Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Senator Kennedy.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek to propound a unanimous-consent request for a time limit. I have already had some informal indications that Members on the other side of the aisle intend to speak at some length. I will propound a request for consent when the manager returns to the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. For a question.

Mr. SPECTER. This Senator does not understand how this matter--for that matter, any matter--is so complicated as not to be subject to a time agreement. We are all here under time limitations. I only have 5 years 3 months left on my term, for example. We all have some time limitations. I think it is possible to have a time agreement. However, if the other side intends to talk at length--I do not want to inject the word ``filibuster'' into the discussion, but if the other side wishes to talk at length and is unwilling to enter into a time agreement, I do understand that; I do not understand that any matter is so complicated as to preclude a time agreement.

Mr. SPECTER. I will speak since I have the floor and I am manager of the bill. Mr. President, this issue has been the subject of very contentious debate for years. Last year in the conference committee in the House and Senate, we debated at great length; the year before, we debated at great length. There is no doubt about emotions running high. The subject of ergonomics is an effort to have some way to stop repetitious motions which cause physical injury to workers. Many of the big companies have adopted procedures which will protect their employees because it is cost effective to do so in the long run. Small businesses face a little different situation, which I understand. The distinguished chairman of the Small Business Committee has offered this amendment. I understand the point he is making. I point out that there have been many studies on the issue. In 1998, a peer review of the National Academy of Sciences involving 85 of the world's leading ergonomic experts found ``research clearly demonstrates'' that specific interventions can reduce or prevent musculoskeletal disorders. The 6-month study answered the same seven questions the National Academy of Sciences is now reviewing. A 1997 review by NIOSH of 600 studies produced the same result and found that ergonomic solutions were being successfully applied in many work settings. During last year's negotiations, Congress and the administration agreed, by funding the study, they did not intend to delay OSHA's ruling. House Appropriations Chairman Livingston and ranking member Obey--I think, on the record--made it clear that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jack Lew, also concurred. We have had a letter from the Secretary of Labor with a veto threat. That is not unusual. However, I believe there is a balance which can be obtained to protect workers and not to unduly burden businesses, including small businesses. That is why, as chairman of the subcommittee involved in the conference for several years, I have tried to work this out so we can find a way not to overburden small business and at the same time to protect workers from these musculoskeletal problems. Right now, the Office of Management and Budget has the regulation and we do not know what form it will finally take. But someday we have to come to grips with the issue and stop studying it. Studies are very important to find out what the facts are, and then we must act on the facts. When studies are used to interminably delay, it doesn't become a study; it is a filibuster by study on one side, as it is filibuster by an assertion that it is too complicated, too intricate, to be able to come to grips with it and decide. We are sent here to try to decide the issues. It is my hope we can debate the facts, try to understand what the underlying issues are, and then try to find a consensus on public policy. At some date, we will have to go ahead and act one way or another on the protection of the workers. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in light of the fact that we are not going to get a time agreement on ergonomics, on the Bond amendment, in a moment I will move to table, as manager. First, I would like to move ahead on sequencing after the vote. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be recognized at the conclusion of the vote and then, following Senator Byrd's statement, we move to the amendment to be offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, so we will be on notice that that will be the next order of business.

Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond to the Senator from Massachusetts, it is not my amendment, but it is my hope, as manager of the bill, that that would happen. But that is up to the offeror of the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to table the Bond amendment No. 1825 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to Senator Reid of Nevada.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. The Davis-Bacon Act was passed in 1931, and it was enacted in order to see to it that the Federal projects would not pay lower than the prevailing wage rate in a given area. That is not necessarily a union rate, but may be a nonunion rate as well. The Federal Government has moved in this direction in order to assure the quality of the work that would be done. In order to have quality work done and to see to it that people in a local area receive the work, the Federal Government has established this standard. Federal contracts are awarded on a low bid proposition, to who makes the lowest bid. If an out-of-area contractor were to come forward and make a lower bid, that would deprive people in the area of that employment and would not provide the kind of quality work that would be assured. Robert Reischauer, head of the CBO, testified a few years ago that the payment of the prevailing wage rate is designed to help the Federal Government get the kind of quality necessary. This was the quote of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Robert Reischauer, when he testified before Congress on May 4, 1993. Higher rates do not necessarily increase costs. If these differences in wages were offset by hiring more skilled and productive workers, no additional construction costs would be involved. It is also important to note that Davis-Bacon creates a financial incentive for contractors to fund and support apprenticeship training by allowing them to pay employees in registered apprenticeship programs less than the prevailing wage rate otherwise required. When we have had votes on this matter--and I have looked for a contested vote--as recently as 1996, there was bipartisan support to uphold Davis-Bacon. There is also a concern that if this exception were to be enacted on disaster areas, there would be a problem in finding skilled workers to come into the disaster areas and do the work. Thirty-seven States are involved in disaster areas, including my State of Pennsylvania; and if the prevailing wage rate were to be disrupted for the purposes of their Federal contracts, it would not be possible to get the same skilled laborers from the immediate area to come in and perform the necessary services. As I say, Davis-Bacon has been enacted since 1931. It has a very important purpose--for the Federal Government to get quality work, including the considerations advanced by others on paying a fair wage. It has been challenged from time to time, and while I respect the arguments made by Senator Smith, it seems to me that this amendment ought to be rejected. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. We only have 15 minutes. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. How much time does the Senator from Minnesota want?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are now prepared to move on to our next amendment. I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes equally divided prior to a motion to table on the amendment to be offered by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, relative to Davis-Bacon, and no amendments be in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time does the Senator from Massachusetts want?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Thirty minutes equally divided, Mr. President.

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

Mr. SPECTER. The same agreement we had yesterday with respect to 30 minutes on second degrees.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of anyone seeking recognition, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged equally.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senate bill language, as it currently reads, is as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, no funds appropriated under this act shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that such programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not encourage the illegal use of drugs. The amendment, which is now pending, would strike the discretion of the Secretary to make a determination that such a program would be effective in preventing the spread of HIV and would not encourage the use of illegal drugs. This issue on needle exchange is a highly emotional issue. There is no doubt the reuse of needles by drug addicts does result in the infection of more people with HIV/AIDS. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has never used this waiver language to make a determination that such programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs. There is dispute on whether clean needles would, in fact, prevent the spread of HIV and whether clean needles would--in fact, could--be used without the encouragement of the use of illegal drugs. It is the view of the subcommittee and the full committee, which passed this in its present form, that question ought to be left open to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has never used this exception and is not likely to use it promiscuously but only if there was a very sound scientific base for doing so. My own preference is to continue the discretion of the Secretary to be able to make this waiver, if the facts and figures show that such a needle exchange would not encourage the use of illegal drugs, that such a legal exchange would prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. There is some concern within the community that is interested in having needle exchange that raising this issue again may lead to some broader prohibition, which might even reach private groups. I think that is highly unlikely. But those are concerns that we are trying to resolve in deciding what step to take with response to the Abraham amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after consulting with the distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, and listening to the comments of the Senator from Minnesota, it is the judgment of the managers that prudence would warrant accepting the Abraham amendment on a voice vote, if that is acceptable to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before the Senator from Georgia speaks, I want to propound a unanimous consent request. We have Senator Bingaman present now. His amendment will be the next one offered. I ask unanimous consent that there be 40 minutes equally divided on the Bingaman amendment, subject to the same terms and conditions on the other time agreements.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, first let me commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for those very thoughtful remarks on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I share his concern about the timing of the vote. I think the Senate is not yet ready to vote. My view is that there should have been hearings a long time ago. I attended part of the hearings--closed-door hearings--in S-407 on Tuesday of this week. They lasted about 5 hours. I concur with the Senator from West Virginia that it is a very complex subject. I had studied the matter and had decided to support it. But I do think more time is necessary for the Senate as a whole-- not just to have a day of debate on Friday and a day of debate on Tuesday and to vote on it. I think the Senate ought to ratify, but only after adequate consideration has been given to it. While the United States has been criticized for not taking up the treaty, if we were to reject it out of hand on what appears to be a partisan vote, it would be very disastrous for our foreign policy. So I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his customary very erudite remarks on the Senate floor.