[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1965-1969]
[From the U.S. 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

 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

[[Page 1966]]

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.

[[Page 1967]]

  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.''

[[Page 1968]]

  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

[[Page 1969]]

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.

                          ____________________