Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ENZI. I have lots of letters from different groups that have said: Don't do work restriction protection. That's workers comp, and you're violating our right to do that.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. ENZI. I object.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I could go into more examples of what has been happening. I could counter some of the things that have been said, but at this point I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. I thank Senator Hutchinson for his great delivery on the way the rulemaking process works and the way it has been forced in this instance. I thank Senator Bond not only for the speech he gave on the floor a while ago but for his continued interest and knowledge on the issue of ergonomics and his particular concern for the small businessman and how this rule and former ``rumored'' rules would affect them. This is the furthest a standard has ever gotten on ergonomics. It has now been published. It is the first one to be published. Now people have an opportunity to see how harmful or damaging it can be. I am the chairman of the subcommittee on workplace safety and training. I have worked a number of OSHA issues since I have been here. I have always tried to be reasonable on the issues on which I have worked. I appreciate comments from the other side of the aisle about the way I have worked with the other people. I need to let everybody know what is happening. There are the votes to pass my amendment, so there is a filibuster to keep it from ever coming to a vote. There are people who would prefer not to vote on this measure at all. If they are listening to the debate, they should be interested in making sure that the rules get the full amount of time needed to decide properly whether that will provide the workplace safety about which we have been talking. I offered an amendment, and there was a motion to commit. Some may not know what a motion to commit is, using another bill. It sends it back to committee to put in a completely different provision from ergonomics. There was an insistence it be read in full. It took only an hour and a half out of our day. That is Senate procedure. Now we have an amendment on the bill again that brings us back to the ergonomics amendment. It is essential we get a vote on this ergonomics amendment. It is essential the Senators get an opportunity to say whether they think OSHA has been rushing a bad product. You will see a very conclusive vote on that when it comes to a vote. This is a vote about how your Government, more specifically your bureaucracy, operates. This is not about safety necessarily, because if it was about safety, there are some other approaches OSHA would take. OSHA is not necessarily a safety organization. It is about fines, not necessarily prevention. One of the things that has come up since I have been working on the OSHA issues is an explanation of how much injuries have increased since we passed the OSHA Act. I decided I would go back another 30 years before the OSHA Act and see what has been happening with injuries in this country. Do my colleagues know what I discovered? Injuries were decreasing at the same rate since 30 years before we thought of OSHA. Do my colleagues know why that is? It is because businesses are concerned about their people. They are concerned about them. If they do not have a worker there, they are not getting the work done that they expect that person to do. Injuries cost money. Injuries are difficult to work with. When we were doing the hearing on the work restriction protection-- that is the part where workers comp will supersede State workers comp on the Federal level, which is poorly designed, very inadequate, and there is no money to do it--during that hearing, we received testimony from Under Secretary Jeffress. I was pleased to read his testimony. Witnesses get a short time before the committee to present testimony. During the course of that, I will read the rest of the testimony so I know what they intended to say if they could have said everything they wanted to say. I ran into a paragraph about New Balance shoe manufacturing facilities. That caught my eye because for years my wife and I ran a shoe store in Gillette and in a couple of other places. New Balance was one of the shoes we sold. I was very pleased they make narrow shoes. It is a very good tennis manufacturing company. In the statement, it said this New Balance shoe manufacturing company cut their workers compensation costs from $1.2 million to $89,000 a year and reduced their lost and restricted days from 11,000 to 549 during a 3-year period. I asked Secretary Jeffress how much they had to fine this company to get them to do that fantastic work. They did not have to fine them. Of course not. Can you imagine the economics of reducing your cost from $1.2 million to $89,000 a year? That is good business. It also saves employees. There are other examples of companies that have reduced their injuries dramatically. I said if OSHA was not there to fine them, how would that possibly have happened? Again, companies, for the most part, are extremely concerned about their employees. In fact, when the ranking member of our subcommittee spoke earlier, he mentioned that in his State of Minnesota, GM and 3M, and some other companies I did not get written down, are reducing their injuries dramatically. What I would like for him to do is to call those companies and see if they think this standard is essential to continue to do that. The answer will be a resounding no, this will cost them a lot of money which will be diverted from the things they are already doing. I wonder how many people know that ergonomic injuries, according to Department of Labor statistics, have gone down 24 percent since 1994. Imagine that. This rule was not in place. This rule is just proposed. Yet American business reduced ergonomic injuries 24 percent. There were no fines, no penalties, no standard, no rule, just concern for their employees. It is pretty amazing. Can you imagine what those businesses would be able to do if OSHA saw as their mission preventing injuries--not fining, I did not say fining--preventing injuries and focused their efforts on helping businesses, particularly the small businesses for which Senator Bond expressed deep concern, the people who do not have all of the experts on board to make the best care possible? If the focus of OSHA helped those small businesses figure out what they could do differently, I bet we could get that decline rate up to about 50 percent, but it takes some experts helping out, not total concentration on a phony rulemaking procedure. Oh, did I say ``phony''? I am sorry, but not very sorry because when I explain how this rulemaking procedure is working this year, everybody in this Chamber might agree that it is a phony process. OSHA is paying witnesses to testify. They are not paying expenses, they are paying them to testify. They are not just paying them to testify, they are even telling them other things they ought to say, ways they can beef up their testimony. If it is a $10,000 expert, don't you think he could write his own testimony? I do. OK, a $10,000 expert, and then they have them come and do a mock hearing. An expert needs a mock hearing? I do not think the whole $10,000 goes to the testimony, because from some documents I have been able to look at, it appears to me $2,000 of that is really supposed to be to tear apart any testimony in opposition OSHA gets. They are paying people to tear other public testimony apart. Does that sound like something your Government ought to be doing? That is how badly OSHA wants this rule. It was mentioned this morning that this is a proposed rule. Of course, it is a proposed rule. There is a process that it is supposed to go through, and it is not supposed to just take a year. That would be a record for OSHA even when they are doing much simpler rules. This is a very complicated one, a very expensive one, time consuming, and a damaging one. They are going to force it in a year. Every indication I find says they can do it unless we adopt this amendment. Is that why we are getting so much opposition through a filibuster to adopting this amendment? Yes, this is about your Government, specifically your bureaucracy. This is about how your Government can control the business you work for without getting anything for the employee in return. We heard some stories this morning about working people's lives, and we are concerned about those working people's lives. I was in small business, and when you work with people in small business, it is not a boss-employee relationship. If you cannot get along better than that, you probably will not have them as employees. We had some examples of a few people, and there are many throughout the United States, who are being injured through repetitive motion. I am asking all of the businesses that deal with that to concentrate on eliminating the repetitive motion. I am asking OSHA to work with those businesses in finding ways to eliminate the repetitive motion. Earlier we mentioned home office inspections, and everybody got up in an uproar saying that was already taken care of. Yes, this same department that we are talking about as proposing this rule--the same one--said that they had the right to go into homes and inspect. That raised a lot of interest, a lot of concern, and in about 48 hours--48 hours after we discovered it, not 48 hours after it was done--they discovered how terrible that was and they reversed it. I really think if they think about the process that we are going through here, they would give some very serious consideration to reversing what is going on right now: Forcing a rule through, not giving any indication that any changes would be made, and part of that comes from this paying of witnesses. Another issue we are dealing with around here is one about China, PNTR. I am getting a lot of letters on it. I am sure everybody here is. Half of those letters are talking about the way jobs are going to go overseas. I am part of the NATO Parliament. I went to the last session of that. We talked about the way the Parliament changes. I was on the economic development committee for that. We talked about the ways that some of these other countries are having economic development. I saw some examples of how they were having economic development. I saw a factory where people work for extremely long hours, every day, in complete body outfits, where only their eyes are visible. Their eyes are visible because they look into microscopes all day and weld on hard disc drives. It is an extremely tedious, repetitive motion. Those people get $350 a month. It should not happen. But when we pass rules, by forcing rules through that greatly increases business costs, without protecting the worker at all, we are exporting jobs. The unions ought to be up in arms about this rule and what it will do in exporting American jobs. It concerns me. I hope it concerns everyone. A lot of these things are interconnected. But the issue we are talking about here isn't as much what the rule is as it is the way it has been pursued. I have asked questions to get information about how the process is working. I did not get the information. I found out the House had the information. I requested the ability to see it. I was told it could not be brought to my office. The House had fortunately made an arrangement by which I could look at it. But the arrangement did not say, ``in my office,'' so I had to go over there. But I was willing to do that. I was astounded at what I found when I got over there and figured out why it was they wanted me to go to every last bit of effort to look at it that I possibly could. I have shared some of that with you. I would have liked to have shared it with you in more detail, but the agreement they had for me to even look at it said there was privilege in this that keeps a Senator, in an appropriations process, from being able to see the documents he needs to be able to see to know how the money is being spent so he can make decisions about how it will be spent in the future. I think that is unbelievable and it is just not right. We have had some testimony in committee. We found out how OSHA gathers its testimony. We have found out how the whole process works. That is why I have asked everybody to vote against this. Quorum Call

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senators on my side of the aisle who have spoken on the ergonomics amendment and the detrimental method by which OSHA is trying to force the standard through. I ask unanimous consent Senator Domenici be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Objection.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment that will ensure we have this delay to do it right. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member. This is not a new issue for either of us. We have been holding hearings on it. It has been in the press. We both knew about it. He was here to debate it. This is not a surprise. I am pleased that I am going to be able to make my floor statement. I think perhaps after the floor statement maybe the other side would like to join me in proposing this amendment. I think there will definitely be additional Members who will want to join me in this. Mr. President, I rose today and offered an amendment that simply prohibits the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, from expending funds to finalize its proposed ergonomics rule for 1 year. It was mentioned before that last year we didn't get a prohibition against them proceeding with it. You will hear in a bit how much that little error has cost us. But before I tell you why this amendment is critically necessary, I want to tell you what this amendment is not about. This amendment is not about whether or not OSHA should have any ergonomics rule. It is not a prohibition on ergonomics regulations generally. And it is most definitely not a dispute over the importance of protecting American workers. Clearly protecting workplace safety and health is of paramount importance. As the chairman of the subcommittee that deals with worker safety, I feel a special responsibility to oversee the agency charged with safeguarding these workers. But I am not fulfilling this responsibility if I merely rubber stamp anything OSHA does just because OSHA says it is acting in the interest of worker safety and health. I have a duty to make certain that OSHA is acting responsibly, appropriately, and in the best interests of workplace safety and health. Sadly, OSHA has not done so with this proposed ergonomic rule. That is what this amendment is about. Because of this rule and the way OSHA is going about it, the amendment merely requires that OSHA wait a reasonable 1-year period before issuing a final ergonomics rule. That is to keep OSHA from making drastic mistakes to add to those already made. Let me tell you why it is imperative that Congress act now to require OSHA to take this reasonable additional amount of time for this rulemaking. In a nutshell, OSHA is using questionable rulemaking procedures; OSHA omitted the analysis of the economic impact; OSHA hasn't resolved conflicting laws; and this rule infringes on State workers compensation--to name a few of the problems that riddle this overly ambitious rule. OSHA's haste to get through the rulemaking process is very clear. The rule OSHA has proposed is arguably the largest, broadest, most onerous and most expensive rule in the history of the agency--probably any agency. But OSHA has made it very clear that it intends to finalize the rule this year--just over a year from the time the proposed rule was published. This narrow-minded commitment to year's end can only mean that OSHA has already made up its mind in favor of the rule and thinks it will leave a mammoth and far-reaching legacy for the current Presidential administration. I would suggest it will be closer to the legacy of the OSHA home office inspections. Perhaps you remember the letter issued by OSHA about the time we left for Christmas recess, the one that suggested OSHA was going to go into each home where people work and look for safety violations. From the time we found out about it, it only took 48 hours to see how far- reaching, imposing, and stupid that decision was. Of course, the whole Nation realized the implications of the home inspections even quicker. I am extremely concerned that OSHA is blinded by the motivation to get it done during this administration and is not taking the time to carefully consider all the aspects and effects of this important rule. For example, the public comment period for the proposed rule was much shorter than OSHA typically permits--even for much less significant rules. OSHA has never before finalized such a significant rule in a year's time. Moreover, in its haste to get through this rulemaking process, OSHA, until recently, omitted an analysis of the economic impact of the rule on the U.S. Postal Service, on State and local government employees in State plans, and on railroad employees--all together, over 10 million employees. These aren't optional economic impacts. These are mandatory, in light of the dollars involved. OSHA is apparently so busy with other things that it did not do the analysis for these entities until the end of last month, despite the fact that the Postal Service requested an analysis 5 months prior. To add insult to injury, OSHA has only given these folks 2\1/2\ months to comment on the complex analysis that OSHA forgot to do, and OSHA won't even consider extending the overall comment deadline for these folks. It is because they are trying to get it done this year. They have had 5 months to prepare it, and they tell the Postal Service that they have to analyze it in 2\1/2\ months--no extension. Even more troubling than the fact that OSHA is rushing the rule is the way OSHA is going about it. OSHA's ambitions with this rule are so big and overreaching that OSHA has truly bitten off more than it can chew, and may be playing fast and loose with the rulemaking process and your tax dollars. In fact, OSHA has bitten off so much with this rule that it is apparently paying others to chew for it--too big a bite. They can't chew it all. So to make it happen in 1 year, they are going to pay others to do some of their chewing. I use the word ``apparently'' because of the difficulty getting answers. Responding to inquiries first made by Congressman David McIntosh, OSHA recently disclosed that it has paid at least 70 contractors a total of $1.75 million--almost $2 million--to help it with the ergonomics rulemaking. They are paying these contractors with our tax dollars in order to speed the process up on a bad rule. Congressman McIntosh's staff discovered that OSHA may have failed to disclose an additional 47 contracts for who knows how much more money. OSHA's own documentation reveals that it paid 28 contractors $10,000 each to testify at the public rulemaking hearing. Going through some of the accounting information, I even noticed that one contractor had turned in an itemized bill for less--and was still paid the $10,000. When I asked OSHA for evidence of public notification that it was paying these witnesses, OSHA gave me none. I am very concerned that OSHA is paying so much money for outside contracts for this rulemaking that I intend to hold a hearing to get to the bottom of this issue. Let me state things I already know. I think you will be convinced, as I am, that we absolutely need to put the brakes on this rulemaking and force OSHA to straighten this mess out before it finalizes the rule. First, OSHA does not seem to want to have me have this information. Some of it is just good accounting stuff. As the only accountant in the Senate, I am really interested. I have requested documents from OSHA that would give a clear picture of its relationship with some of these contractors, but OSHA has so far refused to give them to me, claiming a ``privilege.'' That applies to private citizens, not to Congress. We have the right to know where the dollars that we are spending go, unequivocally. Now, Congressman McIntosh has been able to obtain some key documents from the contractors themselves, but OSHA placed strict constraints on Congressman McIntosh's ability to share them with fellow lawmakers. This is stuff that came from the contractors, and OSHA can still get its hands in and keep us from using it the way it ought to be used. OSHA did grudgingly agree that I could look at the documents--not take them or copy them or quote from them--but only in Congressman McIntosh's office. When I asked OSHA, as a courtesy, to permit Congressman McIntosh's staff member, Barbara Kahlow, to bring the documents to me, just to look at them, abiding by the rules, OSHA said no. I am so concerned about this issue that I went over to Congressman McIntosh's office last night after I finished working at the Senate to look at these documents for myself. Now, fortunately, Congressman McIntosh's negotiations made that possible. Can anyone believe that documents concerning money we are spending have to have special negotiations before I can look at them? It comes under my committee. I am in charge of the oversight on that committee. Let me recap that: I was told that the contracts and expenditures are privileged. I was told that information couldn't be brought to my office. I was told I could not copy any information. I was told I could not quote any information. I was told that I couldn't quote from the documents. I had to use extra time to go to the House side to even see those documents. I am not afraid of a little walk over to the House. I just couldn't understand why OSHA was going to so much trouble to keep the documents from me. I physically went to Congressman McIntosh's office last night and looked at the documents. Because of OSHA, I can't quote these documents. I can't show you copies. But I can tell you what I saw. I saw that not only did OSHA pay 28 expert witnesses $10,000 a pop, and one of them didn't even ask for that much, it also appears that OSHA did the following: OSHA gave detailed outlines to at least some of the witnesses telling them what they were to say in the testimony; second, they had OSHA lawyers tell at least one expert witness that they wanted a stronger statement from the witness regarding the role of physical factors. That is an important scientific issue. These are supposed to be experts. They told him to make it stronger. Third, heavily edited testimony of at least some of the witnesses is evidenced. OSHA held practice sessions to coach the witnesses in their testimony. I have never heard of that around here. This sounds a lot like OSHA told its expert witnesses what to say. This sounds like OSHA made up its mind a long time ago in favor, and has been stacking the evidence to support its position. I respect OSHA's need to enlist expert assistance in technical or scientific rulemaking. I expect them to get the right information. I would like to think it wasn't biased when they got it. And I have to say, I don't respect any agency paying witnesses to say what the agency tells them to say, and then holding the witnesses' testimony up as ``best available evidence.'' Best available evidence is what the OSH Act requires to support this standard. It doesn't say anything about paying witnesses or coaching witnesses. It doesn't say anything about telling them to change their testimony. How can OSHA expect the public and Congress to have any confidence that it is promulgating regulations in the best interest of worker safety and health if it is asking supposed experts to tell OSHA what it wants to hear, so OSHA can promulgate whatever rule the administration thinks is in its own interest? That has been the problem with the past years of looking at regulating ergonomics. OSHA makes up the rules. OSHA does the tests. OSHA says their tests are good. OSHA gets ready to propose a rule and realizes they have made a drastic mistake. That has happened in the past. That is why this little document is the first published proposed ergonomics regulation. It didn't happen until November of last year. This document, this is the first time we have gotten a look at this document. It is the first time it has been officially printed. How can OSHA expect the public and Congress to have any confidence in its promulgating regulations in the best interest of worker safety and health if it is asking supposed experts to tell OSHA what it wants to hear, and has already told them what to say, so that OSHA can promulgate whatever rule the administration thinks is in its own interest? No wonder OSHA has promulgated such a greedy, overreaching rule. Maybe I could pass all the OSHA reform legislation I wanted if I could pay 28 witnesses $10,000 apiece to come in and say what I wanted them to say in my hearings. Does that seem like a conflict of interest? I wouldn't do things that way. In fact, we had a hearing recently about one of the most objectionable parts of this rule, the work restriction protection provisions. I will talk about those in a few minutes. We had to tell one of the witnesses we selected that we couldn't pay his transportation costs--not a $10,000 bonus to testify; we couldn't pay his transportation costs. We did this in part for financial reasons and in part because we wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety that can result from spending taxpayers' dollars on a witness who is supposed to be giving an unbiased opinion. This witness came to Washington anyway--on his own dime. He didn't have his State pay for it. He paid for it out of his pocket to testify at my hearing because he felt so strongly about the terrible effects of this ergonomics rule. Needless to say, I am very disturbed by what I have seen to date about this issue. OSHA's response is that it has always paid witnesses for their testimony. I can't find that in any public documents. I can't find that disclosure. I can't find where they actually said that they were paying them, and this was paid testimony. It seems that ought to be disclosed. Whether or not this is true, it remains to be seen whether OSHA has ever paid this many witnesses this much money and participated this thoroughly in crafting the substance of a witness' testimony. OSHA has also tried to give me the typical excuse of a teenager caught doing something wrong: Hey, everybody is doing it. To that, let me first respond with the typical, but sage parental response: If everybody were jumping off a bridge, would OSHA jump off a bridge, too? That doesn't sound like good safety to me. Second, everybody is most certainly not doing it. Representatives of both the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, two agencies that promulgate lots of supertechnical regulations, dealing with scientific things, have stated publicly that they do not pay expert witnesses, except possibly for travel expenses. Let me say that again. The Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, agencies that promulgate lots of supertechnical regulations, have stated publicly--you can read it in the paper--that they do not pay expert witnesses, except possibly for travel expenses. As the DOT general counsel put it ``Paying experts would not get us what we need to know.'' Finally, just because OSHA may have these things in the past, in my book that does not make this practice OK in this instance. On the contrary, it makes any other instances of witness coaching equally objectionable. Two wrongs don't make a right. We can't do anything about past rulemakings, but we can do something about this one--if we act now. Clearly, more needs to be learned about this subject, but if we don't pass this amendment, OSHA is going to forge ahead and finalize a document that they have already determined is the perfect answer even before the comments have been sifted through. They will finalize a possibly--no, almost assuredly--be a tainted rule, and we won't have another opportunity to stop them. A vote for this amendment makes certain that we will have sufficient time to conduct a thorough congressional investigation into this issue and force OSHA to clean up its rulemaking procedures if necessary. Lest you think my concerns about this rule are only procedural, rest assured these procedural concerns are only half the problem here. This rule has serious substantive flaws. Much has been written and debated about the many problems with this rule--its vagueness, its coverage of preexisting and non-work related injuries, the harshness of its single trigger. I expect you have all heard something about these topics and my colleagues will talk more about these later today. In my investigation of the rule, I found two particularly troubling issues. Both involve the reach of the long arm of this overly ambitious rule into arenas outside of OSHA's jurisdiction--both with disastrous effects. First, the rule will have a devastating effect on patients and facilities dependent on Medicaid and Medicare. OSHA has created a potential conflict between the ergonomics rule and health care regulations. Congress recognized the importance to patient dignity of permitting patients to choose how they are moved and how they receive certain types of care when it passed the Nursing Home Act of 1987. This act and corresponding regulations mandate this important freedom of choice for patients. The ergonomics rule, on the other hand imposes many requirements on all health care facilities and providers concerning patient care and movement. Thus, these facilities and providers may be forced to choose between violating the ergonomics rule or violating both the Nursing Home Act and the patient dignity. Moreover, OSHA's rule forces impossible choices about resource allocation between patient care versus employee care. The only way for businesses to absorb the cost of this rule under any situation is to pass the cost along to consumers. However, some ``consumers'' are patients dependent on Medicaid and Medicare. The Federal Government sets an absolute cap on what these individuals can pay for medical services. Thus, the facilities that provide care for these patients simply cannot charge a higher cost. Simply put, these facilities and providers are unable to absorb the cost of the ergonomics rule. And there is no question these facilities will face a cost. OSHA's own estimate of the cost of compliance in the first year will total $526 million for nursing and personal care facilities and residential care. And you have to remember, we are saying that they really use conservative, from their point of view, estimates of costs. The industry estimates that the per-facility cost for a typical nursing home will be $60,000. But my issue with this rule is not that it will cost these facilities so much money--it is that it will cost elderly and poor patients access to quality care. You have probably heard about some of the facilities going out of business because of some appropriations measures we passed. We have corrected them a little bit. But my issue with this is not what it will cost these facilities, but what it will cost the elderly and the poor in access to quality care. Sadly these patients are already in danger of losing quality care. Many facilities dependent on Medicaid and Medicare are in serious financial straits due in part to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Ten percent of nursing homes are already in bankruptcy. And the Clinton administration just announced a request for an additional $20 billion for Medicaid and Medicare so that the reimbursement cap can be raised. All this is before the costly ergonomics rule places its additional tax on an already overtaxed system. Implementing this sweeping and expensive proposed ergonomics standard is simply more than this industry can bear. Let me assure those who say this Medicaid/Medicare quandary will not have very broad impact--let me assure them that it will. Nearly 80 percent of all patients in Nursing Homes and over 8 million home health patients are dependent on Medicare or Medicaid. How will these patients receive health care if the ergonomics rule forces nursing homes and home health organizations out of business? The answer is, they won't. But it does not appear that OSHA has even considered that consequence. Perhaps OSHA is assuming that Congress will clean up after it by raising reimbursement rates to accommodate OSHA's rule? If this is the case, then OSHA itself has invited us to step in, prohibit OSHA from finalizing this rule and OSHA back to the drawing board. A vote in favor of this amendment will ensure that OSHA resolves the mess its rule creates for providers and patients before issuing a final rule. That ought to be a basic consideration for us in this body. The second problem I am very concerned with is OSHA's encroachment into State workers' compensation. A provision of the rule would require employers to compensate certain injured employees 90 to 100 percent of their salary. OSHA calls this requirement ``work restriction protection'' or WRP. But it sounds an awful lot like workers' compensation doesn't it? They told us they don't have the money to do the job, and now OSHA apparently wants a new job--to be a Workers Compensation Administration. That is why we held a hearing, to see what was involved in that. But there are two problems with that. First, the statute that created OSHA tells us that OSHA is not to meddle with workers' compensation. Second, OSHA's intrusion into the world of workers' compensation will hinder its ability to perform its true and very important function--improving workplace safety and health. All of the States already do Workers Comp. Thirty years ago, when Congress wrote the Occupational Health and Safety Act, it made an explicit statement about OSHA and workers' compensation. It wrote that the act should not be interpreted to: . . . supersede or in any manner affect any workmen's compensation law, or to enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers and employees under any law with respect to injuries, diseases, or death of employees arising out of, or in the course of, employment. Twice this provision uses the broad phrase ``affect in any manner'' to describe what OSHA should not do to State workers' compensation. As someone with the privilege of being one of this country's lawmakers, it is hard for me to imagine how Congress could have drafted a broader or more explicit prohibition on OSHA's interference with State workers' compensation. Perhaps more importantly, this provision of the law makes good sense. All 50 States have intricate workers' compensation systems that strike a delicate balance between the employer and employee. Each party gives up certain rights in exchange for certain benefits. For example, an employer gives up the ability to argue that a workplace accident was not its fault, but in exchange receives a promise that the employee cannot pursue any other remedies against it. The injury gets taken care of, the injury gets paid for, and the worker gets compensated. Each State has reached its own balance through years of experience and trial and error. Many of us have served in State legislatures where one of the perpetual questions coming before the legislature is changes to workers compensation. It is a very intricate process. Significantly, Congress has never taken this autonomy away from the States by mandating Federal workers compensation requirements and, in fact, put those statements in, to which I referred earlier, where they are clearly not to get into workers compensation. The States have special mechanisms set up for resolving disputes and vindicating rights under the workers compensation systems. OSHA wants to create its own Federal workers compensation system, but only for musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs. But OSHA does not have the mechanisms or the manpower to decide the numerous disputes that inevitably will arise because of the WRP provision. I ask all Senators to talk with their State workers compensation people. I have not found any of them who did not think this was intrusive, who did not think this gets into their business which they have crafted for years and years. OSHA does not have the mechanisms or the manpower these States have to decide the numerous disputes that will arise. All of a sudden, OSHA will have to decide disputes over the existence of medical conditions, the causation of the medical conditions, the right to compensation. But what happens to workplace safety and health while OSHA is being a workers compensation administration? The devastating effect on workers compensation has been recognized by workers compensation commissioners across the country. The Western Governors' Association has issued a resolution harshly criticizing the WRP provisions. Moreover, Charles Jeffress met with a large group of workers compensation administrators, and when I asked him how many spoke in favor of this provision, he answered: None. It was not quite that definite, but he answered definitely none. Significantly, this meeting took place before the proposed rule was published, so Mr. Jeffress obviously did not take their lack of support to heart in drafting the proposed rule. If this lack of responsiveness is any indication, we can have no confidence OSHA will take this provision out of the final rule. A vote for this amendment ensures that OSHA will have to take additional time to consider all the negative feedback it has received on this issue alone. Hopefully, with this additional time, OSHA will recognize that it should stay out of the workers compensation business and get back to the important business of truly protecting this country's working men and women. From all of these facts and circumstances, I hope it is as clear to you as it is to me that OSHA is not ready to take sensible, informed, reliable action on ergonomics. Unfortunately, it is equally clear that OSHA is going to push forward anyway unless we take some action. Because of the magnitude of this issue, it is absolutely imperative that cool heads prevail over politics. We must ensure that OSHA takes the time to investigate and solve problems with the rule without taking shortcuts. Nobody puts them under the deadline except themselves, but they are obviously convinced of the deadline. If we do not act now to impose a reasonable 1-year delay of the finalization of the rule, OSHA will forge ahead and produce a sloppy final product that not only fails to advance worker health and safety, but also threatens the viability of State workers compensation, health care, the poor and elderly, not to mention businesses all across the country. If even one of these issues I raised troubles you--and I think they should all trouble all of us deeply--then you must recognize the desperate need for a 1-year delay. I urge your support of this amendment. I am joined in offering this amendment by my colleagues, Senators Lott, Nickles, Jeffords, Bond, Hutchinson, Brownback, Sessions, Hagel, DeWine, Crapo, Bennett, Thompson, Burns, Collins, Frist, Gregg, Coverdell, Voinovich, Fitzgerald, Abraham, Snowe, Ashcroft, Grams, Hutchison, Thomas, and Allard. I ask unanimous consent that they all be added to the amendment as original cosponsors.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my speech, Senator Wellstone be recognized as ranking member of the subcommittee that deals with this, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hutchinson be allowed to follow that.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up the amendment I have at the desk.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following people be given floor privileges during the course of this appropriations debate: Elizabeth Smith, Raissa Geary, Katherine McGuire, John Kim.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his dedication to this issue and I thank the Senator from Kansas for his very careful presentation of a number of important issues that deal with this amendment. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray amendment and I urge my colleagues to follow the course we have set over the last several years and reject this amendment. Mr. President, the underlying legislation before us, the Department of Defense Authorization Act, is an extremely important piece of legislation. In conjunction with the accompanying appropriations bill, it provides for the essential funding needed by our brave men and women on whom we rely to dedicate their time and service, and sometimes even their very lives, to protect our great nation from aggressors who threaten our freedom, and security, and our very way of life. Our military personnel are tasked with protecting our lives and our manner of life, which according to our hallowed Declaration of Independence, guarantees to each American those fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rather than supporting our brave military men and women in their difficult task of protecting life and liberty, the Murray amendment would call on military personnel to use military facilities to take innocent human life through elective abortions. This proposal runs contrary to the mission of our armed services and should be rejected. Mr. President, it is noteworthy that when President Clinton first promulgated his policy in 1993 directing that abortions be performed in military facilities, all military physicians and many nurses and support personnel refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. This is compelling evidence that military physicians want to be in the business of saving life, not performing elective abortions. We should honor the wishes of these military medical personnel and reject the Murray amendment. Mr. President, this amendment even goes beyond the debate on abortion because it would essentially require tax funds to be used to aid in elective abortions. Military hospitals and medical clinics are built with American tax dollars. Military physicians, nurses, and other support personnel are paid by federal tax dollars. We have just heard how that billing is done. From an accounting standpoint the person does not pay for the costs involved with the medical hospitals and clinics. Military physicians, nurses and other support personnel are paid by Federal tax dollars. Even if the abortion procedure itself was not directly paid for by federal funds, federal tax dollars would have to be used to train military physicians to perform abortions. Moreover, if military physicians refused to perform these elective abortions, and they were not required to violate their consciences, then civilian doctors and medical personnel would have to be hired to perform these elective abortions on military facilities. How does the accounting work for direct costs? Would these civilian medical personnel also have to be reimbursed with federal tax dollars? In essence, the Murray amendment would require that American taxpayers help pay for elective abortions for military personnel. Regardless of one's position on the legality of abortion, it is not proper for Congress to use Americans' tax dollars to fund something that is as deeply controversial as abortion on demand. I urge my colleagues to cast a vote for life and maintain the status quo by rejecting the Murray amendment. Abortions are available if the life of the mother is at stake, or if there has been rape or incest. But the elective abortion is another area that is controversial because of the funding that is available. So I do ask you to cast a vote for life and maintain the status quo, reject the Murray amendment. I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I now ask unanimous consent that H.R. 4475 be discharged from the Appropriations Committee and placed on the calendar.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2722, introduced earlier today by Senator Akaka.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment to the resolution which is at the desk be agreed to, and the resolution, as amended, be read a third time and passed. I further ask unanimous consent that an amendment to the preamble be agreed to, and the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, a title amendment be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 46, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.