[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 27 (Monday, March 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1811-S1813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       A WEEK FOR WORKING PEOPLE

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I haven't had a chance to 
review Senator Collins' legislation, but I will tell you that anything 
and everything that we can do that really nurtures and encourages small 
business we should do. The small businesspeople are a lot like family 
farmers. Everybody loves them in the abstract, but when it comes to 
access to capital and to the opportunities for them to grow, I think we 
can do much better.
  I will tell you that in Minnesota--and I am sure it is the case in 
Maine--people are always more comfortable when the actual capital 
decisions are made by people who live in the community. They own the 
businesses there. I would put my emphasis on education and 
entrepreneurship at the community level. I thank my colleague for her 
work.
  I am going to be quite brief because I have a feeling that over the 
next couple of weeks I won't be brief at all. This is going to be quite 
a week for working families, working people, in Minnesota and around 
the country. We start out tomorrow with a bang. We are going to have a 
resolution on the floor of the Senate that would summarily and 
permanently overturn OSHA standards that were designed to protect 
workers from serious and debilitating ergonomic injuries. We are 
talking about repetitive stress injuries and about 1.8 million workers 
who suffer from these disorders, 600,000 injuries so severe that people 
are forced to take off from work.
  The terms of these injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, 
tendonitis, and back injuries, sound familiar. I will give you one 
example, although there are many, and then I will make my larger point.
  Kita Ortiz, a sewing machine operator in New York City, was 52 when 
her whole life came crashing down on her. She ended up with cramps in 
her hands so severe that she woke up with them frozen like claws. She 
had to soak her hands in hot water just to be able to move her fingers. 
This went on for 5 years. Terrified of losing her job, she suffered 
through agony beyond anything that any Senator can imagine. Finally, 
she had to give up her job. It took 2 years to get her first workers 
comp check. She lost her and her family's health insurance, and she 
tries to get by now on $120 a week on workers comp payments.
  I will tell you something. This resolution is all about overturning 
our accountability as legislators, as Senators, to working people in 
this country, our accountability for their safety. I would bet that of 
the 1.6 million, 1.8 million workers who suffer from these injuries, 
well over 50 percent are women. I will just tell you that I believe 
part of the reason that Kita Ortiz is not so prominent in this effort 
is because to many people these workers and these injuries are just out 
of site, out of mind. But this is the most serious health and safety 
problem in the workplace.
  We had OSHA spend 10 years to promulgate this rule and now we have 
this rush to judgment, where we are going to have 10 hours of debate, 
no amendments permissible--10 hours of debate to overturn a rule that 
was 10 years in the making based upon the heartfelt

[[Page S1812]]

testimony of men and women who have gone through this living hell of 
repetitive stress injury.
  Why the rush to judgment? Some Senators can be very generous with the 
suffering of others. It is so interesting to me that we are going to 
pass a resolution that is going to not just say to OSHA there are 
problems, fix them, but basically its scorched earth approach on the 
floor of the Senate--10 hours, limited debate, no amendments, and 
basically OSHA's hands are tied for the future. We have to come back 
and go through a process all over again.

  By the way, time is not neutral for a whole lot of people who suffer 
these injuries. I don't think most of them are our sons and daughters, 
to be blunt about it. This is a class thing. I don't know whether 
others want to say it on the floor, but it should be said. I will say 
it a lot over tomorrow. These aren't really our sons and daughters. 
These aren't our brothers and sisters, our husbands and wives. For most 
of us, I don't think these are people we know very well. These are 
working class people. It is interesting to me that we are so willing to 
have standards for schools, but we don't want to have standards for 
workplace safety.
  It is going to be interesting to see how colleagues vote on this. I 
think this Federal testing that President Bush is talking about is 
probably the largest intrusion of the Federal Government on State and 
local school districts we have seen for a long time, which basically 
says, hey, for any of you who receive any title I money, you will do 
annual testing from third grade on--I think all the way to eighth 
grade. You do it. That is what we are telling them. We are not clear 
exactly whether or not or how this gets funded.
  We are certainly not going to give the schools and teachers and the 
children the tools to be able to do well, but we are going to pound our 
chests and talk about how low-income children, and children in inner-
city schools, and in schools that don't have good lab facilities and 
don't have the technology, and children who didn't come to kindergarten 
ready to learn, and kids who come to school hungry, and kids who live 
in a family that moves two, three times a year because of the lack of 
affordable housing, and we are set up for failure. We are willing to 
jam those tests down the throats of States and school districts, big 
Federal intrusion in education. So we are going to have the standards 
for schools, but we are not going to have the standards for workplace 
safety.
  Tomorrow we are going to abolish standards for workplace safety. At 
least that is the effort. I hope it is not successful. This is quite a 
week for working families. We start out going after the ergonomics 
rule, which is so important to people who have gone through such a 
living hell with such pain from repetitive stress injury. It is a 
horrible injury. And you have some parts of the business community 
broadly defined--not all, thank goodness--coming in and saying we 
cannot afford it. It is terrible. How generous again some people are 
with other people's suffering. If it was you or if it was your loved 
one who was struggling, who was basically disabled for life, who was in 
unbelievable pain, you would want to see some kind of standard put into 
effect. That is what this debate is going to be about.

  This is a class issue. That is what this is about, make no bones 
about it, and the question is, Where do working people fit into the 
deliberations of the Senate? We will see.
  Then we go from there to the bankruptcy bill. I ask unanimous consent 
to print in the Record a letter from a variety of women's and 
children's organizations--American Association of University Women, 
Children's Defense Fund, Center for Law and Social Policy, National 
Center for Youth Law, National Organization of Women Legal Defense and 
Education Fund, National Women's Law Center, YWCA of the United 
States--that are in opposition to the bankruptcy bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    march 2, 2000.
     Re Women and children's groups oppose S. 420, Bankruptcy 
         Reform Act

       Dear Senator: The undersigned organizations write to urge 
     you to stand with America's women, children, and working 
     families and oppose S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 
     2001.
       If it becomes law, this bill will inflict greater pain on 
     the hundreds of thousands of economically vulnerable women 
     and families who are affected by the bankruptcy system each 
     year. Over 150,000 women owed child support or alimony by men 
     who file for bankruptcy become bankruptcy creditors. An even 
     larger number of women owed child support or alimony--over 
     200,000--will be forced into bankruptcy themselves. Indeed, 
     women are the largest and fastest growing group in 
     bankruptcy.
       S. 420 puts both women and children owned support who are 
     bankruptcy creditors and those who must file for bankruptcy 
     at greater risk. By increasing the rights of many other 
     creditors, including credit card companies, finance 
     companies, auto lenders and others, the bill would set up a 
     competition for scarce resources between parents and children 
     owed child support and these commercial creditors both during 
     and after bankruptcy. And single parents facing financial 
     crises--often caused by divorce, nonpayment of support, loss 
     of a job, uninsured medical expenses, or domestic violence--
     would find it harder to regain their economic stability 
     through the bankruptcy process. The bill would make it harder 
     for these parents to meet the filing requirements; harder, if 
     they got there, to save their homes, cars, and essential 
     household items; and harder to meet their children's needs 
     after bankruptcy because many more debts would survive.
       Contrary to the claims of some, the domestic support 
     provisions included in the bill would not solve these 
     problems. The provisions only relate to the collection of 
     support during bankruptcy from a bankruptcy filer: they do 
     nothing to alleviate the additional hardships the bill would 
     create for the hundreds of thousands of women forced into 
     bankruptcy themselves. And even for women who are owed 
     support by men who file for bankruptcy, the domestic support 
     provisions fail to ensure that, in this intensified 
     competition for the debtor's limited resources before and 
     after bankruptcy, parents and children owed support will 
     prevail over the sophisticated collection departments of 
     these powerful interests.
       We urge you to support amendments to ameliorate the bill's 
     harsh effects on women and their families, insist on 
     bankruptcy reform that is truly fair and balanced, and vote 
     against S. 420.
           Very truly yours,
       American Association of University Women.
       Children NOW.
       Children's Defense Fund.
       Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).
       Feminist Majority Foundation.
       National Association of Commissions for Women (NACW).
       National Center for Youth Law.
       National Organization for Women.
       National Partnership for Women & Families.
       National Youth Law Center.
       National Women's Conference.
       National Women's Law Center.
       NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.
       OWL.
       The Women Activist Fund, Inc..
       Wider Opportunities for Women.
       Women Employed.
       Women Work!
       Women's Law Center of Maryland, Inc.
       YWCA of the U.S.A.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Sessions, was 
saying: What this bill says is if these men owe child support to their 
former wives, they are going to have to pay; therefore, the whole bill 
is a good bill for women and children.
  All these organizations are opposed to it, and they are opposed to it 
for good reason. First of all, what my colleague and friend from 
Alabama did not tell us was, yes, these men are going to have to pay 
child support to women. It also says he is going to have to pay the 
credit card companies and other people who are all making claim on what 
little he has left.
  That is not the main reason these major women's and children's 
organizations, civil rights organizations, consumer organizations, and 
labor organizations are opposed to this bill. The main reason is that 
it is going to be very difficult now for women and for other families 
who find themselves in difficult economic circumstances, through no 
fault of their own--50 percent of the bankruptcy cases in this country 
are because of a major medical bill. It is going to make it impossible 
for them to file for chapter 7 and rebuild their lives. That is what is 
so harsh about this piece of legislation.
  I will not go into the details today because there is going to be a 
lot of opportunity for debate. I will make two very quick points.
  One is, the first effort in the 107th Congress--and I hope people get 
a good look at this--is a resolution to overturn a rule 10 years in the 
making, a rule that is important to protecting people at the workplace.
  Then the first major piece of legislation we get in the 107th 
Congress is an

[[Page S1813]]

unjust and unbalanced bankruptcy bill which is great for the big banks 
and the credit card companies and says nothing about their predatory 
lending practices. It requires no balance and no accountability on 
their part and says nothing about the way in which they continually 
push their credit cards on our children.
  This legislation basically tears up the major safety net for middle-
class--not just low-income--families to protect families from being put 
totally under and in economic bondage for the rest of their lives. That 
is what this bill does by setting up an onerous means test that will 
make it impossible for families to rebuild their lives.
  I think my colleagues want to bring this up because they want to 
point to the differences between President George W. Bush and President 
Clinton because President Clinton vetoed this bill. I hope we can stop 
this bill, and, believe me, I will have many amendments and we will 
have much debate.
  If, in fact, my colleagues want to point out the difference, I am 
glad to do so. I have been plenty critical of President Clinton in the 
last several weeks--there has been much to be critical of--but I want 
to point out to President Clinton: It is an honor to defend you on your 
veto of this bill.
  President Clinton stood up for consumers. He stood up for low- and 
moderate-income families without a lot of clout in America; he stood up 
for working people; he stood up for civil rights; he stood up for 
communities of color. He basically stood up for them and ignored all of 
the lobbying, the political and economic clout of this financial 
services industry.
  I will have a lot to say in this debate about their contributions and 
their role. He did the right thing. I am pleased to talk about the 
differences.

  This bill comes to the floor negotiated by a relatively small number 
of Members. Until this year, this bankruptcy bill has never been on the 
floor of the Senate in an amendable fashion. I need to make that point 
tonight because we are going to go on this bill probably Wednesday 
afternoon.
  The third point I want to make is, until the hearing was held by the 
Judiciary Committee on February 8, there had been no hearings on this 
legislation. In fact, the Senate has not conducted its own hearing on 
bankruptcy since 1998.
  Here is my point: The first time in amendable form, harsh and 
unbalanced, unjust, and the financial services industry trying to jam 
this through.
  I see no reason why we should not have extended debate on the Senate 
floor. Believe me, coming on the heels of this effort to undo 10 years 
of work on an ergonomics standard to protect people in the workplace, 
I, as a Senator from Minnesota, will be more than ready to have 
amendments and have debate.
  One of the amendments on which I look forward to a vote will 
basically say: Before you say to people it is going to be impossible 
for you to file for chapter 7 and rebuild your lives, before you 
basically put people economically under for the rest of their lives 
with this very harsh and one-sided piece of legislation, at least in 
the case where people have had to file for bankruptcy because of a 
major medical bill, do not present them with this harsh means test. At 
least give people who went under because of a medical bill the 
opportunity to file chapter 7 the way they could before.
  We will have a vote on that and a vote on many other amendments as 
well. That debate will start I suppose Wednesday afternoon.
  What a week--it is not just this week; the debate will go on to next 
week. We have 2 weeks coming up that I think represent what the 
majority party is about, and I am sorry to say, because I like the 
Presiding Officer so much and it is not a personal argument, it is an 
institutional argument. I really believe this President and the 
majority party are going to do a great job representing the wealthy in 
America, a great job representing the financial services industry, a 
great job representing the insurance industry, a great job representing 
the oil companies, a great job representing the well-heeled, the well-
financed, and the economically powerful.
  The question most ordinary citizens in the country are asking is: Who 
will represent us? My hope is that the Democratic Party will do so.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________