May 3, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6033

I am honored to join your family and

friends and colleagues in wishing you

every success as you embark on your

next journey; serving on the Physician

Payment Review Commission.

CONCLUSION OF MORNING

fBUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning

business is closed.

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT

fThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, the Senate will now

resume consideration of H.R. 956, which

the clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal standards and procedures for product liability litigation, and other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of

the bill.

Pending:

(1) Gorton amendment No. 596, in the nature of a substitute.

(2) Dole modified amendment No. 617 (to

amendment No. 596) to provide for certain

limitations on punitive damages.

(3) Dorgan amendment No. 619 (to amendment No. 617) to establish uniform standards

for the awarding of punitive damages.

(4) Shelby/Heflin amendment No. 621 (to

amendment No. 617) to provide that a defendant may be liable for certain damages if the

alleged harm to a claimant is death and certain damages are provided under State law.

(5) DeWine amendment No. 622 (to amendment No. 617) to provide protection for individuals, small business, charitable organizations and other small entities from excessive

punitive damage awards.

(6) DeWine amendment No. 623 (to amendment No. 617), regarding asset disclosure.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, there will be 1 hour

for debate equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Washington [Mr. GORTON] and the Senator from

South Carolina [Mr. HOLLINGS] or their

designees, prior to any votes ordered

on or in relation to the Dole amendment No. 616.

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to speak as in

morning business for 4 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I add

BUDGET DELAY

fmy voice of concern over the delay in

action of the Federal budget. It is now

May 3. That is over a month after the

April 1 deadline for the Budget Committee to report a concurrent resolution on the budget. It is also nearly 3

weeks after the April 15 deadline for

Congress to have completed its work

on that concurrent budget resolution.

I raise my concern, Mr. President,

knowing that not every budget deadline has always been met, nor do I suggest that the task facing the Budget

Committee is an easy one. It is a very

tough one. But by this time, during the

two sessions of the 103d Congress, we

had considered and passed a concurrent

budget resolution through the Senate.

In 1994, we passed the Senate version

of the concurrent budget resolution on

March 25, and agreed to a conference

report on May 12.

Moreover, those concurrent budget

resolutions contained politically tough

deficit reduction provisions, and were

submitted, debated, and passed at a

time when a new administration was

taking office—the first Presidential

party change in 12 years.

Mr. President, many of us on this

side of the aisle are ready to help craft

a budget that will eliminate the Federal deficit.

We have demonstrated that we are

willing to vote for politically unpopular proposals to lower the deficit.

In 1993, when we were the majority

party, we developed and passed a $500

billion deficit reduction package.

We are still very sorry that no member of what was then the minority

party decided to support that package,

though it was certainly the right of

each Senator to vote as they saw fit.

Beyond the individual right of minority members, though, during the 103d

Congress it was our responsibility as

the majority party to advance a budget, not the responsibility of those on

the other side of the aisle who were in

the minority at the time.

Mr. President, it is the responsibility

of the majority party to propose, refine, and pass a budget, with or without

the help of members of the minority.

We want to be a part of that process

and to cooperate. But it is first the responsibility of the majority.

It is the privilege of the minority

party to respond, offer alternatives,

and, when conscience requires, to dissent from the budget proposal.

Such is the political dynamic of our

legislative process.

And our colleagues on the other side

of the aisle exercised their privilege as

the minority party in 1993, and refused

to join us in making that tough deficit

reduction vote.

Mr. President, the two parties have

exchanges roles in the 104th Congress,

but the duty of the majority party remains unchanged.

It is the majority party that sets the

agenda, proposes a budget, and finds a

way to pass that budget.

By contrast to the last Congress,

however, I know a number of us in the

minority are willing to support a budget resolution that reduces the deficit.

We will help shoulder the burden of

passing a budget that reduces the deficit.

But, Mr. President, before we can

provide that cooperation, we must have

a budget to work with.

The choices that face us are already

extremely difficult.

Each day we delay they become even

harder.

We are all very much aware of how

our budget problems are accelerating,

and what delay means in lost fiscal opportunities.

But delay also risks the political consensus that must be achieved if we are

to make significant progress on the

deficit.

Mr. President, without public support, we cannot hope to find the votes

for a balanced budget.

I don’t mean to suggest that we can

only pass a budget if the American people are enthusiastically behind every

provision.

That is not going to happen when

doing spending cuts.

If we could find such a proposal, we

would have balanced the budget a long

time ago.

Nor do the American people expect or

even want such a budget.

They rightly are skeptical of those

who promise easy solutions.

Mr. President, what the American

people do want is to feel that their

elected Representatives are being

straightforward and open with them

about what they propose.

They will not support a budget that

is the product of closed-door meetings,

held in the dead of night.

But they will support a budget that

is openly debated.

They are willing to sacrifice if they

feel that the process has been open and

fair.

Mr. President, this budget delay really amounts to a budget blackout.

The longer the delay, the longer the

blackout, and the less likely that we

will be able to build the political consensus with the American public that

we will need to balance the budget.

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Mr. HEFLIN addressed the chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I would

like to address the Dole amendment

and its relationship to other parts of

the bill.

The Dole amendment, of course, extends the provisions of this proposed

bill to all civil actions involving interstate commerce. That includes almost

every automobile accident, and every

conceivable type of accident, not just

product liability cases. And, as we

know, the language ‘‘interstate commerce’’ has been so liberally construed

up until the very recent Lopez case

that it includes almost any situation.

There are many examples, too numerous to cite here, that can demonstrate

the liberal construction of the interstate commerce clause.

Let me first recite the provision not

only in the Dole amendment but in the

overall bill pertaining to punitive damages, that if you seek punitive damages

and any party can call for a bifurcated

trial which means that at the request