S314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 12, 2009 

My bill has broad, local support, including from the California Coastal 

Commission, the California State 

Lands Commission, the Counties of 

Sonoma, Marin, and Mendocino, and 

the cities in the expansion region. It is 

also supported by fishermen, including 

the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, by far the largest 

and most active association of commercial fishermen on the West Coast. 

Fishermen recognize the urgency of 

passing this legislation to preserve the 

water quality and habitat essential for 

good fishing. 

My bill will help preserve an incomparable gem of an ecosystem. I look 

forward to working with my colleagues 

to move this important legislation. 

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and 

Ms. SNOWE): 

S. 213. A bill to amend title 49, 

United States Code, to ensure air passengers have access to necessary services while on a grounded air carrier, 

and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation. 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I 

am pleased to re-introduce the Airline 

Passenger Bill of Rights Act, a critical 

piece of airline passenger safety legislation. 

Anyone who has traveled recently 

recognizes that the delays travelers are 

encountering at airports are a national 

problem that needs our immediate attention. 

Americans are all too familiar with 

the numerous horror stories of passengers trapped in airplanes sitting on 

runways for sometimes as much as 11 

hours without adequate food or water, 

overflowing restrooms, and no opportunity to deplane. 

The delays continue. On the Sunday 

before Christmas 2008, more than 250 

passengers on a Continental Airlines 

flight from Houston to Boston were diverted to Bangor, ME, where they 

spent about 6 hours idling on the 

tarmac before they were told that they 

were going to deplane for the night and 

would have to find shelter and transportation on their own. 

When these passengers returned the 

next day for their trip home, not only 

was their flight delayed 5 hours but 

they also spent another 2 hours idling 

on the tarmac before finally flying to 

Boston. 

In 1999, the airlines had an opportunity to address the stranding of airline passengers on tarmacs across the 

country, but despite those efforts little 

has changed. 

Last March a Federal appeals court 

ruling struck down New York State’s 

Passenger Bill of Rights law, stating 

that it is up to the Congress to set a 

national Federal standard. 

To meet this immediate need for 

Federal legislation, I am re-introducing the Airline Passenger Bill of 

Rights Act, along with Senator SNOWE, 

to give airline passengers basic protections when they are facing these delays 

and disruptions in their travel. 

This legislation requires airlines to 

give passengers adequate food, water, 

facilities, and medical attention when 

planes are delayed on the tarmac. 

In addition, the bill requires each air 

carrier to develop an emergency contingency plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Transportation (DOT) that identifies a clear 

timeframe to allow passengers to 

deplane if they choose and if the pilot 

deems it safe. 

Airlines will need to give passengers 

the option of deplaning every 3 hours, 

with exceptions to maintain passenger 

safety and airport efficiency. 

Our legislation also includes a few 

additional provisions from the FAA Reauthorization bill passed by the House 

in the last Congress. Our bill requires 

airports to develop plans to handle 

stranded passenger aircraft and creates 

a DOT hotline for consumer complaints. It would also permit the DOT 

to levy fines against air carriers or airports that do not submit or adhere to 

the contingency plans. 

The European Union enacted a Passenger Bill of Rights in 2005 and Canada passed similar legislation last 

year. It is time for the United States to 

step up and make a serious commitment to the millions of Americans that 

rely on safe and effective air travel. 

As the number of airline passengers 

is expected to increase to 1.3 billion by 

2025, we can’t afford a ‘‘business as 

usual’’ attitude when it comes to passenger safety and efficiency at our nation’s busiest airports. 

Consumers deserve access to food, 

water, and medical attention when 

stranded on an aircraft tarmac due to 

delays. Congress has the ability to ensure airline passengers’ fundamental 

rights are protected by enacting our 

Passenger Bill of Rights legislation. 

I look forward to working with my 

colleagues to pass this legislation in 

this Congress. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I come to 

the Senate floor today on behalf of the 

millions of travelers throughout this 

country. Before I begin, I would like to 

take this opportunity to thank Senator 

BOXER for being such a fantastic partner in this effort; an effort that sets 

aside partisanship to protect America’s 

traveling public. Her aggressive, heartfelt leadership on this issue has been so 

essential in moving this legislation forward and keeping it at the forefront of 

the public consciousness. 

To my regret, each one of us is far 

too familiar with horror stories of passengers stranded on airplanes for hours 

at a time with no access to food, water 

or even functional restrooms. Events 

like the unconscionable delays at JFK 

Airport in New York in February of 

2007 are the most commonly referenced, but these sorts of events are 

occurring on a daily basis. Such dramatic incidents prompted calls for congressional action. That call was heard, 

and its answer is this Passenger Bill of 

Rights before us today. But as time 

went on, and this legislation before us 

today languished, the chorus for 

change grew quiet. The reasons why we 

first proposed the Passenger Bill of 

Rights have not dissipated; in fact, 

they have only increased. 

The 2008 Air Quality Rating report, 

which quantifies the performances of 

the various airlines when it comes to 

customer service, indicated it was ‘‘the 

worst year for airlines Ever.’’ Delays 

continue to escalate. In fact, despite 

nearly a 10 percent reduction in capacity last year, delays actually climbed 

to a record high; an average of nearly 

an hour per delay. 

At a time when airlines are grounding flights without notice and passengers face interminable waits in aircraft and on tarmacs with little or no 

idea as to when they might depart, 

there are no safeguards in place to protect the rights of America’s travelers— 

the time is now for Congress to do the 

right thing and finally stand with 

America’s passengers. The Federal 

court system agrees with us; in voiding 

New York State’s own Passenger Bill 

of Rights, the Second United States 

Court of Appeals decision indicated 

that such a Bill of Rights required ‘‘a 

Federal standard.’’ The airlines declared victory as the New York law was 

overturned; according to the airlines, 

it would herald a jumble of changing 

regulations among different states, 

making it too difficult to navigate. 

However, when presented with the option of having a national standard by 

Senator BOXER and myself, they opposed that proposal as well. It seems 

the airlines want carte blanche to treat 

passengers as they wish, with no recourse for that individual. It is clear, 

Congress must take this matter in 

hand. 

Simply put, Congress has run out of 

excuses. The courts have definitively 

ruled that this is the Federal Government’s responsibility. We have not just 

a right, but a responsibility to the 

American people to ensure that there 

is some level of accountability, some 

minimum standard. If a patron visits a 

restaurant that does not offer some 

modicum of working restrooms or provide adequate food and water, that customer can leave the restaurant and 

find another. For the airline passenger, 

that is not an option. They are trapped 

at the mercy of the airline; airlines 

whose only concern is the bottom line 

and getting that aircraft off the 

ground, however long that might take. 

Waiting for the airlines to alter their 

customer service model isn’t going to 

work. Thanks to Congressional prodding, the airlines put into place their 

voluntary Customer Service Agreement in 1999. They have had almost a 

decade to follow through with establishing some basic commitment to customer service and failed miserably. 

That is not my conclusion; the Inspector General of the Department of 

Transportation agreed with that assessment. It is clear that after years of 

refusing to adopt a commitment to 

provide customer service to the American people, the airline industry will 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S315 

not take action unless Congress requires them to do so. This time, Congress needs to show it is serious about 

protecting passengers. 

By our actions, we can show the 

American people that we are on their 

side and are working to protect their 

interests. Never again, should a family 

be forced to sit on a tarmac for 10 

hours, deprived of the most basic of necessities. Canada was able to pass their 

passenger bill of rights legislation, so 

if Canada can do it, then there is no 

reason that Congress cannot do the 

same. By acting swiftly, and with resolve, we can take up and pass an FAA 

Reauthorization that includes the Passenger Bill of Rights, we can restore 

America’s trust in our airlines and 

guarantee them a standard of service 

we should all be entitled to. 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. 

LEAHY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. 

CARDIN): 

S. 214. A bill to amend title XXI of 

the Social Security Act to permit 

qualifying States to use their allotments under the State Children’s 

Health Insurance Program for any fiscal year for certain Medicaid expenditures; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise 

with co-sponsors Senators LEAHY, 

LIEBERMAN, and CARDIN to introduce 

and ask your support for the Children’s 

Health Equity and Technical Amendment Act. 

Since the passage of the Children’s 

Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, 

in 1997, a group of States that expanded 

coverage to children in Medicaid prior 

to the enactment of SCHIP has been 

unfairly penalized for that expansion. 

States are not allowed to use the enhanced matching rate available to 

other States for children at similar 

levels of poverty under the act. As a result, a child in the States of New York, 

Florida, and Pennsylvania, because 

they were grandfathered in the original 

act or in Iowa, Montana, or a number 

of other States at 134 percent of poverty is eligible for an enhanced matching rate in SCHIP but that has not 

been the case for States such as New 

Mexico, Vermont, Washington, Rhode 

Island, Hawaii, and a number of others, 

including Connecticut, Tennessee, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and 

Maryland. 

As the health policy statement by 

the National Governors’ Association 

reads, ‘‘The Governors believe that it is 

critical that innovative states not be 

penalized for having expanded coverage 

to children before the enactment of 

SCHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, 

the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that 

had already significantly expanded 

coverage of the majority of uninsured 

children in their states.’’ 

For 6 years, our group of States has 

sought to have this inequity addressed. 

Early in 2003, I introduced the Children’s Health Equity Act of 2003 with 

Senators Jeffords, MURRAY, LEAHY, and 

Ms. CANTWELL and we worked successfully to get a compromise worked out 

for inclusion in S. 312 by Senators 

ROCKEFELLER and Chafee. This compromise extended expiring SCHIP allotments only for fiscal years 1998 

through 2001 in order to meet budgetary caps. 

The compromise allowed States to be 

able to use up to 20 percent of our 

State’s SCHIP allotments to pay for 

Medicaid eligible children at 150 percent of poverty that were part of our 

State’s expansions prior to the enactment of SCHIP. That language was 

maintained in conference and included 

in H.R. 2854 that was signed by the 

President as Public Law 108–74. Unfortunately, a slight change was made in 

the conference language that excluded 

New Mexico and Hawaii, Maryland, and 

Rhode Island and needed specific 

changes so an additional bill was 

passed, H.R. 3288, and signed into law 

as Public Law 108–107, on November 17, 

2003. This second bill included language 

from legislation that I introduced with 

Senator Domenici, S. 1547, to address 

the problem caused to New Mexico by 

the conference committee’s change. 

Unfortunately, one major problem with 

the compromise was that it must be periodically reauthorized. Most recently, 

this authority was renewed through 

fiscal year 2007 in Section 201(b) of the 

National Institutes of Health Reform 

Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109–482. Without future authority, the inequity 

would continue with SCHIP allotments. 

This legislation would address that 

problem and ensure that all future allotments give these 11 States the flexibility to use our SCHIP allotments to 

pay for health care services of children. 

In order to bring these requirements 

in-line with those of other States, it 

would also lower the threshold at 

which New Mexico and other effected 

States could utilize the funds from 150 

percent of the Federal poverty level to 

125 percent. 

There is strong bipartisan support for 

addressing this inequity. Legislation 

was introduced in the 110th Congress in 

both H.R. 3584 by Republican Representative BARTON, and 141 co-sponsors, and S. 2086 by Senator Trent Lott 

and other Republican leadership to expand the category of children eligible 

through this correction to 133 percent 

of the Federal poverty level. 

This rather technical issue has real 

and negative consequences in States 

such as New Mexico. In fact, due to the 

SCHIP inequity, New Mexico has been 

allocated $266 million from SCHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and 

yet, has only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of last 

fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico 

has been allowed to spend less than 10 

percent of its Federal SCHIP allocations. 

This legislation would correct this 

problem. 

The bill does not take money from 

other States’ SCHIP allotments. It 

simply allows our States to spend our 

States’ specific SCHIP allotments from 

the Federal Government on our uninsured children—just as other States 

across the country are doing. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 214 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Children’s 

Health Equity Technical Amendments Act of 

2009’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO 

USE CHIP ALLOTMENT FOR ANY FISCAL YEAR FOR CERTAIN MEDICAID 

EXPENDITURES. 

(a) ELIMINATION OF FISCAL YEAR AND PERCENTAGE LIMITATIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 2105(g)(1)(A) of 

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1397ee(g)(1)(A)), as amended by section 

201(b)(1) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and 

SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 

110–173), is amended by striking ‘‘not more 

than 20 percent of any allotment under section 2104 for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 

2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘a fiscal year allotment under section 

2104’’. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Effective as 

if included in the enactment of section 201(b) 

of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–173), paragraph (2) of that section is repealed. 

(b) MODIFICATION OF ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURES.—Section 2105(g)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by 

striking ‘‘150’’ and inserting ‘‘125’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply to expenditures 

made on or after that date. 

f 

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS 

SENATE RESOLUTION 12—TO 

AMEND THE STANDING RULES 

OF THE SENATE TO PROHIBIT 

FILLING THE TREE 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. 

COBURN, and Mr. ALEXANDER) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on 

Rules and Administration: 

S. RES. 12 

Resolved, That (a) rule XV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘6. Notwithstanding action on a first degree amendment, it shall not be in order for 

a Senator to offer a second degree amendment to his or her own first degree amendment.’’. 

(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall take effect at the beginning of the 

111th Congress. 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have 

sought recognition today in order to 

reintroduce a resolution I first put forward in the 110th Congress that would 

prohibit the use of the procedural tactic of filling the tree. I feel strongly 

that this practice contributed greatly 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE