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

S6142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

people who have been supportive of reform of the joint liability process in 

the context of product liability, to support this effort to expand this notion 

beyond product liability. 

Every argument that makes sense in 

the product liability context, where 

the people who are likely to be beneficiaries are the producers and manufacturers of products, also makes sense 

when the people who are likely to be 

aided are average American families, 

small businesses, charitable organizations and municipal governments. If 

this reform makes sense for product 

manufacturers, I think it equally 

makes sense for the small businesses, 

the charitable and nonprofit organizations, and for the local governments of 

this country. 

For that reason, I sincerely hope that 

those individuals who will support the 

product liability legislation will support the expansion of this particular 

provision of that legislation to help the 

small businesses, the cities and towns 

of America, the average American families and, I think most importantly, 

the communities of our country. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor and 

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. COVERDELL. 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. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it 

is my understanding that we are in the 

closing minutes of morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 

correct. 

f 

JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY 

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I 

rise to speak on behalf of the Abraham 

amendment. I am not a lawyer, and I 

am glad that I can take a chance here, 

as a small businessman, to bring perspective on the question a little bit out 

of a legal arena. This whole question of 

joint and several liability, which 

means to an everyday person that if 

there is a wrongdoing that occurs and a 

legal dispute emerges about it, that if 

several parties are involved, and let us 

say party A is responsible for 90 percent of the wrongdoing and party B is 

responsible for 10 percent of the wrongdoing, and a suit is filed against the 

two of them, if it is determined by the 

legal process that party A, who was responsible for 90 percent of the wrongdoing, does not have any money, then 

the person to go after is party B who, 

while only sharing 10 percent of the responsibility, for one reason or another, 

has access to large sums of money. 

Therefore, he is the target. 

Mr. President, I think in the American way that is just considered not 

fair. That is making two victims out of 

the crisis: The person to whom the 

wrongdoing occurred, and then this 

other party who happens to be in the 

arena, who does not share much of the 

responsibility, but just has resources. 

Therefore, that entity becomes the target. 

In American A–B–C logic all across 

the country, it is not right for somebody who does not bear the responsibility, or much of it, to be the target of 

paying up just because they have 

money. 

We have read several of these ludicrous stories of a person coming out of 

the McDonald’s, spilling their milk 

shake, getting into an accident with 

somebody, suing the person they got 

into the accident with but that person 

is uninsured, so they sue McDonald’s. 

Mr. President, in light of the time, I 

will not dwell on this much more. I did 

take an interest in this Newsweek article—I am sure it has been talked about 

before—with the legal tax on the everyday consumer. Because of the kinds of 

things I have just been talking about, 

everybody is scared to death. So they 

build in all kinds of defensive tests and 

costs to protect themselves. An 8-foot 

ladder that costs $119.33, $23 of the cost 

is now a product of our legal system. 

A tonsillectomy which costs $578 has 

$191 built into it because of our legal 

system. That is why 80 percent of the 

American public support the broadening of legal reform that we have been 

battling here for the last 2 weeks. 

I will just close by saying once again 

that it is fundamentally wrong to 

make people who have a very small responsibility, if any, be the subject of 

having to pay damages simply because 

they were in the area or arena, or we 

had a situation where, as I said a moment ago, 90 percent of the responsibility belongs to person A and 10 percent to person B, but person B has resources, so they will ruin that person’s 

life, ruin that victim’s personal business, simply because they had resources and were responsible. 

That is fundamentally unfair. That is 

why so many Americans support this 

amendment on joint and several liability, which means a person is responsible, financially, for their proportional share of what went wrong. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

f 

NOTICE 

Financial disclosure reports required 

by the Ethics in Government Act of 

1978, as amended and Senate rule 34 

must be filed no later than close of 

business on Monday, May 15, 1995. The 

reports must be filed with the Senate 

Office of Public Records, 232 Hart 

Building, Washington, DC 20510. The 

Public Records Office will be open from 

8 a.m. until 6 p.m. to accept these filings, and will provide written receipts 

for Senators’ reports. Staff members 

may obtain written receipts upon request. Any written request for an extension should be directed to the Select 

Committee on Ethics, 220 Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510. 

All Senators’ reports will be made 

available simultaneously on Wednesday, June 14. Any questions regarding 

the availability of reports should be directed to the Public Records Office 

(224–0322). Questions regarding interpretation of the Ethics in Government 

Act of 1978 should be directed to the 

Select Committee on Ethics (224

f 

–2981). 

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION 

HEARINGS 

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in early 

January I announced my intention to 

have the Governmental Affairs Committee develop this year a blueprint for 

the reorganization of executive branch 

departments and agencies. I would like 

to take this opportunity to indicate 

that this effort will begin with hearings on May 17 and 18. That first day 

will be devoted to an overview of the 

general principles relating to the structuring of the Government. The second 

day will focus on specific proposals 

that have made regarding the elimination and consolidation of executive 

departments and agencies. 

A number of such proposals have 

been made recently. In March, for example, our majority leader suggested 

the elimination of four departments—

Commerce, Education, Energy, and 

HUD. Similar proposals have been 

made by other Members, both in the 

House and the Senate. In early January, I said that we might be able to reduce the number of departments by up 

to one-half of the present 14. 

But more is involved in such an effort than simply outright elimination 

of departments and agencies. We may 

need to retain certain existing programmatic responsibilities of an agency that is itself to be terminated. We 

need to think about where to put these 

programs. And to really do this right—

to begin to move us toward a Federal 

Government that is appropriate for the 

21st century—we ought to be thinking 

in terms of a fundamental reorganization of the executive branch. 

In other words, rather than trying to 

restructure the Federal Government 

piecemeal—eliminating a couple of departments this year, consolidating a 

couple of more next year, and leaving 

everything else untouched—we need to 

take a more comprehensive approach. 

And this is what I intend to have 

Government Affairs Committee do. As 

the committee with the jurisdiction 

over the reorganization of the executive branch, including the creation and 

elimination of Cabinet departments, 

the Governmental Affairs Committee 

is ideally suited to look at the big picture, and to ensure that all the pieces 

of a reorganization fit together. Doing 

this may require a fundamental rethinking of what the executive branch 

ought to look like in the future. 

To illustrate what this might mean, I 

would point to a proposal made by the 

Ash Commission during the Nixon administration. It was then proposed that 

four existing departments be retained—

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS