Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I always enjoy discussions with him on education. I don't want to try to score debate points. I cannot resist, though, saying to my colleague, on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, when he says that we pulled the bill because the minority wanted to impose a political agenda, it is interesting; a political agenda means the minority wanted to put some amendments on this bill that they, the majority, didn't want to have to vote on; therefore, it becomes a political agenda.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield, if the Senator will be brief. I will yield on my time because I know he has no time. But I want to reserve a little time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, first of all, the campaign finance reform amendment of course was initiated by Senator McCain, a well-known Republican, and Senator Feingold, a well-known Democrat. I support the amendment. Do you want to know something. The more I think about it, the more I think it is very relevant to education, because I think if we don't clean up this sick system, the way in which big money dominates, then we are never going to have Senators voting for children and education. They are going to continue to vote for the big, huge, economic interests. So I say, actually I can't think of a more important amendment to an education bill. This is the debate we have been having. The Senate, over the years, has been a very special institution. Part of it is because of the Senators' right to debate and the Senators' right to introduce amendments. That is what the Senate is about. It is not a political agenda, I say to my colleague. It is just an agenda that makes my colleague from New Hampshire and other Republicans uncomfortable. They don't want to vote on campaign finance reform or sensible gun control measures. I would argue, in case anybody has taken a look at violence in the schools, that sensible gun control amendments are very relevant to the lives of children, very relevant to education. As to the title I program, I want to respond to my colleague's comments about the achievement of low-income children. Honest to goodness, first my colleague came out and said it has been a miserable failure; it hasn't work. Then I cited study after study showing title I has made a difference. Then my colleague retreats and comes back with another argument which is: Well, yes, low-income children are now doing better in some of the reading scores and mathematics scores, but they are only getting back to the 1993 level. The truth is, here you have a title I program that is vastly underfunded--30-percent level. Here you have a House of Representatives and Senate, too dominated by the way in which money dominates politics, that have been unwilling to make the investment in children, unwilling to make the investment in their skills and intellect and character and, I argue, the health of children, and therefore there are too many poor children. I think it is a scandal that the poorest group of citizens in America today is children. Too many children literally grow up under the most difficult circumstances. Therefore, is anybody surprised the title I program does not perform a miracle? The title I program does not mean those children succeed, I say to my colleague from Iowa, who come from poor communities, whose parents are not high income, who had none of the encouragement, none of the great preschool programs other children have, who live in families who have to move four times because they cannot afford the housing, who live in neighborhoods where there is too much violence, who don't have an adequate diet, who don't have adequate health care. Guess what, those children don't yet do as well in reading scores and mathematics scores. And you want to pin that on the title I program, even though the title I program has helped them do a little better? If any Senator wants to vote against this amendment on the basis of that kind of argument, so be it. But I certainly hope you will not. Finally, I get a little nervous with all this discussion about accountability and achievement because I think my good friend from New Hampshire has the causality backwards. He is putting the cart before the horse. Absolutely, let's put the focus on achievement. Let's put the focus on accountability. But this is my question. Don't you think, at the same time that we put the focus on the achievement, and the same time we put the focus on the accountability, we also need to make sure every child has the same opportunity to achieve? Why is it my colleagues are so silent on that point? They want to rush to vouchers, they want to rush to privatizing education, they want to rush to saying all these children have to achieve and we are going to hold everybody accountable if your children don't achieve. But they don't want to make sure every child has the same opportunity to achieve. Let's not hold our children responsible for our failure to invest in their achievement and their future. This title I program is but one small program that doesn't lead to heaven on Earth, but makes it a little bit better Earth on Earth for some of these children. I say to my colleagues, I think we ought to vote for this amendment. I think we ought to do better by these children. This amendment, in its own small way, just going from $8.3 billion to $10 billion, not even close to the $50 billion that the HELP Committee unanimously voted to authorize appropriations up to, at least makes a bit of a difference. Your school districts are for this, your principals and teachers in the trenches are for this, and most importantly, we ought to provide these children with some additional help. They deserve it. I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the Senator from New Hampshire 30 seconds of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the Senator from Iowa 1 minute of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is an easy question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. My answer would certainly be no, since I talked about what the Senate was about and talked about those other amendments are terribly important amendments that affect the lives of children.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. I ask one question so the Senator can finish a very moving presentation. When I am in schools, which is every 2 weeks, I always have a discussion with the students about education, and I ask them what makes for good education. They talk about good teachers, and they talk about smaller class size. I ask my colleague, Is that the experience the Senator has? This is an amendment for all Senators who spend time in schools with kids in their States because I deal with students over and over again. This is what we need; does the Senator hear the same thing?

Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back the remainder of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my amendment simply says we take the title I and move the appropriation up from $8.36 billion to $10 billion. Our committee, the HELP committee, authorized the full $15 million for the title I program. Title I money is used for additional help for kids in reading, for afterschool programs, for prekindergarten programs, for professional development. This is a program which helps especially low-income children throughout the country. This is a program in which the last half decade has made a difference. As I said earlier, it is not Heaven on Earth, but it is a better Earth on Earth. We provide more help for kids. This is a very important program. I say to my colleague from Washington, again, if you go to your school districts and schools and talk to teachers and parents, they all say they need more help right now. This program is funded at about a 30-percent level. Many more children all across the country could be helped by this program if we were willing to make this investment. I said it earlier; I will say it a final time. Vote for additional help for these kids, mainly the younger children, not because it makes them more productive--it will; not because it prevents them from dropping out of school--it will help; not because it makes a difference in terms of not dropping out of school or winding up in prison--that is true. Vote for it because the vast majority of them are under 4 feet tall. They are all beautiful and we ought to be nice to them. We ought to be able to provide them with some more assistance. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today which will add the White Earth Tribal & Community College of Mahnomen, Minnesota to the list of 1994 Land Grant Institutions. Designation as a 1994 land grant institution would give White Earth Tribal & Community College access to critical federal funding and resources made available under the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 as well as providing eligibility for other programs. Tribal colleges provide their students and their communities at-large with otherwise non-existent opportunities. They serve as library facilities for historical tribal documents--things like the oral history of elders that might otherwise be lost in time. They promote pride in their shared tribal background, and they provide unique opportunities for learning about this background. They are a center of learning for the entire community--not only learning about their tribal history, but also the basic learning that enables some to continue adult education, some to go on to 4-year institutions and some to finish graduate school. The colleges also offer a place for alcohol abuse workshops, job training seminars, and in some cases even day care centers. These colleges can offer benefits for all people in their communities, which is why we should offer our help to those tribal colleges who demonstrate their ability to serve their students and their community in this way. The purpose of the 1994 land-grant act was to enable tribal colleges to receive funds to build their programs, enhance their infrastructure, and educate their communities. However, new tribal colleges, founded since 1994 are not automatically eligible for land grant status, they must be so designated by legislation. One such college is the White Earth Tribal & Community College in Mahnomen, Minnesota. Founded in 1997, this college is now the center of learning for approximately 100 students. Their courses cover a wide range of material including math, history, computer science, and business communications. The college is currently seeking accreditation and is a member of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC). White Earth Tribal & Community College is also recognized by its peers as an important place of higher learning. Other local colleges, such as Moorhead State University, Northwest Technical College, and Northland Community and Technical College, accept its transfer credits. Mr. President, we should offer this college the opportunity it deserves to expand and strengthen its efforts to enhance the lives of everyone around it. Giving White Earth Tribal & Community College the same federal land-grant status that we gave other tribal colleges in 1994 is a matter of basic equity. Adoption of this legislation would signal a willingness to continue our support of new tribal colleges in their efforts to enhance education in their communities.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to the barbaric practice of torture. Yesterday--June 26th, was the 3rd annual U.N. International Day in Support of Torture Victims and Survivors. The Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition has designated this week, June 26th--June 30th, the week of commemoration of torture victims and survivors. Mr. President, colleagues, we should take this week to honor victims of torture, but more importantly, we should use this week as a reminder that together, we can make our world torture- free. Torture has no ideological, geographical, or other boundaries-- survivors of torture are everywhere. The practice of torture is one of the most serious human rights abuses of our time. According to the 1999 Amnesty International report, torture and other forms of severe ill- treatment conducted by government security forces, or condoned by other government officials, occurred in 125 countries last year. As a Senator from Minnesota, I am extraordinarily proud of the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis, which since 1985 has been doing pioneering work in addressing the complex needs of survivors of torture. And while we have come a long way in the last fifteen years in raising awareness of torture and helping torture victims, there is still much more we should and could be doing to stop this terrible practice. My own agenda in the Senate has included a number of human rights initiatives, including the sponsorship of the original Torture Victims Relief Act in 1998, which authorized funding to support foreign and domestic treatment centers in providing services to the millions of survivors of torture worldwide and the estimated 400,000 survivors in this country alone. Repressive governments frequently torture those who are defending human rights and democracy in their own country, and the Torture Victims Relief Act recognizes the debt we owe to these courageous people who have made such a sacrifice for cherished principles. It is hard to imagine that in today's world torture still exists, but it does. In solidarity with all victims of torture, I ask you to join me this week in honoring them by helping raise awareness about torture worldwide. All week the Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition will be requesting meetings with members and staff, and conducting seminars to educate the public about torture. I urge you meet with the Coalition or to attend a seminar to learn the truth about the brutality of this crime. Educating yourself and the public about this terrible human rights abuse is the best way to honor its victims. Together we can end this barbaric practice. Together we can put a stop to torture.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today which will add the White Earth Tribal & Community College of Mahnomen, Minnesota to the list of 1994 Land Grant Institutions. Designation as a 1994 land grant institution would give White Earth Tribal & Community College access to critical federal funding and resources made available under the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 as well as providing eligibility for other programs. Tribal colleges provide their students and their communities at-large with otherwise non-existent opportunities. They serve as library facilities for historical tribal documents--things like the oral history of elders that might otherwise be lost in time. They promote pride in their shared tribal background, and they provide unique opportunities for learning about this background. They are a center of learning for the entire community--not only learning about their tribal history, but also the basic learning that enables some to continue adult education, some to go on to 4-year institutions and some to finish graduate school. The colleges also offer a place for alcohol abuse workshops, job training seminars, and in some cases even day care centers. These colleges can offer benefits for all people in their communities, which is why we should offer our help to those tribal colleges who demonstrate their ability to serve their students and their community in this way. The purpose of the 1994 land-grant act was to enable tribal colleges to receive funds to build their programs, enhance their infrastructure, and educate their communities. However, new tribal colleges, founded since 1994 are not automatically eligible for land grant status, they must be so designated by legislation. One such college is the White Earth Tribal & Community College in Mahnomen, Minnesota. Founded in 1997, this college is now the center of learning for approximately 100 students. Their courses cover a wide range of material including math, history, computer science, and business communications. The college is currently seeking accreditation and is a member of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC). White Earth Tribal & Community College is also recognized by its peers as an important place of higher learning. Other local colleges, such as Moorhead State University, Northwest Technical College, and Northland Community and Technical College, accept its transfer credits. Mr. President, we should offer this college the opportunity it deserves to expand and strengthen its efforts to enhance the lives of everyone around it. Giving White Earth Tribal & Community College the same federal land-grant status that we gave other tribal colleges in 1994 is a matter of basic equity. Adoption of this legislation would signal a willingness to continue our support of new tribal colleges in their efforts to enhance education in their communities.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, all of us thank Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for having a gathering this afternoon for Senator Inouye.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator is right.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague has the floor. But could I have my colleagues' forbearance for a 15-second request? Mr. President, I would like to respond to some of what was said by the Senator from Oklahoma; in other words, after Senator Enzi, and go back and forth on this, pro-con.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not know quite where to start. My colleague from Oklahoma had said earlier, and both my friends from Wyoming and Arkansas had said, we ought to have a debate. We will. We ought to be focusing on this issue. We will focus on this issue. There are many important issues we should focus on in the Senate. This is an important issue. I want to speak about it. In my State, by the way, two-thirds of senior citizens have no prescription drug coverage at all. I would like to focus on that issue. I would like to make sure 700,000 Medicare recipients have coverage. Education, title I--I would like to talk about a lot of different issues, but this issue is before us. I hope we will be able to speak to many different issues in several months to come. First, my colleague, Senator Enzi, complains about the rule, but there is no final rule. It is not final yet. That is the point. OSHA, which is doing exactly what it should do, Secretary Jeffress is doing exactly what he should do by law--holding hearings, getting input--they are going to issue a final rule. They have not issued a final rule. My colleague jumps to conclusions and joins the effort over 10 years to block a rule, but the rule has not been made. There may be significant changes. When my colleague complains about the rule, let's be clear, they have not finished the process. We do not know what the final rule is yet. But for some reason, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so anxious to block this basic worker protection that they already feel confident about attacking a rule that does not exist. Second, my colleagues say that OSHA is rushing. Senator Harkin was quite right in saying to Senator Nickles: Wait a minute, didn't this go back to Secretary Elizabeth Dole? Wasn't Secretary Dole the first to talk about the problem of repetitive stress injury and the need to provide some protection for working men and women in our country? This has been going on for a decade. And Senator Jeffords and OSHA and the administration are rushing? By the way, I say to my colleagues, time is not neutral. From the point of view of people--I am going to be giving some examples because this debate needs to be put in personal terms. It is about working people's lives, from the point of view of people who suffer from this injury, from the point of view of people who are in terrible pain, from the point of view of people who may not be able to work, from the point of view of people who can have their lives destroyed because of this injury, because of our failure to issue a standard. We are not rushing. Can I assure all Senators that we are not rushing from their point of view? Then my colleague talks about home office inspections. This is a red herring. We agree, OSHA agrees, they are not going to be inspecting home offices. Why bring up an issue that is not an issue? My colleagues talk about the WRP, the work restriction protection, and all about the ways in which it will undercut State worker comp laws. But you know what, in our committee hearing, we heard from witnesses that it has no effect on workers comp laws. We will debate that more. But no one, no Senator should be under the illusion that OSHA is about to issue a rule that is going to undercut or overturn State comp laws. Then I hear my colleague, my good friend, complain about OSHA's use of contractors. They have hearings all across the country. They hire people to help them go through all of the paperwork. They hire people so that we do not have unnecessary delay. That is exactly what they should be doing. Frankly, I think these arguments that we hear on the floor of the Senate are just arguments in trying to prevent OSHA from doing exactly what its job is. What is its job? There are today 1.8 million workers who suffer from work-related MSDs and 600,000 workers who have serious injuries and lost work time. That is a lot of men and women who are in pain and who struggle because of these workplace injuries. Elizabeth Dole, a Republican, Secretary of Labor, recognized this 10 years ago. For 10 years, some of my colleagues have done everything they know how to do to block OSHA from issuing a rule to protect working people in this country. They come up with all these arguments, complaining about a rule--but we do not know what the rule is--saying that OSHA is rushing--when we have been at this for a decade--talking about the horror of home office inspections--which will not take place; there will be no home office inspections--and so on and so forth. Frankly, I think this is nothing more than an effort to make sure there is no rule issued at all. Because you know what, we are not arguing about even what kind of rule. That is the irony of this debate. I hope it will not become a bitter irony. We are arguing over whether OSHA should be allowed to issue any rule. Some of my colleagues are so comfortable with the status quo. We have 600,000 workers with serious injuries, lost work time, and there are those who do not want OSHA to issue any rule. Women workers--when you vote on this, one way or the other, remember women workers are particularly affected by these injuries. Women make up 46 percent of the overall workforce, but in 1998 they accounted for 64 percent of repetitive motion injuries, and they accounted for 71 percent of the reported carpal tunnel syndrome cases--women in the workplace, in pain, injured. We do not want to provide any protection? I say to my colleagues, the only rush I see here is not OSHA's rush to provide some protection for working men and women, the only rush I see is the rush on the part of my colleagues to block OSHA from providing any protection. Why the rush to block protection for working people in our country? That is my question. The cost of these injuries to workers, employers, and the country as a whole is enormous. The worker compensation costs are estimated to be about $20 billion annually; overall costs, $60 billion. I will have more to say about this later on in the debate, but when I hear about the nursing homes, and how if we have any kind of ergonomic standard, the nursing homes will go out of existence, I think of two things. No. 1, I wonder how many of my colleagues voted for the 1997 balanced budget amendment. I did not. But if you did, you ought to talk about a piece of legislation that was destined, given the draconian reductions in Medicare reimbursement, to play havoc especially with our hospitals and our nursing homes in rural America, and that is it. Actually ergonomics programs save employers money because you prevent injuries, you cut worker compensation costs, you increase productivity, and you decrease employee turnover. I do not think that is really very difficult to grasp. Let me repeat it. Ergonomics programs save employers money, save nursing homes money, because if you can prevent the injuries, you can cut the worker comp costs, you can increase productivity, and you can decrease employee turnover, which, by the way, is a huge problem in our nursing homes, as is the case with child care workers. OSHA's proposed ergonomics rule would prevent about 300,000 injuries each year and save about $9 billion in worker compensation and related costs. I don't know, maybe you can come out with a figure of a little less or a little more, but that is significant. Ergonomic injuries can be prevented. That is what is so outrageous about this amendment. Ergonomics programs implemented by employers, such as Ford Motor Company, 3M in my State of Minnesota, and Xerox Corporation, have significantly reduced injuries, lowered worker comp costs, and improved worker productivity. But only one-third of employers currently have effective programs. On the House side, first of all, we have had the debate about whether or not there would be good science. Initially, back in 1999, we had an agreement between the Republicans and the Democratic leaders and the Clinton administration, which would fund a scientific study by the National Academy of Sciences of the scientific evidence on ergonomics with the understanding that OSHA's ergonomics standard would proceed. That was the understanding. That understanding clearly no longer counts. All the discussion about how we needed good science obviously was not the issue. My colleagues are not interested in any of that. They are only interested in one thing: They want to block OSHA from issuing any kind of rule that would provide protection to these working people. Again, 1.8 million workers suffer from work-related MSDs, 600,000 workers from serious injuries. My colleagues come out on the floor and make arguments that amount to nothing more than delay because they want to block OSHA from issuing any regulation. They don't even want to wait to see what the regulation is. They just want to block it. They are for the status quo, but the status quo is not acceptable because we ought to provide some protection for these women and men in the workplace. I could, but I will not, spend time with a lot of stories. I want to give my colleagues some sense of what this debate means in personal terms. That is what it is really about. It is not about a rule because the rule has not been promulgated. We don't know what the rule is. It is not about a rush on the part of OSHA because, if we go back 10 years, it was Elizabeth Dole, a Republican, who was first talking about the problem with these injuries. It is not about the scope of the rule because we don't know what it is. It is about whether or not we are going to have political interference to block an agency which has the mandate and the mission of protecting working men and women in this country. It is also about people's lives. I say this to my colleague from Wyoming, whom I like and enjoy as a friend, to the extent people get a chance to spend any time with one another here: I think this debate will be a sharp debate because I think there are some real differences between Senators on this question that make a real difference. I cannot help but express my indignation on the floor of the Senate that when you have 600,000 workers seriously injured every single year because we have not issued any kind of ergonomic standard and because there is no protection for them, I find this effort to block OSHA from issuing any kind of rule or protection to be really unconscionable. I find it to be unconscionable because we are talking about people's lives. Keta Ortiz is a New York City sewing machine operator. I will quote from her testimony, which was at one of the public hearings on OSHA's proposed ergonomic standard. My name is Keta Ortiz. I was sewing machine operator, a member of UNITE Local 89 for 24 years. I was 52 years old in 1992 when my whole life came crashing down around me. You know what a cramp is, right? A terrible pain, it lasts a couple of minutes. Imagine you got cramps so powerful and painful they woke you up every night. My cramps lasted one or two hours, without relief. I woke up with hands frozen like claws and I had to soak them in hot water to be able to move my fingers. I was awake two or three hours every night, often crying. Exhausted every day. But I had no choice but to work. In the beginning the pain got better on the weekend. Then it didn't. By the way, Mr. President, I was just saying to a close friend this morning as I read Ms. Ortiz's testimony that having struggled with back pain, my definition of pain is when you can't sleep at night. That is the worst. You get through it during the day, but in the evening you can't sleep because of the pain, and that is real pain. This agony lasted months, then a year, and then five long years. There are not words to explain what went through my mind in those hours in the middle of the night. The desperation, the fear that eats at your mind. The terror I felt when I realized I was going to have to stop working and didn't have money to pay the rent. I thought, ``When will this ever end? How can I support my child? God, why have you abandoned me?'' I worked and worked through the pain, until I couldn't take it any more. Without work I was disoriented, very depressed, empty. I thought, ``I am useless, a vegetable.'' Negative thoughts invaded my mind and took over my days. Who are these people who oppose an ergonomics standard? Have they ever worked in a factory? Tell them it took me two and a half years before I saw my first workers' comp check. Tell them the operation I needed was delayed over two years by the insurance company . . . that I lost my and my family's health insurance. Tell them that after dedicating so many years to my job, I destroyed my hands, damaged my mental health, and sacrificed the joy I felt in living. And I get barely $120 a week in workers' compensation payments. Now, listening to Ms. Ortiz, I think this is a class issue. I think it is a class issue. I think that if these workers--these women and men like Ms. Ortiz--were sons and daughters, or brothers or sisters, or our mothers and fathers and they were in the upper-income class, or professional class, there would be a hue and cry for an immediate rule to be issued by OSHA to protect them. But they are not the givers, the heavy hitters. This is a reform issue, too. They are not the players. I doubt whether Ms. Ortiz has contributed $500,000 in soft money--to either party, I say to my colleagues, so that I can make it clear this isn't aimed at any one individual Senator. I doubt whether she is maxed out at $2,000 a year in the primary and general election. I doubt whether she is enlisted as somebody who contributes $200 a year. I doubt whether she hires any lobbyist. But I have no doubt that she is a hard-working factory worker whose life has been destroyed. I have no doubt that we ought to pass this so OSHA should be able to do its work. OSHA should be able to perform its mission of providing protection for workers. I remember when OSHA legislation first passed in the early 1970s. I remember that there was a book I used to assign to students, I think, by Paul Brodeur, called ``Expendable Americans.'' I think it was about a group of chemical workers who were working and who basically lost their lives because of asbestos, and they struggled with asbestosis and other lung-related diseases. The author's thesis was that these were people who were expendable. We should not make Ms. Ortiz and other working people expendable. We should pay attention when 1.8 million workers a year struggle because of this kind of disease, MSDs, and 600,000 workers are in real jeopardy, with serious injuries and lost work time. They should not be made expendable. Janie Jones, UNITE Local 2645, Arkadelphia, AR, poultry plant worker: Good Morning, my name is Janie Jones. I'm President of Local 2645. I am also a member of the joint Union-Management safety Committee. I work at the Petit Jean Poultry de-boning facility, in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. I've been employed there for 7 years. In 1994, I was diagnosed with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. At the time of my injury I was de-boning thighs, since then I have been placed on numerous other jobs. Let me describe a few of my previous jobs for you: Breast pulling: the birds come down the dis-assembly line, we pull the breast from the bird, removing the skin as we do this. Approximately 9 birds a minute is required of the workers: one every seven seconds. De-boning the thighs: six people used to do three different cuts to the thigh: arching, opening and de-boning. Now there are only three people doing these three cuts. Also, after the bone is taken from the thigh, a thigh-trimmer inspects and cuts out any bone that may be left. There used to be three people, and now one person cuts out the bone. But the line speed is still 28 per minute. Now, I load the line. This means picking up the birds from a metal bin to my right and placing them on cone on a conveyor belt to my left. We are required to put 28-32 birds a minute on these cones. These birds are cold, sometimes frozen and they can weigh as much as six pounds. That's about 67,500 pounds that I have to reach and stretch to lift about 2\1/2\-5 feet every day. When an injured worker goes to the nurse with pain and swelling, the nurse will usually treat the worker with a rub and arthritis cream and sends you back to your job. If you keep complaining, she'll also give you a heat pad, and then she'll send you back to your job. Then, if you still keep complaining, she'll do the rub, the heat pad, and send you to a light duty job. Sometimes, management then tells her they need this person on their old job, and she just agrees and they put the worker back on the job that injured them. When workers are diagnosed with CTS by their own doctors, company will move you to another job which is not as fast- paced. But as soon as the pain gets better, they send you back to your old job, only to get worse again. This goes on until people can't take it anymore, and then they quit. I say to my colleague from Arkansas that this is not a filibuster and I will be finished in a few minutes. I know he is anxious to speak. I want to put his mind at rest. Let me give one more example, although if the debate goes on I can give you many, many examples. This is the testimony of Eugenia Barbosa, Randolph, MA, an assembly line worker. By the way, this is testimony before OSHA during their public hearings when working men and women came and talked about their own lives in the hope that OSHA would be able to perform or fulfill its mission by law of providing some protection, which means issuing an ergonomics standard that can provide people some protection. My colleagues, through this amendment, want to block OSHA from issuing any standard--no standard, no help, no protection. If you are not working at this kind of job, and you are not the one who is suffering from stress injury, it is easy to do. But for these workers, these people--I am a Senator from Minnesota and they are a big part of my constituency. They need the protection. That is why this debate is so important. It really is in the words of an old labor song by Florence Reece, wrote it, ``Which Side Are You On?'' This is a classic example. I am on the side of Keta Ortiz and Janie Jones. Eugenia Barbosa, Randolph, MA an assembly line worker: Thank you for giving me this chance to come here today and share my story with all of you. My name is Eugenia Barbosa, an American citizen. I am an Injured Worker. I came to America from Cape Verde with my family and started working at age 17 to help my mother and father. For the last 28 years of my life, I have worked in a factory that manufactures parts for major car companies. I worked in an assembly line making dashboard switches. I produced 400 pieces or more per hour. To make the switches I used my thumb and forefinger to press and insert a rocker switch into the housing. To complete the dashboard switches, I assembled an additional piece using three springs, two pins, and plastic caps, also using my thumb and forefinger. In 1991 I started feeling severe and constant pain in my right wrist. I was sent to the company doctor. I was given a splint and Motrin, and placed on light duty for two weeks. After two weeks I was sent back to my original position with a wristband for my right wrist, which I wore every day. Between 1991 and 1995, I was in constant pain. When I spoke to management, they told me that they would decide when I was in enough pain to go to the doctor. The pain was so severe that I had to hang my arm while working to relieve some of the pain. I suffered emotionally and physically as the pain continued to get more severe. That is what this debate is about. In October 1995 my life changed. The pain was no longer in my right wrist; it was also in my right shoulder, arm, back, and neck. I told management about the pain which was so severe I couldn't even move. I was ignored. Finally I was sent to the company doctor again. He gave me another splint to be used 24 hours a day, an elbow support and pain medication, and told me to do light modified work with my left hand. He also told me to rest my arm on an arm rest chair while working. The company was supposed to provide me with the arm rest chair but never did. After 5 weeks I was called into my manager's office and was told it was time to remove my splint and go back to the assembly line. I was in so much pain that I started to cry. The company put me on incentive work but with only my left hand to make 975 pieces an hour. I asked my manager why. He told me he didn't want to hear any garbage and that I should go back and do my job. In March 1996 I started having pain in my left wrist, arm, shoulder, back and neck. It became so severe that I was rushed to the Emergency Room. The company doctor said there is nothing wrong with me. I went to see another doctor who tested me and found that I had severe damage to my rotator cuff, radial nerve, and wrist. Since that time, I have had surgery three times, on my right shoulder, arm, and wrist. I still need surgery on my left shoulder and wrist. After my injury my life has complete changed for myself and for my family, and everyday I must deal with my pain. I am no longer able to work, I am now financially struggling to put my son through college, I'm unable to cook and clean for my family and even combing my hair and taking care of my own personal needs is now very difficult for me. Their testimony was before an OSHA hearing on this ergonomics standard. Elizabeth Dole, in 1990, tried to help these workers. We have been at it 10 years. Assistant Secretary Jeffress of OSHA is trying to move forward to issue a rule. They are doing the right thing. This is their mandate. This is what they are supposed to do under the law. This amendment amounts to blatant political interference to prevent them from doing their job--which is to hold the hearings; which is to have careful deliberation; which is to decide on the final rule. They have not even decided on the final rule, but keep attacking a rule that doesn't exist, a final rule that will be reasonable and sensible but will provide protection to these workers--to these men and women all across the country. Senators, Democrats and Republicans, there couldn't be a more important issue before us. This is a real clear question of where you stand. I think we ought to stand for these working people. I think we ought to make sure that OSHA can do its job. I think there should be a rule that provides these workers with some protection. That is the right thing to do. I urge you to oppose this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that George Dowdull, a fellow for Senator Biden, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Carlyn Lamia be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I took the floor to thank the Senator from California and to ask consent I be included as an original cosponsor. It is a very important amendment and directly connected to people's lives. I thank the Senator for her fine work.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have documents printed in the Record to respond to some of the accusations regarding the Labor Department.