Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank Senator Biden for his comments on the introduction of this particular amendment. He has spoken to the stimulus of the tax package and why we need in a declining economy, which, of course, we hope rebounds, but because there is an indication that the economy is on the decline, we don't need a tax cut to take effect mainly in the last 5 years of the next decade; we need it to take effect now, to inject some financial, some fiscal stimulus into the economy so we can come out of the slump. That is what Senator Biden has addressed. I wish to address another part of this particular amendment, and that is the part of debt reduction, because this amendment takes a portion from the President's proposed tax cut, lowers that tax cut, changes the nature of that tax cut to an immediate fiscal stimulus, and has further a reduction of the national debt down to a level of approximately $500 billion after the decade, after the 10-year period for which we are planning. Now, why is this important? First of all, it is very important because that is what the people of America want. For decades we have been living in an economy that has been driven by annual deficits; that is, when the Federal Government is paying more out than it has coming in in tax revenues. And the difference--since we spend more than we have in tax revenues--is what we have to borrow each year, called the annual deficit. That deficit then, is added each year, and cumulatively the national debt becomes greater and greater. That figure today on the publicly held national debt is about $3.4 trillion. Well, not until a year ago did we ever seriously think that we could confront the fact of paying down the national debt, until suddenly we realized that we were in this surplus condition. Now we don't know what the surplus is. We say, in the last estimate, that it is $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. New estimates are saying it is much lower than that, and that it is really about $4.2 trillion. But if we keep going into a declining economy, the surplus could dwindle to significantly less than we are projecting. But we do know there is a surplus there, at least for the foreseeable future. So all of this is to say that is why the people out there in America--and I can tell you in my State of Florida--clearly are giving us the message that in this time of beneficence, as a result of the prosperity that we have experienced in the last decade, they want us to use that prosperity to start paying down the national debt, as well as giving a substantial tax cut. That is just good economic common sense. That is what we all do in our individual budgets. We want to pay down debt, get ourselves debt free so we have a much more stable financial condition. So, too, with our country. In our country there is a little bit of difference. In the $3.4 trillion of publicly held debt, there is some of that debt, as Mr. Greenspan testified in front of our Budget Committee, which you would not necessarily be able to pay off right away because it is long-term bonds and the Federal Government would have to pay a premium to pay those off. That overall publicly held debt is estimated to be about half a trillion dollars, $500 billion, which would be difficult to pay off without paying a premium. This amendment brings down, over a 10-year projection, that publicly held debt to a level at which we would not have to pay a penalty or a premium to pay off, and that is estimated at $500 billion at the end of the decade. That is common sense. That is good fiscal discipline. That is good fiscal and economic policy, and it is what the people of our country want. If we have an opportunity to pay down our national debt, we ought to do it. That is being good stewards of our national economy. That is the message I wanted to bring as this amendment being offered by Senator Durbin is considered by the Senate. I thank the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am moved to speak because of the eloquence of the Senator from West Virginia and what he has taught us today by his statements as the author of the Byrd rule, as the author of the reconciliation act, and how he has woven the importance of this body being able to freely debate and freely amend into the course of history. He talked about Runnymede. He talked about Xerxes. As he was speaking so eloquently, it recalled to my mind Athens in the fifth century before Christ, one of the greatest golden times in the age of civilization of planet Earth. But Athens had a problem in a bald- headed, bandy-legged little man by the name of Socrates who liked to ask all kinds of questions and who liked to challenge the established order of things Athenian. In the process of that experience with democracy and free speech, the special interests of the day urged the crowd so that the pack became in full cry to shut up the man who dared to ask the questions--Mr. Socrates. Ultimately they offered him the cup and said: Have a drink, Mr. Socrates. Socrates was such a part of that Athenian society that rather than break the rules, he drank from the cup. He showed by so doing that he adhered to the highest principles of Athenian society while they were muzzling and shackling and clamping his mouth shut. It is because of that, as a part of the lessons of history, added to the great lessons of history that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has shared with us today, that ultimately led to that brilliant band of political thinkers who all came together to fashion this thing we know as the Constitution of the United States, that we do not want to limit debate or limit amendment, especially, as the Senator has so eloquently explained to us, on something as enormous and effective on these United States as a tax bill that will take prevail for 10 years. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the history lesson he has given us. I thank him for what he represents as the true historian of this Senate, who can put this debate in perspective and give us another reason we should not have this reconciliation instruction that will muzzle this Senate on something so important to the discourse of the day, an enormous tax bill. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I suspect the people in North Carolina know, as do the people in Florida, that if there is an available surplus out there over the next 10 years, we ought to use it wisely, be fiscally disciplined; and one of the first priorities should be that we pay down the national debt--that we leave some, after we enact a tax cut, in order to be able to pay down the national debt.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Carolina yield for a question?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator from North Carolina has made such a compelling argument. I just want to question him about his people in North Carolina and their feelings about paying down the national debt. Would he further expound on that?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to express my belief that the campaign-finance reform legislation we have before us addresses one of the most important issues facing America today. The influence of special interests and the enormous amount of money required to effectively run a modern political campaign have created a rift between the Congress and the American people. The fact is our political system today is dominated by huge contributions to the national parties of ``soft money.'' Sometimes, these donations circumvent the parties and flow through other avenues that lack public disclosure under the guise of issue advertisements. These large donations and suspect advertisements have cast a cloud of doubt over the entire political process. And this doubt has caused many Americans to lose faith in the system. Is the McCain-Feingold bill the answer? It's not the total answer, but it's a step in the right direction. What we need to do is take our best hold and step forward and reform the law, right now. Banning ``soft money'' from the system will go a long way toward removing the appearance of corruption that plagues the system today; and, the legislation's new disclosure requirements will add much-needed sunshine to the process. Candidates, and the American people have a right to know the identities of the groups and people behind the so- called issue ads that increasingly dominate the airways during campaign time. Although I favor public financing, we're not at the point that we can pass public financing. So what are we going to do? My preference is, we change the system with the legislation we have before us. The people want reform; the country needs it; we should do it.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for such time as I may consume.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for yielding. He started telling us the story about one of the great Prime Ministers of England, Gladstone--four times Prime Minister--who made reference to the Senate as a great deliberative body. The scenario the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has just outlined is a description that could occur on this floor, in the greatest deliberative body in the world, that would foreclose debate, would stop amendments, would ram down the throats of Senators a piece of legislation that would have far-reaching economic and fiscal consequences for this Nation, without the opportunity for debate and amendment. As we contemplate this prospect happening as a result of our passing this budget resolution next week, will the Senator further contemplate and reflect upon the history of the Founding Fathers in crafting this Constitution in the protection of the minority and how those rights of the minority might be trampled next week?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I thought it might be instructive in the course of this debate if the distinguished Senator from West Virginia might explain the gravity of the situation contained within the budget resolution having to do with reconciliation instructions; how several months from now it would bring back to this body a tax bill that would be able to be debated only under very confined circumstances, throwing out the history, the tradition, and the rules of the Senate which have caused it to be recognized as the greatest deliberative body in the world. Would the Senator please explain for purposes of this debate the threat to the institution that is known as the greatest deliberative body in the world?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to add to the comments of the very distinguished Senator who has taught us freshmen Senators so much in the few short days that we have been here. If I may dare to expound upon the lesson that he has already taught us today by just underscoring the fact of this wonderful experiment we sometimes call a democracy is really a republic. The rights of the minority were one of the most cherished rights to be protected under the Constitution. That is why a body such as this was developed, crafted, and created by those political geniuses who, at a moment in history, happened to come together and create this government. For the protection of the rights of the minority, they clearly intended that whenever a piece of legislation would come in front of this body--which would be so important that it would have an economic consequence over years and years--that it ought to have the right of debate for more than 10 hours. You heard the Senator describe how this tax bill may come back to this body and only have 10 hours of debate. And through the process of amendment it could have even less than 10 hours of debate. No one ever contemplated that a $1.6 trillion tax bill--which all the economists are starting to tell us is really a $2.5 trillion tax cut, and maybe even more--would ever be discussed, debated and amended in less than 10 hours. That is a travesty; and, that is what the American people need to understand is about to happen, if we don't clean up this budget resolution next week. I echo the sentiments already expressed by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia that we should have, as a priority--and I can tell you my people in Florida have clearly indicated to me in no uncertain terms that their No. 1 priority is to pay down the national debt, out of this surplus, if it continues to exist, and if the projections are right. One projection is $5.6 trillion. But recently that was lowered to $4.5 trillion. With the economy seemingly going in a downward trend, who knows what that projection of the surplus is going to be? It is incumbent upon us, as we all have agreed, that we enact a substantial tax cut. It is incumbent upon us to make reasoned judgments, with fiscal restraint, on how we can pay down the national debt; enact a tax cut; and, provide for certain other priorities in this nation that my people have also told me that they want very much: A prescription drug benefit that will modernize Medicare; A substantial investment in education, so we can bring down class size; so we can pay teachers more; and, so we can have safer schools and have those schools be accountable. My people have also instructed me about their concern for the environment. They want investment there. They clearly are concerned about health care; and, they want investment there. They are concerned about providing for the common defense. They want an additional investment there--to pay our young men and women in the armed services adequate wages to keep the quality we need in the defense of this country, instead of losing it to the private sector. I have mentioned a few things. All of those are high priorities for the people of this nation, and I know they are high priorities for the people of Florida. They sent me up here to exercise judgment about how to pay down the national debt, and how within the resources we have, to enact a substantial tax cut, take care of those other needs, and to be fiscally disciplined in the process of exercising that judgment--so we don't run ourselves into the economic ditch like we did in the 1980s, when we were deficit financing. I will conclude. I have been through this before because I was one of the people who voted for the 1981 tax cut. It was an excessively large tax cut. It was well intended, but it was overdone. It was overdone so much so that we had to undo it--not once, but three times--in the decade of the 1980s, while I was in the House of Representatives. As a result of that, and a lack of fiscal restraint by the Congress, the annual deficit spending--that is spending more than you have coming in in tax revenue--in the late 1970s went from approximately $22 billion to close to $300 billion by the end of the decade--that's spending $300 billion more in that one year than we had in tax revenue. You see what the result was in the economy in the 1980s. You see how painful it was to have to turn that around. Thus, it is our responsibility in the government of the United States to wisely spend the surplus. And I can tell you, this one Member of the Senate wants to be able to exercise his judgment for the people who sent me here to be as fiscally disciplined and fiscally restrained as I can--so we don't go back into that economic ditch. I am grateful, beyond measure, to the Senator from West Virginia for the history lessons he has provided for us, for the perspective he has provided for us, for the knowledge he has provided about what can happen to the economy of this Nation. It is my intention, with every ounce of energy I have, to continue to speak out on the issue of fiscal discipline. There is a very crucial vote that is coming up next week on how we dispose of this budget resolution, and how we dispose of the reconciliation instructions, which will ultimately determine how we handle the tax bill when it comes back to the Senate for debate. Again, let me say, in closing, what a tremendous privilege it is for me to be a part of this deliberative body. I want to be a good Senator. I want to be a Senator who reaches across the aisle to forge bipartisan consensus. And that opportunity is either going to be there or not, in great measure, next week. I hope it is going to be a bipartisan consensus. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. Mrs. CLINTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator from Virginia yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I say to the Senators, oh, the gossamer thread of life cut short so quickly for such a great servant of the State of Virginia and of the United States of America with whom I had the privilege of serving in the House. He never met a man he did not like, and he was passionate about Government service. I thank my colleagues for calling this sad news to our attention and for the opportunity to respond.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Federal Election Commission reports receiving a number of complaints that people have fraudulently raised donations by posing as political committees or candidates and that the current law does not allow the Commission to pursue such cases. For example, one newspaper reported that after last November's Presidential election, both Democrats and Republicans were victims in a scam in which phony fundraising letters began popping up in mailboxes in Washington, Connecticut, Michigan, and elsewhere. Those letters urged $1,000 contributions to seemingly prestigious Pennsylvania Avenue addresses on behalf of lawyers purportedly for both George W. Bush and Al Gore. About the same time, thousands of similar letters offering coffee mugs for contributions of between $1,000 and $5,000 were sent to Democratic donors from New York to San Francisco. Clearly, one can see the potential for harm to citizens who are targeted in such fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, the Federal Election Campaign Act does not grant specific authority to the Federal Election Commission to investigate this type of activity, nor does it specifically prohibit persons from fraudulently soliciting contributions. The FEC has asked Congress to remedy this, and the amendment I offer today is in response to this request. This amendment makes it illegal to fraudulently misrepresent any candidate or political party or party employee in soliciting contributions or donations. I thank my Senate colleagues for their consideration of this amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to express my grave concern about the Bush administration's latest decision to roll back measures designed to safeguard public health. Last Tuesday, the administration announced it would revoke the new, safer arsenic standard for drinking water and revert to the standard we have had in effect since 1942. The administration stated that the lower standard for drinking water should not go into effect because there was ``no consensus on a particular safe level'' of arsenic in drinking water. The administration also claims it would cost industry too much money to comply with the lower standard. The old standard of 50 parts per billion was established almost 60 years ago--before research linked arsenic to some forms of cancer. A 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences, a study mandated by Congress for drinking water, concluded that the current arsenic standard for drinking water could result in one additional case of cancer for every 100 people consuming such drinking water. Moreover, the study determined that long-term exposure to low concentrations of arsenic in drinking water can lead to skin, bladder, lung, and prostate cancer. Non-cancer effects of ingesting arsenic at these levels can include cardiovascular disease, diabetes and anemia as well as reproductive, developmental, immunological, and neurological effects. In response, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted a rule that set a new standard of 10 parts per billion which the EPA deemed safe for drinking water. This standard also has been adopted by the European Union and the World Health Organization. Is cost a sufficient reason for reversal? No. That's because Congress consistently has made clear that it will help states and municipalities with the funds necessary to provide their citizens with safe drinking water. Even the Governor of Florida recognizes the health risks of arsenic. Arsenic was discovered recently in the soil in playgrounds in Tarpan Springs, Miami and Crystal River. It leached into the soil from pressure-treated wood used for park boardwalks and other outdoor structures. Last week, Gov. Jeb Bush ordered the state's wood-treatment plant to stop using arsenic to treat wood. I commend him for that decision. If arsenic in the soil is dangerous for children, it only stands to reason that the danger is even greater when it is found in drinking water. The Administration should join the State of Florida in recognizing the danger of arsenic and restore the 10 parts per billion standard. In the meantime, I am introducing legislation to restore the federal rule containing the new, safer drinking-water standard. The American people deserve clean, safe drinking water. If the Administration won't act, Congress must. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to express my grave concern about the Bush administration's latest decision to roll back measures designed to safeguard public health. Last Tuesday, the administration announced it would revoke the new, safer arsenic standard for drinking water and revert to the standard we have had in effect since 1942. The administration stated that the lower standard for drinking water should not go into effect because there was ``no consensus on a particular safe level'' of arsenic in drinking water. The administration also claims it would cost industry too much money to comply with the lower standard. The old standard of 50 parts per billion was established almost 60 years ago--before research linked arsenic to some forms of cancer. A 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences, a study mandated by Congress for drinking water, concluded that the current arsenic standard for drinking water could result in one additional case of cancer for every 100 people consuming such drinking water. Moreover, the study determined that long-term exposure to low concentrations of arsenic in drinking water can lead to skin, bladder, lung, and prostate cancer. Non-cancer effects of ingesting arsenic at these levels can include cardiovascular disease, diabetes and anemia as well as reproductive, developmental, immunological, and neurological effects. In response, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted a rule that set a new standard of 10 parts per billion which the EPA deemed safe for drinking water. This standard also has been adopted by the European Union and the World Health Organization. Is cost a sufficient reason for reversal? No. That's because Congress consistently has made clear that it will help states and municipalities with the funds necessary to provide their citizens with safe drinking water. Even the Governor of Florida recognizes the health risks of arsenic. Arsenic was discovered recently in the soil in playgrounds in Tarpan Springs, Miami and Crystal River. It leached into the soil from pressure-treated wood used for park boardwalks and other outdoor structures. Last week, Gov. Jeb Bush ordered the state's wood-treatment plant to stop using arsenic to treat wood. I commend him for that decision. If arsenic in the soil is dangerous for children, it only stands to reason that the danger is even greater when it is found in drinking water. The Administration should join the State of Florida in recognizing the danger of arsenic and restore the 10 parts per billion standard. In the meantime, I am introducing legislation to restore the federal rule containing the new, safer drinking-water standard. The American people deserve clean, safe drinking water. If the Administration won't act, Congress must. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is a great privilege for me to be a new Member of the Senate, and it is a great privilege for me to be assigned to the Budget Committee. It is with a heavy heart that I have just learned that it is the intention of the chairman, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, for whom I have the highest regard, not to have a markup in the Budget Committee and rather bring a chairman's mark under the lawful procedures of the Budget Act straight to the floor. I am compelled to rise to express my objection, for that is what a legislative body is all about in the warp and woof and crosscurrents of ideas for Members to hammer out legislation, particularly on something as important as adopting a budget. We first started adopting budgets pursuant to the Budget Act passed in the 1970s because Congress had difficulty containing its voracious appetite to continue to spend. Thus, the Budget Act was adopted in which Congress would adopt a blueprint, an overall skeletal structure, for expenditures and for revenues that would be the model after which all of the various committees, both appropriations and authorizing committees, would then come in and flesh out the skeletal structure of the budget adopted. How important this budgetary debate is this year for the questions in front of the Congress. Such things as: How large is the tax cut going to be, particularly measured against, juxtaposed against, how large the surplus is that we are expecting over the next 10 years. That, of course, is a very iffy projection. We have seen, if history serves us well, that, in fact, we don't know beyond a year, 2 years at the most, with any kind of degree of accuracy, if we can forecast what the surpluses or the deficits are going to be in future years. So the budget debate brings the central question of how large should the tax cut be counterbalanced against how much of the revenues and the surplus do we think will be there over the course of the next decade. That, then, leads us, once we know that, to be able to decide how much we will appropriate for other needed expenditures for the good of the United States. Most everyone in this Chamber agrees there ought to be a modernization of Medicare with a prescription drug benefit. Most everyone in this Chamber agrees there should be additional investment in education, and there is a bipartisan bill that is beginning to work its way through the legislative process on increased investment in education and accountability. Most everyone in this Chamber agrees we have to pay our young men and women in the Armed Forces of this country more of a comparable wage in competition with the private sector in order to have the kind of skill and talent we need in today's all- volunteer Armed Forces. Most people in this body would agree we have to have certain expenditures with regard to health care, planning for the end game, encouraging additional long-term insurance, equalizing the tax subsidies for health insurance now from a large employer to a small employer, or to an individual employer, or to an individual. There are a number of items on which there is consensus that is built on this side of the Capitol where we should go with regard to expenditures in the future while controlling our fiscal appetite. That brings me back to the budget resolution, for it is the very essence of adopting a budget resolution that we should have as our watchwords ``fiscal discipline.'' That is why we need to have a full and fair discussion of all the issues in adopting a budget resolution. That is why we ought to mark it up and have that discussion first in the committee. I wrap up by saying of all the debates that will take place this year, the debate on how we will allocate the resources with regard to the budget of the United States is one of the most important. It ought to have a full and fair and thorough discussion.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am opposed to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001. I do not take my decision to vote against this legislation lightly. The growing personal debt of the American people and the dramatic rise in bankruptcy filings over the last 10 years should give us all reason for concern. However, this legislation simply fails as a matter of sound public policy. Rather than addressing this complex issue with a solution that focuses on consumer and private sector responsibility, this bill almost exclusively places the burden of change on the people that bankruptcy law is supposed to help. It almost completely ignores the aggressive marketing practices of lenders who in some cases, seem to have lost the ability to judge a bad credit risk. It is difficult to have sympathy for an industry that mails three billion solicitations a year, and expends very little effort to ensure that they are marketing to people who have the financial means or are even old enough to hold a credit card. It's clear that young and low- income individuals, who often have the least ability to repay, are prime targets of the credit industry's overly aggressive marketing tactics. It appears that these companies have made a calculation that it is more profitable to have liberal lending policies and higher interest rates, than it is to deny credit or at least putting a reasonable credit limit in place. I have heard many of my colleagues talk a lot over the past week about how consumers need to be more financially responsible. Fair enough. But I'm here to say that we should also demand more responsibility from big lenders who fail to do their homework. Especially in a time of economic slow-down, I do not believe we should make it more difficult for people to get a fresh start unless we also make further demands of an industry that could solve many of its problems by simply making credit available responsibly. I realize that this legislation also would benefit many small businesses that extend credit to their customers, and that are sometimes forced to foot the bill for individuals who choose to abuse the system. My concern about reckless lending practices is not aimed at the small businessman, and, I strongly want to stamp out abuse in the bankruptcy system. However, a better bankruptcy bill would encourage responsible marketing of credit services and would include stronger provisions to curb predatory lending. This bill falls short of the mark in these areas and as result will not get my vote.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Florida Constitution grants the citizens of my State unlimited protection of the equity in their homes. I think we can all agree that this provision was not created so that wealthy, non-resident debtors could escape their obligations. The provision was created because the people of my State understood the importance of preserving a debtor's most essential asset, their home. I do not think that a previously wealthy person should have the right to purchase a very expensive home in order to shield his remaining assets from creditors, and I do agree that we must address homestead abuse. But, we should not take away the homes of innocent debtors who have worked hard to build equity in their homestead. The median income of debtors in bankruptcy is $22,000 per year. Working people in that income range do not have the ability to shelter a significant amount of money in a home. My State has many retirees from around the country. Many have worked their entire lives to own their own home and under the Kohl amendment they may lose their residence even though they fell into hard times through no fault of their own. Forcing a bankrupt retiree out of her home simply because she has more than $125,000 in equity does not meet any standard of fair play. The $125,000 cap proposed by this amendment does not adequately represent the value of homes in Florida today and certainly will not reflect the value of homes five years from now. The Kohl amendment's catch-all, national cap ignores the differences in property value that vary not only from State to State, but also from city to city. Furthermore, the amendment unfairly lumps long-time residents and retirees into the same category as abusers who move to the State one day and file for bankruptcy the next. The current language of S. 420 avoids these problems by protecting homeowners who have fallen on hard times, but who have worked and played by the rules in a State for more than 2 years. The current language is clear, if you move to a State simply to avoid paying your creditors you will not be protected and you should not be protected. However, people who play by the rules will have a real chance to start over without losing the equity in their homes. I ask my colleagues today to protect the home equity of those debtors who legitimately need a fresh start by opposing this amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I approach the debate on this resolution with a considerable degree of disappointment. To put it bluntly, it should not have come to this. It is absolutely clear that there is a need for workers to gain protection for ergonomic injuries. All one has to do is spend time in any workplace environment to see the stresses that can lead to serious back, shoulder, arm, and wrist injuries. These injuries are just as real, and in many cases just as debilitating, as more obvious injuries that are more likely to be covered under state worker's compensation laws. In 1990, then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole recognized the need to provide protection from these injuries and directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, to issue a rule. After ten years of research, debate, and comments from the business community, labor, and Congress, that rule was issued last November. The rule has many virtues. One of its most prominent advantages is that it focuses on prevention. For the first time, it requires employers to take measures to educate and train their employees on how to avoid ergonomic injuries. It is backed up by sound science that demonstrates how ergonomic injuries occur, and helps provide the means to prevent them. These provisions alone will help keep millions of injuries from occurring, sparing workers pain and suffering, and their employers lost productivity. In addition, workers who suffer these injuries finally would receive compensation while they receive treatment and, according to 17 state Attorneys General, this does not interfere with their existing worker's compensation laws. I also would concede, for all the virtues of this rule, that it has some serious problems. It places a particularly onerous burden on small businesses, which may not have the resources to fulfill all of the rule's requirements. A better crafted rule would provide some relief for small businesses. The rule also is highly ambiguous with respect to its application to agricultural workers. While it says that agricultural workers are exempt from the rule, it is not at all clear who that includes. Are workers in nurseries, on-farm packaging and processing plants, or other jobs done in a farm setting covered by this rule? I am told by those in the agriculture community that there is great confusion on this question. A better crafted rule would provide clarity on this point. There is also confusion about how a particular injury may be classified as ergonomic, if there is a dispute between a worker and an employer. I agree with those in the business community who have expressed these and other concerns. So the rule has virtues, and it has problems. My sense is that we need a rule, but that the rule needs improvement. Unfortunately, the choice we face on this vote is not whether we should improve the rule, but whether there should be such a rule at all. Under the Congressional Review Act, we are given only one choice yea or nay on the rule. And if we vote to disapprove the rule, we have effectively killed any chance of ever providing workers with the protection they need. That is because once we kill it, OSHA is prohibited from ever coming forward with a rule that is deemed to be ``substantially similar.'' This is a highly flawed process for evaluating a somewhat flawed rule. It leaves us no option to make recommendations on how this rule can be made better. Given our options, the best approach, in my view, is to vote to sustain the rule, and then work with the Administration to issue new guidelines to revise, clarify, and tighten up imperfections. I understand that Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao already has indicated a willingness to work with Congress to address ergonomic injuries. The best way for us to do that is by improving the existing rule, not blowing it up. Given the choice that we are presented with by this resolution, I cannot in good conscience cast a vote that will effectively eliminate the possibility of ever protecting workers from ergonomic injuries. I will vote against this resolution and, if it is defeated, I will commit to work with my colleagues and the administration to correct the flaws.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.