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

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Continued -- (Senate - October 07, 1999)

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]  GPO's PDF

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]  GPO's PDF

(6) The National Academy of Sciences currently estimates that this study will be completed late in 2000 or early in 2001.

(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]  GPO's PDF

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.

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