[Pages S1325-S1329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

<bullet> 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.

[[Page S1326]]

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.''.<bullet>

<bullet> 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

[[Page S1327]]

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.<bullet>
______

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

<bullet> 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.

[[Page S1328]]

``(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.''.<bullet>
______

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

<bullet> 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

[[Page S1329]]

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.<bullet>

____________________