Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as I said at the beginning of this debate, all of this comes out of the Contract With America. All of the $270 billion cut in Medicare comes out of the desire to find the tax breaks for wealthy families and corporations. When you are looking for that kind of money in the budget that we now have, you cannot look to the military. You cannot look to education. You have to look to the places where the money is. That is in Medicare, that is in Medicaid, to some degree in the earned income tax credit and, of course, to some degree in welfare. So the Republicans have pounced upon Medicare, and they have decided not to solve the Medicare problem but to bury Medicare with the idea of making absolutely certain that they could get the most amount of money from Medicare for the purposes of their tax breaks for the wealthy that they possibly could. This vote is about nothing else than that. If it is simply a matter of trying to solve the Medicare problem, then the Democratic solution in this amendment, which I hope people will support, is the answer: $89 billion will do it. If it is tax breaks for the wealthy, and that is what you are after, then you will want to vote against this amendment because that is not what we on this side are trying to do. I hope my colleagues will understand the genesis and the nature of what this whole argument has been about from the very beginning. This is a historic vote. It is a defining moment. It is an extremely dangerous moment for the seniors of our country. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield back my time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I, with discipline and with good intent, have the time which I might require for my remarks.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent to speak--I had not realized that there was a 10-minute limit. When I created the speech, which is talking about something which has not been talked about before on the floor, I did it for the purpose of trying to enlighten the membership. So if I go over just a couple of minutes, will that put me in severe jeopardy with the Presiding Officer?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is true.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to report to the entire U.S. Senate and, in fact, I am talking to my colleagues--hopefully, everybody is listening, probably not--about just how low, frankly, some are willing to stoop. As we all know, we will soon see a gigantic budget bill with the impossible name of ``reconciliation'' on the floor. Under the special rules, the Senate will have very little time to discuss, let alone try to alter, this mammoth Government bill. That is why I stand here today. I want to take the time to shine a piercing light on one of the darkest, most hidden and most underhanded parts of the mammoth budget bill about to land on everybody's desk. Using that familiar label of tax relief, the provision is an attempt to line the pockets of a select group of companies, some of which I shall name in a few moments, at the expense of something as critical as health benefits for the most vulnerable, the oldest, the weakest, and the most deserving group [[Page S 15560]] of Americans you could find: Our coal miners, retired, old. It is a provision based, in my judgment, upon greed. It is a provision stuck quietly into the package--it is, in fact, the second to last part of the finance package--in a back room before it surfaced in the open just last week. It was stuck in by the majority leader. It is a provision that has brought a shudder into the hearts and minds of 92,000 very old, sometimes very sick, retired miners, their widows, and their orphans. Mr. President, almost 30,000 of them live in West Virginia. Obviously, I would tend to care about that a lot. On the other hand, 8,000 live in Virginia; 6,500 in Ohio; 20,000 in Pennsylvania; 12,000 in Kentucky; close to 2,000 in Indiana; and, in fact, they are in every State in this country, with the exception of Hawaii, and also in the District of Columbia. Mr. President, these are 92,000 people who were promised by employers for decades--it was not an open question, it was a done deal--promised by their employers that they could count on health care when they made their last exit from the mines, when their lungs had sacrificed enough and they could not go on, they simply could not; when they had been underground digging out the fuel that made this country the world's most powerful economic engine, when they got too old, too sick or even lost a spouse or a parent to the dangerous work of, particularly underground, coal mining, when they could hope for some rest finally in their retirement years, 92,000 of these people are still living across this country and still have a right to believe in the principle that promises made should be promises kept. Instead, with no hearings, with no visible authorship, no announcement, a special favor for the companies--a small group of which will get the majority of the benefits of this provision, and I will name them in a few moments--this special deal for these companies which want to break their promises--was slipped into the reconciliation bill. It is the most extraordinary and duplicitous act I can remember in the 10 years I have been in the Senate. A favor that gets these companies off the hook, a favor that risks the collapse of the fund that ensures the promised health care benefits to the retirees in my State and in virtually every other State-- literally every other State but Hawaii--in America. This provision is outrageous. It is shameful. It is another example of what we read about in the Wall Street Journal today. I assume and hope there will be more of this. It is an article on Members of the Senate who are getting special breaks, and it lists a bunch of Senators and the deals they cut for special friends or special interests-- however you want to phrase it. It is not very elegant, however one phrases it. Mr. President, even though average Americans did not get their say in what would happen to their Medicaid benefits or their student loans or to the tax credit that rewards working over welfare, a select group of companies with lobbyists wall to wall sure got their say in this package. A bill allegedly meant to balance the budget is tipping the scales of fairness and justice when it comes to health care for 92,000 very old retirees. I strongly appeal to my Republican colleagues. I ask them to stop this corporate payoff before more damage is done to people who have done nothing in their life to deserve it. It is obvious that the hope is to keep this cruel little provision under wraps, stick it on page 166 of a Finance Committee document. Hide it in the bill about to come to the floor. Do not talk about it, do not acknowledge who is responsible for this giveaway to companies. I am here to talk about it. I will not stop talking about it for as long as it hangs around. I am not going to let the U.S. Senate become a bazaar again for greedy interests, and in particular in the case of retired old coal miners. If one has not seen them, if one does not know them, one does not understand the emotion involved in this. They cannot hire lobbyists. They cannot prevail in a fight like this, unless they have a majority of us on their side. What exactly does the provision do? It hands over the money that is keeping the miners' health trust fund solvent to a select group of companies that cannot bear keeping their promise to their own retirees to whom they promised health benefits, with whom there was an agreement. It is one more reminder that special interests count a whole lot more in this particular Congress--not the working people who toiled in the mine, miles underground in crawl spaces, crouched in the icy water until their backs ached and their lungs spoiled, as they dug to provide the power for our Nation's growth and prosperity. Those workers--fathers, friends, brothers, and uncles--do not count when they are stacked up against the interests of big corporations who want to wriggle out of any responsibility for their own retirees to whom they have made this commitment of health benefits so long as they shall live. I want to share just a little bit of history with the Senate. Almost 50 years ago, Madam President, the President of the United States, Harry S. Truman--this is important, because it gives it context--ended a national coal strike by seizing the coal mines. That action established an unprecedented relationship between the Federal Government, miners, and operators in the coal industry. In that 1946 strike right after the Second World War, health care was a central issue. It is not hard to understand why. Pensions are important, health care is everything--both for miners and for their families. Back then, people died of mining illnesses and injuries in staggering numbers. There were no safety precautions. That did not take place until we passed the 1969 Coal Safety Act. All to dig out coal for the rest of the country to grow on and become what it is today which is, of course, a great, incredible, America. Since that 1946 strike, coal miners have traded--sacrificed--other benefits like pensions to preserve the decent health care benefits which they depend on because illness and injury are so intertwined with the nature of coal mining. This leads up to the health program under attack in the reconciliation bill about to come to the floor. In the 1950's, a grand compact involving the President and others was reached between labor and management in the coal industry--an extraordinary sort of event. In return for health and pension security, it was decided, labor agreed to mechanize the coal mines, thereby throwing out of work within a few years 400,000 people in the Appalachians. But in return for the mechanization was the promise of lifetime pensions and health benefits. It was a good deal all around. Much later on the health care promised to retirees faced jeopardy, and because of the impending crisis--this is much later on--I, as a Member of the Senate, worked night and day for months and months on end to find a way to shore up the health fund and extend its solvency. I cared passionately about working this out. That led to the passage of the 1992 Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act, simply known as the Coal Act. Coal miners helped to create the might of modern industrial America. Nobody would dispute that. They fueled our progress. In 1992, when we passed the Coal Act, unanimously, without a vote, and through bipartisan negotiations, in a solution which was suggested by President Bush and his White House, and the law, of course, was signed by President Bush, we told those miners that their tremendous contributions and sacrifices mattered, and the promises made to them would be kept. Action had to be taken. That became clear in the late 1980's. That is because the dwindling base of contributors resulting from bankruptcies and the failure of some companies to keep paying into the fund, just walking away from their responsibilities, put the miners' health trust fund in jeopardy. When a strike broke out in 1989, then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole appointed a mediator to assist in a settlement. When the settlement was reached, she announced the appointment of a commission to recommend a long-term solution to the health crisis in this fund. That commission became known as the Dole Commission. Secretary Dole explained that during negotiations of the settlement of this strike which involved at that time one [[Page S 15561]] single company, ``It became clear,'' she said in the unanimous report, ``to all parties involved that the issue of health care benefits for retirees affects the entire industry.'' She went on to say, ``A comprehensive industrywide solution is desperately needed.'' Secretary Dole's Coal Commission submitted its final report in November of 1990. The Commission observed that health benefits are an emotional subject in the coal industry, not only because coal miners have been promised and guaranteed health care benefits for life, but also because coal miners in their labor contracts have traded lower pensions over the years for better health care benefits. In fact, in the solution that we reached in 1992, the miners contributed something like $210 million from their pension funds to the solution to protect their health benefits. Something else that the Coal Commission said: Retired coal miners have legitimate expectations of health care benefits for life. That was the promise they received during their working lives. That is how they planned their retirement years. That commitment should be honored. Close quote, the Dole Commission. The Dole commission also considered the fairest way to ensure that the health fund did not collapse. The base upon which it was funded was getting more narrow. Therefore, there had to be a broader solution. They recommended that companies that employed miners--current signatories, so to speak, and former signatories alike--share the costs of providing benefits to miners whose employers went out of business. And, in the words of the Dole commission, the best way to finance the health benefits promised miners was the ``imposition of a statutory obligation to contribute on current and past signatories, mechanisms to prevent future dumping of retiree health obligations.'' (Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair.)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. It was hard. And at that time we ran up against, to be quite honest, Madam President, President Bush's so-called ``read my lips'' problem. What the Dole commission was talking about was a tax on coal companies. The President said, ``This is not acceptable.'' So he came in with the solution that became the Coal Act, upon which everything is based today and which is being undermined in the reconciliation bill about to come before us. Collective bargaining cannot work when companies are not around to bargain with because they are bankrupt, perhaps, or have walked away from their responsibilities, sometimes through legal loopholes which created dozens of conflicting court decisions. Moreover, the orphaned retirees whose last employers were gone faced the prospect that when the collective bargaining agreement expired in 1993, no one would have been responsible for their health care. And that was the fact. The Bituminous Coal Operators Association was going to just cease to exist, and there would be nobody to pay for any of the health benefits. Whereas this small group, 25 percent of the coal industry, was paying for 100 percent of the retirees of all coal companies, and that patently was not fair. So, the Miners Health Program, with the shrinking funding base and spiraling costs, made continuation of the old program unworkable, hence the task Congress and the administration faced in 1992, when we did pass, unanimously, the Coal Act. That was the best that we could do to assign responsibility for funding the health program, recognizing that there was not then nor is there now any perfect solution. So, in 1992, Congress met its national responsibility to protect miners' health benefits. I was proud to offer that legislation--again, the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act, or the Coal Act. It was attached to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. I worked on that legislation with an outstanding group of Members whose invaluable contributions were essential to securing passage of the act, my esteemed colleagues Senator Byrd, Senator Ford, and Senator Specter. Senator Wallop was absolutely crucial. The Senator from Wyoming at that time was absolutely crucial in the passage of that act, and others from the Finance Committee and the Energy Committee. The Coal Act would not have become law without their work and without strong bipartisan cooperation, which is what has me so perplexed now. We did our work, and miners' benefits were saved and that makes me proud. Now those miners, today, on average are 73 years old. Most worked in the mines for 20, 30, or 40 years or more. People have no idea what that means unless they have been around coal mining. Every day they rode a rail car a mile underground, stooped in crawl spaces 4- feet high with ice water up to their knees, and made their mines productive and made their employers rich, for the most part. For them, the legacy of that work is black lung. People say they can get by on black lung. Black lung is a totally different subject, and only about 4 percent of miners are granted black lung, even though I firmly believe that anybody who has been in the mines for 8, 9, or 10 years, by definition has black lung. They have black lung, asthma, cancer, back pain, chronic respiratory disease. Their health benefits remain a matter of life and death to them, Madam President. The most serious of subjects in the most dangerous profession. And now, in this new amazing Congress, a sneak attack has been made on the health care security that was finally restored in 1992 for miners and their widows and orphans. And, Madam President, it is not a secret attack any longer. The companies that would profit, which would get 60 percent of the benefit of all of this, have been hiding behind little coal companies so as to make it look like little coal companies were going to take all the hurt. The ones who are going to get 60 percent or more of the benefits of the finance provision are Allied Signal, North American Coal, LTV, Pittston, A.T. Massey, and Berwind Coal Co. Those six have manipulated, through dozens, scores of lawyers, to the point where they could put into the reconciliation bill something that will yield them a $33 million windfall. The provision in this bill is a gift for these big companies looking for a way to walk away from their promise made to these miners nearly 50 years ago. These companies have spent millions to unravel the Coal Act, to renege on their promises. So far they have not succeeded in robbing miners of a single day of health coverage, but they have not stopped trying. I thought this was all put to bed, it was all history. As I said, people did not want to do it in the Finance Committee. I do not think any Republican members in the Finance Committee really wanted to do it. It was just put in there. I think it was put in there by the majority leader, and their patrons slipped just what they were asking for in the reconciliation bill approved by the Finance Committee and now part of the package about to come to the floor. The day after the Finance Committee reported out their handiwork that demolishes the health security of over 92,000 miners and their widows for the sake of a few of the biggest and most profitable companies in this country--I will not give you their profit levels, but they are extraordinary--I went back to West Virginia. I would say to my esteemed colleague from Minnesota, I am almost finished. I went back to tell miners and their wives what happened. The miners I met with were tight-lipped. This was this past weekend. They were tight-lipped, as miners tend to be under all circumstances, especially older miners who have seen it all--strikes, cave-ins, shutdowns, layoffs. They have learned to accept a lot in life. I remember, once I had a friend who fought in the Second World War in the Battle of the Bulge. He and I served in the Peace Corps together and I tried to get him to talk about it. He would not talk about it. He would not talk about it. Miners tend to be like that. They have seen their coworkers killed, mangled, dismembered. They have lost limbs, they have lost their breath, but they have kept their faith and they have kept their health care benefits, but they do not have a lot to pass on to their families. Until the Senate Finance Committee action, you know, then they had their health cards and knew their health [[Page S 15562]] benefits were going to be safe and secure. I had to tell them about a document that appeared on Monday, that was debated by the Finance Committee on a Wednesday, that was approved by its Republican members on Thursday, full of tax breaks for every conceivable special interest. But on page 165 and 166--those are the pages I care about--the very end of the package containing the Cracker Jack prize for all of the companies that want to renege on their promise to their retirees. One miner, who worked for decades in the mines, told me starkly, he said, ``I am worried to death.'' He said, ``Now it seems like the company is the one running the whole show.'' He is right. ``They want to do away with us when we were the ones who worked and built everything else.'' He is right. Bude Jarvis, one of the miners, asked me, ``What's going to happen to me if I lose my benefits?'' And he answered his own question, ``They'll probably just put me in the grave before my time.'' Another miner, worried about his diabetic wife--diabetes is common-- he said, ``If I had to buy her medicine, I don't know what would happen. I could not afford to.'' Today retired miners' health benefits pay for prescription drugs. That is one of the beauties. They are on Medicare but Medicare does not pay for any of that stuff. These are people who will have taken a dozen different kinds of pills by lunch because of their ailments. So when it comes right down to it, this provision is about one thing. Old coal miners and their widows being ground up in the legislative process like hamburger while the lobbyists cut them up. All the jockeying, the lobbying, the lawyering, and the loophole making behind this provision, who pays, who does not, who profits, by how much--it is so much legal mumbo jumbo to a retired miner. He does not get into those things, nor does his widow. When a retired coal miner who has worked for half a century underground in the most dangerous profession in the world by far--by far, Madam President--cannot count on the health care that he was promised decades ago by this Federal Government, and by the companies that richly profited from his labors, then we have made the word of this body worthless--worthless--and will have made contracts worthless. If the Senate and society do not say that the contract that guaranteed miners--guaranteed miners and their widows--benefits is worth keeping, then how can we trust any contract? A contract is not anything to an average American if he needs a bevy of lawyers to make it count. That is supposed to be a problem in countries which are struggling to work their way out of dictatorships and Communist economies. A contract is not worth anything if it is only good until some special interest with political connections can take away what you were promised while elected representatives, including perhaps your own, turn their backs. Promises made should be promises kept, whether you are a coal miner, or a teacher, or a computer technician, or a nurse, or a politician, or a plumber. Promises made should be promises kept. The Senate still has a chance to reject this giveaway to select companies trying to profit at the expense of 92,000 retirees, widows, and their orphans. They are dying at the rate of 6,000 a year. Ninety- two thousand are dying. When we passed the bill, there were 120,000. Now it is 92,000. They are dying. We know the budget reconciliation bill will pass with virtually every Republican vote. I hope I am wrong on that. We know that the process is stacked so that the bill cannot be filibustered. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can stand up for the people in their own States and the principle of keeping promises. And I close with this. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle who heard the call of Secretary Dole's Coal Commission for a fair solution and helped me pass the bill to rescue the health fund can heed that call once more. To anyone who says America's crisis is about values, this is the chance to turn those words into deeds. This provision that mocks the basic value of keeping promises and attacks the health care of 92,000 retirees should go, Madam President. It should go. And, if it does not, those of us on the other side, in West Virginia and across the country, will not give up. We will not, and we cannot, as I am sure the Presiding Officer understands, be still. I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank my distinguished colleague from Minnesota who must think that I took considerable advantage. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1048, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, fiscal year 1996. While both the administration and I have some concerns with this bill, it is in general a ringing endorsement of the bipartisan space and aeronautics programs and a strong statement in support of our Nation's future in space. The bill strongly supports the space station and funds NASA's most important new satellite initiative, Mission to Planet Earth. It authorizes full funding for research on reusable launch vehicles, and supports the important Cassini and Mars Surveyor projects. It also fully authorizes the President's requested funding for aeronautical research and technology, thus continuing the industry-government partnership that is so vital to the long-term strength of our vital aircraft industry. In addition, the bill requires the NASA Administrator to conduct a study of the feasibility of privatizing the space shuttle--an important step in the on-going debate about how to reduce shuttle costs and bureaucracy without jeopardizing safety or Government requirements. And I am proud that the bill continues the small but very valuable NASA Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCOR]. I also support the bill's authorization for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation at the Transportation Department, and the title III amendments that will update the important Commercial Space Launch Act. Mr. President, the administration does have several concerns about the NASA portions of this bill. The most important concerns the bill's proposed $200 million reduction in shuttle funding. NASA is committed to reducing shuttle costs over time, but the agency is concerned that the assumption that $200 million can be cut in 1 year is unrealistic. The second is the administration's concern about several other cuts the bill makes, including funding cuts for the gravity probe-B satellite project, high-performance computing in the aeronautical program, and a $100 million reduction in the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System Replenishment Program. Third, the administration also objects to the $123 million in new, unrequested projects authorized by the bill. I believe that these are all important issues, and I will discuss them further with Chairman Pressler and Chairman Burns as S. 1048 moves through the legislative process. Overall, however, there is much to commend in this bill. I commend Chairman Pressler and Chairman Burns for their dedication to NASA issues and for working with us on this legislation. I support S. 1048 and its strong endorsement of our Nation's space and aeronautical objectives, and I urge our colleagues to join me in voting for it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, no amount of procedural pain or legislative suffering that I, as a Senator, rightfully can impose--and will--could possibly offset the pain and the suffering being imposed on so many fragile people by the measures being rammed through the Senate Finance Committee and this Congress. I recognize that the powerful interests who will benefit from these harsh measures will probably win and these coal miners will probably be cut off. But I want to make it hard, and I have the right to make it hard, and I have the moral obligation to make it hard for anybody to do that. I only wish I could make it as hard for them as they intend to make it--we in the Congress, that is--for the children and the seniors and the students and the disabled and the poor working families and those old coal miners. That is my line in the sand. I fully object to what this Congress is doing. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the distinguished presiding officer and the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, crowds are gathering to watch a train wreck. It is going to be a budget wreck. And it is going to be a horrible, horrible pileup. Maybe that ghoulish fascination about what is ahead is, in fact, distracting us, diverting us from the daily bashing that vulnerable Americans are taking every single day in the actions of this Congress. But today, weeks before that big crash, I have seen enough. Speaking for this Senator, the junior Senator from West Virginia, I have seen enough. I have been fighting, offering amendments, voting no, but today I object. I object to all of it, to taking one more step, to letting the latest injury go unanswered. I have put in an objection to the Senate Finance Committee's meeting. And as a result of my objection, they cannot meet after the hour of 2. And I will do that every day, and I will do that all the way through the reconciliation process until a particular part involving old coal miners is removed from the bill the Senate Finance Committee is now working on. This new Republican leadership will go to any length to seize the crown jewel of their contract. And that is to ring out $245 billion in new tax breaks for a privileged few. But at what cost? At whose expense? Every day their answer becomes more savage. Pilfering school lunch moneys, turning 4-year-olds away from Head Start classes, eliminating standards for screening and testing for childhood diseases. Where does it end? Not there. Brick by brick, they are tearing down the Medicare Program, the efficient, effective, popular insurance program that protects senior citizens from poverty, which they once knew, and pain, turning their backs on the elderly and in nursing homes, allowing again, as we cut out almost 10 years ago, patients in nursing homes who were considered to be disruptive to be tethered down, tied down, or drugged into passivity. That will now be legal. And it will be done. Doubling the cost of health insurance for the most fragile amongst us. Had enough? Sticking students with higher loan fees, squeezing out job training opportunities, cutting the number of college loans, opening a loophole to drop the disabled from health coverage. Senator Chafee and I did that. It passed the Senate Finance Committee 17 to 3. Pregnant women, children 12 years and younger, and the disabled. And unilaterally it was dropped. And then at the last moment, because some of us came to the floor of the U.S. Senate to expose that ruse, it was put back in, sort of, by saying, ``Let the States set the standards.'' Charging families more to care for their mentally ill or retarded children. Closing the doors on more than half of our special ed classrooms. How much more could they want? Mugging the working poor with a $43 billion tax hike. What do I mean by that? The earned-income tax credit being cut by $43 billion. Those are people who are living out America's dream, working without health insurance, all of them virtually, but working, refusing to go on welfare, many of them making less money than if they were on welfare, and their kids not getting Medicaid, health care coverage to boot. But they are doing it because they want to work. So we talk about honoring work in America. And then we turn around and cut those who are at the very bottom edge of the working poor, a $43 billion tax increase for them, money which they earned which they will now not get to keep because we are changing the rules on them. We are turning off the heat, Mr. President. We are turning off the heat, quite literally, taking away money from remedial reading and writing for poor children. Are they done yet? No. Not quite. Today a new provision to unravel the health benefits for retired coal miners and their widows has been added to this long list of atrocities. It is a small group, Mr. President, only 92,000 individuals in all 50 States. A small group, I admit that; the average age, 76 years old. Most worked in the mines for decades back in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's. They had to work in 3-foot crawl spaces in ice water. They did the hard work, pick and shovel. And now we want to take away their health insurance. It is being done in the Senate Finance Committee. These were the people that fueled the economic growth and the prosperity of our country. These days I meet these miners that I am talking about in their homes in West Virginia. Many struggle to walk. Mr. President, if I could only describe to you what it is for an older miner, attached to oxygen, with black lung, with all kinds of problems of breathing, taking a fistful of pills a day. Just a simple act, to watch that miner try to get up out of his chair and then to walk very, very slowly across the room to the television set to change the channel or to turn the set on or off, and then very slowly come back, fall back into that chair--almost a day's journey is the physical impact of that. These are the people we are talking about. Old people, ravaged by the only work that they possibly could have done, because of where they grew up and what work was available. Pills for blood pressure, for constant joint pain. They do not have much. They never earned a lot. There are no big pensions. But these miners, Mr. President, traded wages every year. They traded wages that they got for digging coal to get health insurance security, because [[Page S 15273]] to the miner, health insurance is more significant in the long term than the wages of the pension. But they wanted the health insurance in their old age, to earn coverage for their wives, too often widowed too early. They sacrificed for the guarantee of coverage, a guarantee that was sealed by this Government in law and which was promised to them by President Harry S. Truman, the U.S. Government, and which we, in a bipartisan way, passed into law in something called the Coal Act back in 1952, which is in the process of being repealed by the Republican majority. These benefits, Mr. President, were guaranteed by a promise made by that President 50 years ago. So what is a contract worth? They ask; I ask. These coal miners escaped floods, they escaped roof falls, they escaped explosions, they escaped the ravages of black lung. They still survive, a few of them, across this country, 92,000. But they may not survive this Republican Congress, and I am sad to say there is probably more to come. But for me, I have seen enough. I have seen enough. Every person has a line, a line in the sand. Every one of my colleagues has a line. For me, the line is these old miners. I cannot, I will not, go back to West Virginia without knowing that I did everything--everything--to stop this cruelty.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, next week, October 22, 1995, through October 28, 1995, has been declared as World Population Awareness Week. Over a decade ago, the United Nations estimated that by the end of this century there would be 65 countries unable to either grow sufficient food to enable their inhabitants to meet minimum nutrition levels or purchase beyond their borders sufficient food to reach these standards. Recently, the World Food Program reported that there are already 88 low-income, food-deficit countries. With a full 4 years remaining in this century, the dire prediction made back in the mid-1980's already has exceeded by 23 countries. Although a complete solution to the world hunger problem involves action on many, many fronts, I believe that part of the solution is to reduce global population growth. I do this with special pride over my own family's historic role in raising public awareness of population issues and their effect on the world's human condition and stability. Last year the International Conference on Population and Development was held in Cairo to create a strategy for voluntarily reducing world population. The implementation of that strategy is the theme of World Population Awareness Week. I am proud to join Gov. Gaston Caperton of West Virginia and my fellow West Virginians in observing this week as a time to express the importance of addressing population trends. I ask that the text of the West Virginia Proclamation be printed in the Record designating October 22-28 as World Population Week. The text follows: Proclamation by Gov. Gaston Caperton Whereas, the developing world is plagued by alarmingly high rates of maternal and infant mortality, environmental degradation, malnutrition and unemployment; and, Whereas, without a reduction of population growth rates, the world's population will be subject to unprecedented economic and social hardship, hunger and political strife; and, Whereas, world population is currently 5.7 billion and increasing by nearly 100 million per year, with virtually all of the growth added to the poorest countries and regions-- those that can least afford to accommodate their current populations, much less massive infusions of human numbers; and, Whereas, the annual increment to world population is projected to exceed 86 million through the year 2015, with three billion people--the equivalent of the entire world population as recently as 1960--reaching their reproductive years within the next generation; and, Whereas, the environmental and economic impacts of this level of growth will almost certainly prevent inhabitants of poorer countries from improving their quality of life, and, at the same time, have deleterious repercussions for the standard of living in more affluent regions; and, Whereas, environmental and economic problems caused by overpopulation will affect all nations of the world, including the United States; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that I, Gaston Caperton, Governor of the State of West Virginia, do hereby proclaim October 22, 1995 through October 28, 1995 as: ``World Population Awareness Week'' in West Virginia and encourage all citizens to understand the importance of educating ourselves in order to help curb these trends and help eliminate poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, social disintegration and gender discrimination.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have just been made aware of something which I think is unprecedented as far as I can remember, in which case and in any event is very shocking. I want my colleagues to be aware of it, that an attempt is now in the process, or may have already been made and accomplished by the Republican leadership, to drop language from an amendment that was passed overwhelmingly in the Senate Finance Committee in its formal and official public markup. I am not sure if this is a violation of Senate rules or of Senate Finance Committee rules but it is a violation of any kind of reasonable practice. Let me say this again because it is just to me an unbelievable situation. I said that correctly. As I speak, Republican leadership staff is telling reporters--is telling reporters--that language that was voted on, voted on and passed by the vote of 17 to 3, a recorded vote, is going to be dropped. Now, there is no doubt about what happened. For one, I was among the committee that was there. Second, I am a coauthor of the amendment that was involved. And there is also a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate Finance Committee markup. And there was a rollcall vote. Seventeen Republicans and Democrats voted for the Chafee-Rockefeller amendment in committee. Now, this amendment stemmed out of the whole question of what are we going to do with pregnant women, and children and the disabled with respect to turning over all of Medicaid to the States. And there were those of us who felt that pregnant women and children and the disabled ought to be--that guarantee ought to continue because that is so fundamental in American life. So poor children, pregnant women and the disabled, that is what the members of the Finance Committee voted for. Now, again, some say that this is going to be dropped. No new debate. No new hearing. No new vote. Unprecedented. Just a closed door. A dealing with a closed door. And the disabled get dropped. Now, I do not know where I am. Is this the U.S. Senate or is this the twilight zone? We are looking through a looking glass of some sort. When votes do not count and history is not history and what was done was not actually done, this is more than a wonderland, it is positively Orwellian. I do not know whether I participated, therefore, in some kind of a show markup. Was this just a game we were playing? It was a formal session, called to session by Chairman Roth. It lasted for 3 days. This occurred, I believe, on the last day. But you go to a show markup and then the real results are done later. Now, there were some deals that were cut behind doors over on the House side the other day, yesterday, which we were informed about last night, some of us, which were pretty shocking. But this is the Senate. And the committee process, which I respect, which I am a part of, is made a sham. And forget the rules, forget the procedures, forget the record. Now, I am just going to go to two things and I will be finished on it. This was an amendment offered by Senator Chafee and myself. Let me just read the purpose. ``To guarantee health care coverage''-- this is what was handed out to each Senate Finance Committee member before the discussion of the vote--``To guarantee health care coverage to low-income pregnant women and children''--that happens to be children through the age of 12--``and to individuals with disabilities,'' verbal emphasis I add. The words are already there in the description. ``At the appropriate place, insert language,'' et cetera, ``coverage for pregnant women and children aged 12 and under, living in families below 100 percent of the Federal poverty level and to individuals with disabilities,'' verbal emphasis I supply. The record itself in this discussion, one Senator is saying, ``What it would do would be to guarantee health care coverage to low-income pregnant women and children and individuals with disabilities,'' in explaining the amendment before the Finance Committee members before the vote. And then shortly thereafter, the same Senator says, ``That language be inserted which guarantees coverage''--this is in the debate now-- ``to pregnant women and children, age 12 and under, living in families below 100 percent of the poverty level and individuals with disabilities.'' Very clear to members of the Finance Committee. Then on the next page, the same Senator indicating, ``So we make a little improvement over the current thing, plus individuals with disabilities.'' Then later on in the debate, and there was some debate over this, the same Senator: ``And I also would point out to everyone here that we are dealing with the disabled as well.'' This was the statement that was made immediately prior to the vote. ``We are dealing with the low-income pregnant women and children and the disabled, as I mentioned before. So I would like to have a vote,'' the Senator said. Another Senator said, ``Mr. Chairman, all time has expired on both sides.'' The chairman said, ``We are trying to proceed. I congratulate the distinguished Senator,'' et cetera, et cetera, the clerk will call the roll. The clerk: ``Mr. Dole.'' The chairman: ``Aye by proxy,'' and he was represented. ``Mr. Packwood.'' No by proxy. ``Mr. Chafee.'' Aye by proxy. ``Mr. Grassley,'' and so on it went. So here we have the amendment, here we have the committee transcript of the hearing itself and now, if the disabled are dropped after they were included in the amendment, voted for in the amendment and the amendment was approved by 17 of the 20 members of the Finance Committee, then how can anybody ever trust anything that goes on in this body? How can anybody trust anything that goes on in the Finance Committee? How can anybody trust anything that goes on as between the two parties within this Chamber? It is an outrageous situation, Mr. President. It is one which is grossly unfair. It is manipulative of due process, of proper voting and, in fact, of consensus on the Finance Committee. There are a lot of disabled folks out there. For them to get dropped in some kind of a back-room deal before this bill comes to the Senate, I want to put my colleagues on notice, it is going to be a very interesting discussion. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in general, I believe that our country must improve our Federal job training programs to reduce fragmentation and increase efficiency. I also firmly believe that we should maintain our longstanding commitments to workers who are dislocated by Federal trade policy. Two programs under the Finance Committee provide assurances that workers who are dislocated because of Federal trade policies will get retraining and support--the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act [TAA] and NAFTA-TAA. In my view, these programs are fundamental commitments made to workers during trade negotiations. Many West Virginia workers have relied on TAA benefits in the past. In fact, since 1990, 1,673 West Virginians qualified for TAA benefits and got retraining and income support needed to rebuild their lives and find new jobs or careers after being dislocated. For these families, TAA offered hope and a second chance. TAA means a great deal to workers in small towns that are hit with major plant closings. For example, when Hanover Shoes in Marlinton, WV, closed because of shoe imports, 231 West Virginia workers needed and got assistance thanks to TAA. Similar dislocations have occurred in Franklin, Bartow, Parsons, Martinsburg, and other communities because of the decline in shoe manufacturing and textiles in this country. Many of these workers have spent 10 years or more working in one factory, so it takes time and support to learn new skills. Similar disruptions occur in the oil, natural gas, and coal industry. West [[Page S 14858]] Virginia workers want to get new jobs and new careers, but retraining is often essential to help make a shift from an industry like textiles into another field. Because of my concerns for dislocated workers in West Virginia and my longstanding support for TAA, I am strongly supporting Senator Moynihan's amendment to strike the language repealing the TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs. We should not renege on this basic commitment to workers, especially at a time when we are just beginning to see plant closings and dislocations from NAFTA. Personally, I believe that we do have a special obligation to workers who are dislocated by general trade policy or trade treaties like the North American Free-Trade Agreement--Federal decisions that we make knowing they may jeopardize jobs in particular industries or regions. There is no doubt in my mind that more West Virginians will need retraining and benefits to cope with the dislocations created by trade policy, by NAFTA, and also because of the implementation of the Clean Air Act. I believe passing the Moynihan amendment to strike language repealing TAA and NAFTA-TAA is essential, and I want to ensure that the new streamlined approach suggested by the Workforce Development Act will provide the help and training that West Virginia workers need, and deserve. I strongly hope that the Moynihan amendment and other amendments will be adopted today to improve this legislation, and I expect that I will be supporting many of them.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and the Blind for 125 years of service to students with disabilities in my State. On this very day, September 28 in 1870 the doors of the West Virginia. Schools for the Deaf and the Blind were first opened in the small community of Romney, WV. At that time, 25 deaf and 5 blind children were enrolled that first year in classes in a modest facility. Since that time, literally thousands of men and women of all ages with hearing and/or visual disabilities have passed through the hallowed halls of the West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. Today, hundreds of individuals receive a variety of services through programs offered by these schools--programs like Be a Star, which earned national recognition in the 1993-94 school year as a model for hearing and visually impaired youth as volunteers. People assume that students with disabilities are the recipients of community service initiatives but through Romney's program, the handicapped students were able to get involved in community service projects and make their own personal contributions to the local community which has supported the institution for more than a century. Currently during the 1994-95 school year, the institution is implementing the Stars for Others Program. The goal, once again, is to let students be the leaders they can be in their respective communities. The school expects this year to log over 5,000 hours of staff and student volunteer hours of public service, and I am quite proud of this initiative. In addition to the regular educational programs offered on campus, over 100 preschoolers and their families receive services through special outreach programs. More than 450 students with visual disabilities throughout our State receive Braille and large print materials through the Instructional Resource Center. Over 250 individuals receive talking books through a loan program coordinated by the Library of Congress. Captioned films are made available through the Captioned Film Depository. Each year, many children with hearing and/or visual disabilities participate in the Preschool Diagnostic and Evaluation Program and in the summer enrichment programs. This is a tremendous institution striving to improve its services and enhance the quality of life for students with disabilities so that they can live as independently as possible. The efforts made daily by every administrator, every teacher, every individual associated with the West Virginia Schools for the Blind and the Deaf have opened many doors to people with disabilities, and given them opportunities for jobs and freedom that they may not have otherwise. The schools have stressed that a physical impediment should not be a wall that blocks students from the life, but that they too can overcome challenges and play a vital role in our society. I share this view and am proud of the tremendous progress made by our society over time in recognizing the potential of individuals with disabilities. This institution has contributed a great deal to helping ensure that every American, regardless of disability, should have the chance to be happy, productive members of our society. The West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and the Blind make a very real difference in the lives of students and their families. With great pride, and on behalf of all of West Virginia, I send my warmest congratulations on such a special anniversary, as well as best wishes for more years of service.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, speaking as a proponent of the amendment, this amendment would strike a provision in the bill which cuts off disability compensation to certain veterans who are disabled by reason of mental problems. It cuts off their savings when they reach $25,000. We do that for no other veteran. We do that for nobody else in the country, as far as I know. The amendment is funded by limiting any tax cut under the budget resolution to families earning less than $100,000. Madam President, there is no justification whatever for singling out mentally disabled people for discriminatory treatment. There is none. If these veterans are disabled, we as a nation have said that they are entitled to disability compensation--entitled to it. It is in the law. We have not said they are entitled to compensation only if they are poor. We have not said they are entitled to compensation only if they have savings less than $25,000. We have not said they are entitled to compensation only if they have no sources of funds from anywhere else. They are entitled to compensation. We have said that they are entitled because of their disability. Are we prepared to say now, for some reason, that mentally disabled people are somehow less entitled as veterans, solely because they are disabled? This Senator is not; hence, my amendment. I urge my colleagues to waive the Budget Act and then to strike this provision which discriminates against mentally disabled veterans. Mr. President, during last evening's debate on my amendment to strike the provision from the appropriations bill which provides for a cutoff of compensation to mentally disabled veterans when their savings reach a certain level, we were operating then under a limited time agreement, which I accepted in the interests of moving the progress of the bill. However, there were a number of points made during that debate which should not go unanswered, so I am making this further statement to describe more fully my views on this legislation. Mr. President, one point that was made a number of times during the debate was that the mentally incompetent veterans we are talking about have all of their needs taken care of by VA. I am not certain what point was being made, but I think it is vital to note that the individuals that are covered by this amendment are not under VA care. However their needs are being addressed, it is not a result of VA activity except to the extent that the veterans use their compensation payments to pay for care. Another point that must be addressed relates to the relationship of those who might receive some of the veteran's estate at the time of the veteran's death. As I noted in my statement last evening, it is certainly possible that some remote heirs might benefit from a mentally incapacitated veteran's estate. However, the only thing this provision ensures is that the veteran's estate will be diminished unless the veteran has dependents. There is nothing in the provision which limits its effect to noncaring, distant relatives. The existence of a loving, caring nondependent child who sees the veteran daily would not be sufficient to keep this provision from taking effect. It would be triggered in any case in which there are no dependents. Mr. President, the suggestion was made that this provision is necessary in order to keep remote heirs from inheriting the estates of mentally disabled veterans. I note that no evidence was cited to support the proposition, nor is there any evidence that I am aware of, that would demonstrate that a mentally impaired veteran is any more likely to leave an estate to remote heirs than a mentally competent one. It is important to highlight that the VA process relating to a declaration of incompetency does not mean that a veteran does not have the ability to execute a valid will. This concern about so-called remote heirs would apply to any disabled veteran who dies without a will. Any veteran--mentally disabled or otherwise--who is able to execute a will and who does so should not have limitations on who can be named as beneficiary under the will, nor any restriction on the amount of the estate that can pass under the will. If there is a governmental interest in restricting inheritance of estates, any part of which is made up of VA compensation--and let me be clear, I do not believe that there is--then it must apply equally to a disabled veteran who is not mentally incompetent. As many of my colleagues know, the original enactment of this provision was challenged by the Disabled American Veterans in a lawsuit in 1991. The Federal court that heard the case--and which declared that original enactment unconstitutional--noted that the limitation did not affect the payment of compensation to between 95 to 98 percent of the disabled veterans who have no dependents. It hardly makes sense or can be defended that this small group of mentally disabled veterans should be singled out for this treatment. Mr. President, the only characteristic that distinguishes the class of veterans that is being singled out in this legislation is their mental injury or disease. Perhaps some believe that these veterans are less likely to object to such governmental intrusion into their lives, but that is hardly a basis for this sort of legislation which takes away compensation to which the veterans are entitled. Mr. President, it is worth noting that about 85 percent of estates left by mentally incompetent veterans are inherited by close family members. While these individuals may or may not be dependents, that should hardly disqualify them from inheriting the veterans' estates. Indeed, it is very often these individuals--parents, nondependent children, brothers and sisters, other close family members--who have made significant personal sacrifices to care for the veteran during the veteran's lifetime. Mr. President, it should be noted that the estates of mentally disabled veterans are frequently made up of funds from sources other than VA benefits, and the effect of this provision would be to require these veterans to reduce the overall value of their estates in order to continue to receive the compensation which is their due. The bottom line, Mr. President, is this: No matter what arguments are put forward in an attempt to justify this provision, in the end it can only be seen as what it is--rank discrimination against mentally disabled veterans. It is unworthy of the Congress and should be rejected. Mr. President, I am aware of the two reports--a 1982 GAO report and a 1988 VA inspector general report--that are cited as the justification for this provision. While it may be argued that some support for this provision may be found in one or both of these reports, I think that a closer examination will show that this reliance is misplaced. For example, Mr. President, neither report provided evidence that mentally disabled veterans accumulate more assets than other veterans. Nor did either report find a basis for distinguishing mentally disabled veterans from all other disabled veterans on the issue of the disposition of their estates or as to any other element related to their VA compensation. In fact, neither report looks at competent veterans. Both reports assumed, with no basis, that mentally disabled veterans do not have wills. This is simply not true. Neither report studied mentally competent veterans to learn how they dispose of their estates. The GAO report looked at a small sample--only four regional offices-- hardly a sufficient basis on which to make so sweeping a change in VA compensation policy. With respect to the inspector general's report, my colleagues may not know that the IG did not recommend that compensation payments to mentally incompetent veterans be stopped, but rather recommended that the compensation payments be paid into a special trust fund on behalf of the veterans. Mr. President, in essence, this provision is establishing a means test for [[Page S 14339]] one very small group of veterans, and doing so on a very scant record. I know that both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees supported this provision in OBRA 90. We made a mistake then, and nowhere is that demonstrated more clearly than in the district court opinion in the suit brought by DAV. Our committee could have repeated the mistake in this Congress as we worked to meet our reconciliation mandate. We did not. The Senate should not do so either.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer. This amendment would provide funding for veterans' health care at the level requested by the President, which is $16.96 billion, and would offset the $511 million increase that that represents by limiting any tax cut under the budget resolution to families that earn less than $100,000. Again, I think this choice is a simple one. The President simply wanted to keep the funding for veterans' health care services--the people whom we have said have a special entitlement to health care services--consistent with inflation. And it is not even health care inflation. It is regular inflation, which is 3.4 percent. Health care inflation is almost double that. And so the President's request is below what is truly needed. We are already reducing veterans' health care, but the Senate has reduced it way, way below, and the result will be that we will close some veterans hospitals, that we will deny eligible veterans both inpatient and outpatient care, well over 100,000 of them; and interestingly and importantly, in an organization, that is fighting to hold on to its best health care people, we will lose 6,500 Veterans Affairs' health care professionals. I think this is an unsustainable proposition, and I think the President sought only a modest increase. It was not even an inflationary increase in the real terms of health care. I hope that the motion to waive the Budget Act will be sustained, and I request the yeas and the nays.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the esteemed Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I move to waive the application of the Budget Act to the pending amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, three veterans organizations do support this amendment by their letters. I ask unanimous-consent letters be printed in the Record from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Disabled Veterans.