Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New York to introduce legislation to stop the sale of questionable financial products through hard sales tactics to our military personnel and their families. Over the course of recent months, it has become increasingly clear that the lack of clear lines in the oversight of insurance and securities sales on military bases has allowed certain individuals to push high cost financial products on unknowing military personnel. This practice must be stopped now. Our soldiers and their families deserve much better than that especially since they are putting themselves on the front line day after day for our freedom.

The bill that we introduce today will halt completely the sale of a mutual fund-like product that charges a 50-percent sales commission against the first year of contributions by a military family. Currently, there are hundreds of mutual fund products available on the market that charge less than 6 percent. The excessive sales charges of these contractually based financial products make them susceptible to abusive and misleading sales practices. Unfortunately, a small group of individuals target these products almost entirely to military families.

In addition, certain life insurance products are being offered to our service members disguised and marketed as investment products. These products provide very low death benefits while charging very high premiums, especially in the first few years. Many of these products are unsuitable for the insurance and investment needs of military families.

One of the major problems with the sales of insurance products on military bases is whether State insurance regulators or military base commanders are responsible for the oversight of sales agents. Typically, military base commanders will bar certain sales agents from a military base only to have the sales agents show up at other military facilities. Since there is no record of the bar, State insurance regulators have been unable to have adequate oversight of the individuals. The bill that we introduce today will rectify that problem. It will state clearly that State insurance regulators have jurisdiction of the sale of insurance products on military bases.

In addition, the bill will urge State insurance regulators to work with the Department of Defense to develop life insurance product standards and disclosures. The Department of Defense also will keep at list of individuals who are barred or banned from military bases due to abuse or unscrupulous sales tactics and to share that list with Federal and State insurance, securities and other relevant regulators.

Finally, the bill that we are introducing today will protect our military families by preventing investment companies to issue periodic payment plan certificates, the mutual fund-like investment product with extremely high first-year costs. This type of financial instrument has been criticized by securities regulators since the late 1960s.

We believe that this legislation is but the first step in helping our military families. Last year, I worked with Senators Shelby, Sarbanes, Akaka and Stabenow to develop financial literacy initiatives for the Federal Government and for students. My colleague from New York and I will be working next year to strengthen the financial literacy programs for military personnel. By providing military families with the tools to analyze and compare financial products, we will give them an advantage over sales agents who attempt to sell high cost financial and insurance products ill-suited to military life.

It should be noted that there are many upstanding financial and insurance companies that sell very worthwhile investment and insurance products to military families. They should be applauded for the fine job that they do in helping our families. This bill is targeted at the few who abuse the system and prey upon our military in times when our country needs them the most.

Last night, a similar bipartisan bill passed the House of Representatives by

an overwhelming vote of 396-2. Congress is fully aware of the dangers faced by our military personnel in keeping our country safe from harm. Likewise, we must do all that we can to arm our soldiers when they face the dangers of planning for their financial futures.

I urge my colleagues to take up this bill immediately so that we can help our men and women in the military and their families.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada may wish to speak after I speak. I will be covering some of the same ground. I will be making a unanimous consent request.

I am going to object to giving some leeway to the Senator from Nevada to give some kind of response because we are going to be asking unanimous consent. But I have listened for the last 2\1/2\ hours to comments from the other side that I have not been able to respond to. To give unlimited additional time to the other side to again make comments that we obviously would like to comment on, too, isn't reasonable at this point in time. We are already into the time of the policy meetings, so we are extending beyond that time. We are having to take that time in order to use our allotted time.

Mr. President, I have heard a lot of talk by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about jobs and workers. But I have to tell you that their actions don't match their words. It is a little disingenuous to come talk about jobs and then block a job training bill.

I point out one very important program we have that helps American workers improve their skills and get a new or better job so they can make a better life for themselves and their families. It is the nation's job training program created under the Workforce Investment Act. This job training legislation would help over 900,000 unemployed workers each year get back to work.

We keep talking about jobs and work, but we haven't been able to get this important bill into conference.

If the other party really wanted to provide working families with the help they need, they would be a lot less talkative, and they would be a lot more active when it comes to moving this bill on job training to conference and enacting it into law.

This obstruction by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle hurts our workers, it hurts our businesses, and it hurts our ability to compete in the global marketplace.

Let us look at the facts. The economy has shown 12 straight months of job gains. Last month, payroll employment increased by 144,000 jobs. Nearly 1.7 million new jobs have been created over the past year. The unemployment rate fell to 5.4 percent.

I believe under regular order that for our time we have up to 60 minutes, that there was no set time for adjourning for the policy committees.

Mr. President, we have laid the groundwork for the economic recovery we are experiencing today. President Bush's economic policies continue to create new jobs and move the economy forward. This all adds up to good news for the American people; not good news if you do not have a job. But this is a job-training program I am talking about so you can get a job, or if you have a job and want a better job, you can get skills improvement. We have weathered the storm and we are poised to enter a new period of prosperity.

However, I have to caution you about some serious roadblocks that stand in the way of prosperity for our workers and businesses alike. The first roadblock is a gap between the skills our workforce has and the skills our employers need. The second roadblock is the Democrats' obstruction of the job-training legislation that will help close this skills gap.

First I will talk about the skills gap so you can understand just how damaging the Democrats' obstruction is to our workers and our economy.

It may surprise you to learn that many good jobs in this country will remain unfilled because employers cannot find workers with the skills they need. This skills gap is not about politics; it is about education and training; it is about demographics; it is about America's competitiveness in the global marketplace.

This chart shows the expected labor force and labor force demand from 2002 to 2031. You can see the line with the boxes on it which shows the labor that is going to be needed. You can see the other less-increasing line that shows the labor that will be available. You can see the gap we will have between the number needed and the number available. We will not have enough workers to fill our jobs and we will not have enough workers with the right skills for those jobs. And we do not right now.

According to a 2003 survey by the Center for Workforce Preparation, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, half of the employers reported difficulty in finding qualified workers. The problem is greatest for small employers. Small business--our greatest source of economic growth--cannot create jobs if they do not have skilled workers to fill them.

The gap between the demand for high-skilled workers and the supply will only widen in the future. Looking ahead 2 years, only 30 percent of the employers surveyed by the Center for Workforce Preparation believe the skills of their workers will keep pace. As policymakers, we too must look ahead to the growing skills gap that demands our attention and our action now.

Another chart shows the projected skilled- and unskilled-worker gap in 2010 and 2020. In 2010, the skilled-worker gap will be 5.3 million; by 2020, it will be 14 million. The unskilled-worker gap will move from 1.7 million in 2010 to 7 million in 2020. That is 7 million total by 2010, and 21 million total by 2020.

This skills gap blocks the way to better jobs and better lives for American workers and their families. This skills gap also threatens the ability of American businesses to compete in a more complex, global economy. In the book called ``The Jobs Revolution,'' by Steve Gunderson, Robert Jones, and Kathryn Scanland, they describe the impact of this skills gap:

Every unfilled job translates to products and services we

cannot deliver to the global market and, therefore, dollars

we cannot return to the U.S. economy. Almost certainly, jobs

unfilled in the U.S. will go elsewhere and not return.

Now, we can change this outcome. We can keep jobs and prosperity in America. But we must act now to close the skills gap by improving our education and our job training system.

When Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before the Senate Banking Committee, he said:

[W]hat will ultimately determine the standard of living in

this country is the skill of the people.

Why is effective workforce training so important? Because in an increasingly knowledge-based economy, people--their talent and their ideas--make the difference. People are a company's most important resource. The skills and ingenuity of the American workforce will drive our economy in the 21st century and beyond. If we want to keep high- paying jobs in America, our challenge is to equip our workers with skills the global economy demands.

We used to manufacture buggy whips. We do not make them anymore, or hardly any of them. The workers who made buggy whips had to learn new skills. The new economy creates new jobs and those new jobs demand new skills.

We cannot turn back the clock. To quote again from ``The Jobs Revolution'':

We'll never return to the days before satellites hovered

over the globe and the Internet wove us together. We need to

go forward, guided by a plan that reflects a new set of

American priorities. The plan will marry education and

employment. In the old, pre-revolutionary model, we went to

school for a dozen or more years and then we went to work.

After this revolution we'll need to keep learning to keep

working. Education and re-education will be the dominant

strategy by which we land and hold our jobs.

Unfortunately, the current workforce development system is not up to the task. It is not effectively equipping our workers with the relevant skills. Without any action, technology and other advances will outpace the ability of American workers and businesses to update skills needed to compete.

We must improve the Nation's job-training system under the Workforce Investment Act to better prepare American workers for the good jobs of today and tomorrow. Only a systematic reform of our Nation's job- training system will enable American workers and businesses to compete and succeed in the global economy.

There is good news. We have a bill that does this. It is a bipartisan bill that reauthorizes and improves the Nation's job-training system. It will help retrain workers to fill the jobs needed in this country now and in the future. It will link workforce development with economic development, recognizing that job training and job creation go hand in hand. It will partner the public workforce system with private sector employers--including small businesses--and with training providers to better prepare workers for high-wage, high-growth jobs.

The good news is that we have bipartisan legislation that does all of this--legislation that passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously, legislation that passed on the floor of this Senate last November unanimously. That does not happen with controversial bills. Where is the bill now?

Here is the bad news. Here is the roadblock. The Democrats will not let us send this important job-training bill to conference. They are stopping progress by refusing to appoint a conference committee, which is a committee made up of both Republicans and Democrats who would meet with Republicans and Democrats from the House to work out the differences between the House and the Senate versions of the bill--a very common procedure in past years, obviously not in this year.

This is an important jobs bill, a bill that will help American workers and

businesses, and it is being held hostage to election year politics. If we really care about keeping good jobs in this country, we need to send that job-training legislation to conference and then to the President to become law.

I owe my constituents more. I think we all do. We owe the American people an open legislative process, a process they expect and deserve from us. This is not just an academic question of Senate rules and procedures. A bill that would help put Americans back to work or find better jobs now lies in legislative limbo. Whether a company decides to open a plant in Cheyenne or China depends upon a qualified local workforce. A skilled workforce can make the difference between success and failure in the new, global economy. It will make the difference for our workers, for our companies, and for our future.

There is an American dream. It is to have a family, a nice home, and a good job to support that home and family.

Prior to my coming to the Senate, my wife and I owned some shoe stores. As a small-business owner, I saw firsthand the impact of job training in achieving that dream. We had an employee, a Vietnam veteran, who went to work through a workforce training course and ended up managing and then buying two stores from us. He is an example of what you can do with effective job training if you teach workers to dream at the same time.

We have to give workers and businesses the tools to turn those dreams into reality. Job training under the Workforce Investment Act can turn the dream into reality for millions of American workers. By blocking legislation that improves job training, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are blocking the way to new and better jobs for American workers. They are blocking the pathway to prosperity for American families and American companies.

The job training bill known as the Workforce Investment Act is a central part of a combination of Federal education and training programs that provides lifelong learning for the workforce of today and tomorrow. In this technology-driven global economy, everyone is a student who must adapt to changing workforce needs by continuing to pursue their education. In turn, Congress must ensure that education and job training are connected to the needs of business, including small business, now and in the future.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow the appointment of conferees to the job training legislation known as the Workforce Investment Act. The cost of this obstruction is the loss of important legislative efforts that will benefit the American people as it harms the integrity of the legislative process itself. I hope our bipartisan efforts on this bill can continue. I hope regular order is restored to the appointment of conferees so we can craft the final version of legislation. If we wanted to keep good jobs in this country, the Democrats would agree to send this important bill to conference.

And a conference isn't the last opportunity to obstruct or to filibuster. After the conference, if the Democrats don't like the results they participated in--and that is a key part to this, in conference both sides participate, as I mentioned before--then they can filibuster. This is embarrassing because we passed it unanimously last November. We asked for more job training last November. It is almost November again. And in fact, if a conference committee were appointed, there isn't time for that, it would be a bipartisan effort. It would be continuing work on the job force because there isn't anything a conference committee now could do that could affect this election. They have already held out long enough to affect this election and to restrict jobs in the economy.

I am pushing for a conference committee that could meet, that could resolve the small differences there are between the House and Senate bills. We have already talked about what those are and what the changes would probably be. I resolved about six of the issues that were brought up before, and we are down to some very minor ones. They need to be fixed by a conference committee.

There is no reason a conference committee should not have been appointed last year--not this year, but last year. This should have been worked out and people should already be in training for these jobs--900,000 of them a year.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the House message to accompany H.R. 1261, the job training bill, also known as the workforce investment legislation, which is at the desk; provided that the Senate insist upon its amendment, agree to the request for conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with a ratio of 5 to 4.

I am deeply disappointed. I am not surprised that the other side objects to sending this important jobs training bill to conference. I am a little disappointed in the comments I just heard which try to give some credibility to my not being trusted. I don't remember any handshake I have made on any bill that hasn't turned out to be that way. I was not a part of that transaction.

I am on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Yes.

I thank the Senator from Nevada for his comments. I assure people that the Health, Education, Labor,

and Pensions Committee is one of the more controversial committees of the Senate. If I didn't have some credibility of following through on the things I have talked about in the process, that would not have gotten out of committee unanimously, had that not had the same kind of confidence on what I would do if a conference committee were appointed. And we talked about what kind of differences there are. The House had already passed their bill. If they didn't have some confidence in me that what I had said would happen would happen, it would not have gotten through the Senate floor unanimously. That doesn't happen often with Health, Education, Labor, and Pension bills.

This has been a very important bill for the workforce of America, and we had great agreement and cooperative work on it, recognizing what would probably be done in conference committee. Now, we could probably send this over four or five times to the House--which there is not time to do--and resolve some of the differences in each of those. Had I known this was going to happen, I would have started that process much earlier so we would have had time to send an important bill like this back and forth.

The way this has always been done with the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee bill--that is the committee I have been on ever since I got here--is that we held conferences. Yes, some of them had a lot of animosity, but we worked them out and got bills finished. When you have difficult issues, the best thing is for people to sit down with each other. I have always invited the other side to any conference committee I have been on, and we have listened to both sides. What we have usually come up with, instead of one side or the other, was a third way. That is what ought to be done on this bill.

We ought to be reaching an agreement so we can get 900,000 people a year trained to fill the skills gap we were talking about before. We are not just going to have a lack of jobs, we are going to have more jobs than we can fill--provided we have people trained to fill them. If we don't train the people, those jobs are going overseas and we will never see them again. It has been critical for this year, the year that is just about over. We cannot afford to do this again next year and wait a year or 2 years to reach an agreement to get people trained for jobs. That is what is happening.

If we have to go until the first of the year, all these bills start all over again. Everybody's ideas come back in again, we redraft and start again, and we get to conference--maybe. But there is no assurance of that. We are at the point where we can have a conference committee. If we have a conference committee, then there can be agreement or disagreement. If there is disagreement, there is an opportunity to filibuster at that point. Senators who cannot filibuster a bill through the rest of the session, as short as it is going to be now, probably ought to be worried about their senatorial capability.

Our workers and our companies deserve more than election year political obstruction. They deserve the tools needed to keep American workers and businesses the best in the world. They deserve to see us act in a bipartisan manner and send this bill to conference.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes and talk about a historic event that just reoccurred in Wyoming this last weekend. We just completed another weekend of the One Shot Antelope Hunt. This is one of the earliest competitions in America. It is a continuing one. It has been done annually since 1939. I know about it because my grandfather told me about it. He considered it to be one of the great competitions. They allow 2,400 hunters to be a part of it each year. It is tied in with some conservation efforts.

I would like to thank a few people for putting this on each year in Lander, WY. The president this year was Scott Harnsberger. They are helped by the Shoshone Tribe. Chief Norm St. Clair did the blessing of the bullets. Medicine man Willie LeClair provided the medicine bags. My greeter was Rick Fagmont.

He is a CPA, and I appreciated that since I am the only accountant in the Senate. The sheriff, Skip Horneker, was my guide for the hunt.

As I mentioned, my grandfather had told me about this hunt, and I started hunting with him when I was about 6 years old. We would go out and take this rifle he had and sight it in. At that time, it was his intention for me to some day have that rifle. As we would sight it in, he would take three shots and we would check the target, and then he would say this is shooting 4 inches high and 4 inches to the right. As long as that is happening, don't change anything. If you change it, it will never be the same again. I am pleased to tell you that 54 years later it has never been changed. It still shoots 4 inches high and 4 inches to the right. That is the rifle I took on this hunt.

When I sighted it in--and they have professionals there to make sure you have it right--I told them it is 4 inches high and 4 inches to the right and that I would not change it. My first shot was 4 inches high and 4 inches to the right. After I compensated that, the second shot was right in the bullseye.

Part of this organization provides water for wildlife. Many people would not know that Wyoming is high desert. Most of it gets less than 16 inches of rainfall a year. Yet we have a lot of wildlife. We have an increase in the amount of wildlife because the hunters of the State have been concerned about it, are working on it, and have provided different methods that improve habitat for wildlife, none of which helps it more than water. There are people who would claim that in some places in Wyoming, if you saw an antelope, it would be carrying a water bottle because it would be so far from water.

They worked very hard during the year to get contributions and planned water projects in places to be particularly helpful to the wildlife. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the Sportsmans Caucus, which is a group of sportsmen in the Senate and in the House that works all year long to watch out for legislation that helps conservation and that provides greater access for hunters and sportsmen. It involves Members of the Senate and House in the outdoor sports. So those who have not had an opportunity to see them will have an opportunity to see what they can do.

A favorite quote of mine is that ``it is better to take your child hunting than to be hunting for your child.'' Fortunately, there are not only parents involved in this activity, but there are a lot of people who adopt kids for this kind of activity. It makes a great difference in Wyoming, and I expect it makes a great difference throughout the country.

It was a great pleasure to take part in this annual event and to see the people who have participated for years. It was a great time for me to remember my grandfather and all of the lessons he gave me as I grew up, not only in the area of hunting or fishing, but the respect that grew out of those activities that allows me to talk about absolutely anything. So while my grandfather passed away a number of years ago, in a sense I just finished having a great weekend with my grandfather.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I take this time to congratulate Susanna Goodin for being honored with the Wyoming Professor of the Year Award in 2003.

This recognition represents the culmination of a great deal of hard work and determined effort. It recognizes her outstanding dedication to teaching and exceptional commitment to her students. She should be very proud of this honor.

Now more than ever before, Wyoming needs the skills and talents of college professors like Susanna Goodin. She understands the importance of a well-rounded college education for students if we are to produce the next generation of our State's and our Nation's leaders. We are very grateful for all she does to make a difference. Her efforts are greatly appreciated.

Congratulations again to one of Wyoming's special citizens. Diana joins in sending our best wishes.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Higher Education Affordability, Access and Opportunity Act of 2004 with my colleagues Senators Baucus, Alexander, Dole and Lieberman.

We are introducing this bipartisan legislation because we are aware that the American workforce is in the midst

of its most significant changes since the 1940s. In the past year, this economy has created nearly 1.7 million new jobs, yet the complaint from employers continues to be that they cannot find skilled workers to fill the jobs that are being created. Our educational systems must recognize this changing reality and be ready to provide the support for a new group of students that represents a workforce revolution.

This skills gap promises to get worse unless Congress acts now to provide the assistance necessary to train a generation of workers that will fill the jobs of tomorrow. The Department of Labor has estimated that as many as 80 percent of the jobs being created over the next 10 years will require some postsecondary education. This will include many adult learners who will return to college for additional training. This also includes new students attending college for the first time later in life to obtain new skills or to improve their current skills.

Congress needs to ensure that we have a comprehensive system of workforce education and training established, one that includes the Workforce Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, and career and technical education, as well as elementary and secondary education. The needs of the new workforce will require a lifelong commitment to learning, where workers are able to return to school and re-enter the workforce seamlessly.

Many workers in my home State are leaving to find better jobs elsewhere. To create the kind of good jobs with good futures that will keep people in Wyoming, we need workers with the skills that the new, global economy demands. Whether a company decides to open a plant in Casper or China, they depend on a qualified local workforce.

This legislation would help meet the needs of businesses today and into the future. It would help postsecondary institutions develop and implement curriculum related to high skilled or high-wage occupations. It would also provide support for institutions to increase their capacity to serve adult learners and students pursuing high-growth occupations.

This legislation would provide additional assistance for first-time college students who are attending school to receive advanced skill training or are looking to improve their skill set to enter high-wage or high-skilled occupations.

This legislation also provides support for small business owners, operators, and their employees to receive skill training at institutions of higher education so our small businesses can continue to lead the economic growth of our Nation.

This legislation also provides support for rural communities to recruit and retrain elementary and secondary education, so these areas can prepare their students for college and entry into the workforce with the skills they need to succeed, not only in postsecondary education, but in life.

This legislation also helps students better understand the cost of attending college by making the information collected by the Department of Education more accessible. Helping prospective students understand how to obtain aid and help pay for college is just as important as making sure students have access to the financial aid to support them through college.

I look forward to working with Chairman Gregg to advance these ideas to ensure that the American workforce is prepared with the skills necessary to successfully compete in the global economy.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Higher Education Affordability, Access and Opportunity Act of 2004 with my colleagues Senators Baucus, Alexander, Dole and Lieberman.

We are introducing this bipartisan legislation because we are aware that the American workforce is in the midst

of its most significant changes since the 1940s. In the past year, this economy has created nearly 1.7 million new jobs, yet the complaint from employers continues to be that they cannot find skilled workers to fill the jobs that are being created. Our educational systems must recognize this changing reality and be ready to provide the support for a new group of students that represents a workforce revolution.

This skills gap promises to get worse unless Congress acts now to provide the assistance necessary to train a generation of workers that will fill the jobs of tomorrow. The Department of Labor has estimated that as many as 80 percent of the jobs being created over the next 10 years will require some postsecondary education. This will include many adult learners who will return to college for additional training. This also includes new students attending college for the first time later in life to obtain new skills or to improve their current skills.

Congress needs to ensure that we have a comprehensive system of workforce education and training established, one that includes the Workforce Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, and career and technical education, as well as elementary and secondary education. The needs of the new workforce will require a lifelong commitment to learning, where workers are able to return to school and re-enter the workforce seamlessly.

Many workers in my home State are leaving to find better jobs elsewhere. To create the kind of good jobs with good futures that will keep people in Wyoming, we need workers with the skills that the new, global economy demands. Whether a company decides to open a plant in Casper or China, they depend on a qualified local workforce.

This legislation would help meet the needs of businesses today and into the future. It would help postsecondary institutions develop and implement curriculum related to high skilled or high-wage occupations. It would also provide support for institutions to increase their capacity to serve adult learners and students pursuing high-growth occupations.

This legislation would provide additional assistance for first-time college students who are attending school to receive advanced skill training or are looking to improve their skill set to enter high-wage or high-skilled occupations.

This legislation also provides support for small business owners, operators, and their employees to receive skill training at institutions of higher education so our small businesses can continue to lead the economic growth of our Nation.

This legislation also provides support for rural communities to recruit and retrain elementary and secondary education, so these areas can prepare their students for college and entry into the workforce with the skills they need to succeed, not only in postsecondary education, but in life.

This legislation also helps students better understand the cost of attending college by making the information collected by the Department of Education more accessible. Helping prospective students understand how to obtain aid and help pay for college is just as important as making sure students have access to the financial aid to support them through college.

I look forward to working with Chairman Gregg to advance these ideas to ensure that the American workforce is prepared with the skills necessary to successfully compete in the global economy.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

How much time remains for our side?

Mr. President, the economy is getting stronger. The economy has shown 12 straight months of job gains. Last month, payroll employment increased by 144,000 jobs. Nearly 1.7 million new jobs have been created over the past year. The unemployment fell to 5.4 percent-- the lowest rate since October, 2001. We have laid the groundwork for the economic recovery we are experiencing today. We have ensured the presence of more capital in our economy which has led to the creation of more jobs for our workers.

President Bush's economic policies continue to create new jobs and move the economy forward. This all adds up to good news for the American people. We have weathered the storm and are poised to enter a new period of prosperity.

However, I have to caution you about some roadblocks that stand in the way of prosperity for our workers and businesses alike. The first roadblock is a gap between the skills our workforce has and the skills our employers need. The second roadblock is the Democrats' obstruction of legislation that will help close this skills gap. First, I will talk about the skills gap so you can understand just how damaging the Democrats' obstruction is to our workers and our economy.

It may surprise you to learn that many good jobs in this country remain unfilled because employers can't find workers with the skills they need. According to a 2003 survey by the Center for Workforce Preparation, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, half of the employers reported difficulty in finding qualified workers. The problem is greatest for small employers. Small business--our greatest source of economic growth--can't create jobs if they don't have the skilled workers to fill the jobs.

The gap between the demand for high-skilled workers and the supply will only widen in the future. Looking ahead 2 years, only 30 percent of the employers surveyed by the Center for Workforce Preparation believe the skills of their workers will keep pace. This skills gap blocks the pathway to better jobs and better lives for American workers and their families.

This skills gap also threatens the ability of American businesses to compete in a more complex, global economy. When Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before the Senate Banking Committee, he said that ``what will ultimately determine the standard of living in this country is the skill of the people.'' Why is effective workforce training so important? Because in an increasingly knowledge-based economy, people--their talent and their ideas--make the difference. Human capital is a company's most important resource. The skills and ingenuity of the American workforce will drive our economy in the 21st century and beyond. If we want to keep high-paying jobs in America, our challenge is to equip our workers with skills the global economy demands. We used to manufacture buggy whips. We do not make them anymore. People had to have new skills.

Unfortunately, the current workforce development system is not effectively equipping workers with the relevant skills. Without any action, technology and other advances will outpace the ability of American workers and business to update skills needed to compete. We must improve the Nation's job-training system created under the Workforce Investment Act to better prepare American workers for the good jobs of today and tomorrow. Only a systematic reform of our Nation's job-training system will enable American workers and businesses to compete--and succeed--in the global economy.

There is good news. We have a bill that does this. It is a bipartisan bill that reauthorizes and improves the Nation's job-training system. It will help retrain workers to fill the jobs needed in this country now and in the future. It will link workforce development with economic development, recognizing that job training and job creation go hand in hand. It will partner the public workforce system with private sector employers--including small businesses--and with training providers to better prepare workers for high-wage, high-growth jobs. And this legislation will improve access to job training and employment services in all parts of the country. It will help an estimated 900,000 unemployed workers a year get back to work.

The good news is we have bipartisan legislation that does all of this--legislation that passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously, legislation that passed on the Senate Floor unanimously. Where is the bill now? Here is the bad news. Here is the roadblock. The Democrats won't let us send this important job- training bill to conference. They are stopping progress by refusing to appoint a conference committee, which is a committee made up of Republicans and Democrats who would meet with the House to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, and it would not be the last action on the bill.

If people do not like what happened in conference, it can be filibustered.

An important jobs bill--a bill that will help American workers and businesses--is being held hostage to election year politics. If we really care about keeping good jobs in this country, we need to send the job training legislation to conference--and then to the President to become law.

I owe my constituents more than this. I think we all do. We owe the American people an open legislative process, a process they expect and deserve from us. This is not just an academic question of Senate rules and procedures. A bill that would help put Americans back to work or find better jobs now lies in legislative limbo.

I was reminded just how important job training is to the lives of our workers and the strength of our businesses and communities during a conference held in Wyoming this summer. In June, I attended the Wyoming Summit on Workforce Development. This was a conference designed to teach people how to bring business and jobs to Wyoming. In Wyoming, a lot of our people are leaving the State to find better jobs elsewhere. We know that we have to create the kind of good jobs with good futures that will keep our people in Wyoming. To do that, Wyoming needs workers with skills the new, global economy calls for.

One of the speakers at the summit was a consultant, Robert Ady, who advises companies where they should relocate or open new operations. According to Mr. Ady, a key location factor for a light manufacturing business is the presence of a qualified workforce. Whether a company decides to open a plant in Cheyenne or China depends upon a qualified local workforce. A skilled workforce can make the difference between success and failure in the new, global economy. It makes the difference for our workers, for our companies, for Wyoming and for the United States as a whole.

Almost 200 business participants from around the State attended the Wyoming Summit on Workforce Development. For Wyoming, having 200 business people in one place at one time is a real accomplishment. It showed the need and commitment our businesses have to workforce development. These 200 business participants--most from small companies--represented at least 200 opportunities for Wyoming workers and communities. They are looking to us to put the tools in place to keep the American dream alive in communities across Wyoming and the rest of the country.

There is an American dream. It is to have a family, have a nice home, and have a good job to support that home and family. Prior to my coming to the Senate, my wife and I owned a small chain of shoe stores. As a small business owner, I saw firsthand the impact that job training can have on achieving the dream. We had an employee--a Vietnam veteran--who went through a workforce training course and ended up managing and then buying two stores from us. He's an example of what you can do with effective job training if you teach workers to dream at the same time.

We have to give workers--and businesses--the tools to turn the dream into reality. Job training under the Workforce Investment Act can turn the dream into reality for millions of American workers. By blocking legislation that improves job training, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are blocking the pathway to new and better jobs for American workers. They are blocking the pathway to prosperity for American families and American businesses.

The job-training bill, known as the Workforce Investment Act, is a central part of a combination of federal education and training programs that provide lifelong learning for the workforce of today and tomorrow. The job-training bill, together with the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Improvement Act when I recently introduced, and the Higher Education Act offer the resources that are needed to help prepare students of all ages for jobs in high-wage and high-skill occupations. In this technology driven global economy, everyone is a student who must adapt to changing workforce needs by continuing to pursue their education. In turn, Congress must ensure that education and job training are connected to the needs of business, including small businesses, now and into the future.

I conclude by urging my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--in fact, I urge the Democratic leader to lead--to allow the appointment of conferees to the job training legislation known as the Workforce Investment Act. The cost of this obstruction is the loss of important legislative efforts that will be felt by American people as it harms the integrity of the legislative process itself.

I hope our bipartisan efforts on the bill can continue. I hope regular order is restored to the appointment of conferees so we can craft the final version of this legislation and get 900,000 people back to work. If we really want to keep good jobs in this country, the Democrats would agree to send this important bill to conference. Our workers and our businesses deserve this bill. They deserve more than this election year political obstruction. They deserve the tools needed to keep American workers and businesses the best in the world.

Mr. President, how much time is left before the next action?

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on September 8, 2004, at 10 a.m. on NASA: Space Shuttle in SR-253.

committee on commerce, Science, and transportation

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on September 8, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. on Spectrum for Public Safety Uses in

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on

Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 8, 2004, at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing titled ``Building an Agile Intelligence Community to Fight Terrorism and Emerging Threats.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. on ``Judiciary Nominations'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: Senators.

Panel II: Susan B. Neilson, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit.

Panel III: Micaela Alvarez, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas; Keith Starrett, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi; Raymond L. Finch, to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands for a term of ten years. (Reappointment).

Mr. President, the Senate this evening has taken a major step toward better and safer health care for all Americans.

Tonight, we approved the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. The goal of this legislation is to allow health care providers some freedom from legal fear so they can do what we all strive to do every day--learn from our mistakes.

This bill would create a framework through which hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers can work to improve health care quality in a protected legal environment. It would accomplish this by granting privilege and confidentiality protections to health care providers to allow them to report health care errors and ``near misses'' to patient safety organizations.

This bill would not permit anyone to hide information about a medical mistake. Lawyers would still have access to medical records and other information that would normally be discoverable in a legal proceeding. However, the bill would ensure that the analysis of that information by patient safety organizations would take place on a separate track in a protected legal environment.

Under the bill, patient safety organizations would have the freedom to collect and analyze data on health care errors in confidence, and then report their findings to the health care community. These findings would help health care providers understand how mistakes happen in our health care system, and how to prevent them.

If we can reach an agreement in conference in the House and send this bill to the President, health care providers will be much more likely to share information about honest mistakes, because they will have some assurance that the analysis of their information won't result in a tidy package of information that a personal injury lawyer could use against them in court.

I express my appreciation for the hard work that the members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions put into this bill, particularly Chairman Gregg, Majority Leader Frist, the lead sponsor Senator Jeffords, and Senators Sessions and Kennedy.

I also thank the staff who worked so diligently over the course of this Congress to craft this legislation, particularly Vince Ventimiglia, Peggy Carlson, David Fisher, Dean Rosen, Jim Hippe, Sean Donohue, Megan Clarke, David Nexon, David Bowen, and of course Stephen Northrup with my office.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Safety Advancement for Employees (SAFE) Act of 2004. Every worker in America deserves to return home safely at the end of the day. However, more than 5,500 workers die while at work annually. This means that, on any given day, 15 workers will not return home to their families. The fact that these accidents are occurring is not because employers don't care about workplace safety. On the contrary, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, estimated that 95 percent of employers are striving to create a safer workplace. The vast majority of employers want to comply with safety laws. Therefore, any effort to significantly improve workplace safety by focusing solely on the small percentage of bad actors who willfully break the law is doomed to failure.

We don't need political rhetoric, we need workable solutions. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, I felt responsible for finding a solution that will succeed in protecting more workers from harm. I feel a responsibility to every worker and every worker's family to do all I can to prevent workplace accidents and deaths. The SAFE Act will provide the systematic safety improvements that American workers and their families deserve. This legislation helps the vast majority of good faith employers who want to achieve compliance with safety laws. They just need help doing so--more help than OSHA can currently give them. The SAFE Act also allows OSHA to effectively target the few bad actors who willfully place their employees at risk. It also includes provisions to improve hazard communication and reduce injuries and illnesses caused by the presence of hazardous chemicals in the workplace.

The SAFE Act of 2004 will increase the maximum jail sentence for a willful safety violation that results in a worker's death from 6 months, which is a misdemeanor, to 18 months, which is a felony. It would be naive to believe that increasing the criminal penalty by itself will significantly improve workplace safety. Increasing the maximum jail sentence for bad actors will do nothing to help improve the workplace safety records of the 95 percent of employers who want to do the right thing.

I want to prevent the accident in the first place, not just penalize the employer for an injury or death that could have been avoided. By then, it's too late for the victim and their family. We need a system that encourages the good faith employers to find out how to achieve safety voluntarily and without fear of retribution. We need a system that harnesses the resources of safety experts so employers can achieve compliance with safety laws. And, we need a system that can target and punish the few bad employers. This is the system promoted by the Safety Advancement for Employees, or SAFE, Act. The SAFE Act will save workers' lives.

The SAFE Act is a workable solution that will effectively add thousands of highly-trained safety and health professionals to the job of inspecting workplaces around the country. Why is enlisting third party safety experts so critical to the effort of getting employers to comply with safety laws? Because OSHA, the government agency responsible for regulating safety laws, can't do it alone. OSHA should be providing helpful assistance to the overwhelming number of employers who are pursuing safer workplaces. Simultaneously, OSHA should be targeting those employers who are willfully disregarding safety laws, inspecting them, penalizing them, and following up to make sure that bad practices are stopped before accidents occur.

It has been estimated that it would take OSHA over 167 years to inspect every work site in the country. Therefore, OSHA cannot effectively help those good faith employers or deter bad employers from breaking the law. This is why the SAFE Act is so important. It will allow highly-trained safety and health professionals to reach work sites all over the country, where OSHA hasn't even been able to make a dent, encouraging employers to get into compliance voluntarily.

These highly-trained consultants will work with employers to get them into compliance with safety laws. If the employer gets into compliance, the employer can receive a certificate of compliance which will exempt him from civil penalties only for one year. However, at all times and under all circumstances, OSHA remains free to inspect these work sites.

The third-party consultation program is particularly important for small businesses. Employers have to read through and implement over a thousand pages of highly technical safety regulations. Too often, employers are left on their own to try to understand and comply with all these regulations. It is hard enough for large employers who have an in-house staff of safety experts. For the small employer--whose safety ``expert'' is also the human resources manager, accountant, and systems administrator--the task is nearly impossible. We're talking about employers who want to do the right thing, who want to comply with the law and protect their workers. They just need help doing so--help that OSHA is not currently equipped to provide.

In a report published in March, 2004, the General Accounting Office cited the use of third party consultants among a list of recommendations by researchers, safety and health practitioners, and specialists, to achieve voluntary OSHA compliance. According to the GAO report: ``Using Consultants could leverage existing OSHA resources by helping workplaces that might never otherwise see an OSHA inspector, especially small employers, and possibly also by enabling employers to address additional safety and health issues that might not be covered under an OSHA inspection for compliance standards.''

We need to leverage the resources of OSHA and the private sector to improve occupational safety around the country--in large and small workplaces alike.

Nowhere is the safety and health challenge more daunting for small businesses than it is in the area of hazard communication. Hazardous chemicals pervade the 21st Century workplace. An estimated 650,000 hazardous chemical products are used in over 3 million workplaces across the country. Everyday, more than 30 million American workers will be exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job. Whether or not they return home safely at the end of the day depends on their awareness of these hazards and appropriate precautionary measures. Communication is the key to protecting the safety and health of these 30 million workers. However, the protection is only as effective as the communication.

Twenty years ago, OSHA adopted the Hazard Communication Standard. Material Safety Data Sheets are the cornerstone of hazard communication. The chemical manufacturer or importer evaluates the chemical and provides employers with information about its hazards and protective measures on the Material Safety Data Sheet, which employers must then provide to workers.

OSHA's rule provides a generic framework for hazard communication. With over 650,000 chemicals in use, and tens of thousands of chemical manufacturers, the clarity, format, and accuracy of Material Safety Data Sheets varies widely. If the Material Safety Data Sheet is stuffed in some thick binder gathering dust, the worker doesn't have time to shuffle through the pages of complex, technical jargon it includes. Workers shouldn't need a Ph.D. in biochemistry to know how to protect themselves against hazardous chemicals.

Twenty years after the Hazard Communication standard was published, it's time for review. It's time to heed the call of workers and employers alike for more clarity, consistency, accuracy, and guidance. Over the years, I've had the great fortune to work with Ron Hayes on improving the safety and health of American workers. Ron wrote me a letter. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record. He writes that: ``Other standards cover many issues for the workers, but the Material Safety Data Sheet, paperwork is used millions of times each workday, and the accuracy of these sheets [is] of paramount importance for the complete protection of our most important resource, our great American workers.''

To improve the protection of our great American workers from hazardous chemicals, the new SAFE Act requires OSHA to develop and post on its website model material safety data sheets for those highly hazardous chemicals listed on the Process Safety Management Standard. These models will be particularly helpful to small businesses that don't have the expertise to develop or decipher their own.

In the twenty years since the Hazard Communication Standard was adopted, the American workplace has changed dramatically. Electronic or internet-based systems not envisioned twenty years ago can significantly improve hazard communication. The new SAFE Act recognizes the promise of technology to improve hazard communication. The legislation creates grants to develop, implement, or evaluate strategies to improve hazard communication through the use of better technology.

In the past twenty years, our workforce has become increasingly diverse. Effective hazard communication should reflect the fact that numerous languages may be spoken at a single worksite. Our economy has also become increasingly global. The chemical industry is one of the United States' largest exporting sectors. The manner in which other countries regulate hazardous chemicals impacts an American manufacturer's ability to compete in the global marketplace.

In 2002, the United Nations adopted the Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. The Globally Harmonized System is designed to improve the quality of hazard communication by establishing standardized requirements for hazard evaluation, safety data sheets, and labels. The Globally Harmonized System has the potential to address significant concerns with current hazard communication. Whether the United States adopts it cannot be decided by OSHA alone. Other agencies involved in regulating hazardous chemicals must be involved. Key stakeholders in hazard communication--chemical manufacturers, employers, workers, and safety and health experts--must also be involved. For this reason, the new SAFE Act establishes a commission of relevant Federal agencies and stakeholders to study and make recommendations to Congress about the adoption of the Globally Harmonized System.

The SAFE Act sets us firmly on the path towards achieving the goal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to ``assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions.'' Enforcement alone cannot ensure the safety and health of America's workforce. Government and the private sector can--and must-- work together to create a culture where safety and health is the number one priority.

I first introduced the SAFE Act in 1997. Today, the call for meaningful OSHA reform through cooperative and proactive efforts is even louder. The more time that passes without taking such action, the more injuries and deaths will occur that could otherwise be avoided. As I introduce the new SAFE Act today, I hope that we can again begin meaningful discussions about what is involved in achieving safer workplaces. I also hope that we can actually pass the SAFE Act and achieve greater safety and health for our most important resource--our great American worker.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Safety Advancement for Employees (SAFE) Act of 2004. Every worker in America deserves to return home safely at the end of the day. However, more than 5,500 workers die while at work annually. This means that, on any given day, 15 workers will not return home to their families. The fact that these accidents are occurring is not because employers don't care about workplace safety. On the contrary, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, estimated that 95 percent of employers are striving to create a safer workplace. The vast majority of employers want to comply with safety laws. Therefore, any effort to significantly improve workplace safety by focusing solely on the small percentage of bad actors who willfully break the law is doomed to failure.

We don't need political rhetoric, we need workable solutions. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, I felt responsible for finding a solution that will succeed in protecting more workers from harm. I feel a responsibility to every worker and every worker's family to do all I can to prevent workplace accidents and deaths. The SAFE Act will provide the systematic safety improvements that American workers and their families deserve. This legislation helps the vast majority of good faith employers who want to achieve compliance with safety laws. They just need help doing so--more help than OSHA can currently give them. The SAFE Act also allows OSHA to effectively target the few bad actors who willfully place their employees at risk. It also includes provisions to improve hazard communication and reduce injuries and illnesses caused by the presence of hazardous chemicals in the workplace.

The SAFE Act of 2004 will increase the maximum jail sentence for a willful safety violation that results in a worker's death from 6 months, which is a misdemeanor, to 18 months, which is a felony. It would be naive to believe that increasing the criminal penalty by itself will significantly improve workplace safety. Increasing the maximum jail sentence for bad actors will do nothing to help improve the workplace safety records of the 95 percent of employers who want to do the right thing.

I want to prevent the accident in the first place, not just penalize the employer for an injury or death that could have been avoided. By then, it's too late for the victim and their family. We need a system that encourages the good faith employers to find out how to achieve safety voluntarily and without fear of retribution. We need a system that harnesses the resources of safety experts so employers can achieve compliance with safety laws. And, we need a system that can target and punish the few bad employers. This is the system promoted by the Safety Advancement for Employees, or SAFE, Act. The SAFE Act will save workers' lives.

The SAFE Act is a workable solution that will effectively add thousands of highly-trained safety and health professionals to the job of inspecting workplaces around the country. Why is enlisting third party safety experts so critical to the effort of getting employers to comply with safety laws? Because OSHA, the government agency responsible for regulating safety laws, can't do it alone. OSHA should be providing helpful assistance to the overwhelming number of employers who are pursuing safer workplaces. Simultaneously, OSHA should be targeting those employers who are willfully disregarding safety laws, inspecting them, penalizing them, and following up to make sure that bad practices are stopped before accidents occur.

It has been estimated that it would take OSHA over 167 years to inspect every work site in the country. Therefore, OSHA cannot effectively help those good faith employers or deter bad employers from breaking the law. This is why the SAFE Act is so important. It will allow highly-trained safety and health professionals to reach work sites all over the country, where OSHA hasn't even been able to make a dent, encouraging employers to get into compliance voluntarily.

These highly-trained consultants will work with employers to get them into compliance with safety laws. If the employer gets into compliance, the employer can receive a certificate of compliance which will exempt him from civil penalties only for one year. However, at all times and under all circumstances, OSHA remains free to inspect these work sites.

The third-party consultation program is particularly important for small businesses. Employers have to read through and implement over a thousand pages of highly technical safety regulations. Too often, employers are left on their own to try to understand and comply with all these regulations. It is hard enough for large employers who have an in-house staff of safety experts. For the small employer--whose safety ``expert'' is also the human resources manager, accountant, and systems administrator--the task is nearly impossible. We're talking about employers who want to do the right thing, who want to comply with the law and protect their workers. They just need help doing so--help that OSHA is not currently equipped to provide.

In a report published in March, 2004, the General Accounting Office cited the use of third party consultants among a list of recommendations by researchers, safety and health practitioners, and specialists, to achieve voluntary OSHA compliance. According to the GAO report: ``Using Consultants could leverage existing OSHA resources by helping workplaces that might never otherwise see an OSHA inspector, especially small employers, and possibly also by enabling employers to address additional safety and health issues that might not be covered under an OSHA inspection for compliance standards.''

We need to leverage the resources of OSHA and the private sector to improve occupational safety around the country--in large and small workplaces alike.

Nowhere is the safety and health challenge more daunting for small businesses than it is in the area of hazard communication. Hazardous chemicals pervade the 21st Century workplace. An estimated 650,000 hazardous chemical products are used in over 3 million workplaces across the country. Everyday, more than 30 million American workers will be exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job. Whether or not they return home safely at the end of the day depends on their awareness of these hazards and appropriate precautionary measures. Communication is the key to protecting the safety and health of these 30 million workers. However, the protection is only as effective as the communication.

Twenty years ago, OSHA adopted the Hazard Communication Standard. Material Safety Data Sheets are the cornerstone of hazard communication. The chemical manufacturer or importer evaluates the chemical and provides employers with information about its hazards and protective measures on the Material Safety Data Sheet, which employers must then provide to workers.

OSHA's rule provides a generic framework for hazard communication. With over 650,000 chemicals in use, and tens of thousands of chemical manufacturers, the clarity, format, and accuracy of Material Safety Data Sheets varies widely. If the Material Safety Data Sheet is stuffed in some thick binder gathering dust, the worker doesn't have time to shuffle through the pages of complex, technical jargon it includes. Workers shouldn't need a Ph.D. in biochemistry to know how to protect themselves against hazardous chemicals.

Twenty years after the Hazard Communication standard was published, it's time for review. It's time to heed the call of workers and employers alike for more clarity, consistency, accuracy, and guidance. Over the years, I've had the great fortune to work with Ron Hayes on improving the safety and health of American workers. Ron wrote me a letter. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record. He writes that: ``Other standards cover many issues for the workers, but the Material Safety Data Sheet, paperwork is used millions of times each workday, and the accuracy of these sheets [is] of paramount importance for the complete protection of our most important resource, our great American workers.''

To improve the protection of our great American workers from hazardous chemicals, the new SAFE Act requires OSHA to develop and post on its website model material safety data sheets for those highly hazardous chemicals listed on the Process Safety Management Standard. These models will be particularly helpful to small businesses that don't have the expertise to develop or decipher their own.

In the twenty years since the Hazard Communication Standard was adopted, the American workplace has changed dramatically. Electronic or internet-based systems not envisioned twenty years ago can significantly improve hazard communication. The new SAFE Act recognizes the promise of technology to improve hazard communication. The legislation creates grants to develop, implement, or evaluate strategies to improve hazard communication through the use of better technology.

In the past twenty years, our workforce has become increasingly diverse. Effective hazard communication should reflect the fact that numerous languages may be spoken at a single worksite. Our economy has also become increasingly global. The chemical industry is one of the United States' largest exporting sectors. The manner in which other countries regulate hazardous chemicals impacts an American manufacturer's ability to compete in the global marketplace.

In 2002, the United Nations adopted the Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. The Globally Harmonized System is designed to improve the quality of hazard communication by establishing standardized requirements for hazard evaluation, safety data sheets, and labels. The Globally Harmonized System has the potential to address significant concerns with current hazard communication. Whether the United States adopts it cannot be decided by OSHA alone. Other agencies involved in regulating hazardous chemicals must be involved. Key stakeholders in hazard communication--chemical manufacturers, employers, workers, and safety and health experts--must also be involved. For this reason, the new SAFE Act establishes a commission of relevant Federal agencies and stakeholders to study and make recommendations to Congress about the adoption of the Globally Harmonized System.

The SAFE Act sets us firmly on the path towards achieving the goal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to ``assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions.'' Enforcement alone cannot ensure the safety and health of America's workforce. Government and the private sector can--and must-- work together to create a culture where safety and health is the number one priority.

I first introduced the SAFE Act in 1997. Today, the call for meaningful OSHA reform through cooperative and proactive efforts is even louder. The more time that passes without taking such action, the more injuries and deaths will occur that could otherwise be avoided. As I introduce the new SAFE Act today, I hope that we can again begin meaningful discussions about what is involved in achieving safer workplaces. I also hope that we can actually pass the SAFE Act and achieve greater safety and health for our most important resource--our great American worker.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of my good friend, William G. Myers III. I recommend him highly, and I believe the United States Senate should approve his nomination to serve as a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has earned that position by his dedication and a remarkable record of service to the country and to our legal system.

I am concerned we won't hear about his impressive record, however, I am afraid we are going to hear a lot of needlessly harsh rhetoric about Bill being a radical who has only represented extreme conservative interests during the course of his outstanding legal career. That isn't the truth, of course, but it does make for good soundbites and unfortunately, that is often what is promoted as the truth.

The truth is that Bill is not a radical extremist, nor does he have a political agenda that he is trying to pursue in agreeing to be nominated for the Ninth Circuit. A radical judge would be one who is intent on making extreme, sweeping changes in the political and social make up of the west. A radical judge is someone who stands out as being significantly different from the community he represents, who pursues his ideology regardless of its impact on those affected by his actions, and who doesn't care if his actions do not represent the interests of the people he serves.

No, Bill is not a radical for he is none of those things. In fact, he is quite the opposite. He is someone who has lived and worked with the people of the West. He knows them, respects them, and he understands the demands they face every day as they try to make a living. He knows their dreams and he shares their values. He is looking to serve on the bench to make life better for them and for all those in the West who will be affected by his decisions.

It is unfortunate that this is an election year. Any other year and we would see Bill for who and what he is. We would see him, not as a radical, but a typical Westerner who has a well established and outstanding reputation for his work representing the West.

Who else shall we appoint to the Ninth Circuit to truly represent the typical West? I believe it would be very safe to say that the Ninth Circuit Court is made up predominantly of judges who are sympathetic to radical agendas with very few if any of them representing the hardworking miners and ranchers who have for generations made up the backbone of the Western economy.

Of the 26 active judges on the Ninth Circuit Court, 17 were appointed by Democrat presidents. Only 9 judges are Republican appointees. A remarkable 14 of the 26 judges--54 percent of the court--were appointed by President Clinton. In 2000 alone--a presidential election year-- President Clinton appointed four judges to the court.

The Ninth Circuit has established a pattern of issuing the most activist decisions in the country. In one day earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed three decisions from the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court ended its 2003-2004 term having reversed the Ninth Circuit in 81 percent of the cases appealed from it. Needless to say, that's not a good record. That means, in every five cases that were appealed, the Supreme Court ruled that these judges got it wrong 4 out of every 5 cases. Worse still, this was an improvement over their embarrassingly high reversal rate over the past several years--86.5 percent since 1998. This trend is likely to continue unless we help correct the situation by confirming good, honest judges who respect the Constitution and Federal law. Judges who will bring some balance to the Ninth Circuit equation.

Why do they call Bill a radical? If you examine his record, you will see that he represents and understands those under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court--the average person in the West who relies more on common sense than complicated legal arguments to determine right from wrong. That ought to erase that label. But, for some reason, it doesn't. Could the placing of this label on this good, fair, honest, and decent individual be another ploy at politicizing this nomination for the sake of obstruction?

Most of the Judges on the Ninth Circuit Court come from the Circuit's most populated States, such as California. The other States that make up the Ninth Circuit, such as the State of Idaho, are allowed only one judge. Right now Idaho's seat is vacant. Will Idaho only be allowed representation on the court when it has a nominee from California?

We begin every session here in the Senate with the Pledge of Allegiance. We join together to say those special words. As we do, I know that my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, say those words with a firm heartfelt commitment to this country and that they mean every word of pledging their allegiance to the flag and to this Nation. But I have to wonder if they haven't forgotten the meaning of all the words in the pledge when they take a hardline stance like this against a fully qualified nominee.

The last six words of the Pledge of Allegiance, ``with liberty and justice for all,'' mean that we do not preserve justice or liberty for a few people, or for most of the people, and leave a few, or even an individual, behind. It means we have justice for all, for everyone, and that we don't make exceptions because they come from a State that doesn't have as many people as California, or may not be as liberal as California.

In fact, this is one of the situations that the courts were created to protect--the rights of each individual. I think it is a little ironic that there are those here in the Senate that would be willing to withhold justice and rights from some people, in this case the average, hardworking people who make up the population within the Ninth Circuit just because those individuals don't share their political philosophy.

I hope we will do the right thing by Bill Myers.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about patient safety. There is bipartisan legislation pending in the Senate that is absolutely critical to reducing health care errors and increasing health care quality. It is S. 720, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act.

The HELP Committee reported this bill to the Senate in November of last year. It was approved in committee by a unanimous vote. It is past time for the Senate to vote on and pass this important legislation.

This patient safety legislation is an important step toward building a culture of safety and quality in health care. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act would create a framework through which hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers can work to improve the health care quality in a protected legal environment.

The bill grants privilege and confidentiality protections to health care providers to allow them to report health care errors and near- misses to patient safety organizations.

The bill also allows these patient safety organizations to collect and analyze the data confidentially. After analyzing the data, patient safety organizations would report on trends in health care errors and offer guidance to providers on how to eliminate or minimize these errors.

Some of this takes place today, but much more information could be collected and analyzed if providers felt confident that reporting these errors did not increase the likelihood that they or their colleagues would be sued for honest mistakes.

This legislation would not permit anyone to hide information about a medical mistake. Under the bill, the lawyers still can access medical records or other information that would normally be recoverable in legal proceedings. However, the bill would ensure that the analysis of that information by patient safety organizations would take place on a separate track than in a protected legal environment.

Health care providers would be much more likely to share information about honest mistakes and how to prevent them if they have some assurance the analysis of their information will not result in a tidy package of information a personal injury lawyer could use against them in court.

Errors in medical treatment take place far too often today. Unfortunately, providers live in fear of our unpredictable and unfair medical litigation system, and this legal fear inhibits efforts to address the root causes of health care errors. Without appropriate protections for the collection and analysis of patient safety data, providers are unwilling to report mistakes and errors, which is one of the reasons health care quality today is not what it could be.

Litigation does nothing to improve quality or safety. The constant threat of litigation indeed stifles honest analysis of why health errors happen. This is one more reason why we need wholesale reform of our medical litigation system. We need to foster alternatives that restore trust between patients and providers and result in fair and reliable outcomes for both parties. We need to scrap the present system, not just cap it. Until we do so, we should take whatever steps we can to create an environment that protects the collection and analysis of patient safety data so providers can learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others and prevent them from happening in the future.

The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act is one of these steps. Last week, our committee chairman, Senator Gregg, asked for unanimous consent that we move to consideration of this legislation in the Senate. This is the third time since November he has done so. Each time he has been blocked by our colleagues in the minority, even though the committee of jurisdiction was unanimous--you cannot get more bipartisan than that--in support for the bill.

My colleagues in the minority keep talking about problems with health care quality, as they keep on talking about the loss of American jobs. However, talk is cheap when their actions don't match their words.

If they are really so concerned about improving health care in our Nation, why would they object to a bill that would reduce errors and improve patient safety, particularly a bipartisan bill with unanimous committee support? If they are really so concerned about American workers and jobs, why won't they let a bill improving the Nation's job training system go to conference?

Another example of what is happening or not happening in the Senate: We have a bill, a bipartisan bill, that

will help workers get back to work or find better jobs. This bill will equip our workforce with skills necessary for America to compete and succeed in the global economy. It reauthorizes and improves the Nation's job training that was created under the Workforce Investment Act. The Workforce Investment Act provides job training and employment services to more than 900,000 unemployed workers each year. Just like the patient safety legislation, this bipartisan bill passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously. We passed it on the Senate floor by unanimous consent last November. Remember, that is as bipartisan as you can get.

Where is the bill now? Well, it passed in the House, too. The House has a somewhat different version. When there is a different version between the House and the Senate, you normally would have a conference committee, and the conference committee would work out the differences so that both Houses could pass it again as a unified bill that would then go to the President to be signed. It has to be one bill that goes to the President, not two bills that go to the President. You have a conference committee to work those bills out.

Now, the House appointed a conference committee. It is a very simple task. You just figure out how many Members are going to be in the conference committee, and Members are chosen from both sides of the aisle in both Chambers to meet together to talk about the differences, to propose alternatives, to vote on those alternatives, and to come up with a compromise bill. Sometimes the compromise is taking all of one Chamber's bill and eliminating the other one. Usually it is somewhere in between.

The first excuse I heard on this Workforce Investment Act, which will train 900,000 people to do jobs they do not have now or definitely to have better jobs than what they might have now, with a particular emphasis on moving women into higher paying jobs was how bad the outsourcing is in this country. Yes, because we do not have trained workers to take those jobs at the present time. We hear about the wages in this country. Yes, because the people do not have the higher skills for which you get paid higher wages.

This bill would provide training for jobs we are having to send overseas right now or better paying jobs for American workers. We passed it unanimously. The House passed it. The House appointed a conference committee. We are not even allowed to appoint a conference committee, to get together and talk about it with the House. That is nothing final. It would have to be voted on again before it could be passed. There is an opportunity for a filibuster at that final point. Instead what we are getting is a filibuster at this point, a very subtle filibuster but nevertheless a filibuster.

If jobs are important, why aren't we doing this JOBS bill that was unanimously passed out of committee and unanimously passed on the floor of the Senate? A lot of opportunity, and it is passing by. I guess because there is a Presidential election, and it might help President Bush if there were more jobs. Actually, the only ones it would help, if there are more jobs, is the people getting those jobs. None of us ought to be stopping people from getting jobs or getting better jobs. We recognize that. That is why we passed it unanimously.

So where is that bill now? We can't get a conference committee appointed to resolve the differences with the House. There was enough trust in what I did in committee that it passed unanimously. There was enough trust when it came to the Senate floor that we passed the bill unanimously. The only thing I can see that has happened in the meantime is that we have gotten closer to an election. That should not happen in America. We teach people bad things about elections when we hold up important things such as workforce investment for jobs. If we really want to take care of jobs and workers in this country, we should appoint conferees for the Workforce Investment Act legislation.

I could run through a few more excuses that I have heard on this bill. One of the excuses was that we might put something in that would allow faith-based groups to participate in job training and, under that scenario, put in something that would allow them to not hire people who are averse to their religion.

Members may be surprised to find out that we already have statutes that do provide that churches, when they are involved in government work, can't discriminate, except they don't have to hire people who are averse to their religion. That would be a very small change if it made it in there at all, but we are not even allowed to get together and discuss whether that would make it in there for fear that maybe it would. Again, that is just an excuse for not passing the bill, an excuse to keep jobs from being created which would make the economy better and which would improve the President's chances of getting reelected. That is not how politics is supposed to work.

I have to say there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats on most of the big issues facing our Nation. If my colleagues in the minority want to bottle up legislation with which they disagree, that is their prerogative. But that is not what I am talking about. I am not talking about bottling up issues with which they disagree. We have members of the minority party holding up bipartisan bills that received unanimous approval in committee--that is where the patients safety bill is--and holding up conferences on a bill that received unanimous support on the Senate floor. That is where the workforce bill is.

The only logical conclusion I could draw to these roadblocks is based on politics, not policy, and that is a shame.

Right now, the Senate floor reminds me of the airspace above a busy airport. We have a number of bipartisan bills lined up for final approach, but our colleagues in the minority are holding those bills up and won't allow them to land. The tactics of my colleagues in the minority give new meaning to the term ``holding pattern.'' That should not happen. There is going to be a crash.

It is time for our Democratic colleagues to break this holding pattern so we can pass bipartisan bills such as the Patient Safety Act and the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. These are not only bipartisan bills, they received unanimous committee support. Let's set election politics aside for a moment. These are bipartisan bills, so no one party can claim credit for their passage.

The Patient Safety Act was introduced by the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, who is the lone independent in the Senate. This bill is more than bipartisan. My distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, suggested last week that we should approve the House- passed patient safety bill. He suggested we should take up the House bill rather than pass the Senate bill because Members of the House are the true experts on such complex legislation.

I wonder if my colleague's opinion would be the same on medical liability reform. After all, the expert legislators in the House have sent us some excellent legislation to reform our medical litigation system. Perhaps we should stop working on this in the Senate and approve the House bill, as he is suggesting we should do with patient safety.

I mentioned the Workforce Investment Act. The House passed that one. Their version is considerably more difficult, perhaps more conservative than the version I worked through with unanimous consent on this side, but if we are going to consider them the experts on patient safety, why don't we consider them the experts on workforce investment and take their version of the bill? We didn't do that on that bill.

No, the right way to do it is to pass the patient safety bill, hopefully, by unanimous consent over here because there is no dissension on it. The dissension is with what they are doing over on the House side. So we would go ahead and pass it, and then we have a conference committee, a conference committee in the old-fashioned style. Not this ``let's preconference and give somebody on the minority side a veto right over anything that is done.'' That is a brandnew twist around here. What we have always done is appointed the conference committee, recognizing that there are majorities and minorities even on the conference committee,

but that the point is to get the agreement between the House and the Senate. We will get that agreement between the House and the Senate, and will have better patient safety.

I hope our colleagues in the minority will agree to take 2 hours of their time to debate and vote on the bipartisan safety act. Two hours is not a lot of time. It is the least we can do on such an important piece of legislation. We have spent hour upon hour working on this bill in committee and crafting a bill that received unanimous bipartisan support. Let's spend 2 more hours on the Patient Safety Act so that we can improve the quality and safety of health care in America. I don't think that is too much to ask.