[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 3 (Thursday, January 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S117-S120]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
US AIRWAYS
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that
is of acute importance to my State, the State of Pennsylvania, and, I
argue, to the traveling public throughout the east coast, in
particular. That is the situation of US Airways and the problem that US
Airways is encountering in reorganizing the company and trying to get
the government loan provided here by legislation enacted after
September 11. The Air Transportation Stabilization Board has set forth
criteria that US Airways must meet in order to secure that loan and
continue to operate. They are under a relatively tight timeframe and
have to go to court next Thursday, I believe, to get the reorganization
plan approved.
There are several issues out there, but the most important and major
issue is the issue of the pension plan that US Airways has and the
expense associated with that, and in particular, the pilots' plan. US
Airways has been working now for a better part of a year to work with
the union and within its management to find cost savings, money
dictated by the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, and they have
done an excellent job. I will say that the US Airways unions have done
an outstanding job in working with management to try to get the company
to be an efficient and lower cost airline to survive in these very
difficult times in the airline industry.
One of the most important aspects of the reorganization, as I
mentioned before, was the rather significant pension liability and, in
particular, because of the higher salaries of pilots, the pilot pension
program. US Airways has been negotiating with the pilots now for quite
some time, and within the last month or so came up with an agreement to
restructure the plan--in fact, to terminate the plan and then restart
the plan--with a different benefit structure and having the cost of
those benefits amortized over a 30-year period.
They went to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the government
agency that oversees the pension plans and guarantees those plans, and
asked for an approval to terminate and restart the plan with a 30-year
amortization. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation informed the
company and union they believed they had no legal authority. Any time
you get two lawyers in a room you have five opinions; but in this case,
some lawyers on both sides suggested there was, and some suggesting
there was not, legal authority to terminate and restart.
I will say, for the purpose of the taxpayers, had the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation decided to accept the US Airways pilots' union
plan, there would have been no liability to the PBGC, and no cost
associated with it. The airline would have terminated the plan but
maintained all the liability and simply amortized that cost over a 30-
year period. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation proposed in the
alternative that they terminate the plan; PBGC take over the
responsibility for that plan; and US Airways move forward without a
pilot pension plan.
Such a plan, which I think you could make the argument, would be to
the financial benefit of US Airways and the management because they
would be released of this rather significant, roughly $3 billion,
obligation of paying pilot pensions. But, US Airways management,
working together with their unions in a great spirit of cooperation,
did not want to have their pilot pensions reduced in the area of 75
percent. That would be the result of a takeover by the PBGC. So they
have pled with the PBGC to approve their plan which would result in,
again, a drastic reduction in the benefits of the pilots, but not as
draconian as the PBGC change.
Having said all that, they have been back and forth and back and
forth and we are now at a point where there does not seem to be any
hope for an agreement. We have been working together, myself and
Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Senator Dole, be added as a
cosponsor to S. 119--the bill I will call up in a minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. We have been working together, the Senators from North
Carolina, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and
Virginia--Senator Warner is a sponsor of this resolution--to see what
we can do to be helpful in this process. The problem is, candidly, that
this plan has to be filed by next Thursday, a week from today. So the
PBGC says they do not have the legal authority to approve the US
Airways plan.
So the only way to get around that problem is for Congress to act to
amend the law, pension law, and allow for this agreement that US
Airways and the pilots union have agreed to, to be a valid change in
plan under the pension laws of this country.
So, I, in just a few minutes, am going to ask unanimous consent that
we bring up this legislation and that we debate it on the floor of the
Senate and pass this legislation today. I understand this is an
extraordinary thing to ask. I know the Chairman of the Finance
Committee is here, as well as the former Chairman of the Finance
Committee and now ranking member. They have been working diligently
trying to deal with this very complex issue. I understand there are a
lot of companies who are in similar circumstances as US Airways. But
this is a dire situation.
This is the largest carrier on the east coast. This is probably the
airline, I would argue, most affected by September 11. It was not one
of the airlines targeted by the terrorists on September 11 but, as
everybody knows, it is the dominant carrier in the cities that were
affected by the terrorist incidents. So, in particular, Reagan National
Airport, which was closed for a long period of time, is the most
profitable hub of US Airways. So it was dramatically impacted by
Government action of shutting down airports, not just by the reduction
in the air trafficking that was going on in the country, and the
traveling, but by Government action actually shutting down the
facility.
So I think we have a special obligation as a result of that to help
this particular airline because it was, again, arguably, most affected
by what happened.
I understand that this is, as we term it here in the Senate, a
rifleshot. And rifleshots are not looked upon kindly by the Finance
Committee and by this institution. But I would certainly make the
argument that, if a rifleshot were ever warranted, this is a rifleshot
that certainly deserves to hit the target.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee
be discharged from further consideration of S. 119; that the Senate
then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read
three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask my colleague to withhold the
request until I have had a chance to make a brief statement.
Mr. SANTORUM. I withhold my request until the Senator from
Pennsylvania speaks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withheld.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I sought recognition to join my
distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, in the presentation of this
matter which is of great importance, not only to Pennsylvania, but
great importance to the country.
The US Airways system is the sixth-largest carrier in the United
States. It provides service on a national and international basis. As a
result of the problems of September 11, US Airways has had considerable
financial problems and has moved forward to get a loan guarantee from
the Federal Government, $1 billion, and to accomplish that there have
been major concessions made by labor and major concessions made by
suppliers to enable the airline to chart a course for the future on
which they can succeed.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has interpreted the law to
say
[[Page S118]]
that they are not in a position to accept the termination of a plan and
the reinstatement unless there is a legislative change. If the bill,
which Senator Santorum, Senator Dole and I are proposing, is not
enacted, airline pilots will have a drastic reduction in their pension
benefits, and the taxpayers will have all of the obligations thrust
upon the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation so that the taxpayers
will be hurt and the pilots will be hurt and, ultimately, consumers of
airline travel will be hurt.
The legislation which we have proposed would authorize the PBGC to
have a discontinuance of the plan and then to have a reinstatement of
the plan. I think it is preeminently sensible.
I am not unaware of the prerogatives of the Finance Committee and
their guardianship of the law generally, and I do not subscribe to
rifleshot, buckshot--any shot. This is a proposal that makes sense. If
other companies come in and can make a similar presentation, that makes
sense, too.
So it is my hope that we will be able to consider this bill on the
merits. We are not too busy to take a little time of the Senate having
a discussion of the bill. It cannot be considered without a unanimous
consent agreement. But, if the unanimous consent agreement were entered
into, we could have debate.
If the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Montana disagree with
the substance of the bill, I can understand that. We can debate it, it
can be considered, and we can vote on it. But this is one of those
situations where I think a little extra consideration is in line.
If the unanimous consent request is granted, then we can have debate
on the merits, and I will go into these issues in some greater detail
for the edification of my colleagues whom I hope will have a chance to
vote on this matter.
I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for yielding and for
withholding the unanimous consent request.
I have sought recognition today to join my colleague Senator Santorum
in introducing legislation that would benefit American taxpayers by
saving them hundreds of millions of dollars in potential Federal
pension liabilities as well as protecting pension benefits of US
Airways pilots. Senator Santorum and I believe this legislation is a
win-win proposition that benefits all parties involved, and it is good
policy that the American consumer will benefit from as well.
Sound transportation infrastructure is the backbone of a healthy and
vibrant economy. The airline industry continues to struggle in the wake
of the events of September 11. Though passengers are returning, the
industry is still operating at well below historic levels, and this is
obviously affecting the industry's profitability.
US Airways, the Nation's sixth-largest air carrier, has been
particularly hard hit, filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on
August 11, 2002, and laying off over 13,000 employees since. One unique
challenge faced by this airline is the fact that it has historically
had a large and lucrative operation at Washington's Ronald Reagan
National Airport, and so long as operations from this airport were
constrained due to post-September 11 security considerations, US
Airways was losing a significant portion of its revenues.
US Airways is now in the final stage of obtaining approval for a $1
billion loan guarantee from the Air Transportation Stabilization Board,
ATSB. I have been assured that this loan guarantee will enable US
Airways to emerge successfully from chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings
and again vie successfully for passengers in the international market.
But before this can happen, US Airways needs to restructure its
pension obligations, which are backed by the Federal Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, and, ultimately, the American taxpayer. US
Airways's pension liabilities increased significantly in recent months
due to poor market performance and a 41-year low in interest rates.
Funding obligations for the pilots' pension plan is estimated to be
$575 million for 2004 and $333 million for 2005. Given its current cash
position, US Airways cannot make these payments, and, additionally, the
airline has indications from the ATSB that the ATSB will not approve
its loan considering these large obligations.
But US Airways is proposing a simple and cost-saving solution that
would essentially terminate and then restore its pilots' pension plan,
a change that would allow the airline to amortize the plan's unfunded
accrued liability and unfunded current liability in level payments over
a 30-year period. Simply put, payments that would have been made over a
5-year period would be spread out over 30 years, a schedule that would
allow US Airways to fully meet its pension obligations. This means that
the PBGC would not have to step in to cover liabilities US Airways
would not otherwise be able to meet, and the pilots are agreeable to
this proposal. This also means that US Airways would then likely have
its loan guarantee approved and thus be able to emerge from bankruptcy
protection.
The only problem is that the PBGC has determined that it does not
have the legal authority to approve such a plan. Inaction would leave
US Airways with no option but to terminate its pilots' pension plan and
regrettably transfer liability to the PBGC.
To avoid this unnecessary situation, we are proposing a legislative
clarification that would specify that the PBGC has the legal authority
to terminate and then restore US Airways's pilots' pension plan,
thereby protecting the pilots' pensions while potentially saving the
American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars annually. I want to
emphasize that this is a simple statutory clarification, a clean bill
that provides no additional benefits to US Airways and is of no cost to
the Federal Government. In fact, successful and timely passage of this
bill may very well save the U.S. Treasury billions of dollars over a
period of many years.
US Airways will present its reorganization plan before U.S.
Bankruptcy Court on January 16, 2003, prior to which it must resolve
this pensions issue. Accordingly, time is of the essence, and this
legislative fix must be signed into law prior to January 16, 2003, for
it to have any positive effect. It is thus with this sense of urgency
that Senator Santorum and I ask for the bill's immediate consideration.
I ask unanimous consent a list of facts in support of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
Facts in Support of Legislation
problem/background
US Airways is in the final stage of obtaining approval of
(1) a $1 billion loan guarantee from the Air Transportation
Stabilization Board (``ATSB''), (2) a $240 million equity
investment from the Retirement System of Alabama, and (3) a
plan of reorganization pursuant to which US Airways would
emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
On 12/20/02, US Airways filed a Plan of Reorganization and
Disclosure Statement with the bankruptcy court. A hearing is
scheduled for 01/16/03 on the adequacy of the Disclosure
Statement, and if approved, the Plan will be circulated with
voting materials to impaired creditors. It is expected that a
hearing on confirmation of the plan of reorganization will
take place in March 2003.
This progress is a direct result of unprecedented contract
modifications agreed to both during the summer and in the
last few weeks by the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (``ALPA''). These modifications will produce an
average savings of $633 million annually.
One of the remaining issues to be resolved is the
restructuring of US Airways's pension obligation, which has
increased significantly because of the poor market
performance and 41-year low interest rates. US Airways
sponsors defined benefit plans for its pilots, flight
attendants, mechanics and other employees and other
employees.
US Airways is facing estimated pension contributions of $1
billion in 2004 and $800 million in 2005 for its defined
benefit plans. The pilot plan pension funding obligation
alone is estimated to be $575 million for 2004 and $333
million for 2005. The Company can not make these payments,
given its cash position. Additionally, it has indications
from the ATSB and the ATSB will not approve its loan with
these large pension obligations. The ATSB is requiring that
US Airways develop a viable business plan for the 7-year ATSB
loan period.
The traditional funding waiver permitted under the Internal
Revenue Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
is not sufficient relief because a waiver applies only one
year at a time and the waived contribution is amortized over
only a 5-year period. A traditional waiver would actually
result in increased pension contributions, particularly in
years 2005, 2006 and 2007, which the Company cannot afford.
As of 01/01/02, the funded status (on a current liability
and market value of assets basis) of the US Airways pilot
defined benefit plan was 73.7 percent. Due to the proper
market performance and low interest rates, it is
[[Page S119]]
estimated that the funded status of the plan will drop
significantly as of 01/01/03 (based on information as of 10/
31/02) to 50.1 percent.
US Airways and ALPA reached agreement on substantial
changes to the pilots' plan that eliminate and reduce
benefits accruing on and after 01/01/03. However, US Airways
must resolve the pension funding obligations for benefits
that accrued prior to 01/01/03 in order to get final approval
for the loan guarantee and emerge from bankruptcy.
There is tremendous urgency to resolving US Airways's
pension funding liabilities, which can be achieved in a
manner that: Insures the success of US Airways'
reorganization; protects the pension benefits of US Airways'
employees and retirees, who would lose hundreds of millions
of dollars in pension benefits that are not guaranteed by the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (``PBGC'') in the event
of plan termination, and retirees, who would hundreds of
millions; protect the solvency of dollars in pension benefits
that are not guaranteed by the PBGC) in the event of plan
termination; and protects the PBGC by providing substantial
funding for a continuing plan in place of a plan termination
which leaves PBGC with billions of dollars in liabilities
that will not be recovered in the bankruptcy.
US Airways' bankruptcy filings emphasized the need to
resolve this crisis immediately by legislation, and made
clear the likely alternative was plan termination.
solution
US Airways and ALPA have requested a special funding rule
for liabilities that have accrued under the US Airways pilot
defined benefit plan as of 12/31/02. Under the proposed bill
introduced today, the US Airways pilot defined benefit plan
will be treated as if terminated and restored as of 01/01/03,
with a restoration payment schedule that amortizes the plan's
unfunded liability and unfunded current liability in level
payments of a 30-year period.
With enactment of the proposed bill, US Airways would
continue to maintain and fund the pension plans for its
pilots. US Airways would successfully restructure. US Airways
would meet all funding obligations to the pilots' plan by
making substantial level pension contributions of
approximately $150 million on average per year under the
proposed payment schedule. Additionally, with enactment of
the proposed bill, the PBGC would avoid the liability and
responsibility resulting from the termination of an
underfunded pension plan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. If my colleague would withhold his request, I would
like to speak on this issue.
I appreciate the efforts of the two Senators from Pennsylvania to
help these underfunded airline pension plans, particularly as it
relates to a company that is very important to the economy of their
State. We are also in a situation where, as far as I know, the House
Ways and Means Committee has not acted on this issue and, consequently,
even if the Senate were to pass it the measure would be subject to a
blue slip, meaning, under the Constitution, a revenue measure needs to
start in the House of Representatives. So if we took action, what would
that do? It could not become law.
The legislation the Senator has introduced would create, as a matter
of substance, perverse disincentives for all plans that paid premiums
to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The bill would permit a
single airline to avoid the pension funding rules in the Internal
Revenue Code, while every responsible plan sponsor funds its own plans.
We will need to deal with this particular problem when we deal with the
rest of the funding rules and the pension interest rate problem because
that is a very real problem and several times we have tried to address
it, just not successfully through the whole process. So we get to a
point that one set of rules for one company harms the nation's pension
laws applicable to the remaining plans.
I respectfully suggest that something this important would--surely
ought to be referred to the Finance Committee and that we should deal
with it under the regular rules of the committee, but particularly we
need a solution that would be nation-wide, not dealing with just one
company. So I express opposition to this effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request
that I stated previously.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object and I will
object, I deeply appreciate the concerns of both Senators from
Pennsylvania, the senior Senator and junior Senator, who spoke
eloquently about the problems facing those particular airlines, and I
understand that. I think every Member of this body does. The fact of
the matter is, there are other airlines, too, facing very difficult
financial problems these days. It is unfortunate but that is the fact.
I must say, too, as has the chairman of the Finance Committee, I have
not seen that proposal. All I know is what I hear on the floor now. I
think it would be inappropriate for the Senate to unanimously pass a
change in the pension laws which have not been reviewed by other
Senators, certainly not by Members of the Finance Committee.
My good friend, Senator Grassley, soon to be chairman of the Finance
Committee, makes a very good point. Even if it were passed here, we
would have to wait until some other measure passed in the body so it
could be amended and have it considered. There are a lot of reasons--
although I certainly appreciate the argument by the Senators--this is
not the appropriate time nor the appropriate way to take up this
measure.
I ask my good colleagues to work with the committee and to work with
Senator Grassley and myself over the next several days or next week--
and also with other airlines because other airlines, frankly, are hurt
by their request. I was contacted a couple hours ago by airlines that
said: Wait a minute. It may be good for them, but it is not good for
us.
We have to make sure that all airlines are treated fairly.
I very much look forward to working with my good friends from
Pennsylvania, and all Senators. But I just think because of propriety
and doing it the right way to make sure this is the right solution that
we should not take it up at this time. There may be amendments and
modifications to the provision being requested that could be quite
helpful to meet some of the objections some others might have. This is
the first time we have heard of it. I haven't seen the language. It did
not come before our committee.
I must respectfully object to the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Iowa and
Montana for their responses. I appreciate their considerations.
It would be my hope, as I said earlier, that they would recognize the
exigencies of this situation and permit us to proceed. But in light of
their statements that they intend to object, which I understand will
follow, I inquire of my colleague from Montana, who is now chairman,
and of my colleague from Iowa, who hopefully by this time tomorrow will
have the resolution passed to shift the chairmanship, whether there
might be an early hearing set in the Finance Committee.
I am in line to be chairman of the appropriations subcommittee having
jurisdiction over the Department of Labor. And Senator Harkin and I
have agreed to have a hearing on this next week. But the authorizing
committee has the paramount responsibility. There is a U.S. Bankruptcy
Court hearing on this matter on Wednesday. I do not think we have a
problem about the solvency of US Airways being involved as I thought
there might have been several weeks ago. But I think the court might be
willing to defer action which touches upon these issues if there was
knowledge that there was going to be expedited treatment.
So my question to the chairman and ranking member of the Finance
Committee is whether it might be possible to schedule a hearing yet
this month which could then be used with the court to defer action with
the possibility or prospects of some action by the Senate on this
issue, that is, US Airways, or the issue generally.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I might say to my good friends that I
think that is a good idea. The Senator has my assurance--and I know the
assurance of my colleague from Iowa--that we will look into the matter
tomorrow, say, and determine if a hearing makes sense. It could well be
a very good idea. Maybe it can be resolved in some other way without a
hearing.
But I would like to look at the issue and expeditiously, see if there
is a way to resolve this matter. It could well be that we could have a
hearing this week or sometime this month. It could be a very good idea.
We could well do that.
[[Page S120]]
But I could really answer that question a little more after I look at
the issue more and know what is involved.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might direct a question through the
Chair to the Senator from Montana, he says he may well be able to have
a hearing this month. It depends upon his analysis of the legislation
or the complexity of it. Would it be a fair statement that the
representation could be made to the court that there will be an effort
made, if possible, to have a hearing in finance this month?
Mr. BAUCUS. That is a very fair representation.
Mr. SPECTER. I think that would be a yes.
Mr. BAUCUS. That is a yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Might I ask my colleague from Iowa, who will soon waive
the gavel, if he concurs in what the Senator from Montana said?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I might modify it just a little bit, but understand
that I am making this statement not having had a chance to think deeply
on it. But it would be in relationship to the extent to which there
should be a hearing just on this one company as opposed to a hearing on
the pension problem generally and in the larger context because I did
voice in my statement to the Senate that it seems to me that we do have
to look into this area, and we have to look at it as a pension problem
in a much broader context than just one company. Obviously, in that
context, I have absolutely no opposition to looking at the problem of
one company. But I also think it ought to be looked into only in the
context of the others because of the extent to which it might lead to
other companies making the same request.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may direct a question through the
Chair to the Senator from Iowa, the substance of what I understand he
said is that if it is possible to have a hearing this month,
considering whether it be on a single company or the complexity of
taking up a broader issue, that consideration would be given to having
a hearing this month if it can be done in a practical sense.
Mr. GRASSLEY. In the context of what I stated, the answer to that is,
I would agree.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I take that also to be a yes.
I thank my colleague from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am disappointed that we were not able
to get unanimous consent. I certainly understand the position of my
colleagues from Montana and Iowa. But I just want to reemphasize that
the reason we sought to submit this extraordinary act is because of the
timing of the judicial submission a week from now. A revenue bill is
being generated in the House. As an old House Ways and Means Committee
member, I was very jealous of that prerogative and wanted to make sure
that we enforced it with regularity if the Senate got out of
constitutional control. I thought it could act on these things
unilaterally. But, again, I think there is a certain support on the
Ways and Means Committee for dealing with this issue. The request of
the Senator from Pennsylvania, hopefully, will not only be one
communicated to the Finance Committee but also would be communicated to
the Ways and Means Committee in the House to seriously look into this.
I know many of my colleagues from Pennsylvania and other Congressmen
from other states are going to be adversely affected--potentially
affected--by what happens next Thursday. I hope a request will be made
to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to take a very
significant look at this. I hope they will be moved to act in a way
that would be beneficial to this situation, and again other situations
around the country of pensions failing.
But the point I want to reiterate is if this legislation were passed
there would be no cost to the Federal Government by picking up the
pensions of the pilots and others in the union of US Airways. Without
this legislation, the cost to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
and, therefore, to the taxpayers of the United States would be about $3
billion. So this is a measure that will save $3 billion over a set
number of years. That is not pocket change, even in Washington, DC.
I think there has been an attempt to try to address this issue in a
way that does not--as the Senator from Iowa said--create an incentive
for companies not to fund their legal obligation. I don't think this
narrow provision is an incentive for any other corporation to not do
what is required of them under the pension laws. But what we have is an
extraordinary case where union and management come together to
dramatically reduce the benefits of the pilots. And I underscore the
words ``dramatically reduce'' the benefits to the pilots. The pilots
signed off on it. They have signed off on this as a way for the company
to continue to operate. It will save the taxpayers money, and it will
save these airlines and all of the employers--as well as the traveling
public in the Northeast and throughout the eastern part of the United
States.
I think this is a narrow exception. I think this is a special
circumstance. Whether we can effectually change something that would
allow the kind of flexibility under very stringent rules--I would agree
with the Senator from Iowa. It allows the flexibility of the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation to look at the unique circumstances of
these petitions of companies and unions.
I just remind everyone, this is not the management going in
unilaterally saying: We are going to cut benefits and restructure the
program. This is the union and the management saying: This is what we
want to do. This is a very rare circumstance, indeed. So I do think we
have unique circumstances.
Again, I understand the precedent that this sets, but I am hopeful we
can work out a change in the law that will give the PBGC the
flexibility to look at these unique circumstances, and unique
circumstances in the future with respect to other companies, to come up
with a solution that is best for the taxpayer as well as best for the
companies and unions involved in these very difficult times.
Mr. President, with that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I can proceed as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah.
____________________