Port Security Grants Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Port Security Grants Act of 2005. This legislation would establish a dedicated grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to enhance terrorism prevention and response efforts at our ports. It would provide the resources needed to better protect the American people from attack through these vital yet still extremely vulnerable centers of our economy and points of entry.

I am very pleased that my partner in this effort, Representative Jane Harman, today is introducing the same legislation in the House of Representatives. Congresswoman Harman knows well the vulnerability of our Nation's ports. Indeed, earlier this year, I accompanied her to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to witness first hand the incredible volume of activity that occurs at these thriving economic centers--and the incredible security challenges that they pose. Congresswoman Harman's dedication to the security of our ports and our Nation as a whole makes her one of Congress' acknowledged leaders on homeland security matters. I am pleased that we have been able to join forces on this important initiative.

Funding to date to address security needs at our ports has been woefully inadequate. The Coast Guard estimates that implementing the provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act and similar requirements for international port security will cost $7.3 billion over the next decade. Yet, since MTSA was enacted, only the fiscal year 2005 budget request contained a line item for this crucial need, and that at a mere $46 million. Although the Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $600 million for infrastructure protection, it does not contain a dedicated line item for port security grant funding.

As a point of comparison, the Transportation Security Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget dedicates $4.9 billion for aviation security. As Dr. Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations testified at a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing in January, port security has received approximately 5 cents on the dollar--with the remaining 95 cents going to aviation security.

The legislation we propose will break the hand-to-mouth cycle that ports have faced for years. It does the following: First, it creates a competitive grant program administered by the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security. This is the same office that administers the State Grant and Urban Area Security Initiative programs.

Second, under our bill, grant funds will be used to address port security

vulnerabilities identified through Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans, currently required by Federal statute, or through other DDS-sanctioned vulnerability assessments. In other words, grant dollars must be spent consistent with an established plan, not through a process divorced from efforts already underway.

Authorized uses of these grant funds include: acquiring, operating, and maintaining equipment that contributes to the overall security of the port area; conducting port-wide exercises to strengthen emergency preparedness; developing joint harbor operations centers to focus resources on port area security; implementing Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans; and covering the costs of additional security personnel during times of heightened alert levels.

Third, we require DHS to prioritize efforts to promote coordination among port stakeholders and integration of port-wide security, as well as information and intelligence sharing among first responders and federal, state, and local officials.

Fourth, we authorize funding for port security grants at $400 million per year for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. This steady, dedicated stream of funding would represent a substantial down payment on the billions of dollars of port security needs identified by the Coast Guard. It is also the amount the American Association of Ports Authorities believes needs to be dedicated annually to port security in order to begin addressing serious vulnerabilities.

Under our bill, port security dollars will originate from duties collected by Customs and Border Protection, and--with exceptions made for small or extraordinary projects--recipients will be required to contribute 25 percent of the cost. This cost-sharing requirement has precedents in other transportation funding and will ensure the development of true partnerships between the federal government and grant recipients.

Fifth, our legislation includes strong accountability measures-- including audits and reporting requirements--to ensure the grant funds awarded under the bill are properly accounted for and spent as intended.

This legislation does call for a major commitment of resources. I am confident, however, that my colleagues recognize, as I do, that this commitment is fully proportional to what is at stake.

Approximately 95 percent of our Nation's trade, worth nearly $1 trillion, enters through one of our 361 seaports on board some 8,555 foreign vessels, which make more than 55,000 port calls per year. Clearly, an attack on the U.S. maritime transportation system could devastate our economy.

The potential for this devastation was amply demonstrated by the 2002 West Coast dock labor dispute, which cost our economy an estimated $1 billion per day, affected operations in 29 West Coast ports, and harmed businesses throughout the country. An unanticipated and violent act against a cargo port could result in economic costs that are incalculable, not to mention a potential loss of life that would be horrifying.

Much of the discussion regarding port security revolves around the security of inbound containers. At his confirmation hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff stated that his major concern is the introduction into the United States of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive threats via a shipping container. Secretary Chertoff is absolutely correct in identifying this as a major vulnerability.

But there are many other threats against ports. Just last month, the State Department issued a warning concerning information that terrorists may attempt to mount a maritime attack using speedboats against a Western ship, possibly in East Africa. This isn't the first instance of this type of attack--the USS Cole in 2000 and the French tanker Limberg in 2002 were both attacked by this method. The repeated use of suicide bombers and truck bombs around the world also raises great concern about our ports, and the critical infrastructure and population centers located around them.

Coming from a State with a strong maritime tradition and vital maritime industry, I am keenly aware of what is at stake. Maine has three international cargo ports. Each is a vital and multi-faceted part of our economy: State, regional, and even national.

The Port of Portland, for example, is the largest port by tonnage in New England and the largest oil port on the East Coast. Ninety percent of its foreign cargo was crude oil. In addition, Portland has a booming cruise-ship industry, a vigorous fishing fleet, and an international ferry terminal. This wide range of activity provides economic opportunity and also provides terrorism vulnerability.

It is not my intention to suggest that our security agencies and ports are at a standstill. Indeed, much has been done to improve port security. The Coast Guard's Sea Marshals program places armed units on ships at sea to ensure their safe arrival and departure. The Container Security Initiative Bureau of Customs and Border Protection works with foreign governments to target high-risk cargo and to prevent terrorists from exploiting cargo containers. Detailed information is now required on each ship and its passengers, crew, and cargo. To upgrade security at international ports, the United States worked with the International Maritime Organization for the adoption of the International Ship and Port Security Code, the first multilateral port security standard ever created.

It is, however, my intention to assert that we must do more to improve port security on the front lines--the ports that line the harbor of cities and towns along our vast coastlines, the Great Lakes, our immense inland river network and in Alaska and Hawaii.

We observed this week two anniversaries that bear upon this issue. Monday was Patriot's Day, the 230th anniversary of the ride of Paul Revere. While I am not suggesting ``one if by land, two if by sea'' be adopted as a funding formula for homeland security, that famous phrase does remind us of the bond between security and transportation that has existed since our nation's very first days.

On a far more somber note, Tuesday was the 10th anniversary of Oklahoma City. As we paused to reflect on that horrific attack, we once again were confronted with the harsh reality that terrorists--whether foreign or domestic--will strike wherever they see vulnerability.

Our seaports are vulnerable. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation that will help deny terrorists an opportunity to strike at a vulnerable target.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Port Security Grants Act of 2005. This legislation would establish a dedicated grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to enhance terrorism prevention and response efforts at our ports. It would provide the resources needed to better protect the American people from attack through these vital yet still extremely vulnerable centers of our economy and points of entry.

I am very pleased that my partner in this effort, Representative Jane Harman, today is introducing the same legislation in the House of Representatives. Congresswoman Harman knows well the vulnerability of our Nation's ports. Indeed, earlier this year, I accompanied her to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to witness first hand the incredible volume of activity that occurs at these thriving economic centers--and the incredible security challenges that they pose. Congresswoman Harman's dedication to the security of our ports and our Nation as a whole makes her one of Congress' acknowledged leaders on homeland security matters. I am pleased that we have been able to join forces on this important initiative.

Funding to date to address security needs at our ports has been woefully inadequate. The Coast Guard estimates that implementing the provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act and similar requirements for international port security will cost $7.3 billion over the next decade. Yet, since MTSA was enacted, only the fiscal year 2005 budget request contained a line item for this crucial need, and that at a mere $46 million. Although the Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $600 million for infrastructure protection, it does not contain a dedicated line item for port security grant funding.

As a point of comparison, the Transportation Security Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget dedicates $4.9 billion for aviation security. As Dr. Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations testified at a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing in January, port security has received approximately 5 cents on the dollar--with the remaining 95 cents going to aviation security.

The legislation we propose will break the hand-to-mouth cycle that ports have faced for years. It does the following: First, it creates a competitive grant program administered by the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security. This is the same office that administers the State Grant and Urban Area Security Initiative programs.

Second, under our bill, grant funds will be used to address port security

vulnerabilities identified through Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans, currently required by Federal statute, or through other DDS-sanctioned vulnerability assessments. In other words, grant dollars must be spent consistent with an established plan, not through a process divorced from efforts already underway.

Authorized uses of these grant funds include: acquiring, operating, and maintaining equipment that contributes to the overall security of the port area; conducting port-wide exercises to strengthen emergency preparedness; developing joint harbor operations centers to focus resources on port area security; implementing Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans; and covering the costs of additional security personnel during times of heightened alert levels.

Third, we require DHS to prioritize efforts to promote coordination among port stakeholders and integration of port-wide security, as well as information and intelligence sharing among first responders and federal, state, and local officials.

Fourth, we authorize funding for port security grants at $400 million per year for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. This steady, dedicated stream of funding would represent a substantial down payment on the billions of dollars of port security needs identified by the Coast Guard. It is also the amount the American Association of Ports Authorities believes needs to be dedicated annually to port security in order to begin addressing serious vulnerabilities.

Under our bill, port security dollars will originate from duties collected by Customs and Border Protection, and--with exceptions made for small or extraordinary projects--recipients will be required to contribute 25 percent of the cost. This cost-sharing requirement has precedents in other transportation funding and will ensure the development of true partnerships between the federal government and grant recipients.

Fifth, our legislation includes strong accountability measures-- including audits and reporting requirements--to ensure the grant funds awarded under the bill are properly accounted for and spent as intended.

This legislation does call for a major commitment of resources. I am confident, however, that my colleagues recognize, as I do, that this commitment is fully proportional to what is at stake.

Approximately 95 percent of our Nation's trade, worth nearly $1 trillion, enters through one of our 361 seaports on board some 8,555 foreign vessels, which make more than 55,000 port calls per year. Clearly, an attack on the U.S. maritime transportation system could devastate our economy.

The potential for this devastation was amply demonstrated by the 2002 West Coast dock labor dispute, which cost our economy an estimated $1 billion per day, affected operations in 29 West Coast ports, and harmed businesses throughout the country. An unanticipated and violent act against a cargo port could result in economic costs that are incalculable, not to mention a potential loss of life that would be horrifying.

Much of the discussion regarding port security revolves around the security of inbound containers. At his confirmation hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff stated that his major concern is the introduction into the United States of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive threats via a shipping container. Secretary Chertoff is absolutely correct in identifying this as a major vulnerability.

But there are many other threats against ports. Just last month, the State Department issued a warning concerning information that terrorists may attempt to mount a maritime attack using speedboats against a Western ship, possibly in East Africa. This isn't the first instance of this type of attack--the USS Cole in 2000 and the French tanker Limberg in 2002 were both attacked by this method. The repeated use of suicide bombers and truck bombs around the world also raises great concern about our ports, and the critical infrastructure and population centers located around them.

Coming from a State with a strong maritime tradition and vital maritime industry, I am keenly aware of what is at stake. Maine has three international cargo ports. Each is a vital and multi-faceted part of our economy: State, regional, and even national.

The Port of Portland, for example, is the largest port by tonnage in New England and the largest oil port on the East Coast. Ninety percent of its foreign cargo was crude oil. In addition, Portland has a booming cruise-ship industry, a vigorous fishing fleet, and an international ferry terminal. This wide range of activity provides economic opportunity and also provides terrorism vulnerability.

It is not my intention to suggest that our security agencies and ports are at a standstill. Indeed, much has been done to improve port security. The Coast Guard's Sea Marshals program places armed units on ships at sea to ensure their safe arrival and departure. The Container Security Initiative Bureau of Customs and Border Protection works with foreign governments to target high-risk cargo and to prevent terrorists from exploiting cargo containers. Detailed information is now required on each ship and its passengers, crew, and cargo. To upgrade security at international ports, the United States worked with the International Maritime Organization for the adoption of the International Ship and Port Security Code, the first multilateral port security standard ever created.

It is, however, my intention to assert that we must do more to improve port security on the front lines--the ports that line the harbor of cities and towns along our vast coastlines, the Great Lakes, our immense inland river network and in Alaska and Hawaii.

We observed this week two anniversaries that bear upon this issue. Monday was Patriot's Day, the 230th anniversary of the ride of Paul Revere. While I am not suggesting ``one if by land, two if by sea'' be adopted as a funding formula for homeland security, that famous phrase does remind us of the bond between security and transportation that has existed since our nation's very first days.

On a far more somber note, Tuesday was the 10th anniversary of Oklahoma City. As we paused to reflect on that horrific attack, we once again were confronted with the harsh reality that terrorists--whether foreign or domestic--will strike wherever they see vulnerability.

Our seaports are vulnerable. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation that will help deny terrorists an opportunity to strike at a vulnerable target.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``American History Achievement Act'' and am pleased to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Massachusetts. This is part of my effort to put the teaching of American history and civics back in its rightful place in our

schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American.

The ``American History Achievement Act'' gives the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) the authority to administer a ten State pilot study of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) test in U.S. history in 2006. They already have that authority for reading, math, science, and writing. The bill also includes a new provision that would permit a 10-state pilot study for the Civics NAEP test if funding is available.

This modest bill provides for improved testing of American history so that we can determine where history is being taught well--and where it is being taught poorly--so that improvements can be made. We also know that when testing is focused on a specific subject, states and school districts are more likely to step up to the challenge and improve performance.

We could certainly use improvement in the teaching of American history. According to the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), commonly referred to as the ``Nation's Report Card,'' fewer students have just a basic understanding of American history than have a basic understanding of any other subject which we test--including math, science, and reading. When you look at the national report card, American history is our children's worst subject.

Yet, according to recent poll results, the exact opposite outcome is desired by the American people. Hart-Teeter conducted a poll last year of 1300 adults for the Educational Testing Service (ETS), where they asked what the principal goal of education should be. The top response was ``producing literate, educated citizens who can participate in our democracy.'' Twenty-six percent of respondents felt that should be our principal goal. ``Teach basics: math, reading, writing'' was selected by only 15 percent as the principal goal of education. You can't be an educated participant in our democracy if you don't know our history.

Our children don't know American history because they are not being taught it. For example, the state of Florida recently passed a bill permitting high school students to graduate without taking a course in U.S. history.

And when our children are being taught our history, they're not learning what's most important. According to Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington, ``A 1987 study of high school students found that more knew who Harriet Tubman was than knew that Washington commanded the American army in the Revolution or that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.'' Now I'm all for teaching about the history of the Underground Railroad--my ancestor, the Reverend John Rankin, like Harriet Tubman, was a conductor on the Underground Railroad--but surely children ought to learn first about the most critical leaders and events in the Revolution and the Civil War.

Let me give a few examples of just how bad things have gotten:

The 4th grade NAEP test asks students to identify the following passage: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . .'' Students were given four choices for the source of that passage: (a) Constitution, (b) Mayflower Compact, (c) Declaration of Independence, and (d) Article of the Confederation.

Only 46 percent of students answered correctly that it came from the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is the fundamental document for the founding of our Nation, but less than half the students could identify that famous passage from it.

The 8th grade test asks students to ``Imagine you could use a time machine to visit the past. You have landed in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776. Describe an important event that is happening.'' Nearly half the students--46 percent were not able to answer the question correctly that the Declaration of Independence was being signed. They must wonder why the Fourth of July is Independence Day.

We can't allow this to continue. Our children are growing up without even learning the basics of our Nation's history. Something has to be done. This legislation aims to help in that effort.

The pilot program authorized in the bill should collect enough data to attain a state-by-state comparison of 8th and 12th grades student's knowledge and understanding of U.S. history. That data will allow us to know which States are doing a better job of teaching American history and allow other States to model their programs on those that are working well. It will also put a spotlight on American history that should encourage States and school districts to improve their efforts at teaching the subject.

I suspect that the pilot program will tell us that history programs like those of the House Page School, right here on Capitol Hill, are the model to follow. On January 25, the College Board announced that the House page school ranked first in the Nation among institutions with fewer than 500 pupils for the percentage of the student body who achieved college-level mastery on the advanced placement exam in U.S. history. The page school achieved this result not only by teaching American history, but also because teachers highlight American history in all of their classes--from science to literature--as well as taking students on field trips around the Washington area, from Monticello to the American History Museum here in Washington, to historical sites in Philadelphia. The House Page School's success is evidence that we can succeed in teaching our children the history of this great Nation. I suspect we will uncover more effective models for the teaching of American history with the enactment of this legislation.

Our children are growing up ignorant of our Nation's history. Yet a recent poll tells us that Americans believe the principal goal of education is ``producing literate, educated citizens who can participate in our democracy.'' It is time to put the teaching of American history and civics back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. This bill takes us one step closer to achieving that noble goal. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Alexander again this year in introducing the American History Achievement Act. This bill is part of a continuing effort to renew the national commitment to teaching history and civics in the Nation's public schools. It lays the foundation for more effective ways of teaching children about the Nation's past and the value of civic responsibility. It contains no new requirements for schools, but it does offer a more frequent and effective analysis of how America's schoolchildren are learning these important subjects.

Our economy and our future security rely on good schools that help students develop specific skills, such as reading and math. But the strength of our democracy and our standing in the world also depend on ensuring that children have a basic understanding of the nation's past and what it takes to engage in our democracy. An appreciation for the defining events in our nation's history can be a catalyst for civic involvement.

Helping to instill appreciation of America's past--and teaching the values of justice, equality, and civic responsibility--should be an important mission of public schools. Thanks to the hard work of large numbers of history and civics teachers in classrooms throughout America, we're making progress. Results from the most recent assessment under the NAEP show that fourth and eighth graders are improving their knowledge of U.S. history. Research conducted in history classrooms shows that children are using primary sources and documents more often to explore history, and are being assigned historical and biographical readings by their teachers more frequently.

But much more remains to be done to advance the understanding of both of these subjects, and see to it that they are not left behind in classrooms.

A recent study by Dr. Sheldon Stern--the Chief Historian Emeritus at my brother's Presidential Library--suggests that State standards for teaching American history need improvement. His research reveals that 22 States have American history standards that are either weak or lack clear

chronology, appropriate political and historical context, or sufficient information about real events and people. As many as 9 States still have no standards at all for American history.

Good standards matter. They're the foundation for teaching and learning in every school. With the right resources, time, and attention, it's possible to develop creative and effective history standards in every State. Massachusetts began to work on this effort in 2000, through a joint review of history standards that involved teachers, administrators, curriculum coordinators, and university professors. After monthly meetings and three years of development and revision, the state released a new framework for teaching history in 2003. Today, our standards in American history and World history receive the highest marks.

School budget problems at the local level are also a serious threat to these goals.

Other accounts report that schools are narrowing their curriculums away from the social sciences, arts, and humanities, in favor of a more concentrated approach to the teaching of reading and math in order to meet the strict standards of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Meeting high standards in reading and math is important, but it should not come at the expense of scaling back teaching in other core subjects such as history and civics. Integrating reading and math with other subjects often gives children a better way to master literacy and number skills, even while learning in a history, geography, or government lesson. That type of innovation deserves special attention in our schools. Making it happen requires added investments in teacher preparation and teacher mentoring, so that teachers are well prepared to use interdisciplinary methods in their lesson plans.

Our bill today takes several important steps to strengthen the teaching of American history and civics, and raise the standing of these subjects in school curriculums. Through changes to the National Assessment for Educational Progress, schools will be better able to achieve success on this important issue.

First, we propose a more frequent national assessment of children in American history under the NAEP. For years, NAEP has served as the gold standard for measuring the progress of students and reporting on that progress. Students last participated in the U.S. history NAEP in 2001, and that assessment generated encouraging results. But the preceding assessment with which we can compare data--was administered in 1994-- too long before to be of real assistance.

It makes sense to measure the knowledge and skills of children more frequently. This bill would place priority on administering the national U.S. history NAEP assessment, to generate a more timely picture of student progress. We should have an idea of children's knowledge and skills in American history more often than every 6 or 7 years, in order to address gaps in learning.

The bill also proposes a leap forward to strengthen State standards in American history and civics, through a new State-level pilot assessment of these subjects under NAEP. The assessment would be conducted on an experimental basis in 10 States, in grades 8 and 12. The National Assessment Governing Board would ensure that States with model standards, as well as those that are still under development, participate in this assessment.

Moving NAEP to the State level does not carry any high stakes for schools. But it will provide an additional benchmark for States to develop and improve their standards. It's our hope that states will also be encouraged to undertake improvements in their history curricula and in their teaching of civics, and ensure that both subjects are a beneficiary and not a victim of school reform.

America's past encompasses great leaders and great ideas that contributed to our heritage and to the principles of freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity for all. Today's students will be better citizens in the future if they learn more about that history and about the skills needed to participate in our democracy. The American History Achievement Act is an important effort toward that goal, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, the U.S. airline industry continues to teeter on the brink of financial collapse. The industry lost over $9 billion in 2004 and the airlines are expected to lose another $1.9 billion in 2005. Our Nation cannot afford to let this vital part of our economy collapse. Our economic prosperity is tied to a healthy and growing aviation industry.

As we saw after the events of September 11, 2001, the shutdown of our aviation systems caused a massive disruption to the flow of people and goods throughout the world. Without a healthy airline industry, our economy will not grow. I do not believe the significance of aviation to our economy can be overstated. I do not think many in Congress and across the country realize that over 10 million people are employed directly in the aviation industry. For every job in the aviation industry, 15 related jobs are produced. In my State of West Virginia, aviation represents $3.4 billion of the State's gross domestic product and directly and indirectly employs 51,000 people.

The airline industry has been hard hit in recent years by high oil prices, weak revenue, and low fare competition. Since 2001, the airline industry has lost more than $30 billion collectively, and while aviation analysts expect 2005 will be a significant improvement over recent years, most estimates assume oil prices drop significantly from current levels--a matter that increasingly remains in doubt.

Many airlines have aggressively cut costs through a number of means, most notably by reducing labor expenditures and through decreasing capacity by cutting flight frequencies, using smaller aircraft, or eliminating service to some communities.

Despite the airlines' efforts, they have not been able to return to financial stability. The Federal Government is faced with serious and difficult choices in how to ensure both the short-term and long-term viability of the Nation's aviation industry. The one choice we do not have is the choice not to act. Although Congress cannot restore profitability to the airline industry with a law, we can create the atmosphere for the industry to succeed, grow, and bring people back to work. If we fail to act, tens of thousands of employees will lose their jobs on top of the 200,000 that have already lost their jobs, small communities will lose their

air service, and the United States will lose its global leadership in aviation.

One of the greatest threats to the future financial viability of the airlines is pension funding. Congress needs to reform the pension rules to provide the tools airlines need to maintain their pension plans. As a step in the right direction, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with Senator Isakson that protects the retirement plans airline employees depend on.

The Employee Pension Preservation Act of 2005 provides critical pension funding relief to the commercial airline industry by allowing the airlines to fund their pension obligations over a 25-year time horizon. Last year, recognizing that the airlines were facing extraordinary circumstances, Congress provided airlines a temporary reprieve from deficit reduction contributions.

However, when that temporary relief expires at the end of the year, airlines will face immediate and crushing pension bills. Congress needs to provide permanent, appropriate remedies that enable airlines to maintain their pension plans. If we do not provide any flexibility in paying the pension obligations, then certainly more airlines will be forced to terminate their plans altogether. The legislation that Senator Isakson and I are offering enables airlines to meet all of their pension obligations on a reasonable schedule.

Some people may worry that by granting airlines an extended payment period we are increasing the risks to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures the airlines' defined benefit plans. However, I am hopeful that by making the funding rules more flexible this bill will actually decrease the likelihood that pension plans will be terminated and the PBGC saddled with unfunded obligations. Let me be clear, this legislation requires airlines to fully fund all of their past and future pension promises. It merely provides a more reasonable schedule for recovering from the recent downturn that hurt many pension plans.

Moreover, the bill includes provisions to limit the liability potentially faced by the Government insurance agency. In contrast to the status quo, any pension plans that take advantage of the funding relief offered by our legislation would accrue no additional PBGC obligation. To the extent that any additional pension benefits are earned by employees, the benefits would have to be immediately and fully funded by the employer.

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been working for years to improve our defined benefit pension system. I recognize that there are few easy answers or quick fixes. And I do not suggest that the legislation we are introducing today is a silver bullet for the airlines' defined benefit plans. Still, I am pleased to support this bill because it is a responsible compromise agreed to by both the labor and management representatives in the airline industry. That is very important to me, because this legislation will require some difficult sacrifices especially on the part of workers who may no longer accrue guaranteed benefits. While I have reservations about any agreement to limit the PBGC guarantee of pensions, I have been assured that in this particular case employees support this compromise and see it as the best opportunity to save their hard earned retirement benefits.

I hope that my colleagues will carefully examine this proposal and join Senator Isakson and me in a debate about how we can better secure the pensions of airline employees. I appreciate that our legislation is not likely to pass the Congress without negotiation and compromise. Indeed, I welcome opportunities to improve this legislation. But I do not believe that we can ignore the plight that the airlines face, and I will work to enact prudent reforms as soon as possible.