S6010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 2, 1995 

and enforcement of HO 12, with respect 

to cardboard balers and compactors 

that commonly are used in supermarkets, grocery stores, and other retail establishments, for preparing and 

bundling cardboard and paper materials for recycling purposes. 

DOL’s current interpretation of HO 

12 goes so far as to prohibit minors 

from placing, tossing, or loading cardboard or paper materials into a baler or 

compactor. Such activities take place 

during a loading phase that is prior to, 

and separate from, the actual operation of the machine. While such a 

loading-phase prohibition may have 

made sense back in 1954, when HO 12 

was originally issued, such is not the 

case today. 

Technology has brought about significant safety advancements to balers 

and compactors. Much like a household 

microwave oven or trash compactor, 

the newest generation of balers now in 

use in grocery stores and other locations cannot be engaged and operated 

during the loading phase. 

This important design feature is a result of safety standards issued by the 

American National Standards Institute 

[ANSI]. An employee is not at risk 

when placing cardboard materials into 

a baler that is in compliance with 

ANSI standards Z.245.5 1990, or putting 

paper materials into a compactor that 

is in compliance with ANSI standards 

Z245.2 1992. 

Nonetheless, DOL treats all balers 

and compactors the same, and considers the placement of materials into 

these machines, if performed by a 

minor, to be a clear-cut violation of HO 

12. Each violation can result in a fine 

of $10,000 against an employer. 

If DOL could produce injury data 

showing that workers are at risk when 

loading materials into a machine that 

meets current ANSI standards, I might 

agree that the current interpretation 

and enforcement of HO 12 is warranted. 

However, DOL has acknowledged that 

it has no injury data for balers that 

meet the ANSI standard. 

Despite the complete lack of evidence that workers are at risk in these 

situations, DOL has cited numerous supermarkets throughout the United 

States and has assessed several million 

dollars in fines against grocery owners 

in recent years. 

It is difficult to understand the logic 

behind this kind of enforcement when, 

in fact, a review of 8,000 compensation 

cases involving injuries over the past 7 

years by the Waste Equipment Technology Association failed to find a single injury attributable to a baler that 

meets current ANSI safety standards. 

The present, rigid interpretation of 

HO 12 is bad regulatory policy and 

should not continue. It benefits no one, 

especially workers. Worker protection 

is not enhanced by issuing large fines 

against employers that use balers 

meeting current safety standards. 

Such a policy also is clearly inconsistent with the goal of creating employment opportunities for young people. Because so many grocers have been 

fined by DOL for loading violations, 

the industry has become less inclined 

to hire younger workers. 

Originally, DOL applied this interpretation of HO 12 to cardboard balers. 

As burdensome and objectionable as 

this policy has been, concerning cardboard balers, DOL more recently went 

a step farther and now is applying the 

same interpretation to compactors, a 

similar piece of equipment that retail 

establishments use to recycle paper 

materials. 

Without the benefit of formal rulemaking and the opportunity for interested parties to file comments, DOL extended the jurisdiction of HO 12 to 

compactors at the beginning of 1994, 

and employers found themselves subjected to fines when it was documented 

that a minor had placed materials into 

a compactor. 

This is one more example of the 

‘‘speed trap’’ mentality of Federal 

agencies, and the Department of Labor, 

in particular. Balers and compactors 

are both governed by ANSI safety 

standards and cannot be engaged or operated during the loading phase. This 

means, to re-emphasize, that employees loading machines meeting ANSI 

standards are not at risk. 

Clearly, DOL’s position on HO 12, as 

it relates to cardboard balers and compactors, is not in step with the technology being used in the workplace. In 

view of the fact that this equipment 

can not be operated during the loading 

phase, there is no compelling reason to 

continue treating the placement of materials by minors a violation of HO 12. 

The old joke goes that, when something is difficult to accomplish, you 

compare it to passing an Act of Congress. If there is one process more intractable, it must be modernizing Federal agency regulations. 

HO 12 needs to be revised so that the 

placement of paper or cardboard materials into a baler or compactor that 

meets its respective ANSI safety standards by an employee under age 18 is no 

longer a violation of the regulation. 

The loading phase should be completely distinguished from the operating phase of the machine. 

While DOL has solicited comments 

on its child labor regulations, in general, Congress does not need to, and 

should not, wait any longer for this 

one, simple revision to HO 12. Throughout at least two administrations, DOL 

has promised to reconsider the rule. 

Their latest offering is the goal of 

issuing a new, final regulation by February 1996, even through we have yet to 

see a proposed revision to the rule. 

We don’t need months of agency 

hearings and reams of paper. I’ve seen 

these grocery store balers operate. 

What’s needed is a simple, commonsense change, and the bill I’m introducing today would make that change 

in a simple, straightforward way. 

The many young people who will not 

have summer jobs this year under 

DOL’s status quo interpretation of HO 

12 should not have to wait another year 

or more for the glacier-like process of 

regulatory change to catch up with 

technology. 

By promptly acting on the bill I’m 

introducing today, we can open up 

thousands of youth summer job opportunities without relying on government programs and grants. 

The jobs are there. The young people 

are there. All we need to do is remove 

one, unnecessary, regulatory wall between them. 

This bill would provide a narrow 

amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act that would overrule DOL’s interpretation of HO 12 in the limited 

and appropriate way I’ve described. My 

bill would not change the critically important safety focus of the regulation. 

In fact, I agree that DOL should remain vigilant and enforce the regulation in case when the safety of young 

workers is compromised by use of 

equipment that does not meet current 

ANSI safety standards. 

The bill would provide only that 

young workers would be allowed to operate balers and compactors that meet 

the current industry standards that ensure complete safety in their operation. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of my bill in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the bill was 

ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as 

follows: 

S. 744 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Compactors 

and Balers Safety Standard Modernization’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR MINORS TO LOAD MATERIALS INTO BALERS AND COMPACTORS. 

In the administration of the child labor 

provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

of 1938, minors under 18 years of age shall be 

permitted to—

(1) load materials into baling equipment 

that is in compliance with the American National Standards Institute safety standard 

ANSI Z245.5 1990, and 

(2) load materials into a compacter that is 

in compliance with the American National 

Standards Institute safety standard ANSI 

Z245.2 1992. 

f 

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 

S. 191

At the request of Mrs. HUTCHISON, the 

name of the Senator from Idaho [Mr. 

CRAIG] was added as a cosponsor of S. 

191, a bill to amend the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 to ensure that constitutionally protected private property rights are not infringed until adequate protection is afforded by reauthorization of the act, to protect 

against economic losses from critical 

habitat designation, and for other purposes. 

S. 227

At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, the 

name of the Senator from Montana 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6011 

[Mr. BAUCUS] was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 227, a bill to amend title 17, 

United States Code, to provide an exclusive right to perform sound recordings publicly by means of digital transmissions and for other purposes. 

S. 383

At the request of Mr. WARNER, the 

names of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SPECTER] and the Senator 

from Idaho [Mr. CRAIG] were added as 

cosponsors of S. 383, a bill to provide 

for the establishment of policy on the 

deployment by the United States of an 

antiballistic missile system and of advanced theater missile defense systems. 

S. 388

At the request of Ms. SNOWE, the 

names of the Senator from Montana 

[Mr. BURNS] the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. FEINGOLD], and the Senator 

from Colorado [Mr. BROWN] were added 

as cosponsors of S. 388, a bill to amend 

title 23, United States Code, to eliminate the penalties for noncompliance 

by States with a program requiring the 

use of motorcycle helmets, and for 

other purposes. 

S. 511

At the request of Mr. DOMENICI, the 

name of the Senator from Texas [Mrs. 

HUTCHISON] was added as a cosponsor of 

S. 511, a bill to require the periodic review and automatic termination of 

Federal regulations. 

S. 578

At the request of Mr. D’AMATO, the 

name of the Senator from Maryland 

[Mr. SARBANES] was added as a cosponsor of S. 578, a bill to limit assistance 

for Turkey under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export 

Control Act until that country complies with certain human rights standards. 

S. 637

At the request of Mr. MCCAIN, the 

names of the Senator from Michigan 

[Mr. ABRAHAM] and the Senator from 

North Carolina [Mr. FAIRCLOTH] were 

added as cosponsors of S. 637, a bill to 

remove barriers to interracial and 

interethnic adoptions, and for other 

purposes. 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 31

At the request of Mr. HATCH, the 

name of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. 

REID] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 31, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States to 

grant Congress and the States the 

power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. 

SENATE RESOLUTION 85

At the request of Mr. CHAFEE, the 

names of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. PRESSLER] and the Senator 

from Alabama [Mr. SHELBY] were added 

as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 85, 

a resolution to express the sense of the 

Senate that obstetrician-gynecologists 

should be included in Federal laws relating to the provision of health care. 

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED 

THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL 

STANDARDS REFORM ACT OF 

1995 COMMON SENSE PRODUCT 

LIABILITY REFORM ACT OF 1995 

DOLE (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT 

NO. 617 

Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. EXON, Mr. 

HATCH, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. MCCONNELL, 

Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. KYL, Mr. THOMAS, 

Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. GRAMM) proposed 

an amendment to amendment No. 596 

proposed by Mr. GORTON to the bill 

(H.R. 956) to establish legal standards 

and procedures for product liability 

litigation, and for other purposes; as 

follows: 

On page 19, strike line 12 through line 5 on 

page 21, and insert the following: 

SEC. 107. PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN CIVIL ACTIONS. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) punitive damages are imposed pursuant 

to vague, subjective, and often retrospective 

standards of liability, and these standards 

vary from State to State; 

(2) the magnitude and unpredictability of 

punitive damage awards in civil actions have 

increased dramatically over the last 40 

years, unreasonably inflating the cost of settling litigation, and discouraging socially 

useful and productive activity; 

(3) excessive, arbitrary, and unpredictable 

punitive damage awards impair and burden 

commerce, imposing unreasonable and unjustified costs on consumers, taxpayers, governmental entities, large and small businesses, volunteer organizations, and nonprofit entities; 

(4) products and services originating in a 

State with reasonable punitive damage provisions are still subject to excessive punitive 

damage awards because claimants have an 

economic incentive to bring suit in States in 

which punitive damage awards are arbitrary 

and inadequately controlled; 

(5) because of the national scope of the 

problems created by excessive, arbitrary, and 

unpredictable punitive damage awards, it is 

not possible for the several States to enact 

laws that fully and effectively respond to the 

national economic and constitutional problems created by punitive damages; and 

(6) the Supreme Court of the United States 

has recognized that punitive damages can 

produce grossly excessive, wholly unreasonable, and often arbitrary punishment, and 

therefore raise serious constitutional due 

process concerns. 

(b) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of this Act, in any civil action whose subject matter affects commerce 

brought in any Federal or State court on any 

theory, punitive damages may, to the extent 

permitted by applicable State law, be awarded against a defendant only if the claimant 

establishes by clear and convincing evidence 

that the harm that is the subject of the action was the result of conduct by the defendant that was either—

(1) specifically intended to cause harm; or 

(2) carried out with conscious, flagrant disregard to the rights or safety of others. 

(c) PROPORTIONAL AWARDS.—The amount of 

punitive damages that may be awarded to a 

claimant in any civil action subject to this 

section shall not exceed 2 times the sum of—

(1) the amount awarded to the claimant for 

economic loss; and 

(2) the amount awarded to the claimant for 

noneconomic loss. 

This subsection shall be applied by the court 

and the application of this subsection shall 

not be disclosed to the jury. 

(d) BIFURCATION.—At the request of any 

party, the trier of fact shall consider in a 

separate proceeding whether punitive damages are to be awarded and the amount of 

such an award. If a separate proceeding is requested—

(1) evidence relevant only to the claim of 

punitive damages, as determined by applicable State law, shall be inadmissible in any 

proceeding to determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded; and 

(2) evidence admissible in the punitive 

damages proceeding may include evidence of 

the defendant’s profits, if any, from its alleged wrongdoing. 

(e) APPLICABILITY.—Nothing in this section 

shall be construed to—

(1) waive or affect any defense of sovereign 

immunity asserted by the United States, or 

by any State, under any law; 

(2) create any cause of action or any right 

to punitive damages; 

(3) supersede or alter any Federal law; 

(4) preempt, supersede, or alter any State 

law to the extent that such law would further limit the availability or amount of punitive damages; 

(5) affect the applicability of any provision 

of chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code; 

(6) preempt State choice-of-law rules with 

respect to claims brought by a foreign nation 

or a citizen of a foreign nation; or 

(7) affect the right of any court to transfer 

venue or to apply the law of a foreign nation 

or to dismiss a claim of a foreign nation or 

of a citizen of a foreign nation on the ground 

of inconvenient forum. 

(f) FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION PRECLUDED.—

Nothing in this section shall confer jurisdiction on the Federal district courts of the 

United States under section 1331 or 1337 of 

title 28, United States Code, over any civil 

action covered under this section. 

(g) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

(1) The term ‘‘claimant’’ means any person 

who brings a civil action and any person on 

whose behalf such an action is brought. If 

such action is brought through or on behalf 

of an estate, the term includes the decedent. 

If such action is brought through or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, the term includes the legal guardian of the minor or incompetent. 

(2) The term ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ means that measure or degree of 

proof that will produce in the mind of the 

trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to 

the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The level of proof required to satisfy such standard shall be more than that 

required under preponderance of the evidence, and less than that required for proof 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

(3) The term ‘‘commerce’’ means commerce 

between or among the several States, or with 

foreign nations. 

(4)(A) The term ‘‘economic loss’’ means 

any objectively verifiable monetary losses 

resulting from the harm suffered, including 

past and future medical expenses, loss of 

past and future earnings, burial costs, costs 

of repair or replacement, costs of replacement services in the home, including child 

care, transportation, food preparation, and 

household care, costs of making reasonable 

accommodations to a personal residence, 

loss of employment, and loss of business or 

employment opportunities, to the extent recovery for such losses is allowed under applicable State law. 

(B) The term ‘‘economic loss’’ shall not include noneconomic loss. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS