466
Stevens, J., dissenting
leagues. Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, who spoke "as the original author of this legislation," 138 Cong. Rec. 34034 (1992), unambiguously stated that the term "signatory operator" includes "a successor in interest of such operator." Id., at 34033. And in a written explanation of the measure that he placed in the Congressional Record, Senator Wallop stated that the definition of the term "related person" was "intentionally very broad" and encompassed "successors to the collective bargaining agreement obligations of a signa-tory operator." 2
2 It is of particular interest that he did not limit the scope of potential assignees to those in the three subparagraphs of § 9701(c)(2)(A). He stated:
"[B]ecause of complex corporate structures which are often found in the coal industry, the number of entities made jointly and severally liable for a signatory operator's obligations under the definition of related persons is intentionally very broad.
"In this regard, the term 'related person' is defined broadly to include companies related to the signatory operator. The Conference Agreement makes each such related person fully responsible for the signatory opera-tor's obligation to provide benefits under the Act should the signatory no longer be in business, or otherwise fail to fulfill its obligations under the Act. Thus, the statute provides that related persons—meaning (i) those within the controlled group of corporations including the signatory operator, using a 50% common ownership test, (ii) a trade or business under common control with a signatory operator, (iii) one with a partnership interest or joint venture with the signatory operator, or (iv) in specific instances successors to the collective bargaining agreement obligations of a signatory operator—are equally obligated with the signatory operator to pay for continuing health care coverage." 138 Cong. Rec. 34002 (1992) (emphasis added).
The meaning of Senator Wallop's reference to "specific instances" is not evident, but he surely did not mean "no instances" as the Court seems to assume. See ante, at 457, n. 13. Nor could the phrase "successors to the collective bargaining agreement obligations of a signatory operator" refer to the successors of persons described in clauses (i)-(iii), because members of the same controlled group of corporations, for example, do not assume each other's collective-bargaining agreement obligations. In specific instances, however, direct successors of signatory operators may assume those obligations. See infra, at 467-468.
Page: Index Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007