[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.

                          ____________________