George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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

Mr. VOINOVICH. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Nelson of Florida.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. For the information of all Senators, it is hoped that the Senate can begin consideration of S. 1, the education bill, tomorrow morning. Negotiations have been ongoing during the recess and throughout the day today. It may be possible to begin consideration of the education legislation shortly after convening on Tuesday. Any Senator who desires to speak on the issue of education is encouraged to come to the floor tomorrow to participate in the debate. Votes are therefore possible during tomorrow afternoon's session.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 24. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business, equally divided, with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VOINOVICH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, last year, my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine and I introduced the Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act. The purpose of this legislation was to extend, revise, and expand the Defense Department's limited authority to use voluntary incentive pay and voluntary early retirement in order to restructure the civilian workforce to meet missions needs and to correct skill imbalances, especially in high skilled fields. Given the significant numbers of eligible Federal retirees the Department will face in just a few short years, we believed then and now that the Department needs the ability to better manage this extraordinary workforce transition period. Just as important, this smoother transition period would allow for better and more effective development of our younger workers, who will have a better chance to learn and gain from the expertise of the older generation of innovators. A similar bill was also introduced by our Ohio colleagues in the House, Congressmen Dave Hobson and Tony Hall. After discussions with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, we included language in the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill to allow for voluntary early retirement authority and voluntary separation incentive pay for a total of 9,000 Department of Defense civilian employees for fiscal year 2001 through 2003. This language provided, at least initially, the critical new flexibility to the Department of Defense to better manage its civilian workforce. However, this language simply gave the Defense Department the authority to initiate the program in fiscal year 2001 utilizing discretionary funds, but required that ``the Secretary of Defense may carry out the program authorized . . . during fiscal years 2002 and 2003 with respect to workforce restructuring only to the extent provided in a law enacted by the 107th Congress.'' Senator DeWine and I intend to work closely with Chairman Warner, and the Ranking member of the Committee, Senator Levin to ensure that the necessary workforce restructuring provisions are enacted this year. I see my colleague from Ohio on the floor, and would yield to him for any comments.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee for his comments, and look forward to working with him and Senator DeWine to ensure this assumption is maintained in the final budget resolution approved by Congress. Long-Term Care Staffing Shortage

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 85, I voted ``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``yes.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. It would in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment with my colleagues, Senators Feingold, Gregg, and Domenici. This amendment we are offering helps to refine the procedures in the budget process that are designed to control spending. It is clear from the egregious levels of spending in the past couple of years that the existing process needs reinforcement. That is what this amendment does. Our amendment is designed to tighten the enforcement of existing spending controls. To do this, we create an explicit point of order against the emergency spending that doesn't meet the definition for emergency spending as laid out by OMB. The amendment also closes budget loopholes by creating a point of order against actions that raise the discretionary spending caps; creating a point of order against efforts to waive sequesters, which is a budget enforcement mechanism; and last, creating a point of order against directed scoring--in essence, telling OMB and CBO how to treat spending that others use in order to dodge spending limits. Any waiver of these measures will require 60 votes. I urge my colleagues' support. It will guarantee that the budget process is more transparent. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Domenici and Gramm be added as cosponsors.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I want to remind my colleagues of one thing. The direct scoring was used in the last two omnibus appropriation bills to, frankly, avoid busting the budget caps. That is why it is so important we have this point of order. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate in 1999, one of my goals was to bring fiscal responsibility to Congress and to our Nation. In this regard, I have pursued my fiscal priorities, which are: pay down the debt, control spending, and, if possible, return to the taxpayers any of their money that is not needed to meet our most pressing obligations. Over the last 2 years we have had the proverbial ``good news/bad news'' with respect to putting our fiscal house in order. The good news is, we are not using the Social Security surplus or the Medicare Part A surplus to cover our spending, allowing them instead to be used as they were intended. In effect, we have managed to ``lock box'' Social Security since 1999, and Medicare since 2000. I think we need legislation to make sure we continue to do that. In addition, because we haven't dipped into Social Security or Medicare surpluses, we have been able to allocate a total of $363 billion towards debt reduction in the last 2 years. The bad news is, we have spent far too much money over the last 2 years. For fiscal year 2001, we increased non-defense discretionary spending 14.3 percent last year and we had an 8.6 percent increase the year before. In the last half of last year, the 106th Congress increased spending over 10 years by $598 billion. Nearly $600 billion of the taxpayers' money gone--used up. That is disgraceful. Therefore, to help avoid a repetition of this sad episode, I am proposing this amendment with my two colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator Gregg. The amendment we are offering helps to refine the procedures in the budget process that are designed to control spending. It is clear from the egregious levels of spending in the past couple of years that the existing process needs reinforcement. Our amendment is designed to tighten the enforcement of existing spending controls. To do this, we create an explicit point of order against emergency spending that does not meet the definition for emergency spending as laid out by OMB. Under our amendment, Senators may raise a point of order against legislation designated as emergency spending that fails to meet certain criteria. This provision would apply equally to both discretionary and military spending and would also establish a 60-vote waiver threshold. I realize we will not completely stop the problem of Congress' over- spending here today, but it is a reasonable first step. So what we are doing here with this amendment is closing budget loopholes by: Creating a point of order against actions that raise the discretionary spending caps; creating a point of order against efforts to waive sequesters, which is a budget enforcement mechanism; and creating a point of order against directed scoring in essence, telling OMB and CBO how to treat spending that others use in order to dodge spending limits. Any waiver of these measures will require 60 votes. I want to reassure my colleagues that our amendment will not preclude the use of emergency spending to meet our true defense needs. I have no doubt whatsoever that should this Nation face a crisis, there will be well over 60 Senators willing to vote to waive any possible use of this point of order. I believe that it is important that we have this tool to eliminate the irrelevant spending that so often gets ``tacked on'' to our defense emergency supplemental appropriations bills. For instance, in past defense supplementals, we have spent: $1 billion on ballistic missile defense enhancements; $200 million on defense health programs; and $42 million on defense counter-drug and drug interdiction activities. I would question whether these defense ``emergencies'' could not have been handled in the normal appropriations process. Total emergency supplemental defense spending in fiscal year 2000 amounted to $17.5 billion, and in fiscal year 1999, it totaled $16.8 billion. Even for Washington, these are large sums of money. I am sure that the vast majority of this spending is for legitimate emergencies. However, I believe we need an added safeguard to help stop abuses of the emergency spending designation in an effort to circumvent our spending caps. I believe this amendment is a sensible approach to achieving our goal of fiscal responsibility and it represents a good step toward improving the transparency of our budget process. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 322, As Modified

Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Gregg and Feingold, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask the point of order be waived and ask for the yeas and nays on the waiver of the point of order.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Not necessarily, unless somebody wants to speak against it. Then I will answer.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I extend my congratulations to President Vojislav Kostunica, Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic and the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on their courageous actions this past weekend in arresting former Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic. This important and encouraging development underscores Belgrade's commitment to making real and significant progress on certification requirements as outlined in the fiscal year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. For Belgrade, arresting Milosevic was an important factor in their ability to achieve certification by the U.S. Therefore, I am pleased with the decision of President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell to grant certification to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, FRY. I share their view that the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has met the requirements for certification outlined by Congress last year, and I fully believe they will continue to make progress in these areas well beyond March 31. It is clear that the government in Belgrade has taken some difficult steps in recent weeks to further democratize. The presence of hundreds of pro-Milosevic demonstrators rallying outside of Milosevic's villa over the weekend showed that opponents to democratic reform in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia still exist. Despite those who remain in opposition, it is critical that President Kostunica's government stand strong in its efforts to promote democracy. To help in that regard, I believe that the United States should continue to support those in the FRY who are committed to a new era of peace, stability and democracy in the Balkans. As one who has a lengthy personal history with southeastern Europe, I was pleased with the certification announcement by the State Department. To me, it was rivaled only by the excitement I felt at the final outcome of the presidential elections in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia last fall which brought Vojislav Kostunica to the presidency. For years, I had worked to bring about democratic changes in the FRY working with opposition leaders to Slobodan Milosevic in diaspora. Since coming to the Senate, I have made a handful of visits to the region to get first-hand perspectives on the situation in the Balkans and I have visited and remain in contact with a number of top political leaders including President Kostunica, Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic and U.S. Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, William Montgomery. I also have my ``ear to the ground'' via e-mail that I receive on a regular basis from a couple of retired members of the Ohio State Highway Patrol who are now serving as police officers in the United Nations' international police force in Kosovo. Needless to say, I pay attention to what is happening in the region. To help support the new government of Dr. Kostunica, and as an incentive for Belgrade to make needed democratic changes, last October Congress approved $100 million in assistance for Serbia in the fiscal year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. To obtain these funds after March 31, and ensure access to international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, the fiscal year 2001 Foreign Operations bill outlined three certification requirements on the part of President Kostunica's new government: respect for the rule of law and human rights; implementation of the Dayton Accords; and cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. As I indicated to Secretary of State Colin Powell when I spoke with him last week, I believe the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has complied with the spirit of the law outlined by Congress last year. The recent record of the Kostunica/Djindjic government is very positive, and it is my view that they have made considerable progress in all three areas outlined in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Regarding the rule of law, governments at both the Federal and the Republic levels in the FRY have taken steps to uphold human rights for minorities, particularly in southern Serbia. Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia Nebojsa Covic has worked to give ethnic Albanians in Serbia more control over their local governments and municipalities. During visits to Capitol Hill 2 weeks ago, Prime Minister Djindjic indicated that the Serbian Government now includes minorities. U.S. Ambassador Montgomery has indicated in conversations we have had that President Kostunica and Deputy Prime Minister Covic have worked well together to make progress on this front, and the Ambassador has been encouraged by the results that he has seen. Further human rights progress can be witnessed in the freeing of Kosovo Albanian prisoners. On February 26, the Serb parliament passed an amnesty law granting amnesty to more than 100 Kosovar Albanians held in Serb prisons. Since the end of the war in 1999, more than 1,500 of 2,000 ethnic Albanian prisoners have been released. While I believe the remaining 500 should be quickly released, especially the Djakovica group, there has been substantial progress in this area. Regarding implementation of the Dayton Accords, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republika Srpska have entered into a special relations agreement between the two which makes Belgrade's assistance to the RS military consistent with the Dayton Accords. In addition, President Kostunica has, on a number of occasions, publically declared his support for the Dayton Accords, the peace agreement reached at the end of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the FRY and Bosnia have established diplomatic relations. Prime Minister Djindjic also indicated to me during our meeting that the government will cut off pensions to RS army officers. Regarding cooperation with the Hague Tribunal, President Kostunica's government has reopened a War Crimes Tribunal office in Belgrade, and the government helped to facilitate the extradition to the Hague of indicted war criminals Blagoje Simic and Milomir Stakic. In addition, after Justice Minister of the FRY Momcilo Grubac and Serbian Justice Minister Vladan Batic met with the Chief Prosecutor of the Hague, Carla Del Ponte, she described their talks as a sign of ``good progress.'' When I met with Ms. Del Ponte following the Presidential elections last September, she indicated that the cooperation of the new government, not custody of Milosevic himself, was the Tribunal's first priority. President Kostunica's government has taken a number of additional steps in this area, drafting a memo of understanding on how the government will cooperate with the Hague and writing a new measure to change the current law in the FRY that prohibits citizens from being extradited. The arrest of Milosevic on Sunday, April 1, is an additional factor illustrating the government's commitment to following through with its promises to take action and cooperate with the Tribunal. I cannot overstate the importance of the Bush administration's decision to grant certification to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. By doing so, they have allowed the FRY government access to much-needed support from the IMF, World Bank and international financial institutions. This will help the government deal with a staggering number of outstanding and pressing emergency situations. For instance: the country's economy is failing, there is ongoing violence in the Presevo Valley, there is a nationwide energy crisis complete with rolling blackouts, there are calls for an independent Montenegro led by Montenegro's President Djukanovic, and they still have 800,000 refugees from Croatia and Bosnia, and 200,000 refugees from Kosovo. President Kostunica and Prime Minister Djindjic are in a fragile political situation, which demands that they proceed with caution in their democratic reform efforts, especially with regard to Milosevic. Serb radical parties, including those with ties to Slobodan Milosevic, Vojislav Seselj and Zeljko ``Arkan'' Raznatovic, claimed nearly 30 percent of the vote in the December 2000 parliamentary elections, and the coalition government is partly dependent on the inclusion of the Montenegrin Socialist Peoples Party, led by Predrag Bulatovic, who also back Milosevic. Outside the realm of government, there are some Serbs who would like to see the United States walk away from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia due to anti-American sentiment following the 1999 bombing campaign. As I came to the decision to recommend certification, I carefully considered the political realities with which the new FRY government is faced. These realities became especially clear last weekend as Milosevic supporters, including members of the Serb Parliament, rallied outside of Milosevic's villa to protest his arrest. In my view, and in the view of many who follow what goes on in the Balkans, President Kostunica and his government offer a remarkable opportunity for beneficial change in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. While they have only been in office a short time, Dr. Kostunica has been President for 6 months, while Prime Minister Djindjic and the Parliament in Serbia have been in office for just 2 months, I have positive feelings about the direction they are leading the nation. The qualified certification of the FRY guarantees that the United States still has leverage over the FRY if they fail to make good on their certification requirements. As the Bush Administration has indicated, U.S. support for an international donors' conference, scheduled to take place this summer, is contingent upon the FRY's continued cooperation with the Hague. Congress has additional funding leverage that may be exercised in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations process, as well as its oversight and approval authority of the State Department's spending plans in the FRY. In closing, I applaud the progress that has been made in the FRY during this historic period of democratic transition. I am pleased that President Bush has chosen to recognize the efforts that President Kostunica has undertaken to move towards democracy by continuing U.S. assistance to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I believe U.S. support will serve as a stabilizing force as the new government continues to promote a new era of peace in southeast Europe.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe will provide for the financial future of millions of Americans, help boost this nation's savings rate, and bolster long-term economic growth. My bill, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act, mirrors H.R. 10, legislation introduced earlier this year by my friend and fellow Ohioan, Representative Rob Portman. It is estimated that right now, an astounding 75 million American workers have no pension plan. In other words, roughly half of America's workers lack a key mechanism they will need in order to achieve a comfortable retirement. This situation is intolerable and must change. In my view, we must do more to encourage more citizens to ensure their financial independence in their golden years. That's why I strongly believe we need to enact the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act. The increased personal savings and investment that would result from expanding pensions would reinvigorate our savings ethic, which has been eroding over recent years. Something needs to be done quickly to encourage more Americans to save and plan for their retirement and I believe the legislation I am introducing today is an important step in the right direction. Among the important things the bill I am introducing today does is raise the maximum annual contribution to an Individual Retirement Accounts, IRAs, from $2,000 per individual to $5,000. The contribution limits for, IRAs, has remained unchanged since 1981. Since sixty-nine percent of all IRA participants contribute the maximum, the $2,000 limit has been a barrier to encouraging Americans to save for their own retirement. If the original IRA contribution limit in 1975, of $1,500, been indexed for inflation, it would have reached $5,353 in the year 2000. Clearly, today's working men and women want to, and are ready to, invest more for their retirement if Congress would only let them. The time has come to raise the contribution limit. In addition, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act includes provisions to encourage employers to offer pensions, increase participation by eligible employees, raise limits on benefits and contributions, improve asset portability, strengthen legal protections for plan participants, and reduce regulatory burdens on plan sponsors. When the baby boomers start to retire in a few short years, this country will begin to experience a retirement tsunami unlike anything it has ever experienced. This 20-year event will put great strain on the economy and the federal budget, especially on government programs that provide services to senior citizens. One of the best ways to help prepare for this is to encourage private saving. The Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act is an important step in this direction and I urge my colleagues to join in co-sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe will provide for the financial future of millions of Americans, help boost this nation's savings rate, and bolster long-term economic growth. My bill, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act, mirrors H.R. 10, legislation introduced earlier this year by my friend and fellow Ohioan, Representative Rob Portman. It is estimated that right now, an astounding 75 million American workers have no pension plan. In other words, roughly half of America's workers lack a key mechanism they will need in order to achieve a comfortable retirement. This situation is intolerable and must change. In my view, we must do more to encourage more citizens to ensure their financial independence in their golden years. That's why I strongly believe we need to enact the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act. The increased personal savings and investment that would result from expanding pensions would reinvigorate our savings ethic, which has been eroding over recent years. Something needs to be done quickly to encourage more Americans to save and plan for their retirement and I believe the legislation I am introducing today is an important step in the right direction. Among the important things the bill I am introducing today does is raise the maximum annual contribution to an Individual Retirement Accounts, IRAs, from $2,000 per individual to $5,000. The contribution limits for, IRAs, has remained unchanged since 1981. Since sixty-nine percent of all IRA participants contribute the maximum, the $2,000 limit has been a barrier to encouraging Americans to save for their own retirement. If the original IRA contribution limit in 1975, of $1,500, been indexed for inflation, it would have reached $5,353 in the year 2000. Clearly, today's working men and women want to, and are ready to, invest more for their retirement if Congress would only let them. The time has come to raise the contribution limit. In addition, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act includes provisions to encourage employers to offer pensions, increase participation by eligible employees, raise limits on benefits and contributions, improve asset portability, strengthen legal protections for plan participants, and reduce regulatory burdens on plan sponsors. When the baby boomers start to retire in a few short years, this country will begin to experience a retirement tsunami unlike anything it has ever experienced. This 20-year event will put great strain on the economy and the federal budget, especially on government programs that provide services to senior citizens. One of the best ways to help prepare for this is to encourage private saving. The Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act is an important step in this direction and I urge my colleagues to join in co-sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Ohio, to introduce a resolution mourning the passage and honoring the life of former governor of Ohio, James A. Rhodes. Governor Rhodes passed away last Sunday at the age of 91. Governor Rhodes began his career in public service in 1937, when he was elected to a term on the Columbus board of education. Two years later, he was elected Columbus city auditor and in 1943, he was elected Mayor of Columbus. In 1952, he successfully ran for State Auditor and in 1962, he ran for Governor of Ohio and won. He ultimately served the citizens of Ohio for four terms as governor. As my interest in politics began to spark, Governor Rhodes' public service inspired me to also pursue a life of service to the people of Ohio. He was my mentor and without his example and counsel I could never have become governor of Ohio. In fact, I would not have had a career in government had it not been for Jim Rhodes' sweeping re- election victory in 1966. He had very long coattails, because he carried an unknown 30-year-old named George Voinovich to victory in an Ohio House district that was 6 to 1 democrat-to-republican. He furthered my career along when in 1978, he turned to me--a relatively unknown County Commissioner from Cuyahoga County--and asked me to be his running mate as Lieutenant Governor. Since then, Jim Rhodes and I grew close and my time with him over the years was some of the most meaningful of any person I have associated with in government. Mr. President, they broke the mold after James A. Rhodes entered the political arena. There never will be another like the Governor, and he will go down in Ohio history not only because of the 16 years he served as governor, but more importantly, because of the positive impact he had on the quality of life of Ohio's citizens and the direction of our State. He was a good, God-fearing man who looked on his service in government as an opportunity to give witness to the Second Great Commandment--love of fellow man. He never forgot his roots in the coal fields of southeastern Ohio. He wrapped his arms around all Ohioans. He was inclusive and reached out to everyone, regardless of stature in life, economic status, religion or color of skin. Because of his humble beginnings, he understood the importance of providing an education to every man, woman and child in Ohio, whether it was a public education or a non-public education. He initiated the Ohio Auxiliary Services program, and because of his efforts, today, there is no state in the nation that does as much for non-public schools as Ohio. He brought Ohio's higher education system into the 20th century. His goal of having higher education within the grasp of every Ohioan--that is, no more than 30 minutes away--changed the face of higher education forever, and enabled millions of Ohioans to get the education so essential to their economic well-being. His mantras--``jobs and progress'' and ``profit is not a dirty word in Ohio''--will never be forgotten by any politician who wants to be successful in Ohio. There are thousands of Ohioans working today because of the businesses the Governor brought into this state. Jim Rhodes had his priorities in order, and his number one priority was his family. Jim Rhodes will always be a role model to me because of the way he treasured his family and encourage me and all who knew him to take care of their families. Jim's wife Helen, his daughters and their husbands, his grandchildren and great-grandchildren were paramount in his life. He always had a special twinkle in his eye when he talked about this family. Mr. President, Governor James A. Rhodes spoke to the basic needs and yearnings of the people of Ohio; he loved Ohio, and Ohio loved him. We may have lost him in body, but he will always be with us in spirit. Ohio will never forget Jim Rhodes.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his consideration. I might say that my remarks were not done in conjunction with Senator Breaux from Louisiana, but they are similar to the points he made today. On November 14 of last year, OSHA published one of the broadest, most far-reaching regulations ever put forth by that agency. OSHA and other supporters of the ergonomics regulation have indicated that implementing this regulation is necessary to protect the health and well-being of the men and women of our Nation's workforce. This would be accomplished by establishing procedures designed to lessen the incidence of repetitive-motion injuries and other musculoskeletal disorders, or MSD's, in the workplace. In my view, OSHA's efforts to safeguard the workplace against these kinds of injuries ultimately will prove more harmful than helpful to hard-working men and women throughout the Nation. In addition, this new rule could actually have the unintended consequence of hurting the people it is designed to help. When one takes a closer look at how the regulation was developed last year, and at the provisions of the regulation itself, it is not surprising to see that the Senate is poised to vote to disapprove this regulation. To be sure, OSHA has never finalized a rule of this magnitude in just 1 year's time. This final regulation is over 600 pages in length, and its impact covers more than 100 million employees and 6.1 million businesses in the United States. Even prior to its final publication, many employers had complained to me and to OSHA about the draft regulation's excessive length, confusing language, and potentially onerous mandates. Despite having generated more public comments than any prior OSHA rule in history, the Clinton administration's OSHA appointees rushed through the rulemaking process. There has been some speculation that these appointees believed that quick action was the only choice they had to get the rule finalized. These individuals at OSHA even managed to thwart the will of Congress, which approved an amendment last year delaying implementation of the regulation for 1 year. This ``in-your-face" attitude was deliberately confrontational. It was as if the previous administration said: We don't care what Congress wants, we are going to do what we want anyhow, and that's the way it goes. In their undertakings, they ignored legitimate concerns voiced by Members of Congress and the business community and ram-rodded this controversial, burdensome and exceedingly costly regulation. On the subject of cost--I think this is an important issue--we have no real ``hands-on'' figure. OSHA estimates the cost complying with the regulation will be $4.5 billion annually. The U.S. Small Business Administration--not the NFIB or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but the Federal Small Business Administration--has estimated the true cost of the regulation could be about $60 billion per year. And other analyses puts the figure as high as $100 billion annually. Why has this rule caused so much controversy? Well, under this new rule, an employer would be required to implement a full-fledged ergonomics program if an employee were to report a symptom--a symptom-- of an musculoskeletal disorder, as long as the symptom is aggravated, but not necessarily caused by workplace tasks. In other words, if an employee comes to work with a sore neck from playing sports over the weekend, and his or her work ``aggravates'' the symptom, then an employer would have to develop a whole ergonomics program. This could require employers to change an employee's workstation, change his or her equipment, shorten shifts, hire additional employees, or alter work practices. So, the employer is responsible for all of these changes and their costs even if the symptom is caused by factors or activities that exist outside of the workplace. But there is more. In responding to a symptom of a muskuloskeletal disorder, the employer must pay for visits to up to three separate health care professionals by the employee complaining of the symptom. However, the rule prohibits the diagnosis from including any information about the condition that may have been caused by factors or activities outside the workplace. In fact, an employer can't even inquire about an employee's outside risk factors. That is absolutely incredible. I am especially concerned about the regulation undermining a State workers' compensation systems, which is prohibited under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. For instance, if a condition is determined to be work-related, the employer must provide full benefits and 100 percent of an employees pay for up to three months while he or she is in a light-duty job, or 90 percent of pay and full benefits while not working. This is known as the regulation's Work Restriction Protection provision. This provision completely overrides the state's right to make its own determinations about what constitutes a ``work-related'' injury and what level of compensation injured workers should receive. What's more, it establishes a federally- mandated workers' compensation system for ergonomics only. Ergonomics remains an uncertain science. While a recently completed National Academy of Science study reveals that musculoskeletal disorders are a problem in the workplace, much remains to be learned about the causation and potential remedies associated with repetitive- motion injuries. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences' study indicated that a number of non-work related ``psychosocial'' conditions, including stress, anxiety, and depression, could cause these conditions. The tendency I see in Congress and in Washington is the belief that no one but Washington cares about the citizens of this Nation--not the local governments, not the State governments, and most definitely not the businesses. I think that is insulting. It is ludicrous to think that State and local governments do not care, and any employer worth his or her salt is going to go out of their way to create the best working conditions for their employees. These individuals will do whatever possible to cut down the costs associated with work-related injuries and absenteeism. As Senator Kerry from Massachusetts said, many businesses have gone forward with ergonomics programs. They know it is good for their employees, and they know it is good for the bottom line. In fact, prior to the regulation's publication, many employers had voluntarily implemented workplace ergonomics programs. These programs are having an effect; OSHA itself has reported a 22 percent decrease in ergonomics injuries in the last five years. But what supporters of this regulation are saying is, even though more and more businesses are realizing that ergonomics is a good thing to do, we need to mandate a ``heavy-handed'' set of rules on the entire Nation and not think about the consequences of these actions. In my view, if they had, they would not have rushed through a regulation that will admittedly cost billion and billions of dollars to implement. Instead, Congress and the administration need to take a more careful and balanced consideration of ergonomics in the workplace. We should be working with all parties--American businesses, labor, and State and local governments--to develop a workable ergonomics standard that considers all costs and benefits and protects the health and welfare of the American workforce. I believe such an approach would be the most effective solution to the situation that Congress is faced with today. Passage of the resolution before the Senate will give us the opportunity to proceed with a clean slate instead of letting-stand a regulation that is burdensome, confusing and unsound. I'm confident that, working with our new Labor Secretary, Elaine Chao, with the Bush administration, with my Congressional colleagues and other interested parties, we can come up with a better way to approach this issue. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution of disapproval.