
think the thing to do at this time is to withdraw this amendment and 
move forward.
  I think that is a mistake. I want to say to one and all, this issue 
will be joined further, and we will find a way for the content of this 
amendment to be in some legislation and passed through the Congress 
this year.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it has become clear to me that my amendment, 
which would force OSHA to do their job correctly instead of hastily, is 
a bigger concern to those on the other side than the wide range of 
benefits that the underlying Labor/HHS appropriations bill provides. 
This disappoints me tremendously.
  However, because the Labor/HHS appropriations bill will provide 
funding for so many programs that will help causes I support, I will 
not allow my amendment to prevent passage of this bill.
  By allowing OSHA to go forward at this moment, we are saying that it 
is

[[Page S12176]]

acceptable for an agency charged with protecting employees to 
promulgate a regulation that has insufficient scientific and medical 
support. We are saying that it is acceptable for OSHA to tell employers 
that we don't have the answers, but we expect you to come up with them, 
and we will fine you if you don't. We are saying that it is acceptable 
for an agency that should be focusing on helping employers protect 
their employees from hazards, instead to tell them that they have no 
idea how to help them do this, but it would be OK for them to be cited 
just the same.
  The heart of this issue is that although there have indeed been many 
studies conducted, they have not managed to answer the critical 
questions that employers need to know to be able to protect their 
employees: ``How much lifting is too much?'', How many repetitions are 
too many?'', and ``What interventions can an employer implement to 
protect his or her employees?'' This is what we mean by saying that 
there is not sufficient sound science to support this regulation.
  This regulation, whenever it comes out and takes effect, will be the 
most far reaching regulation ever issued by OSHA. It will be one of the 
most far reaching regulations from any agency and will ultimately 
effect every business in this country. To say that we will allow OSHA 
to proceed with a regulation of this nature, that we know is horribly 
flawed and without adequate scientific and medical support, borders on 
a dereliction of our duty.
  Many speakers opposed to my amendment have focused on the number of 
workers who are believed to be suffering from ergonomics injuries. One 
of the great uncertainties about this issue is that we don't even know 
what it means to be in that group. That number includes many people who 
suffer from common problems like back pain which may or may not have 
any connection to the workplace. What constitutes a musculoskeletal 
disorder is one of those questions around which there is still no 
consensus within the medical and scientific communities.
  Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA has jurisdiction 
only over workplace safety questions. If the condition which represents 
a hazard is not part of the workplace, OSHA has no authority to compel 
an employer to address the problem. With ergonomics, there is no way 
for an employer to be able to tell when a condition has arisen because 
of exposures at the workplace or because of activities or conditions 
that have nothing to do with the workplace. Many factors such as age, 
physical condition, diet, weight, and even family history can influence 
whether someone is vulnerable to an ergonomic injury. We still don't 
know why two workers doing the same work for the same amount of time 
will have different experiences with injuries. It is simply beyond an 
employer's role and ability to ask them to determine how much of an 
injury may have been caused by factors outside their control. I do not 
believe that we should be telling employers that they should intrude 
into their employee's private lives to the degree that would be 
necessary to eliminate all possibility of suffering an ergonomic 
injury.
  I will continue to seek opportunities to come back to this issue 
because I believe so strongly that without sound science on this issue, 
OSHA's regulation on ergonomics will force many small businesses to 
choose between complying and staying in business. Under this decision 
everyone loses. However, in the interest of moving the Labor/HHS 
appropriations bill, I will allow my amendment to be withdrawn.


                      amendment no. 1825 withdrawn

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that amendment 1825 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1825) was withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________