The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Senate section on pages S1325-S1329 on Feb. 6, 1999.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Bryan):
S. 383. A bill to establish a national policy of basic consumer fair treatment for airline passengers; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
AIRLINE PASSENGER FAIRNESS ACT
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senators Bryan and Snowe in introducing today the Airline Passenger Fairness Act of 1999. The purpose of our legislation is to assure that consumer protections don't end when a passenger pulls into the airport parking lot. Travelers ought to enjoy the same kinds of rights in the air as they do on the ground. But as airline profits have soared in recent years, passenger rights have been left at the gate.
We are well aware that legislation cannot resolve every problem air travelers may encounter. Our bill does not impose a federal mandate for fluffier pillows or a Constitutional right to a bigger bag of peanuts, just the right to basic information and the ability for consumers to make decisions for themselves.
The Department of Transportation's (DoT) Air Travel Consumer Reports just issued its final tally of consumer complaints for 1998. Consumer complaints about air travel jumped from a total of 7,667 in 1997 to 9,606 last year, an increase of more than 25%. In just three months last year, one airline alone denied boarding to 55,767 passengers. The 10 largest U.S. carriers combined denied boarding to more than 250,300 passengers from July-September 1998. One industry expert estimates that sometimes as many as 130-150% of the seats on a flight are sold. Clearly, all is not well.
The price of an airline ticket is one of the great mysteries of modern life. A ticket costs one price when purchased over the phone and another if purchased online, one if purchased in the morning and another three hours later. It practically defies the law of physics.
With this bill, we are putting the airlines on notice that business as usual is no longer acceptable for American air travelers. No longer can a passenger be bumped, canceled or overbooked with impunity.
Under this bill, consumers will be able to get full information about all the fares on all the flights. Airlines will no longer be able to withhold basic information on air fares, creating confusion and preventing consumers from comparison shopping. It will also make sure that when a consumer pays for a ticket, they can use all or part of it for whatever reason they choose. Airlines will have to inform a ticketed passenger when a flight is overbooked, as well as when the problem is when a flight is canceled, delayed, or diverted.
The legislation will work by building on current rules and regulations. Today, the Department of Transportation can investigate
``anti-competitive, unfair or deceptive practices'' by an airline. If the Department finds that an airline has engaged in such practices, DoT can issue civil penalties or take other actions to assure compliance. Our legislation will empower consumers to seek DoT action against carriers that fail to respect the common sense consumer protections spelled out in the bill.
To date, DoT has tended to look at this authority primarily on an industry-wide basis, or whether one airline has engaged in an unfair practice against another. Our bill brings this attention down to the consumers' level. It gives the Department the authority to investigate and punish violations of passenger rights. Under our proposal, airlines will no longer be able to deny consumers basic information without paying a price.
This bill will also put market forces to work to bring prices down. Today, a traveler cannot get much basic information. Poor information makes for poor decisions; poor decisions prevent the market from operating smoothly and set the stage for higher prices. Just last year, according to one national media report, there were more than a dozen fare hikes, and in late January, the media reported the major U.S. carriers raised leisure fares four percent and business fares two percent. Informed consumers engaging in real comparison shopping will put pressure on the airlines to make fares as low as possible.
There's been a lot of talk lately about ``air rage.'' In my view there is no excuse for violent or abusive behavior by anyone. But when people are treated like so many pieces of cargo, it's not surprising that some of them will lash out. One pilot at a major U.S. air carrier said recently: ``What's happening is the industry's own fault. We've got to treat passengers with respect. We've made air travel a very unpleasant experience.''
It's time to make sure air travel works better for everyone. It can if air travelers have the same basic protections as other consumers. The corner grocer cannot sell a customer a product at one price and then sell the next customer in line the same product at a higher price. The neighborhood movie house cannot cancel a show just because only a few people show up. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act will bring similar consumer protections to air travel and ensure that air travelers have the information they need to make informed decisions.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 383
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Airline Passenger Fairness Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The number of airline passengers on United States carriers is expected to grow from about 600 million per year today to about 1 billion by the year 2008.
(2) Since 1978 the number of certified large air carriers has decreased from 30 to 10. In 1998, 6 of the United States' largest air carriers sought to enter into arrangements that would result in 3 large networks comprising approximately 70 percent of the domestic market.
(3) Only \2/3\ of all communities in the United States that had scheduled air service in 1978 still have it today, and
\1/2\ of those remaining are served by smaller airlines feeding hub airports.
(4) The Department of Transportation's Domestic Airline Fares Consumer Report for the 3rd Quarter of 1997 listed 75 major city pairs where fares increased by 30 percent or more year-over-year, while total traffic in these city pairs decreased by 863,500 passengers, or more than 20 percent.
(5) A 1998 Department of Transportation study found that large United States air carriers charge twice as much at their large hub airports where there is no low fare competition as they charge at a hub airport where a low fare competitor is present. The General Accounting Office found that fares range from 12 percent to 71 percent higher at hubs dominated by one carrier or a consortium.
(6) Complaints filed with the Department of Transportation about airline travel have increased by more than 25 percent over the previous year, and complaints against large United States air carriers have increased from 6,394 in 1997 to 7,994 in 1998.
(7) The 1997 National Civil Aviation Review Commission reported that recent data indicate the problem of delay in flights is getting worse, and that the number of daily aircraft delays of 15 minutes or longer was nearly 20 percent higher in 1996 than in 1995.
(8) The 1997 National Civil Aviation Review Commission forecast that United States domestic and international passenger enplanements are expected to increase 52 percent between 1996 and 2006, and the Federal Aviation Administration forecasts annual growth in revenue passenger miles will average 4.2 percent.
(9) A 1998 Department of Transportation study found that the large United States air carriers charge about 60 percent more to passengers traveling to or from small communities than they charge to passengers traveling between large communities.
(10) The Congress has directed the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices in the airline industry.
SEC. 3. FAIR PRACTICES FOR AIRLINE PASSENGERS.
Section 41712 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``On the initiative'' and inserting ``(a) Duty of the Secretary.--On the initiative''; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(b) Specific Practices.--For purposes of subsection (a), the terms `unfair or deceptive practice' and `unfair method of competition' include, in the case of a certificated air carrier, an air carrier's failure--
``(1) to inform a ticketed passenger, upon request, whether the flight on which the passenger is ticketed is oversold;
``(2) to permit a passenger holding a confirmed reserved space on a flight to use portions of that passenger's ticket for travel, rather than the entire ticket, regardless of the reason any other portion of the ticket is not used;
``(3) to deliver a passenger's checked baggage within 24 hours after arrival of the flight on which the passenger travelled and on which the passenger checked the baggage, except for reasonable delays in delivery of such baggage;
``(4) to provide a consumer full access to all fares for that air carrier, regardless of the technology the consumer uses to access the fares if such information is requested by that consumer;
``(5) to provide notice to each passenger holding a confirmed reserved space on a flight with reasonable prior notice when a scheduled flight will be delayed for any reason
(other than reasons of national security);
``(6) to inform passengers accurately and truthfully of the reason for the delay, cancellation, or diversion of a flight;
``(7) to refund the full purchase price of an unused ticket if the passenger requests a refund within 48 hours after the ticket is purchased;
``(8) to disclose to consumers information that would enable them to make informed decisions about the comparative value of frequent flyer programs among airlines, including--
``(A) the number of seats redeemable on each flight; and
``(B) the percentage of successful and failed redemptions on each airline and on each flight.
``(c) Report.--The Secretary shall include information about violations of subsection (a) by certificated air carriers in the Department of Transportation's monthly Air Travel Consumer Report.
``(d) Confirmed reserved space.--The term `confirmed reserved space' shall mean a space on a specific date and on a specific flight and class of service of a carrier which has been requested by a passenger and which the carrier or its agent has verified, by appropriate notation on the ticket or in any other manner provided by the carrier, as being reserved for the accommodation of the passenger.''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senator Wyden, Senator Snowe, and Senator Bryan, to introduce the Airline Passenger Fairness Act.
People who travel by air are the airlines' customers. As such, they expect and deserve the same fair treatment that consumers in other areas have come to rely on. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act would ensure that passengers have the information that they need to make informed choices in their travel plans. It also seeks to encourage airlines to provide better customer service by outlining some minimum standards.
Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the specific provisions in the bill. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act will enable an airline passenger to:
find out whether the flight on which that passenger is booked has been oversold;
use whatever portions of a ticket he or she chooses to use to get to his or her destination;
receive his or her checked baggage within 24 hours of a flight's arrival, unless additional delays are reasonable;
find out from an airline all of the fares that the airline offers, regardless of the method used to access fares;
receive prior notice when a scheduled flight will be delayed, if reasonable;
receive accurate information about the reasons why a passenger's flight has been delayed, canceled, or diverted to another airport;
obtain a full refund of the purchase price of a ticket if the passenger requests it within 48 hours of purchase; and
receive accurate information about an airline's frequent flyer program, including the number of seats that can be redeemed on each flight, and the percentage of successful and failed frequent flyer redemptions on each flight.
The Department of Transportation already holds the authority to investigate airlines that have been charged with exercising ``unfair and deceptive practices,'' and ``unfair methods of competition.'' Our bill simply specifies that if passengers are denied any of the items of fair treatment that I just listed, that denial constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice on the part of the airline, or an unfair method of competition.
Mr. President, as I said earlier, this legislation is about helping consumers make informed choices among their air travel options. A key component of this bill is a publication requirement. Consumers will be able to review the Department of Transportation's monthly Air Travel Consumer Report to find out what airlines are denying passengers the fair treatment outlined in the bill, and on how many occasions.
Air travel is on the rise. As airport congestion, delays, and fares increase, so have the complaints among airline passengers. The Air Passenger Fairness Act seeks to respond to these complaints in a constructive manner by giving passengers better information on which to judge the service levels offered by the airlines. We expect to hold hearings soon on this bill in the Commerce Committee, and we welcome any input on the initiative.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 384. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive certain domestic source or content requirements in the procurement of items.
BUY AMERICA RESTRICTIONS LEGISLATION
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive
``Buy America'' restrictions on all items procured for the Department of Defense.
I have spoken of this issue before in this Chamber and the potential impact of our ``Buy America'' policy on bilateral trade relations with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose this type of protectionist trade policy, not only because I believe free trade is an important means of improving relations among all nations and a key to major U.S. economic growth, but also because I believe we must reform these practices in order to make our limited defense dollars go further so as to reverse the downward trend in our military readiness.
Mr. President, this is a simple and straightforward bill that promotes U.S. products, not by imposing restrictive barriers on open competition and free trade, but by reinforcing sound and beneficial economic principles.
This bill gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to waive restrictions on the procurement of all items with respect to a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense determines they would impede cooperative programs entered into between a foreign country and the Department of Defense. Additionally, it would waive protectionist practices if it is determined that such practices would impede the reciprocal procurement of items in that foreign country, and that foreign country does not discriminate against items produced in the U.S. to a greater degree than the U.S. discriminates against items produced in that country.
For example, the Secretary of Defense may waive ``Buy America'' restrictions for contracts and subcontracts for items because of unreasonable delays or costs to the U.S. government in equipping servicemembers with U.S. products; insufficient quantity or unsatisfactory quality of U.S. products; and absence of competition in the U.S., resulting in a monopoly or a sole source contract, and thus, a higher price for the Department of Defense and ultimately the taxpayer.
Let me be clear, I am not against U.S. procurement of American products. The United States, without a doubt, produces the very best products in the world. In fact, a recent Department of State study reported that U.S. defense companies sold more weapons and defense products and claimed a larger share of the world market than was previously realized. This new study shows U.S. exports of defense products increased to nearly $25 billion in 1996, comprising nearly 60 percent of global exports. This number continues to rise steadily.
From a practical standpoint, adherence to ``Buy America'' restrictions seriously impairs our ability to compete freely in international markets for the best price on needed military equipment and could also result in a loss of existing business from longstanding international trading partners. While I fully understand the arguments made by some that the ``Buy America'' restrictions help maintain certain critical industrial base capabilities, I find no reason to support domestic source restrictions for products that are widely available from many U.S. companies (e.g., pumps produced by at least 25 U.S. companies). I believe that competition and open markets among our allies on a reciprocal basis would provide the best equipment at the best prices for taxpayers and U.S. and allied militaries alike.
In recent meetings, the Ambassadors and other senior representatives of the United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia and Israel have apprised me of similar situations in their countries. In every meeting, they tell me how difficult it is becoming to persuade their governments to buy American defense products, because of our protectionist policies and the growing ``Buy European'' sentiment.
Mr. President, we have heard over the last four months of the dire situation of our military forces. We have heard testimony of decreasing readiness, modernization programs that are decades behind schedule, and quality of life deficiencies that are so great we cannot retain, much less recruit, the personnel we need. As a result, there has been a recent groundswell of support in Congress for the Armed Forces, including a number of pay and retirement initiatives and the promise of a significant increase in defense spending.
All of these proposals are excellent starting points to help re-forge our military, but we must not forget that much of them will be in vain if the Department of Defense is obligated to maintain wasteful, protectionist trade policies. When we actually look for the dollars to pay for these initiatives, it would be unconscionable not to examine the potential for savings from modifying the ``Buy America'' program. Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated repeatedly that they want more flexibility to reform the military's archaic acquisition practices. We cannot sit idly by and throw money at the problem, without considering this partial solution regarding ``Buy America.''
Mr. President, the Congress can continue to protect U.S. industry from foreign competition for selfish, special interest reasons, or we can loosen these restrictions to provide the necessary funds to ensure our military can fight and win future wars. Every dollar we spend on archaic procurement policies, like ``Buy America,'' is a dollar we cannot spend on training our troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an appropriate level, maintaining force structure, replacing old weapons systems, and advancing our military technology.
Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that this legislation will end once and for all the anti-competitive, anti-free trade practices that encumber our government, the military, and U.S. industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this critical bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 384
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE DOMESTIC SOURCE OR CONTENT
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Authority.--Chapter 141 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 2410n. Authority to waive domestic source and content requirements
``(a) Authority.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense may waive any domestic source requirement or domestic content requirement referred to in subsection (b) and thereby authorize the procurement of items that are grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, or manufactured--
``(1) outside the United States or its possessions; or
``(2) in the United States or its possessions from components grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, or manufactured outside the United States or its possessions.
``(b) Covered Requirements.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) A domestic source requirement is any requirement under law that the Department of Defense must satisfy its needs for an item by procuring an item that is grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, or manufactured in the United States, its possessions, or a part of the national technology and industrial base.
``(2) A domestic content requirement is any requirement under law that the Department must satisfy its needs for an item by procuring an item produced partly or wholly from components grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, or manufactured in the United States or its possessions.
``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary may waive a domestic source requirement or domestic content requirement under subsection (a) only if the Secretary determines that one or more of the conditions set forth in section 2534(d) of this title apply with respect to the procurement of the items concerned.
``(d) Relationship to Other Waiver Authority.--The authority under subsection (a) to waive a domestic source requirement or domestic content requirement is in addition to any other authority to waive such requirement.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding the adding at the end following new item:
``2410n. Authority to waive domestic source or content requirements.''.
______
By Mr. ENZI:
S. 385. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to further improve the safety and health of working environments, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
SAFETY ADVANCEMENT FOR EMPLOYEES (SAFE) ACT
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Safety Advancement for Employees (SAFE) Act of 1999.
Today, as Americans head off to work, 17 of them will die and 18,600 of them will be injured on the job. The fact is that these accidents are occurring not because employers are heartless when it comes to worker safety. On the contrary, even the Department of Labor estimates that 95 percent of employers are striving to create safe workplaces. Nevertheless, America's employers are routinely left to their own devices to comply with thousands of pages of regulations without agency assistance and face steep fines for noncompliance despite their good-
faith efforts.
The Clinton Administration has responded to this problem by pledging a ``reinvented government'' that partners with employers in the effort to improve occupational safety and health. I agree with the strong statements made by Vice President Gore that ``OSHA doesn't work well enough,'' and that OSHA should ``hire third parties, such as private inspection companies'' to perform inspections. In fact, Vice President Gore's conclusions are at the heart of the OSHA modernization effort that I worked on last Congress. The SAFE Act that I am introducing today embodies a true partnership approach by encouraging employers to voluntarily hire third party consultants to audit their workplaces for compliance with OSHA and safety in general. Those consultants must be qualified by OSHA as legitimate safety consultants. They will work with employers on an ongoing basis to ensure that the employer is in compliance with OSHA regulations. Once the employer is in compliance, the consultant will issue him a certificate of compliance.
Under the SAFE Act, OSHA retains full power to inspect employers who have received such a certificate, full power to find violations of OSHA's regulations and full power to order such employers to abate the violations. The bill also provides that good-faith employers who go to the time and expense of hiring a safety consultant and getting in compliance with OSHA are exempt from civil fines for one year. In other words, the SAFE Act strikes a new and healthier balance for America's workers.
The SAFE Act's third party consultation provision codifies the Vice President's approach. It will result in tens of thousands of employers, perhaps more, getting expert safety consultations. It will allow OSHA to target its enforcement resources where they are most needed, and unlike other OSHA reform bills, it preserves OSHA's power to inspect any workplace and order abatement as it sees fit.
During the 105th Congress, the SAFE Act garnered more support than any OSHA modernization measure in years and successfully passed the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee within a few months of introduction. I hope to build on that success by strengthening the consultation aspect of the bill in the 106th Congress. One of the most important changes to the SAFE Act in this regard is that the voluntary, third party consultation provision now requires employers to work with trained safety and health consultants to develop work site-specific safety and health programs before they receive a Certificate of Compliance. I have borrowed both the idea for this provision and the language directly from one of OSHA's successful consultation programs, the Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program, or SHARP. SHARP is a consultation-based program available to businesses who want to work with an OSHA consultant and develop a safety and health program in return for one year free from inspections. The key to this program's success is that it is voluntary, it helps employers achieve compliance by working with a trained safety consultant, and it contains incentives to encourage employers to seek solutions to safety and health hazards.
The outstanding results of the SHARP program will be amplified by its inclusion in the SAFE Act. Due to the limited resources that OSHA dedicates to consultation, very few employers are able to take advantage of the SHARP program. However, under the SAFE Act, the safety benefits of the program will be available to every employer on a voluntary basis.
An important and additional benefit of including OSHA's voluntary, consultation-based SHARP program in the SAFE Act is that it strikes a compromise. For the last several months, OSHA has been moving forward in promulgating a mandatory safety and health program rule applicable to all employers regardless of size or type. The rule is not only mandatory but it is also a ``performance-based'' rule, the elements of which are almost completely subjective in nature. For example, the rule requires a program ``appropriate'' to conditions in the workplace, an employer to evaluate the effectiveness of the program ``as often as necessary'' to ensure program effectiveness, and ``where appropriate,'' to initiate corrective action.
Employers are justifiably concerned because the rule offers no definition of these terms to help them in their compliance efforts. They are also concerned because there is no objectivity to the rule. OSHA is answering these concerns by promising that their inspectors will be fair in their application of the rule and flexible in their interpretations. That does not satisfy employers who have safety and health programs in place or are working to develop such programs in a way that meets with OSHA's approval without the threat of fines.
The SAFE Act combines the need to promote a safety and health program standard that is sanctioned by OSHA with the need of the employer to know specifically how to achieve regulatory compliance. By keeping the SAFE Act consultation-based, employers will have full access to personalized compliance assistance. Neither will there be a threat of subjective enforcement under the SAFE Act because good-faith employers cannot be penalized for good-faith compliance efforts. The SAFE Act is the workable alternative to encourage and implement safety and health programs that work to improve conditions for America's workers.
Another important change to the SAFE Act is that the bill has been streamlined to strengthen the consultation theme by removing provisions that do not relate to consultation. The importance of such streamlining is two-fold. First, by highlighting consultation, the SAFE Act is able to maintain a one-theme message that consultations work and that their availability should be expanded to more employers. Second, by removing other, non-consultation-based programs from the bill will allow for concentrated development of several specific, freestanding OSHA modernization bills in the future.
As I introduce the new SAFE Act today, I am hopeful that we can again begin meaningful discussions about what is involved in achieving safer workplaces. I am hopeful that we can take even greater steps away from the adversarial approach to worker safety that virtually everyone agrees is without benefit or substantive result. And I am hopeful that we can actually pass the SAFE Act to achieve greater worker safety and health. The SAFE Act's proactive approach to achieving safer workplaces is revolutionary because it empowers both OSHA and the employer. By passing the SAFE Act, OSHA's own consultation programs will be extended to all employers who truly seek safety and health solutions. The result will mean vastly improved safety for America's work sites.
____________________
