THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator WELLSTONE to introduce the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. This has been a seven year effort and one that I will continue to pursue. I want to thank Senator WELLSTONE for his efforts on this important legislation. I also need to recognize the leadership of
[Page: S5495] GPO's PDF
In 1994, we enacted the landmark Violence Against Women Act. For the first time, Congress said violence against women was a national disgrace and a public health threat. We had to act. This was no longer just a family matter or a family dispute, this was and is a serious threat against women and a serious threat to the community. We have had police officers in Washington state killed responding to domestic violence calls. We have seen too many women in the emergency room and too many families devastated by violence.
VAWA set in motion a national response to this crisis. We are now in the process of reauthorizing and strengthening VAWA. This is my major priority. Reauthorization of VAWA cements the foundation we need to build the structure that will ultimately end domestic violence and abuse.
The Battered Women's Economic Security Act takes the next logical step. As a result of the work that I have done concerning family violence, I have come to understand that the real long-term solution is to tear down the economic barriers that trap women in violent homes and relationships.
Our legislation addresses many of the economic barriers that I know force a cycle of violence. I have met with many of the advocates in the state of Washington and heard from them first hand, about how these barriers make long term security for women and their children difficult. From housing to child care to job protection to welfare waivers, our legislation attempts to deal with the long term economic problems.
Women should not have to be forced to choose between job security and violence. Each year one million individuals become victims of violent crimes while working on duty. Men are more likely to be attacked at work by a stranger, women are more likely to be attacked by someone they know. One-sixth of all workplace homicides of women are committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend. Boyfriends and husbands, both current and former, commit more than 13,000 acts of violence against women in the workplace every year. This does not include harassment or the threat of violence. Clearly, women face a serious threat in the work place and yet if they leave to avoid harm, they are denied workers compensation. Perhaps even more offensive is the fact that some states require victims of domestic violence to seek employment in order to receive TANF benefits. To have any economic safety net some women are forced to jeopardize their own safety.
This is not just an issue that effects victims of domestic violence. We all suffer the economic consequences of violence. it has been estimated that work place violence resulted in $4.2 billion in lost productivity and legal expenses for American businesses. From what I have heard from victims and advocates, this is a very conservative estimate. The health care costs are also equally staggering. Both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Surgeon General have labeled violence against women a public health threat. Violence is the number one reason women ages 19 to 35 end up in the emergency room. One out of every three women can expect to be the victim of violence at some point in her life.
Our legislation would also prohibit discriminating against victims of domestic violence in all lines of insurance. If a woman seeks treatment in an Emergency Room and reports this as domestic violence, she should not be denied disability or life insurance. If an estranged husband burns the house to the ground the woman should not be denied compensation simply because it was an act of domestic violence. To say that victims of domestic violence engage in high risk behavior similar to sky diving or race care driving is simply outrageous. It is the ultimate example of blaming the victim.
Our legislation is not the final solution, but it begins the process of addressing long term economic needs. I am hopeful that once we have secured reauthorization of VAWA we can begin to focus on these economic problems. Without VAWA we have no foundation.
I will be working with PAUL and other Members of the Senate towards enactment of key provisions of the bill. I am also committed to continuing my work with Senator BIDEN in an effort to enact Violence Against Women Reauthorization during this session.
I urge all of my colleagues to review the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. I encourage all of you to talk to your advocates and your police, ask them what issues keep women trapped in a violent home or relationship. Ask them what needs to be done to provide long term solutions. I know that after careful review and consideration, you will reach the same conclusions. There are economic barriers that must be torn down. I hope that many of you will join in cosponsoring this legislation and work with me to enact this comprehensive solution to ending the cycle of violence that too many women and children face every day.
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. ENZI, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. BURNS, Mr. VOINOVICH, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. LOTT, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. MACK, Mr. COVERDELL, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. KYL, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. GREGG, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. HELMS, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CHAFEE, and Mr. BROWNBACK):
S. 1070. A bill to require the Secretary of Labor to wait for completion of a National Academy of Sciences study before promulgating a standard, regulation or guideline or ergonomics; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
SENSIBLE ERGONOMICS N EEDS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ACT
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today as chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business to introduce the Sensible Ergonomics N eeds Scientific Evidence Act of SENSE Act. This bill calls on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to do the sensible thing--wait for sound science before imposing new ergonomics r egulations o n small businesses. If enacted, the SENSE Act would require OSHA t o wait for the results of a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) before issuing proposed or final regulations, standards or guidelines on ergonomics. As a native of Missouri, the ``Show Me State,'' waiting for the NAS study makes good sense to me.
In introducing the SENSE Act, I am pleased to be joined by numerous colleagues from all across the country--including Senators ENZI, JEFFORDS, BURNS, VOINOVICH, SNOWE, ASHCROFT, MCCONNELL, LOTT, NICKLES, HUTCHINSON, MACK, COVERDELL, COLLINS, SHELBY, KYL, FITZGERALD, ABRAHAM, GREGG, HUTCHISON, HELMS, BUNNING, CRAPO, BENNETT, DEWINE, HAGEL, SESSIONS, and CHAFEE. These Senators, like me, agree with their small business constituents that it makes good sense for OSHA t o wait for the results of the NAS study before proposing additional regulatory requirements for small businesses.
Just last year, Congress and the President agreed to spend $890,000 for NAS to undertake a thorough, objective, and de novo review of the scientific literature to examine the cause-and-effect relationship between repetitive tasks in the workplace and musculoskeletal disorders. The study is intended to achieve a scientific understanding of the conditions and causes of musculoskeletal disorders. The NAS has selected a panel of experts to conduct the study. The panel will examine the scientific data on the multiple factors and influences that contribute to musculoskeletal disorders and answer seven questions provided by Representatives BONILLA and Livingston. The NAS will complete its study by January 2001. As intended by Congress and the President, the NAS study will assist OSHA a nd the Congress in determining whether sound science supports a comprehensive ergonomics r egulation as envisioned by OSHA.
In theory, an ergonomics r egulation would attempt to reduce musculoskeletal disorders, such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, muscle aches and back pain, which, in some instances, have been attributed to on-the-job activities. However, the medical community is divided sharply on whether scientific
[Page: S5496] GPO's PDF
Regrettably, rather than waiting for NAS' findings, OSHA n ow plans to publish a proposed rule by September of 1999. In fact, OSHA o fficials have suggested that a final rule could be issued by the end of 2000--just a few months before NAS will complete its study. This simply doesn't make sense. The NAS study should identify scientific and medical studies that are based on sound science and provide solid scientific evidence regarding the causation of ergonomics i njuries. Our intent is simply to ensure that the requirements of any ergonomics p rogram proposed by OSHA a re based on sound science and are effective to improve workplace safety and health. It only makes sense for OSHA t o wait for the scientific and medical information needed to know whether it is headed down the right path.
Waiting for the NAS study won't stop the progress being made as ergonomic principles are applied to the workplace. And, progress is being made. According to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of injuries and illnesses involving repeated trauma, strains, sprains, tears, and carpal tunnel syndrome are all on the decline. Employers are actively implementing measures to address ergonomic risk factors. The SENSE Act is in no way intended to discourage employers from continuing to implement voluntary measures where appropriate and effective. Similarly, the SENSE Act does not prevent OSHA f rom continuing to work on ergonomics. In fact, I would encourage OSHA t o use the time prior to the completion of the NAS study to research ergonomics f urther, identify successful prevention strategies, and provide technical assistance. For those who would argue that waiting for the NAS study will result in more employees being injury, OSHA c an exercise its enforcement authority under the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, to ensure a safe workplace and address any significant ergonomic hazards. My bill doesn't change that authority provided under current law.
Simply put, the SENSE Act requires OSHA t o wait for NAS to complete its study and submit the findings in a report to Congress. Congress would then have 30 days to review the final report before OSHA i ssues proposed or final regulations, standards or guidelines. From where I stand, it only makes sense for Congress and OSHA t o have the benefit of the NAS study before OSHA p roposes to require employers to implement a comprehensive program addressing musculoskeletal disorders.
Tomorrow in the other body, the compansion bill to the SENSE Act is scheduled for mark up. H.R. 987, known as the ``Workplace Preservation Act,'' was introduced by Representantive ROY BLUNT from Missouri on March 4. Representative BLUNT is doing an excellent job shepherding his bill through the other body. In fact, his efforts have produced a bipartisan list of 138 cosponsors. I expect the Senate to show similar support for our Nation's small businesses.
I urge my collagues in the Senate to take a good look at the SENSE Act and join us in supporting legislation to ensure that the federal government does not propose an ergonomics r egulation for small businesses until Congress can assess the findings of the NAS study.
I ask unanimous consent that the Sensible Ergonomics N eeds Scientific Evidence (SENSE) Act be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Sensible Ergonomics N eeds Scientific Evidence Act'' or the ``SENSE Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Department of Labor, through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (referred to in this Act as ``OSHA''), has announced that it plans to propose regulations d uring 1999 to regulate ``ergonomics'' i n the workplace. A draft of OSHA's e rgonomics r egulation became available in February 19, 1999.
(2) In October, 1998, Congress and the President agreed that the National Academy of Sciences shall 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. 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 t o propose a regulation on ergonomics a s being necessary or appropriate to improve workers' health and safety until such study is completed.
(3) An August, 1998, workshop on ``work related musculoskeletal injuries'' held by the National Academy of Sciences reviewed existing research on musculoskeletal disorders. It showed that there is insufficient evidence to assess the level of risk to workers from repetitive motions.
(4) A July, 1997, report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reviewing 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.
SEC. 3. DELAY OF STANDARD, REGULATION OR GUIDELINE.
The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, may not propose or issue in final form any standard, regulation, or guideline on ergonomics u ntil--
(1) the National Academy of Sciences--
(A) completes a peer-reviewed scientific study, as mandated by Public Law 105-277, of the available evidence examining a cause and effect relationship between repetitive tasks in the workplace and musculoskeletal disorders or repetitive stress injuries; and
(B) submits to Congress a report setting forth the findings resulting from such study; and
(2) the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the final report under paragraph (1)(B) is submitted to Congress.
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. CRAIG):
S. 1071. A bill to designate the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory as the Center of Excellence for Environmental Stewardship of the Department of Energy land, and establish the Natural Resources Institute within the Center; to the Committee on Armed Services.
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND NATURAL RESOURCES ACT OF 1999
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Environmental Stewardship and Natural Resources Act which I am introducing today with Senator CRAIG as cosponsor.
The nuclear defense capability of the United States has protected our form of government and ensured our freedoms since its inception during World War II. In order to sustain and develop our nuclear deterrence, a vast industrial complex was established. This complex of facilities was built under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission and its successor agency, the Department of Energy. Uranium mines, factories, laboratories, and reactors were located throughout the country to provide nuclear and conventional components for weapons. These facilities were mostly located on large tracts of land, which also included surrounding buffer areas for security.
With the end of the cold war, and the mutual reduction of the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals, many of our nuclear facilities are closing, changing or reducing their missions. Land management at these facilities, throughout their production lives was limited to accomplishing their missions and providing isolation and security. Protection of the ecosystems and natural resources, on which our nuclear arsenal was built, did not rate high priority in the agency's planning. Any environmental benefits or natural resources protection on these facilities was truly incidental to their isolation.
In addition to lack of natural resource planning, there exists a contamination legacy which has resulted in the largest and most expensive cleanup program in the federal government. Regardless of the effectiveness and efficiency of the cleanup program, some levels of contaminants will remain, and will need to be monitored and managed. Long term stewardship is the process of managing and protecting the natural resources that are unaffected by contamination, and also the continual monitoring and stabilization of contaminants that remain in place following mediation. Even after a
[Page: S5497] GPO's PDF
The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, INEEL, has a long history with the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Energy. Originally known as the National Reactor Testing Station, this site constructed, tested, and operated 52 reactors for various defense and civilian purposes since the early 1950's. All but a handful of these reactors have been decontaminated and dismantled. In addition to this nuclear mission, the INEEL has developed expertise and experience in the modeling the movement of contaminants in the environment; and research and development of technologies necessary for the detection, monitoring, stabilization, and mediation of contamination. I propose, with this bill, to establsh the INEEL as the Department of Energy Center of Excellence for the development of technologies, techniques, and methodologies for the implementation of an effective Long Term Stewardship program throughout the nuclear weapons production complex.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents