S5994 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 2, 1995 

sorted out, I am here to lay out proposals that I think are bottom-line 

ways to act in the best interests of 

Medicare. I do this as someone who has 

tried to protect Medicare for a long 

time, and will keep fighting to do exactly that. I do this as the former chair 

of the Medicare Subcommittee on the 

Finance Committee, and now the ranking member—the majority leader is the 

chairman of that subcommittee now. 

I do this as someone who smells a rat 

when the same people who have talked 

for months about stepping up to the 

plate, with specifics on how the budget 

can be balanced by 2002 with tax cuts 

thrown in and defense off the table, but 

now suggest that the $300 million in 

Medicare cuts they are talking about is 

their new plan for saving Medicare. 

Something is not quite right about this 

picture, I suggest. I agree that Medicare has to be put on better financial 

footing. But that effort should not be a 

smokescreen for using it to finance 

other agendas like tax cuts for corporations. 

First, I am introducing legislation to 

create a National Commission on Medicare modeled after the National Commission on Social Security Reform 

that President Reagan chartered in 

1981. 

The charge given to the Social Security Commission was to propose ‘‘realistic, long-term reforms to put Social 

Security back on a sound financial 

footing; and to forge a working bipartisan consensus so that the necessary 

reforms can be passed into law.’’

We need this kind of bipartisan process to shore up Medicare. We need to 

jump off the current rhetorical, budget-driven track to one where we can resolve the real question: how best to 

keep Medicare dependable for seniors 

over the next generations. 

If Medicare is cut by unprecedented 

amounts of money to pay for anything 

but Medicare, the consequences will be 

disastrous for health care providers 

and beneficiaries. Rural hospitals will 

close in droves. Doctors will be forced 

to turn away the elderly. Medicare will 

no longer be reliable insurance for seniors in West Virginia. 

As my second proposal, I will offer an 

amendment to the budget resolution 

when it comes to the Senate floor that 

will put Medicare in a lock-box to protect it from looting. 

This isn’t the blueprint we need to 

get Medicare back on solid ground for 

the long term, but it will buy a few 

more years of solvency and ensure it 

will not be used for anything but the 

promises made to senior citizens. Medicare is not a slush fund to finance tax 

cuts or other Government programs. 

I will tell you why I am concerned 

about Medicare. I am worried its true 

purpose is getting lost. 

It is a promise, a pledge, to the 

American people that they will be able 

to live their lives in dignity and security past their working years. Instead 

of treating Medicare like a checking 

account in this budget process, we need 

to remember it is an investment. 

The Medicare trustees sounded the 

alarm about the short-term insolvency 

of the Medicare Program more than 3 

years ago. 

In fact, the Medicare trustees urged 

action on comprehensive health care 

reform to address the country’s systemic problem of rising health care 

costs that are draining the Medicare 

hospital trust fund and the pockets of 

American families and businesses. 

But comprehensive reform was rejected by the Congress last year. I 

should note that up until very recently, the Medicare Program outperformed the private sector in holding 

down its costs. Over the past 2 years, 

Medicare costs have been slightly higher than the private sector costs. 

But, and this is a big ‘‘but,’’ the private sector is insuring fewer and fewer 

people, while Medicare’s enrollment is 

increasing; and Medicare pays for home 

care services and skilled nursing home 

care, types of services that are not normally covered by private insurance 

policies. 

Mr. President, I have heard lots of 

talk about needing to move the Medicare Program into the 21st century by 

‘‘restructuring’’ it so it looks more like 

insurance in the private sector. 

So far, I just cannot share in the enthusiasm for copying something that is 

leaving out so many hard-working people and families from any kind of 

health care security. In fact, Medicare 

was first established because the private insurance industry had failed so 

miserably to provide affordable insurance to senior citizens. While many of 

my colleagues like to talk about the 

‘‘miracles of the marketplace,’’ I still 

see cherry-picking and redlining, medical underwriting and policy cancellations, job-lock, and families paying 

more and more money for fewer and 

fewer health benefits. 

Just think about sending 37 million 

people with pre-existing medical conditions to the private insurance market 

with vouchers called choice-clerk and 

medi-check. High administrative costs 

in the private sector will eat up the 

value of Medicare benefits right off the 

bat. Will the senior citizens living in 

small towns across West Virginia end 

up paying more of their own money for 

their health care or be forced to join an 

HMO—if one is even available in the 

area? 

To ‘‘save’’ Medicare we need comprehensive proposals to address these 

issues, not just blind cutting of Medicare. Last year, we offered proposals to 

fix these myriad problems. Republicans 

disagreed with our approach, and celebrated the defeat of our proposals. Our 

opponents’ television ads stated again 

and again that there’s ‘‘a better way.’’

Slashing $250 to $300 billion out of 

Medicare is not a better way. 

Mr. President, cutting $250 billion 

out of Medicare over 7 years is not the 

way to guarantee the long-term solvency of the Medicare Hospital Trust 

Fund. It might add a few more years of 

solvency—5 to 8 tops, CBO thinks—to 

the trust fund. We need to rise to the 

challenge met when Medicare was created and Social Security was rescued, 

and chart a long-term prescription for 

Medicare’s health over the next 25 

years of more. 

I make my two suggestions as a way 

to get started. 

Protect Medicare from raids to pay 

for anything, especially tax cuts, but 

what its intended for—the promise of 

health care security for the seniors of 

West Virginia and the country. And 

while we know Medicare is safe, let us 

replicate the approach used to save Social Security and really prepared Medicare for the challenges of the next century. 

I thank the Presiding Officer and 

yield the floor. I suggest the absence of 

a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The 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. 

f 

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is 

the pending business? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

pending question is the Gorton amendment No. 620. 

Mr. GORTON. Is the Snowe amendment to the Gorton amendment also 

pending? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a 

Gorton amendment offered on behalf of 

Senator SNOWE. 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this 

amendment is identical to an amendment which was adopted by a rollcall 

vote earlier today to the medical malpractice sections of the bill. We have 

discussed it. Everyone has agreed that 

we do not need another rollcall vote on 

it. I believe all debate is concluded. I 

ask the President to put the question. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there 

is no further debate, the question occurs on agreeing to the amendment No. 

620 to amendment No. 596. 

The amendment (No. 620) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move 

to reconsider the vote by which the 

amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to lay 

that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5995 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GORTON). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the pending 

amendment be set aside. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 622 TO AMENDMENT NO. 617

(Purpose: To provide protection for individuals, small businesses, charitable organizations and other small entities from excessive punitive damage awards.) 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I send 

an amendment to the desk and ask for 

its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DEWINE], for 

himself and Mr. ABRAHAM, proposes an 

amendment numbered 622 to amendment No. 

617. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 3, line 23, strike ‘‘loss.’’ and insert 

in lieu thereof: ‘‘loss; 

‘‘except that if the award is against an individual whose net worth does not exceed 

$500,000 or against an owner of an unincorporated business, or any partnership, corporation, association, unit of local government, or organization which has fewer than 

twenty-five full-time employees, that 

amount shall not exceed $250,000.’’

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I offer 

this amendment on behalf of Senator 

ABRAHAM and myself. It really is an 

amendment that is a small business 

amendment. 

I expressed yesterday on the floor a 

concern, a twofold concern: One, that 

we make sure that the cap was sufficiently high so that larger businesses 

would in fact be deterred by the proper 

awards juries would make in regard to 

punitive damages, and that we not lose 

that deterrent effect; but I also expressed a concern that small business 

not be unduly penalized by punitive 

damages. 

I have talked to small business men 

and women throughout Ohio who do 

have this very legitimate concern and 

who really live in fear literally every 

day of something happening where 

they would have a huge award that 

would literally put them out of business; that what would become a punitive damage award which, for a big 

business, might, in fact, be a deterrent, 

might, in fact, be for a small business 

actually the death penalty. 

This particular amendment provides 

an exception for small business. And 

small business is defined in the amendment as any business that has 25 or 

fewer employees or has a net worth of 

not over one-half million dollars. If 

this amendment is agreed to, a punitive damage award could not exceed 

$250,000. 

I think this amendment makes a 

great deal of sense. I think it will take 

care of one of the problems that we 

have today, a problem expressed to me 

many, many times by small business. 

I hope that tomorrow it will, in fact, 

be adopted. 

Mr. President, at this time, I ask 

unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside for the moment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 623 TO AMENDMENT NO. 617

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I send 

another amendment to the desk and 

ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DEWINE] proposes an amendment numbered 623 to amendment No. 617. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 4 line 11 strike the semicolon after 

the word ‘‘awarded’’ through line 15 and insert a period. 

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, this 

amendment will, I believe, clean up the 

bill and it will finish a process that was 

begun several days ago. That was a 

concern that I expressed on the floor 

yesterday in regard to the way the bill 

was originally drafted, which said that 

juries no longer could consider the assets that a corporation had when that 

jury made its decision about what was 

the appropriate level of punitive damages. 

As I indicated yesterday, that type of 

preemption of State law makes absolutely no sense because punitive damages have always been intended to do 

basically two things: One, to serve as 

punishment and, second, to serve as a 

legitimate deterrent. 

A jury cannot make that determination unless the jury knows all the 

facts. One of the pertinent facts has to 

be what the assets of the corporation 

might be, and other relevant financial 

information. 

The danger of the way the bill was 

written was not only that we might 

lose that deterrent effect. Because a 

jury would not really know what assets 

the company had, it might have just 

the opposite effect. You might have a 

jury assuming that a company had a 

great deal of assets and the company 

did not have those assets. The jury 

then would make a disproportionate 

award. And so it could hurt really on 

both sides. 

What this amendment does is really 

complete the process that was started 

several days ago, by providing and taking out of the bill that preemption. So 

if this amendment would be passed, we 

would be back to where we were before 

in regard to what juries could consider 

in regard to making their decision 

about punitive damages; namely, we 

would be back to State law, which I 

think is where we need to go. 

So, in this case, I hope that tomorrow, when we vote on this particular 

amendment, we will agree to it. I think 

it is only equitable and fair. I urge my 

colleagues to do so. 

At this point, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill 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 (Mr. 

DEWINE). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

CLOTURE MOTION 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send 

two separate motions to invoke cloture 

on the Gorton amendment No. 596 to 

the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will read the motion. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We the undersigned Senators in accordance 

with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate do hereby 

move to bring to a close debate on the Gorton Amendment No. 596 to H.R. 956, the 

Product Liability bill. 

Bob Dole, Slade Gorton, Rick Santorum, 

Jim Inhofe, Conrad Burns, Pete V. 

Domenici, Hank Brown, Spencer Abraham, Paul D. Coverdell, Larry E. Craig, 

Dirk Kempthorne, Bob Smith, Trent 

Lott, Chuck Grassley, Judd Gregg, 

Mitch McConnell. 

f 

CLOTURE MOTION 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will now read the second motion. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We the undersigned Senators in accordance 

with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate do hereby 

move to bring to a close debate on the Gorton Amendment No. 596 to H.R. 956, the 

Product Liability bill. 

Bob Dole, Slade Gorton, Orrin G. Hatch, 

Dirk Kempthorne, Pete V. Domenici, 

Conrad Burns, John Ashcroft, Dan 

Coats, Bill Frist, Olympia J. Snowe, 

Spencer Abraham, Nancy Landon 

Kassebaum, James J. Jeffords, Ted Stevens, Mark O. Hatfield, Frank H. Murkowski. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

(During today’s session of the Senate, the following morning business 

was transacted.) 

f 

REMEMBERING GINGER ROGERS 

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the 

Op-Ed page of Friday’s Washington 

Post featured an irresistible account 

by Philip Geyelin, ‘‘When I Danced 

With Ginger Rogers.’’ The occasion was 

the Gridiron Club dinner of March 28, 

1981. With the advent of Ronald Reagan’s presidency ‘‘Hooray for Hollywood’’ was the evening’s theme, and 

Miss Rogers its most illustrious guest. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS