Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the legislation that I am introducing today with Senators Lincoln, Breaux, and DeWine be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I applaud Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas for her leadership and for her aggressive work on this amendment, also Senator Bob Graham of the State of Florida, who has done such great work. This amendment extends for fiscal year 2002 the supplemental grants for rapidly growing States under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. These States include Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and about 14 other States that are dramatically impacted by this situation--all of which receive lower levels of block grant funding per child than other States. The TANF program was created back in 1996 to provide States with flexible block grants to meet the needs of low-income families trying to get off traditional welfare rolls. The program has worked well. It has been successful. Flexibility with this funding is vital to support low-income individuals and families and keep them in the workplace. These supplemental grants are set to expire. Unless we do something, it is going to dramatically negatively impact these States. The child poverty rate in the States affected is 19\1/2\ percent--a quarter above the child poverty rate in other States. These supplemental grants are very important. They need to be extended. I think this has bipartisan support. I appreciate Senator Hutchison allowing me to speak on behalf of this amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of President Bush's nomination of Chris Spear to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy. I truly believe that President Bush could not have selected a more competent person for this crucial position nor could he have picked a person of better character. Chris served as my Legislative Director for over a year before his nomination. In that time, I found his counsel to be invaluable and of great aid in forwarding my legislative priorities, and I am proud to say that he is not only a former employee but also a good friend. And, I know that I am not alone in wishing Chris well today, as he has previously served on the staffs of my good friends Senator Enzi and former Senator Alan Simpson. I wish Chris the best of luck in his new position and continued success in his career.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Nurse Employment and Education Development--or NEED Act--critical legislation to address the current and impending nursing shortages in our country. I am joined by Senators Mikulski, Warner, Enzi, Bingaman, Roberts, Frist and Collins. This year, the first order of business of the Aging Subcommittee, of which I am Chairman, was to hold a hearing on the nursing shortage and its impact on our health care delivery system. Recent nursing statistics paint a grim picture for the future of the nursing workforce, when millions of Baby Boomers will retire and place an unprecedented strain on the health care system. By the year 2020, it is projected that nursing needs will be unmet by at least 20 percent. This is in large part due to a shrinking pipeline. The average age of Registered Nurses is 43.3 years. Nurses under age 30 comprise less than 10 percent of today's nurse workforce. Minorities, including men, remain a minuscule percentage of the workforce. The cumulative effect of all this is that nurses and nurse faculty are retiring or leaving the profession at a rapid rate, and only a small number of nurses and nurse educators are taking their place. In my home state of Arkansas, 153 eligible nursing students were turned away in 1999 because of the lack of faculty to teach them. In the meantime, over 750 nursing vacancies have been reported by Arkansas hospitals, and I know that this trend is being experienced by many more health care providers across the state. What is happening in Arkansas is becoming a major issue across the country. The NEED Act builds on the programs currently in the Nurse Education Act and adds several new, innovative approaches to alleviate the nursing shortage. In the area of recruitment, the NEED Act establishes a Nurse Corps, which is essential to attracting able individuals into the nurse workforce to fill current and future health needs. In particular, the NEED Act expands the existing nurse loan repayment program under the Nurse Education Act and by adding scholarships for which nursing students can qualify in exchange for at least 2 years of service in a critical nurse shortage area or in a variety of health care facilities determined to have a shortage in nursing. In addition, the NEED Act adds nursing homes, home health agencies, public health departments and nurse management health centers to the list of eligible entities to fulfill this service requirement. Changing the image of nursing and promoting workforce diversity is another key recruiting factor to get people, especially young people, interested in nursing careers. The NEED Act provides funding for multi- media campaigns at the federal and state level to reach out to individuals to encourage them to consider nursing as they make career choices. The NEED Act also provides grants for community partnerships to develop innovative nurse recruiting and retention strategies tailored to a particular community, and authorizes additional funding for workforce diversity grants already provided for under the Nurse Education Act. In order to strengthen the existing workforce, the NEED Act provides grant funding for: career ladder programs to facilitate educational advancement for individuals with existing nursing degrees or health care training; long-term care training for nurses who will inevitably be dealing with an older patient population; and nursing internships and residencies to meet the current demand for nurses with specialty training, be it in the ER or the labor and delivery room Finally, the NEED Act provides for a fast-track faculty development program, which seeks to encourage master's and doctoral students to rapidly complete their studies through loans and scholarships. We must realize that getting people into the pipeline will mean very little if we do not have the teachers to teach them. Individuals receiving financial assistance through the fast-track faculty program must agree to teach at an accredited school of nursing in exchange for this assistance. This is a bipartisan issue and it is becoming a nationwide concern. I hope that we can work together to successfully secure passage of the NEED Act and other meaningful solutions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Nurse Employment and Education Development (NEED Act) be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Nurse Employment and Education Development--or NEED Act--critical legislation to address the current and impending nursing shortages in our country. I am joined by Senators Mikulski, Warner, Enzi, Bingaman, Roberts, Frist and Collins. This year, the first order of business of the Aging Subcommittee, of which I am Chairman, was to hold a hearing on the nursing shortage and its impact on our health care delivery system. Recent nursing statistics paint a grim picture for the future of the nursing workforce, when millions of Baby Boomers will retire and place an unprecedented strain on the health care system. By the year 2020, it is projected that nursing needs will be unmet by at least 20 percent. This is in large part due to a shrinking pipeline. The average age of Registered Nurses is 43.3 years. Nurses under age 30 comprise less than 10 percent of today's nurse workforce. Minorities, including men, remain a minuscule percentage of the workforce. The cumulative effect of all this is that nurses and nurse faculty are retiring or leaving the profession at a rapid rate, and only a small number of nurses and nurse educators are taking their place. In my home state of Arkansas, 153 eligible nursing students were turned away in 1999 because of the lack of faculty to teach them. In the meantime, over 750 nursing vacancies have been reported by Arkansas hospitals, and I know that this trend is being experienced by many more health care providers across the state. What is happening in Arkansas is becoming a major issue across the country. The NEED Act builds on the programs currently in the Nurse Education Act and adds several new, innovative approaches to alleviate the nursing shortage. In the area of recruitment, the NEED Act establishes a Nurse Corps, which is essential to attracting able individuals into the nurse workforce to fill current and future health needs. In particular, the NEED Act expands the existing nurse loan repayment program under the Nurse Education Act and by adding scholarships for which nursing students can qualify in exchange for at least 2 years of service in a critical nurse shortage area or in a variety of health care facilities determined to have a shortage in nursing. In addition, the NEED Act adds nursing homes, home health agencies, public health departments and nurse management health centers to the list of eligible entities to fulfill this service requirement. Changing the image of nursing and promoting workforce diversity is another key recruiting factor to get people, especially young people, interested in nursing careers. The NEED Act provides funding for multi- media campaigns at the federal and state level to reach out to individuals to encourage them to consider nursing as they make career choices. The NEED Act also provides grants for community partnerships to develop innovative nurse recruiting and retention strategies tailored to a particular community, and authorizes additional funding for workforce diversity grants already provided for under the Nurse Education Act. In order to strengthen the existing workforce, the NEED Act provides grant funding for: career ladder programs to facilitate educational advancement for individuals with existing nursing degrees or health care training; long-term care training for nurses who will inevitably be dealing with an older patient population; and nursing internships and residencies to meet the current demand for nurses with specialty training, be it in the ER or the labor and delivery room Finally, the NEED Act provides for a fast-track faculty development program, which seeks to encourage master's and doctoral students to rapidly complete their studies through loans and scholarships. We must realize that getting people into the pipeline will mean very little if we do not have the teachers to teach them. Individuals receiving financial assistance through the fast-track faculty program must agree to teach at an accredited school of nursing in exchange for this assistance. This is a bipartisan issue and it is becoming a nationwide concern. I hope that we can work together to successfully secure passage of the NEED Act and other meaningful solutions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Nurse Employment and Education Development (NEED Act) be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as a new member of the Agriculture Committee, it will take only a moment to give my perspective as the Senator from Arkansas, and it is a little different perspective from what some have been speaking about on agricultural spending. Certainly there are some big issues that have to be addressed on farm policy. They will be addressed in the context of a new farm bill. The reality is farmers are hurting right now. They need a signal from this Senate and this Congress that we are going to address the crisis that agriculture is experiencing. In my home State of Arkansas, 25 percent of our economy is agricultural related, either directly or indirectly. In east Arkansas, in the Delta of Arkansas, the entire economy is related to agriculture--the implement dealers, the seed stores, the bankers, or the farmers themselves. So this is a critical issue to my State and one we must address. Because of low commodity prices, because of increasingly high energy costs, because of high fertilizer costs, because of the investments in machinery that are required, all of this compounds to create a very serious situation in farm communities across Arkansas. What we are seeing is the death of American agriculture by attrition. We may be able to point to a rising graph on spending, but we must acknowledge that what farmers are facing today is a grave crisis. The way we have handled that in recent years has only added to the uncertainty. This signal early in this budget debate will send the right kind of message to the farmers of this Nation that Congress is not going to leave this issue unaddressed, and we are going to address it early. My farmers want predictability that they can take to the bank. I believe the Grassley amendment will provide the funding levels that will lay the foundation for greater certainty in the future. What is at stake is not just a safe, affordable and reliable food supply for the American people--something we have always taken for granted--it is a quality of life. What is at stake is, in fact, a value system and whether or not we believe that is worth an investment on the part of the Federal Government. I believe it is, and I strongly support the Grassley amendment. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Tornado Shelters Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Tornado Shelters Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the ``Fort Smith INS Suboffice Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today I am proud to join with the Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, Senator Kit Bond, in introducing the Real AMT Relief Act of 2001. This legislation is intended to provide the hard working taxpayers of America relief from the onerous Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. The AMT, set up more than 30 years ago to help ensure that wealthy taxpayers paid their fair share of taxes, is hitting middle-income families the hardest. Most vulnerable are the hard working taxpayers with several children, interest deductions from second mortgages, capital gains, high state and local taxes, and incentive stock options. While only 19,000 people paid the AMT in 1970, roughly 1,000,000 taxpayers had to pay it in 1999. According to the Joint Tax Committee, it is estimated that by 2011, more than 16 million taxpayers will have to struggle with the AMT. Another group of taxpayers being slammed by the AMT are America's small business owners. As my good friend Senator Bond has said, the complexity of the AMT forces many small businesses to spend valuable resources on tax professionals and high priced accountants to determine whether or not the AMT applies to them. Many small business owners in Arkansas have told me that instead of spending the time and the money trying to comply with the AMT, they would rather use those resources to hire new workers and provide benefits to their workers. The AMT has also had a dramatic impact on high tech communities all across the country. The recent stock market collapse has left many high tech employees, from executives to the rank and file, facing enormous AMT bills based on long-gone paper profits. Some who exercised incentive options and owe the tax may have no choice but to plunder 401(k)s, sell homes, borrow from parents, arrange IRS payment plans and consider bankruptcy. In this scenario, the AMT is based on paper profits on the day you exercise the option and buy stock even if the stock later crashes and you lose the profits. It's triggered when you exercise an incentive stock option in one year and hold the stock into a later calendar year. One thing is clear about stock options: Too many people know too little about them. An Oppenheimer Funds survey last year indicated that 75 percent of stock-option holders weren't familiar with the Alternative Minimum Tax, and that 52 percent knew ``little'' or ``nothing at all'' about the tax implications of exercising options. The time to help these taxpayers is now. The Real AMT Relief Act of 2001 provides badly needed relief to all taxpayers. Based on the recommendations of the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate, the Real AMT Relief Act of 2001 completely repeals the individual AMT. Eliminating 20 percent of the AMT each year until it is completely eliminated in 2006. This helps lift the burden off both the individual as well as the small business taxpayer. We further help to completely protect the small business owner by expanding the small business exemption from $5 million to $10 million. I look forward to helping provide this badly needed tax relief to America's growing middle class. It is truly an honor to be joined in this effort with the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, Senator Bond. His knowledge and passion for this issue is second to none. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Real AMT Relief Act of 2001. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am honored to rise today as an original cosponsor of Senator DeWine's legislation, Project Exile: the Safe Streets and Neighborhood Act 2001. This legislation will go a long way towards the goal of effectively reducing gun violence and saving lives. Like many of my colleagues, I am extremely concerned about gun violence. However, unlike many of my colleagues, I do not believe that more gun control laws are needed to make our Nation safer. Rather, I agree with the thousands of Arkansans who have written asking me to simply enforce the laws already in effect. I also point to the experience of States and cities around the Nation which have seen reductions in violent crime when the existing gun laws were aggressively enforced. The Project Exile legislation will provide the additional resources needed to expand this effort. It authorizes $100 million in block grants over 5 years to those States that agree to enact and enforce laws with mandatory minimum sentences for anyone who uses a firearm to commit any violent or drug trafficking crime as well as for any person convicted of a violent felony who is in possession of a firearm. If a State does not wish to change its laws, it can simply agree to ensure that these offenders will be turned over to the appropriate United States Attorney's office for prosecution under Federal firearms statutes. For some time now, I have been working to see Project Exile implemented in Arkansas, and I support this legislation because it will authorize the additional funding necessary to allow Arkansas and other states to implement a program which has been proven to reduce gun violence. Finally, I support this legislation because it is the right approach.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today I am proud to join with the Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, Senator Kit Bond, in introducing the Real AMT Relief Act of 2001. This legislation is intended to provide the hard working taxpayers of America relief from the onerous Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. The AMT, set up more than 30 years ago to help ensure that wealthy taxpayers paid their fair share of taxes, is hitting middle-income families the hardest. Most vulnerable are the hard working taxpayers with several children, interest deductions from second mortgages, capital gains, high state and local taxes, and incentive stock options. While only 19,000 people paid the AMT in 1970, roughly 1,000,000 taxpayers had to pay it in 1999. According to the Joint Tax Committee, it is estimated that by 2011, more than 16 million taxpayers will have to struggle with the AMT. Another group of taxpayers being slammed by the AMT are America's small business owners. As my good friend Senator Bond has said, the complexity of the AMT forces many small businesses to spend valuable resources on tax professionals and high priced accountants to determine whether or not the AMT applies to them. Many small business owners in Arkansas have told me that instead of spending the time and the money trying to comply with the AMT, they would rather use those resources to hire new workers and provide benefits to their workers. The AMT has also had a dramatic impact on high tech communities all across the country. The recent stock market collapse has left many high tech employees, from executives to the rank and file, facing enormous AMT bills based on long-gone paper profits. Some who exercised incentive options and owe the tax may have no choice but to plunder 401(k)s, sell homes, borrow from parents, arrange IRS payment plans and consider bankruptcy. In this scenario, the AMT is based on paper profits on the day you exercise the option and buy stock even if the stock later crashes and you lose the profits. It's triggered when you exercise an incentive stock option in one year and hold the stock into a later calendar year. One thing is clear about stock options: Too many people know too little about them. An Oppenheimer Funds survey last year indicated that 75 percent of stock-option holders weren't familiar with the Alternative Minimum Tax, and that 52 percent knew ``little'' or ``nothing at all'' about the tax implications of exercising options. The time to help these taxpayers is now. The Real AMT Relief Act of 2001 provides badly needed relief to all taxpayers. Based on the recommendations of the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate, the Real AMT Relief Act of 2001 completely repeals the individual AMT. Eliminating 20 percent of the AMT each year until it is completely eliminated in 2006. This helps lift the burden off both the individual as well as the small business taxpayer. We further help to completely protect the small business owner by expanding the small business exemption from $5 million to $10 million. I look forward to helping provide this badly needed tax relief to America's growing middle class. It is truly an honor to be joined in this effort with the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, Senator Bond. His knowledge and passion for this issue is second to none. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Real AMT Relief Act of 2001. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am honored to rise today as an original cosponsor of Senator DeWine's legislation, Project Exile: the Safe Streets and Neighborhood Act 2001. This legislation will go a long way towards the goal of effectively reducing gun violence and saving lives. Like many of my colleagues, I am extremely concerned about gun violence. However, unlike many of my colleagues, I do not believe that more gun control laws are needed to make our Nation safer. Rather, I agree with the thousands of Arkansans who have written asking me to simply enforce the laws already in effect. I also point to the experience of States and cities around the Nation which have seen reductions in violent crime when the existing gun laws were aggressively enforced. The Project Exile legislation will provide the additional resources needed to expand this effort. It authorizes $100 million in block grants over 5 years to those States that agree to enact and enforce laws with mandatory minimum sentences for anyone who uses a firearm to commit any violent or drug trafficking crime as well as for any person convicted of a violent felony who is in possession of a firearm. If a State does not wish to change its laws, it can simply agree to ensure that these offenders will be turned over to the appropriate United States Attorney's office for prosecution under Federal firearms statutes. For some time now, I have been working to see Project Exile implemented in Arkansas, and I support this legislation because it will authorize the additional funding necessary to allow Arkansas and other states to implement a program which has been proven to reduce gun violence. Finally, I support this legislation because it is the right approach.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, tomorrow, March 24, is the third anniversary of the tragic episode of school violence which occurred at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, AR. I want the families and friends of Natalie Brooks, Paige Ann Herring, Stephanie Johnson, Brittheny Varner, and Shannon Wright to know that I will never forget their terrible loss and that my heart continues to ache for and with them. They are, and will continue to be, in my thoughts and prayers as I proceed with my efforts to make our schools the safe havens of learning that they should and must be.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today as an original cosponsor of Senator Campbell's resolution designating May 15, 2001, as Peace Officers Memorial Day. I commend Senator Campbell for his efforts to honor these brave men and women, and thank all of our Nation's law enforcement officials and their families for the daily sacrifices they make as they work to enforce our Nation's laws and ensure the safety of all American citizens. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 107 law enforcement officers lost their lives in the line of duty in 1999. Forty-two of these officers were killed feloniously and 65 died accidentally. An additional 55,026 officers were assaulted in the line of duty. From 1990 to 1999, 28 Arkansas law enforcement officers lost their lives in the line of duty. Eleven of these officers were feloniously killed and 16 died accidentally. During the year 2000, Patrol Officer Lewis D. Jones, Jr. of the Forrest City Police Department and Captain Thomas Allen Craig of the Arkansas State Police lost their lives, and in the current year, Trooper Herbert J. Smith of the Arkansas State Police was killed in a car accident while rushing to assist a sick child. Accordingly, I offer my condolences to the families and friends of Patrol Officer Jones, Captain Craig, Trooper Smith, and all of the other law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty. I am deeply appreciative of their sacrifices and am sorry for their loss.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a resolution concerning our nation's veterans' population and the quality of health care that they receive. As a member of this Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee on the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as the former chairman of the Health and Hospitals Subcommittee on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am very concerned that today's veterans' community receive the best possible health care coverage that we can provide. Recently, it was brought to my attention that the Department of Veterans Affairs only recognizes two organizations for physician certification credentials. However, there are other organizations that have pressed the VA to consider their credentials and have been met with a closed door. While it is my understanding that very recently the Department has rescinded this decision due to the VA General Counsel ruling it to be illegal, the VA still does not recognize other board certifications in the matter of specialty pay. Within the last few weeks, Congressman Joe Scarborough, my good friend and former colleague, has introduced legislation on behalf of one of these excluded organizations, the American Association of Physician Specialists. His resolution addresses the issue of board certification recognitions by the new Secretary of the VA to include this organization in the list of organizations that are recognized for certification and special pay. Today, I am pleased to offer the Senate counter-part to Congressman Scarborouogh's legislation in the hopes that this vehicle may rectify a policy and system that seems faulty.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my sympathies to the families and loved ones of those killed during the recent Naval training exercise in Kuwait. Of the five U.S. military personnel killed in the accident, Sergeant Phillip Freligh, whom I intend to pay tribute to today, was from my home state of Arkansas. Army Sgt. Phillip Freligh, of Paragould, AR, graduated in 1993 from Greene County Tech and enlisted in the Army later that same year. He attended jump training and was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division. He then was trained as a bomb specialist and was assigned to the 734th Explosive Ordinance Division in White Sands, NM and was on a six month deployment in Kuwait when the accident occurred. I want to express my deepest regret and sympathies to the family and friends of Sgt. Freligh as well as the families of all the servicemen who lost their lives in this tragic accident. We owe it to all of our brave servicemen and those who serve with them to do our best to uncover the cause of this tragedy, and to do our utmost to prevent it from happening again. Theirs is a dangerous profession, and this tragic accident reminds us of the debt we owe to those who serve. I join the President, Secretary Rumsfeld, and my colleagues in saluting the courage, commitment and sacrifice of these servicemen.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to welcome the members of the Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM, to Washington for their 18th Annual Employment Law and Legislative Conference. Today, close to 300 SHRM members will visit Capitol Hill to share their views on and experience with issues such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, health care, the Fair Labor Standards Act, pension reform, and Section 127 educational assistance. The Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM, is a strong voice for the human resource profession. SHRM represents its members on issues affecting the workplace, employment, employers, and employees. It also provides them with invaluable services such as government and media representation, education and information services, conferences and seminars, online services, and publications. SHRM was founded 52 years ago by a small group of ``personnel'' officers to help the nation work through its post WW II labor- management challenges and improve the professionalism of the industry. Today, SHRM's membership includes over 155,000 human resource professionals in all fifty states and ranges from small one-person consulting firms to Fortune 500 companies. SHRM's members also represent a wide variety of industries, from the 25 percent who work in manufacturing to the 15 percent who work in the service sector. Other members work in the transportation, utilities, retail, finance, insurance, health, real estate, construction, and technology industries. I want to commend the members of SHRM for taking time out of their demanding daily lives to come to Washington, D.C. to speak with their Senators and Representatives regarding the issues that affect their profession. As a legislator, I cannot stress enough the importance of legislative conferences through which members of associations like the Society for Human Resource Management come to our nation's capital to participate in the legislative process. Citizen participation is a crucial component of the legislative process because it allows legislators and their staff to hear their constituents explain their experiences as they live and work under our nation's laws. The knowledge that legislators gain through these conversations results in sounder legislation and, ultimately, a stronger democracy. Accordingly, I sincerely thank the members of SHRM for their commitment not only to their profession but to the political process.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would expedite construction of the World War II Memorial. Some of our colleagues may not be aware that even after having had the opportunity to argue their case before the twenty-two public hearings over the last five years regarding the site and design of the memorial, opponents have now turned to the courts to overturn the Memorial's approval. Regrettably, it is now clear that legislation will be needed if the World War II Memorial is to be constructed before all the patriots who fought in defense of liberty have passed on. The ugly truth is that every day we lose more than a thousand members of our greatest generation. How many more will be deprived of the joy of seeing this richly deserved tribute to their heroic service completed? According to the American Battle Monuments Commission, the World War II Memorial will be the first national memorial dedicated to all who served in the armed forces and Merchant Marine of the United States during World War II and acknowledging the commitment and achievement of the entire nation. All military veterans of the war, the citizens of the home front, the nation at large, and the high moral purpose and idealism that motivated the nation's call to arms will be honored. Symbolic of the defining event of the 20th century in American history, the memorial will be a monument to the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of the American people, to the common defense of the nation and to the broader causes of peace and freedom from tyranny throughout the world. It will inspire future generations of Americans, deepening their appreciation of what the World War II generation accomplished in securing freedom and democracy. Above all, the memorial will stand for all time as an important symbol of American national unity, a timeless reminder of the moral strength and awesome power that can flow when a free people are at once united and bonded together in a common and just cause. Construction of this memorial is long overdue. Opponents have had ample opportunity to make their case, and while I respect their opinions, the simple truth is that the site has been selected and the time to begin to move dirt has arrived. I hope all of my colleague swill join me in sponsoring this resolution. Let us, as a nation, prevent the cheapening of this tribute by putting a stop to frivolous legal challenges. Let us say thanks to those who fought to save the babes of humanity from the wolves of tyranny. Let's build the World War II memorial, let's build it upon the National Mall, and let's build it now. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would expedite construction of the World War II Memorial. Some of our colleagues may not be aware that even after having had the opportunity to argue their case before the twenty-two public hearings over the last five years regarding the site and design of the memorial, opponents have now turned to the courts to overturn the Memorial's approval. Regrettably, it is now clear that legislation will be needed if the World War II Memorial is to be constructed before all the patriots who fought in defense of liberty have passed on. The ugly truth is that every day we lose more than a thousand members of our greatest generation. How many more will be deprived of the joy of seeing this richly deserved tribute to their heroic service completed? According to the American Battle Monuments Commission, the World War II Memorial will be the first national memorial dedicated to all who served in the armed forces and Merchant Marine of the United States during World War II and acknowledging the commitment and achievement of the entire nation. All military veterans of the war, the citizens of the home front, the nation at large, and the high moral purpose and idealism that motivated the nation's call to arms will be honored. Symbolic of the defining event of the 20th century in American history, the memorial will be a monument to the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of the American people, to the common defense of the nation and to the broader causes of peace and freedom from tyranny throughout the world. It will inspire future generations of Americans, deepening their appreciation of what the World War II generation accomplished in securing freedom and democracy. Above all, the memorial will stand for all time as an important symbol of American national unity, a timeless reminder of the moral strength and awesome power that can flow when a free people are at once united and bonded together in a common and just cause. Construction of this memorial is long overdue. Opponents have had ample opportunity to make their case, and while I respect their opinions, the simple truth is that the site has been selected and the time to begin to move dirt has arrived. I hope all of my colleague swill join me in sponsoring this resolution. Let us, as a nation, prevent the cheapening of this tribute by putting a stop to frivolous legal challenges. Let us say thanks to those who fought to save the babes of humanity from the wolves of tyranny. Let's build the World War II memorial, let's build it upon the National Mall, and let's build it now. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001, and I commend Senators Grassley, Hatch, and Sessions for their hard work, dedication, and perseverence. As a result of their efforts, a sense of balance and fairness has been restored to our legal system and American consumers and businesses will both benefit. This bill is long overdue as over the past decade there has been an explosion in the number of bankruptcy filings. Last year, there were 1.25 million total bankruptcy filings in America, in 1990, a mere ten years earlier, there were 782,960 filings. In Arkansas, there were 7,062 filings in 1990 and 16,784 in 2000. This explosion is due in no small part to the current Bankruptcy Code's generous, no questions asked policy of providing complete debt forgiveness under Chapter 7 without seriously considering whether a person filing bankruptcy can repay some or all of those debts. Furthermore, the United States economy loses $40 billion annually as a result of bankruptcy filings and the U.S. Department of Justice estimates that creditors lose $3.22 billion every year because of bankruptcies filed by persons who could repay their debts. These losses are passed on to all consumers--including, and especially, those who responsibly pay at least part of their debts but choose not use the bankruptcy code to escape them. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as a result each American household pays an extra $400 annually in the form of higher costs for goods, services, and credit. The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001 will reduce the number of frivolous bankruptcy filings while still allowing those who truly need help to obtain a fresh start. I am proud to support this legislation and I ask my colleagues to join me in support of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator Hatch's joint resolution which would amend the United States Constitution to prohibit the desecration of our flag. Opponents to this measure contend that the right to desecrate the flag is the ultimate expression of speech and freedom. I reject that proposition as I believe that the desecration of our flag is a reprehensible act which should be prohibited. It is an affront to the brave and terrible sacrifices made by millions of American men and women who willingly left their limbs, lives, and loved ones on battlefields around the world. It is an affront to these Americans who have given the greatest sacrifices because of what the flag symbolizes. To explain what our flag represents, former United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in his work, ``National Symbol,'' said: The flag is the symbol of our national unity, our national endeavor, our national aspiration. The flag tells of the struggle for independence, of union preserved, of liberty and union one and inseparable, of the sacrifices of brave men and women to whom the ideals and honor of this nation have been dearer than life. It means America first; it means an undivided allegiance. It means America united, strong and efficient, equal to her tasks. It means that you cannot be saved by the valor and devotion of your ancestors, that to each generation comes its patriotic duty; and that upon your willingness to sacrifice and endure as those before you have sacrificed and endured rests the national hope. It speaks of equal rights, of the inspiration of free institutions exemplified and vindicated, of liberty under law intelligently conceived and impartially administered. There is not a thread in it but scorns self-indulgence, weakness, and rapacity. It is eloquent of our community interests, outweighing all divergencies of opinion, and of our common destiny. Former President Calvin Coolidge, echoed Chief Justice Hughes in ``Rights and Duties:'' We do honor to the stars and stripes as the emblem of our country and the symbol of all that our patriotism means. We identify the flag with almost everything we hold dear on earth. It represents our peace and security, our civil and political liberty, our freedom of religious worship, our family, our friends, our home. We see it in the great multitude of blessings, of rights and privileges that make up our country. But when we look at our flag and behold it emblazoned with all our rights, we must remember that it is equally a symbol of our duties. Every glory that we associate with it is the result of duty done. A yearly contemplation of our flag strengthens and purifies the national conscience. Given what our flag symbolizes, I find it incomprehensible that anyone would desecrate the flag and inexplicable that our Supreme Court would hold that burning a flag is protected speech rather than conduct which may be prohibited. I find it odd that one can be imprisoned for destroying a bald eagle's egg, but may freely burn our nation's greatest symbol. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution so that our flag and all that it symbolizes may be forever protected.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator Hatch's joint resolution which would amend the United States Constitution to prohibit the desecration of our flag. Opponents to this measure contend that the right to desecrate the flag is the ultimate expression of speech and freedom. I reject that proposition as I believe that the desecration of our flag is a reprehensible act which should be prohibited. It is an affront to the brave and terrible sacrifices made by millions of American men and women who willingly left their limbs, lives, and loved ones on battlefields around the world. It is an affront to these Americans who have given the greatest sacrifices because of what the flag symbolizes. To explain what our flag represents, former United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in his work, ``National Symbol,'' said: The flag is the symbol of our national unity, our national endeavor, our national aspiration. The flag tells of the struggle for independence, of union preserved, of liberty and union one and inseparable, of the sacrifices of brave men and women to whom the ideals and honor of this nation have been dearer than life. It means America first; it means an undivided allegiance. It means America united, strong and efficient, equal to her tasks. It means that you cannot be saved by the valor and devotion of your ancestors, that to each generation comes its patriotic duty; and that upon your willingness to sacrifice and endure as those before you have sacrificed and endured rests the national hope. It speaks of equal rights, of the inspiration of free institutions exemplified and vindicated, of liberty under law intelligently conceived and impartially administered. There is not a thread in it but scorns self-indulgence, weakness, and rapacity. It is eloquent of our community interests, outweighing all divergencies of opinion, and of our common destiny. Former President Calvin Coolidge, echoed Chief Justice Hughes in ``Rights and Duties:'' We do honor to the stars and stripes as the emblem of our country and the symbol of all that our patriotism means. We identify the flag with almost everything we hold dear on earth. It represents our peace and security, our civil and political liberty, our freedom of religious worship, our family, our friends, our home. We see it in the great multitude of blessings, of rights and privileges that make up our country. But when we look at our flag and behold it emblazoned with all our rights, we must remember that it is equally a symbol of our duties. Every glory that we associate with it is the result of duty done. A yearly contemplation of our flag strengthens and purifies the national conscience. Given what our flag symbolizes, I find it incomprehensible that anyone would desecrate the flag and inexplicable that our Supreme Court would hold that burning a flag is protected speech rather than conduct which may be prohibited. I find it odd that one can be imprisoned for destroying a bald eagle's egg, but may freely burn our nation's greatest symbol. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution so that our flag and all that it symbolizes may be forever protected.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I commend the passion of my colleague from Connecticut. I have the utmost respect and admiration for him. I know how strongly he feels about this. I know in his comments he was not in any way insinuating those of us who take a different position than he on this would not be concerned about workers, that we would not be concerned about health and safety in the workplace because I want to assure him that this Senator from Arkansas, who supports the resolution of disapproval, feels very strongly, as I know the Presiding Officer, who has worked long and hard on this issue, does, that the ergonomics issue needs to be dealt with but needs to be dealt with properly. Frankly, you may have 7,000 comments, but if they are ignored, and the rule is changed, then that process is flawed. Frankly, to question the process we are now going through is to question the lawmaking authority and the right of the Congress. What has brought us to this point? It is the fact that there are agencies out there that have sought to do what we are constitutionally authorized to do; that is, to make the laws and the policies for this country. I want to take just a moment to commend the Presiding Officer, Senator Enzi, who made an eloquent and very accurate and detailed speech earlier today. But, more than that, I thank him for the hearings he has conducted and the information he has brought forward and elicited about how this process went forward, about witnesses who were paid, instructed, coached, practiced, to arrive at a preordained outcome. I thank Senator Enzi for the role he played as part of this process to which Senator Dodd was referring. Unfortunately, after hearing after hearing that was conducted, the outcome and the evidence that was elicited was ignored by OSHA. I commend Senator Nickles for his foresight years ago in sponsoring the Congressional Review Act. With the CRA, we have a means by which we can address an agency that goes amok and passes a rule that is not in the interest of the American people. I see Senator Bond, who has walked on the floor. He has worked long and hard and felt strongly about this issue and has played an important role in bringing us to this day and allowing Congress the opportunity to assert its rightful role once again. Senator Thompson, who spoke earlier, has played an important role as well. For the first time ever, the Senate will today utilize the CRA to vitiate and overturn an agency rule--that is, a several-hundred-page OSHA rule--that imposes the largest and most costly regulatory mandate in American history on the workplace. It is appropriate that this would be the first use for the CRA. My colleague from Connecticut said that under the rule the employer makes the determination. Therefore, that is a good thing. That is one of the problems. Under the OSHA rule, the employer is going to be asked to determine health conditions, to determine whether or not the health condition of his employee was caused by a workplace condition or something that happened outside the workplace. The employer is going to be asked to have the wisdom of Solomon in making those kinds of determinations. That does not make this rule better. It is a big flaw in the rule. My colleague also said that it is not onerous. I will let the American people make the judgment of whether it is onerous or not. This is the rule. It has been said that it is only 8 pages out of what I am holding, but no one has suggested that the American businessperson will not have to read and be familiar with every item in this 608-page rule. These are the supplementary materials that the businessman himself must buy. This is seven out of the eight. We could not get the eighth. The cost for these items will run $221--money the employer must pay just to find out with what he has to comply. I will let the American people and my colleagues determine whether that is an onerous burden. I believe it is. For more than two centuries, the three branches of our Federal Government have respected the checks and balances. This is not just a concept taught casually during our high school civics course. It is the means by which our American system of government has endured. The executive rulemaking process should be treated with respect. Without it, the laws we pass cannot be administered nor enforced. However, the rulemaking process must also have checks. There must be a means by which a rulemaking body that goes too far and exceeds their statutory authority can be reined in by the elected representatives of the people. This process is what we are involved in today. How did we arrive at this point? How did we end up with a rule that is 608 pages long, incomprehensible to the average businessman, and where the businessman has to pay $221 to get the supplementary materials to find out with what he has to comply? I suggest it starts with this mentality. This is a statement made in an interview by Martha Kent, former director of OSHA's safety standards program, a May of 2000 interview by the American Industrial Hygiene Association trade journal. This is what she said: I absolutely love it. I was born to regulate. I don't know why, but that's very true. So as long as I'm regulating, I'm happy . . . . I think that's really where the thrill comes in. And it is a thrill; it's a high. It may be a high for the regulator. It may be a thrill for the rule writer, but it is no thrill for the small businessman with 20 employees or 30 employees or 200 employees who has to try to decipher what that thrill-loving rule writer meant. That is how we have come to this point. In 1996, Congress and the President believed it was important enough to preserve this balance by enacting the Congressional Review Act. I am glad we have that tool today. We are having this debate to guarantee that rogue rulemakings do not become governing law. There is not one Member of this distinguished body who does not advocate the safety and well-being of our workforce. Let me be clear. If this rule was about employee safety and health, we wouldn't be having this debate today. Unfortunately, this standard was not meant to improve working conditions but rather to place a $63 billion or a $100 billion--depending upon whose studies you look at; the Small Business Administration says it is up to $63 billion--annual mandate on employers and, in so doing, circumvent State jurisdiction and require small employers to fulfill and to fully understand vague scientific solutions to extremely complex medical conditions. To all of those today who stand on the floor and champion workers' rights, this rule will result without doubt in sending jobs overseas where there are often no worker protections at all. There are going to be jobs cut. There are going to be companies closed. There are going to be jobs exported overseas. Americans will stand to lose those jobs, and overseas there are going to be workers with far fewer worker protections who will inherit those jobs. That is why this debate is occurring and why our vote on this resolution is so imperative. Recall that on Friday, November 19, 1999, Congress adjourned for the year having completed its work for the first session of the 106th Congress. After we left town, OSHA announced the following Monday its new ergonomics proposal. OSHA knew then that the clock had started ticking to complete action within the next 13 months. OSHA, however, decided it was in our best interest to shotgun the proposal through its hoops in 1 year's time, refusing to wait for the completion of the $890,000 NAS study which since then has been completed. The Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, after weeks of evaluating the impact that this proposal would have if actually enforced, held the first Senate hearing examining just one of many portions of OSHA's proposal, the work restriction protections. The WRP provisions would require employers to provide temporary work restrictions, up to and including complete removal from work, based either upon their own judgment or on the recommendation of a health care provider. If the employer places work restrictions upon an employee which would allow them to continue to perform some work activities, the employer must provide 100 percent of the employee's earnings and 100 percent of work benefits for up to 90 days. If the employee is completely removed from work, the employer must provide 90 percent of the employee's earnings and 100 percent of benefits for up to 90 days. That is not a bad deal, much better than one would find under most State workers compensation programs. This certainly raises the question as to what the motive was for having WRP in the rule. Why didn't OSHA simply allow States to continue administering this provision? How does OSHA help the employer determine if the employee's injury occurred from work-related activities versus a disorder acquired from home? The fact is, the rule does not explain it, and OSHA never intended to answer these questions. Suppose there is an employee whose job involves operating a keyboard. Let's suppose that in the course of time there is a repetitive motion affliction. Let's suppose that in fact there is an ergonomic result physically for that worker. The complaint is made. It is discovered that the worker usually, and on an ongoing basis, is on the Internet 2 or 3 hours a night after leaving the workplace. How is that employer to determine what is in fact the cause of that disorder? Under the OSHA rule, it doesn't really matter. If the workplace contributed even in the slightest to the disorder, they then would be eligible for the remedies under the OSHA rule. I could go on. The employee complains about a back strain. Is the back strain the result of sudden lifting of furniture at home, or is it the result of some activity in the workplace? Under the OSHA rule, it is the employer who is liable to make those kinds of determinations and to provide relief. In terms of State jurisdiction, the hearing that the Presiding Officer, Senator Enzi, conducted revealed that the WRP provision is a direct violation of section 4(b)(4) of the 1970 OSHA act. Let me read this. Senator Enzi went through some of this previously. Let me read it because it is so very clear. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed 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. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to supersede or affect workers compensation laws. I am like you, Senator Enzi. What part of that do we not understand? This is the very act that established OSHA. They now, in clear defiance of the statute authorizing their very existence, have promulgated a rule and finalized a rule that violates their charter. They were explicitly told at the time the agency was established: You will not tamper with State workers compensation laws. That is the State domain. I hope all my colleagues, whatever your feeling about how we should address ergonomics, will examine this single issue: Is it the right of any Federal agency to establish a national workers compensation law? Is that the domain of a Federal regulatory agency? I suggest that on both sides of the aisle the answer is no. If we are going to have a national workers compensation system, managed and administered by the Department of Labor, then it should go through this Chamber. It should be written and authorized by the Congress and signed into law by the President. It should not be done in a rogue rulemaking process. I believe we not only have seen an infringement in OSHA upon the rightful constitutional lawmaking authority of Congress; we have also seen a trampling of State jurisdiction in the area of workers compensation laws. We specifically withheld from OSHA the authority to supersede or affect State workers compensation laws. Congress did this because State workers compensation systems are founded upon the principle that employers and employees have both entered into an agreement to give up certain rights in exchange for certain benefits in the area of work-related injuries and illnesses. Most often, employers give up most of their legal defenses against liability for the employees' injuries, and the employees give up their right to seek punitive and other types of damages in turn. The crucial factor that makes State workers compensation systems possible is that the remedies it provides to employees are the exclusive remedies available to them against their employers for work-related injuries and illnesses. That won't be the case come October 15, 2001, when employers must be in compliance with OSHA's rule, unless we act today. If you can receive 90 percent of compensation under OSHA's ergonomics rule, it will absolutely undermine, pull the rug out from under, State workers compensation laws. It will destroy the trust and faith that has been developed at the State level. WRP provisions are in direct contradiction to section 4(b)(4) and will shake the foundation upon which State workers compensation systems rest because they will provide a conflicting remedy for employees with work-related injuries and illnesses. Since WRP provisions will unquestionably differ from the current State compensation systems, there will also be confusion as to who is liable. As far as OSHA is concerned, that case is closed--the employer is guilty, no questions necessary. This is precisely why Congress put section 4(b)(4) in the act 31 years ago. But to be sure that this is what Congress had in mind, I dug deeper and found the conference report filed December 16, 1970. As it pertains to section 4(b)(4), it reads: The bill does not affect any Federal or State workmen's compensation laws, or the rights, duties, or liabilities of employers and employees under them. If the statutory language isn't clear enough, the conference report ought to make it even more abundantly clear what the intent of Congress was. All of this came out in the hearings so well conducted by Senator Enzi. There was no answer from OSHA. There was no explanation as to how they were not tampering with State workers compensation laws. I say to my colleagues, the law was clear, the report language is clear; how can this be misconstrued by OSHA? They are violating the very law that established and authorized their agency. Another factor that was overlooked, I believe, was the proposal's price tag. There have been a whole slew of numbers tossed around, so I will use what I believe to be the most reliable and conservative figure--one put forth by the Clinton administration itself. According to their Small Business Administration, OSHA has grossly underestimated the cost impact of its proposal. The SBA ordered an ``Analysis of OSHA's Data Underlying the Ergonomics Standard and Possible Alternatives Discussed by the SBREFA Panel.'' Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Inc.--PPE--prepared the analysis and it was issued on September 22, 1999. PPE reported: OSHA's estimates of the costs in its Preliminary Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the draft proposed ergonomics standard, as furnished to the SBREFA Panel, may be significantly understated, and that OSHA's estimates of benefits of the proposed standard may be significantly overstated. That is from the Clinton administration's Small Business Administration. PPE further reported: OSHA's estimates of capital expenditures on equipment to prevent MSDs do not account for varying establishment sizes, and seem quite low even for the smallest establishment size category. PPE attributed the overstatement of benefits that the rule will provide ``to the fact that OSHA has not accounted for a potentially dramatic increase in the number of MSDs resulting in days away from work as workers take advantage of the WRP provisions.'' OSHA estimated the proposal's cost to be $4.2 billion annually. That is almost laughable. PPE estimates that the costs of the proposed standard could be anywhere from 2.5 to 15 times higher than OSHA's estimate--or $10.5 billion to $63 billion a year higher. Business groups have done their own analysis and they put the number much higher yet, at over $100 billion per year. Finally, the PPE report shows that the cost-to-benefit ratio of this rule may be as much as 10 times higher for small businesses than for large businesses. It is not the large corporations that are going to be most impacted by this rule. My great concern is not so much for the large corporations, which will be able to handle this in one way or another-- though it will certainly negatively impact our economy--my great concerns are for the small businesses of this country. AFL-CIO president John Sweeney said recently: We will let our voices be heard loud and clear to let the Bush administration, the Congress, and big business know that working families will not be outmaneuvered by this political power play. I suggest it is not big business that I have heard most from; it is small businesses all across the State of Arkansas with anywhere from 20 employees to 200 employees. The rule is a concern for working families. I am concerned about the working families whose primary breadwinner will lose their job or see that job exported overseas. ``Will not be outmaneuvered by this political power play''--one can judge where the political power play is; I suggest it was at OSHA--from an open debate before the American people on the floor of the Senate. It is small business that will be most impacted. According to the National Coalition of Ergonomics, an alliance of more than 50 trade organizations that are opposed to the OSHA rule, the new regulation will cost $6 billion annually in the trucking industry, $26 billion in the food industry, and $20,000 at every convenience store across the country. According to the OSHA standard, the employees who suffer ergonomic injuries, also known as MSDs, could get more compensation than workers injured in other ways. Let me mention one small businessman, Jim Zawaclo, president and owner of GR Spring and Stamping, Inc., an auto supplier in Grand Rapids, MI, with about 200 employees. He estimates his company will spend as much as $10,000 between now and October in an effort to comply with the law. Let me get a little closer to home for me, Mansfield, AR. Complete Pallet, Inc., a small company in Mansfield, which is a very small community, recently wrote: As a small business owner, I am alarmed at the implications that the OSHA Ergonomics rule will have on my business and Arkansas' economy in general. It is my understanding that this ruling will force ``ergonomic'' structuring of our small workforce and several ``new'' forms to provide OSHA. I am not sure if you realize the impact this will have on the small business person, so I have taken the liberty of breaking down the cost figures for you: Paperwork/Secretarial $1,440.00, Yard rearrangement ``ergonomic'' $150,000--For a total of $151,440.00 first year loss experience. That first year out-of-pocket expense would force me to close my doors. In turn closing my small plant down would put twenty (20) people in the unemployment line here in our great State of Arkansas. I would greatly appreciate your vote ``YES'' on rejecting OSHA's New Ergonomic rule. That is one example, 20 employees, 20 lost jobs, another small employer that bites the dust because of the regulatory burden imposed. So we are talking $63 billion a year. Who covers that cost? OSHA has a simple answer, as we heard in the hearings: Pass it on to the consumer. Senator Enzi has pointed this out as clearly as anybody, but I will reiterate it. You cannot always pass on the cost to the consumer. The clearest example of that is Medicare and Medicare-reimbursed businesses. The reimbursement is, as we know, capped by Federal law. There is nobody to whom to pass the cost. Perhaps we should remember this when the Senate next considers yet another round of Medicare give-backs. This ergonomics rule will only heighten the need for such relief and jeopardize the already critical lack of health care in rural States such as Arkansas or Wyoming. I listened to proponents of this ergonomics rule make the case, if we vitiate under the Congressional Review Act, thousands of additional employees will suffer. Let's be clear, with or without the rule, OSHA can enforce current law. It states this in the ergonomics proposal on page 68267. Under section 5(a)(1) of the 1970 OSH Act, commonly referred to as the General Duty Clause, OSHA can enforce ergonomic violations, and according to the proposal, ``OSHA has successfully issued over 550 ergonomics citations under the General Duty Clause.'' It even lists a number of employers by name where they successfully enforced ergonomics violations under the general duty clause. So the vitiating of this rule does not somehow leave the American worker unprotected--far from it. I point out, without the rule, in recent years we have seen a steep decline in injuries--even without the new rule. These facts are available, though oftentimes I am afraid people would rather ignore them. Since 1992, ergonomic injuries have dropped from 3 million a year to 2 million a year, and those are OSHA's own numbers. Lost workdays have also decreased. This chart shows they have decreased: 750,000 missed in 1992; about 500,000 will be lost this year. That is progress. It is progress without a burdensome, expensive rule from OSHA. Business has done a lot on their own. It is in the interest of the employer to deal with ergonomics problems in the workplace. Even OSHA has figures that 95 percent of employers are doing the right thing. The bad actors constitute only about 5 percent of the employers. Would it not be far better to focus our attention upon the 5 percent of the bad actors as opposed to an across-the-board rule that would penalize all employers and our economy as a whole? There was an article in the Detroit News about a cashier whose hands rhythmically shuffle back and forth scans about 22 items per minute at the supermarket where she has worked for 15 years. Many businesses--I will not mention this particular supermarket chain--many businesses recognized years ago that workers such as she were at risk for repetitive stress injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, and began reconfiguring healthy work environments. Across America, stores added better scanners to prevent the need to twist and double scan items. In offices, businesses added wrist pads at computer keyboards and glare screens on monitors. In warehouses, companies moved from hauling equipment that needed to be pulled, and resulted in back sprains, to automatic devices to push around heavy skids of cargo. I have many examples to give about major companies and what they have done. I could talk at length about Wal-Mart and what they have done as well as other Arkansas companies that have been proactive, without this very intrusive and burdensome rule from OSHA. The rule is replete with vague and subjective requirements where employers must have an ergonomics plan in place to deal with such hazards. OSHA said it is being flexible by allowing employers to design a plan that caters to their own workplace, but that same ``flexibility'' also requires the employer to be an expert on ergonomic injuries, an understanding that many physicians admit isn't an exact science at all. I share another true horror story from the State of Florida. I am the V.P., Human Resources, for a company which has a manufacturing plant as a subsidiary. Last year, one of our employees developed a CTS problem with her wrists, allegedly due to her job as a sawyer. We had her go through an extensive evaluation process, and then did surgeries on each wrist although we had conflicting medical data on the need, and also went through a prolonged rehab process. We did transfer her out of the saw department and gave her an administrative job creating files, and delivering and picking up the files within an office area. A physical therapist consultant reviewed this job to insure no further risk of injury before she was assigned to it. She is not allowed to carry a load over 5 pounds based on her physician's advice and she does follow that advice at work. About a week ago, she reported that her elbows were very painful due to her work situation. While she was discussing this with our worker's comp HR person, one of her co-workers came by. He said he had seen her on the weekend working at her mother's vegetable stand unloading large boxes of produce and complimented her on how hard she was working. We have since determined that she works at least 8 hours a weekend, most weekends, doing the hard labor at the stand. When asked about this, she said it was none of our business what she did on the weekend and that it had nothing to do with her elbows hurting. We are still trying to get this one off our worker's comp side and over to the medical plan where it belongs. Whether that happens frequently or is a very rare occurrence, be assured it will happen more frequently under a national workers compensation plan operated under the Department of Labor. Finally, I want to discuss the vote we will take in a few hours and what it actually means. It would vitiate the effective rule, the underlying premise of the CRA; it would prohibit OSHA from promulgating another rule substantially similar to the effective rule so they could not turn around and put us through this process again. It is what should occur under the aforementioned flaws of the effective rule. OSHA has admitted that 95 percent of American employers are acting in good faith. Why have an ergonomics rule that has but one purpose, and that is to place an unsustainable burden upon American employers? Why not have a program that works cooperatively with 95 percent and uses the general duty clause to enforce the remaining 5 percent that are deemed bad actors? That is a rational alternative. Our Secretary of Labor has assured us she will address this in a comprehensive manner and in a fair manner. This has been a proposal that, in my opinion, is not something that was 10 years in the making but is something that has been shotgunned in its present form at the 11th hour. This agency, I believe, has strayed from a commonsense approach. It is the duty upon this Chamber, upon this body, to pass this resolution to ensure that OSHA is placed back on the right track. My colleagues have several sound reasons for voting in favor of the resolution. The effective rule is a $63 billion annual mandate on employers, or more. It circumvents State jurisdiction. It requires small employers to fully understand extremely complex medical conditions, and it will undoubtedly send jobs overseas where there are often very few protections for workers. I remind my colleagues once again of the statement that I began with, a quotation from Martha Kent, who said, to her, regulating is a way of life, regulating is a thrill, regulating gives her a high. Our regulatory agencies play an important role, but they threaten liberties when they run amok, when they become a rogue rulemaking agency. There is more at stake than simply a rule in the vote that we have on CRA. It is, at least in my mind, the issue of the separation of powers, the right of the elected representatives of the people to make the laws for the land and when necessary to step in and say enough is enough to a regulatory agency that has gone too far. OSHA, in this 600-plus-page rule, has gone too far. We must say enough is enough. Here we draw the line. We stop this rule. Start over. I hope that is what my colleagues will do as we vote on this resolution of disapproval. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of my time.