Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, there may be others who want to speak on other matters. As I mentioned earlier, the IRA was developed as a retirement account basically for working families. The majority of those who contribute are individuals who earn less than $30,000 a year. These are the people who are putting in only a couple thousand dollars. They are limited over a lifetime. You put the cap there. The retirement program has historically been out of the reach of the credit card companies and the bankruptcy courts, the retirement savings. Now for the first time we are seeing an intrusion on that. There is a cap. It is not being put in for the 401(k), basically the high rollers. If you are not going to put it in for the 401(k)'s, you should not put it in for the retirements for the working families. We will have a commingling of the funding and there is a good chance there will be an additional burden and cost in terms of the IRA. It doesn't make a great deal of sense. I thank my friend from Iowa. As always, he is a friend and I enjoy working with him on many different matters. I will study more closely his pension legislation this evening and give it a good deal of additional thought.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would be glad to work out the question as to how the debtors are going to make sure they are going to get an allocation in terms of health insurance--to make sure it would be used for that particular purpose. I would be glad to work out over the nighttime those kinds of protections. But I say the answer would be the same way that particular provision applies to food and rent. You do not have the additional written in stone with regard to food and rent in this particular proposal. But if you want additional kinds of protections to ensure that it goes to insurance, I do not think that is going to be really a stumbling block. Now let me just respond to the general theme my good friend from Iowa discussed. This amendment simply ensures that while a debtor is repaying his creditors, he has enough money to purchase health insurance for himself and his family. The supporters of the legislation assert that the other necessary expense provisions in the IRS collection standards include health care insurance for all debtors. That simply is not true. The other necessary expense provision does say that other expenses, which may meet the necessary expense test, includes health care. But if a debtor has recently lost his health insurance or lost his job--and therefore his health insurance--health care insurance premium expenses will not be included in his monthly expense allowance. And the IRS staff confirms that. So a Senator says: Look, if they paid their health care insurance premium at the time, we will make sure they will be able, within the IRS means test, to pay their premium as well. The point is, as we have seen with great numbers of people, almost half of those who have gone into bankruptcy have done so because of health-related expenses. The great majority of those are losing their health insurance, or they have health insurance and it does not cover these catastrophic additional kinds of costs, or they have lost their job and lost their health insurance. They are not provided for. Here is somebody who has worked hard all their life, paid into their health insurance, then they lose their job, lose their health, and they run into one of these catastrophic illnesses, and they had been paying the premiums all of this time. But there is no provision for them, even though they have conscientiously provided health insurance for themselves and their families throughout their employment. They cannot even work that out with the restrictive language here. There ought to be a reasonable way of ensuring that those people are going to get health insurance within the means test standard, which supposedly looks at essential needs. I think getting health insurance is an essential need. It is as important for many people as food and a roof over their heads. As we've seen, many people are unable to take the prescription drugs they need. We find, from all the medical indicators, the number of people who do not have health insurance and who end up actually dying. So that is what the bill that is before the Senate fails to respond to; and those are the real facts out there in terms of these individuals losing their jobs and losing their health insurance. They find out that even though they paid into their health insurance over a lifetime, they run into these catastrophic kinds of additional illnesses--here they were, paying in, working hard--and, under the language in the bill, there is virtually no kind of inclusion for them. I think health insurance protection for their families makes an enormous amount of sense with regard to individuals, and it makes an enormous amount of sense in terms of the individual's ability to meet their responsibilities of payment under the Bankruptcy Act. It just seems to me that those are the additional kinds of protections we are talking about. It isn't that this individual is going to be able to set the sky as the limit, and try to walk out of there with a good deal of free cash in their pockets. We would be glad to include in the Record very extensive analyses of what the costs are for individual workers and for families, using GAO figures. We could make that part of the Record. That could be a pretty clear indication of a reasonable standard that might be used or might be followed. But that is why I believe this is so important. In many ways, this amendment, as I mentioned, will improve the debtor's chance of being able to repay his creditors while also ensuring that he and his family have a decent--not luxurious but decent--standard of living. If the debtors are able to purchase health insurance, they will be able to withstand the predictable and unpredictable circumstances that are part of everyday living--the birth of a child, a previous undiagnosed illness, necessary trips to the doctor's office. Instead of scraping for pennies to pay those bills, the debtor and his family will have the health insurance that every American needs. Instead of failing to meet the obligations of a chapter 13 repayment plan, all available resources must go to unexpected health care expenses. The debtor can meet both obligations. So I hope we can continue to visit this issue and see what we might be able to work out. Amendment No. 39

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001 includes a means test that determines whether debtors will be granted relief under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code or whether they must enter into a Chapter 13 repayment plan. Supporters of the bill believe it will prevent abuse in the bankruptcy system. I believe, as do the experts, that it is problematic. For better or worse, however, the means test is in the bill and it requires a calculation of the debtor's monthly expenses based on the Internal Revenue Service collection standards. The IRS standards provide for food, clothing, transportation, and some health care- related expenses. What the IRS standards don't provide for is the cost of health care insurance for many debtors, particularly those who recently lost their insurance or may not have been able to afford it. The amendment I'm offering today says that if a debtor doesn't have health care insurance, the bankruptcy court must include a reasonable allowance for health care insurance for the debtor, his or her dependents, and his or her spouse, when calculating the debtor's monthly expenses. This amendment is necessary because many Americans declare bankruptcy because of health care-related problems. A recent report tells us that nearly half of the 1.2 million Americans who file for bankruptcy do so because of medical problems. According to the report, in 1999, an estimated 326,000 families filed for bankruptcy because of an illness or injury to themselves or a family member and an additional 267,000 families had substantial medical bills. That is extraordinary. Again, in 1999, an estimated 326,000 families filed for bankruptcy because of an illness or an injury to themselves or a family member and an additional 267,000 families had substantial medical bills. Almost 600,000--nearly half of all those who filed for bankruptcy--filed for medical reasons. During discussion of this legislation, we've found that there are three major reasons why people are filing for bankruptcy. One is job related and that is triggered for the most part, not completely but for the most part, because of the various mergers, downsizing and pink slipping effecting great numbers of Americans. Second, many women are filing for bankruptcy after falling on hard times as a result of divorce, lack of alimony, or lack of child support payments. And the third reason is health related. The explosion of health care costs, particularly in the area of prescription drugs, and the general cost of health insurance has led many to file for bankruptcy. Close to 600,000 bankruptcies involve families or individuals--half of all of those who are going into bankruptcy --have health-related bankruptcies. Two hundred and sixty-seven thousand of those who filed for bankruptcy in 1999 had no health insurance. A report published in Norton's Bankruptcy Adviser says: The data reported here serve as a reminder that self- funding medical treatment and loss of income during a bout of illness or recovery from an accident make a substantial number of middle class families vulnerable to financial collapse. Some families once had health insurance but, in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy, let their policy payments lapse so every penny could be used to buy food and pay the rent. Those families later find themselves in bankruptcy without an appropriate health insurance safety net. Others never had health insurance because they simply could not afford it. And, others lost their insurance when they lost their job. For example, one debtor tells us that he had a heart attack which led to quadruple bypass surgery. He amassed outrageous medical bills that he could not pay because he didn't have medical insurance. He then had to declare bankruptcy. Another debtor told us that the loss of a job, which led to loss of health care, precipitated bankruptcy. She used credit cards, credit cards, to pay for COBRA insurance and prescription drugs. The COBRA insurance won't last for very long, and soon she will be without any health insurance at all. These families are now among the 43 million Americans who have no health insurance, and we must ask, what happens to them? The children fail to get a healthy start in life because their parents cannot afford the eye glasses or hearing aids or doctors visits they need. Family income and energy are sucked away by the high financial and emotional cost of uninsured illness. An older couple sees hope for a dignified retirement dashed when the savings of a lifetime are washed away by a tidal wave of medical debt. Without health insurance, many families forgo health care. One-third of the uninsured go without needed medical care in any given year. Eight million uninsured Americans fail to take the medication that their doctor prescribes, because they cannot afford to fill the prescription. 400,000 children suffer from asthma but never see a doctor. 500,000 children with recurrent earaches never see a doctor. Another 500,000 children with severe sore throats never see a doctor. 32,000 Americans with heart disease go without life-saving and life- enhancing bypass surgery or angioplasty. Overall, 83,000 Americans die each year because they have no insurance. It is the seventh leading cause of death in America today. Given these facts, the Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of telling people to repay their credit card debts rather than pay for health care insurance. And, debtors shouldn't be forced to choose between eating and purchasing health care insurance while being forced to repay creditors. To avoid this Hobson's choice, when determining whether a debtor can repay his creditors, the bankruptcy court must consider health insurance premiums part of the debtors' monthly expenses. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It adds some fairness and balance to an unnecessarily harsh bill. This is something that can be dealt with by the bankruptcy judges. Obviously, the amount of repayment is going to depend to some extent on the size of the family's health insurance premium, and perhaps to some extent on where they live and the cost of health insurance in that area. But all of those kinds of calculations are readily made by the bankruptcy court and by bankruptcy judges. This does not mean an unreasonable additional kind of responsibility. And, beyond that, for those who are strong in terms of the bankruptcy reform, this makes sense from their point of view because what happens is the individual who is in bankruptcy will be kept healthier and their families will be healthier and able to at least move towards meeting their responsibilities under the bankruptcy court, if they are able to go ahead and afford those health insurance premiums. It is a win-win situation. It is a win in terms of those who are going to have responsibility for meeting their debts because they won't find additional kinds of drain on scarce resources, and it means they will be healthier and be able to afford to repay. It also works to the advantage of the individual and their families. I believe this makes a good deal of sense. I look forward to my good friend from Iowa enthusiastically embracing this amendment so that I might get onto my second amendment which is equally commendable.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. This is an amendment that if we had a cloture motion we would not have qualified, yet it is absolutely relevant.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Deborah Forbes of my Labor Committee office be granted access to the floor during the deliberations of the bankruptcy bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment includes essential short- term responses to the energy difficulties that American families face right now. It includes protections for working families who must heat their homes during the severe winters that we have in the Northeast and Midwest, and for families who must cool their homes during times of extreme heat in the South and West. Many families cannot afford sudden and dramatic increases in their heating costs, yet they must heat their homes to survive. This year 123,000 Massachusetts families needed help with their heating costs under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, a 10 percent increase in need over last year. In Boston alone, community action agencies made over 1,500 emergency heating oil deliveries this winter. The expanded relief afforded working families under this Amendment is a fitting--and I say crucial--addition to a bankruptcy bill that seeks to limit the debt relief available to consumers. I am proud to join my colleagues in proposing to improve this bankruptcy bill with energy protections for middle and low-income families. Over the next year, Congress faces difficult choices in planning the Nation's energy future, choices that will have profound long-term consequences for every sector of the Nation's economy. Republicans insist on debating controversial proposals like oil drilling in wildlife refuges but even if they succeed in forcing the drilling to begin, any oil found there will not have any effect on the domestic energy supply for 5 or even 10 years. While we take the time that is necessary to debate long-term energy policy, a foot of snow remains on the ground in Boston today. The cold weather brings immediate needs to families and small businesses, including many who work in the transportation industry. These needs cannot and should not continue be ignored. Unless Congress acts now, many families will suffer in the cold through the remainder of the winter, they will endure the summer's heat without respite, and they will be the first to feel the effects of any destabilization in the larger economy. Especially as Congress acts to weaken the bankruptcy protections available to low-income consumers, it must account for their legitimate short-term energy needs. This amendment accomplishes this work in a straightforward way, by: increasing authorized funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the Weatherization Assistance Program, and State Energy Grants; expanding state options for providing energy assistance to any family earning under 200 percent of poverty; and requiring the federal government to lead by example in all manners of energy conservation. The fact that we cannot solve all of the Nation's energy problems overnight does not excuse us from doing what we know works to protect families in the near term. The sponsors of this amendment are clear that a strong safety net for low-income working families, conservation, and energy efficiency are actions that can and must be taken immediately in response to the energy difficulties that we all know consumers throughout the Nation are facing today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the Senate's guest Chaplain, Rev. Gerry Creedon, for his eloquent prayer opening today's session of the Senate. Father Creedon has been a friend of long standing to the members of my family. We first came to know him in 1975 when he became the associate pastor at St. Luke's Catholic Church in McLean, VA. Somehow he managed to learn the names not only of my children, but of all my nieces and nephews. This greatly impressed us all, especially Ethel, who knew then he must be very special, for it is a rare accomplishment even to this day. Over the years he has watched the children grow up and has always been there for them, and for all of us, in times of joy and in times of sorrow. It is Father Creedon who has presided over many a happy family wedding, and it is he whom we have always asked to celebrate the Mass in memory of my brother at his graveside in Arlington Cemetery. You may have noticed a bit of a lilt in Father Creedon's voice as he gave the prayer this morning. You would not be wrong if you thought you heard an Irish accent. He was born in County Cork in Ireland. He was educated at the University College Dublin and then came to the United States where he received his master's degree at Washington Theological Union in Maryland. He also studied at Catholic University here in Washington, DC, before being ordained in 1968 at All Hallows College in Dublin. Fortunately for us, he was sent back to the United States after his ordination and started his pastoral service at Blessed Sacrament in Alexandria, VA. From Alexandria, to McLean, to pastor at Good Shepherd in Mt. Vernon, VA, Father Creedon has spent most of his life ministering to those in the metropolitan area. But in 1991 he was transferred to the Dominican Republic where he was a pastor and pastoral coordinator in the Diocese of San Juan de la Maguana for five years. He returned with a renewed passion in the Latino community and human rights issues, and has become an active spiritual advisor for people of Hispanic background in this area. Currently, Father Creedon is the pastor of St. Charles in Arlington, VA. He is the Chair of the Virginia Inter-faith Center for Public Policy, and on the Steering Committee of Northern Virginia's Inter- faith Coalition for Justice. He has always taken a special interest in the housing needs of our less fortunate citizens and been active on behalf of disadvantaged children. He was president of Gabriel Homes, Inc. which sponsored group living for developmentally disabled adults from 1982 until 1991, and was the Founder of Friends of Children's Services in 1983. His efforts have been recognized with many awards including the Human Rights Award from Fairfax County, the Social Worker of the Year Award from the Virginia Council of Social Workers. He received a nomination for Northern Virginian of the Year in the area of community service. Of course, being Irish, he has also found time to write poetry. It has even been published in Poetry Ireland Review. When Father Creedon is not busy with his pastoral duties, you will find him on the golf course. It is a game he takes very seriously and I hear he is much improved. I think we can presume that prayer on the putting green works. But most of all we love to be with him when he picks up his mandolin and sings us the Irish songs of his beloved County Cork and Dublin. Whether he is with us for a sail at the Cape, talking about his achievements in hurling, celebrating mass, or baptizing the newest member of the Kennedy family, Father Gerry Creedon is a valued friend and a welcome spiritual presence in our lives. It is a privilege to have him here with us in the Senate today. We are grateful for his inspiring prayer as our guest Chaplain. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, while the Senator from Virginia is here and the junior Senator from Massachusetts, let me point out what a logical response would be to the Senator from Virginia. All we have to have is the President of the United States file in the Federal Register now an objection to this particular rule and in 60 days this rule is effectively suspended. There would be the opportunity then, if the Secretary of Labor working with the chairman of the committee had particular objections, that they would be able to make those recommendations; it would be in order. That is not what is being asked here in the Senate. We are being asked to give the death knell to this whole proposal. Under the CRA, they cannot come back with a substantial equivalent rule. It is fair to ask what the history has been with regard to ergonomics. The fact is, since 1994 and 1995, there has been wholesale opposition to any ergonomics rules, under Republican and Democratic administrations. If you can demonstrate to me a single example where, at the Federal level or the State level, there has been any kind of support for those particular proposals from the business community that is leading the charge against it, your comments would make some sense. But it doesn't happen to be that way, and you can't show it. I won't take the time now away from the Senator from Massachusetts, but later I will take the time to go over what the history has been in opposition to this particular rule. It is right there, going back since Elizabeth Dole said there was a problem--day in and day out, battle after battle. My good friend from Wyoming said California has a 1-page ergonomics standard, and the industry opposed that one. The Senator from Wyoming can't give us a single example of an ergonomics standard that has been supported--not one. And to think we are going to lead the American people on the basis of that exchange, that all we have to do is knock this down and in a very short period of time we will have some opportunity to consider a good, effective program that is going to protect the millions of Americans who tonight are at risk is asking too much of logic and understanding, I believe, from the American people. It ``ain't'' going to happen.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our agreement is to go back and forth. I would like to be able to respond without my colleague and friend from Massachusetts losing his right to speak--to be able to respond to the questions from the Senator from Pennsylvania. Would I be permitted to speak for 4 minutes on this subject matter and then ask unanimous consent that my colleague may speak?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. What I would like to ask is if the Senator from Illinois could speak after Senator Bond. We are just trying to give some notice to our Members. We are alternating back and forth.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question? As I understand it, is Senator Bond asking to speak after the Senator from California?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. We have heard a good deal of rhetoric on the part of those who have opposed this regulation. We have heard that the rule is 600 pages long. This is eight pages. It can be found in the November 14, 2000 Federal Register starting at page 68846. Mr. President, in reviewing this, I daresay it might take someone 15 or 20 minutes to read through it. We have heard a great deal about how can any business in this country be able to understand what is expected of them. I daresay anybody who has been watching this debate and has the opportunity of looking through the Congressional Record tomorrow will be able to get through these in very quick order. I just looked, for example, at the basic screening tool which is the standard which would be used by employers. It is very clear. It sets forth the risk factors the standard covers. It talks about repetition and about the amount of repetition that might be evidenced in an ergonomic injury. Then it goes down to the issue of force. Most people, small businessmen or large businesses, are going to be able to understand these standards, which cover lifting more than 75 pounds at any one time, more than 55 pounds more than 10 times a day, or more than 25 pounds below the knees and above the shoulders or at arm's length more than 25 times a day. I think most people with a high school education could understand whether their workers were at risk. The rule also addresses awkward postures. They have three different illustrations, such as repeatedly raising or working with hands above the head or elbow, above the shoulders, more than 2 hours total per day; kneeling or squatting more than 2 hours total per day--kneeling and squatting are not very difficult to understand; working with the back, neck, or wrist, twisting more than 2 hours total per day. Those are the three criteria for awkward positions. Most people can understand that. It is very readable and understandable. Then the rule goes back to contact stress, using the hand or knee as a hammer more than 10 times per hour, more than 2 hours total per day. It just goes on, and it is very understandable, Mr. President, and that is really what this whole proposal is all about. All we have to do is ask the more than 1 million workers in our society, the great majority of whom are women, who have trouble using their fingers, wrists, arms, shoulders, backs, and lower backs. They understand what is happening to them in the workplace. This is no great challenge. How can we ever expect anybody to understand what is happening? Very simple. As we have seen from every report, it is happening and putting more than 100 million Americans at risk every day in more than 6 million workplaces. It is happening to at least 1 million Americans, according to the Academy of Sciences, who are losing work every day. They understand it. This idea that we have to go through 700 pages is just baloney. Here are the regulations. They are understandable, they are comprehensible, they are clear, and they are reasonable. They are completely opposed by the Chamber of Commerce that has spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the rule because they would put at risk American workers in the workplace, and that is wrong. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine.

Mr. KENNEDY. We have tried to accommodate a timeframe here for this for other Members. The other side has used 40 minutes longer than we have. My understanding is that the 80 and 40 minutes were going to be at the end of Senator Harkin's statement. That is what I agreed to. Now I am told by the Parliamentarian that the latter part of his statement is all being taken out of my time because it is in response to a question. I had a limited amount of time left. I have been here all day, and I am quite prepared to accommodate those who want to set the time, but I object strenuously to that interpretation. I would like to just renew the request that has been made by the Senator from Wyoming that we have the 80- and 40-minute allocation that was meant earlier.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thought I was next. Parliamentary inquiry. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. KENNEDY. We were trying to work out, on the Patients' Bill of Rights, a bipartisan effort. Now, when it comes to protecting workers, we have to take it or leave it--no effort to accommodate, no effort to compromise, no effort in the area that has been identified as the most dangerous for workers in this country from a health and safety point of view. And they say: ``Just take it or leave it.'' Ten hours of debate, and we go out of the Senate with an effective ``trophy'' for the Chamber of Commerce on this. Can the Senator express his own view about this dilemma we are in?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there have been a great many statements that, when this rule was promulgated, it didn't take into consideration any of the points that were being raised by business. That, of course, is completely hogwash. We know there is an ergonomics crisis in the country. Most of the time, the ergonomics rules would go into effect in order to try to protect workers; right? Not these rules and regulations though. Even though the employer need not act under the rule until there is, first of all, an injury. An injury has to trigger it. That is a major difference, and that was a tip in terms of business. What was the second tip in terms of business? The second tip in terms of business is, who makes a judgment whether the injury is work related? Is it the employee? No, it is the employer. The employer makes the judgment whether the injury is work related. Who makes a judgment, once we find out there is an injury, and it is a result of ergonomics, and it is work related, about whether that particular individual is going to continue to be employed or whether their work will be shifted in a way so they do not suffer continued, ongoing additional injury? Is it the employee? No, it is the medical officials of the employer. My goodness, you could not ask for an ethic or rule that bent over further to take into consideration the interests of the employer. We don't hear any discussion on the floor of the Senate of the particulars of the rule. All we hear is, ``We are not going to cede the power of elected officials to bureaucrats.'' We do it every day. We do it every day in the Food and Drug Administration that has requirements to make sure pharmaceutical drugs are going to be safe and efficacious. If they are not safe and efficacious, they are not approved, they don't get the approval of the regulators. When was the last time we elected a chair of the FDA? We do not do it. They are appointed by the President. We confirm them, but they are not elected officials. Who looks out after health and safety in other inspections that take place? It is not elected officials. It is those who are appointed. We have heard that same speech eight times today. We heard eight times how these officials at OSHA are not elected. I hope we can come, as we are going into the final hours, to have a different view. I see my friend from Iowa on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa is going to be here shortly to be recognized. We had two Senators from that side go on. I would like to take maybe 4 minutes, and then by that time the Senator from Iowa will be here to make his comments.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a matter of enormous importance and consequence to America's workers. It will be the first time in the history of OSHA that Congress has taken action that will effectively terminate the ability of OSHA to protect American workers. It is in an area in which there is a growing problem and a growing concern because of the increased numbers of ergonomic injuries. In a period of some 10 hours we are going to undermine the efforts of the Department of Labor and OSHA over a period of 10 years. Some have made the comments, rather cavalierly, that this is a offhand rule that was developed in the final hours of the Clinton administration. Of course that is a complete distortion and a complete misrepresentation, as are a number of the other recent comments I have heard. I will respond to them in some detail at this time. It is important to note there has been due process. There are those who have differed with the rules and regulations. You would listen to this part of the debate and think that those who are against the rules and regulations never had an opportunity to make their case during the process. Of course that is basically hogwash because they did have that opportunity. We can also listen to those who say we have to eliminate these regulations. Of course there is a process and procedure by which the President can modify these rules and regulations, if he doesn't like them. That is not the path those who are seeking to overturn these regulations are taking. The President of the United States can just file, in the Federal Register, a resolution, effectively, of disapproval, and wait 60 days and those regulations are effectively suspended. The Department of Labor could then go about the process through public hearings and alter the regulations. So for those who want to bring some modification and change, who think there ought to be some opportunity to do something different, that power and authority is there today. But that is being rejected by those who want to overturn any opportunity to provide any protection for the millions of Americans who have been adversely affected, impacted, and injured by ergonomics injuries over the past several years. That is what we are looking at. With all the talk we have heard already this morning, and we will hear later on, we could still have the opportunity to modify and change and adjust and go back and trim the regulations. It is a simple process. But, no, that technique is being rejected. They are coming in here with a blunderbuss and saying, ``We have the votes, we are playing hardball''; effectively, ``we are going to give short shrift to the American workers''--primarily women because they are the ones most adversely impacted. We all have a responsibility to them. I mention to my good friend, when he talks about 400 pages of regulations--there are 8 pages of regulations; not 400, 8 pages of regulations. It is right in here. If the Senator would want to look through them, I will be glad to spend some time. Eight pages of regulations--it might take someone 20 minutes to read through them. Eight pages of regulations--the rest is support. It is not the Department of Labor talking about $4 billion of expenditures. It is the Department of Labor talking about $4 billion of savings. It is a big difference. We have to get our facts straight. The same applies to the workers compensation provision. This does not undermine States' workers compensation. It has virtually nothing to do with workers compensation, other than what has been done traditionally with other kinds of OSHA rules and regulations such as for cadmium and lead. There has not been an uproar from the States. I don't hear any. If the Senator will have some letters from Governors who talk about how their workers compensation has been destroyed, uprooted in ways, we would welcome them. We have not seen them. We have not heard from them. I ask our Members to pay close attention. What is really at risk here is enormously important. First of all, we don't have to be here dealing with this issue. We could be debating the bankruptcy issue. If we want to be doing that--we will have a chance and opportunity to do that --but, nonetheless, one of the first orders of business we are coming up to is not to look out after minimum wage workers or an increase in the minimum wage. No. We don't have that out here. We are not debating a Patients' Bill of Rights. It has been before the Congress for 5 years. We are not doing that on the floor of the Senate. No, we are not going to consider that. We are not debating prescription drugs in the Senate. What are we doing? For the first time in the history of the Senate, we are talking about repealing protections for workers who are out there in the workforce of America with a blunderbuss kind of technique that says, ``We have the votes, we are going to repeal it, and as a result of that repeal and the statutory provisions, you will not be able to have any kind of ergonomic protection for American workers.'' We have the alternative of trying to change this in a responsible way but, oh, no, we are going to show a contemptible attitude, an arrogant, contemptible attitude towards the American workers by this blunderbuss technique that is being proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I listened when Senator Reid's name was mentioned. He supported the concept of CRA, but he is strongly opposed to the actions being recommended by the Republican leadership. We all have a responsibility to protect the safety and health of workers on the job. Today the most significant safety and health problems that workers face are debilitating and career-ending ergonomic injuries. Millions of workers and their families suffer needlessly. These injuries can be prevented by simple, inexpensive changes in the workplace. This rule is about prevention, preventing the injury. That is what this rule is about. We know the injuries are out there. We know what can be done in order to diminish the number of injuries and that is what this rule targets. The Department of Labor's solution to this problem has been sound, sensible, and necessary. It is flexible and cost-effective for businesses, and it is overwhelmingly based upon scientific evidence. It has the support of virtually every health science professional group and their representatives. Every one of them has supported this proposal, every one of them--but not the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. But if you are talking about protecting workers and you are talking about the medical implications and the health implications, every organization that is concerned with that supports these proposals. If people have differences about the specifics of this solution, we can work them out in a bipartisan way. The President can stop this regulation and issue a new one if he doesn't like it. But in 10 hours of debate today, the Republicans intend to destroy this crucial protection that was begun over 10 years ago by the Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole. In the 30 years that the job safety laws have been in effect, Congress has never taken away a protection for workers. Listen to me. In the 30 years the job safety law has been in effect, Congress has never taken away protection for workers. This could be the first. ``Don't alter it, don't change it, don't modify it--eliminate it. We have the votes. That is what we are going to do.'' This is a contemptible attitude towards the working families in this country. One of the most essential roles of government is to protect its citizens. We protect public safety by providing a police force. We protect public health by regulating prescription drugs and food safety by rules and regulations by the FDA. Maybe there are those who want to eliminate all the rules and regulations. The FDA isn't elected either, but they have rules and regulations to ensure safety and efficacy. We gave them that power. We gave them that responsibility. Are we suggesting now, since they are not elected to the Senate of the United States, how outrageous that they look out after protecting America from the scourge of different diseases that have ravaged our civilizations in the past--hoof and mouth disease, mad cow disease? Let's get those professionals out. They are not elected. Let's just free ourselves from regulations. It may cost the meat manufacturers and producers a few more bucks because they have to be inspected. Let's free ourselves from those matters. These are the same issues--health and safety. The same issues. We are protecting workers on the job today. If they are going to eliminate those protections today, what regulations are they going to eliminate tomorrow? We came very close to it 3, 4 years ago, eliminating protective regulations in food safety--the elimination of the Delaney clause--and many others. We came within a vote or two of eliminating those. The same forces are out there. Today it is the safety in the workforce. Tomorrow it is going to be food, health, and well-being, and the air that we breathe and the water that we drink. Make no mistake about it. The greed is unbelievable. That is what it is all about. What do you think this is about? It is about bucks. It is about money. It is money on the one side; what the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers want versus trying to invest and protect American workers. It is greed. It is money. It says that we are not really interested in safety. If they were interested in it, they would want to be responsible. Why do they drop this in the middle of the night? We found out in the magazines and newspapers on Sunday that this technique was going to be used now. Why not mention it and try to work this out? Is this the beginning of the process or the end of the process? Why not bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights? Why not, even though the President indicated a month ago that he wanted to work this out? We said fine; we will try to work it out. A month has passed. Are we bringing that up? No. Not the Republican leadership. No. Oh, no. They are just dropping this right out here. ``We have the votes. We have the votes and are going to pursue it.'' So they do. We protect the public safety by a police force, the public health by regulating prescription drugs and food safety. We require seatbelts in automobiles. When Americans are at risk, it is the duty of government to do whatever we can to protect them. That is our job. That is our responsibility as public servants. That is why we have laws and regulations to protect our citizens in the workplace. I was in the Senate during the years when we heard the same voices we are hearing from that side of the aisle opposing the OSHA program. I will tell you this. OSHA has reduced the number of deaths in the workplace by half over the period of the last 27 or 28 years. It has saved an enormous number of lives, and it has protected health and well-being. But we heard at that time: Why are we going to do that? That is going to interfere with American business and their ability to produce American goods. Don't you think American industry is concerned about those workers? Of course they said they passed it. Sure, there have been some actions OSHA has taken with which we don't all agree. But, nonetheless, if you look, particularly in the last several years, the record in terms of the number of lives that have been saved as compared to other times has been credible and defensible. Over our history, and in the early years of the last century, we have fought long battles for the safety of factory workers. We struggled long and hard to improve the working conditions of our mine workers-- one of the most dangerous jobs in America. We took steps to guard against child labor and other abusive practices. Over the past 10 years, America has taken the next important step to protect workers against the kinds of injuries that occur in the modern workplace--so-called ergonomic injuries. Yesterday, workers lost their limbs in factories. Today's workers suffer crippling pain in their wrists and in their hands because of computer keyboards. That is an ergonomic injury. Yesterday, workers were burned in steel mills. Today's workers develop chronic back injuries from standing too long behind the lunch counter, carrying heavy trays of food, and sitting for long hours in their offices and chairs that harm their backs. Those are ergonomic injuries. The resolution before us today is a complete about-face in the long march of protecting our workers. In a single vote, we will tell millions of Americans--mostly women--that their work doesn't matter. This resolution is antiworker, antiwoman, antifamily, and it deserves to be soundly defeated. We all know what is going on. We could have sat down and worked this out in a bipartisan way. If President Bush disagrees with this current regulation, he could issue a new one. But, instead, our Republican friends took the course that hurt workers the most--banishing this important safety initiative to the dungeon. If you do not like the last administration's approach to worker safety, Mr. President, then change it. Don't destroy it--because the health and safety of millions of American workers is at stake. Otherwise, this may well mean that all the talk about a new civility in Washington is just a hoax. Instead of helping hard-working families, this resolution is a big ``thank you'' to big business for all their support. It is politics at its worst. It leaves the average American worker defenseless against today's workplace injuries. With Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, it is trample-down economics for American workers. Let American workers be on guard. Your rights and your dignity and your hard work are no longer respected. Today your safety is on the chopping block. Tomorrow it is going to be your medical leave or your ability to spend more time with your families, for our Republican friends can act today on this issue with such disregard for your labors, your hard-won workers' rights, your safety. The Department of Labor's ergonomics rule is sound, sensible, and necessary. I strongly oppose this resolution of disapproval. If Congress passes this resolution, it will have destroyed in 10 hours what it took the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 10 painstaking years to create and will deprive workers of all of the protections from the No. 1 risk to health and safety in the workplace. I have both good news and bad news today. The bad news is that ergonomic injuries are painful and often debilitating. They are common and they are caused by workplace practices. The good news is that these injuries are readily preventable, and the ergonomics rule offers an effective way to address workplace hazards. The worst news is that Congress today will prevent OSHA from implementing this or any other rule that will protect workers from these significant risks to their health and to their safety. My colleagues should make no mistake about the result of the resolution of disapproval that is before us. It is an atom bomb for the ergonomics rule. Supporters of this resolution insist they can use it to fix the ergonomics rule and send it back to the drawing board. They are wrong. The language of the resolution is clear and nonamendable and will eliminate the rule altogether. Until Congress gives it permission, OSHA will be powerless to adopt an ergonomics rule that, like this one, truly solves the problem. If the resolution's supporters have their way, all of this will be done today without any opportunity for committee input or for reasoned consideration on the Senate floor. Our debate is limited to a maximum of 10 hours. This resolution is not subject to motions to amend, to postpone, to move to other business, or to recommit to committee. All points of order are waived, and appeals from decisions of the Chair are nondebatable. This expedited process will not be used to disapprove a rule that an agency clearly lacks authority to issue. It will not be used to disapprove a rule that lacks any basis in scientific evidence. It will not be used to disapprove a rule that was adopted without adequate opportunity for public notice and comment. Instead, this fast-track procedure will be used to eliminate a rule that goes to the heart of the Federal Government's mission to protect workers' safety and health. That is supported by thousands of scientific studies. And that is the product of 10 years of study, 9 weeks of public hearings, and 11 best practice conferences all over the country, bringing employers and workers together to try to describe what is and isn't working. That's 11 conferences all over the Nation, 9 weeks of public hearings, and close to 4 months of opportunity for written comment from the public. This is an unprecedented attack on our workers' fundamental right to safe workplaces. As long ago as 1990, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole called ergonomic injuries ``one of the nation's most debilitating across-the- board worker safety and health illnesses.'' I wish we heard from the other side at least some recognition, some understanding, some awareness, some sensitivity to the workers who are being injured by ergonomic injuries every single day in America. But we do not. It is all technical language: ``We don't want to interfere with workers' compensation. There are 400 pages in this book over here. The Department of Labor says X, Y, and Z.'' We are talking about family members. We are talking about workers who are providing for their families, who are playing by the rules, trying to put in a good day's work in order to provide for their families. They ought to be given the assurances about preventing these kinds of injuries if we have the knowledge, the awareness, and understanding, and we can do it in an affordable way. We will come back in a few moments and get into the costs on these issues. It is quite clear, if we are able to have an effective rule, this will actually save money and increase productivity and lower the cost of workers' compensation. Now this is what Secretary Elizabeth Dole said in 1990: We must do our utmost to protect workers from these hazards. She also said: By reducing repetitive motion injuries, we will increase both the safety and productivity of America's workforce. As all the study, data, and personal experience since have amply shown, she was right. Each year, over 1.8 million workers report that they have suffered from ergonomic injuries. Another 1.8 million incur ergonomic injuries that they do not report. What this means is simple: Over the 10 years of study OSHA devoted to this rule, America's working men and women endured over 18 million unnecessary injuries. The average cost of these injuries--severe injuries--is anywhere from $25,000 to $27,000. I do not know what the value is in terms of denying someone their opportunity to use their hands, use their arms. What is the cost if they cannot use their fingers, cannot use their wrists, not only in the workplace but in terms of being able to pick up a child or be able to walk with a child or play with a child when they are growing up--all of the personal kinds of important opportunities in life that give individuals a sense of the joy of life? What does it cost here? That is what we are debating. The Chamber of Commerce says it is too much. But 10 years of studies, evaluations, and best practices said that this can be done, and done in a way that will save money for American business. You have two entirely different viewpoints. Do we have a chance to examine them? No. They say: ``We have the votes.'' We have how many hours left now? Nine more hours left? Nine more hours left until we can finish this rule off? That is the attitude of those who want to repeal this rule. The statistics also show how serious this problem is. More than 600,000 workers lose a day or more from work each year because of these injuries. Indeed, the Academy of Sciences estimates this number is even higher, that over 1 million workers lose time at work because of their ergonomic injuries. This is the Academy of Sciences. No, they are not elected to anything. But they are the Academy of Sciences, universally respected. And that is what they found, I say to Senators--1 million a year. And in 10 hours we are throwing out rules that can provide protection for these workers. Ergonomic injuries account for over one-third of all serious job- related injuries and over two-thirds of all job-related illnesses. The injuries are costly. In a definitive study released only 6 weeks ago, the National Academy of Sciences estimated ergonomic injuries cost the Nation $50 billion annually in workers compensation costs--$50 billion now annually today if we do nothing. That isn't the Senator from Massachusetts saying that. That is the National Academy of Sciences saying that: $50 billion if we do nothing, in terms of workers compensation, absenteeism, and lost productivity. In fact, ergonomic injuries account for $1 in every $3 that employers spend for workers' compensation costs. That is a cost of $15 to $18 billion every year in workers' compensation costs. These injuries are painful and often crippling. They range from carpal tunnel syndrome, to severe back injuries, to disorders of the muscles and nerves. Carpal tunnel syndrome keeps workers off the job longer than any other workplace injury. This injury alone causes workers to lose an average of more than 25 days, compared to 17 days for fractures and 20 days for amputations. These injuries affect all of us. Carpal tunnel syndrome afflicts nurses. It hurts truck drivers and cooks. It affects secretaries, cashiers, and hairdressers. It threatens any of us who use a computer or lift heavy objects or bend to pick things up. We are all at risk. And even if each of us individually has not yet suffered a repetitive stress injury, we all know people who have. They are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, and neighbors--and they deserve our help. But contrary to what the good Senator from Oklahoma says, there are broad industries which are left out. This rule is a rather reasonable rule and quite narrow. It does not affect agriculture. It does not affect the maritime industry, railroads, or construction. Those industries are left out. They are left out for other reasons. I can come back to them later. So this idea of what is going to happen to workers' compensation and the number of pages of the rule, and what is the cost going to be, and about all the industry affected, we have to get down to the real facts. Women are disproportionately harmed by ergonomic hazards. Women make up 47 percent of the overall workforce, but in 1998 they accounted for 64 percent of the repetitive motion injuries and 71 percent of the carpal tunnel cases. I will show you this chart very quickly. I see others on the floor, Senator Feinstein and others, who will speak to this in greater detail. Women are 47 percent of the total workforce. Of the total number of injured workers, they are only 33 percent. But if you are looking at ergonomic hazards, lost work time from repetitive motion injuries, in 1998, women accounted for 64 percent of those who had repetitive motion injuries and 71 percent of those who lost time for carpal tunnel injuries. This is a rule about protecting women in the workforce, because of changes in terms of our new economy primarily, and for other reasons as well. These women are not faceless numbers. We are talking about workers such as Beth Piknick from Massachusetts, who was an intensive care nurse for 21 years before a preventable back injury required her to undergo a spinal fusion operation and spend 2 years in rehabilitation. Although she wants to work, she can no longer do so. In her own words: The loss of my ability to take care of patients led to a clinical depression . . . My ability to take care of patients--the reason I became a nurse--is gone. My injury-- and all the losses it has entailed--were preventable. We are talking about workers such as Elly Leary, an auto assembly person at the now-closed General Motors assembly plant in Framingham, MA. Like many, many of her coworkers, she suffered a series of ergonomic injuries--including carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis. Like others, she tried switching hands to do the job. She tried varying the sequence of the routine. She even bid on other jobs. But nothing helped. Today, years after her injury, when she wakes up in the morning, her hands are in a claw-like shape. To get them to open, she has to run hot water on them. We are talking about workers such as Charley Richardson, a shipfitter at General Dynamics in Quincy, MA, in the mid-1980s. He suffered a career-ending back injury when he was told to install a 75-pound piece of steel to reinforce a deck. Although he continued to try to work, he found that on many days he could not endure the lifting and the use of heavy tools. For years afterwards, his injury prevented him from participating in basic activities. But the loss that hurt the most was having to tell his children they could not sit on his lap for more than a few minutes because it was too painful. To this day, he cannot sit for long without pain. We are talking about workers such as Wendy Scheinfeld of Brighton, MA, a model employee in the insurance industry. Colleagues say she often put in extra hours to ``get the job done.'' As a result, Wendy has lost the use of her hands, and is now permanently unable to do her job, drive a car, play the cello, or shop for groceries. The ergonomics rule was too late to help Beth, Elly, Charley, and Wendy. And there will be many, many more like them if Congress takes away the protections of the rule now. This is because there is now conclusive, indisputable evidence that workplace practices cause ergonomic injuries. Dr. Jeremiah Barondess, the chair of the panel of experts that conducted the comprehensive study of the ergonomics issue for the National Academy of Sciences, has pointedly stated that there is a ``clear causal relationship'' between working conditions and ergonomic injuries. And in case anyone has forgotten, this NAS study was the very study that opponents of the ergonomics rule said would inform their views on the issue. Time and time again, my colleagues across the aisle urged us to wait for more evidence that ergonomic injuries were a problem, that workplace practices were responsible for these injuries, that these injuries could be prevented. These were unjustified delaying tactics. But if anyone thought there was any doubt at all about these issues, they now have their answer. To suggest that these issues are debatable is, quite simply, preposterous. Mr. President, I will come back later on. There are other points I wish to make. I note a number of my colleagues on the floor. I underscore a very simple and basic thought: This rule has been in the making 10 years, weeks of hearings and examination and evaluation, studied by the Academy of Sciences and by every scientific group, supported by virtually all of the health community that has expertise in these areas. There was a simple technique by which this rule could have been altered or changed, a very simple technique. That is being rejected. If you are for some modification, any modification at all, you ought to reject this proposal. That way, it will still be possible to bring about some changes in the ergonomic rules. But instead, what we are being asked to do is to accept lock, stock, and barrel that we are going to reject this rule that will effectively close out any opportunity to protect these workers for the first time in 30 years. I cannot think of many health and safety rules and regulations which the Chamber of Commerce or the National Association of Manufacturers has supported to protect American workers. If there are some, I hope we have the chance to hear it from the other side. They have been basically opposed to these regulations. They think they have the votes now not only to modify it but to end this rule, which addresses the No. 1 health and safety issue for American workers today. That is basically wrong. It was recognized as being a major problem by the wife of our former Republican majority leader, Elizabeth Dole, over 10 years ago. There has been nothing that has happened since that time to indicate to the contrary. On the contrary, there is constant scientific evidence to demonstrate that this is a problem, that this rule has been carefully considered and, finally, that this rule, when it is implemented, will actually save money because it will reduce workers' compensation, reduce absenteeism, and increase productivity. That is why the Department of Labor in its evaluation finds that instead of this problem costing $50 billion a year, we will actually save more than $4 billion a year. I reserve my time.