May 4, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6139 

quicker; we can do it.’’ Where is the 

budget? 

My Republican friends have overpromised: More military spending; balancing the budget by 2002; tax cuts, 

going up to over $200,000, people will 

get tax cuts. Yes, they have a problem. 

They looked at that budget and they 

saw only one place to go—Medicare. 

When it got out that they were looking 

at cuts of $250 billion out of a program 

that 75 percent of Americans treasure, 

they started to get a little weak in the 

knees. They said: What are we going to 

do? Tell the people that Medicare is in 

crisis. This is the new turn of events. 

Medicare is in crisis, they say. 

Well, I have looked, looked at all the 

reports that have come from the Medicare trustees over the years. There has 

not been a year when Medicare trustees 

did not say, at some point in the future, Medicare will be in trouble. This 

year is no exception, because when this 

Congress was Democratic, we voted to 

shore up the Medicare fund by making 

some tax law changes. 

The Republicans in the House repealed that. If their law continues, 

Medicare will be in trouble in 1999. If 

we can stave them off, we have the 

fund solvent until 2002. 

Yes, we have to fix Medicare. Yes, we 

have to reform Medicare. Yes, we have 

to do it right. But not slash and burn. 

And not outside of the context of comprehensive reform. 

I will say that if the Republicans succeed in this, our seniors will be thrown 

into managed care; they will lose the 

doctor of their choice; they will have 

to pay more out-of-pocket expenses, 

and many hospitals in California are 

going to close. 

Let Members stand tall as Democrats 

in this U.S. Senate. Let Members demand to see this budget. Let Members 

say to our seniors that we will stand 

for seniors and we will not allow the 

seniors of this country to have the 

budget balanced on their backs. They 

deserve more respect than that; they 

deserve much more than that. 

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the 

floor. 

Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Chair recognizes the minority leader 

from South Dakota. 

f 

WHERE IS THE BUDGET? 

Mr. DASCHLE. I rise to commend my 

colleagues for their eloquent presentation this morning. The Senator from 

California could not have said it better. 

The Senator from California knows, 

as my other colleagues have also indicated they know, the ramifications of 

this budget resolution and the extraordinary problems we face as we consider 

some of the implications of the huge 

cuts in Medicare that are now being 

proposed, as well as the extraordinary 

link between those cuts and the tax cut 

for the wealthy that some of our Republican colleagues have proposed over 

the course of the last several months, 

and, as we have already indicated, the 

House of Representatives has already 

passed. 

The concern I want to address just 

briefly this morning has to do with 

what happens when nothing happens. 

What happens when the budget resolution does not come to the floor in the 

manner the law requires? What happens to the debt? What happens to the 

cost of running the Federal Government each and every day that we 

delay? 

It may come as a surprise to some 

who may be listening that each day we 

delay action on the budget, the Federal 

debt increases by $820 million. The 

budget resolution, of course, was due 

on the 1st of April. The budget resolution was due almost 35 days ago. At 

that time, if you use the day before as 

the baseline, we increased the debt on 

that particular day by $820 million. On 

April 2, only 2 days after the budget 

resolution was supposed to have been 

reported, the debt increase was up to 

$1.6 billion. 

As you can see, in just the first 9 

days since April 1, the debt increased 

by $8.2 billion simply because there has 

been no budget resolution and no opportunity for Congress to address the 

concern that so many of our Republican colleagues say ought to have the 

highest priority in the Congress today. 

Indeed, it should have that priority. 

The situation is beginning to look 

very serious as you go from this chart 

to the next one. The next chart indicates that 10 days after the budget resolution was due the debt had increased 

by $9 billion; 20 days after the budget 

resolution was due the debt had increased $16 billion. So, in just 20 days, 

because of inaction, because we have 

not had a budget resolution, because 

we have not been given an opportunity 

to address the extraordinary consequences of failure in leadership here, 

in just 20 days we have seen an increase 

of $16 billion in the total debt, directly 

attributable to the fact that we have 

not had a budget resolution. 

It gets worse, Mr. President. This 

chart begins to depict how much worse. 

On April 21 that debt increased to $17.2 

billion. As you can see, slowly we are 

going off the chart now. The chart is 

not even big enough to show the debt 

that has accumulated by the last day 

of the month in which the budget resolution was due. 

As we all said, we knew the implications would be serious, but this chart 

shows just how serious. On April 30 we 

now see the debt, as a result of not 

having a budget resolution, go off the 

charts to $24.4 billion. That is $24 billion more than it would have been had 

we been able to stop this growth, this 

excessive increase in debt, on April 1 

when the resolution was due. 

The real story then comes on the 

final chart. At least we hope it will be 

the final chart. The final chart shows 

that on May 1 the increased debt was 

$25.2 billion; on May 2 it was $26 billion; on May 3, another $820 million 

more than the day before—$26.8 billion 

more than on April 1. 

Today I will add yet the newest bar, 

for May 4, $27.6 billion in additional 

debt as a result of the lack of action, as 

a result of the inaction of the Senate 

Budget Committee and our colleagues 

on the Republican side in failing to address this issue. 

This is what we are facing. We are 

going to need charts that I will not be 

able to reach here by the end of this 

week, simply because we have not been 

given the budget resolution that the 

law requires. We all understand. When 

the American taxpayer is told that he 

has to produce his check to pay his 

taxes by April 15, people join long lines 

at the post office in order to ensure 

that they get their return in the mail 

and comply with the law. American 

taxpayers go down to the post office at 

midnight sometimes, on the eve of 

April 15, to ensure that they comply 

with the law. The law says everybody 

has to pay their taxes by April 15, and, 

indeed, the vast majority of American 

people, as law-abiding citizens, comply 

with the law. 

The law also says that the budget 

resolution has to be passed out of the 

Budget Committee by April 1, and out 

of the Senate, the Congress, by April 

15. But we have now seen the cost of inaction. We have now seen what happens 

if nothing is done. We have now seen 

how it is compounded, day after day, 

with increases in cost, increases in 

debt, increases in the complexity of the 

problem we are going to have to address in the coming days. 

I must say, I think the biggest concern that many of my colleagues on 

the other side have as they consider all 

of the ramifications of a budget resolution is a promise that was made last 

November. We heard it time and time 

again. We heard that we can cut taxes, 

we can increase or at least maintain 

defense spending levels, we can balance 

the budget, and we can do all of that 

without touching Social Security. 

Now, given the circumstances, it is 

becoming increasingly apparent that 

that is not possible, that there is no 

way to do all of that, as was promised 

last November. So, as we look at ways 

with which to begin to address it, they 

are coming to the conclusion that one 

of the biggest pools of resources from 

which to draw to pay for the tax cut 

they promised is Medicare. In the name 

of reform, some of our colleagues on 

the other side are suggesting that is 

really what we must do. Let us reform 

Medicare. And in reforming Medicare 

we just happen to see this new pool of 

resources so that we can pay for a tax 

cut for the wealthy. 

Cutting Medicare benefits for the elderly in this way has nothing to do 

with reform. That is not reform. Certainly there has to be some appreciation of the difficulties we are facing in 

Medicare with the trust fund. Everyone 

is willing to concede that. But, to say 

in the name of reform we are going to 

cut benefits, in the name of reform we 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6140 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

are going to do it in the context of a 

budget resolution, in the name of reform somehow we are going to reduce 

Medicare but then increase the tax 

cuts for the wealthy, all with the same 

stroke of the pen, I think defies credibility. I think most Americans understand the fallacy of that kind of logic 

and that kind of budgeting. 

So I do not think there is much support for that proposal. I think people 

are beginning to understand that the 

promises made last November are coming home to roost. The promises made 

about cutting taxes and cutting the 

budget and maintaining defense spending and not touching Social Security—

all in a very short period of time, without any pain. The American people are 

coming to realize that it just cannot be 

done. 

So we hope to have a good debate 

about the budget. We hope we can talk 

about our priorities. We can talk about 

the need for reforming Medicare. But, 

as we said over and over on this floor 

over the last 2 years, you are not going 

to resolve the Medicare problems until 

you deal with the health care problems 

in this country. We all understand 

that, to a large extent, the increase in 

Medicare costs is being driven by the 

same forces driving across-the-board 

health care costs. Medicare’s increases 

in costs this year are no greater than 

the increases in cost in the private sector. So we all understand that, indeed, 

if we are going to get a handle on Medicare, if we really are going to reform 

Medicare, then we have to reform the 

overall health care system. Otherwise, 

there will be no real reform—only cost 

shifting. 

So I am hopeful we can stop this 

steady rise in the debt. I hope we can 

begin to see these bars go back down as 

we deal with the budget resolution. But 

it is now the 4th of May. We have seen 

from past charts just what has happened with each day, the daily incremental increase of $820 million leading 

in less than 45 days after the date set 

for the Budget Committee to produce a 

budget resolution to a proliferation in 

debt of $27.6 billion. 

We will bring this chart out again. 

We will continue to show, as we have 

already been able to show, that we cannot afford delay. We cannot afford the 

lack in leadership that we have seen on 

the Senate Budget Committee with regard to a budget resolution. We need to 

get on with it. We want to work in a bipartisan way. But we certainly appreciate the extraordinary complexity the 

Republican Party and our Republican 

colleagues have created for themselves 

as we try to grapple with the promises 

made last November. 

You cannot cut taxes, you cannot increase defense, you cannot balance the 

budget and not touch Social Security, 

all at the same time. Thus, we are left 

with what we see on these charts. We 

want meaningful budget management. 

We want an opportunity to see a resolution that will turn this chart around, 

that will bring this debt down, that 

will do what the American people want 

us to do, and that will protect Medicare, that will protect those investments in people that we believe in so 

strongly. 

So, Mr. President, again let me commend my colleagues for their participation this morning, for the work that 

they have done in laying out the facts 

as we see them relating to the budget, 

Medicare and the implications of doing 

nothing. We need leadership. We are 

very hopeful that, in the not too distant future, we will see a lot more of it 

coming from the Republican side. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized. 

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to the minority leader 

and others ask the question this morning, ‘‘Where is the budget?’’ I indicated 

yesterday that I thought the majority 

party in the Senate had ridden into a 

box canyon. All of us have watched the 

old spaghetti westerns, old-time cowboy movies in America and understand 

what riding into a box canyon is. In 

fact, they usually show them as riding 

into the box canyon whistling and 

happy-go-lucky. And they ride into 

that box canyon, look around, and understand they are in very big trouble. 

What has happened here with respect 

to box canyons? The majority party 

promised the American people that 

they were going to increase defense 

spending. In fact, they are going to rebuild now a new star wars program, increase defense spending, cut taxes and 

balance the Federal budget. But, of 

course, that does not add up. Most people know it does not add up. So they 

had an urgency about this program. 

Was the urgency to cut spending to 

balance the budget? No. The urgency 

was to cut taxes in what they called a 

middle-class tax cut. 

The middle-class tax cut turns out to 

be not so middle class after all. The 

middle-class tax cut does the following. 

If you are a family below $30,000 in income, you get a big old tax cut from 

those folks over there of $124 a year. If 

you are a family with over $200,000 in 

income, those folks say, ‘‘Guess what? 

We have a check for you for $11,200, if 

you are such good Americans.’’

I think everybody is a good American. So I am not saying we ought to 

discriminate. But it seems to me, when 

you are up to your neck in Federal 

debt and the first job is to cut spending 

to balance the budget, and if with the 

first jump out of the chute you run 

over with a tax cut, the bulk of which 

goes to the wealthiest Americans, then 

come to the floor of the Senate and 

claim it is a middle-class tax cut, you 

need an award for fiction. Get your tux 

on. We will give you a prize for fiction. 

The truth is that this tax cut is not a 

middle-class tax cut. This gives the 

cake to wealthy and the crumbs to the 

rest. 

Once they decided they were going to 

do this and started adding up numbers, 

they discovered the laws of arithmetic—which most of us learned early 

in life—do not allow them to balance 

the budget after all. So then they said 

to us. Now that we have done this, we 

want you to join us in cutting spending 

for Medicare and Medicaid. I guess our 

response is we certainly ought to join 

together to reform Medicare and Medicaid to make that solvent, whole, for 

the long term. But my response to the 

majority is, the first thing you ought 

to do is find a place to deep-six nonsense. Get rid of tax cuts for wealthy. 

Then let us talk about reforming the 

rest. 

All of us have a responsibility. The 

urgency of cutting spending and the urgency of balancing the budget is not in 

question. Why were those who were 

most urgent here on the floor of the 

Senate to change the Constitution now 

walking around scratching their heads 

wondering, ‘‘When will we get a budget?’’ The question ought not be much 

cause for wonder. The date was April 1. 

It is in the law. We can read the law 

books to understand when the requirement to bring the budget to the floor of 

the Senate was—April 1 and April 15. 

Those are the two statutory dates. Now 

it is May. 

Those folks who said it was urgent to 

do something about the Federal budget 

deficit have only had time to pass a tax 

cut, a big tax cut, over in the House. 

And then this morning we see people 

standing on the floor of the Senate justifying it as a middle-class tax cut. 

That is no middle class in any town I 

am familiar with—middle class, $200,000 

or more, $11,200 in tax cuts, and $120 for 

$30,000 or less, for families that earn 

that amount of money. No. I think the 

lessen here is clear. 

I do not think we have a budget on 

the floor of the Senate because the 

folks who must produce the budget in 

the Budget Committee understand that 

the dilemma they have is they want to 

give tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and then ask us to help them cut 

spending on health care for the elderly 

and the poor people. That does not add 

up. It is not going to happen. 

What we ought to do is back away 

from this ideological nonsense and decide to start over completely. We ought 

to join hands and say, let us stop this 

agenda stuff that we have, the Contract With America agenda that says 

let us make the rich richer and let us 

cut the health care to the poor and let 

us decide to do this together, in a 

sober, serious, thoughtful way. All of 

us understand. Yes. Federal spending 

must be cut. Let us cut it in real ways. 

Let us do it together and let us do it 

first. When we have done that job, we 

have cut spending and reduced the Federal budget deficit and have a plan to 

balance the budget, then let us talk 

about tax cuts. And, when we do, let us 

talk about tax cuts for real American 

families. Let us do it in the real way. 

That is the way to approach this budget dilemma. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 4, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6141 

I end as I began. The question is, 

‘‘Where is the budget?’’ Let us find 

that answer, bring it to the floor, pass 

it in a reasonsible way, and put this debate on the course it should be on. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

understand we are in morning business. 

Unless specified, the time permitted 

for debate is 5 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 

correct. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I believe we have 

requested 10 minutes of time for the introduction. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 

correct. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that be extended for 5 minutes so that my colleague from California, Senator FEINSTEIN, can also make her remarks. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. 

President. 

(The remarks of Mr. LAUTENBERG and 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 757 are located in today’s 

RECORD under ‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.’’) 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank you, Mr. 

President, and I yield the floor. 

Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. 

f 

EXPOSING THE FRAUD 

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, before I have to leave to attend a budget 

meeting, I would like to try and expose 

the fraud in statements from Members 

on the other side of the aisle claiming 

that the President is unwilling to lead 

and that, much to their surprise, they 

just discovered that the Medicare trust 

fund is going broke. 

The truth of the matter is that they 

have been telling us for a while now 

that action by the President was not 

even necessary. I wish I could take us 

back to December 18 after the glorious 

Republican victory in November when 

Mr. KASICH and others were on the TV 

saying, 

We’re not going to wait on any budgets. We 

have three budgets. In fact, we are going to 

take one of them and have them first and 

we’re going to have the budget cuts before 

we get to tax cuts. 

I want the people to go back. For 

months they totally ignored the President and saying that his proposals were 

irrelevant, that they had their own 

plan, their own revolution, and were 

going to present their own budget. 

Having been a former chairman of the 

Budget Committee, that excited me. In 

January, I submitted a plan for the 

RECORD that showed how to put our 

Government back in the black by 2002. 

But then having gone back on their 

promise to give us a budget in January, 

they said, ‘‘We’re going to put the 

spending cuts in the bank before giving 

any tax cuts.’’ Then, we had the circus 

out on the lawn, as the House passed 

the tax cuts. We are back to the days 

of Rome under KASICH, GINGRICH, and 

that crowd. They went back home, had 

celebrations, waved flags, and everything else of that sort. 

But then, they came back to Washington and said, ‘‘Whoops, we just 

found out that Medicare’s going 

broke.’’ As a result, we have Medicare 

hearings coming out of our ears. 

The Budget Committee has not given 

us the budget. They will not mark one 

up even though by law they are required to report out a budget by April 

1. While we wait for the markup, they 

are having Medicare hearings all over 

the Hill. Mr. President, let me get 

right to the point and refer to the report of the board of trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 

last year, dated April 11, 1994, and addressed to Speaker Foley and Vice 

President GORE: 

GENTLEMEN: We have the honor of transmitting to you the 1994 annual report of the 

Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. 

On page 2, it says: 

The trust fund ratio defined as a ratio of 

assets at the beginning of the year to disbursements during the year was 131 percent 

in 1993, and then under the intermediate assumptions is projected to decline steadily 

until the fund is completely exhausted in 

2001. Under the low-cost assumptions, the 

trust fund ratio is projected to decline until 

the fund is completely exhausted in 2004. 

Under the high-cost assumptions, the trust 

fund ratio is projected to decrease rapidly 

until the fund is exhausted in the year 2000. 

These projections clearly demonstrate that 

the hospital insurance program is severely 

out of financial balance, using a range of 

plausible economic and demographic assumptions. 

Now, that makes it pretty clear. Why 

didn’t the Contract With America face 

up to that point? They knew about it, 

but did not want to face up to it. Moreover, they rebuffed the President’s attempts to address the problem. Let us 

remember that the President of the 

United States did not cause any kind of 

deficit in Medicare. He was down in 

Little Rock; if it was caused, it was 

caused by me and other Members of 

Congress, but certainly you cannot attribute it to him. Still, when he offered 

his proposal, we could not get any cooperation whatsoever from Republicans. I can say that categorically because when we finally got a $56 billion 

Medicare cut adopted, it was without a 

single Republican vote in the House of 

Representatives or in the U.S. Senate. 

In addition, we took $25 billion from 

the wealthiest Social Security recipients, and put the money into the HI 

trust fund. What does the Contract 

With America call for? It says repeal 

the Social Security tax increase of last 

year and thus hasten the insolvency of 

the HI trust fund. 

We ought to cut out this nonsense 

and tell them to give us a budget. I 

yield the floor, and 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. ABRAHAM. 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 

THE AMENDMENT ON JOINT AND 

SEVERAL LIABILITY 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I 

want to take a couple of minutes today 

to speak once again in support of the 

amendment that I have introduced 

along with the distinguished Senator 

from Kentucky. 

The purpose of our amendment which 

we will soon be voting on is to try to 

expand the portion of the underlying 

bill on product liability that pertains 

to joint and several liability beyond 

the realm of product liability to other 

aspects of civil actions. 

As I spoke yesterday on several occasions, and as I have argued in quite a 

variety of settings over the last few 

weeks during this debate, what we are 

talking about here is what I believe is 

an underlying principle of the American legal process, the principle of fairness and the principle of justice. These 

principles, it seems to me, tend to be 

out of sync in the area of joint and several liability. 

As I have demonstrated in the floor 

statements I have made, we have 

countless incidents where persons who 

are only minimally responsible for the 

damages involved in a court action, or 

other legal action, find themselves 

shouldering all or most of the responsibility for paying damages because of 

the fact that they are the deep pocket. 

Unfortunately, this is not just something that afflicts defendants who are 

big businesses. As I demonstrated, it is 

also a problem for municipal governments, for county governments, for 

State governments. It is a problem 

that all too often afflicts nonprofit organizations, charitable organizations, 

and the like. 

We heard talk during the debate yesterday that somehow the amendment 

we are speaking of would be adverse to 

women. But the fact is that women do 

not just find themselves as plaintiffs in 

legal actions; they often find themselves as defendants. They, too, could 

be victimized by the joint and several 

liability process that we have today. 

Indeed, 30 percent of the small 

businessowners in this country today 

are women. It is the small businesses 

who are most at risk, in my judgment, 

unless we repair this defect in the legal 

system at this time. 

For those reasons, Mr. President, I 

just wanted to conclude the debate on 

this topic—at least from my perspective—by reiterating the arguments I 

made yesterday and by calling on those 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS