Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. On behalf of the distinguished Senator from Virginia, [Mr. Warner], I ask unanimous consent, in accordance with paragraph 2 of rule VI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, that Senator Warner be permitted to be absent from the work of the Senate for this morning to serve as a pallbearer in Warrenton, VA, for Robert Canard, a former farm employee and friend of more than 30 years. Bob and his wife Dorothy have long been considered members of the Warner family.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. I hope everybody will read Senator Domenici's remarks in the Record tonight. They refer to the fact that the offset this amendment proposes really isn't anything more than a temporary, 1-year offset. In order to achieve the savings that are purported to be added to the FDA account by this amendment being offered by the distinguished Senator from Iowa, a limitation on the use of Commodity Credit Corporation funds is imposed. But that is only for 1 year. In other words, that deserves some consideration, as Senator Domenici indicates. I agree with him. In addition, if $47 million in Commodity Credit Corporation funds is really needed for the Department of Agriculture to operate and maintain its computer systems in fiscal year 1998, as the Department indicates, those funds will have to be reprogrammed from other accounts, putting pressure on possibly the Farm Service Agency or other USDA agencies. I am focusing on and I hope the Senate will focus on why we are going to have to reject this effort to undermine the procedure we have, or either change the procedure. We had a procedure that seemed to satisfy everybody. And now there is an effort to undermine it completely. It ought to be rejected.

Mr. COCHRAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, let me say at the outset, when we started the consideration of appropriations bills this year it became important that we work out an arrangement whereby we proceed to consider bills even though they may not have passed by the House. And as all Senators know, it is the past custom, and the practice has been that appropriations bills originate in the House, they come to the Senate, and they are amended, and then they go to conference to work out the differences. Because of the crush of the time and the negotiations on a budget resolution and for a number of other reasons, it was considered appropriate for the Senate committee to proceed to consider original legislation on appropriations here in the Senate, for the subcommittees to mark up bills and the full committee to report out bills, whether or not the House had passed the bill or even met in the Committee on Appropriations to act on legislation. Consistent with that procedure, it was assumed that it would be appropriate at the conclusion of the Senate's action on an appropriations bill to obtain unanimous consent to hold the bill here, and that upon receipt of the bill as passed by the House, the Senate's action on the bill would be substituted for the House-passed bill. That it would then be considered as passed, conference would be invited, and we would proceed to work out our differences in conference. The Senate has passed 10 appropriations bills, all but two were Senate-originated bills; the House has passed only 7 appropriations bills. The process was working just fine, and with the cooperation of all Senators, until the agriculture appropriations bill was considered and action on the bill was nearly completed. Our leadership sought to get unanimous consent to substitute the Senate-passed bill, to insert it as an amendment to the House-passed bill when that bill was received. We could not get unanimous consent because the distinguished Senator from Iowa had offered an amendment, as other Senators had, during the course of consideration of the bill. The amendment had been disposed of, but he wanted to offer it again in a different form. So to do that, he objected. It was discovered that unanimous consent had to be obtained under the procedure we were using. So if he objected, he could hold up passage of the House bill, offer his amendment again, reconfigure it, and have the Senate vote on it again. That is what has happened. I think the Senate should reject the amendment on the grounds that the procedure is one where we will have to either stop considering Senate appropriations bills until the House has acted, or at the beginning of the consideration of an appropriations bill either get unanimous consent in advance to taking up amendments, or take some other action that would keep from happening what the Senator from Iowa is trying to make happen now. That is, on the whim or on the action of any individual Senator, to force this Senate to vote on all the amendments again or versions of the amendments that were defeated when we were considering the Senate bill. This becomes a terribly unwieldy and impossible procedure to follow. We have certain understandings all the time about how things will be done here in the Senate. There are certain procedures and rules that are institutionalized. After third reading, you cannot offer any more amendments, for example. I don't know of anybody that has tried to overturn or undo that rule. There are other procedures that have become a part of the practice of the Senate in doing business. The reason for the rule on third reading is that at some point there has to be an end to the offering of amendments. No one objected to the procedure we were following on the other appropriations bills; there was no alternative proposed; everybody agreed it was fair; it was serving the purpose of expediting action on appropriations bills; it was not a problem with the House; no one objected and said they were not going to permit the Senate to act on appropriations bills until the House has completed its action. We heard nothing like that from the House leadership. So what I am suggesting, Mr. President, as respectfully as I can, is that this is an unfortunate effort to go around the practices and the procedures that have been established for this purpose, to facilitate the orderly consideration of appropriations bills, and the Senate ought to reject this effort. The Senate ought to vote down this amendment. Tomorrow morning, after all time has been used under the unanimous- consent request, I will move to table the Harkin amendment. I urge the Senate to vote to table the Harkin amendment. It is the same amendment, in effect, that was offered and argued before the Senate on July 23. A motion to table that amendment was made and agreed to by the Senate on a record vote. Then, after amendments had been considered, a unanimous-consent request was made by our leadership, jointly supported, to limit the remaining amendments to a stated number. This was after the Harkin amendment had been defeated on a motion to table. The Senator should have asked, if he wanted to offer another amendment on this subject, that he be permitted to do so under that unanimous-consent request. And there was no request that he be permitted to do so. There were a few amendments left to be considered at that time, and so the Senate heard that request. There was no objection, and so it was ordered that the remaining amendments on the bill be limited to those stated in that order. The Harkin amendment was not one of them. No amendment to be offered by Senator Harkin was one of them. He or any Senator under that situation should be stopped from urging a right to offer another amendment then after that order was entered. After the order was entered, then we voted on the bill, as amended, and it passed 99 to 0 on a rollcall vote. Now, after that has happened, the Senate is obliged to consider this amendment in order to get unanimous- consent to receive the House-passed bill, which was adopted on the same day the Senate adopted its bill. We have to consider this amendment before the Senate again and have the Senate act on it in exchange for a unanimous consent agreement that we can then substitute the Senate- passed bill, as amended, for the provisions of the House bill and go to conference. I hope the Senate will not encourage this kind of activity in the future and make it impossible for us to proceed as we have been proceeding by acting favorably on the Harkin amendment. The Senate has to vote down the Harkin amendment or vote for a motion to table, which will be made tomorrow. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I presume all time has now expired.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which will correct the abuses of Federal tax policy associated with the Reachback Tax provisions of the Coal Industry Health Benefit Act of 1992 (the Coal Act), while guaranteeing the solvency of the Combined Benefit Fund established by that Act. The legislation will also guarantee retiree health care benefits to approximately 75,000 retired unionized bituminous coal miners, their spouses or widows, and dependents. These coal mine retirees have received uninterrupted health care benefits which are among the best available to any group of retirees. The Coal Act also bestowed a windfall on one class of companies at the expense of another class, by shifting 62 percent of the cost of these retiree health benefits from the companies which had contracted to pay for them. Those costs are now shouldered by Federal transfers and private employers, who had no contractual obligation for retiree health care. Since its passage as part of the National Energy Policy Act, the Coal Act has been the subject of debate in both houses of Congress and tens of millions of dollars has been spent on litigation filed in the Federal courts by companies subjected to its retroactive taxation. Every case has been lost, however, as the courts have ruled that Congress has the power to tax and that it is up to Congress to make or change tax law. Mr. President, this confiscatory measure is called the Reachback Tax, because it reached back, over the decades and branded for taxation hundreds of companies, or their former owners. Many of those companies had been out of the unionized coal business for decades. Many identified by the Social Security Administration as liable for Reachback Taxes, are nothing more than skeletons of business entities holding the dwindling assets of former small enterprises. Some reachback companies were taxed because they, or a related party, had signed a UMWA multi-employer contract sometime between 1950 and 1988. When the contracts expired, however, each of the reachback companies had fulfilled its obligations to the union and the union members. There were no continuing ties between the reachback companies and former employees, and certainly no promises of lifetime benefits to those former employees, much less their dependents. Furthermore, the union had no claims pending against these companies for retiree health care. Mr. President, the Reachback Tax, passed without benefit of hearings or debate, has brought economic disaster to hundreds of innocent American companies, and hardship for tens of thousands of their workers. It has caused a favored class of companies to receive what they admit is a $130 million annual savings in retiree health benefit costs, and transferred that burden to companies--small and large in more than 30 States. The payment of this Federal tax is an unfair burden on all of the reachback companies. For every beneficiary assigned, the reachback companies have a liability of approximately $2,400 per year, stretching to the year 2043. No reachback company was prepared to absorb such an expense, nor should it have been. Obviously, jobs have been lost and job-creating projects have been delayed or canceled, and new products and the opening of new markets have been sidetracked because of the Reachback Tax. When the 102d Congress passed the Reachback Tax in the fall of 1992, it handed the UMWA Combined Fund Trustees the statutory responsibility to collect every cent of every premium due from every reachback company. It also conferred on the Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service the statutory responsibility to impose $100 per day, per beneficiary penalties on every reachback company which does not pay those premiums. Furthermore, the Department of Treasury's Office of Tax Policy reports non-paying reachback companies are liable for billions of dollars in penalties. Mr. President, billions of dollars are due the United States Treasury, yet the Treasury and IRS have not moved to collect these penalties. And, despite this financial threat, some 60 percent of all the reachback companies have ignored their statements, unwilling or unable to comply with a Federal law they view as unjust. Mr. President, the Reachback Tax was promoted during the conference on the Energy Act as an emergency effort to avoid an advertised deficit in the UMWA health benefits fund, and as necessary to save the retirees from an imminent suspension of health care benefits. However, the deficit never materialized. Instead, the General Accounting Office, the private firms Towers Perrin, Deloitte & Touche, and the UMWA Combined Benefit Fund trustees have confirmed a huge surplus in the fund. The legislation I am introducing today will statutorily guarantee that those surpluses continue through the life of the fund, as several new and permanent cost containment measures by the fund managers have dramatically lowered its expenses below original projections. Furthermore, the number of beneficiaries in the closed pool continues to decline because of mortality. Statutory relief is the only relief available to these reachback companies. It is needed immediately. I urge Senators to join in support of this legislation to mitigate an unintended impact of well-intended legislation.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which will correct the abuses of Federal tax policy associated with the Reachback Tax provisions of the Coal Industry Health Benefit Act of 1992 (the Coal Act), while guaranteeing the solvency of the Combined Benefit Fund established by that Act. The legislation will also guarantee retiree health care benefits to approximately 75,000 retired unionized bituminous coal miners, their spouses or widows, and dependents. These coal mine retirees have received uninterrupted health care benefits which are among the best available to any group of retirees. The Coal Act also bestowed a windfall on one class of companies at the expense of another class, by shifting 62 percent of the cost of these retiree health benefits from the companies which had contracted to pay for them. Those costs are now shouldered by Federal transfers and private employers, who had no contractual obligation for retiree health care. Since its passage as part of the National Energy Policy Act, the Coal Act has been the subject of debate in both houses of Congress and tens of millions of dollars has been spent on litigation filed in the Federal courts by companies subjected to its retroactive taxation. Every case has been lost, however, as the courts have ruled that Congress has the power to tax and that it is up to Congress to make or change tax law. Mr. President, this confiscatory measure is called the Reachback Tax, because it reached back, over the decades and branded for taxation hundreds of companies, or their former owners. Many of those companies had been out of the unionized coal business for decades. Many identified by the Social Security Administration as liable for Reachback Taxes, are nothing more than skeletons of business entities holding the dwindling assets of former small enterprises. Some reachback companies were taxed because they, or a related party, had signed a UMWA multi-employer contract sometime between 1950 and 1988. When the contracts expired, however, each of the reachback companies had fulfilled its obligations to the union and the union members. There were no continuing ties between the reachback companies and former employees, and certainly no promises of lifetime benefits to those former employees, much less their dependents. Furthermore, the union had no claims pending against these companies for retiree health care. Mr. President, the Reachback Tax, passed without benefit of hearings or debate, has brought economic disaster to hundreds of innocent American companies, and hardship for tens of thousands of their workers. It has caused a favored class of companies to receive what they admit is a $130 million annual savings in retiree health benefit costs, and transferred that burden to companies--small and large in more than 30 States. The payment of this Federal tax is an unfair burden on all of the reachback companies. For every beneficiary assigned, the reachback companies have a liability of approximately $2,400 per year, stretching to the year 2043. No reachback company was prepared to absorb such an expense, nor should it have been. Obviously, jobs have been lost and job-creating projects have been delayed or canceled, and new products and the opening of new markets have been sidetracked because of the Reachback Tax. When the 102d Congress passed the Reachback Tax in the fall of 1992, it handed the UMWA Combined Fund Trustees the statutory responsibility to collect every cent of every premium due from every reachback company. It also conferred on the Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service the statutory responsibility to impose $100 per day, per beneficiary penalties on every reachback company which does not pay those premiums. Furthermore, the Department of Treasury's Office of Tax Policy reports non-paying reachback companies are liable for billions of dollars in penalties. Mr. President, billions of dollars are due the United States Treasury, yet the Treasury and IRS have not moved to collect these penalties. And, despite this financial threat, some 60 percent of all the reachback companies have ignored their statements, unwilling or unable to comply with a Federal law they view as unjust. Mr. President, the Reachback Tax was promoted during the conference on the Energy Act as an emergency effort to avoid an advertised deficit in the UMWA health benefits fund, and as necessary to save the retirees from an imminent suspension of health care benefits. However, the deficit never materialized. Instead, the General Accounting Office, the private firms Towers Perrin, Deloitte & Touche, and the UMWA Combined Benefit Fund trustees have confirmed a huge surplus in the fund. The legislation I am introducing today will statutorily guarantee that those surpluses continue through the life of the fund, as several new and permanent cost containment measures by the fund managers have dramatically lowered its expenses below original projections. Furthermore, the number of beneficiaries in the closed pool continues to decline because of mortality. Statutory relief is the only relief available to these reachback companies. It is needed immediately. I urge Senators to join in support of this legislation to mitigate an unintended impact of well-intended legislation.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, other amendments that were going to be offered will not be offered. The managers' package was adopted last night. The Senator from Arkansas is going to send an amendment to the desk on behalf of the Senator from New Mexico. Amendment No. 978 (Purpose: Providing support to a Tribal College through appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes)

Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to hear the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Virginia, and I am encouraged by his attitude to try to work this out so that we will not have to prolong the time of Senators this morning on a rollcall vote if it is not necessary. We think that this is a matter of importance as well, and we hope that adequate funds can be made available so that there can be in the office of civil rights in the Department of Agriculture funds needed to carry on this important work. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the vote on the amendments under the order will commence at 10 a.m. We have not yet reached that hour. Let me, for the information of Senators, remind them that we have other amendments that were stated in the order as subject to votes beginning at 10 o'clock this morning with 2 minutes for debate between each amendment, which will be stacked with time equally divided. Those amendments under the order are the Wellstone amendment; the managers' package, which was adopted last night; the Bingaman amendment on CRP, which we are advised will not be offered; the Robb amendment on farmers' civil rights, which we hope will be resolved on a voice vote. We have proposed an alternative to the Robb amendment which is under consideration now, we are told, and a Johnson amendment on livestock packers' issues. We are advised that that will not be offered. So, with the vote on the motion to table the Wellstone amendment, and if we do not need a vote on the Robb amendment, then we will move to final passage immediately after the vote on the motion to table the Wellstone amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind Senators that this is an issue that came up during the welfare reform debate. The President proposed repeal of these startup grants during last year's welfare reform debate. In addition, the Democratic substitute welfare reform bill and the Republican welfare reform bill contained a provision to repeal these grants. Funds were taken from the grant program to expand the school breakfast and summer food service programs. Additionally, the Senate voted on a similar proposal to the Wellstone amendment on the Department of Defense authorization bill on July 9 and defeated it by a vote of 65 to 33. The question is not whether we need to do more in terms of acquainting students and school districts and parents with the availability of these important nutrition programs. The question is: Do we need Federal dollars that could otherwise go to the feeding programs themselves to be diverted for that purpose, or do we need to divert, as the Senator suggests, funds from other parts of this appropriations bill which are needed for other matters? Our suggestion is that we try to do a better job of working with local school districts, with parent groups, with the schools themselves, to make sure that all students are aware of the availability of these programs. We have increased funding for all of the food nutrition programs as a whole. The WIC program, for example, has over $200 million increased funding in this bill to guarantee that the current participation rate will not be compromised as a result of our effort to reduce spending and balance the budget. We are protecting those who are vulnerable. We are protecting those who need assistance to meet their nutrition needs in this budget. This is a sensitive bill on this subject, and I urge all Senators to vote against this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. I move to table the Wellstone amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me thank all Senators for their cooperation and assistance in the passage of this bill, particularly those members of our subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations. Those who had amendments and helped improve the bill, we appreciate their help as well. I also want to make a special point to commend and thank the members of our staff--on our side of the aisle Rebecca Davies, who is the clerk of the subcommittee; Martha Scott Poindexter, who assisted her; Rachelle Graves-Bell; and our intern, Justin Brasell, who also was a help in the preparation of this bill. We had a lot of hearings. We did a lot of work developing this legislation. We appreciate the help that we got. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, with the adoption of this amendment, it completes the managers' package. There are no other amendments in order to be offered. Indeed, we will have a vote on final passage after the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the order, there is an opportunity for the offering of a Robb amendment on farmers civil rights. We have now worked out an alternative to the amendment that was first presented. I will yield the floor to the Senator from Virginia to describe his amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1033, the agriculture appropriations bill. By previous consent, there will be 10 minutes of debate equally divided between Senator Cochran and Senator Wellstone on the Wellstone amendment regarding school breakfast outreach. Also, by consent, at 10 a.m., the Senate will proceed to a series of rollcall votes on the remaining amendments to the agriculture appropriations bill, including final passage. Following disposition of the agriculture appropriations bill, it is the intention of the majority leader to proceed to consideration of the transportation appropriations bill. Therefore, Members can anticipate additional rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1033, the Agriculture appropriations bill. By previous consent, there will be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided, between Senator Cochran and Senator Wellstone on the Wellstone amendment regarding school breakfast. Also by consent, at 10 a.m., the Senate will proceed to a series of rollcall votes on the remaining amendments to the agriculture appropriations bill, including final passage. Following disposition of the agriculture appropriations bill, it is the intention of the majority leader that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the transportation appropriations bill. Therefore, Members can anticipate rollcall votes throughout Thursday's session of the Senate.