Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues to express our profound sorrow at the loss of a dear friend and an outstanding Senator. John Chafee was probably the finest gentleman ever to serve in this body. We offer our sincerest regrets, our sympathies, and our prayers to his family. I stopped by his office today and expressed my sense of loss to his staff. We express, collectively, our deep sorrow to the people of Rhode Island, but, beyond that to the people of the entire Nation who in many different ways, in many different areas, were served so well by John Chafee throughout his career. We have just heard very eloquent remarks from the majority leader and his colleague from Rhode Island, summarizing some of the many things that John Chafee has done. It would take several volumes of the Congressional Record to go through his list of achievements and the things that he has done for the least among us to further the causes in which he felt so strongly. But I rise today to express gratitude and to celebrate the legacy that he left us. If you had to ask somebody: Who is the most decent person that you know of in politics? chances are, John Chafee would be at the top of that list. He was a man, as has been said, who had very strong feelings. He fought hard for principles, but he fought so with unfailing courtesy, with compassion and kindness and consideration for others who had differing views. I had the privilege of working with him on a health care task force in 1993 and 1994. I sat in a room and listened to him bring together people of very strongly opposing views. Always, without fail, he guided the discussions away from bitterness, away from harshness, into constructive channels. I was pleased to work with him on environmental and public works issues. And he was a great leader of a committee that has very contentious issues. He worked together with his leadership. We made progress, sometimes in areas where people thought progress could not be made. I followed his work on so many issues affecting health care and children from his position in the Finance Committee. He was there to move not just this body but the country forward in assuring that we would meet the needs of children. Whether it was Medicaid for poor children or the foster care bill that he was recently championing, he was always looking out for those in need; but he did so in a manner that is a good lesson for all of us. When somebody got carried away and attacked him, perhaps a little too strongly, he turned it away with a warm smile and understanding. When views got very heated and the arguments got passionate, he would calm it down with a kind word and steer the discussion and the debate back in a constructive pattern. When some of us had personal reverses, John Chafee was there quietly, as a friend, to lend support, to lend encouragement, and to let us know that we had a friend, somebody who cared for us. If there is one thing I hope this body will remember, it is that record, that unfailing, consistent pattern of being, first and foremost, a concerned human being who was a dear friend. I hope that legacy can guide this body, that all of us can strive to emulate his service, his compassion, and his caring. As our thoughts and prayers go out to his family, his loved ones, and to all who will miss him, I hope we will remember and hold high those principles which he not only espoused but he lived. I am from Missouri. One of our slogans is: Show me. John Chafee's life showed us every day, every hour in this body what a fine human being can do to move the process of government forward on a constructive path. I only hope we can hold dear and remember those lessons he taught us. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``EPA Fails Small Businesses: EPA Fails to Consider Small Businesses During Recent Rulemaking.'' The hearing will be held on Thursday, October 28, 1999, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428 Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact John Stoody or Marc Freedman at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. The Senator from Vermont has accurately described the intentions of the Conference Report accompanying the FY 2000 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. The Senator from Iowa is correct, the language was inadvertently left out of the FY 2000 conference report and it was our intention to have the language included.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. That is correct.

Mr. BOND. That is correct.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. As do I.

Mr. BOND. Do I understand the Senator from Arizona is not going to take 5 minutes? He yielded that time? He is not speaking. I reserve the remainder of my time and turn to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. BOND. The Senator's understanding is correct. The clear intent of this year's Senate report is to carry last year's directives forward for another year. If Congress, and the authorizing and appropriations committees, in particular, are to make a full and fair assessment of the Administration's programs and proposals, then submission of agency climate change reports with the President's FY 2001 budget is both necessary and expected. EDI Special Purpose Grants

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the generosity of the majority and minority leaders for allowing us to proceed on the consideration of the Senate conference report to accompany H.R. 2684. I ask that the Chair advise me when 5 minutes have been utilized. I want to save some of my time and be able to yield to my distinguished colleague from Maryland. This has been a very difficult bill, not unlike, as someone suggested, riding a tilt-a-whirl at the county fair. I am glad to say the ride is over. It was fun while it lasted. We are finally on solid ground with this conference report. We have a bill that meets many priorities of the Members and I think addresses fairly a number of concerns of the administration without totally satisfying everyone. First, my sincerest thanks to Senators Stevens and Byrd for helping us to reach an adequate allocation. Without their help, this bill would still be a work in progress, and we would not be able to complete it. A very special thanks once again to Senator Mikulski, who worked with us to find a good balance in making some very difficult funding decisions. It was a pleasure as always to have her good guidance and sound judgment. I believe she will join me in saying a special thanks to the new Chair and ranking member in the House, Chairman Walsh, and Congressman Mollohan, who were a tremendous pleasure to work with. We appreciate their assistance. My thanks to staff on the minority side: Paul Carliner Jeannie Schroeder, and Sean Smith; on my side, a very special thanks to Jon Kamarck, Julie Dammann, Carolyn Apostolou, and Cheh Kim. I believe the bill before the Senate is a very good bill with funds allocated to the most pressing needs we face. Total spending is $72 billion in budget authority and $82.6 billion in outlays. It is roughly the same as the President's overall request for the VA-HUD subcommittee, plus FEMA emergency funds. Unlike the President's budget, the highest priority is the recommendation before the Senate for VA medical care, which has increased $1.7 billion above the President's request as directed by this body, and it is fully paid for in the bill. We have also included significant new funds for 60,000 incremental vouchers, additional funds above the President's request for public housing, capital and operating funds, as well as the President's request for NSF, and an additional $75 million for NASA. All of these funding levels have been fully offset. In addition, there has been $2.5 billion in emergency FEMA funding for the victims of Hurricane Floyd, to whom our hearts go out. As I noted, the conference agreement provides $44.3 billion for veterans funding, which includes a full $1.7 billion for medical care. This is the largest increase ever for VA medical care--clearly the highest priority of this body. I point out that the vouchers we have provided do not create additional housing. There was discussion on this floor that we desperately need to increase the production of affordable low-income housing. In many areas, such as St. Louis in my State, housing is not available for the vouchers that are there. We have had to use budget gimmicks suggested by the administration, deferring $4.2 billion of section 8 funding for fiscal year 2000 expiring section 8 contracts until fiscal year 2001. That will create an additional $8 million funding requirement, or some $14 billion in BA needed in fiscal year 2000 if we intend to renew all expiring section 8 contracts. To be clear, this means we will go into next year's appropriation cycle with a funding shortfall of over $8 billion. We emphasized our concern to the administration for their failure to work with Members on dealing with this funding crisis. Last year they promised to help, but the only thing we got this year was a deferral of $4.2 billion. This year, in discussions and negotiations, we reached agreement with Jack Lew, the Director of OMB, who has personally promised they will work with Members to address the funding shortfall in BA in the section 8 account. We expect Mr. Lew and the administration to live up to that commitment. Nevertheless, we cannot keep writing blank checks on an empty account. The outyear projections we have from OMB are for flat funding, which means 1.3 million families kicked out of section 8 housing. To reiterate: Many of us have been hearing from veterans in our state for some time about their concerns with VA's budget. They have been hearing that their local VA hospital may lose numerous employees, terminate critical services, increase waiting times for appointments, may even shut down altogether. The additional $1.7 billion above the President will ensure none of these things happen. VA will be above to expand services and care to thousands of additional veterans. VA will be able to accommodate increased costs associated with pharmaceuticals, prosthetics, and pay raises. At the same time, we strongly support continued improvements and reforms to the VA health care system to ensure VA medical care dollars go to health care for vets, not maintaining buildings and the status quo. Other increases in VA's budget include VA research, the state cemetery grant program, the state nursing home construction grant program, and the Veterans Benefits Administration. These are all critical programs and very high priorities. EPA funding totals $7.6 billion, the same as FY99 and $383 million above the President's request. Funding increase were provided for the state revolving funds--which the President had proposed cutting by $550 million. We have accommodated administration concerns in such areas as the Montreal Protocol. We were forced to make some tough choices and eliminate or reduce lower priority, lower risk programs in order to accommodate higher priorities. The appropriation protects core EPA programs such as NPDES permitting, RCRA corrective action, and pesticides registration and re- registration. FEMA funding totals $870 million, an increase of $44 million over FY99. This includes an increase of $10 million for the emergency food and shelter grant program, $25 million for the Project Impact grant program, $5 million in start-up funds for the flood map modernization initiative, and increases in critical programs such as anti-terrorism training. In addition, we have included $2.5 billion in emergency disaster assistance--funding which is truly needed. We have funded the Department of Housing and Urban Development at $27.16 billion, which is some $2.5 billion over last year's level and which will allow us to put HUD on some very solid ground. Because of the priority needs for our veterans, we had to make some tough choices, and in HUD's case, that meant not funding any of HUD's 19 new programs and initiatives. Instead, we have focused on funding HUD's core programs, such as public housing, CDBG, HOME, Drug Elimination grants, and Homeless Assistance and Section 202 Housing for the elderly. These are the key housing and community development programs that make a critical difference in people's lives, and they are programs with a proven track record. Also, we funded 60,000 new incremental vouchers. I continue to have major concerns about this program--vouchers do not produce or assist in the financing of any new housing and we desperately need to increase the production of affordable, low-income housing. In addition, in many areas of the country, including areas in my state such as St. Louis, vouchers are very difficult to use--the housing which is affordable under the voucher program is just not available. In addition, against my better judgment but because we do not have the funds in our allocation to meet the funding needs of our key programs, we have used the Administration's budget gimmick of deferring $4.2 billion of section 8 funding for fiscal year 2000 expiring contracts until fiscal year 2001. This will create an additional $8 billion funding requirement for a total of some $14 billion in BA needed in fiscal year 2001 if we intend to renew all expiring section 8 contracts--to be clear, this means we already have a funding shortfall in the VA/HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 of over $8 billion. I want to emphasize my concern with the Administration's past failure to address this section 8 funding crisis; the Administration has created this hole and up to now has not acted responsibly in meeting these funding requirements. And I have gone to the top. In this year's negotiations on the VA/HUD appropriations bill, Jack Lew, the Director of OMB, personally has promised to address the funding shortfall in the section 8 account. I expect Mr. Lew and the Administration to live up to this commitment. Nevertheless, this is the same song and dance we heard from HUD last year when the Secretary of HUD personally promised to address section 8 costs and them responded by pushing much of the section 8 costs into FY 2001 and the outyears. Writing blank checks on an empty account is unacceptable, and under the Administration's outyear budget projections, section 8 contract renewal funding will be flat funded at $11.5 billion which means over the next 10 years some 1.3 million section families will lose their housing. This is wrong and I do not plan to sit by and let it happen. I also want to emphasize several issues of particular importance to me. First, I introduced the ``Save My Home Act of 1999'' earlier this year to require HUD to renew expiring below-market section 8 contracts at a market rate for elderly and disabled projects and in circumstances where the housing is located in a low vacancy area, such as a rural area or high cost area. The bill also provides new authority for section 8 enhanced or ``sticky'' vouchers to ensure that families in housing for which owners do not renew their section 8 contracts will be able to continue to live in their homes with the Federal government picking up the additional rental costs of the units. It is important to preserve this housing, and these provisions are included in the VA/HUD appropriations bill as well as other important elderly housing reforms. With respect to NASA, the bill funds the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at $75 million above the President's request of $13.6 billion, including needed funding for the International Space Station and the Shuttle. I know NASA funding was a huge concern for many Members because of the House reductions of some $900 million. For the National Science Foundation, the bill includes over $3.9 billion, which approximates the Administration's request. NSF's allocation is over $240 million more than last year's enacted level-- about a 6 percent increase. This increase in funds continues our commitment and support for the Nation's basic research and education needs. Some of the major highlights of this allocation include $126 million in additional funds for computer and information science and engineering activities; $60 million for the important Plant Genome Program; and $50 million for the Administration's ``Biocomplexity'' initiative.

Mr. BOND. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his questions. Your understanding is correct. The provision is not intended to restrict ongoing, voluntary programs and initiatives such as you have described or to limit efforts to meet the conditions of S. Res. 98. Rather, it is intended to prevent the Administration from proposing or issuing administrative rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the sole purpose of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol prior to its consideration by the Senate.

Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct in his understanding of section 425. climate change language

Mr. BOND. Funds are to be allocated to the WRAP and all states in an equitable manner.

Mr. BOND. I am pleased to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Montana, who also serves on the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee. Clarifying the committee's position on how EPA should distribute fiscal year 2000 funding to the states to implement the new regional haze rule is an important matter to me.

Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct in his understanding. clarification on state funding by epa for the regional haze rule

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his comments on the lack of available housing. We have been talking about the lack of available housing. Over the years prior to the time my ranking member and I were leading this committee, we stopped issuing long-term, 15-year section 8 vouchers. Those long-term vouchers were sufficient to generate new housing. The 1-year vouchers we now issue generally under the section 8 program do not create any new housing. As I said in my opening remarks, half the vouchers issued in St. Louis County have already been used. We have programs such as the HOME program, the CDBG program, the section 202 elderly, the section 811, disabled, the hop-up program and HOPE VI programs which do provide housing. We also provided additional assistance to maintain the public housing stock that is in danger of falling into disuse and becoming HOPE VI housing. That having been said, part of our discussions with the administration and with the authorizing committee will be the need to look at how we are going to assure there is adequate housing stock. This is a question not just in the appropriations process where we are putting in money where we can to create new housing; it is something we have to work on with the Finance Committee to make sure low-income housing credits exist. This is a problem that simply adding some incremental section 8 vouchers is not going to solve; that and the budget authority problem for section 8 we will have to deal with next year. The Senator also laid out a good argument for authorizing the committee to consider expanding veterans' benefits and programs. Again, we are happy to work with the authorizing committee when it gets beyond the appropriations measures and attempts to improve the programs in addition to just funding them. Again, my very special thanks to the distinguished Senator from Maryland whose guidance, and not just assistance, but guidance and good humor, made this ride on the tilt-a-whirl an enjoyable one, even though somewhat too exciting at times. I thank her. Her help and her persuasion, and that of the administration, helped us achieve passage of this bill. I reiterate my thanks particularly to Paul Carliner on that side and the great John Kamarck on our side, as well as the other staffers. I yield the floor and yield back my time.

Mr. BOND. Absolutely. First, I totally agree with distinguished ranking member of the VA-HUD subcommittee's account of how this typographical error transpired. Second, I agree that this error is typographical in nature and contrary to the intent of the conferees. Finally, I will work with Senators Mikulski, Byrd, and Stevens to ensure that this typographical error will be corrected in another appropriations measure before this session of Congress ends.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I believe is vitally important to the health care of children and pregnant women in America. The goal of this legislation is simple--to make sure more pregnant women and more children are covered by health insurance so they have access to the health care services they need to be healthy. The need is great--on any given day, almost 12 million children and almost half a million pregnant women do not have health insurance coverage. For many of these women and children, they or their family simply can't afford insurance. Many others are actually eligible for a public program like Medicaid or CHIP, but they don't know they are eligible and are not signed up. Lack of health insurance can lead to numerous health problems, both for children and for pregnant women. A child without health coverage is much less likely to receive the health care services that are needed to ensure the child is healthy, happy, and fully able to learn and grow. An uninsured pregnant woman is much less likely to get critical prenatal care that reduces the risk of health problems for both the woman and the child. Babies whose mothers receive no prenatal care or late prenatal care are at-risk for many health problems, including birth defects, premature births, and low birth-weight. The bill I am introducing--along with Senators Breaux, McCain, and Baucus--deals with this insurance problem in two ways. First, it allows states to provide prenatal care for low-income pregnant women under the state's CHIP program if the state chooses. Through the joint federal-state Children's Health Insurance Program, states are currently expanding the availability of health insurance for low-income children. However, federal law prevents states from using CHIP funds to provide prenatal care to low-income pregnant women over age 19, even though babies born to many low-income women become eligible for CHIP as soon as they are born. As many as 45,000 additional women could be covered for prenatal care. There are literally billions of dollars of CHIP funds that states have not used yet, so I would hope that most states would choose this option. This provision will not impact federal CHIP expenditures because it does not change the existing federal spending caps for CHIP. Babies born to pregnant women covered by a state's CHIP program would be automatically enrolled and receive immediate coverage under CHIP themselves. It is foolish to deny prenatal care to a pregnant mother and then--only after the baby is born--provide the child with coverage under CHIP. Prenatal care can be just as important to a newborn baby as postnatal care, and the prenatal care is of course important for the mother as well. Second, the bill will help states reach out to women and children who are eligible for--but not signed up for--Medicaid or CHIP. 358,000 pregnant women and 3 million children are estimated to be eligible for but not enrolled in Medicaid. Millions of additional children are eligible for but not yet enrolled in CHIP. When Congress passed the welfare reform bill back in 1996, we created a $500 million fund that states could tap into to make sure that all Medicaid-eligible people stayed in Medicaid. The problem is that only about 10 percent of that fund has been used, and most states are about to lose their 3-year window of opportunity to use these funds. My bill would allow states continued access to these funds by eliminating the 3-year deadline, and it would give states more flexibility to use the funds to reach out to both Medicaid and CHIP-eligible women and children. This legislation is a smaller piece of a bill I introduced earlier this year called Healthy Kids 2000. By extracting it from the larger bill, we get a chance to show the widespread support I believe exists for these measures. I believe this is crucial legislation, and urge my colleagues to join me in support of it so that we can pass this bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I believe is vitally important to the health care of children and pregnant women in America. The goal of this legislation is simple--to make sure more pregnant women and more children are covered by health insurance so they have access to the health care services they need to be healthy. The need is great--on any given day, almost 12 million children and almost half a million pregnant women do not have health insurance coverage. For many of these women and children, they or their family simply can't afford insurance. Many others are actually eligible for a public program like Medicaid or CHIP, but they don't know they are eligible and are not signed up. Lack of health insurance can lead to numerous health problems, both for children and for pregnant women. A child without health coverage is much less likely to receive the health care services that are needed to ensure the child is healthy, happy, and fully able to learn and grow. An uninsured pregnant woman is much less likely to get critical prenatal care that reduces the risk of health problems for both the woman and the child. Babies whose mothers receive no prenatal care or late prenatal care are at-risk for many health problems, including birth defects, premature births, and low birth-weight. The bill I am introducing--along with Senators Breaux, McCain, and Baucus--deals with this insurance problem in two ways. First, it allows states to provide prenatal care for low-income pregnant women under the state's CHIP program if the state chooses. Through the joint federal-state Children's Health Insurance Program, states are currently expanding the availability of health insurance for low-income children. However, federal law prevents states from using CHIP funds to provide prenatal care to low-income pregnant women over age 19, even though babies born to many low-income women become eligible for CHIP as soon as they are born. As many as 45,000 additional women could be covered for prenatal care. There are literally billions of dollars of CHIP funds that states have not used yet, so I would hope that most states would choose this option. This provision will not impact federal CHIP expenditures because it does not change the existing federal spending caps for CHIP. Babies born to pregnant women covered by a state's CHIP program would be automatically enrolled and receive immediate coverage under CHIP themselves. It is foolish to deny prenatal care to a pregnant mother and then--only after the baby is born--provide the child with coverage under CHIP. Prenatal care can be just as important to a newborn baby as postnatal care, and the prenatal care is of course important for the mother as well. Second, the bill will help states reach out to women and children who are eligible for--but not signed up for--Medicaid or CHIP. 358,000 pregnant women and 3 million children are estimated to be eligible for but not enrolled in Medicaid. Millions of additional children are eligible for but not yet enrolled in CHIP. When Congress passed the welfare reform bill back in 1996, we created a $500 million fund that states could tap into to make sure that all Medicaid-eligible people stayed in Medicaid. The problem is that only about 10 percent of that fund has been used, and most states are about to lose their 3-year window of opportunity to use these funds. My bill would allow states continued access to these funds by eliminating the 3-year deadline, and it would give states more flexibility to use the funds to reach out to both Medicaid and CHIP-eligible women and children. This legislation is a smaller piece of a bill I introduced earlier this year called Healthy Kids 2000. By extracting it from the larger bill, we get a chance to show the widespread support I believe exists for these measures. I believe this is crucial legislation, and urge my colleagues to join me in support of it so that we can pass this bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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 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. 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 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.