Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. Amendments Nos. 1625 And 1626, As Modified Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in the second proviso of each of my two amendments, the words ``It is the sense of the Senate'' be inserted.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WYDEN. I understand I have about 10 minutes remaining. Would my good friend from Montana like 3 or 4 minutes?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, these two amendments are essential to begin to ensure that passengers in this country get a fair shake with respect to airline service. We have seen in recent months that the airline industry is going to great lengths with their so-called customer service pledge to try, through a series of voluntary promises, to show to the American people that they are really committed to improving airline service. The fact is, Mr. President and colleagues, two studies that have just come out demonstrate that these voluntary promises by the airline industry really are not worth much more than the paper on which they are written. So I am very pleased to come to the floor of the Senate today with my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Shelby, and the ranking minority member, Senator Lautenberg, to make it very clear that in two key areas--overbooking and making sure that passengers can be informed of the lowest fare available--the inspector general will be directed to investigate promptly when in fact consumers are ripped off in those areas. Let me touch specifically on both of those provisions. The first deals with the overbooking issue. In addition to my friend from Alabama, the chairman of the subcommittee, I am very pleased Senator Campbell has joined us in this effort, as well as Senator Feingold from this side of the aisle. It is truly bipartisan. The reason it is needed is that if this morning you call an airline and inquire about purchasing a ticket on a flight and they are overbooked, that airline does not have to tell you they are overbooked before they take your money. We do not think that is right. We think the public has the right to know. Certainly the airline ought to be in a position to sell you a ticket even if they are overbooked, but it ought to be the consumer's right to have that information before they actually put their money down. So the first proposal we are offering today makes sure that consumers will be informed in these instances of overbooking. The second amendment we are offering deals with making sure that passengers can be adequately informed of the lowest fare available on flights. Finding the lowest airfare is one of the great mysteries of Western life. Today on any given flight, there may be as many different fares as there are passengers on the plane. So with respect to this matter of making sure the passengers can be informed of the lowest fare available, I offer a second amendment, again with the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Shelby, and the ranking minority member, Senator Lautenberg, to make sure that passengers will be in a position to be informed of the lowest fares. Some airlines right now are giving customers with computers a price break just because they have a computer to access the web site. We have all heard about the digital divide. In fact, some folks have the technology; others do not. The current situation penalizes the technology have-nots; they have to pay a higher fare. Of course, when the airlines have you, the customer, on the phone, they have in fact ``got you.'' You may not own a computer or have access to one. You have to pay whatever price the airline quotes you. No matter how a customer contacts an airline--at the ticket counter, over the phone, or through the airline's web site--it is the view of the sponsors of this amendment--myself, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Shelby, and the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Lautenberg--that the consumer ought to be informed. Right now, on a voluntary pledge that has been made by the airline industry, there is a lot of high-sounding rhetoric in telling customers about the lowest fare, but the harsh reality is it is essentially business as usual. In fact, I think it is worth noting the language in the pledge, as it stands today, to offer the lowest fare available. What the pledge by the airline industry stipulates today is: If a consumer uses the phone to call an airline and asks about a specific flight on a specific day in a specific class, the airline will tell you the lowest fare. That is something that they are already required to do by current regulation. Not only will they not provide you relevant information about lower fares on other flights on the same airline, they will not even tell you about lower fares that are probably on their web page. For example, a Delta agent recently quoted a consumer over the phone a round trip fare to Portland--my hometown--of $400. Five minutes later, the consumer found a price for $218 for the exact flight on Delta's web page. I do want to leave time for other colleagues to be able to speak on these amendments. Both of the amendments, it seems to me, hit critical issues with respect to disclosure to airline passengers of information that they need to make their travel choices. We are not calling for a constitutional right to a fluffy pillow on an airline flight or a jumbo bag of peanuts. We are saying the public has the right to know. We had 100,000 people bumped last year, and we are finding, in the first 6 months of this year, consumer complaints are growing at an unprecedented level with respect to airline service. Unfortunately, this voluntary pledge by the airline industry is essentially toothless. They give you three kinds of rights: First, a set of rights that you already have, and that deals with the disabled; second, rights that they are reluctant to actually write into the legalese that constitute the real contract between the consumer and the airline--these are known as contracts of carriage; and, finally, the consumers' rights that are ignored altogether. The Wyden-Shelby-Lautenberg amendments we will be voting on at 11 o'clock ensure that those rights which are being ignored altogether would be protected, that in the future consumers will be informed when a flight is overbooked. Consumers would be in a position to learn the lowest fare available, and if that is not the case, under this amendment the Department of Transportation is directed to go on out and investigate that as a deceptive trade practice, and the consumer is protected. So I will reserve the remainder of my time. We may have other colleagues who want to speak. But again, I express my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Shelby. He and Senator Lautenberg have worked very closely with us on this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. Why don't I give 3 minutes to my good friend from Montana, and then I will use my remaining time to wrap up.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I don't see any other speakers. I will be very brief in wrapping up. Again with respect to these voluntary pledges that have been made by the airline industry, I think it is worth noting exactly what the General Accounting Office said about this so-called customer service first program. The General Accounting Office found that of the 16 pledges the airline industry made in their voluntary customer first package, 3 of them are already required by Federal law, 4 of them are already required by what are known as the contracts of carriage, legal contracts, and the vast majority of them aren't written in at all. They are not written in any way with respect to key areas such as making sure consumers are adequately informed about the lowest fares, making sure customers are informed about delays, cancellations, and diversions, returning checked bags within 24 hours, credit card refunds, informing passengers about restrictions on frequent flier rules, and having customer service representatives to actually help the public. That is what the General Accounting Office said. I am very hopeful we will see some of the airlines individually go beyond what is being proposed in their voluntary package. In reading the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service reports that have come out since this voluntary agreement was entered into, anyone will see how woefully inadequate the consumer protections are for the public in this country. In fact, these contracts of carriage, which are legalese and technical lingo that spells out the contract between the consumer and the airline, the Congressional Research Service found most of the front-line airline staff didn't even know what these contracts of carriage were. The consumer would basically have to do somersaults to try to get information about them. It is largely not available, even at the ticket counter in many instances. It shows again how reluctant these airlines are, in the vast majority of instances, to truly inform the public. At the end of the day, passengers have three types of rights: Rights in effect they already have; rights that will not be spelled out in the contract; and, finally, rights that are being ignored altogether. That is why the Consumers Union today is urging the Senate to adopt these two amendments. They are on the side of the passengers. They understand the voluntary pledges that have been made by the airline industry lack teeth. They are gobbledegook. I urge my colleagues to strongly support these two amendments, agree with the Consumers Union rather than with the airline industry, and let's ensure that at a time when complaints are at a record level, which is the situation we find ourselves in today, we are making sure the passengers can get a fair shake when it comes to learning about the lowest fare available and learning about their rights when there has been an overbooking. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you. Mr. President, first, in the package of amendments with respect to overbooking and making sure the passenger has the lowest fare available, that has nothing to do with seat size. I think all of our colleagues know it. The reason the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union put on the floor for each Member of this body a strong endorsement letter for these two amendments this morning is that they think the public has a right to know this basic information. That is all these two amendments are about. The fact is that my good friend from West Virginia has a difference of opinion with respect to the airline industry voluntary pledges. I agree with the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service. They came out with reports this week that essentially showed that with respect to these voluntary industry pledges, there is no ``there'' there. These voluntary industry pledges either involve rights that the consumer already has, No. 1, rights that the airline industry is unwilling to write into the contract between the airline and the consumer, known as contracts of carriage, or rights that are essentially ignored altogether, which are overbooking. Nobody is talking about micromanagement or a constitutional right to fluffy pillows. We are talking about basic information for the public. What has happened since the voluntary industry agreement of earlier this summer is, two congressional reports have come out--a report by the Congressional Research Service and a report by the General Accounting Office. Let me read from a portion of what the General Accounting Office has said. The General Accounting Office said with respect to the key measures in the voluntary package--ensuring customer service from an airline, cosharing partners, a refund provision, a special needs provision--these are already required. The airline industry has tried, with a lot of hocus-pocus with the voluntary pledges, to convince the Congress and the American people that they really are responding substantively when in fact this is essentially old wine in new bottles. That is why this morning the Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation have put on to the desks of each Member of this body a strong endorsement letter. This is about the public's right to know, the public's right to disclosure of information in two areas: The lowest fare; second, with respect to overbooking. That is what this issue is about. Members can either be with the passengers or Members can be with the airline industry, which the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service said this week has offered voluntary pledges that are woefully deficient because they essentially do nothing other than restate current law. I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WYDEN

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.

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

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.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for an excellent statement with respect to the air traffic control system. It seems to me what the Senator from West Virginia has pointed out is that our country, to some extent, wants a 21st century air traffic control system and they want to figure out how to do it on a 19th century budget. The Senator from West Virginia, it seems to me, is saying it is time for all of us in the Congress to, in effect, put our dollars where our mouth is with respect to safety. If you are serious about improving safety, you have to fund this woefully inadequate air traffic control system. The fact of the matter is, the Senator from West Virginia has spent many years battling to strengthen the air traffic control system, as has the distinguished ranking minority member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings. I think the Senator from West Virginia has given an extremely important address this afternoon in terms of highlighting how critical it is to the safety agenda of the American people. You cannot do what is needed to improve safety for airline passengers in this country without following the recommendations of the Senator from West Virginia. I wanted him to know that his remarks were heard, and heard clearly, by this junior member of the Commerce Committee. I will wrap up this afternoon by thanking again Senator Shelby and Senator Lautenberg for their support of the two amendments I am offering that will be voted on in the morning. They are simple, straightforward amendments calling for disclosure with respect to overbooking of airline flights, making sure the passengers can actually know about the lowest fares that are available, whether it is over the telephone or on a web site. As we wrap up this afternoon, my understanding is that we will have additional time to discuss this on the floor of the Senate tomorrow morning. I am very proud to have the support of the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Shelby, and the ranking minority member, Mr. Lautenberg, on the two amendments that will come up tomorrow morning with respect to disclosure. I also thank their staffs and the staffs of the Commerce Committee, who have been working to make it possible, procedurally, for the Senate to consider these in the morning. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. I would like to take just a few minutes now to speak on behalf of the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment and try to offer up to colleagues on both sides of the aisle why Senator Bryan, Senator Fitzgerald, and I are trying to incorporate some of the important thinking that has been done by the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, as well as the work with respect to forestry done on the floor of the Senate over the last few days by Senator Robb of Virginia. It seems to me that Senator Gorton, as well as Senator Robb, are making extremely important points. What Senator Bryan, Senator Fitzgerald, and I are trying to do is build on the work done by both of our colleagues. For example, I think Senator Gorton and Senator Craig are absolutely right in terms of saying that the Forest Service has lacked direction, particularly as it relates to the Pacific Northwest. They have known at the Forest Service for many months that they had to comply with each of these survey and management requirements. The Forest Service dawdled and dragged its feet. It has been literally flailing around in the woods. I think Senator Gorton and Senator Craig have been absolutely right that there has been a lack of accountability and a lack of oversight with respect to the Forest Service. At the same time, I think Senator Robb has also been correct in terms of saying we can't just throw the environmental laws in the trash can because a Federal agency messes up. You can't just set aside the environmental laws of the United States because a Federal agency, in this case the Forest Service, has not done its job. You have to figure out a way to put this agency and this program back on track. What the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment seeks to do is to get the Forest Service on track by building on some of the important work done by Senator Gorton and Senator Craig, as well as focusing on the environmental principles pursued by Senator Robb. One of the reasons I so strongly support the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment is we have seen in past years that throwing money at the timber sale program does not make things better. Each year, since 1996, this Congress has authorized more money for the timber sale program than the administration has asked for. So we have, in effect, shoveled more money out the door for the timber sale program. The fact of the matter is, in spite of the fact the Congress keeps spending more money on the timber sale program, the problems in these rural communities, particularly the rural West --and these are economic and environmental problems--keep getting worse. So the notion that throwing money at the timber sale program is going to solve these problems is simply not correct. The Congress has continued to spend money. The problems are getting worse, both from an economic and an environmental standpoint. And that is the bottom line. So what Senator Bryan and Senator Fitzgerald and I are seeking to do is to link the money that the Forest Service needs for these important programs--not just in Oregon but across the country--to a new focus on accountability. What our legislation does is earmark resources for the important environmental work that needs to be done and at the same time places a stringent timetable on the completion of the important environmental work. So, in effect, we have a chance to do some good by getting the environmental work done while at the same time helping timber workers and environmental concerns addressed in a responsible fashion. We do direct additional funds for the survey and management program so we can have the protocols for the species that currently lack this data, but we do it in a way that brings new accountability. This is the first time on the floor of the Senate that we have tried to take this program, which has been so mismanaged by the Forest Service, and put in place some real accountability. This is not the old days of just throwing money at problems. This is a new approach, a fresh and creative approach, that Senators Bryan, Fitzgerald, and I are trying to offer which will ensure that not just in the Northwest but across the country there will be the funds that are needed for the timber sale program, but at the same time we are going to have a real process to watchdog the Forest Service to make sure they actually get the work done. With respect to the problems that have shut down the forests in the Pacific Northwest, our amendment requires that the survey and management draft, the environmental impact statement would be completed by November 15 of this year. The final version of that impact statement would be published by February 14 of 2000. So this gives us a chance, I say to my colleagues, to make sure the work that was promised actually gets done. We fund the timber sale program at the levels called for by the administration. We have a chance to learn from years past that just throwing money at the timber sale program does not solve things. I hope our colleagues will realize that this bipartisan approach is a chance to solve problems, which is vitally important to rural communities not just in the West but across the country, while at the same time honoring the important environmental obligations this Congress has set out for the Forest Service and other agencies. I do hope that however colleagues voted on the Robb amendment, whatever they think with respect to the original language proposed by Senator Gorton, they will look anew at the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment because what we are seeking to do is build on the important principles embodied behind both of those positions. My two colleagues are here from the Northwest, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gorton, and the chairman of the committee on which I serve, Senator Craig. They are absolutely right; the Forest Service has lacked direction. Under the Bryan-Fitzgerald- Wyden amendment, we put in place that direction and real accountability. For those who voted for the Robb amendment earlier, and want to make sure environmental laws are respected and honored, we keep in place the notion that you do not throw those laws into the garbage can on appropriations bills. So I am hopeful my colleagues will support this on a bipartisan basis. I particularly thank the original sponsor of the legislation, Senator Bryan. He has done yeoman work to try to put in place a bipartisan coalition. I hope this proposal will be attractive to my colleagues of both political parties. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me wrap up by saying that colleagues can see, year after year, this Congress has increased funding for the timber sale program. You can see that pattern since the late 1990s, going into this year. So all Senator Bryan, Senator Fitzgerald, and I are trying to say is that there is more to this question, practicing sustainable forestry that will be good for rural communities as relates to their economic needs and to their environmental needs--there is more to this than just throwing money at the timber sale program. If throwing money at the timber sale program was going to make things better, all of us in this body would have seen improvements over the last few years. In fact, we have seen the problems get worse. The problems have worsened in so many of these rural communities in both economics and the environment. Much has been made of comments in our newspaper, the Oregonian, because of the importance of the forest in the Pacific Northwest. The Oregonian, in their editorial pages, said: What is needed is a carefully negotiated agreement on appropriate surveys for rare species and adequate funding to do them. That is exactly what the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden package does. For the first time we link adequate funding for the timber sale program to specific requirements for accountability and oversight. Never before on the floor of the Senate have we made the judgment that is in the Bryan- Fitzgerald-Wyden package that in fact the Forest Service really has lost direction in complying with a lot of these environmental concerns. But we do not throw the environmental laws in the garbage can. Instead, we have the important effort that was launched by Senator Robb and our good friend, Senator Cleland, who is here this morning. At the same time, we agree with Senators Craig and Gorton that we do need to put this program on track. So I am very hopeful my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will see this as a practical approach, an approach that is sensitive to the economic needs of rural communities, an approach that complies with the Nation's environmental laws and at the same time allows us to be a more effective steward of resources for taxpayers in this country. This is not the end of the debate. Certainly what the Oregonian called for recently--a negotiated agreement on surveys to comply with the environmental rules and adequate funding--is going to have to be fleshed out when the House and Senate go to a conference committee. But this is the first step to a fresh approach that links adequate funding for the necessary environmental work with accountability that is long overdue at the Forest Service and a chance to meet the economic needs of the rural communities. If all that was needed was what some of my colleagues on the other side have called for, which is spending more money on the timber sale program--we would not have many of the problems we are seeing today because year after year this Congress has put more money in the timber sale program. What we need is what Senators Bryan and Fitzgerald and I have talked about on this floor, an effort to link the new focus on accountability at the Forest Service with compliance with environmental rules and sensitivity to economic concerns. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Nevada for all his effort in working with me and other colleagues from the Pacific Northwest on this issue. Folks in your part of the United States want to be sensitive to environmental values and economic needs in our communities. As a result of recent court decisions and other problems, instead of that win-win, we have essentially had a lose-lose, where we are not doing what is needed to protect environmental values; nor are we doing what is needed to protect communities--particularly rural communities--that have very legitimate economic concerns as a result of having resource-dependent economies. The Senator from Nevada has been working with us. I will begin my remarks by saying what we are trying to do in the Bryan-Fitzgerald- Wyden amendment is incorporate some of the thinking that has been behind what the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gorton, has talked about on the floor and some of what Senator Robb tried to do last week with respect to environmental values. I think if you look at the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment, you will see, to some degree, efforts to try to reconcile some of the important points that Senator Gorton has made and the important points Senator Robb has made that are brought together in our amendment so we can take advantage of an opportunity to both improve the environment and move timber more quickly from the forests to the mills. When President Clinton took office in 1993, he came to the Pacific Northwest with a promise to help resolve the battle over owls and old growth. The administration put in place the Northwest Forest Plan which promised protection for my State's ancient forests, and also sustainable forestry for a State that has long been dependent in rural communities on forestry for family wage jobs. Over the past few months, the plan, which has already been failing to deliver what it promised, threatened to come completely undone when a Federal judge ruled that the Forest Service had failed to conduct biological surveys--an obligation known as survey and management--as required under the court-approved Northwest Forest Plan. Later this week, in the Forestry Subcommittee, chaired by my friend and colleague, Senator Craig, we are going to talk about who exactly is to blame for that fiasco. But today, we in the Pacific Northwest are left with dozens of suspended timber sales as a result of the Forest Service's failure to follow through on environmental protection obligations. The Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment would earmark resources for this costly environmental work and place a stringent timetable on the completion of the surveys' environmental impact statement. Thus, by making sure these environmental surveys get done, and done quickly, we will help both the environment and timber workers do well. Building on the philosophy that we heard from Senator Gorton, that the program has not worked very well, and what we heard from Senator Robb about the importance of environmental values, what Senator Bryan, Senator Fitzgerald, and I are trying to do is incorporate some of the thinking behind both of those approaches so we can try to put this survey and management program on track but also bring to it some of the accountability that Senators Gorton and Craig are absolutely right in saying has been lacking in the past. I have shared, as I say, many of the concerns of the manager of the bill. But I don't think we can simply waive survey and management requirements altogether because what will happen is that will lead to a full employment program for lawyers if it were adopted and, even if in the short term, very serious problems because the bill would be vetoed by the President if section 329 survived conference in its present form. In August of this year, right after the first Northwest Forest Plan timber sales were enjoined, Senator Murray and I sent a letter to Under Secretary Lyons asking that the Forest Service and BLM meet with our offices to discuss how and why the survey and management requirements were stopping the Northwest Forest Timber Program and what could be done about it. Initially, in the August meeting between agency staff and the congressional staff, held both in D.C. and in my hometown of Portland, the Forest Service stated that $10 million more funding for personnel and addressing the scientific issues was necessary in order to get the survey and management program back on track. So let's be clear; the survey and management program is an unparalleled undertaking. It is going to provide new scientific protocols and data that can be useful in forests across the country. But it has to be done in a way that addresses the legitimate issues with respect to accountability that our colleague from Washington State, Senator Gorton, and Senator Craig of Idaho have addressed on this floor. So the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment directs $10 million for survey and management requirements to help the Forest Service conduct surveys on judicially stalled timber sales for species with known survey protocols. It will help the Service create protocols for the species currently lacking such data. This money starts us toward completion of the environmental scientific work that is necessary to move timber sales toward harvest. During the August meetings, the Forest Service was initially optimistic about the time it would take them to complete the environmental impact statements which they believe will answer the questions with respect to the success of the Northwest Forest Plan. At first, the Forest Service told me in a draft response to the letter Senator Murray and I sent them that the environmental impact statement, draft statement, would be completed this fall, and that the final would be ready early next year. Now the Forest Service is telling us that the draft will be available for public comment by December and perhaps the final environmental impact statement will be ready in May or June of next year. They have not given us any indication, other than overlap of this work with the holidays, why the timing of the work had to change. The Forest Service has been working on this project since 1997 and knew since 1994 that the survey and management requirement was coming down the pike. I certainly wasn't one who succeeded in getting his homework always done on time, but the Forest Service's timetable reflects extraordinarily poor planning, by any calculus. It is time for some accountability. We are going to have a chance to discuss those accountability issues later this week. I note the chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee has arrived. He knows I share many of his concerns about the lack of accountability with respect to the Forest Service on survey and management, and in other key areas. The Forest Service needs administrative deadlines to move this process along. They need to make this environmental impact statement a priority and get it done. The Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment states the survey and management draft environmental impact statement should be completed by November 15 of this year, and the final version of that impact statement should be published by February 14, 2000. Those deadlines also allow for the public a comment period required by law, plus some additional time for open and public discussion. This administration for years has been promising Congress they will get to work on the Northwest Forest Plan. The time for those empty promises is over. This administration needs some direction, and they need the extra money to achieve it. Finally, let me reiterate what I think the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment does. I say this to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It incorporates much of the important analysis done by Senator Gorton and Senator Craig with respect to why the survey and management program has not worked and why the administration has dragged its feet on it while at the same time trying to incorporate the environmental concerns Senator Robb has legitimately addressed to ensure this program gets carried out. Under the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment, we would add the money necessary to carry it out. But we would finally have some real accountability and some real deadlines to make sure these important obligations, both in terms of environmental protection and in terms of meeting economic needs of rural communities, are addressed. I hope my colleagues on both sides will support it. If we adopt this amendment, I believe the end result will be healthier forests and a healthier timber economy. I, again, thank my colleague from Nevada for all of his assistance. I know my colleagues from Idaho and Washington as members of our Senate delegation from the Northwest have strong views on this as well. The Senator from Idaho knows how much I enjoy working with him. We are getting ready to go forward with our accounting payment legislation which gives us a chance to break some gridlock in that area. I am hopeful as we go forward on this important Interior bill we can also break the gridlock with respect to survey management and have additional funds that are needed but also additional accountability. That is why I am hopeful my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, this has been an important debate-- important for the Northwest and important as it relates to the direction of the Forest Service. I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be surprised to know that I agree with a number of the things they have said about the Forest Service not knowing where they are headed. Frankly, I have made much stronger statements than that in the last few days. It is very clear in the Pacific Northwest that the Forest Service is just flailing around. The chairman of our subcommittee and I both read these Oregonian editorials talking about blame with respect to gridlock in the forests. In the Northwest, the Oregonian, our newspaper, editorialized that: Forest biologists searching for signs of the rare mosses listed above ought to look under the backsides of the federal officials managing the forest plan. That seems a relatively undisturbed habitat. I think it is fair to say that those Forest Service officials knew for years they had to go forward with survey and management in a responsible fashion and haven't done so. So I think the comments that have been made by the chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, Senator Craig, and the chairman of the full committee, with respect to the Forest Service not knowing where it is going, are ones that I largely share. But where we have a difference of opinion and where I think the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden and the substitute help to bring together colleagues on both sides of the aisle is that the history of the last few years demonstrates very clearly that just spending more money on the timber sale program doesn't help these rural communities either from an economic standpoint or from an environmental standpoint. The fact of the matter is, Madam President and colleagues, for the last several years this Congress has authorized a greater expenditure for the timber sale program than the President of the United States has called for. This Congress has appropriated more funds for the timber sale program, and the fact is the problems in many of these rural communities in the West, from an economic and environmental standpoint, are getting worse. So I think the notion that throwing more money at the timber sales program is going to address the needs of these rural communities is not borne out by the events of the last few years. What needs to be done--and what Senator Bryan and Senator Fitzgerald and I are trying to do--is to put in place a program with real accountability. My colleague from Idaho talked about the need for accountability of the Forest Service. The chairman of the full Senate Energy Committee has correctly said more emphasis needs to be placed on oversight. The fact of the matter is that under the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment, for the first time the Congress will put in place a program in the survey and management area which has essentially shut down the forests and that will have real accountability. Under our amendment, the survey and management draft environmental impact statement will have to be completed by November 15 of this year, and the final version of that impact statement would have to be published by February 14 of 2000. That is allowing for public comment. That is accountability. That is giving some direction to the Forest Service on the key issue that has in effect shut down the forests in our part of the country. So the choice is, do we do business as we have done in the past, which is to throw money, for example, at a particular program, the timber sale program, or do we try, as the Bryan-Fitzgerald-Wyden amendment does, to tie that amendment to dealing with the key concerns that have shut down our forests and put in place real accountability in the process? Beyond that, I think the only other major difference I have, as some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is that they have correctly said they don't want the courts to make forest policy. Section 329, as it stands in this bill, is a lawyer employment program. This is going to be a huge bonanza for lawyers as it stands in its present form. That is why I am hopeful that colleagues, regardless of how they feel about section 329 in its original farm, regardless of how they voted on the Robb legislation earlier, will see that the approach that Senator Bryan and Senator Fitzgerald and I are talking about tries to borrow from the philosophy of both of the approaches that have been debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I happen to agree with Senator Gorton and Senator Craig that the survey and management program has not worked. The Forest Service has dawdled. They have known what they were supposed to do for some time. We can read editorials to each other for many hours to compete for who is the toughest on the Forest Service. But the fact is they haven't known where they are going, and we are going to try to get them on track. But this amendment is the very first effort in the Senate to put them on track in a way that locks in the additional money they need with a specific timetable and a blueprint for ensuring accountability. I think for that reason it is absolutely essential that we pass it. I think it will give us an opportunity to go forward in the days ahead, which is what we are going to try to do in the oversight hearing that Chairman Craig is holding on Thursday. I am very hopeful that those Members of this body who understand how wrong it is for the courts to make forestry policy and how important it is to have a balanced approach that will tie additional funding with accountability--and a recognition that there is more to this than appropriating additional funds for the timber sale program--will support our bipartisan amendment. I gather we will not have a final vote on this amendment until tomorrow, and perhaps we will hear from some additional colleagues. But I am very hopeful, regardless of how a Member of this body voted on those Robb amendments or felt about the original section 329, the Gorton language, that they will see what Senator Bryan and Senator Fitzgerald and I are trying to do, which is pull together an approach that will give the Forest Service some direction, give them some accountability, and do it in a responsible fashion. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, for many months now the Nation's airlines have been doing their utmost to prevent the Congress from enacting meaningful customer service protections for airline travelers. The airline industry lobbyists have fanned out across the Nation's capital telling our colleagues that meaningful protections for consumers--such as the right to timely and accurate information--are going to increase the costs for airline passengers, reduce service, and to hear them tell it, it is practically going to bring about the end of Western civilization as we know it. As part of their campaign to prevent the enactment of enforceable legislation to protect the consumer, the airline industry has made a host of voluntary pledges to improve passenger service. Today, I am releasing two reports, one done by the General Accounting Office and the other done by the Congressional Research Service, that show the voluntary pledges made by the airline industry are worth little more than the paper on which they are written. Let me be specific. After evaluating the airline industry's proposals, it is clear the airline industry provides passengers rights in three categories: First, rights that they already have; second, rights that the airline industry is reluctant to write into the legalese that constitute the contract between the airline and the customer; and finally, their rights that are ignored altogether. For example, among the several rights airlines refuse to provide is disclosure about overbooking on flights. If you call an airline this afternoon and ask about a particular flight and it is overbooked, the airline is not required to tell you that before they take your money. When I and other advocates for the consumer have asked them to provide just this information--we are not calling for a constitutional right to a fluffy pillow on an airline flight but just the information about overbooking--the airline industry simply won't follow through. The fact is, the industry's voluntary pledges are gobbledygook. To determine if there was any substance to them at all, I asked the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service to compare the voluntary pledges made by the industry to the hidden but actually binding contractual rights the airline passengers have that are written into what are called contracts of carriage. The General Accounting Office found that of the 16 pledges the airline industry has made to consumers, only 4 are actually provided in the contracts of carriage. Three of them are mandated already by Federal regulation, and most of them are left out altogether, including informing the customers of the lowest fare, informing customers about delays, cancellations and diversions, returning checked bags within 24 hours, providing credit card refunds within 7 days, informing the passenger about restrictions on frequent flier rules, and assigning customer service representatives to handle complaints and other problems. Moreover, the airlines are not exactly tripping over themselves to rewrite these contracts of carriage, the actual contract that protects the consumer. When General Accounting Office officials contacted the airlines to inquire about actually putting teeth into pledge language, the officials at 10 of the major airlines said they were ``considering revisions'' to their contracts of carriage to reflect at least some of the customer service plans. Even more importantly, if the passenger wants to know what their actual contractual rights are to these key services, the airlines have made it very difficult for the consumer to find out. The Congressional Research Service points out: Frontline airline staff seems uncertain as to just what contracts of carriage are. The Service found: Even if the consumer knows that they have a right to the information, they must accurately identify the relevant provisions of the contract of carriage or take home the address or phone number, if available, of the airline's consumer affairs department, send for it, and then wait for the contract of carriage to arrive in the mail. As the Congressional Research Service puts it, with their usual diplomacy and understatement: The airlines do not appear to go out of their way to provide easy access to these contracts of carriage. I hope my colleagues will read the actual specifics included in the airlines so-called ``customer first'' pledge. What they will see is a lot of high sounding rhetoric about improving service to the passengers, but the harsh reality is, it is business as usual. Last year, there were an unprecedented number of complaints about airline service. Based on the figures I have just obtained for the first 6 months of this year, there has been another huge increase, in fact a doubling, in the number of consumer complaints about passenger service. It is easy to see why, when you examine how hedged and guarded the airline industry is with respect to actually giving consumers meaningful and timely information that will help them make their choices about travel. For example, let us look briefly at the pledge to offer the lowest fare available on airline flights. What this means is if a consumer uses the telephone to call an airline and asks about a specific flight on a specific date in a specific class, the airline will tell them the lowest fare, as they are already required to do. But not only will they not provide you relevant information about lower fares on other flights on the same airline, they won't even tell you about lower fares that are probably available on their web page. The reason why is simple: They have got you when they have you on the telephone, and they will sell you the ticket when it is an opportunity to sell it and they can make money on it. But when it is a chance to help the consumer and the consumer can get a break by knowing about other fares available on the web page, there is no disclosure The purchase of an airline ticket today in America is like virtually no other consumer choice. Unlike movie theaters that sell tickets to a movie or a sporting goods store that sells soccer balls, the airline industry provides no real assurance that you will be able to use their product as intended. Movie theaters can't cancel shows because they don't have enough people for a show, but airlines cancel flights when they don't have enough passengers. The sporting goods store can't lure you in with a pledge to give you that soccer ball at an attractive price and then give you a less desirable product at a greater cost after you get there. But the airline industry can do both of those things. They can make arbitrary cancellations. They can lure you in for a product and, after they have you, not make it available. The fact is, the airline industry is insisting they ought to be outside the basic laws that protect consumers in every other economic field from coast to coast. I conclude by saying that over the next few weeks the Congress is going to have the chance to right the wrongs spelled out by the Congressional Research Service and the General Accounting Office studies that I release today. I look forward to working with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to make sure airline passengers across this country get a fair shake. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank my colleague from Nevada.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to draw the Senate's attention to National Assisted Living Week. The National Center for Assisted Living is sponsoring National Assisted Living Week this week to highlight the significance and the hope that this type of service can provide seniors. Assisted living is a long term care alternative for seniors who need more assistance than is available in retirement communities, but do not require the heavy medical and nursing care provided by nursing facilities. Approximately one million of our nation's seniors have chosen the option of assisted living in this country. This demonstrates a tremendous desire by seniors and their families to have the kind of assistance that they need in bathing, taking medications or other activities of daily living in a setting that truly becomes their home. This year's theme of National Assisted Living Week is ``A Community of Families'' and I think that is appropriate because assisted living encourages the involvement of families in the lives of the residents of assisted living facilities, and because this option can mean so much for seniors and their families. Oregon has led our nation in pioneering the concept of assisted living and the state spends more state health dollars to provide assisted living services than any other state in our nation. Assisted living has taken different directions in different states and I believe providing these choices for consumers is important to provide security, dignity and independence for seniors. Assisted living will become even more important as an option of seniors and their families as our nation experiences the tsunami of aging baby boomers. It is important for us to continue to support options that allow seniors and their families a choice of settings in order to assure that they get the level of care that they need.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I commend the Senator from Minnesota for an excellent statement. I happen to think those statements reflect his commitment to justice, both here at home and overseas. I commend him for an excellent statement. I also, before I begin, thank my colleague, the distinguished whip from Nevada. I understand he had the time, and he was gracious enough to give me this opportunity to speak briefly. I thank my good friend from Nevada for the opportunity to speak this afternoon.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I Thank Senator Kohl. I appreciate the clarification and all his hard work on this issue of importance to cranberry growers across the country. When we go to conference on this bill, I will continue to support this amendment.