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
e of the Ergonomics Rulemaking.
Conflict of interest laws and regulations apply only to employees of the federal government. In some instances, agencies hire
[Page: S5642] GPO's PDF
ACCESS TO DOCUMENT
1. OSHA recognizes the importance of Members of Congress understanding the rulemaking process. That is why we work so hard to provide information to Members of Congress as expeditiously as possible. For example, in response to a request from the House Government Reform Committee dated May 10, 2000, OSHA promptly provided a list of contractors who worked on the current ergonomics rulemaking.
2. Once the House Committee expressed an interest in reviewing other documents, OSHA worked with the House to provide them with full and complete access to the documents on a timely basis. The House Committee agreed to treat these documents the same way OSHA does, and in a manner that protects the integrity of an ongoing rulemaking.
3. Senator Enzi made his first request for information only nine days ago (June 13, 2000). Immediaately following his request, OSHA Assistant Secretary Jeffress talked with Senator Enzi twice about his request for documents. Department of Labor staff and Senator Enzi's staff also talked to figure out how to most expeditiously respond to his request and at the same time protect the integrity of an open and ongoing rulemaking by treating the documents exactly the same way that the House had already agreed to treat them.
4. Senator Enzi claimed that OSHA failed to provide him with any information, but just three days after his original request, on June 16, 2000, OSHA responded to Senator Enzi's request and produced two boxes full of documents.
5. OSHA offered to meet with Senator Enzi and offered repeatedly to brief Senator Enzi about OSHA's use of expert witnesses in rulemakings.
6. On Tuesday, June 20, 2000, Senator Enzi's staff requested, for the first time, access to the materials provided to the House Committee. Under the terms of OSHA's agreement with the House Committee, Senator Enzi always had access to the documents he requested to see.
7. In order to accommodate the Senator's desire to review the documents in his office, OSHA offered to photocopy a complete set of the same documents provided to the House Committee immediately. Senator Enzi's staff refused this request because they were unwilling to agree to treat the materials they had requested in the exact same way that the House Committee had already agreed to treat the documents--in a way that protects an open, public rulemaking process as authorized by Congress.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, one problem with this debate is some of my colleagues come to the floor and make these points. Frankly, there does need to be a response.
My good friend from Arkansas says that what will happen with this OSHA rule, dealing with repetitive stress injury, is it will do severe damage to workers comp laws in our States.
There are some 12 attorneys general who have said in no way--including one who testified in our subcommittee--will that happen, including the attorney general from Arkansas who has said this will not impact workers compensation laws.
Then my colleagues say, this is a rush, they are rushing to promulgate a rule. It was Elizabeth Dole who, as Secretary of Labor, first pointed out that we needed to have an ergonomics rule because of the injuries taking place. My colleagues believe that this is a rush, though we have 600,000 workers every year who are severely injured.
I say to Senators, it is surprising to me when there is so much pain, when so many workers are injured, when they can no longer work, when they cannot sleep at night, when it has damaged families, when so many of the workers are women, that my colleagues don't want OSHA to do its job. The mission of OSHA is to protect workers. I am proud of the fact that OSHA is trying to promulgate this rule. I view this amendment as being nothing but blatant, political interference against this agency doing exactly the job it ought to do.
The same Senators who say OSHA is rushing after 10 years to promulgate a rule to protect workers, to have a safer workplace, they also believe we are rushing tonight to provide prescription drug benefits for senior citizens. Where have Senators been? On another planet? In Minnesota, 65 percent of senior citizens have no prescription drug coverage. It is an important issue to their lives, their children, and their grandchildren.
Do I need to come to the floor and tell Members about people who are paying 50 or 60 percent of their monthly budget because of prescription drug costs? And then Members come on the floor and say: It is not time; we are rushing; we better not support this legislation.
I don't know when Members think the time will come. I think the time has come. I think Democrats think the time has come. I agree with my colleague, Senator DURBIN, this is a values debate. This is about where we stand. As a Senator from Minnesota, I stand with working people. I stand for a safer workplace. And I certainly stand for trying to help senior citizens meet prescription drug costs so they are able to get the prescription drugs that are so essential for their health. I need not say anything else.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. SMITH.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I rise in support of the Enzi amendment.
Senator ENZI's amendment would delay the costliest mandate ever imposed on small businesses.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, has published a rule that is the broadest and most expensive rule ever, let me say that again, ever proposed by OSHA. There needs to be more study of this rule before it is implemented.
Ergonomics is the science of fitting the job to the worker.
The OSHA proposed ergonomics rule would require employers to eliminate or materially reduce hazards in the workplace that lead to injuries such as carpal tunnel, tendinitis, and back injuries.
OSHA's cost estimate is $4.2 billion a year. Clinton administration's own Small Business Administration reports that the true cost would be $40-$60 billion a year--at least 10 times OSHA's estimate.
The Heritage Foundation estimates that the cost would be $5.7 billion to $10.8 billion per year without adding in the cost to state and local governments, and $6.6 billion to $12.5 billion per year if public-sector workers are included. Private industry estimates the bill's cost would be even higher.
OSHA expects that the proposed rule will significantly increase the number of requests for state compliance assistance and consultation services. That means this regulation will cost even more money.
The ergonomics rule probably would expand state workers' compensation systems, increasing claims and fraud.
This is yet again, an unfunded mandate on the states. Yet the OSHA has a limited public comment period that does not take into consideration the huge cost to business and the probable stress to the unprecedented economic growth that the U.S. is currently experiencing.
I urge your support for Senator ENZI's amendment, so that OSHA can reassess their proposed regulation that would burden the business community with a costly regulation.
On the prescription drug plan, I oppose the Robb plan. In my hand is a report, the actuarial report from Norman and Robinson, which says it will cost seniors $40 per month, up to almost $500 a year, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars to the taxpayers. That is the Robb plan.
Senator ALLARD and I have a plan and we want to try to get the attention of the Finance Committee. This plan has no premium increases on seniors. It saves seniors $550 a year. It is budget neutral. It covers 50 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $5,000.
Those are the two alternatives. This was done by King Associates. Guy King was a former actuary at HCFA.
I think the distinction is clear. How did we help seniors by raising premiums, when we don't have to raise premiums with this plan?
I hope my colleagues pay close attention to what Mr. King has said. This plan is sound.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 7 minutes, the Senator from Delaware 3 minutes, and the Senator from Wyoming has 8 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
[Page: S5643] GPO's PDF
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will sum up where we are on these two extremely important issues, one involving safety in the workplace.
The whole issue of ergonomics addresses the most important worker safety issue in the workplace. Now we have an amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, my dear friend, who wants to undermine what has been a 10-year review and a study about how we can provide protection for workers in the workplace who are affected by ergonomics.
As has been pointed out, this whole issue was raised by Secretary Dole in the Bush administration who called ergonomic injuries one of the Nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health issues. Since that time, there have been over 2,000 studies on ergonomics carried out.
In 1997, NIOSH, the principal agency of Government that studies these issues, reviewed 600 of the most important of these studies. They made recommendations. In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the studies again and again, and they came to the same conclusion. The fact is, the science is clear. The question is whether we will have the will and the determination to take steps to protect our workers. We know what needs to be done. The subject has been studied. Now we have the chance to take a step to protect American workers.
These are the facts: 35 percent of the most harmful injuries in the workplace are ergonomic injuries. That is what is happening today. More than 600,000 workers are affected. When you look at who are disproportionately harmed by ergonomic hazards, in lost time, 67 percent who lost working time from repetitive motion injuries were women, and those who lost work time for carpal tunnel injuries were women again, 77 percent. This is a woman's issue; this is a worker's issue.
The science is overwhelming. The fact is, historically we have been prepared to take actions to make the workplace safe. We had the great development of our mining systems, and we passed mine safety legislation. Now we need to pass legislation to protect American workers in this area.
It has been studied, restudied, and studied again. Once again, we are being asked to discard the various studies and reviews and put the profits of the private sector ahead of the interests of the workers. That is wrong. That is the issue: Are we going to stand for workers or are we going to stand for the profits of the industries in this country?
On the second issue, Medicare, I was there, like most of the Members of the Senate, when the President of the United States, in his State of the Union Address, asked the Congress of the United States to pass a prescription drug program based upon Medicare that would deal with the incredible hardship of so many of our seniors.
I was also here in 1964 and 1965 when the Senate eventually passed the Medicare program. This issue was discussed during that period of time: Were we going to pass a prescription drug program. The judgment at that time was: Let's pass in Medicare what they are doing in the private sector. A great majority of the private sector, over 90 percent, did not include a prescription drug program, so we did not pass one in the Medicare program. At that time, less than 3 percent of every dollar expended was used for prescription drugs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 more minutes.
Now it is 20 to 30 percent, as the Senator from Florida has pointed out. We now know this is absolutely an essential need for our seniors. How much more does it have to be studied?
With all due respect to the Finance Committee, they had a
whole set of hearings last year. We did not have any legislation reported out from the Finance Committee. We have not had any legislation reported in the final weeks of this Congress. We have no commitment that the chairman of the Finance Committee or the Finance Committee members will say: We will have a prescription drug bill on the floor of the Senate for you in July--absolutely not.
We have a well-thought-out program that can make the difference for our senior citizens. When Medicare was passed, it was a fundamental commitment by the Federal Government to senior citizens: Work hard, play by the rules, and your health care needs will be attended to. That was the commitment in 1964 and 1965.
Every day we fail to pass a prescription drug benefit, we are violating that commitment. Every single day, we find our seniors are in pain and agony and suffering irreparable damage, in many cases because they cannot afford a prescription drug program. That is a fact. That promise is being broken every day because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. This is wrong. This is fundamentally wrong. Every Member of the Senate knows it in their hearts. Every family in America knows it is wrong. Certainly, every senior citizen knows it is wrong.
We have a chance to do something right. We have a chance to put the health care of our senior citizens ahead of the profits of the private special interests.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 1 more minute.
That is what this vote is all about. For whom are we going to stand? This is the vote on prescription drugs. This is a program that is tied to the Medicare system. Our elderly people understand Medicare. They believe in Medicare. They know the need for prescription drugs. It is as simple and fundamental as that. It is comprehensive, it is all inclusive, it is affordable, and it will meet the needs of our senior citizens.
That is the vote we are going to have in the Senate, and we should meet our commitments to our senior citizens. We know what their needs are. We should meet them. We have that opportunity tonight. Let us not fail them.
I withhold the remainder of my time.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I congratulate and compliment my friend and colleague from Wyoming, as well as the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. HUTCHINSON, because they have offered an amendment that is one of the most important amendments we are going to vote on this year. The Clinton administration is trying to push forward an ergonomics rule that will have a draconian, negative impact on every single business in America.
I want all my colleagues to know if this amendment is not adopted, if this ergonomics rule goes forward, there will be significant costs. Employers will be coming up to you asking: Why did you do this to me? I have some bureaucrat coming in and telling me how to run my business.
I have a quote given by the individual who wrote these regs. She said:
I love it; I absolutely love it. I was born to regulate. I don't know why, but that's very true. So as long as I am regulating, I'm happy.
And she came up with the largest regulation in OSHA's history on business. The Small Business Administration estimated it will cost $60 billion a year, 15 times the cost that OSHA said. People in the private sector said it will cost over $100 billion a year. And the administration wants this to go forward right after the election, right before we have a change of administration.
Senator KENNEDY said this has been studied. Congress passed, in 1998, $890,000 for a study by the National Academy of Sciences. They are going to complete that study in January. We should let them do it. We should base this regulation on science, real science, not on a political agenda. They want to cram through an extensive regulation where bureaucrats are telling employees how to run their business, and to do that right before the election, before the next administration, will be a serious mistake.
We need to stop it, and the way to stop it is to adopt the Enzi amendment. I say to my colleagues, this is probably the most important free-enterprise, private-sector initiative you'll vote on this year: If this year you believe business should be making decisions, support the amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Enzi amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. I yield myself 3 minutes.
[Page: S5644] GPO's PDF
The other side today has spent most of the day avoiding the ergonomics debate. Part of the debate was on the floods in North Dakota. That is because they do not have an answer to what we have been saying all day. We, too, are concerned about worker safety. We have been doing things for worker safety. Companies in this country have been doing things for worker safety. In fact, I appreciate the ranking member of my subcommittee mentioning today a couple of companies in his State that have made tremendous strides in worker safety, including ergonomics.
I am so pleased to report that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, last year there was a 24-percent decrease in ergonomics accidents. Companies are doing something. They are doing what they can think of.
If the same $1.8 million that has been spent on getting testimony for this rule had been used and focused particularly on small business to make sure they had the information to make the ergonomics changes in their work site, we would have even more workplace safety.
But, no, we have been paying contractors to testify. Has the Department disclosed that? No. They think these people have been volunteering their time, just like everybody else. Not only that, they edited their text for them. They had mock sessions so these experts could do it correctly. Then they paid them to rip the opposition. That is not testimony. That is the expertise that we ought to have in the workers comp department.
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