[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 75 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5177-S5181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2001--Continued


                           Amendment No. 3430

  (Purpose: To provide for an additional payment from the surplus to 
                        reduce the public debt)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLARD], for himself and Mr. 
     Voinovich, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3430.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page ________, after line ________, insert the 
     following:

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                       bureau of the public debt

            supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2000

      gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt

       For deposit of an additional amount for fiscal year 2000 
     into the account established under section 3113(d) of title 
     31, United States Code, to reduce the public debt, 
     $12,200,000,000.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second at this time.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I renew my request for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the amendment that was just reported at 
the desk is an amendment that is cosponsored by myself, Senator 
Voinovich, Senator Grams, and Senator Enzi. I do want to take the time 
to thank them for their willingness to be a part of this very important 
effort to try to pay down our Nation's debt. We have two debts that are 
referred to frequently in debate, and I want to talk about each one of 
them individually. One is the burden of the national debt on America, 
and, as of June 14, 2000, the total national debt to the penny was 
$5,651,368,584,663.04.
  If we look at the debt that was owed to the public, there is an 
equally astounding figure of $3,499,251,116,128.15.
  How does this break down to each citizen's share of the national 
debt? If you were born today, what kind of debt would you have to face 
as you grew and paid for your education and started your own business 
and raised your family? Each citizen born today in America would owe 
$20,550 on the national debt; or another way of putting it, $12,724 on 
the debt owed to the public.
  In 1961, Congress established within the Department of the Treasury 
the Bureau of the Public Debt, an account for citizens to repay the 
public debt. Our amendment is an attempt to accomplish just that. What 
it does, it makes a one-time payment out of the fiscal year 2000 
surplus--that is the budget we are operating under right now--to the 
account. We have a total of about 26.5 billion surplus dollars that 
have come in this year. We have already obligated about $14.3 billion 
in an effort for emergency spending.
  This includes some adjustments between spending provisions we did 
last year where we forwarded some of our spending. We are going to move 
it back so it is within each fiscal year. It included some emergency 
spending for Kosovo and some emergency spending for farm programs and a 
number of other items. That leaves $12.2 billion on the table. So this 
amendment says we want to take those $12.2 billion and move them into 
the debt repayment account that Americans can pay into now, that we 
established in 1961.

  This holds the Senate accountable for limited emergency supplemental 
spending consistent with the budget, I might add. I think each of us 
individually in the Senate, and Members of the House, ought to make a 
personal commitment to try to enforce provisions of that budget. That 
was voted on by this body, voted out of the body. If it is going to 
mean anything, I think Members of the Senate have to make a concerted 
effort to help enforce the provisions of the budget.
  The amendment I have introduced, with the help of some of my 
colleagues, was scored by CBO as a no-cost intergovernmental transfer. 
It is well within the budget rules, the rules of the Senate, and it is 
an important amendment. It is something we need to address. We simply 
have to get the debt under control. I have introduced legislation in 
the past that has put forth a plan whereby we try to pay down the debt 
over 30 years, then, later on, introduced more legislation so we go 
ahead and pay down the debt over 20 years.
  The fact is, we are having unprecedented surpluses coming in to the 
Government coffers. A lot of it is because of the amount of work and 
labor that is happening out there. It is due to American initiative 
that has been propelled by the free enterprise society in which we 
live. It is unprecedented in the history of this country.
  If we do not do something to pay down the debt now, we are going to 
miss a great opportunity to have a secure, a more prosperous future for 
the young Americans of today, our future leaders.
  I hope we can adopt this amendment as a minor first step in paying 
down our total debt. We simply should not, as a matter of conscience, 
continue to increase spending year after year with a total disregard of 
the total debt that we have accumulated. We simply need to be doing 
something to pay down our national debt.
  This is a small step. It is something that hopefully will begin to 
get this Senate to understand and this Congress to realize we ought to 
have a plan of 20 years to pay down the debt. It is accountability on 
further emergency spending. Emergency spending is not counted in the 
budget caps and the 302(b) allocations, and too often this spending 
privilege is abused. Members of the House and Senate try to put 
programs which they cannot put in the regular budget resolution when 
this Congress sets its priorities under the emergency spending 
programs. We need to do what we can to maintain the integrity of that 
budget resolution because it is the one that puts restraint on spending 
and puts accountability in the budgeting process.
  As I mentioned before, CBO has scored this as a no-cost transfer. It 
is important, and it is money that is left laying on the table. At this 
point in time, I really believe there are few choices of what will 
happen with the $12.2 billion. It will either go toward debt repayment, 
or it will be spent. I am concerned it will be spent.
  I have introduced this legislation to obligate it towards debt 
repayment. It is important. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to 
support us in the effort to pay down the debt, and I ask them to vote 
aye to support this amendment to pay down the debt. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, my colleague from the State of Colorado 
did a very good job outlining for us how important it is that we 
address our national debt. There is a euphoria in America today over 
the fact that we have a tremendous surplus. Unfortunately, the fact 
that we have a surplus reminds me of a Dean Martin song that went 
something like ``Money burns a hole in my pocket.'' Everyone is trying

[[Page S5178]]

to figure out how to spend this money. No one seems to be making an 
issue of the fact that today we have a $5.7 trillion national debt 
which is costing Americans approximately $600 million a day in 
interest.
  Most Americans do not understand that 13 cents out of every Federal 
dollar we spend goes to pay interest. National defense gets 16 cents 
per dollar. Nondefense discretionary spending is 18 cents per dollar. 
They do not understand that we are spending more money on interest each 
year than we spend on Medicare, five times as much on interest as we do 
for education, and 15 times more than we spend on medical research.
  This debt was racked up over a number of years. At a time when our 
economy is better than it has ever been before, when unemployment is at 
the lowest we have seen in anyone's memory, we should do like you, Mr. 
President, would do in your family and I would do in my family, or what 
a business person would do, and that is, in times of plenty, get rid of 
debt, get out from under debt.
  We have an excellent opportunity to do that. Because of the expanding 
economy, we have a $26 billion on-budget surplus in fiscal year 2000. 
Think of that, $26 billion. We already allocated $14 billion of that 
on-budget surplus when we passed the budget resolution to deal with 
what I consider to be, for the most part, emergency situations.
  In order to guarantee we do not spend the rest of that money, we need 
to stand up and be counted and pay more than lipservice to reducing our 
national debt. We need to pass legislation that says the remaining on-
budget surplus, this $12.2 billion, is to be used to pay down the 
national debt. It is something that all of us should think about as 
being a moral responsibility.
  One of the reasons I came to the Senate, was the fact that I believed 
we had spent money over the years on many things that, while important, 
we were unwilling to pay for, or, in the alternative, do without. We 
had a policy of ``let the next guy worry about it''; ``let the next 
generation worry about it.''
  When I came to the Senate, I had one grandchild. Today, I have two 
more. Like all other Americans, I think about my grandchildren and 
about the legacy I want to leave to them. I remember a long time ago, 
almost 38 years ago, when my wife Janet and I got married. At that 
time, only 6 cents out of every dollar was going to pay interest on our 
debt. Think of it. Today it has gone up over 100 percent.
  I think about the legacy we are leaving our children, and Congress, 
during this wonderful time of a great economy, with a low unemployment 
rate, should take advantage of this opportunity to take our on-budget 
surplus and pay down our national debt and get this burden off the 
backs of the young people in our country; off the backs of our children 
and off the backs of our grandchildren.
  The other thing we need to point out to the American people is 
something we have kept kind of a secret. It is a secret about which 
nobody is talking; it has been kept quiet, and that secret is we have 
been spending money like drunken sailors.
  In fiscal year 1998, we spent $555 billion on discretionary spending. 
That is before I came to the Senate. In fiscal year 1999 we increased 
spending to $575 billion.
  In this year's budget, if we spend the entire on-budget surplus, 
discretionary spending will be $624 billion. Think about it, $624 
billion, compared to last year's $575 billion. If my figures are 
correct, that is an 8.5-percent increase in discretionary spending.
  I want to know how many people in this country had an 8.5-percent 
increase in their paycheck last year. Why is it that the Federal 
Government is different than most of the families in this Nation? 
Families should understand, the citizens of this country should 
understand, if we spend all of this money--and it looks like we could--
and if we do not adopt this amendment that we are suggesting be adopted 
today, we will have increased spending by 8.5 percent.
  It is time for this Congress to be willing to make tough decisions. 
The cynicism that I hear so often is: We need the money to get out of 
town.
  We need to talk about our kids. We need to talk about this national 
debt. We need to talk about the moral responsibility that we have to 
America's families.
  We are not asking for a lot here today. We are asking that this body 
stand up and be counted. I hear people every day talking about: Let's 
do something about the national debt. It is a problem. We should do it.
  Reducing the national debt has been a principle of my party. It has 
been a principle of mine throughout my political career. First of all, 
don't go into debt. If you are in debt, get rid of it.
  Here is a chance to stand up and put our actions where our mouths 
are, and say, yes, we do believe in reducing the national debt. We are 
going to take this money, put it aside, and pay down the national debt, 
and we are going to do it now. We are going to do it now because we 
know if we do not do it now, the temptation will be to spend every dime 
of it.
  One other thing we ought to remember; and that is, in July CBO will 
be coming back with some new numbers and the on-budget surplus will be 
even higher, perhaps maybe $20 billion, $25 billion more. The question 
is, What are we going to do with that on-budget surplus? Are we going 
to keep that around so we can get out of town?
  It is time to make the tough decisions. It is time to stand up and be 
counted.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I, again, thank my colleague from Ohio, Senator 
Voinovich, for his undying effort and diligent fight to pay down the 
debt. It is good to have somebody with that kind of persistence and 
bulldog attitude to be a team player on a very important issue such as 
this. I just want to commend him in a public way for his efforts.
  I do not see any other Senators on the floor wanting to debate this 
issue. I yield the floor so the Senator from Oregon can be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALLARD. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon has the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. Objection.
  Mr. President, was there a unanimous consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair noted the objection of the Senator 
from Colorado.
  The Senator from Oregon still has the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the foregoing request is 
granted.


                           Amendment No. 3433

    (Purpose: To require the Inspector General of the Department of 
Transportation to review certain airline customer service practices and 
                  to make recommendations for reform)

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk involving 
the rights of airline passengers in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3433.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 45, line 23, before the period at the end insert 
     the following: ``: Provided, That the funds made available 
     under this heading shall be used by the Inspector General (1) 
     to continue to review airline customer service practices with 
     respect to providing consumers access to the lowest available 
     airfare, information regarding overbooking, and all other 
     matters with respect to which airlines have entered into 
     voluntary customer service commitments; (2) to undertake an 
     inquiry into whether mergers in the airline industry have 
     caused or may cause customer service to deteriorate and 
     whether legislation should be enacted to require that 
     customer service be a factor in the merger review process for 
     airlines; (3) to review the reasons for increases in flight 
     delays, with specific reference to whether infrastructure 
     issues or procedures utilized by the airline industry and the 
     Federal Aviation Administration are contributing to the 
     delays; (4) to review the airline ticket distribution system, 
     and changes in the system, including

[[Page S5179]]

     the proposed Internet joint venture known as `Orbitz' and the 
     impact such changes may have on airline competition and 
     consumers; (5) to review whether `Orbitz' would be, or should 
     be, subject to Department of Transportation regulations on 
     airline ticket computer reservation systems; and (6) to 
     report findings and recommendations for reform resulting from 
     these reviews and inquiries to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science and 
     Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives by December 31, 2000, and again thereafter 
     when the Inspector General determines it appropriate to 
     reflect the emergence of significant additional findings and 
     recommendations''.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, almost a year ago, this country's airlines 
made a grand announcement about a new, although albeit voluntary, 
commitment to the rights of airline passengers.
  I tend to look with a very skeptical eye at any promise to consumers 
that contains the notion of both ``voluntary'' and ``rights'' together 
in the same sentence.
  Now, 1 year later, my conversations with Federal investigators about 
the work they have done, at the Senate's request, leaves me to be even 
more skeptical of what the airlines have promised.
  What I have learned from Federal investigators is that there are more 
questions than answers about the quality of airline customer service, 
flight delays, and the airline ticket distribution system.
  Frankly, as I said a year ago, the evidence indicates that the 
airlines' so-called customer first package has proven to be worth 
little more than the paper it was written on.
  In fact, just recently, in the last few months, the Washington Post 
Business Section had a headline that said: ``Airline Service Dips n 3 
of 4 Categories.'' They went on to describe what can only be 
categorized as a pretty bumpy operation with respect to guaranteeing 
the rights of passengers in this country.
  I will take just a few minutes to outline what I think the central 
problems are, and what I have learned from Federal investigators about 
their work. Then I hope the Senate will support my amendment on a 
bipartisan basis.
  First, after a year of trying to get the airlines to be straight with 
the American consumer with respect to finding the lowest fare available 
on a particular flight, I can report that finding the lowest airfare 
remains one of the great mysteries of our time.
  On any given flight, there may be as many different fares paid as 
there are passengers on the plane. Finding out if the flight you want 
to take is overbooked is sort of like playing hide and seek. First, you 
have to know what to ask for. Then you need to know the difference 
between a flight that is oversold and a flight that is overbooked. 
Suffice it to say, there seem to be a fair number of people in the 
industry who can hardly explain that difference.
  When I first called for the passage of a real, enforceable passenger 
bill of rights for airline consumers, I made it very clear to the 
Senate that I was not talking about establishing a constitutional right 
to a fluffy pillow on your airplane flight. I was not talking about 
folks being entitled to a jumbo bag of peanuts. What I was talking 
about has the public's right to know, the public's right to know 
information about basic services, just as they do in every other area 
of our economy.
  In every other area of the economy, such as when you have a 
reservation for a particular item or you want to find out about how it 
is priced, you can get that information. You can get it whether it is 
on the telephone, at the counter, online, or through a variety of 
intermediaries. And you are told, in straightforward kinds of terms, 
the real reasons behind these scheduling arrangements, and prices, and 
the kind of information that is so relevant to the consumer.
  That is not what is happening today in the airline industry, despite 
the grandiose pledges from folks in the industry.
  For example, the annual survey by leading scholars at Wichita State 
who have been doing these surveys for many years came out in April and 
found that consumer complaints on air travel in 1999 were up 130 
percent over the previous year. That study showed that 7 out of 10 
airlines posted lower quality ratings than they did in the previous 
year.
  Earlier this year, the Department of Transportation consumer division 
reported that the number of complaints they had received was about 
double that of the previous year. The complaints were up and the 
ratings were down after the airlines had pledged to the Congress to do 
better.
  Suffice it to say, these professors at Wichita State are not airline 
industry bashers. These are individuals who, by their own description, 
take a very conservative orientation to these issues. Yet they found 
that in virtually every important area of consumer service, there had 
actually been a deterioration in the quality of service to airline 
passengers during this period since the airlines' so-called customer 
first pledge went into effect.
  When the industry's Air Transport Association reported recently that 
customer satisfaction was at an all-time high, many of us struggled to 
find out to whom exactly they were talking. They weren't talking to the 
folks I sit next to on an airplane or the people I meet in ticket lines 
at home in Oregon or around the Pacific Northwest.
  I can understand the inclination of the Senate to give the airlines 
some time to try to make their voluntary program work. I got my head 
handed to me when we had the vote in the Commerce Committee and it was 
19-1 with respect to airline passenger rights. I respected that. Given 
the results in the Commerce Committee, I decided we ought to try to do 
some followup and offered several amendments that were accepted as part 
of this appropriations bill in the last year. I believed it was 
important to continue to monitor the situation to see if we would get 
any improvements since the industry's pledges went into effect.
  What we adopted in the last appropriations bill was part of the final 
law. It was binding, and it gave the Transportation Department 
inspector general a statutory mandate to look at whether airlines are 
giving customers access to the lowest fares no matter what technology 
they used to contact the airline. It is outrageous to know that even 
today airline passengers can be quoted one price over the telephone and 
yet a much lower fare is available to them on the Internet and they 
aren't given that kind of information. The Department of Transportation 
inspector general was directed in the last appropriations bill to 
investigate that issue and, in addition, to make sure we monitor this 
question of the lowest fare.
  We directed the inspector general to tell us about overbookings of 
flights--again, a right-to-know context. I have no problem with an 
airline selling a ticket to a passenger on a flight that is overbooked, 
if the consumer is told that the flight is overbooked at the time they 
are going to make the purchase. It is fairly straightforward; it is 
informed consent. We have found that has not been done.
  The Department of Transportation inspector general is also looking at 
a new scheme the airlines have cooked up known as T-2. It is our 
understanding this is a new online pool of airfares where nearly all of 
the major air carriers will offer their lowest fares but which will not 
be accessible to those who offer travel services.
  In a few weeks, the inspector general of the Department of 
Transportation is going to issue an interim report on the airlines' 
customer service commitment plans. What I have heard about this report 
is that the airlines are coming up short, and seriously so, with 
respect to following up on the commitments they made to the Congress.
  For example, recent weather delays at Chicago's O'Hare Airport 
resulted in numerous planes being stranded on the runways for periods 
of 3 hours or more and as long as 8 hours. The Presiding Officer must 
have heard from some of his constituents on that matter. I happen to 
have been on the flight that was going from Chicago to Portland where 
some of those folks had been on the flight that had been stranded in 
Chicago. They told me all they had received during this extended wait 
was granola bars and almost no information at all about the options 
they had.
  A recent power failure at National Airport in the Nation's Capital 
stranded scores of passengers without any accommodations or emergency 
provisions. Again, we have the consumer complaints pouring into the 
Department of Transportation at record levels

[[Page S5180]]

each month of this year, after the airline industry's voluntary pledge 
went into effect. This notion from the airline industry that they just 
need more time, give them a little bit more opportunity to make this 
so-called voluntary program work, is contradicted by what we have seen 
each month since the so-called voluntary pledges went into effect.
  The customer service commitments don't even address one of the most 
frustrating areas of air travel; that is, the fundamental underlying 
issue of delays and what the airlines and the FDA will do to combat 
them.
  It is important that we get the Department of Transportation interim 
report. It is going to offer the American people an unbiased view of 
exactly how well airlines are treating passengers. It is going to give 
us an independent assessment of these so-called voluntary passenger 
commitments.
  I believe what this report is going to show is that the pledges the 
airline industry made are in effect a kind of cosmetic program to try 
to keep the Senate from enacting real passenger rights that are 
enforceable and truly protect the American public. I suspect what we 
will hear from the inspector general will be a blueprint for 
enforceable concrete legislation that protects the rights of 
passengers.
  What the Senate ought to be doing is keeping the airlines' feet to 
the fire. That is why I am offering an amendment to this year's 
Department of Transportation appropriations bill that would instruct 
the Department of Transportation IG to continue his fact finding and 
information gathering in key areas that are so important to the public. 
I am talking about whether these customer service practices amount to 
anything, getting the public straight information on the lowest 
available fare, information about overbooking.
  Importantly, for the first time the Senate would direct the 
Department of Transportation IG to look at the question of whether 
mergers in the airline industry are causing customer service to 
deteriorate. We ought to be looking at that issue. We ought to be 
looking at whether legislation should be enacted to require that 
customer service be a factor in granting an airline merger in this 
country. We have all heard so much about these airline mergers. We are 
having a lot of problems with customer service today. We ought to be 
looking at the ramifications these mergers are having on the quality of 
airline service in this country.
  I am particularly interested in knowing whether the Senate, on a 
bipartisan basis, should write a law that would stipulate whether or 
not customer service ought to be a factor in the merger review process. 
In addition, this amendment would review the reasons for increases in 
flight delay. We have had some folks say it is the FAA's fault. We have 
had other folks say that it is the airline industry's fault. I think 
the Department of Transportation IG ought to dig into that issue. My 
amendment also requires a review of the airline ticket distribution 
system that I mentioned earlier involving T-2. Suffice it to say that 
there are a number of questions there about whether that is 
contributing to problems that consumers are having.
  The bottom line is, will the Senate keep the airlines' feet to the 
fire? Are we going to have the Department of Transportation continue in 
this investigative effort to try to at least put some kind of 
collective focus by the Senate on how important it is to improve 
passenger service? We have all heard from constituents, at a time when 
the airlines are, in many instances, making great profits, about why it 
is that some of that money can't be devoted to improving passenger 
service.
  I am not going to go through all of the recent news stories but just 
a few of the headlines. The Washington Post headline is ``Airline 
Service Dips In 3 of 4 Categories.'' The Los Angeles Times headline is 
``Air Passengers `Fed Up' With Poor Service, Survey Finds.'' They go on 
to cite the fact that ``Consumer complaints against airlines have more 
than doubled from last year.''
  In conjunction with the recommendations we are getting from the 
Department of Transportation's IG and their leading official, who I 
think does a superlative job in this area, I would like to see the 
Senate working with the Transportation inspector general to keep the 
focus on trying to force these airlines to improve the quality of 
passenger service to the people of this country.
  I have just been informed by the staff that Chairman McCain and 
Senator Hollings and Senator Rockefeller would be willing to join me 
today in committing to send a letter asking the Department of 
Transportation inspector general to investigate and report to the 
committee on the issues that are the subject of my amendment. So that 
the record is clear, Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and Senator 
Rockefeller--and they are all the leaders of the Senate Commerce 
Committee and spend many hours looking into these issues--have all 
asked that they join me in a letter to the Department of Transportation 
inspector general inquiring into the issues that are the subject of my 
amendment.
  The fact that we are getting the bipartisan leadership of our 
committee behind this effort is very important. It is certainly 
important to me because all of them have great expertise regarding this 
issue. My inclination, frankly, is to have a vote on this amendment on 
the floor of the Senate to send the strongest possible message. But I 
note that Senator Rockefeller cannot be present today. He has done 
extremely good and important work on a whole host of aviation issues, 
including the air traffic control system. As a member of the Commerce 
Committee and the Aviation Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over 
these issues, I am going to agree this afternoon, on the basis of the 
fact that we will now have a bipartisan letter sent to the inspector 
general by the bipartisan leadership of the Commerce Committee 
directing that the IG look into all of the issues outlined in my 
amendment, to withdraw my amendment.
  But I want to make it clear to people in the airline industry and the 
passengers that are so frustrated by these delays that this fight is 
going to continue. It is not being dropped. In fact, we are expanding 
it. As I mentioned, we are going to look, for the first time in recent 
years, at the ramifications of mergers on customer service. I happen to 
believe very strongly that mergers and customer service are 
inextricably linked. I think we ought to change the law and stipulate 
that one of the criteria on whether or not an airline merger ought to 
go forward is customer service.


                     Amendment No. 3433, Withdrawn

  I note the absence of Senator Rockefeller, who believes strongly in 
this. Chairman McCain and the ranking Democrat, Senator Hollings, have 
both done very important work on aviation issues. They have pledged to 
join with me in directing the Department of Transportation inspector 
general to investigate these issues. In view of that announcement that 
is being made today, and in view of the bipartisan support for the 
Department of Transportation looking into these issues, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw my amendment this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have two 
articles printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Apr. 11, 2000]

       Air Passengers ``Fed Up'' With Poor Service, Survey Finds

                        (By Randolph E. Schmid)

       Washington.--U.S. airlines spent a lot of time last year 
     promising things would get better for their customers, but a 
     new study suggests just the opposite occurred: Consumer 
     complaints more than doubled.
       ``You can see that consumers are just fed up, fed up with 
     poor service,'' Brent Bowen of the University of Nebraska at 
     Omaha said in announcing the survey results Monday.
       Consumer complaints were up 130% from 1998 to 1999, said 
     Dean Headley of Wichita State University. They rose from 1.08 
     complaints per 100,000 passengers in 1998 to 2.48 per 100,000 
     last year.
       Headley noted that improved Internet access made it easier 
     to file complaints, but said that could not account for such 
     a large increase.
       The annual report, based on data collected by the 
     Transportation Department, scores the air carriers on on-time 
     performance, baggage handling, consumer complaints and denied 
     boardings.
       It found an overall decline in airline quality last year, 
     with only baggage handling showing a slight improvement.

[[Page S5181]]

       The airlines instituted a consumer bill of rights in 
     December, after a year of pressure from Congress to improve 
     service. A report to Congress by the Transportation 
     Department's inspector general on how they are doing is 
     scheduled for June.
       Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who pressed for legislation last 
     year, said that if the upcoming report ``shows anything 
     resembling what this study shows, I think we can get a real 
     passenger bill of rights through Congress.''
       ``The report demonstrates that the airlines are not 
     following through on the voluntary program,'' he said. 
     ``They, of course, claim that it's early and they have just 
     begun it . . . but this is an industry that again and again 
     finds reasons to give passenger service short shrift.''
       Diana Cronan of the Air Transport Assn., which represents 
     the major airlines, noted that the airlines' voluntary 
     ``customer first'' plan was not put into effect until the end 
     of the year.
       ``We really would like to see the results next year when 
     the plan has been in place for a full year. We really do 
     believe that things will be better,'' she said.
       Southwest Airlines ranked best overall, as it did in 1997. 
     In 1998, the top spot went to USAirways, which fell to No. 6 
     in the new report.
       This year, Continental finished second, followed by Delta, 
     Northwest and Alaska Airlines. American was No. 7, followed 
     by America West, TWA and United.
       The report's only good news involved baggage handling. The 
     study found that the industry mishandled 5.08 bags per 1,000 
     passengers in 1999, down from 5.16 per 1,000 a year earlier.
       On the other hand, there was a drop in the portion of 
     flights that arrived within 15 minutes of schedule. On-time 
     performance slipped from 77.2% to 76.1% and denied 
     boardings was virtually stable, edging from 0.87 per 
     10,000 passengers to 0.88.
       The study was particularly critical of airlines for 
     instituting what they called a series of anti-consumer rules 
     designed to increase productivity.
       These include tighter limits on carry-on bags, bans on 
     carry-on food, not allowing a consumer to take an earlier 
     connection when a seat is available and raising fees to 
     change tickets.
       ``Soon, consumers will become driven by price and schedule 
     only and regard airline loyalty as having no tangible 
     value,'' the author concluded.
       The Transportation Department, which independently reports 
     on airline performance, found similar problems through 
     February.
       Consumers registered 1,999 complaints about the 10 largest 
     carriers in February, slightly down from January but nearly 
     double a year earlier.
       It found that 74.8% of flights arrived on time in 
     February--also slightly better than in January but not as 
     good as 78.9% in February 1999.
       The airlines had a mishandled baggage rate of 4.81 reports 
     per 1,000 passengers in February, an improvement from a year 
     earlier.
       Headley acknowledged the new passenger bill of rights 
     instituted by airlines late last year and allowed that change 
     does take time. But, he argued, the steps promised by the 
     airlines were things they should have been doing already.
       The carriers pledged to be more forthright with passengers 
     all the way through their travel experience. They promised to 
     volunteer the lowest air fares or cheaper travel options when 
     people call for reservations and to give passengers at least 
     24 hours to cancel ticket purchases.
       They also said they would update passengers at 15- to 20-
     minute intervals when there are delays.

                        Airline Complaints Soar

       Airline quality declined in 1999 despite efforts by the 
     carriers to improve service. The 10 major U.S. airlines 
     carried nearly 500 million domestic airline passengers in 
     1999. The volume of consumer complaints rose 130% over 1998. 
     Although improved reporting may account for some of the 
     increase, it does not account for all of it. How the major 
     airlines fared in four categories; best performers \1\ are:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Mishandled  Complaints
                                                                  Percentage  Bumped per    baggage       per
                             Airline                              of on-time    10,000     per 1,000    100,000
                                                                   arrivals   passengers  passengers  passengers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall.........................................................        76.1        0.88        5.08        2.48
Alaska..........................................................        71.0        0.91        5.75        1.64
America West....................................................        69.5        1.39        4.52        3.73
American........................................................        73.5        0.43        5.21        3.50
Continental.....................................................        76.6        0.34        4.42        2.62
Delta...........................................................        78.0        1.53        4.39        1.82
Northwest.......................................................        79.9    \1\ 0.18        4.81        2.93
Southwest.......................................................        80.0        1.38    \1\ 4.22    \1\ 0.40
TWA.............................................................    \1\ 80.9        0.73        5.38        3.45
United..........................................................        74.4        0.90        7.01        2.66
US Airways......................................................        71.4        0.52        5.08        3.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Best performers.
Sources: Airline Quality Rating 2000; Associated Press.
Researched by NONA YATES/Los Angeles Times.


                                  ____
               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 11, 2000]

               Airline Service Dips In 3 of 4 Categories

                           (By Frank Swoboda)

       Just when you thought air travel was bound to get better, 
     it got worse.
       A year after the nation's 10 major airlines promised to 
     begin improving service in the face of mounting congressional 
     threats to enact a series of passenger protections, a survey 
     released yesterday shows that service in 1999 deteriorated in 
     almost every category.
       Arlington-based US Airways plunged from first in 1998 to 
     sixth last year, showing poor performance in all service 
     categories surveyed.
       ``We've acknowledged the issues. The numbers speak for 
     themselves,'' said US Airways spokesman Richard Weintraub. He 
     said government statistics since the start of the year 
     indicate that the airline is now headed back into the ``top 
     tier'' of airline service.
       The survey--the Airline Quality Rating--is the 10th annual 
     report by two university professors who track the level of 
     service through government statistics gathered by the 
     Department of Transportation.
       The findings were based on an airline's on-time 
     performance, baggage handling, consumer complaints and 
     involuntarily denied boardings, such as when an airline 
     overbooks a flight and forces some passengers to be denied 
     seats for which they had already paid. The only improvement 
     shown by the survey was a slight drop in complaints about 
     baggage handling.
       The survey tracked the statistics for 10 major airlines 
     using the Department of Transportation's definition of 
     ``major.'' The airlines, rated from best to worst, were: 
     Southwest, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Alaska, US Airways, 
     American, American West, TWA and United.
       ``We try to base this on pure performance, something the 
     airline has some control over,'' said Dean Headley of Wichita 
     State University and a coauthor of the survey with Brent 
     Bowen, director of the Aviation Institute at the University 
     of Nebraska in Omaha.
       Headley said he was not surprised by the survey results, 
     but that he was frustrated by the rise in complaints against 
     the airlines, especially after they had all promised to 
     improve service. He said the Internet has made it easier for 
     people to complain but could not account for such a large 
     increase in the number of complaints--up 130 percent between 
     1998 and 1999.
       In December, after nearly a year of promising to improve 
     service in the face of rising consumer complaints and 
     congressional threats, the airlines adopted what they called 
     a consumer bill of rights in an effort to head off threatened 
     government intervention on behalf of passengers. That threat 
     began in January 1999, when Northwest stranded a planeload of 
     passengers on a snowy Detroit runway for nearly eight hours.
       Nebraska's Bowen said the report's conclusion that overall 
     industry quality continues to decline indicates that ``the 
     entire airline-sponsored plan to increase customer services 
     is failing.''
       A spokeswoman for the Air Transport Association, the trade 
     group that represents the airlines, said the voluntary bill 
     of rights initiated by the airlines has only been in effect a 
     few months. She said the airlines' new policy should be in 
     place a full year before people judge whether service has 
     improved.
       The transportation department's inspector general is 
     scheduled to issue a report to Congress in June on just how 
     well the airlines are doing. A negative report from DOT in an 
     election year is almost certain to rekindle calls for 
     congressional action.
       Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), an advocate of legislation to 
     force better service from the airlines, said that if the 
     inspector general's report mirrors the conclusions of 
     yesterday's study, ``it really strengthens my hand.'' Wyden 
     said yesterday's survey ``was a credible report because these 
     fellows have been doing it a long time and they are not 
     normally industry bashers.''
       Last year, Wyden proposed a bill that would force the 
     airlines to tell customers when a flight was overbooked and 
     to give them information on all available fares on a specific 
     flight. The bill would also allow passengers to get a refund 
     if they canceled a ticket at least 48 hours before a flight.
       Headley and Bowen concluded that unless airlines improve 
     service, consumers will lose loyalty to individual carriers 
     and ``become driven by price and schedule only.''
       But Headley said that despite his concerns about 
     deteriorating air service, he did not think setting industry 
     service standards was the answer. ``I'm a big fan of not 
     regulating if we can avoid it,'' he said.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in 
relation to the Allard amendment be stacked to occur first in any 
sequence of votes that are scheduled relative to the Transportation 
appropriations bill. Further, I ask that no amendments be in order to 
the amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.




                          ____________________