Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, following leader time, there will be morning business until the hour of 12 noon with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each. At 12 o'clock we will resume consideration of H.R. 956, the product liability bill. At 4 o'clock there will be a cloture vote on the pending substitute unless second-degree amendments are offered and can be voted upon. That may slip just a little bit. I understand there are one or two Senators who cannot be here right at 4 o'clock. The first three amendments should be filed by 1 o'clock today. Second-degree amendments should be filed by 3 o'clock today. [[Page S6228]] A second cloture vote will occur tomorrow if cloture is not invoked today. It is also my hope that we might at least debate this evening the CIA nomination, Mr. Deutch. I think the administration would like to have that done. I think it is a 2-hour time agreement. We can debate that this evening, and have the rollcall vote tomorrow morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Senator Thurmond. I will furnish those names at the desk. So I hope, unless there is some objection on the other side, that that vote could follow immediately the vote on cloture.

Mr. DOLE. So, Mr. President, the yeas and nays are automatic on the cloture vote. Let me ask for the yeas and nays on the V-E Day resolution.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Finally, Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the cloture vote and the vote on the V-E Day resolution, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate go into executive session to consider the nomination of John Deutch, to be Director of the CIA, and that it be considered under the following time agreement: 2 hours equally divided between the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, or their designees; that following the conclusion, or yielding back of time, the nomination be set aside; and that the Senate then return to legislative session, with the vote to occur on the nomination at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 1995. I believe this has been cleared on both sides. We will have debate this afternoon and vote tomorrow morning. I know the President very much wants to have this nomination addressed. We are prepared to do that.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as we continue the legal reform debate, I think it is important to take a few minutes and focus on what is and is not at stake here. What is at stake is whether we are going to continue with a legal system that is too costly, too long, and too unfair. What is at stake is whether the [[Page S6201]] powerful trial lawyers lobby will continue to protect their privileges through irresponsible scare tactics. Because, let Members be clear, the last week has demonstrated not only that the American people--over 83 percent--want reform; a majority of the Senate wants reform too. Only President Clinton and his trial lawyer allies defend the status quo. What they will not do, however, is engage in a debate on the merits. I was disappointed to see President Clinton parrot the standard trial lawyer line that legal reform protected ``drunk drivers, murderers, rapists, and abusers of women and children.'' Mr. President, I have been here awhile, but I must say that I rarely have seen such an offensive twisting of the truth. President Clinton knows better and he should be ashamed of engaging in such tactics. The truth is that we have State and Federal criminal codes to deal with these people. The real irony that is apparently lost on President Clinton is that those same criminal codes generally contain--in addition to prison terms--fines and penalties that are typically $5,000 or $10,000 for serious felonies. Those criminal fines are only a very small fraction of the multimillion-dollar punitive damage award. So why is President Clinton not attacking the criminal code for protecting criminals? Why have his crime proposals not ever addressed this issue? Because this is about politics, not policy. Our legal reforms focus on the civil code, not the criminal code. President Clinton knows that. But President Clinton also knows who raised millions of dollars for him in 1992--the trial lawyers. And he knows who raised $25 million for Democrat House and Senate candidates between 1989 and 1994--the trial lawyers. Think about it. There is a lot talk of special interests in this town, but no single-issue group comes anywhere close to bringing this much money to bear on Federal campaigns. And no other group is so generous and so exclusively for the party of President Clinton. So, despite the evidence that there is bipartisan support for these reports--and expanding them so that every American can benefit--when the chips were down, the trial lawyers and President Clinton started trying to scare the American people. And yesterday, that tactic worked. Only two Democrats voted for reform. But this tactic will fail in the end. I am proud that we are trying to pass legal reform that benefits as many Americans as possible. I will continue to work for reforms that help small businesses, and volunteer and charitable organizations. I believe the American people see past the irresponsible rhetoric. They know we are continuing to fight for their interests. But the reality, Mr. President, is that we cannot bring this debate to a close without bipartisan support. Forty-five Republicans did their part. Reform will not happen unless the Democrats put the interests of the American people ahead of the interests of the trial lawyers and their huge financial stake in the Democrat Party. I plan to bring this bill to a vote again on Monday or Tuesday. The American people need and deserve these reforms, and I for one do not intend to allow scare tactics to deter us from our responsibility to pass a legal reform package. We hope to bring this bill to a vote. We think the American people want Members to vote. We believe there is still a possibility because there is some bipartisan support. We will have to have 60 votes. That is what happens in this place. We need 60 votes to shut off debate, so we can pass even a narrowed product liability bill. We believe it is a big step in the right direction and I hope we will have the bipartisan support that Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia and Senator Gorton from Washington have been working for, for the past 2 weeks. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on April 22, the Washington journalism community lost one of its most enduring figures. For decades, Naomi Nover was a distinctive presence on Capitol Hill and at the White House, often claiming a front-row seat at Presidential news conferences. Known for her perseverance and her determination to continue her passion for journalism, Naomi fell ill last month while renewing her Senate press credentials. It was the first day for gallery members to renew their press cards, and as usual, Naomi was one of the first in line. A native of Buffalo, NY, she and her husband Barney moved to Washington in 1936. After receiving a masters degree from George Washington University, she worked with her husband for the Denver Post, wrote a column called ``Washington Dateline,'' produced a radio program called ``Views and Interviews,'' and when Barney Nover retired from the Denver Post in 1971, Naomi cofounded the Nover News Bureau. After her husband passed away in 1973, Naomi established a journalism prize in his memory, the Barnet Nover Memorial Award, given for journalistic excellence at the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner. Naomi's perseverance was legendary. Sam Donaldson tells an admiring story about the time Naomi was hit by a truck while crossing Pennsylvania Avenue. ``The vehicle was almost totalled,'' Donaldson says. ``She walked away without a scratch.'' President Clinton called her ``years of dedication to her craft and her efforts to cover events * * * a lesson to us all in hard work and the persistence of the human spirit.'' Mr. President, I know all my colleagues join me in sending our warmest condolences to Naomi's friends and family.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I say for the benefit of my colleagues and others who would probably like to get out of here, we are waiting for an amendment to be drafted. It is almost complete. Upon completion, it will be sent to the desk. Then there will be a cloture petition filed, and we will be able to leave for the day. It should not be long. I am told 15 or 20 minutes.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, and my colleagues who are not on the floor but are probably in their offices, we are waiting for an amendment to be drafted. It may be another 15 to 30 minutes. Rather than have the Senate in session, I will move in a second that we recess for 30 minutes. It is our hope to have an amendment prepared on which we will vote Monday, followed by a cloture vote on Tuesday. We are trying to reach that agreement, and right now they are in the process of drafting the amendment. I move that we stand in recess until 1:50.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9 a.m. on Friday, May 5, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on the implications of the revolution in military affairs in review of S. 727, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, and the future years defense program.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on Wednesday, the Capital of Croatia, was subjected to a vicious attack by militant Serb separatists. This was the second day in a row that Zagreb was attacked by rockets armed with cluster bombs. The attack occurred at noon, when civilians were out having lunch. The principal targets were the children's hospital and the national theater where a ballet company was rehearsing. Several people were killed and dozens were wounded, bringing the total number of casualties to about 200 people. There are those who say that the Croatian Government provoked the attack, by conducting a military operation that returned a 200-square- mile area back to Croatian control. That argument misses the point. Nothing, I repeat, nothing, justifies an attack on innocent civilians-- on children in this case. The U.S. Ambassador was right when he condemned these attacks at a clear violation of basic principles of human decency. I am aware that it is U.N. practice to shift the blame and muddy the waters in their pursuit of neutrality between aggressors and victims. But, to do so--whether in this case, or in the case of attacks on civilians in Bosnia--is reprehensible. Furthermore, if the United Nations were doing its job in Croatia--if the United Nations had implemented its mandate to demilitarize the sectors of Croatia under their control thereby clearing the way for reintegration of [[Page S6196]] these occupied territories--the Croatian Government may not have taken the action it did on Monday. Let us not forget, the occupied areas are part of the territory of Croatia. So while the international community should urge the Croatian Government and its forces to fully respect the human and civil rights of the population in the areas they have retaken, it should not urge Croatia to give up control of reclaimed territory.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Specter, who I understand is on the way to the floor.

Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Maybe it will not take quite 10 minutes. We had somebody that wanted to leave at 2 o'clock. We will work it out.

Mr. DOLE. We will work it out. We will just have to delay the vote. We have 10 minutes on this side.

Mr. DOLE. Five minutes?

Mr. DOLE. We will delay it a few minutes so that the Senator will have time.

Mr. DOLE. I wanted to remind people before the next cloture vote that 83 percent of the American people want to reform our legal system. They want to eliminate abusive, large damage awards that benefit only lawyers and not the public, and they want commonsense, not dollars and cents, legal reform. Who would have thought that 2 weeks ago a majority of the Senate would vote to extend punitive damages to all civil cases? It would have been hard to believe 2 weeks ago that a majority of the Senate would vote to add medical malpractice to the bill. It would have been hard to believe 2 weeks ago when we started on this bill that a majority in the Senate had proved by its vote that it wants to improve the legal system so that it benefits a majority of the Americans and not a majority of the trial lawyers. Do not forget, with the votes we have been able to pretty much meet what the House did in a bipartisan way in the Contract With America. The vote in the House was 265 to 161. We had a lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans come together and respond to the voices of the American people. For the first time in 10 years, we have broken the stranglehold of the tort lawyers. We have heard the voices of the American people and passed amendments that protect entities as varied as small businesses, Girl Scouts, churches, Little Leagues, firefighters, and policemen. For all this endorsement of change, the forces of status quo remain as strong as ever. They continue to object and delay, and our constituents pay more in the cost of this gridlock. The cost is steep. Let me remind the Senate and the American people of the outrageous cost of our legal system: It adds about $8 to $11.50 to a dose of DPT childhood vaccine; it adds $20 to the cost of a $100 stepladder; it adds $100 to the price of a $200 high school football helmet; and $500 to the price of a new car. Experts have estimated that without reform of our legal system, it costs every American $1,200, or $4,800 for a family of four. That is a cost of $300 billion per year, a tax on the American people. Any wonder why the American people want change and want Members to make as many changes as we can? I do not have any anticipation that there will be a sudden switch and we will get cloture on the second vote. I think there were 46 voted for cloture--44 Republicans, 2 Democrats--and the balance who voted were opposed to cloture. There will be another cloture vote in the next 15 minutes. There is an opportunity for those who may have not fully understood the import or the impact of the vote ``yes'' on this cloture vote. It seems to me if we are going to reform our legal system we have a pretty good package here. Not everything people wanted is in it, but it is a pretty strong package. We owe it to the American people, in my view, to invoke cloture on this bill and then proceed to pass the substitute as amended. If that fails, there will be a substitute offered by the Senator from Washington and the Senator from West Virginia. But I think we have one last opportunity here to say that we are not doing business as usual. I hope that my colleagues will grab that opportunity. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield 5 minutes of our time. That would leave 2 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say with reference to the schedule, right now there are discussions going on so we can have a substitute offered by Senators Rockefeller and Gorton, and then it would be my intent to file cloture so we can bring the debate on product liability to a close. We have been on this now last week and most of this week. I am not quite certain when they will have the product complete. I do not believe there will be any further votes today because, frankly, we wanted to move to another matter but it was objected to by my colleagues on the other side. So we will just have to wait and see what agreement can be reached, and then the substitute will be filed and then the cloture motion will be filed. It is my intent to have the first cloture vote on Monday and if cloture is not obtained, to have a second cloture vote on Tuesday. So I say to my colleagues, we are going to have a cloture vote on Monday. It is very important we be here. We have been on this bill for 2 weeks. I do not want to frighten anybody or discourage anybody, but I can see the August recess going out the window. As much time as we take on every piece of legislation in the Senate, it does not leave the leader any alternative than to say, well, August would have been a great month to be off; a lot of us would like to have done a lot of things. But the first thing we must do is complete our work, and as slowly as we are proceeding, I do not see how it can be done. Maybe there can be some agreements in the next few weeks, but we are behind schedule now and, I must say, unless we can catch up, I do not believe the American people expect us to be off for 30 days when a lot of the work is not done. So we will be right here catching up unless we can do so in the next--we have time if we work together, let me put it that way. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold that request. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. For the information of all Senators, shortly after the Senate resumes consideration of the product liability bill on Friday, I hope to be able to lay down a new substitute amendment for discussion for the remainder of Friday's session. A cloture motion will be filed on the substitute, and I hope we can reach an agreement for that cloture vote to occur at approximately 1:30 on Monday.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. In this letter, we once again extend our invitation to the President, asking him to join us in a bipartisan effort to preserve, improve, and protect Medicare. It was precisely this type of bipartisan effort which saved Social Security in 1983, and it is what is needed today. And I know a little about the 1983 Social Security effort, because I was a member of that Commission, along with Democrats and members from the private sector, appointed by the then majority leader Howard Baker in the Senate, appointed by then Speaker O'Neill in the House, and President Reagan. And it worked. A lot of people felt at that time Social Security was in deep trouble, and it was in deep trouble. It was about to go broke. The trustees had warned us it was about to go broke. It warned us years ahead it was about to go broke. As often happens around this place, nobody really thought it was going to happen. When it finally became critical, we moved and we acted, and thanks to the efforts of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Capitol and President Reagan's effort, we were able to put together a compromise which, since 1983, has secured the solvency of the Social Security trust funds. In fact, Social Security is going to be in good shape for a fairly long time. Some day we will have to address it, but right now the 1983 Social Security fix has worked. It also appears to me that Treasury Secretary Rubin, Labor Secretary Reich, and Health and Human Services Secretary Shalala, all trustees, all of whom signed the report calling for action now have a great deal riding on the President's response. The President's inaction to this date suggests one of two things: Either he believes his trustees are incompetent and have reached an erroneous conclusion, or he accepts their conclusion and just does not believe it is the duty of his administration to solve the problem, in which case his trustees are irrelevant. Relevancy has been a matter of some debate around this town. If, however, he treats the recommendation of his trustees seriously, then he has only one choice: To stop searching for campaign issues and to join Congress in searching for solutions. I hope that the President, in the same spirit we have been working with the President on welfare reform, on antiterrorism legislation, on NAFTA, GATT, and other examples I can point out where Republicans provided the majority of the votes, working with a Democratic President, I hope the President of the United States will take a look at the trustees' report. I know there is a conference on aging, and I know the temptation frightens people, scares people and they may pick up a few seniors' votes for the President, but if we do not fix Medicare, as I have indicated, we are not going to be able to make the payments. The year 2002 seems like a long way off. Why worry about it in 1995? Let me just suggest, by the time you get it put together and by the time you start to implement it, the time will roll by more quickly than we think. I cannot speak for everyone on this side of the aisle, but I think most of my colleagues are ready and willing to make hard choices. We are not talking about cuts--the President says, ``Oh, we can't cut services, we can't do this, we can't do this.'' We are suggesting every dollar saved in our efforts to protect, preserve and improve Medicare go back into Medicare; not to cut taxes for the rich--as we hear from time to time from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--or not for budget purposes, except so far as Medicare is part of the unified budget. So I hope that the President has received our letter and that he will seriously consider it and that he will come to the Capitol, or we can go to the White House--it makes no difference--or we can meet halfway, whatever, and talk about what we may do in a bipartisan way to begin working on what is a serious problem with Medicare. They are the President's trustees. They are people of integrity, as far as I know; people of competence, as far as I know; people of good judgment, as far as I know. I assume this trustees' report was based on the best information available and they said we should act now. Now means precisely what now means--now, 1995. So we are prepared to work with the President and members of this administration, we are prepared to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we are prepared to work with House Members, Democrats and Republicans, and my view is, if we are serious about this, we can do it in a very brief period of time. So I hope that we can have some response from the President. The other day I suggested we maybe have a bipartisan commission. That is how we made recommendations on Social Security in 1983. The President called that a gimmick. Well, it was not a gimmick. It was an idea that Speaker O'Neill had at the time and Majority Leader Baker and President Reagan had at the time, and it worked. It was not a gimmick. They made solid recommendations to Congress, and the Congress adopted the recommendations of the commission. I was proud to be a member of that commission, along with Claude Pepper, I might add, who was probably the seniors' greatest representative and voice in Congress, a Democrat from the State of Florida. So, Mr. President, I certainly hope the President will follow up.