Express Carrier Employee Protection Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2004. The Perkins Act is a central part of a combination of federal education and training programs that provide opportunities for lifelong learning to our workforce. The Perkins Act, together with the Workforce Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, and other federal education programs, provides the resources that are needed to help adequately prepare students of all ages for jobs in high-wage and high-skilled occupations. In this technology driven, global economy, everyone is a student who must adapt to the changing needs of their jobs and the workforce by continuing to pursue an education in their chosen field. In turn, Congress must ensure that education and training are connected to the needs of business, including small businesses, now and into the future as well.

It is my hope that this body will take the necessary action to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. The Act is an essential part of a combination of federal education and training programs that will strengthen our workforce and enable America to compete--and succeed--in the global economy.

At a hearing held on June 24, 2004, before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, members heard testimonies from leaders in career and technical training emphasizing the importance of constant training, retraining and upgrading of the skills today's jobs require. Many students leaving high school or college and entering the workforce find that they are unprepared for life because they lack the skills they need to succeed in the workforce. This country created over 1 million new jobs since January. That's great news. Unfortunately, the complaint heard from employers is that there are too few skilled workers to meet their needs. We have a strong interest in making sure this is corrected. The Perkins Act, along with the Higher Education and Workforce Investment Act would provide both strong academic and relevant job skill training to promote and sustain the long-term competitiveness of this country.

A unique aspect of the Perkins program that addresses the needs of the changing workforce is that it targets funds to both secondary and postsecondary schools. This unique aspect also provides a good platform from which we can better coordinate workforce preparation policy and training with an emphasis on lifelong learning. It is essential to facilitate a sequence of career or technical education courses that a student can complete before they even get to college, and that they can continue at the postsecondary level, whenever they decide to go on. Dr. Michael Rush, the Idaho Division of Professional-Technical Education, Boise, ID, Administrator, used the example of student Chelsie Lea Marier in his testimony to stress this point. He said Chelsie took professional-technical classes in welding, auto technology, mechanics and power technology at her home high school, Meridian High. As a high school senior, she enrolled in an automotive collision repair program at the Dehryl Dennis Technology Center. During this time, Chelsie took advanced placement academic classes and was President of her Skills-USA chapter. She is now enrolled in the auto body program at the College of Southern Idaho, and she intends to continue her education and become an auto collision forensics investigator. She is an excellent example of how linking academic and technical skills attainment can lead to success in the workforce.

In order to strengthen schools programs at both the secondary and postsecondary level that meet local workforce needs, provisions in the Perkins Act must include the participation of business, including small business. In my home state of Wyoming, a career and technical education instructor by the name of Ted Schroeder is doing a lot of what I've just described. He has met with the local Chamber of Commerce in Rock Springs, WY, to identify workforce needs and matched his programs with industry standards to meet those needs. When the local business community suggested they needed students with computerized accounting skills, he took on the task of designing curriculum to help his students acquire the skills the businesses had requested. His efforts are a good example of what

Perkins funds are intended to accomplish. It is my hope that we can increase the successes of the Perkins program, just like Ted has done in the community of Rock Springs.

I'm pleased to have worked with the Members of the Committee and stakeholders on a bipartisan bill that will improve the Perkins Act to better meet the needs of students, workers, and business. The legislation I am introducing today, with my colleagues Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Alexander, Dodd, Jeffords, Bingaman, Murray, Sessions, Reed and Clinton, will help strengthen the Perkins program by improving accountability, involving businesses in career and technical education programs, emphasizing challenging academic instruction, and advancing the field of career and technical education by linking those programs to advances in industry.

This legislation would also encourage greater collaboration between state agencies responsible for education and workforce activities. This legislation requires state agencies to work together on identifying the needs of the workforce and designing curriculum to match those needs. It also emphasizes the needs of nontraditional students and other lifelong learners, who are returning to school for the first time, or those who are seeking additional skill training.

This legislation also continues to emphasize the need to introduce women and girls to high skill, high wage jobs. It is important that we help expand the vision of our students to ensure they consider all the options that are available to them, not just the ones that fit general, and sometimes erroneous, conceptions.

I hope our bipartisan efforts will continue to produce results as we move the bill through the Senate and into Conference. I do not wish to see another piece of bipartisan legislation lost in the legislative limbo of election year politics. An important step that the Senate must take is to appoint conferees to finish the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. That program offers the resources that are needed to help adequately prepare more than 900,000 unemployed workers find work each year. It passed the Senate unanimously, both in Committee and the floor. Conferees must now be appointed before the August recess. It we are going to help workers in this country, we must send this important legislation to Conference so that it will ultimately reach the President and be signed into law.

I cannot stress enough the importance of federal initiatives like the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and the Workforce Investment Act to keep American workers and businesses competitive. The Perkins Act can help close the gap that threatens America's long-term competitiveness. It is essential that we take advantage of the opportunity we have during this reauthorization process to improve the link between education and relevant academic and skills preparation. By so doing, we will create a pathway to prosperity for American workers and businesses alike, that both will make good use of for years to come.

Mr. President, I am introducing the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act today.

This legislation would allow States the option to once again provide Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women.

Traditionally, Medicaid and SCHIP have served as vital components of our nation's health care safety net. These programs have provided coverage to over 50 million non-elderly, low-income Americans, most of them children, and have helped to dramatically reduce infant mortality and provide health care for millions of poor children whose families cannot afford the high cost of private health insurance.

However, for many low-income families that are income eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, these safety programs are today little more than a mirage--an illusion to those who need them most. The 1996 welfare reform law arbitrarily barred states from using Federal funds to provide health coverage to low-income legal immigrants during their first 5 years in the United States.

While the goal of welfare reform was to encourage self-sufficiency in adults, the legislation unfortunately has punished children. Today, half of all legal immigrant children from families making less than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level are uninsured. That's over two and a half times the uninsured rate for children who are United States citizens.

In the long term, ignoring the health care needs of legal immigrant children

and pregnant women will prove more costly than providing care today. Children and pregnant women who do not have access to preventive care often use the emergency room as a first resort--an expensive treatment for conditions that could have been treated at a fraction of the cost or possibly even prevented.

The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2000 estimated that $1 spent on prenatal care for immigrant women saved $3 in short- term postnatal costs and $5 in longer-term costs. By spending on prevention today, we can reduce health care costs in the future.

Another result of the 1996 legislation was to push the costs of care to the States. The 20 states with the highest number of legal immigrants all used to have state-financed health care programs for legal immigrant children or pregnant women. States put these programs in place because they recognized the enormous toll the 1996 rules have taken on state budgets, when states have to provide preventable emergency-room care to thousands of uninsured legal immigrants.

But due to the recent State budget crisis, some of these states cannot now afford programs that are exclusively state-financed. In my home state of Florida, for example, new enrollment in the program has been frozen.

This amendment allows states the option to use Medicaid and SCHIP funding to cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women. Over the last 6 years, Senator Chafee and I, along with our colleagues in the House and Senate, have worked to restore this option and we've come very close to achieving our goal.

Last year, a 3-year restoration provision was included in the Senate- passed Medicare prescription drug bill, with 65 Members supporting it. Over 400 national, state, and local organizations have supported this legislation, including the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and numerous immigrant, ethnic, labor, health and faith-based organizations.

Despite this support, Congress has yet to enact legislation that restores health benefits to legal immigrant families.

Why?

Some Members argued it didn't belong on a Medicare bill but instead on a welfare reauthorization bill. That was one of the reasons it was dropped from the Medicare bill. But the same argument has been made when it was discussed in the context of welfare--that it is not a welfare issue, it's a health care issue.

Well, while this volleyball match continues, legal immigrant families in this country continue to work hard and pay taxes, while being denied the benefits of the system they are paying into. Meanwhile, States continue to provide as much care as they can from strapped state budgets. We need to send a clear message about our concern for uninsured children and we need to stop pretending that our federal penny-pinching is cost free to the states or to taxpayers.

Mr. President, legal immigrants pay taxes, serve in the military, and have the same social obligations as United States citizens. Legal immigrant children are, as much as citizen children, the next generation of Americans. It is important that all children start off on the right foot towards good health. This provision can help them do just that.

This legislation is offset by a custom user fee extension included in the President's budget.

I hope that we will begin consideration of this important measure before the August recess. The health and lives of many children is at stake, and there is simply no reason to delay any further.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will help ensure that employees of ``express carrier'' delivery companies are treated like employees who perform the same duties for other delivery, companies when it comes to Federal labor law jurisdiction.

Over the years, there have been many advances made in the way citizens and businesses ship goods from city to city. Numerous air- carrier and cargo services make the delivery of goods speedy, reliable and affordable. Truck, air and rail delivery networks are in place across the country. These operations employ large workforces that perform various types of work in a range of conditions.

Some of the leading delivery companies appear to have similar organizational structure and clientele. But there is a disparity in the terms and conditions of their workers' employment. Some of the companies provide full- and part-time workers with good wages and benefits, including medical plans, dental coverage and paid vacation time. Others take a lower road, in part by using independent contractors and anti-union campaigns.

Unfortunately, Federal law facilitates this difference. It ensures that all of the workers at one of the largest companies which delivers by air are covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), even when those workers do the same jobs as employees at other delivery companies who are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). What is the difference? Under the NLRA, workers can act locally in seeking to organize and bargain collectively. Under the RLA, workers must organize nationally, an enormous challenge in today's labor environment.

Congress created the concept of an ``express carrier'' in 1996, putting all the employees of one large company under RLA jurisdiction, regardless of individual employees' relation to air transportation. That means those workers cannot organize a union chapter locally, weakening their opportunity to bargain for better wages, benefits and workplace conditions.

This bill provides that employees of an express carrier will be governed under the RLA only if they are licensed airmen, aircraft maintenance technicians or aircraft dispatchers. That is consistent with the treatment of other delivery companies' workers.

The bill delivers fairness to responsible employers trying to do the right thing for workers while remaining competitive. It seeks to raise living standards, not encourage a race to the bottom. Workers can decide for themselves whether or not to collectively bargain, but in all businesses similarly situated, workers should be regulated the same.

Let's deliver fairness to those who deliver for us.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will help ensure that employees of ``express carrier'' delivery companies are treated like employees who perform the same duties for other delivery, companies when it comes to Federal labor law jurisdiction.

Over the years, there have been many advances made in the way citizens and businesses ship goods from city to city. Numerous air- carrier and cargo services make the delivery of goods speedy, reliable and affordable. Truck, air and rail delivery networks are in place across the country. These operations employ large workforces that perform various types of work in a range of conditions.

Some of the leading delivery companies appear to have similar organizational structure and clientele. But there is a disparity in the terms and conditions of their workers' employment. Some of the companies provide full- and part-time workers with good wages and benefits, including medical plans, dental coverage and paid vacation time. Others take a lower road, in part by using independent contractors and anti-union campaigns.

Unfortunately, Federal law facilitates this difference. It ensures that all of the workers at one of the largest companies which delivers by air are covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), even when those workers do the same jobs as employees at other delivery companies who are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). What is the difference? Under the NLRA, workers can act locally in seeking to organize and bargain collectively. Under the RLA, workers must organize nationally, an enormous challenge in today's labor environment.

Congress created the concept of an ``express carrier'' in 1996, putting all the employees of one large company under RLA jurisdiction, regardless of individual employees' relation to air transportation. That means those workers cannot organize a union chapter locally, weakening their opportunity to bargain for better wages, benefits and workplace conditions.

This bill provides that employees of an express carrier will be governed under the RLA only if they are licensed airmen, aircraft maintenance technicians or aircraft dispatchers. That is consistent with the treatment of other delivery companies' workers.

The bill delivers fairness to responsible employers trying to do the right thing for workers while remaining competitive. It seeks to raise living standards, not encourage a race to the bottom. Workers can decide for themselves whether or not to collectively bargain, but in all businesses similarly situated, workers should be regulated the same.

Let's deliver fairness to those who deliver for us.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Gregg, Enzi, Dodd, Jeffords, Bingaman, Murray, Reed and Clinton in introducing the bipartisan reauthorization of the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act. We have worked closely with leaders of the secondary and post-secondary vocational education community to make important improvements in this important program in current law. Among the key issues we addressed are the more effective integration of academic and technical education, the use of funds for secondary and post-secondary programs, the Tech Prep Programs that form the bridge between the high school and college training programs, and the need for students to have access to good information about emerging and existing job opportunities in high-wage, high-skill and high-demand careers.

Since passage of the original Smith-Hughes Act in 1917, the Federal Government has recognized the importance of good preparation for technical occupations. Over the years, we have made a series of revisions in the law to reflect the growing importance of combining academic learning with technical skill learning in order to meet the changing needs of American business and industry.

This bill is an example of how we can work well together when we focus on good policy. I look forward to action on this bill in our Labor Committee before the recess, and to its enactment into law this year.