Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his question. The answer is they do not have any chance of losing money unless you say the competitors of US Airways stay in flight. But that is very much in the competitive interest of the United States.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in response to the arguments raised by the Senator from Arizona, he points out the ``shalls'' in the pending amendment. But each of the ``shalls'' relate to preexisting obligations under which the PBGC can put this plan into effect. The two ``shalls'' in subsection (2)(A) say that ``the minimum funding requirements under this paragraph shall be the requirements set forth in Treasury Regulation.'' So it establishes the funding in accordance with existing regulations. What it does not say is that the PBGC has to put the plan into effect. The later provision under (B)(i) says that ``the plan shall be treated as having met the requirements of Treasury Regulation,'' and specifies the technical compliance. But it does not in any way require that the PBGC has to carry this plan forward. Let me add as cosponsors Senators Warner, Allen, Dole, Clinton, and Senator Santorum, whom I believe I should have mentioned earlier as an original cosponsor to the bill. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. They lose absolutely nothing.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is exactly correct. It is the money of US Airways paid over a longer period of time which meets the obligations to the pension. The other side of that coin is if the plan is not adopted, PBGC has to pay the pensions. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the Senator from Virginia is correct. It has never been tailored to set a precedent or open any portals for any other situation in order to eliminate or obviate the argument that others can rush in. Madam President, when I pressed the general counsel and the executive director of the PBGC for any public policy reason not to do this, they had no reason. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Kilberg's testimony be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Anyone can examine the record. There was simply no public policy reason given. When I talked about this to my colleagues, the argument has been raised, well, it is complicated. Well, we have not had hearings before the other committees. We had a very extensive hearing before the subcommittee on labor in the Appropriations Committee. I say, this is win-win-win all the way around. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, that is correct. The leader of the pilots association, the national president, testified Tuesday in favor of the plan and in favor of this legislation. The president of the pilots association of US Airways in Pittsburgh testified in favor. The president of US Airways, David Siegel, told me again today that he was very appreciative of my pushing this matter, that it would be very helpful to US Airways.

Mr. SPECTER. Would my colleague yield for a question? How much longer is he going to take?

Mr. SPECTER. Twenty seconds.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, has the time expired?

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am unable to support the amendment by my colleague, Senator Harkin, to restore $500 million in non- discretionary funding to the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program. I am unable to do so not based on my opposition to the program, but rather due to the fact that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, has outlined a separate strategy to restore this funding in conference. The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program provides funding to State and local governments to help make communities safe and improve criminal justice systems. Specifically, the Byrne Program emphasizes the reduction of violent and drug-related crimes and fosters multi jurisdictional efforts to support national drug control priorities. Byrne Program funds are awarded through both discretionary and formula grant programs. Discretionary funds are awarded directly to public and private agencies and private nonprofit organizations, while formula funds are awarded to the States, which then award subgrants to State and local units of government as well as to agencies and organizations. Senator Harkin's amendment would add $500 million to the overall cost of the Omnibus Appropriations bill, an amount which far exceeds the funding cap on the bill which the administration is willing to support. Chairman Stevens has explicitly stated that although this program was taken out of the bill, additional money was put in its place because he is aware that the House of Representatives intends to restore funding for this program in conference. I have consistently supported the Byrne Program and similar programs in the past, and have also worked tirelessly through the annual appropriations process to secure funds and grants for both rural and metropolitan law enforcement agencies in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and throughout the Nation. As the former District Attorney of Philadelphia, I understand the importance of Federal funds to local and state law enforcement agencies to help reduce crime and have consistently supported increased funding for that purpose. Based on the comments made by Chairman Stevens, I am confident that this program will be restored in conference. Accordingly, I am unable to support my colleague's amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Gregg has authorized me to yield 10 minutes to myself.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is always difficult to oppose increases in education funding because education is the greatest capital asset this country has. However, in approaching this legislation today, with an omnibus bill on the floor, an effort is being made to cram into two days what should have occurred during the course of a year. Last year the Senate did not have a budget. I have just returned from a trip to Israel where the Palestinian Authority has a budget, but the United States Senate doesn't have a budget. Now, we are being called upon in the course of a few hours to make decisions involving billions of dollars. What we have here, realistically, is an auction, a bidding war, a political bidding war to see who will look the best, trying to clothe themselves with being the protectors of education. We have a duty to the taxpayers of America to make rational decisions. I am the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the Department of Education. I have been on the subcommittee, and I am now in my 23rd year. I took over the chairmanship in 1995 and have worked very closely and coordinated with Senator Tom Harkin. On a bipartisan basis, we have added an enormous amount to the Department of Education, starting in my first year as chairman with $23 billion, and now being up to $51.5 billion. Since the year 2000, we have had a 45 percent increase in education funding. Now, maybe we do need an additional $6 billion, or maybe we don't need an additional $6 billion. It cannot be rationally decided in the course of a few hours on the Senate floor. We ought to have hearings and have experts and have witnesses come in and define the subject and delineate the subject to allow us to analyze it and to make rational decisions. It is widely noted that the two things you never want to see made are sausage and legislation. Well, this legislation is giving sausage a bad name. We are being asked to make this decision in a rushed way in the course of a few hours. Now, on the Pell grants, I agree the Pell grants are very valuable, but take a look at what has happened in the course of the last several years on Pell grants. They have gone from $2,600 in 1997, up to $3,300 in 2000, up to $4,000 last year. When Senator Harkin and I put that $4,000 figure in, the director of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels, came to my office and complained bitterly that it was too much money and wanted it offset. Senator Harkin and I stood by our guns. This year, they are going to go up to $4,100. We have a budget that has to accommodate a great many factors. One of my other jobs is chairing the Veterans Affairs Committee. This afternoon, I sat down with Secretary Tony Principi to go over a program he has to reduce eligibility for VA care. He has to do that because the veterans covered were 2.9 million in 1998, when we went to open enrollment, and now it is 6.8 million. There simply isn't enough money in the VA budget. I would like to see more money in the VA budget. I am concerned about what is going to happen in the National Institutes of Health budget when and if this is adopted. Senator Gregg's amendment is the less irrational of the two amendments on the floor--the less irrational. I don't think either is rational. We have to make a judgment and a choice about which is the least undesirable. If the Gregg amendment is adopted, we are going to be cutting the NIH. Why? Because Senator Gregg, realistically, is offering a counterbalance to what Senator Kennedy is offering, and that is because we are in an auction and a bidding war for political cover, because everybody wants to look good by adding money to education. Maybe we ought to take more money for education from some of the other accounts. But, it ought not be done on an afternoon when we are racing against time to finish this multibillion dollar omnibus bill so we can get out of here for the weekend and give 600 speeches over the weekend that are already committed to, and the Martin Luther King holiday is on Monday, and the prospect of being here Sunday, or coming in on Tuesday--if people really knew what we did and what the pressures were on spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, they would throw all the rascals out. Unfortunately, C-SPAN 2 doesn't have sufficient coverage to really tell the American people what is going on here. If you take a look at what Senator Harkin and I have done as we have changed the gavel over the years, raising the education budget from $23 billion in 1996 to $51.5 billion-plus now, at a 45 percent increase since the year 2000, and the way we have raised the Pell grant awards, there has been a tremendous increase. I am prepared, in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee, to go to work and see whether you need more money here so as to not to leave any child behind. However, I must protest the way we are conducting the business of the Senate because we didn't get a budget last year. It is just absolutely inexcusable. The Palestinian Authority has a budget, but the Senate doesn't have a budget. Now we are being asked to appropriate billions of dollars under time pressure, which is simply not right. Between the lesser of the irrational amendments, I choose Senator Gregg's. I think we ought to go through the hearing process, the legitimate process, and do our jobs for the public interest and not pass these amendments, which are really a political bidding war to look good under the mantle of backing education. Let me repeat, in the 23 years I have been in this body, I have seldom, if ever, voted against increasing money for education, but this goes too far. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I take that also to be a yes. I thank my colleague from Iowa.

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. 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. SPECTER. I think that would be a yes.

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. 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. 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 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 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.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask my colleague to withhold the request until I have had a chance to make a brief statement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly about the conclusion of our Senate session. We finished our last vote late last night, and after today's session, we will be in adjournment until January. The Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, is a continuous body. Only one-third of our number stands for election each year, unlike the House of Representatives, where there is a new House elected every two years. So we are continuous. The Senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative body. Sometimes I doubt that acclamation, but sometimes we measure up to it, and I think we did yesterday in passing homeland security and the terrorism insurance bill. There is an air of collegiality and an air of civility, which is the backbone of the Senate. There are only 100 of us. We get to know each other very well. We do that in our committee meetings. We do that in our travels. We do that on the floor of the Senate. A good occasion for that is when we have consecutive votes, back to back to back to back, as we had last night, four votes. This gives us a chance to avoid playing telephone tag, which occurs frequently, and to see our colleagues on the floor and to talk to them. We will be missing some really outstanding Senators as we conclude the 107th Congress. There is a great deal that could be said about each of them from my own personal experiences. Senator Thurmond is truly a living legend. When I first saw him chair the Judiciary Committee, he asked a nominee if the nominee promised to be courteous. I questioned whether that was a very good inquiry. What else could the nominee say? The nominee said, ``Yes.'' Then, Senator Thurmond said, ``the more power the person has, the more courteous a person should be.'' Senator Helms finished six terms in the Senate, elected in 1972. One of my fondest recollections of Senator Helms is relative to the pornography bill, which he wrote, and which was declared unconstitutional. After being consulted by him, I gave him a hand in writing a bill which was constitutional. In order of seniority on our departing colleagues, Frank Murkowski came to the Senate with 15 other Senators, a total of 16. They called us the ``Sweet 16,'' elected in 1980. Now there are but three: Senator Grassley, Senator Nickles, and myself. Senator Murkowski goes on to be Governor of Alaska, where he can maintain his own schedule and be an executive without relying on 50 other Senators to carry the day. Phil Gramm is truly an extraordinary Senator. Nobody in the Senate is smarter than Phil Gramm. Perhaps nobody in the history of the Senate was smarter than Phil Gramm. One of his memorable moments was when we were debating how to proceed on the impeachment proceedings of President Clinton. There was a lot of disagreement. Suddenly, like a bolt of lightning, Phil Gramm and Ted Kennedy agreed. What were the other 98 of us to do? If those two men could agree, it must be an appropriate solution. Bob Smith, with distinguished service in the House and distinguished service in the Senate, was perhaps a little too candid sometimes as he took the floor in his quest for the Republican nomination. A little critical of the party, but he was always courageous and always straightforward. I learned a lot from Senator Smith in our caucuses on impeachment. I had not known the depth of his knowledge as a high school teacher, but he was an extraordinary Senator and made a great contribution. Senator Fred Thompson, a super star. When he came to the Senate, he took over the chairmanship of a major committee in record time and presided over very important hearings on campaign finance reform. What is not really known about Fred is that he is as lighthearted and as good at repartee as he is at the law, which is a very high degree. Tim Hutchinson served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs with me, very devoted, very serious, very sincere. He had the misfortune to lose an election or else, I think, he would have had a very long and illustrious career in the Senate. Yet, he may have a long, illustrious career in the Senate. He will live to fight another day. Bob Torricelli, always on top of the issues, very important to the Judiciary Committee where we served together. He was the ranking Democrat when I chaired the Subcommittee on Department of Justice Oversight; always judicious, always fair and always a great contributor. Max Cleland, a real hero, a man of great courage. To see Max function in the Senate or in life, with the tremendous injuries he suffered in Vietnam when he fell on a hand grenade, is truly inspirational. We will all miss Max Cleland. Jean Carnahan. Senator Jean Carnahan picked up the mantle of her husband, Governor Mel Carnahan, and made a real contribution in her two years in the Senate. Paul Wellstone has been the subject of tribute and a man who will be truly missed. His work on mental health parity with physical ailments will be Paul Wellstone's real legacy. I had an opportunity to travel to Minneapolis to pay tribute to the Wellstones' two sons. The tragedy with Paul and Sheila and their daughter is truly the saddest occasion of the past Congress. Beyond those who will no longer be with us in the 108th Congress, just a moment to pay tribute to two of our colleagues who are having birthdays today. Senator Byrd, I know his age but I shall not repeat it. That is up to him to say, however, he finishes his 50th year in the Congress of the United States. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1952 and the Senate in 1958. I am glad to be able to have a few minutes on the floor of the Senate to make a few comments. It is a little hard to be recognized when Senator Byrd is in the Chamber. I heard on National Public Radio, so the world knows, that Joe Biden is 60 today. He was just elected to a sixth term, which is really remarkable. It is a great privilege to be a Member of the Senate and to have had the opportunity to work with these men and women and to work for the people of Pennsylvania, my State, and for the people of the United States. I yield the floor.