S5860 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 1, 1995

also heard their suggestions as to how

the current system should be changed.

Fortunately, we also learned that the

majority of Americans did not agree

with the President’s plan to turn the

entire health care system over to the

Federal Government.

But, while most Americans adamantly rejected his radical approach to

health care reform, we also found tremendous support for reasonable and

sensible reforms which will immediately improve our health care system.

In particular, we learned that the

American people overwhelmingly believe we need to dramatically reshape

our Nation’s medical malpractice system.

Recent polls continue to show strong

support for liability reform.

Eighty-three percent of Americans

believe that the present liability system has problems and should be improved.

Eighty-nine percent believe that too

many lawsuits are being filed in America today; and

Sixty-seven percent of American voters agree with the statement that ‘‘I

am afraid that one day I, or someone in

my family, will be the victim of a lawsuit.’’

Some of my colleagues might ask,

why we are discussing medical malpractice reform during the product liability debate? Simple: many of the

same problems facing American manufacturers also affect our doctors and

health care providers.

During the last two decades, there

has been an explosion of litigation that

has saddled the health care industry

with substantial costs wholly unrelated to providing medical care and

services.

While I stand behind the right of

every individual to right a wrong

through the judicial system, this litigation bonanza does nothing to improve patient care or improve service

delivery. It simply encourages frivolous lawsuits by creating an environment which is weighted in favor of the

plaintiff’s bar and against the world’s

best health care system.

Second, this ever-increasing tide of

litigation has forced a large number of

physicians to practice defensive medicine to protect themselves from lawsuits. This practice passes along greater costs to patients and insurers.

Lewin-VHI conducted a study in 1993,

and discovered that the U.S. health

care delivery system could save up to

$76.2 billion over 5 years by eliminating

defensive medicine practices.

Taxpayers also feel the pain of defensive medicine in their checkbooks

since the physicians who treat America’s poor and elderly are forced to practice defensive medicine which increases

the costs of the Medicare and Medicaid

Programs.

Defensive medicine is a drain on our

Federal budget, and one we cannot afford.

In 1991, medical liability premiums

for hospitals and physicians totaled

$9.2 billion.

The current system has had a

chilling effect on the ability of patients to access their doctors—especially those who live in rural areas.

For example, 70 percent of all obgyns will be sued during their careers.

Many have decided to no longer offer

obstetric services to their patients for

fear of lawsuits. And obstetricians continue to pay the highest premiums of

all health care providers.

From the standpoint of the victims,

even when a lawsuit is justified and

reasonable, they are often forced to

wait up to 5 years between the time

their injury occurred and the time they

are compensated, under our current

system.

More often than not, attorneys will

only litigate cases with high award potentials, which tends to discourage attorneys from settling the cases early.

Finally, and perhaps most troubling,

the medical malpractice system has

placed a wedge between doctors and

their patients; it undermines the mutual trust which is essential to the doctor-patient relationship.

Last year, after the relevant House

committees failed to address medical

malpractice reform, I introduced legislation very similar to the amendment

offered today by Senators MCCONNELL,

KASSEBAUM, and LIEBERMAN.

With this amendment, the Senate has

the opportunity to do what the American people want—reform the system.

This amendment would do that by:

Ensuring full recovery for economic

and noneconomic damages including

lost wages, as well as compensation for

pain and suffering;

Providing alternative dispute resolution;

Establishing the use of the collateral

source rule;

Abolishing joint liability; and

Requiring periodic payment of future

damage awards.

These reforms are the first steps toward addressing the failure of our medical malpractice system.

I came to the floor today to reaffirm

my support for sensible improvements

to our badly broken medical malpractice system. As many of my colleagues have noted—Democrats and

Republicans alike—our current system

is costly, slow, inequitable, and unpredictable. Our system has failed hospitals, doctors, and ultimately, it has

failed its patients. The American people deserve better.

While this amendment has my full

support and I recognize the many hours

of hard work my colleagues spent on

this legislation, I believe we should go

further.

I strongly encourage the Senate to

include the $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages.

In addition, we should extend protection to the manufacturers of medical

devices by eliminating punitive damage awards if the device has received

FDA approval.

According to Medical Alley, a coalition of Minnesota’s entire health care

industry, ‘‘the current liability system

has a negative effect on health care

product innovation.’’

They cite the fact that innovative

products are not being developed,

which has reduced our ability to compete in worldwide markets.

I urge my colleagues to ensure that

significant changes are implemented.

However, if the Congress and the President fail to secure fundamental reforms to our liability system, I will

move forward and introduce legislation

which will address the concerns of so

many American doctors, consumers,

and patients alike.

Mr. President, our medical malpractice system is in critical condition,

but it is not too late to save it. The

American people are demanding reform

and the Senate must deliver.

We need a system that meets the

needs of all Americans, not just the

plaintiffs’ bar. I believe this amendment is the prescription we have been

looking for to cure this problem.

Thank you, and I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

fTAIWAN

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the

chairman of the Subcommittee on East

Asian and Pacific Affairs, I would like

to share with my colleagues some developments concerning Taiwan which

arose over the April recess.

As my friends are well aware, the

State Department has for several years

now prohibited the President of the Republic of China on Taiwan, Dr. Lee

Teng-hui, from entering the United

States. This prohibition extends not

only to visits in his capacity as President, but to any visit even as a private

citizen. The official rationale for this

is that such a visit would offend the

sensitivities of the Government of the

People’s Republic of China, which lays

claim to Taiwan as a renegade province.

This stance is troublesome to me and

many other Senators for several reasons. First, Taiwan has been our close

friend and ally for several decades, and

is presently our fifth largest trading

partner. It is a moldel emerging democracy in an area not particularly

known for strong democratic traditions. Regardless of these facts, however, we reward the Government of

Taiwan by denying its elected officials

even the most basic right to visit our

country. The State Department policy

has previously even been raised to the
May 1, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5861

ridiculous level of denying President

Lee, in transit to another country, the

ability to disembark from his aircraft

during a stop-over in Hawaii.

Second, as I have previously noted on

the floor, the only people to whom the

United States regularly denies entry

are terrorists, convicted felons, and

people with certain serious communicable diseases. The Secretary of

State has admitted Yasser Arafat,

whom we denounced for years as a terrorist thug; he has admitted Terry

Adams, the leader of the IRA’s political arm Sinn Fein—a group responsible

for terrorist attacks throughout the

United Kingdom. Few of us in the senate can fathom how the State Department can possible exclude President

Lee—the democratically elected leader

of a friendly country—when it has admitted these gentlemen, and instead

add him to a list of pariahs.

Third, the refusal to admit President

Lee comes at the express behest of the

Government of the People’s Republic of

China. In the almost slavish lengths to

which the State Department has gone

to honor that demand, it has done

nothing but strengthen the perception

on Capitol Hill that it is rushing to

kowtow to Beijing. State has countered

that the People’s Republic of China has

threatened grave ramifications if Lee

were to be admitted—since the People’s

Republic of China claims Taiwan to be

a province—and admitting President

Lee would be tantamount to a country

admitting Gov. Pete Wilson as the head

of government of a sovereign independent California, thereby threatening the

authority of the central government.

Yet their own actions severely undercut the Department’s position. The

Secretary has repeatedly admitted his

Holiness the Dalai Lama to the United

States. The Dalai Lama purports—

rightly in my view—to represent the

legitimate Government of Tibet. Chinese troops occupied Tibet in the

1950’s, displaced the Government and

absorbed Tibet as a province—the

Xizang Zizhiqu or Xizang Autonomous

Region. Despite Beijing’s warnings to

the contrary—warnings similar to

those on Taiwan—we have admitted

the Dalai Lama. We have done this despite the fact that, like President Lee,

the Dalai Lama claims to represent a

country which the People’s Republic of

China considers to be a province. Why,

then, the inconsistency in the State

Department’s position?

Fourth, attempts by the People’s Republic of China to dictate our immigration policy to us strike many as presumptuous. To put it in terms which

the Government in Beijing can understand: Who we admit to this country

under our immigration laws is strictly

an internal affair of the United States.

Mr. President, the People’s Republic of

China is continually telling us to butt

out of issues they consider to be their

internal affairs—human rights abuses,

for example; they would do well to listen to their own advice.

Congress has made it abundantly

clear that it disapproves of the administration’s position on this issue. Votes

urging the Secretary to allow the visit

have passed overwhelmingly in both

Houses in past years. This year, Senate

Concurrent Resolution 9 and its House

counterpart both enjoy wide, bipartisan support. I expect that they will

both come to a vote within the next

week and pass with few, if any, detractors.

There have been some signs—albeit

exceedingly subtle—that the administration may be considering some reworking of its past positions. In New

York City on the 17th of this month, on

the occasion of the visit of the People’s

Republic of China’s Foreign Minister

Qian, a senior State Department official made certain statements which

may provide a small glimmer of hope

that the administration may be coming

around. Mr. President, you will note

from the amount of qualifying words

that I have just used that I consider

the likelihood of them coming around

to be rather slim.

That would be unfortunate, because I

think that it would reflect an

underestimation of the depth of the

feeling in the Congress on this issue.

Just so there is no mistaking what I

believe the reaction of the Senate will

be to a continued denial of a private

visit by President Lee—even in the face

of the two resolutions—let me point

out the following for our friends in the

administration. I have prepared legislation to require the Secretary to

admit President Lee this year for a private visit, which already has seven

original cosponsors. At least two other

Senators I know of are poised to introduce similar legislation. Should the

Secretary fail to accommodate a private visit by President Lee in the very

near future, the three of us are prepared to act. I will ensure that any

such legislation moves quickly through

my subcommittee, and on to the floor.

Mr. President, it is unfortunate that

this simple issue has had to come to

this. If the parties had simply, we

could have put this behind us and gotten on with the more serious issues

that concern us. The obstinance of the

State Department, and the People’s

Republic of China, only serves to

harden Members’ attitudes and to turn

their attention toward other, more

controversial, areas such as Taiwan’s

participation in the United Nations

and WTO. We would all do well to remember the proverbial observation

that the grass that bends with the wind

survives the storm, while the branch

that remains stiff and obstinate does

not.

IN HONOR OF SOUTH DAKOTA’S

1995 TEACHER OF THE YEAR,

fBECKY EKELAND

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want

to congratulate the 1995 South Dakota

Teacher of the Year, Becky Ekeland. I

can attest to the fact that this is an

honor she well deserves.

Being selected Teacher of the Year is

a most significant accomplishment. It

means you have gained the utmost respect of your colleagues and students.

Becky Ekeland was nominated by her

fellow teaching staff in the Brookings

School District and ultimately selected

by a committee of statewide officials.

Ms. Ekeland is an English teacher at

Brookings High School. She has been

an educator for 20 years. South Dakotans, especially the students of Brookings, are extremely fortunate to have

Mrs. Ekeland in our State.

Mrs. Ekeland’s dedication to her students is evidenced in a hundred different ways. One example is the grammar lessons she creates each year.

Rather than relying on a textbook, she

tailors her lessons to the specific needs

of each class. It’s her way, she said, of

showing her students how the English

language works and what it means in

their day-to-day lives.

Schools have undergone enormous

change in the 20 years since Mrs.

Ekeland began her career. One of the

most profound changes is the tremendous new demands placed on parents.

Many children now come from singleparent families. In other families, two

parents work two and even three jobs

just to make ends meet.

A teacher’s job is always demanding,

but it become even more difficult when

teachers have to fill in as parents, too.

Given the increasing pressure on our

schools—and our increasing need for

good schools, now is not the time to be

cutting educational resources.

In coming weeks, as we debate next

year’s budget, let us remember what

President Kennedy said: ‘‘A child

miseducated is a child lost. And let us

pledge to give America’s students and

teachers the support they need to succeed. In a real sense, they are our future.’’

I want to mention a few things Becky

Ekeland is working to improve the

teaching profession and make that future more secure.

First, she is a positive voice in the

community, letting people know the

good things that happen in the school.

She participates in professional organizations.

She takes seriously her responsibility to be a good example, demanding

from herself what we all should be able

to expect from our teachers.

she attends classes, workshops, seminars and conventions in an effort to

constantly improve herself and her

educational skills.

The greatest testament to Ms.

Ekeland’s skill comes from her fellow

staffers and former students.

The counselor at Brookings High

School describes her as ‘‘self-motivated, conscientious, responsible, dependable, a professional individual, always willing to give 110 percent while

at work; another 110 percent worth of

quality time when at home with her

family.’’