S5992 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 2, 1995 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 617, AS MODIFIED

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a 

modification to my amendment to the 

desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 

so modified. 

The amendment (No. 617), as modified, is as follows: 

On page 19, strike line 12 through line 5 on 

page 21, and insert the following: 

SEC. 107. PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN CIVIL ACTIONS. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) punitive damages are imposed pursuant 

to vague, subjective, and often retrospective 

standards of liability, and these standards 

vary from State to State; 

(2) the magnitude and unpredictability of 

punitive damage awards in civil actions have 

increased dramatically over the last 40 

years, unreasonably inflating the cost of settling litigation, and discouraging socially 

useful and productive activity; 

(3) excessive, arbitrary, and unpredictable 

punitive damage awards impair and burden 

commerce, imposing unreasonable and unjustified costs on consumers, taxpayers, governmental entities, large and small businesses, volunteer organizations, and nonprofit entities; 

(4) products and services originating in a 

State with reasonable punitive damage provisions are still subject to excessive punitive 

damage awards because claimants have an 

economic incentive to bring suit in States in 

which punitive damage awards are arbitrary 

and inadequately controlled; 

(5) because of the national scope of the 

problems created by excessive, arbitrary, and 

unpredictable punitive damage awards, it is 

not possible for the several States to enact 

laws that fully and effectively respond to the 

national economic and constitutional problems created by punitive damages; and 

(6) the Supreme Court of the United States 

has recognized that punitive damages can 

produce grossly excessive, wholly unreasonable, and often arbitrary punishment, and 

therefore raise serious constitutional due 

process concerns. 

(b) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of this Act, in any civil action whose subject matter affects commerce 

brought in any Federal or State court on any 

theory, punitive damages may, to the extent 

permitted by applicable State law, be awarded against a defendant only if the claimant 

establishes by clear and convincing evidence 

that the harm that is the subject of the action was the result of conduct by the defendant that was either—

(1) specifically intended to cause harm; or 

(2) carried out with conscious, flagrant disregard to the rights or safety of others. 

(c) PROPORTIONAL AWARDS.—The amount of 

punitive damages that may be awarded to a 

claimant in any civil action subject to this 

section shall not exceed 2 times the sum of—

(1) the amount awarded to the claimant for 

economic loss; and 

(2) the amount awarded to the claimant for 

noneconomic loss. 

This subsection shall be applied by the court 

and the application of this subsection shall 

not be disclosed to the jury. 

(d) BIFURCATION.—At the request of any 

party, the trier of fact shall consider in a 

separate proceeding whether punitive damages are to be awarded and the amount of 

such an award. If a separate proceeding is requested—

(1) evidence relevant only to the claim of 

punitive damages, as determined by applicable State law, shall be inadmissible in any 

proceeding to determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded; and 

(2) evidence admissible in the punitive 

damages proceeding may include evidence of 

the defendant’s profits, if any, from its alleged wrongdoing. 

(e) APPLICABILITY.—Nothing in this section 

shall be construed to—

(1) waive or affect any defense of sovereign 

immunity asserted by the United States, or 

by any State, under any law; 

(2) create any cause of action or any right 

to punitive damages; 

(3) supersede or alter any Federal law; 

(4) preempt, supersede, or alter any State 

law to the extent that such law would further limit the availability or amount of punitive damages; 

(5) affect the applicability of any provision 

of chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code; 

(6) preempt State choice-of-law rules with 

respect to claims brought by a foreign nation 

or a citizen of a foreign nation; or 

(7) affect the right of any court to transfer 

venue or to apply the law of a foreign nation 

or to dismiss a claim of a foreign nation or 

of a citizen of a foreign nation on the ground 

of inconvenient forum. 

(f) FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION PRECLUDED.—

Nothing in this section shall confer jurisdiction on the Federal district courts of the 

United States under section 1331 or 1337 of 

title 28, United States Code, over any civil 

action covered under this section. 

(g) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

(1) The term ‘‘claimant’’ means any person 

who brings a civil action and any person on 

whose behalf such an action is brought. If 

such action is brought through or on behalf 

of an estate, the term includes the decedent. 

If such action is brought through or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, the term includes the legal guardian of the minor or incompetent. 

(2) The term ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ means that measure or degree of 

proof that will produce in the mind of the 

trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to 

the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The level of proof required to satisfy such standard shall be more than that 

required under preponderance of the evidence, and less than that required for proof 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

(3) The term ‘‘commerce’’ means commerce 

between or among the several States, or with 

foreign nations. 

(4)(A) The term ‘‘economic loss’’ means 

any objectively verifiable monetary losses 

resulting from the harm suffered, including 

past and future medical expenses, loss of 

past and future earnings, burial costs, costs 

of repair or replacement, costs of replacement services in the home, including child 

care, transportation, food preparation, and 

household care, costs of making reasonable 

accommodations to a personal residence, 

loss of employment, and loss of business or 

employment opportunities, to the extent recovery for such losses is allowed under applicable State law. 

(B) The term ‘‘economic loss’’ shall not include noneconomic loss. 

(5) The term ‘‘harm’’ means any legally 

cognizable wrong or injury for which damages may be imposed. 

(6)(A) The term ‘‘noneconomic loss’’ means 

subjective, nonmonetary loss resulting from 

harm, including pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, 

loss of society and companionship, loss of 

consortium, injury to reputation, and humiliation. 

(B) The term ‘‘noneconomic loss’’ shall not 

include economic loss or punitive damages. 

(7) The term ‘‘punitive damages’’ means 

damages awarded against any person or entity to punish such person or entity or to deter 

such person or entity, or others, from engaging in similar behavior in the future. 

(8) The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of 

the United States, the District of Columbia, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any 

other territory or possession of the United 

States, or any political subdivision of any of 

the foregoing. 

f 

UNANIMOUS CONSENT 

AGREEMENT 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we 

have a consent agreement now. I will 

recite it. If there are any questions I 

will be happy to respond. 

I ask unanimous consent that during 

the Senate’s consideration of H.R. 956, 

all second-degree amendments to the 

Dole amendment must be debated during today’s session of the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. I further ask that any 

votes ordered on or in relation to second-degree amendments to the Dole 

amendment, No. 617, occur beginning 

at 11:15, and that the final vote in the 

sequence be on or in relation to the 

Dole amendment, No. 617, as amended, 

if amended. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. HEFLIN. Just a moment. I reserve the right to object. 

I mean if the final—oh, I see; in the 

sequence in relationship. So it does not 

mean that that is the final vote of the 

day or anything like that? 

Mr. DOLE. No. I wish it were. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. I further ask that at the 

hour of 10:15 a.m. there be 1 hour for 

debate to be equally divided between 

the two managers for discussion on any 

of the pending amendments to the Dole 

amendment. 

Mr. HEFLIN. I assume that, in regards to that, it is to the managers, between the managers. That means that 

people who are opponents to the various amendments rather than the managers would be——

Mr. DOLE. I think that provision is 

set to accommodate the Senator from 

Alabama. If the Senator from West Virginia has no objection, I can say to the 

Members in opposition——

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator 

from West Virginia will do it in any 

way that is equitable. 

Mr. HEFLIN. Why not put it that 

half of the time be under control of 

Senator HOLLINGS or his designee? 

Mr. DOLE. Would that be all right 

with the Senator from West Virginia? 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That will be 

fine. 

Mr. DOLE. So I modify the request, 

time to be equally divided between 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5993 

Senator GORTON and Senator HOLLINGS

or their designees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. I further ask that following the disposition of the Dole 

amendment, as amended, if amended, 

Senator THOMPSON be recognized to 

offer an amendment to limit the bill to 

Federal court cases only. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. So I say to my colleagues, 

there will be no votes tonight. But anybody who has a second-degree amendment to the Dole amendment, or anybody who wishes to debate, we will be 

in session as long as that may take. 

I thank my colleagues on both sides 

for agreeing to this request. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi. 

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent if I could proceed 

as in morning business for 5 minutes? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR JOHN C. 

STENNIS 

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it was 

my honor, a unique honor and special 

pleasure to serve in this body as the 

State colleague of John C. Stennis for 

10 years. I deeply appreciated the bond 

of friendship, respect and trust that developed between us as we worked together to represent the interests of the 

State of Mississippi, and its citizens, in 

the U.S. Senate. 

He had already established a reputation for intelligent leadership in this 

body when I arrived here, and I considered it my good fortune to be able to 

learn first hand from him and from his 

example. We were never rivals. We 

talked almost every day. He was always friendly and courteous to me, as 

he was with every other Senator. Although we were members of different 

political parties, that did not interfere 

with or detract from our relationship. 

Our State has had it share of demagogues, as all other States have, and I 

have deplored their excesses and have 

been embarrassed by them. But in Senator Stennis we saw a man as pure in 

heart and deed with less inclination to 

inflame the passions of the voters with 

exaggerated and flamboyant rhetoric 

as any we have ever elected to public 

office, and I admired him for that. He 

preferred to win a debate or an election 

on the basis of the well argued evidence, rather than to prey upon the 

fears or suspicions or prejudices of the 

audience. 

He was the kind of Senator I try to 

be. 

During his more than 41 years of 

service as a U.S. Senator, he was 

steady, conscientious and extraordinarily successful in every assignment 

and undertaking. 

From his earliest days to his last 

days he gave the full measure of energy 

and his ability to the service of this 

body and to his State. He saw that as 

his duty, and he took that as seriously 

as anyone who has ever served here. 

Others have recalled in their speeches the positions of responsibility he 

held and the legislation he authored 

and caused to be adopted. There were 

many of each, and they are persuasive 

testimony to his effectiveness as a Senator. I will not try to recount all of 

them. 

What may not be as easily measured 

is the influence he had in the Senate by 

the force of his character. He was the 

epitome of rectitude, of fairness, of decorum. His selection to be the first 

chairman of the Senate’s Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was 

an illustration of the view that others 

in the body had of him, and the confidence they had in him to do what was 

right and just. 

That is why he was so admired and 

appreciated in Mississippi. He got 

things done that helped our State, and 

its people, but he was more than an effective Senator. He was totally honest 

and trustworthy. 

Mississippi will forever honor the 

memory of John C. Stennis. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

DEWINE). The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent to speak as if 

morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

thank the presiding officer for his patience. 

f 

MEDICARE 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

am here to talk about the Medicare 

Program. In the recent days, I have noticed all kinds of people expressing 

deep concern for Medicare. That is 

comforting, because there is more than 

enough reason to be concerned. 

Let me get right to the point. The 

Republican leaders in Congress, and 

the chairs of both Budget Committees 

in Congress, want to balance the budget in 7 years. If they keep their word 

and leave Social Security and defense 

spending completely alone, that will 

require cuts totaling $1.2 trillion. 

If they throw in the tax cuts for top 

income-earners that will require another whopping $345 billion to finance 

those cuts. Now here’s the key point 

for anyone concerned about Medicare: 

as we have seen in papers distributed 

by the Senate Budget Committee 

itself, this drive for a balanced budget—and presumably some tax cuts—

will require cuts in Medicare to the 

tune of $250 to $300 billion in 7 years. 

Medicaid will also have to help out 

with $160 to $190 billion in cuts. 

The recent talk about Medicare is 

not really saying this. It is all about 

the need to shore up the Medicare trust 

fund, because it could be insolvent in 7 

years. It is all about the idea of restructuring Medicare to save the program. The argument we are hearing is 

that Medicare has to be drained of $300 

billion to save the program. A curious 

argument. 

Somehow, I think we need to make 

sure Americans, especially the 37 million senior citizens and disabled citizens who rely on Medicare, aren’t being 

sold a bill of goods. 

The fact is that the terms set by the 

leadership on the other side of the 

aisle—balance the budget by 2002, leave 

defense alone, and throw in some tax 

cuts—may require a raid on Medicare 

to get the job done. 

That is why I am here. 

My basic reaction to all this talk is 

to urge the Republican leaders to simply show us precisely what you mean. I 

am speaking as someone who cast my 

vote, several times, for a very precise, 

very specific plan to reduce the federal 

deficit by $600 billion. It included savings in Medicare. The 1993 budget and 

deficit reduction plan was based on the 

simple concept of shared responsibility, and spread the burden fairly. 

Along with spending cuts to reduce 

the deficit, it did important things like 

expand the tax credit for working families to make sure work is a better 

choice than welfare in this country. 

But for all of the fire and brimstone 

heard this year about the need to balance the budget and now ‘‘save’’ the 

Medicare Program, we have yet to see 

a budget resolution, a budget plan, a 

single detail on just how everyone 

making the noise intends to achieve 

these impressive goals. 

Of course, the President is reacting 

by saying essentially ‘‘show me.’’ He 

submitted his budget on time. He offered a health care plan that tied Medicare savings to comprehensive health 

care reform. He rejected the idea of a 

constitution amendment on the Republicans’ terms, and so of course, he is 

asking for some specifics. 

I cannot conceive of a budget that 

meets the conditions of the other side 

of the aisle—stay away from Social Security, do not touch defense, no new 

revenue, and tax cuts for corporations 

and the wealthy—without huge cuts in 

Medicare. 

And make no mistake about it, $250 

to $300 billion of cuts in Medicare will 

mean higher deductibles and premiums 

for seniors, lower fees for hospitals and 

doctors, and a lot worse. If there is 

such a budget that can side-step Medicare, we are simply saying ‘‘show us.’’

We have put our cards on the table for 

the past 21⁄2 years when it comes to 

health care, Medicare, and deficit reduction. 

While all of this talk and born-again 

interest in Medicare’s solvency gets 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS