Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Immediately after I make that motion.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the McCain amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? Amendment No. 685

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized in order to offer a unanimous consent agreement regarding amendments; that following that I be recognized in order to make a short statement and move to table the Murkowski amendment No. 686, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote on that motion to table. I also ask unanimous consent that following the vote on the motion to table, if that amendment is tabled, the bill be read for the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate, at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, June 18, and that paragraph 4 of rule XVIII be waived.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I take the Senate back to the time we were in conference. We were in conference a long time on the supplemental appropriations bill with concerns about Kosovo and other vital areas of our national defense policy. In conference on that bill, we worked late into the night on a series of matters. We had a vote on the Byrd and Domenici amendments. As a matter of fact, the House voted to accept the Byrd version of that loan guarantee program and rejected the version from Senator Domenici. The Senate had not voted at that time. I conferred with Senate conferees and we told the House we insisted on our amendments. The House came back and voted again. At that time, it rejected both amendments. We were stalemated. We went into the night the next night and through the day. It was about 9:30, 10 o'clock and I asked Senator Byrd if he would consider a suggestion I had. We had a second supplemental in our committee, and we had not conferred on that. It was a bill that was passed by the House and is a viable bill to send back to the House as another supplemental appropriations bill. I asked Senator Byrd if he would consent to take his amendment off of the bill that was pending in conference. I assured him that when we reconvened after the recess I would move the committee to put the steel loan guarantee on that bill and report it to the Senate. I made the same request to Senator Domenici. Both of them agreed. We then conferred with the leadership of both the House and Senate. At that time, it was clear that if this proposal of having these two loan guarantee programs on the supplemental and sending it back to the House had any other amendment it would not be sent to conference in the House. I remember well Senator Byrd asked me at that time: What are you going to do if the bill gets to the floor and this amendment is offered that would not be germane to either of these two loan guarantee programs, which under the circumstance would lead to the bill not being sent to conference in the House, by the House? I said: Senator, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I will personally move to table any amendment that is not germane to the bill if it is reported by our committee. We are at this position now. We have adopted the germane amendments. I congratulate all concerned for working that out. I was constrained to move to table the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. I thank the Senate for tabling that amendment. The last amendment is the amendment of my colleague that I cosponsored when the bill was before the Senate before. I say to the Senate, in all sincerity, the word of a Senator has to be kept, no matter what the price. I know I will read in my papers in Anchorage and throughout Alaska tomorrow about this, which will be deemed a feud between me and my colleague. It is not a feud. I have a responsibility to keep my word. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I move to table the Murkowski amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the time for Senator Gramm be reserved for a later time today. He is not here at this time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I may, I think I have some time on the bill to respond to the Senator from Illinois, to a certain extent. With Alan Greenspan on the board managing this program--if I could have the attention of the Senator from Illinois--and the head of the SEC on the program making the regulations concerning these loans, the fact that the Senator has raised this issue on the floor I am sure will not miss their attention. Mr. President, my colleague has 5 minutes. Then I am recognized after that. Is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. I ask that Senator Fitzgerald be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw the request. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici, Senator Gramm, and Senator Nickles be permitted 5 minutes each to explain the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. STEVENS. The total sequence is now agreed to, Mr. President?

Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection. I amend my request to ask that prior to the motion to table and my comments, my colleague be recognized for 5 minutes. Let's get the agreement.

Mr. STEVENS. I do object. Would the Senator at least let me be able to get the other amendments out of the way first?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I note the Senator from Texas has returned. I ask unanimous consent his time be restored.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I join Senator Murkowski in introducing a measure that will fix a problem with the pension limits in section 415 of the tax code as they relate to multiemployer pension plans. This is a problem I have been trying to fix for years, and I hope we can resolve this issue during this Congress. Section 415, as it currently stands, deprives workers of the pensions they deserve. In 1996, Congress addressed part of the problem by relieving public employees from the limits of section 415. It is only proper that Congress does the same for private workers covered by multiemployer plans. Section 415 negatively impacts workers who have various employers. Currently, the pension level is set at the employee's highest consecutive 3-year average salary. With fluctuations in industry, sometimes employees have up and down years rather than steady increases in their wages. This can skew the 3-year salary average for the employee, resulting in a lower pension when the worker retires. I would like to offer an example of section 415's impact to illustrate how unfairly the current law treats workers in multiemployer plans. Assume we are talking about a worker employed for 15 years by a local union and her highest annual salary was $15,600. The worker retires and applies for pension benefits from the two plans by which she was covered by virtue of her previous employment. The worker had earned a monthly benefit of $1,000 from one plan and a monthly benefit of $474 from the second plan for a total monthly income of $1,474, or $17,688 per year. The worker looked forward to receiving this full amount throughout her retirement. However, the benefits had to be reduced by $202 per month, or about $2,400 per year to match her highest annual salary of $15,600. The so-called ``compensation based limit'' of section 415 of the Tax Code did not take into account disparate benefits, but intended only to address workers with a single employer likely to receive steady increases in salary. Currently section 415 limits a worker's pension to an equal amount of the worker's average salary for the three consecutive years when the worker's salary was the highest. Instead of receiving the $17,688 per year pension that the worker had earned under the pension plans' rules, the worker can receive only $15,253 per year. If the worker were a public employee covered by a public plan, her pension would not be cut. This is because public pension plans are not restricted by the compensation-based limit language of section 415. This robs employees of the money they have earned simply because they were not a public employee. We are always looking for ways to encourage people to save for retirement and we try to educate people of the fact that relying on Social Security alone will not be enough. Yet we penalize many private sector employees in multiemployer plans by arbitrarily limiting the amount of pension benefits they can receive. It is wrong, and it should be fixed. In addition, by changing the law to allow workers to receive the full pension benefits they are entitled to, we will see more money flowing to the treasury. This is because greater pensions to retirees means greater retirement income, much of which is subject to taxes. I urge my colleagues to support us in fixing this problem once and for all and I thank Senator Murkowski for working with me on this issue.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. My daughter just graduated from high school. We had a little event. They called to tell me that my good friend, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, was making remarks about my having followed him to this floor for 12,000 times. We have been partners for a long time. I am grateful to the Senator from West Virginia for his comments. I look forward to reading them. I am sad that I was not here to listen to them. But knowing the Senator, I know they were eloquent, and I am proud to be the recipient of his comments. Thank you.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am embarrassed.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I join Senator Murkowski in introducing a measure that will fix a problem with the pension limits in section 415 of the tax code as they relate to multiemployer pension plans. This is a problem I have been trying to fix for years, and I hope we can resolve this issue during this Congress. Section 415, as it currently stands, deprives workers of the pensions they deserve. In 1996, Congress addressed part of the problem by relieving public employees from the limits of section 415. It is only proper that Congress does the same for private workers covered by multiemployer plans. Section 415 negatively impacts workers who have various employers. Currently, the pension level is set at the employee's highest consecutive 3-year average salary. With fluctuations in industry, sometimes employees have up and down years rather than steady increases in their wages. This can skew the 3-year salary average for the employee, resulting in a lower pension when the worker retires. I would like to offer an example of section 415's impact to illustrate how unfairly the current law treats workers in multiemployer plans. Assume we are talking about a worker employed for 15 years by a local union and her highest annual salary was $15,600. The worker retires and applies for pension benefits from the two plans by which she was covered by virtue of her previous employment. The worker had earned a monthly benefit of $1,000 from one plan and a monthly benefit of $474 from the second plan for a total monthly income of $1,474, or $17,688 per year. The worker looked forward to receiving this full amount throughout her retirement. However, the benefits had to be reduced by $202 per month, or about $2,400 per year to match her highest annual salary of $15,600. The so-called ``compensation based limit'' of section 415 of the Tax Code did not take into account disparate benefits, but intended only to address workers with a single employer likely to receive steady increases in salary. Currently section 415 limits a worker's pension to an equal amount of the worker's average salary for the three consecutive years when the worker's salary was the highest. Instead of receiving the $17,688 per year pension that the worker had earned under the pension plans' rules, the worker can receive only $15,253 per year. If the worker were a public employee covered by a public plan, her pension would not be cut. This is because public pension plans are not restricted by the compensation-based limit language of section 415. This robs employees of the money they have earned simply because they were not a public employee. We are always looking for ways to encourage people to save for retirement and we try to educate people of the fact that relying on Social Security alone will not be enough. Yet we penalize many private sector employees in multiemployer plans by arbitrarily limiting the amount of pension benefits they can receive. It is wrong, and it should be fixed. In addition, by changing the law to allow workers to receive the full pension benefits they are entitled to, we will see more money flowing to the treasury. This is because greater pensions to retirees means greater retirement income, much of which is subject to taxes. I urge my colleagues to support us in fixing this problem once and for all and I thank Senator Murkowski for working with me on this issue.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Mr. President, I am humbled and honored by the statements of our two leaders in the Senate. It is true I have a deep reverence for this body. When I was in the Eisenhower administration, I sat up in the gallery many nights during the period when the Senate was considering Alaska's statehood. I gained the reverence that I have for the body now from those experiences. It is truly an honor to serve in this body. Some people, I guess, have taken it a little bit for granted. I still pinch myself every once in a while to make sure I am allowed the opportunity to be present in this body, to be a U.S. Senator. I value the friendships I have had on both sides of the aisle more deeply than I can say. I am very proud to say for other reasons many members of my family are here in the gallery tonight. Our daughter, Lily, graduates from high school tomorrow. Tonight the National Guard has flown my grandson, John Covich, into Washington to give me an award from the USO and the National Guard. So this is a double celebration for me. Just having the privilege to still be alive and be part of this body is more than anyone can know after the accident that I had years ago and the feeling I had about life then turned around. It turned around primarily because of the friendship and the helping hand I got from every Member of the Senate who was here then, and I continue to value the friendship of every one of you tonight. Thank you very much. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be qualified.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move that with respect to H.R. 1554, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and further, the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators being permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Once again, I thank all Members of the Senate and staff for handling this defense appropriations bill. There is a war going on. We thought it essential we act as expeditiously as possible. We thought it was necessary for us to defend the Senate's position to the fullest extent possible. That unanimous consent request is already in place. Parliamentary inquiry: Is there anything else I need to do in order to handle it according to the prior agreement?