[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21359-21362]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2084) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, just for a few minutes I would like to 
address some of the overview, as I see it, of this Transportation 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, after being delayed by the objection to the Transit 
Equity Provision, I am pleased that the Senate will finally have the 
opportunity to consider the fiscal year 2000 transportation 
appropriations bill. Although the subcommittee's funding allocation is 
tight, I believe we are presenting the Senate with a balanced approach 
to meeting our Nation's transportation needs by providing adequate 
funding for all modes of transportation.
  At the same time, the senior Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, 
and I have gone to great lengths to craft a bill that I believe 
accommodates the requests of Members and funds their priorities.
  The current fiscal constraints were especially felt in the transit 
account, where demand for mass transit systems is growing in every 
State. But funding is fixed by the TEA 21 firewall. My proposal for 
managing an account in which Members' requests were more than 20 times 
the available funds was the Transit Equity Provision.
  This measure, which I included in the original subcommittee mark of 
the bill, would have limited the amount of transit capital funds any 
single State could receive in fiscal year 2000 to no more than 12\1/2\ 
percent of the total.
  The two states that receive the lion's share of national transit 
funds--30 percent of the total in fiscal year 1999--are California and 
New York.
  The provision would have redistributed any transit capital funds 
appropriated to these two states in excess of 12\1/2\ percent to the 
remaining 48 states. This would have resulted in approximately $5 
million more for every other state, for their own transit programs--
while New York and California would still have received more than $693 
million each.
  Last Thursday, however, the Senate failed to reach cloture on the 
motion to proceed to the transportation appropriations bill if it 
included the Transit Equity Provision, and I have agreed to strip the 
provision from the bill in order to move this legislation forward.
  The equity provision is not central to the appropriations bill. The 
total program funding levels, which are set at the TEA-21 firewall 
limits, remain unchanged. I included the provision to help create more 
room within those totals for the national transit program.
  My colleagues have written to me with new start project requests 
totaling $2.84 billion and with bus project requests totaling $1.8 
billion.
  If the appropriations bill honors all the current and anticipated 
full funding grant agreement projects and the bus earmarks for fiscal 
year 2000 that were included in the TEA-21 authorization, we have left 
only $96 million in new starts funding and $235 million in bus 
funding--to accommodate not only the billions of dollars' worth of 
requests from my colleagues in the Senate, but also the earmarks that 
have been included in the House transportation appropriations bill.
  This task is beyond challenging: It is impossible. There is no way to 
begin to satisfy the demand for discretionary transit capital funds. I 
do not want this fact to catch my colleagues by surprise.
  I bring this bill to the Senate floor today without the Transit 
Equity Provision. By engaging in a lengthy and public debate on this 
issue, as well as a recorded cloture vote, I hope that my colleagues 
are now more aware of the pressures on this account nationally, and 
that they better understand why I have so actively sought a way to 
provide funds for what I thought were my colleagues' transit 
priorities.
  The bill honors our commitment to increase the flow of federal funds 
for construction to improve infrastructure throughout the nation.
  Within the framework of a $49.5 billion total bill, $37.9 billion is 
provided for infrastructure investment in highways, transit systems, 
airports, and railroads. This is 6 percent more than last year's level 
of funding and is greater than the administration's request.
  This bill respects the Highway and Transit firewalls that TEA-21 
imposed. I would like to point out to my colleagues that we adhered 
strictly to the TEA-21 firewalls, even though outlays will be greater 
than the amount anticipated when Congress enacted TEA-21.
  By providing the funds above the firewall level, there were fewer 
dollars available to fund other priorities within the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction, including the Coast Guard and FAA.
  I believe this illustrates the pitfalls of trying to manage annual 
outlays in multi-year authorization legislation and is one of many 
reasons the Senate should reject a proposal to establish more budgetary 
firewalls around trust fund accounts.
  I yield to my colleague under the unanimous consent agreement, the 
senior senator from New Jersey, the ranking member of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee.

[[Page 21360]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague and 
friend, Senator Shelby, for having managed a very difficult problem 
with, frankly, less money than the amount we think transportation in 
this country deserves. We are entering a new century. It is hoped that 
we are going to be able to continue the prosperous and vigorous economy 
we now see. I think if there is one place where our funding allocations 
are deficient--and I believe they are deficient in many--transportation 
heads the list. It is necessary to have the kind of infrastructure that 
will propel us into continuing leadership in the 21st century, starting 
with transportation.
  We see crowding in every mode of transportation--aviation; the skies 
are jammed. The highways are congested. They are spewing contaminated 
air all over the place, and our transit systems are operating well 
above capacity. So I approach this bill with less than total 
satisfaction because we, frankly, could have used more funds. I will 
discuss those for a minute.
  I have served on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for 
more than 14 years. As they say, time flies when you are having fun. I 
chaired the subcommittee for 8 years, and I have also had the pleasure 
of serving under other subcommittee chairmen including Mark Andrews, 
Mark Hatfield, who was a dear friend and inspired leader, and, most 
recently, Richard Shelby.
  Senator Shelby, as his predecessors, has been attentive to the 
issues. He has consulted carefully with the minority members of the 
subcommittee. When it comes to funding levels included in this bill, 
Senator Shelby has done the best he could, given the very limited 
resources allocated to this subcommittee. And though I wish we had more 
money, I am supporting this bill, even with the limitations placed upon 
us, because of the efforts by Senator Shelby.
  When you consider the fact that this appropriations bill is going to 
usher in our national transportation agenda in the next century, it is 
clear that we are still not making the kind of investments we have to 
make to ensure continued leadership, economically and functionally, in 
the next millennium.
  That is not the fault of the chairman. Rather, it is the fault of our 
overall budgeting process--and I say that both as the ranking member of 
this subcommittee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  The bill before us is almost $700 million below the level requested 
by the President in his budget.
  The President's proposed transportation budget for fiscal year 2000, 
for the first time, exceeds $50 billion. This bill, however, is funded 
at less than $49.5 billion.
  While the dollar amount in this bill does exceed the total provided 
for in fiscal year 1999, the growth is to be found in the highway and 
transit programs that enjoy firewalled funding under TEA-21.
  The funding provided in this bill for other modal transportation 
which do not benefit from funding guarantees is severe. Funding for the 
Coast Guard is well below the President's request. Fortunately, we were 
able to include funding for the Coast Guard in the Kosovo supplemental 
appropriations bill. These funds will remain available and enable the 
Coast Guard to better meet its needs next year.
  Funding for the Federal Aviation Administration is more than 6.5 
percent below the President's request.
  Funding for Amtrak: We are now approaching a time when Amtrak is 
about to step in, hopefully, to the 21st century, but it is at least 
starting to catch up in the 20th century even as we leave it. High-
speed rail is around the corner--delayed, unfortunately, a little bit 
more than we expected it to be. But it is on its way. It is going to 
make an enormous difference. By way of example, if we didn't have the 
investment in Amtrak's Northeast Corridor to keep it going, we would 
need, as a substitute, 10,000 flights every year--10,000 new flights 
between the Boston area and the Washington area, including New York. 
That would be something beyond comprehension in terms of the crowded 
skies--200 new flights a week.
  Funding for the critical highway safety functions, or the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is cut by more than $50 million, 
or 15 percent below the level requested by the administration. A large 
part of the problem is that, when we marked up appropriations bill in 
May, we were capped by the low authorization levels in TEA-21. Since 
that markup, the House and the Senate passed, and the President signed, 
a sizable increase in these authorization levels for highway safety. 
But now that the authorization levels have been increased, there is no 
funding in the subcommittee's allocation to fund even part of them.
  These are difficult funding cuts. But despite these cuts, I support 
this bill. Frankly, I am putting some hope in the fact that the bill as 
passed by the House of Representatives had an allocation that was more 
than $0.5 billion larger than the allocation granted to the Senate 
Transportation Subcommittee.
  As we approach conference on this bill, I expect to work closely with 
Chairman Shelby and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee with 
the goal of bringing back a transportation conference report that 
better meets the needs of the FAA, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, the Coast Guard, and the other critical functions of 
the Department of Transportation.
  Mr. President, I emphasize once more that the reason this bill is so 
tight is not because Chairman Shelby doesn't want to fund the necessary 
parts of the transportation bill's requirements but, rather, we are 
caught by the funding caps that have controlled the Appropriations 
process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 1625

 (Purpose: To make available funds for the investigation of unfair or 
deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers, 
   foreign air carriers, and ticket agents involving the failure to 
            disclose information on the overbooking flights)

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) for himself, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1625.

  Mr. WYDEN. 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 65, line 22, before the period at the end of the 
     line, insert the following: ``: Provided, That the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be used to investigate 
     pursuant to section 41712 of title 49, United States Code, 
     relating to unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods 
     of competition by air carriers, foreign air carriers, and 
     ticket agents: Provided further, That, for purposes of the 
     preceding proviso, the terms `unfair or deceptive practices' 
     and `unfair methods of competition' include the failure to 
     disclose to a passenger or a ticket agent whether the flight 
     on which the passenger is ticketed or has requested to 
     purchase a ticket is overbooked, unless the Secretary 
     certifies such disclosure by a carrier is technologically 
     infeasible''.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first I express my thanks to the bipartisan 
leadership of the committee, Chairman Shelby, who has been 
extraordinarily helpful on this matter, which is a critical issue of 
protecting the rights of airline passengers in this country, and I also 
thank my longtime friend, Senator Lautenberg, who has spent a great 
deal of time with me on this issue over the last few months. The 
bipartisan leadership of this committee stands out in the Congress in 
terms of trying to ensure that airline passengers get a fair shake. It 
is high time, Mr. President, and colleagues.
  Last year, we saw an unprecedented increase in the number of 
complaints by airline passengers about shoddy service. In the first 6 
months of this year, we have seen another unprecedented increase in 
complaints by passengers of airline service.
  This is the first of two amendments I intend to offer with the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Shelby, and the ranking minority 
member, Mr. Lautenberg, to try to balance the scales

[[Page 21361]]

and ensure that the passengers get a fair shake and, in particular, get 
information about key services, such as the lowest fare, and accurately 
be told when a flight is overbooked.
  I emphasize to my colleagues that I am not proposing the Congress 
establish a constitutional right to a fluffy pillow on an airplane 
flight or a jumbo bag of peanuts. But I think airline passengers have a 
right to timely and accurate information.
  The purchase of an airline ticket today in America is like virtually 
no movie choice. Unlike movie theaters that sell tickets to a movie or 
a store that sells soccer balls, the airline industry provides no real 
assurance that they will be able to use the product as intended. They 
have made a variety of voluntary pledges to try to turn around this 
situation. But what we have seen in the last few days as a result of a 
study by the GAO and a study by the Congressional Research Service is 
that these voluntary pledges by the airline industry aren't worth much 
more than the paper they are written on.
  I am very pleased to offer this first amendment to try to ensure that 
passengers can be informed when an airline is overbooked.
  Again, I thank the bipartisan leadership of the committee. In 
addition to Senators Shelby and Lautenberg, Senators Campbell and 
Feingold have also been supportive in finally holding these airlines 
accountable with respect to making sure passengers are informed when a 
flight is overbooked. That is the problem today in America with 
overbooking. If you call an airline right now and they are overbooked, 
they won't tell you that before they sell you a ticket. The public has 
a right to know. The passengers have a right to know. These voluntary 
pledges aren't going to do it.
  For example, the voluntary pledge the airline industry has made on 
overbooking is, and I quote:

       They will disclose to passengers upon request whether the 
     flight on which the passenger is ticketed is overbooked if 
     within the usual and ordinary scope of such employee's work, 
     the information is available to the airline employee to whom 
     the request is made. In plain English, that means if you are 
     lucky and happen to ask the right employee, you may get a 
     straight answer on overbooking.

  This bipartisan amendment says the Department of Transportation 
inspector general can and should investigate as a deceptive trade 
practice the failure to inform the consumer when a flight is 
overbooked. In 1997, the Department of Transportation reported the 
airlines bumped more than 1 million passengers. Since that time, more 
than 100,000 passengers have been bumped involuntarily. This means more 
than 100,000 passengers are paying for seats they never sat in.
  I think it is time to make sure the public's right to know is 
protected. This first bipartisan amendment gives Members that 
opportunity.
  My thanks to my senior colleague, the chairman, and the ranking 
minority member. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I commend our colleague for this 
amendment and for the substance of the amendment.
  There has been constant pressure on the airlines to provide seats and 
make accommodations available. For those who think they are going on a 
journey--some emergencies, some recreational, some for routine work--it 
matters not. The fact of the matter is, when someone makes a 
reservation on an airplane, they ought to know whether or not there is 
a pretty good chance they will arrive at their chosen destination. We 
know there is not a way to positively predict this. However, the 
passengers who have paid for their tickets should have a pretty good 
chance of arriving when the flight is scheduled to arrive.
  I think this is positive amendment. It is pretty simple. The Senator 
from Oregon deals with the problem of airlines continuing to sell 
tickets on oversold flights and refusing to divulge that fact to their 
customers.
  I consider myself a friend of aviation. I have worked very hard with 
the FAA and the airlines to make sure we offer reliable and safe 
service. With all of the crowding, our system is still remarkably safe. 
It handles far more flights than we ever expected. Are we up to date in 
everything we can do? I say absolutely not; the requirements far exceed 
the capacity.
  The least we ought to do is tell passengers if there is a reasonable 
chance that they will get to their destination. The person who travels 
from Cincinnati to New York, perhaps to catch a flight overseas, 
arrives with their baggage. They have a 2-hour connection or an hour-
and-a-half at Kennedy or Newark Airport on their way to Rome. The only 
problem is, they arrive 3 or 4 hours later because they were bumped off 
the flight and they miss their flight to Rome.
  I had an experience a couple of weeks ago. This is probably a good 
story for democracy. I got to the airport, and they said the flight was 
sold out. I had made a reservation, given a credit card number. I 
arrived at the airport, and they said the airplane was filled. I got 
there 15, 20 minutes before flight time. I said: What do you mean, it 
is filled? They said: Yes, that seat is sold. I said: The seat was sold 
twice, and the first one who got there got it.
  No one told me the rules, that a passenger had to beat the other guy 
to the starting line to guarantee the seat for which they paid.
  Needless to say, I was a little annoyed. I didn't jump over the 
counter and threaten anybody, but it was not a pleasant experience. 
Instead of taking one direct flight back home, I had to take two--first 
flying north before I could fly south. All I could get was, ``Sorry, we 
sold the seat.'' It is an unpleasant experience.
  When they took the reservation which I made personally and gave my 
credit card number, they said fine and gave me a confirmation number. 
When I got to the gate to get on this airplane, the clerk behind the 
desk said: This airplane has been sold out. But they took my money 
anyway.
  The Senator from Oregon is standing behind the passenger who is not 
getting a lot of attention these days. The airlines handle a lot more 
traffic than they expected. They are also making a lot more money and 
I'm glad that they are. But they must also provide the service in a 
manner that is respectful of their passengers.
  What the Senator from Oregon is asking for is simple: If you are 
going to sell a ticket to him, to me, to anybody, please tell them if 
the flight is oversold. Then passengers can plan for it or figure out a 
backup instead of being innocently led to a blind wall where they can't 
go farther.
  So I support this amendment. I support it enthusiastically.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 1626

 (Purpose: To make available funds for the investigation of unfair or 
 deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers 
and foreign air carriers involving denying airline consumers access to 
               information on the lowest fare available)

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and send another amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1626.

  Mr. WYDEN. 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 65, line 22, before the period at the end of the 
     line, insert the following: ``: Provided, That the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be used (1) to investigate 
     pursuant to section 41712 of title 49, United States Code, 
     relating to unfair or deceptive

[[Page 21362]]

     practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers 
     and foreign air carriers, (2) for monitoring by the Inspector 
     General of the compliance of air carriers and foreign 
     carriers with respect to paragraph (1) of this proviso, and 
     (3) for the submission to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress by the Inspector General, not later than July 15, 
     2000, of a report on the extent to which actual or potential 
     barriers exist to consumer access to comparative price and 
     service information from independent sources on the purchase 
     of passenger air transportation: Provided further, That, for 
     purposes of the preceding proviso, the terms `unfair or 
     deceptive practices' and `unfair methods of competition' mean 
     the offering for sale to the public for any route, class, and 
     time of service through any technology or means of 
     communication a fare that is different than that offered 
     through other technology or means of communication''.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this amendment I also offer with the 
bipartisan leadership of the subcommittee, Chairman Shelby and Senator 
Lautenberg. Again, I express my thanks to both of them. As you could 
tell from Senator Lautenberg's excellent statement, he has strong views 
on this matter. They go back a long time.
  One of the areas I most admire about Senator Lautenberg has been his 
extraordinary work on tobacco control. The fact of the matter is, 
Senator Lautenberg for years led that effort to make air flights 
healthier in our country. That is just one of the many contributions he 
has made in public service. We thank him for it.
  This amendment as well is supported by the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Chairman Shelby, and the ranking minority member, Senator 
Lautenberg. As I have sought to do with respect to overbooking, again 
this amendment would ensure there were teeth behind this so-called 
pledge by the airlines to make information about the lowest possible 
fare available to the consumer. Finding the lowest air fare in America 
is now one of the great mysteries of Western life.
  On any given flight there may be as many different fares as there are 
passengers on the plane. One of the things that experts in aviation 
have said for some time is if you want to start a brawl on an air 
flight, ask the passengers to compare notes with respect to how much 
they paid for a ticket because there will be remarkable differences, 
even among people who made the same sort of arrangements to fly.
  The purpose of this bipartisan amendment is to make sure, no matter 
how a customer contacts an airline--at the ticket counter, over the 
telephone, or at an airline's web site--the customer would get the same 
information about the lowest fare. Again, the airlines in these 
voluntary pledges that they have made have a lot of lofty rhetoric 
about telling the consumer about the lowest fare, but the harsh reality 
is that it is business as usual. This amendment would hold the airlines 
accountable to their pledge to actually make available to the consumer, 
in an understandable way, information about the lowest fare available.
  The pledge to offer the lowest fare available as it stands now, in 
the voluntary package from the airline industry, is, again, sort of 
more hocus-pocus, as far as the consumer is concerned. In effect, what 
the airlines are now saying is that if a consumer uses the phone to 
call an airline and asks about a specific flight on a specific date in 
a specific class, the airline will tell the consumer the lowest fare, 
as they are already required to do by law. Not only will the airlines 
not provide the consumer relevant information about lower fares on 
other flights on the same airline, they will not even tell the consumer 
about lower fares that are probably on the airline's web page--and for 
obvious reasons. Once they have you on the phone and they can get you 
at a higher price, they might not be so interested in letting you know 
about something else that is available on the web page.
  Recently a Delta agent quoted a consumer over the telephone a round 
trip fare to Portland, my hometown, of $400, and 5 minutes later the 
consumer found a price of $218 for the exact same flight on Delta's web 
page.
  What this amendment stipulates, again, as with the bipartisan effort 
with respect to overbooking, is that the passenger has a right to know. 
The public has a right to know. We are not setting up any new 
Government agencies. We are not calling for some micromanaged, run-
from-Washington kind of operation. We are saying the passenger deserves 
a fair shake with respect to accurate information on the lowest fares 
that are available.
  So this amendment, that I am proud to offer again with the chairman 
of the subcommittee, Chairman Shelby, and Senator Lautenberg, would 
stipulate the Department of Transportation could investigate as a 
deceptive trade practice the failure on the part of an airline to tell 
the passenger the lowest fare that is available, no matter how the 
customer contacts the airline. Under the voluntary pledge, again, the 
airlines are going to be in a position to withhold information about 
the lowest fares from customers, information that they have, as Senator 
Lautenberg noted in his previous statement, and information that ought 
to be supplied to the consumer so the consumer can make accurate 
choices.
  All we are talking about in both of these amendments is access to 
information, full disclosure, the public's right to know. But the 
failure to do it, the failure to inform the consumer, ought to be 
treated seriously by this Congress.
  These two amendments provide that opportunity to do so by saying the 
Department of Transportation can investigate as a deceptive trade 
practice the failure to inform the public, in this case of the lowest 
fare available, in the previous case information about overbooking.
  I know time is short and there is much to do with respect to this 
important legislation. I thank Senator Shelby and Senator Lautenberg 
for their support. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

                          ____________________