John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I might just take a minute in opposition to the Senator's amendment. I have a great deal of respect for her, but I suggest the budget authorization doesn't do any of those things. The respective committees that are going to be authorizing this will decide how it is going to be spent. While the list is a nice list, it has nothing to do with reality because the Budget Committee does not make that decision. The respective committees that had jurisdiction are going to make the decision on how to spend the money. Anyone can stand up and read a laudatory list of noble things, but there is no assurance that will happen. I respect everything she said about the intent, but the committee of jurisdiction has to make those decisions. We do not make those decisions on the floor. Our amendment, however, does provide $70 billion specifically for education which allows that decision to be made. It does not come out of a nonexistent fund. That is the big difference.

Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask it be reported.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, how much time is left in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Maine?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we have only a minute. For the sake of our colleagues, this amendment simply takes $70 billion off the tax cut which is now at approximately a level of $1.275 trillion, I think. It says that $70 billion is going to be used for education purposes, and the purpose is to fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA; to put the money back where I think it is a high priority. This amendment is offered on behalf of myself and Senator Jeffords who has been a long-time champion for the funding of the IDEA program. This amendment does not take it out of the contingency fund. There is no more contingency fund. Remember the spectrum? Remember how many times we spent it? It is gone; agriculture and defense and everything else ate it up. If you want the $70 billion, there is only one place to get it, and my amendment provides the one place to get it by reducing the tax cuts. I ask my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I yield.

Mr. BREAUX. Further parliamentary inquiry: If there is an objection to the unanimous consent request to modify the Frist-Breaux amendment, would it not be in order at a later date to reoffer a Frist-Breaux amendment with that modification?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the modification to the Frist-Breaux amendment that is pending at the desk be offered.

Mr. BREAUX. I ask the Presiding Officer whether it would be appropriate for me now--I have two requests. First, would it be appropriate for me to now ask unanimous consent for a modification to the Frist-Breaux amendment?

Mr. BREAUX. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. BREAUX. Does the Senator think that the Health Insurance Association of America, or the National Rifle Association really needs any help from Members of Congress in raising corporate money to run those types of ads? My point is that those groups don't need Members of Congress to help them raise money to do the Flo ads, and the Harry and Louise ads. Those are corporate dollars. The pharmacy industry doesn't need Members of Congress to raise money to pay for ads attacking everybody in Congress.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, if it is all right, I will hand a copy to my colleague, since he is managing the bill, and allow him the chance to review it.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the author of the bill, the Senator from Tennessee, for yielding time to me. We have just heard a good explanation of the situation from the Senator from Kentucky about the concern of the so-called severability. Imagine most people in America scratching their heads and asking: What in the world is the Senate talking about --nonseverability, severability, and everything else? When we talk about severability, back in Louisiana they think someone lost an arm or a finger. They get very confused when we start talking about severability in legislation as an integral part of a bill. We have learned the mistake we make when we craft a carefully constructed compromise that people are allowed to vote for because it is carefully balanced with amendments through the legislative process and then have that legislation go to a court which says that one part of this bill we will take out and we are going to leave everything else, or the court will say they will take out half of it and leave everything else. We tried that in 1971 when we wrote the landmark Federal elections law. I was running for Congress then and was watching it very carefully, not knowing what in the world the results would be. But I looked at it at that time, as the people helped write it, as a carefully crafted compromise. It did not have a nonseverability clause in that legislation. When it left this body and it left the House, a lot of people said: This is a good balance; I got this in it; I got that in it; I got limits on contributions but we got limits on how they can spend it; therefore, I think this is a good package; it makes sense; it is reform. Because it didn't have a nonseverability clause in it, which we are trying to add in this legislation, when it got to the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, said: Well, this can stand and this can't stand; we are going to eliminate this and we are going to keep that. In essence, what they did was replace the role of the Congress in writing the legislation as they thought in their final words what was legitimate and what was constitutional. Guess what. We ended up for all of these years with a bill that was totally different from what the Congress had carefully crafted. In essence, what we ended up with was a bill that limited contributions but had no limits on expenditures. What we thought we were doing was saying, all right, we are going to reduce the money in campaigns, we are going to eliminate expenditures, and limit contributions. What we ended up with was only one-half of the equation. This body, the other body, this Congress and past Congresses learned from that monumental mistake. As the Senator from Kentucky pointed out, when we considered campaign finance legislation in subsequent Congresses, we didn't make that mistake. We considered it in the 101st Congress, the 102d Congress, and the 103d Congress. And in every one of those Congresses we did not make the same mistake that we made in 1971. We took the position in those acts of the Congress that the carefully crafted compromise was going to have to be accepted or rejected; the Court could not piecemeal it. They could not rewrite it. They could not decide in their wisdom what they thought was legitimate and keep that and throw out what they thought was unconstitutional. We did not make the mistake in the previous Congresses that we did the first time. I hope what we do here is to also recognize that we should say that this carefully crafted compromise, the ban on soft money to parties plus the restrictions on outside groups running sham ads 60 days before an election, are intricately tied together. They are part of the compromise. If you knock out one, you break the deal. Without this amendment, we will have perhaps only half of the deal being enacted into law and the other half disappearing because of a Court decision. That is not what the role of legislators should be. We should be putting together comprehensive packages with intricate amendments and compromises woven together to create a package. There are people who would not be for this legislation, I dare say, if they thought the Snowe-Jeffords legislation on money being spent on sham ads right before the election were not restricted in this bill. What do we say to those people who voted for it because of Snowe- Jeffords being part of it: That somehow it may not be there in the end? They would not have voted for the legislation. It is so significant that we have this nonseverability clause. It is very restrictive, and I want to expand it. I will ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment to the Frist-Breaux amendment which will include the soft money ban plus the Snowe-Jeffords amendment plus the Thompson amendment which increased the hard dollar contributions, that if any one of those three would be found to be unconstitutional, all three would fall. It makes no sense, I agree, to have the ban, for instance, on soft dollars to be declared unconstitutional, which it probably is not, but if it should be, then you would be left with a hard dollar increase. It makes no sense to say that, well, we could ban or declare unconstitutional the Snowe-Jeffords prohibition but yet still have the hard dollar increase. All three are integral parts of this compromise. I think the Frist-Breaux amendment should be amended to say that if either of those three essential ingredients is knocked down as unconstitutional, therefore, all three of them would fall. That would be the right thing to do. That doesn't mean the whole bill falls. Everything else is still there: The millionaire's amendment, the lowest unit rate for television would still be there, the ban on foreign contributions, the ban on solicitations. Those are all still improvements in the current system. When I try to explain nonseverability to people, it gets very confusing. I am probably as confused as anyone trying to explain it to our colleagues and to the press, and to the general public, who have to cover all of this. I try to use the analogy of ANWR which I think makes sense. The question of whether we drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a very controversial and contentious issue. Suppose we came to the floor of the Senate and someone said: All right, I am willing to allow for drilling in ANWR if you double the environmental requirements that would apply to that part of the United States. That amendment is adopted. People say: Well, with that amendment, I can support drilling for oil in ANWR because we have an amendment that doubles the environmental protections in that part of the world only. But then that bill goes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court says: Oops, sorry, you are all wrong, you can't do doubling of the environmental protections in only one part of the country. That part of the bill is unconstitutional. But the drilling for oil is OK. How would that treat all the Members of Congress who said: Well, I can vote for the carefully crafted compromise because at the same time we have doubled the environmental protections and therefore it is a comprehensive package and therefore it makes sense? To have the Court strike down the environmental protections while leaving the right to drill would be a sham on the Members of Congress who voted for the carefully crafted compromise. The same is true with regard to this controversial, complicated, emotional issue of how we handle campaigns in this country. All of the ingredients are essential to the compromise. To allow the Court to knock out one or two and leave the rest is to put into effect through law something that was never intended by the people who voted on it to ever occur. When you vote for all of the parts of the bill, you have the right to expect that all of the parts will survive. Someone said: Maybe we should do that for every piece of legislation. I say: Well, it may not be a bad idea, but certainly not a bad idea for things that are complicated and carefully crafted and subjected to numerous compromises that are part of the package. I am extremely concerned that we have a situation where we are going to ban soft money to the two political parties and somehow leave all of these groups and organizations that are running ads, special interest groups, basically single-interest groups, who will be able to continue to use all of the soft money they want to attack candidates for 2 years prior to our elections. None of these groups represents, I argue, the more moderate parts of both parties; they tend to be more extreme. Not all of them, some of them are moderate, but most are single-issue, one- issue groups that generally run only negative advertising against candidates. Addressing this with the Snowe-Jeffords amendment, saying that corporate and union contributions cannot fund any of these groups within 60 days of an election, is an important step. If we don't have the nonseverability and Snowe-Jeffords is knocked out, all of these groups could use corporate money to continue to blast candidates without us having the same ability to help our parties respond to those accusations. I am talking about groups such as those that ran the Flo ads on Medicare. None of the people on my side liked those at all. I am talking about groups that ran the Harry and Louise ads which used corporate contributions to run negative ads all the way up to 60 days before the election, if this amendment goes down. I am talking about the National Rifle Association. To people principally on my side of the aisle, how many times do we have to see Charlton Heston talking about why Democrats should not be elected and having corporate contributions pay for those ads? Those principally on my side who are saying we want to vote for this because it is a carefully crafted compromise ought to recognize that without the Frist-Breaux amendment, that carefully crafted compromise could cease to exist. What we have done is to abdicate our responsibility to legislate in a package, not with blinders on, and not looking at reality. I strongly support the nonseverability amendment. I plan at the appropriate time to ask that the amendment be modified in order to add a third category in addition to the soft money prohibition to parties and the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. I would add the Thompson amendment reflecting the increase in hard dollars, that any one of those three being declared unconstitutional would bring down all three of those. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. BREAUX. I take it the Senator from North Carolina, who supports Snowe-Jeffords, which would prohibit all these groups on this chart from using corporate dollars to attack candidates--these single-issue special interest groups--is that not an important amendment, that if it were to be declared unconstitutional, the rest of the bill would go into effect? Does this not bother the Senator that without the Snowe- Jeffords amendment all of these groups would be able to continue to use corporate dollars to attack candidates with no ability for the parties to defend them?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska for yielding me time. I rise in strong support of the Hagel amendment to the McCain-Feingold bill. Let me make two points this morning in reference to two arguments on the side that opposes the Hagel amendment. The first argument I have heard on the floor by my colleagues and friends is that somehow the Hagel amendment institutionalizes soft money going to political parties, as if it makes it legal or something. I would say to people who make that argument, where have you been? Both political parties receive huge amounts of unregulated, unrestricted money in terms of amounts that can be given to both political parties. I have in my hand a list. The first page is of soft money contributors to Democrats in our Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, and the second page lists over 100 soft money contributors to the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. There is an exactly similar list that could be made for the House of Representatives, the other body, which would list all the soft money contributors to the House's respective political committees. The same is true for the National Democratic Committee and the National Republican Committee. The Hagel amendment restricts their ability to do what they are doing to $60,000 a year. Now, you don't think that is going to be one large restriction on the current practice which is legal under the Supreme Court decision? You bet it is. Let me give you an example of what is occurring now without the Hagel amendment. On my side of the aisle, just to the Senate Campaign Committee, in the last cycle, the American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees gave our side $1,350,000. On the Republican side in relation to soft money going to their campaign committee, Freddie Mac gave them $670,250. Philip Morris gave them $550,000. On our side, the Service Employees International Union gave us $1,015,250. So the arguments somehow that the Hagel bill institutionalizes or legitimizes or makes legal the concept of soft money contributions to political parties is nonsense. What it does do is restrict it for the first time by an act of Congress to no more than $60,000 contributions. Every one of the contributors shown on these two pages is substantially in excess of $60,000. In fact, the lowest one--they quit counting them at $100,000. They do not even bother to list them below $100,000. There are two pages of over 100 soft money contributions currently going to the political parties to do voter registration, to do party-building activities, get-out-the-vote activities. For the first time an effort by Congress will say that they cannot give $1,350,000 to Democrats and they cannot give $670,000 to the Republican Senate Campaign Committee; they are limited to $60,000 for party-building activities. So the concept that somehow the Hagel legislation makes something legitimate that is not legal already is simply nonsense. It is already legal. For the first time, the Hagel bill restricts it, and in a major, major way. The second point I will make is the following. The popular concept and the argument that I read daily in the press and listen nightly to in the news is that McCain-Feingold somehow eliminates soft money in Federal elections. Nothing could be further from the truth. I get deeply upset by people in the press reporting this issue when they say that somehow the debate is over eliminating soft money in Federal elections. It does not do that. It limits it only to the political parties that can best use the money in a fair and balanced manner. The list behind me, which has been floating around for several days now--and I think it has caught the attention of many of our colleagues--is a list of advocacy groups that are not restricted by the soft money contributions that will be able to continue to be spent right up to the election--unrestricted, unreported, and are not affected in any way by this so-called soft money ban. You all remember some of the names on this list because you have seen them time and again on the airways in your States attacking you. And not being able to respond to these types of groups is the real fallacy of this legislation. Do you remember Charlton Heston? Do you remember ``Moses'' campaigning against many people on my side of the aisle, through the National Rifle Association? Well, if the McCain-Feingold bill passes, they would still be on the air; they would still have Charlton Heston, and they would still be attacking Democrats for their support of gun control. They could not be affected by the legislation that is working its way through the Senate. They use soft dollars. If anyone thinks somehow prohibiting Members from helping them raise money is going to have an effect on them, believe me, it will not. They have plenty of sources without anybody helping them. They have enough money to continue to run the ads, primarily against Democrats who support gun control. Do you remember the ``Flo'' ads on Medicare, Citizens for Better Medicare? Old Flo was there almost daily going after people who did not support what they thought was an appropriate Medicare reform bill and Medicare modernization. They will continue to have Flo on television. Flo will continue to be supported by soft money dollars, unrestricted, in any amount. Do you remember Harry and Louise? The Health Insurance Association of America would totally be unaffected by the McCain-Feingold bill. They would continue to do their ads right up to the election. Believe me, anyone who has the idea that 60 days before the election is going to adversely affect their activities has not been around very long. These groups do not wait until 60 days before the election. They start 2 years before an election. They are on the air in many of our States right now, today, going after incumbents that they do not like. They are unrestricted in how they can raise their money or how much they can spend. They don't care too much what happens 60 days before an election because their damage is already done. They will spend a year and 10 months beating you up. The only groups that are able to help in responding in kind is our State parties and our national parties. So my argument is simple. No. 1, the McCain-Feingold bill does not restrict soft money where it should be restricted: Special interests, single interest organizations, which could continue to operate, going after candidates every day right up to an election. I know that most of these groups also do not have a lot of moderates. By definition, special interest groups generally are not moderate-type organizations. They generally reflect the hard-core positions of both of our parties. Therefore, moderate Members who find themselves in the center of the political spectrum do not have any of these groups that are going to be out there defending their positions of moderation on particularly controversial issues. But the extreme wings of both of our parties, in many cases, will continue to be out there using unlimited amounts of soft money. If we are talking about Members being somehow beholding to these organizations, if you have these groups on your back for 2 years, see if they do not have an affect on how you vote and what your positions are going to be, particularly if the only groups that can help you in order to defend your position are the State parties which will not have a level playing field and the same ability to run ads. These groups are not keeping with what the American people would like to see us do. Therefore, my point is that the Hagel bill is a legitimate compromise. No. 1, it restricts the amount of soft money to $60,000 that can go to parties. That is a major restriction to both of our parties over what we currently are getting in terms of the millions from individual groups and individuals that the Hagel amendment would dramatically bring down to a more reasonable amount. Secondly, I think it is incredibly unfair. It creates a very serious unlevel playing field to say to Members in the real world that we will allow all of the special interest, single-issue organizations to continue to use soft money-- unrestricted in terms of the amount, unrestricted in how they can spend it--and yet we will be defenseless in terms of the parties coming to our defense. I urge the support for the Hagel amendment.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for his contribution in working so diligently to try to bring a degree of reform to our system and yet at the same time recognizing the practicalities of what we do in the real world. One of the most popular misconceptions that members of the press, as well as many Members of this body, the other body, and many people in the general public have of the underlying bill, the McCain-Feingold bill, is that somehow it takes the so-called soft money out of Federal elections. It simply does not do that. It only does it, as the distinguish Senator has pointed out, to probably the two most responsible organizations out there involved in Federal elections, and that is the Democratic Party, of which I am a member, and the Republican Party, of which the Senator from Nebraska is a member. It takes the so-called soft money out of the party operations, but it leaves it available to every other group in the United States, all of the so-called 501(c)(4) organizations and the 527 organizations, which under the McCain-Feingold bill would continue to be able to raise large sums of money--that is, unrestricted as to the amounts-- to be used in Federal elections and, in most cases, against Federal candidates. I do not know how anybody writing about what we are doing in this body tonight can say that this type of a bill, which leaves all of those areas unrestricted, somehow eliminates soft money in Federal elections. If you look at the list of groups that are single issue groups, special interest groups, that have been running ads since January of 1999--just that group--I have two columns of print that is so small I can hardly read it without putting it as far away from my eyes as I possibly can. But every group on this list would be untouched by the McCain-Feingold amendment--at least outside of 60 days before the election--with the adoption of the Wellstone amendment. It is very clear that most of the damage these groups do is not within 60 days of an election; it is the year before the election. It is the 2 years before the election. As in my State of Louisiana, when the election is not until the next November, one of these groups is already on the air running television advertisements, using soft dollars, unrestricted--unrestricted today and after if the McCain- Feingold bill were to be adopted. They would do the same thing right up until the election. At that time, they don't need to do it anymore. The damage is done, and the impression is created about a particular candidate, whether he or she is good or bad. Sixty days means nothing to them because they have already accomplished their purpose for the 2 years prior to that time when they did the damage, armed with all of the soft money they would want. That is one of the reasons why I am concerned. I will mention very briefly the type of ads that will still be allowed under McCain-Feingold and the damage they can do. If they are unanswered by our State parties and the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, they will do serious damage to the integrity of our elections. Rather than say we are taking ourselves away from the shackles of special interests, I daresay that candidates will be more prone to listen to all of these special interests, single interest organizations, which will continue to use all of the money that they need. Now pick your poison because they have them from both sides. But these groups would continue to be able to do anything they want with soft dollars up until 60 days. Here are the National Abortion Rights League and the National Right To Life. Which side would you want attacking you in your State? Do you remember the TV ads with Harry and Louise on the Clinton health plan? Some of the folks on that side of the aisle thought they were great but not this side. Harry and Louise represented the Health Insurance Association of America. They would do exactly what they did 2 years ago and 4 years ago. Somebody said candidates would not be able to help them raise money. Does anybody think they need candidates to help them raise money--the Health Insurance Association of America? They will have more money than they know what to do with. Do you remember Flo? She did a terrific job. On my side of the aisle, they didn't like what Flo had to say. Citizens For Better Medicare was Flo. It is a 501(c)(4) organization. They will continue to raise unlimited amounts of money and do exactly what they did several years ago. Therefore, I think the Hagel-Breaux approach--we will call it that for the purpose of our discussion tonight--is a balanced and proper approach and one that makes a great deal of sense. It is real reform, and it is something that should merit our support.

Mr. BREAUX. One of the most popular misconceptions of the underlying bill is we are eliminating soft money in Federal elections. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Senator from Minnesota is absolutely correct in what he is attempting to do. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations, single interest, special interest organizations, which will be able to continue to raise unlimited amounts of soft dollars to argue their cause after this underlying bill would be passed. You all remember the Flo ads, Citizens For Better Medicare. There is nothing in the underlying bill, without the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, that would prohibit Flo and all of our citizens for Medicare from doing exactly what they did, attack Members across the board time after time after time. There are literally thousands of groups that are not affected without the amendment of the Senator, that would continue to use soft money to affect elections, unrestricted. We are not going to be able to do anything with that unless the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota is adopted.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I will yield 15 minutes to my colleague. I reserve 15 minutes.

Mr. BREAUX. I guess we are equally divided under the agreement.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will use whatever time I need, and I will then yield to the Senator from Arkansas. Some of the points the Senator made are valid. However, our amendment addresses those concerns, particularly the concern about an employer knowing exactly what his or her requirements are because we say that the rule shall set forth in clear terms the circumstances under which an employer is required to take action, the measures required of an employer under the standard, and the compliance obligation of an employer under the standard. We give the employers clear direction. We let them know when they are in compliance, and we clearly spell out what their obligations are and also the measures that are required. Under the requirements of our legislation, the rule has to come back and clarify to an employer exactly what is being required. I think the amendment is a good one; ergo, I think it should be adopted. I yield whatever time she consumes to the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the discussion with me--Senator Enzi, Senator Landrieu, and Senator Blanche Lincoln-- on the issue of an amendment I have at the desk, which we will not vote on right now, but I hope to perhaps reach an agreement on at a later hour. The amendment addresses the question of the so-called ergonomics rule, which this body addressed last week, through the use of a procedure which is not normally utilized, when the Senate of the United States said that a rule that had been promulgated by the Department of Labor would not be allowed to go into effect addressing injuries in the workplace that workers receive which cause them to lose very valuable hours of service, both to themselves and their employers. Those workplace injuries clearly cause a loss to companies and small businesses, as well as the personal loss that is caused to the individual. There was a great deal of concern raised by myself and by some Republican colleagues to the rule because in many cases it would have an adverse effect on the States' workers compensation laws. And they had concerns about the potential that the rule would, in fact, allow injuries to be covered that were not directly related to having been brought about by conditions in the workplace. The third thing I heard a great deal of was that employers really didn't have enough information to know whether they were covered or what were their responsibilities. Therefore, in order to try to answer those questions and still address the concern that I think most people have about injuries in the workplace, which are estimated to cost between $45 million and $54 million annually, I have offered an amendment that I think is one this body should embrace in a bipartisan fashion. No. 1, we say the Secretary of Labor, within the next 2 years, shall promulgate regulations dealing with these injuries in the workplace. In addition to giving her the mandate from the Congress to promulgate these regulations, we also go further and say that, in trying to address the concerns we heard on the floor of the Senate, for instance, in issuing this new rule, the Secretary of Labor shall ensure that nothing in the rule expands the application of the State workers comp law. We had a lot of concern about whether it would be altered or expanded. This amendment clearly says that nothing would be in the bill and the rule could expand the application of the State workers compensation law. It also says that nothing in this amendment or in the rule could affect the OSHA laws. They are in place as they are, and if somebody wants to change them, that would be for a later date. The other thing I think was very important, which we heard from so many of our people, was that the injuries they are talking about under the rule shall be work-related disorders that occur within the workplace. Many people were concerned that, well, someone could injure their back on a Saturday at home during a recreational activity and come to work on Monday and blame it on conditions in the workplace. The amendment I have offered, along with my bipartisan cosponsors, says the standard shall not apply to nonwork-related disorders that occur outside the workplace or nonwork-related disorders that are aggravated by the workplace. So every objection I heard, particularly from my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I think has been taken care of in the amendment we have offered. It is my intent that if this rule would be promulgated, nothing in this amendment would prohibit Congress from using the same Congressional Review Act procedures if they did not like the rule. If some think it is too much or too little, they can still use the Congressional Review Act, as we did last week to knock down the rule with which a majority of the Members of the Congress did not agree. I think our amendment addresses every concern. The question is, Do you want to do something about the workplace that is fair, reasonable, responsible; that businesses can embrace, working people can embrace, and say, all right, this is a problem, let's recognize it and do something about it? Just to say, well, the Secretary may not do that, really doesn't give any guidance to what the Congress says. We should make the rules. My amendment takes care of every objection I heard, I think, and I think there is a proper balance between employers and business, as well as the working men and women of this country. I do not, for the life of me, understand why this would not be something that should not be unanimously agreed to by Republicans as well as my Democrat colleagues. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for her contribution. She comes from a State deeply involved in these issues. I know she speaks with a ``mine'' of experience in addressing these concerns. I thank her for her contribution, as well as my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu. I take this time to say to our colleagues our staffs are currently talking with each other across party lines to see whether there might be some agreement we can reach on an authorization bill as an amendment either to this legislation that is currently pending before the Senate or to some other legislative package that is going to come before the Senate. I will continue to work with our colleagues and our staffs trying to find a way to reach an agreement on a pending amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding me some time. I rise as one who is going to support the resolution of disapproval but at the same time also speak to the fact that I think there are problems in the workplace that justifiably call for us to be involved in crafting solutions which would reduce or even eliminate those problems. I am impressed by the study of the National Academy of Sciences which, incidentally, came after some final regulations were already promulgated, which point out that it is a problem that affects as many as 1 million people a year losing time and costing as much as $50 billion annually in lost productivity. Yes, there is a problem out there. Yes, there should be something we can do to address it. I suggest that while there is something we could do, this is not the right approach. It is the reason why I am going to support the resolution of disapproval. My colleague mentioned that this rule is very simple and easy to understand. I would suggest that is not correct. I was reading it. It is always dangerous when you actually read these regulations. I read the regulations, and I got to one part where it said, ``Industries and jobs this standard does not cover.'' That will be interesting. Let me read that. It says, ``Industries and jobs this standard does not cover. Agricultural employment and operation.'' I said: My goodness, we are exempting agriculture from the regulations. I went to another section, and it said, ``Industries and jobs this standard covers.'' Lo and behold, it covers agricultural services, soil preparation, and crop services, including crop planting, cultivating, and protecting the crops. It also improves crop harvests. Those things sound an awful lot like agricultural practices to me. Yet in the other panel it says, agricultural employment and operations are not covered. But everything you have to do to plant crops and harvest them and protect them is, in fact, covered. I went down and read some more. It says, ``Maritime employment and operations are not covered.'' Then I looked over to the other column. It said, ``Boat building and repair is covered.'' That is sort of a maritime type of industry if there ever was one. So I read it again. It said, ``Maritime employment and operations are not covered.'' Commercial fishing in the other column is covered. That is sort of a maritime endeavor when you are commercially fishing in the ocean. I get confused when it says shipbuilding and repair is not covered but, on the other hand, boat building and repair is covered. If it is a ship, you are not covered, but a boat is covered. If you are an agricultural worker, you are not covered. But if you are engaged in crop harvesting, planting, and protecting a crop, then you are covered. By any measure, I think this is not clear. It is not simple; it is very confusing. More than that, I am concerned about an administrative procedure or process where we can do by administrative decision what legislators who are called upon to legislate cannot do to see how what we do affects people because I think it clearly affects a State's workers compensation laws. I am very concerned about that. If you go to the back of the rules that we are looking at, it very clearly says something I think is understandable. It says, ``Work restrictions protection: Employers must . . .''--not may, not can, not should but ``employers must provide work restrictions protection to employees who receive temporary work restrictions.'' This means maintaining 100 percent of earnings and full benefits for employees who receive limitations on their work activities in their current jobs or transferred to a temporary alternative duty job, and 90 percent of the earnings and full benefits to employees who are removed from work. That is good for 90 days or less, whichever comes first. That tells me they may not replace your State workers compensation rules, which, in my State and most States, provide about two-thirds compensation for injuries in the workplace, which I strongly support, but it certainly is in addition to it. It is a supplement. It is more than the workers compensation laws provide. You have the workers compensation laws taking care of certain types of problems in the workplace. Then you have an entirely new program that States are going to have to implement. And who is going to pay for it? Is the State going to be required to put up their share for the new program? Do the States have the money to do that? How much is it going to cost Louisiana, which is struggling to find enough money to participate in the Federal Medicaid program, because we did not have enough State funds to meet or match this? They look at an unfunded mandate, an additional supplemental benefits package that we have not enacted in Congress but that has been allowed to go forward because of an administrative rule process which I think is the wrong way to do it. I differ from some who say, we don't want to do anything. I think we should do something to address these rules. I will be addressing legislation tomorrow in a bipartisan fashion which will say that, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Department of Labor may issue a new rule relating to ergonomics, so long as there are affirmative requirements and the new rule does three things: First, that it is directly related to injuries that occur in the workplace. That is what we are trying to effect. I do not want someone who is injured in a water-skiing accident on Sunday to go to work on Monday and complain that the back problem was generated in the workplace. If it was in the workplace, fine, but if it was from something outside the workplace, and not directly related to the injury, I question whether it should be part of the process. The second requirement of the legislation will be that the agency responsible for enforcing this new rule must have some type of mechanism to certify when an employer is in compliance. Right now, one of the big concerns is that employers do not know whether they come under the rules or not. There should be some mechanism to ensure that when they are in compliance, they can get certified by the appropriate agency that they have met the standards and should not be subjected to any other action because they have been certified as being in compliance. The final thing it does is it says simply that in issuing a new rule, the Department of Labor shall ensure that nothing in the rule expands the application of State worker compensation laws. This goes back to the question of putting in new provisions, new monetary provisions, for workers without having the Congress take an action in that regard. This is a new supplemental workers comp program that this rule establishes. I do not think we ought to do that without an act of Congress. We can argue whether it should be done or not. I think this legislation really answers the question of whether we do all of this or whether we don't do anything. I am suggesting we do something that makes sense. I think the way to get to this legislation is to pass the resolution of disapproval of what I think has been a rule that has been brought to this body but without the proper attention to detail that I think is so important. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we have discussed this amendment of the Senator from California and I certainly find no objection to it. In fact, it can be a very positive contribution. The National Academy of Sciences is eminently qualified to take a look at the things this study requires. I look forward to their recommendations. I will just mention the obvious difference in creating a reserve for crude oil. We have stored crude oil in salt domes, most of which are in my State and the State of Texas, which is quite different from setting up a reserve for natural gas. I think the author understands that, but that is the purpose of asking the National Academy of Sciences to take a look at it, and perhaps they can come back with good recommendations. The amendment of the Senator from California is helpful, and we certainly support it.