Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator. I salute and support the efforts by the manager of this bill to address the competition issue with small airlines. A critical part of a small airline's ability to compete is to have its tickets distributed by an independent entity, mainly the travel agent. Travel agents provide critical services to air travelers, and air travelers depend heavily on travel agents to provide an accurate, broad selection of schedules, fare quotes, and ticketing services for all airlines. Mr. President, I ask the Senior Senator from Arizona if Congress should address possible anti-competitive behavior with respect to the airline ticket distribution system?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, the manager of this bill, in a discussion about the growing concern of consumers about airline travel in this country. Earlier this year, I introduced S. 1977, the Consumer Access to Travel Information Act of 1998. I introduced this important piece of legislation to address a growing problem in the airline industry. For over three years, the major airlines have been moving to gain more control over the airline travel ticket distribution system. While this effort may seem harmless, the ramifications to consumers are significant. Currently, most air travelers get their information from one of the 33,000 travel agencies around the country. These agencies provide consumers with unbiased and comprehensive air travel information, i.e. the best flight at the cheapest fare. Without that independent source of travel information, there is no doubt that consumers will be paying more, in many cases, substantially more for air travel. S. 1977 would simply require the Secretary of Transportation to investigate the extent of possible anti-consumer, anti-competitive behavior of major airlines, including discriminatory and predatory practices of airlines which target travel agents, other independent distributors, and small airlines. This is authority that the Secretary currently has under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, but has failed to act upon. this bill would make certain this investigation is undertaken. If it is determined that anticompetitive, discriminatory or predatory practices exist, the Secretary would report to Congress those steps the Department intends to take to address such practices. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Chairman of the Commerce Committee whether he has been made aware of concerns raised by consumers regarding air travel?

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to raise an important issue with chairman of the Commerce Committee. I strongly support vigorous competition in the aviation industry. Competition provides greater travel opportunities at lower prices for the people of New York. As the Chairman knows, when discussing increased activities at major airports we must be very mindful of the impact that aircraft noise has on surrounding communities. A new start-up airline intends to provide new low-fare jet service out of JFK International Airport and is willing to purchase a number of new Stage III aircraft to place into service in New York. These aircraft will be the quietest aircraft manufactured, even quieter than aircraft that are retro-fitted with Stage III technology known as ``hush kits.'' In selecting airlines to receive slot exemptions to enhance competition at JFK, the Secretary should give preference to the quietest aircraft willing to fill such slots, which, as I said, would be newly manufactured Stage III jets.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am honored to be invited to such a landmark event and I rise to offer my congratulations to the La Salle Academy in celebrating its 150th anniversary of educating New York City's youth. Founded in 1848, the Catholic, college-preparatory school of La Salle Academy currently serves more than 540 young men who represent over 60 nationalities. La Salle Academy seeks to educate young men of New York City from different cultural, racial, and social groups with special outreach programs for those most in need. This enables students to grow intellectually, morally, and physically in a racially diverse setting while encouraging them to contribute to their communities. This fine Academy consistently molds young men into valuable members of society and sends over 90% of its students to pursue higher education. Institutions, such as La Salle, are key assets for introducing our young adults to the many different aspects of our diverse society. Both the graduates and students of La Salle Academy act as model citizens for others to emulate and I praise this institution and other organizations of its kind for its countless contributions to society. We are fortunate to have such a valuable institution reside in New York State. I sincerely hope that La Salle Academy will continue to serve its students and the members of this community in such an important fashion.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Ilana G. Possner, a young woman who has dedicated her life to the betterment of her community through her undying commitment to community service and leadership activities. She is a shining example of an American youth who has made a deep impact on the lives of her fellow citizens. This young Staten Island resident has not only graced her immediate community with her good deeds, but the New York City area as a whole. She is an active participant at Project Hospitality, a Staten Island shelter that works with the area's homeless, hungry and sick. Each week, Ilana prepares and serves dinner to the homeless population this program services. Yet, her role is not just that of a server; Ilana takes it upon herself to befriend these people in need, readily lending a supportive ear and establishing relationships with them. Ms. Possner also devotes her time to entertaining Staten Island senior citizens through volunteer signing for the hearing impaired. Ilana has performed at fifteen different nursing homes and senior citizen centers throughout the past two years. Aside from these very demanding activities, she is also an active and enthusiastic volunteer worker for the American Cancer Society and the Multiple Sclerosis Society. Ms. Possner has put her leadership skills to work to help the community, as well. She organizes numerous food and clothing drives for the homeless, which provide people with the basic necessities of life that otherwise would not have been available to them. Moreover, Ilana presides over youth groups which bring together Staten Island youth from different racial, socioeconomic, religious and ethnic backgrounds. Through these groups, she works to promote harmony among the citizens of Staten Island. Ilana's hard work has brought her great recognition and awards over the past few years. She currently attends St. John's University on an academic scholarship, where she wishes to pursue studies in Communications and Education. Furthermore, she has received the National Service Scholarship and the MCS/Canon New York Knicks Team Up Community Service Scholarship. The New York State Assembly has also commended Ms. Possner for her work and achievement through a citation, as well. As we all know, today's youth is the future of America. In order to solve the problems America is facing now and in the future, it is imperative that we have leaders dedicated to the American people. Ilana Possner is an excellent example of a person who has put forth her leadership skills and time to the American public. It is through people such as Ilana Possner that the future problems and issues facing Americans will be confronted. Thus, I wish to commend Ilana for her selfless acts that have helped to make her community a better place.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to remind everyone that today is National POW/MIA Recognition Day. On this day, we should remember, give tribute to, and stand in solidarity with the loved ones and families of the thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen who were or are Prisoners of War and Missing in Action. I am humbled by and grateful for their love of country and their sense of duty and honor. Amidst the somber thoughts, the feelings of gratitude and pride that this day brings, as a Nation we must be uneasy. Uneasy because while we are a nation at peace and the wars in which these men fought are long over, they have not all returned home and we should not rest until their families have their loved ones back. These Americans swore an oath to support and defend the constitution and carried that promise through to the ultimate sacrifice for this great nation. While thousands died, many others endured years in starved, tortured, isolated misery before regaining the freedoms we enjoy. Their persistence, integrity and heroism are shining examples of the core values on which this nation was founded and became great. Mr. President, we need to produce results. Headway is being made, but there is still a long way to go before we have the fullest possible accounting of all POW/MIA personnel. Over the past six years, 136 Americans have been accounted for from Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia thanks to extensive field work. Earlier this month, thanks to the US-Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIAS established in 1991, seventeen airmen were at long last identified, returned to their native soil laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. These brave airmen were shot down over Soviet Armenia in 1958, during the height of the Cold War. For their loved ones and family members, the long wait is over, but by no means will their loss or sacrifices be forgotten. For many, however, the anguish continues. While much of the focus on POW/MIAs has rightly been on Southeast Asia where 2081 personnel remain unaccounted for, we must also honor those who were held prisoner and who are missing in action in other remote parts of the globe. More than 80,000 Americans remain missing and unaccounted for from World War I, World War II and the Korean conflict, and countless others from the Cold War. These great Americans and their families have the gratitude of a great and free nation, but we in the Senate shall not rest until all are returned or accounted for. I urge you, Mr. President, the Administration, the Departments of Defense and State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Agency to redouble their efforts to bring our boys hone as quickly as possible. Let us all take to heart the motto from the POW/MIA flag, which flies over the Capitol today, and which is displayed every day in the Capitol rotunda: ``YOU ARE NOT FORGOTTEN.''

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks made by my distinguished friend and colleague, the great senior Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. He touched on the eloquence and passion and the rightness and the moral certainty of Senator Santorum's very cogent argument and presentation. This entire subject, I believe, is uncomfortable for all of us. But it is so necessary. Senator Domenici spoke about the great senior Senator from New York, and I say that because I have great admiration and respect for the senior Senator from New York, who is fearless and courageous in saying that this was infanticide. That is what this is--the killing of a youngster, which is absolutely unnecessary, when the AMA, the American Medical Association, has come out and said there is no reason for this procedure. What are we talking about when we move down this line and say that anyone can do anything, even where we have a life, a new and innocent life? And so, Mr. President, I, too, say to my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania, we thank you for having the moral certainty and courage of not giving up and fighting to preserve the opportunity for those lives that have really come into being, to be what they can be and what they should be. When we talk about preserving the sanctity of life, there is no greater fight, no greater cause. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleagues who have given me the opportunity to at least bring this to a vote. Needless to say, the great power and the great number of dollars involved were felt. It is a lot of money that a lot of little people are paying that they shouldn't be paying. Indeed, some Members have indicated to me that notwithstanding their opposition to intruding generally into the private sector, they would reconsider their votes in the future if they continue to see the predatory price-gouging practices that are anticonsumer and monopolistic; if they continue to see not only the number of ATMs that are double charging continue, but lack of consumer choice; and escalating fees. Indeed, the Senate majority leader told me, and he is on the floor now, that he has indicated to those in the banking community that they had better look carefully at what they are doing. If they continue to impose these fees on the little people, he may not be nearly as supportive. This is a close issue as it relates to when should government become involved in the private sector. I believe that time has come. Having said that, this is a battle, but it is not the end. I lost this battle, but I am prepared to continue this battle and win the war until and unless we see a rollback in what is taking place now--and that is taking advantage of the consumer, the little guy, the working families of America. Again, I thank my colleagues who have yielded me this time to make this observation. We lost the battle, but not the war. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes to make some comments with regard to this vote.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, my amendment would stop one of the most predatory, outrageous practices that consumers throughout America are facing, double charging at ATMs. There are fewer opportunities to avoid that. Since the ban has been lifted, we have gone from 17 percent of the ATMs double charging to 79 percent in 2 years. There is no consumer choice. At the end of next year, it will be over 90 percent, and it will cost the average consumer $2.68 for that transaction. For people who say, ``Oh, we'll lose the ATMs if we do not have these double charges,'' 74 percent of the ATMs that are in existence today existed prior to the double charges. If you want to help the little guy, here is an opportunity. Vote for the ATM ban; vote for the consumer. Give that little guy a choice and give people an opportunity to vote. I am urging people to vote no against the motion to table.

Mr. D'AMATO. Sure. If he would like, 5 minutes each. I would ask that we have----

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, because I do not believe it will impede on the time allocated for consideration of the Dodd amendment--we will not go past 2 o'clock--that we have an additional 5 minutes for the proponents because I have some Members here who would like to speak to this.

Mr. D'AMATO. Might I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 20 minutes for the proponents. I have a number of people who would like to speak. It is an important amendment and one we have tried to have considered by the full body. Then if the opposition wants 5 minutes, that is fine. That would still keep it under a half hour.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, this amendment would end the monopolistic, anticonsumer, anticompetitive practice of ATM double charges once and for all. It is cosponsored by Senators Chafee, Dodd, Harkin, Bryan, and Moseley-Braun. The amendment corresponds to my bill, S. 885, called the Fair ATM Fees for Consumers Act, which currently has 11 cosponsors. It would amend section 903 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit ATM surcharges imposed by ATM operators directly upon noncustomers using their machines. The big banks would have you believe that if this amendment passes, ATMs are going to disappear. Absolute nonsense. Hogwash. It is simply not true. If they get rid of ATMs, then they are going to have to open up more branches and hire more people, and it is going to cost banks more money. Well, a transaction performed by a teller at a bank branch does cost more money. Let's take a look at the genesis of the ATMs. When they were initially introduced to the consumer, great promises were made. Indeed, the banking community, I believe, had the support of just about everybody, including consumer groups, when they said: Look, we're moving into the modern era and the utilization of ATMs will save consumers money, it will reduce transactional costs. Those benefits, indeed, were supposed to be passed on to the consumer. It made sense. Indeed, a network was set up--a network owned by Cirrus and Plus, really owned by the large money center banks. Interestingly, in order to induce others who may have started rival networks, they said: Don't worry, use our network, use the ATMs that we establish, because we will prohibit a double charge, a surcharge on top of an initial fee. So, therefore, those who might go into competition, such as the credit unions, the small community banks, and others, do not have to go through the cost and expense of setting up your own ATMs, because we will let your customers use our ATMs without any additional charge. Indeed, up until April 1, 1996, the networks prohibited double charges. That was a self-imposition to see to it that all of the financial services that were offered in the banking community would be available, there would be one charge that the consumer's own bank could impose and pass along the money to the ATM operator. The bank would be compensated, but there would not be any additional charge for those who used an ATM that was not their bank's. Let me say that the Congressional Budget Office reported that there were more than 122,000 ATMs in the United States before double charges were permitted nationwide. So this rubric, this nonsense, this incredible claim that, ``Oh, we are concerned about consumers and their choices, and we're concerned that they won't have these ATMs,'' that is just a lot of nonsense. Look at the facts--122,000 of the existing ATMs, or 74 percent, were in place before double charges. Now, at last count, there were 165,000 ATMs. So in the past 2 years, you have had approximately 43,000 new machines come into use. That means that 74 percent--three-quarters of all the ATMs in the United States--were in place before they were allowed to double charge. Now, under the amendment, which has been cosponsored by many of my colleagues, ATMs would still be profitable. They have been raking in huge profits. The banks were saving money because they saved a dollar for each transaction performed at an ATM rather than at a bank branch--and they made a profit on the use of the ATMs. But they weren't satisfied with that. Oh, no. They had to say that: On top of that, we are now going to add another charge. Guess what we are going to tell the consumer? A little flag goes up and says you will pay $1.25 more. What is a person who, at lunchtime, has to take out $20, $30, or $40 supposed to do? Go running around looking for an ATM that doesn't have a double charge? No. The people are stuck. They are running late, or maybe it is getting dark. Are you going to go searching for an ATM that doesn't have that little flag going up? Or are they going to look for one that doesn't exist, because their bank, under the inducement years ago that they need not participate and open up their own ATMs, they said, ``We will rely on the network rather than try to find that mythical one''? If you tried to find one in Washington, DC, you would not find one. Ninety percent of them in this region double charge. If you don't go to the institution where you do your banking, you are going to get whacked. This whacking costs the American people more than $3 billion more--$3 billion. The average family that uses another bank's ATM six times a month is going to pay about $200 a year more. Do you know who it hurts? It hurts the little guy. It hurts the person who draws out that $30, $40 or $50, because the surcharge, which averages about $1.27, is paid in addition to the initial charge. Consumer groups have estimated the two charges average about $2.68 together. Here is somebody trying to get out their $20 or $30 or $40--a senior citizen, a college student--and there is a $2.68 charge. That is a lot of money coming from the little guy. That is a heck of an interest rate. Years ago that would be called ``usury''--usury to get your own money. That is really incredible. That is why we have come forth with this amendment. Some people say, ``Why are you getting into the private sector?'' I will tell you why. What you have today is anticompetitive. Banks say consumers always have a choice to use an ATM that does not double charge. That is a joke. Seventy-nine percent of the ATMs are now double charging. I predict that by the end of the year that number will be over 90 percent. This is a situation where the consumer has little, if any, choice. Many of my colleagues have said to me, ``What is the big deal? It is only a couple of dollars.'' It may not be a big deal to us to pay an extra $3 when you are taking out $100 or $200. But it is a very big deal to senior citizens, to students and to working families who take out $20, $30 or $40 at a time. ATM surcharges account for more than $3 billion a year. The fees themselves are skyrocketing out of control. The most common surcharge has increased from $1 to $1.50. That is right, when they introduced it, it started at $1. It is now $1.50. Forty-four percent of the ATMs charge $1.50 or more. It is going to go higher and higher unless Congress acts to stop it now. Keep in mind that this is a charge on top of a fee that the consumer is already paying to his or her own bank. It is a hidden bank fee. But they are paying. A recent U.S. PIRG survey found that 83 percent of the banks charge their own customers an average of $1.18 per transaction whenever they use another ATM. When you add the most common charge to the average fee, that is $2.68. That is about $200 a year for a family that uses an ATM six times a month. That is outrageous. Several States, including Connecticut--the State of my colleague, Senator Dodd--Iowa, and Massachusetts are waging battles to ban double charges at the State level. But there is a question as to whether these measures would apply to federally chartered banks. That is why Congress has to act. It has to act in order to preserve competition--in order to see to it that this monopolistic practice does not deprive people of real choice. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will look to help the little guy. This is an opportunity to give them the protection they so desperately need. I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, may I inquire of the manager, does he intend to make a motion to table now? And then we will lay that aside and we can ask for the yeas and nays now? Would that save time?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I commend both my colleague from Connecticut and Senator Bryan from Nevada for their thoughtful presentations. I tell you, when I look at the ATM cartoon over there, that Senator Bryan has put up, it is interesting because that is exactly what is taking place, particularly to so many young people who don't have a choice, to the student who is at his college campus and there are only one or two of those ATMs around and everyone of them is double charging. It is excessive--to think they are paying $2.68 to take out their own money. If you are taking out $30 or $40 at a time, as many of the young people are, and many of our senior citizens, that is usurious by any standard. The argument that somehow this is going to hurt competition is rather pathetic. This has really hurt the small banks, the credit unions, because they were deceived into not getting into competition while a huge network was built; 122,000 out of the 165,000 machines were installed well before the double charges. Let's take a look and see. Since the double charges, in the past 2 years, have been imposed--17 percent double charged going into 1996. The next year, it jumped to 59 percent. And the following year, 79--79 percent of all of the ATMs are now double charging. They came into existence and were making a profit before the surcharges. This is just a way of really doing what Senator Bryan's description, the chart, showed so eloquently. You are really holding up the consumer, because it is anticompetitive, antichoice. This number, 79 percent--that is temporary. We have seen them grow. You will top out at over 90 percent by the end of next year, there is no doubt. So there is little choice. There is no reason. It is anticompetitive, antipeople, and we should have the courage to say enough is enough. Let our States determine whether or not this should be permitted. When the State of Iowa and the State of Connecticut have attempted to ban double charges, surcharges, they have not seen a diminution. But now, even their law will be threatened, and is in court, as it relates to those States that want to protect consumers. So we are whipsawing them both ways, and there is only the Federal Government that can make a difference. I hope my colleagues will join with me in voting to give people a real choice without that additional burden being placed on them. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues for permitting us the additional time to make known our thoughts and our views.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Bryan.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I do not know if there is anyone here ready to speak in opposition. I see the Senator from Alabama. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me at the outset say how tremendously proud and pleased I am that one of my great and dear friends, the Senator from Alaska, has worked so hard and so diligently to attempt to advance a cause that this Nation espouses to so many. We talk about the lack of freedom throughout the world. We talk about democracy. Indeed, it is unfortunate that there are strong forces, people who I know and who I respect, who even at this very time give lip service rather than meaningful and true support for that cause. Senator Murkowski understands that freedom and democracy are not something that just should be for some, but should be for all, and that the right of self-determination is an inalienable God-given right. It is one that this country is founded on. People have paid the greatest price and sacrifice with their life, jeopardizing their families, in the fight for freedom and democracy. I have to tell Members that it is more than imperative, it is a moral necessity, that we strongly encourage the process of self-determination for 4 million Americans, U.S. citizens who live in Puerto Rico, that they should determine by what rules and what form of government they should live. We have for years talked about the lack of democracy in all areas of the world. We talk about it in China, Korea, here, there. We should be ashamed that it has taken us so long to come forth with a rather simple resolution, and that it has taken such an incredible effort by the Senator from Alaska and others, to bring us to this point. This is a pittance in comparison to those who have bled, who have sacrificed for democracy, for self-determination. I hope we understand that we want to encourage people, saying the right to vote, the right to determine one's own destiny, is inalienable. I would like to have a recorded vote. I would like for us to say: We are going to recognize your hopes and your aspirations and your dreams. It is my hope that the people vote for statehood. But that is their right. They may determine that they want to continue the present situation, but they should have that inalienable right, and we should say to them that we are ready and willing to recognize your choice, your decision, as free men and women, and, yes, that we would be willing and ready to undertake supporting that decision because we respect the inalienable rights of people to make their own determination. As we mark the 100th anniversary of Puerto Rico becoming a part of the United States, I think it is important to recognize that their sons and daughters have made the supreme sacrifice. They have answered the call of duty. They have been there. And now it is time for us to say: You can be a part of this great Nation, not just as citizens, but as a State, if you choose, if you determine, and then send your response to us. There are those who say it doesn't matter. Well, it does matter, and it is bigger than partisan politics. It is bigger than Republicans and Democrats. I believe that in the fullness of time what an incredible beacon a 51st State might be. But that is for the people of Puerto Rico to determine. What an example to all of Central America and South America, in terms of sharing our cultures, our values, with this island as part of this great Nation. Certainly at the very least, the people of Puerto Rico, our citizens, should have that right which we declare day in and day out is inalienable for people throughout the country, for all corners of the world. I congratulate my friends who have brought it to this point, and the Senate majority leader, and Senator Torricelli for his unwavering support of that commitment to justice, to democracy, to self- determination. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. No more than 5 minutes.