[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 107 (Friday, August 5, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
                  RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time 
remaining on the Brown amendment and on the McCain amendment be yielded 
back, at which time then the Senator from Nevada be recognized on his 
own time to speak until the time for the vote set at 1:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears no 
objection. It is so ordered.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair now recognizes the Senator from 
Nevada [Mr. Reid].
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could ask through the Chair to my 
friend from Iowa, would it be possible to extend the vote for 5 
minutes? The reason for that is I have two amendments I have on the 
list, proposed list. I think we can get rid of both of those with that 
extra 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote on the 
McCain amendment previously scheduled for 1:15 now occur at 1:20; the 
remainder of the unanimous-consent request remain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, a few months ago in my office here in 
Washington I met with a young girl by the name of Hydeia. She is a 
beautiful, bright-eyed young girl, 6 years old. During the course of 
the time I met with her she sat next to me and she read to me and she 
recited some of the poems that she had written. She also sang a song 
for me that she had written for me and my staff. It was very touching, 
this nice little girl singing and reciting poetry to me.
  But it was very sad because her poetry was based around her life 
experiences, and all of her life experiences centered around the 
disease that she had. She was HIV infected. Her songs and poetry spoke 
of the fear and discrimination that this little girl felt and 
experienced with AIDS, as well as her triumph over this fatal disease 
to this point in her life.
  Hydeia was in Washington to give a speech to a local high school. She 
was talking to the high school about the problem of AIDS. This young 
girl spoke for over 30 minutes to these high school students about HIV 
and AIDS. When she spoke, a physician was sitting behind her on the 
stage and remarked in admiration he had never seen someone speak so 
intelligently and thoroughly about the subject of AIDS, and remember, 
Mr. President, we are talking about a 6-year-old girl.
  I bring to the attention of the Senate my friend Hydeia because this 
young Nevada resident, like many people across the country who suffer 
from AIDS--it is people like her who have caused me to focus my 
attention in our investment as a Federal Government in providing 
treatment and intervention services to our States and communities 
impacted by AIDS.
  You see the people who suffer from AIDS are married women, they are 
single women, they are children of all ages, they are married men, they 
are single men, they are heterosexual, they are homosexual, and drug 
abusers. But they are all human beings with a story to tell.
  These people who suffer from AIDS have husbands and wives and mothers 
and fathers and sisters and brothers and children.
  (Mr. LIEBERMAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. REID. What I have found is a very serious situation regarding 
AIDS funding. The State of Nevada has consistently ranked among the top 
10 States in the country for AIDS incidence per 100,000 people and 
leads rural States in HIV morbidity.
  The Presiding Officer--until just a second ago--was from a very rural 
State. And on public radio this week they had a series on AIDS in rural 
America.
  You see most people contract AIDS in urban centers, but many times 
they go home after they have contracted the disease. But the statistics 
all originate in the cities. So if someone gets AIDS in a city, that is 
where they are always counted as being, even though they may be out in 
rural America where they need help.
  So, rural AIDS incidence, even though it may not appear as high as in 
urban America--and it is not--it still is something that needs our 
attention. My State, even though we lead, we are in the top 10 States 
in the country for incidence per 100,000 people and we lead rural 
States in HIV morbidity, yet we receive little Federal funding. The 
city of Las Vegas does not qualify for title I funding under the Ryan 
White Care Act as it is currently written and has obtained no funds 
under title III(b), even though it ranks fifth in Public Health Region 
No. 9 for AIDS incidence.
  Unfortunately, title I and other Federal programs look at absolute 
numbers of AIDS cases rather than incidence per 100,000 people. 
Although Las Vegas is not as populous as other regions, it is the 
fastest growing city in the Nation and the burden AIDS places on the 
health care system is greater than that of Phoenix, the whole of 
Riverside-San Bernadino, or Orange County in its entirety. Yet, these 
communities received Federal support under Ryan White and Las Vegas 
does not.
  Clearly the formula as it is currently written is not fair, it is not 
equitable. States receiving both title I and title II funds receive 
almost $4,000 per AIDS case, while States like Nevada receive only 
title II funds and receive only about $1,100 per case.
  Although the State of Nevada ranks in the top 10 it receives less 
money in the CARE Act than States with a lower incidence of AIDS. 
Nevada is not the only state affected by the current formula. In fact, 
there are 33 States which do not receive funding under title I. This is 
not fair.
  The CARE Act is not the only program, however, that distributes AIDS 
funding unfairly. It was recently brought to my attention that Nevada 
was receiving significantly fewer Federal dollars from programs 
administered by the Centers For Disease Control than States with lesser 
rates of AIDS incidence. As these charts clearly indicate, despite the 
impact of AIDS in the State of Nevada it is receiving less money from 
CDC than States with fewer cases of AIDS.
  Let us look, for example, at this chart. We have here the cumulative 
cases, and it is very, very high in Nevada. It is higher than any other 
case incidence, but look at the funding per case. Nevada, you can 
hardly see it on the chart. Nevada's is about a third of what Rhode 
Island gets. Look at Alaska per AIDS case, it almost goes out of the 
chart. And on through the rest of the States. It simply is not fair and 
that can be shown graphically.
  The chart I just showed, 20 States with an incidence rate lower than 
Nevada received more prevention dollars. There are 12 States with lower 
incidence, lower total cumulative cases, and fewer 1993 cases than 
Nevada. All 12 of these States received larger 1994 prevention awards. 
These larger awards are very hard to understand. In fact I defy anyone 
to give any logic to why that is.
  With this next chart it is easy to see. I will take just a few 
States. Let us take New Mexico as an example. It is almost the same 
size as Nevada, a little bit smaller. Incidence, 18.2; cumulative 
cases, a total of 862; but look at the funding they receive compared to 
Nevada. They receive twice as much money and have less than half the 
cases. Alaska--we have 46.5 incidence rate; Alaska has 11.7. They have 
a total of only 200 cases, yet they receive almost a third more money 
than the State of Nevada.
  New Hampshire, a State smaller than the State of Nevada, has an 
incidence rate of 11; ours is 46\1/2\. Yet they have 420 total cases 
and receive more money than the State of Nevada, even though we have 
almost 1,800 cases. It simply is not fair.
  Although the agency is working with the State of Nevada in an attempt 
to rectify this situation, I think it is important that I display in 
the Record what the AIDS impact is having on the State of Nevada and 
other States.
  My constituents are seeing their tax dollars going to other States to 
provide AIDS care and not to their own community. Because of this 
situation, Mr. President, they are essentially double taxed since the 
county must pick up the tab for providing needed HIV and AIDS care, 
which inequitable Federal funding formulas have put out of reach.
  I urge the Department of Health and Human Services and the Members of 
this body to begin to pay careful attention to how we have been 
distributing funds to address the significant impact AIDS is having on 
our communities. AIDS is a tragic disease and we should not be 
shortchanging AIDS patients in one State as opposed to another. There 
should be equitable distribution of moneys.
  All Americans suffering from AIDS deserve receiving equitable access 
to medical care--sometimes Medicare--and intervention services and 
should not be faced with the possibility of not receiving care just 
because they happen to live in one of the States that is being funded 
unfairly.
  I was prepared at this time to offer an amendment to rectify this 
inequity and provide more Federal money to the Ryan White Care Act. I 
have chosen not to do that because, as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, and as a member of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee in particular, 
I understand the difficult job laid before Chairman Harkin and Ranking 
Member Specter. I do not want to disrupt the delicate balance they have 
achieved in this legislation.
  I will, however, signal the warning that I will revisit this issue. I 
am drafting legislation to correct the inequity in the current title I 
formula. I look forward to working with my colleagues in passing this 
legislation, or in working with the formulas, with the agencies, with 
the subcommittees, with the committees during the reauthorization of 
the Ryan White Act to make funding allocations to the State and our 
Nation's communities more equitable.
  We cannot allow this funding disparity to continue, and I will work 
aggressively for equitable and significant change.
  I have an obligation to Hydeia, this beautiful little girl who 
recited poetry and sang to me in my office.


                          Illegal Immigration

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on another issue, as some of the Members 
will recognize, on the bills that have been coming through here, I have 
been concerned about the impact of people who are not lawfully within 
the country. I have offered amendments which have been accepted by the 
Senate on three separate occasions.
  Mr. President, I am not going to offer an amendment to this bill. 
Instead, I rise to commend the managers of this bill for their 
inclusion of a provision that will help ensure that Government 
authorities do more. I am satisfied that the committee has done 
everything within its power to ensure that the funds and benefits 
provided do not go to those who are not lawfully within this country.
  I believe that we ought to be doing more in terms of verification of 
lawful immigration status. As I indicated, I have offered amendments to 
other appropriations bills that would do just that. By imposing a fair, 
tough burden on those who distribute the benefits and assistance, we 
will provide better integrity to the system by protecting against 
misappropriation of funds.
  We are beginning to do more in this area, and, in so doing, we are 
rewarding those who play by the rules and punishing those who do not 
play by the rules. I believe that one of the reasons we have a 
continuing problem with illegal immigration is because we have an 
entitlement system that offers incentives to enter the country 
unlawfully. Whether it is undermanned border security or lax 
enforcement of laws prohibiting the distribution of funds to illegal 
immigrants, there just seems to be too many incentives.
  There are some incredibly generous programs provided in this bill, 
programs that will improve and benefit the lives of many. I support our 
Nation's social programs because I believe that Government can play an 
important role in improving the lives of Americans. However, if we want 
to continue those programs, we have to ensure that those who are the 
legitimate intended beneficiaries receive what they are entitled to. 
Without greater verification, we will not achieve this. Indeed, without 
greater verification, we will continue to provide incentives to come to 
this country unlawfully. Ultimately, that may jeopardize the continued 
existence of these programs and this, I think, would be tragic.
  So, Mr. President, I will continue to review legislation with an eye 
toward ensuring that more is done to verify the lawful immigration 
status of those who apply for benefits and assistance. I think this is 
only common sense, and I believe that those who elected us expect 
nothing less. This is a difficult and complicated issue, but we all 
must be willing to do more if we are going to resolve it in a fair and 
equitable manner.
  I say to the managers of this bill, I appreciate the work they have 
done in this regard. This is an area in which we have to be very 
careful, because we are dealing with women who are pregnant, children 
who need all the support and maintenance they can get--and I have no 
desire to punish children. Many of the programs within this bill deal 
with the infirm and children generally.
  I also say to the managers of this bill, in relation to the AIDS 
situation which I pointed out, I hope it is not going to be necessary 
next year that we have to offer an amendment, either at the 
subcommittee or committee level or certainly on the floor. I hope that 
the issue relating to fair funding for people who suffer from the AIDS 
virus can be resolved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand there is a vote at 11:20?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. I request 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2461

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have been the target of a lot of attacks 
from the White House lately, but here is an issue on which President 
Clinton and I agree. We both support providing a responsible level of 
funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  When candidate Clinton was asked in a C-SPAN interview if the 
American taxpayer should spend more money on public television, his 
answer was, ``Oh I support public television. I do not know that we 
have to spend more money on it now, we have a pretty vital network of 
public television.'' Consistent with that view, President Clinton asked 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to tighten its belt a bit by 
requesting a funding level of $292.6 million for fiscal year 1997.
  We talk a lot about deficit reduction in the Senate, and here is an 
opportunity to back up a modest reduction proposed by the President.
  Nevertheless, the Senate Appropriations Committee has given public 
broadcasting a hefty $18 million raise over the fiscal year 1996 level, 
and a $37.3 million increase over the level requested by President 
Clinton. At the same time, the Senate committee has underfunded the 
President's investments in programs such as job training, Head Start, 
Education Goals 2000, and the list goes on.
  No doubt about it, scarce Federal dollars are hard to come by. A 
recent study by the 20th Century Fund found that of every dollar spent 
on public broadcasting, 75 cents goes to overhead. This has been my 
complaint over the past several years--75 cents for every dollar goes 
for overhead.

  Public broadcasting is a complex institution, and while there is new 
leadership at CPB, at the public broadcasting system and at national 
public radio, there are a lot of issues that need to be examined, 
especially as we approach the next reauthorization for the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting. These issues include the considerable 
duplication of services, objectivity and balance requirements, the 
distribution of production dollars, and the merchandise licensing fees 
some public broadcasting figures rake in while performing on taxpayer-
subsidized airwaves. I look forward to hearing more about CPB's efforts 
to address these concerns.
  Make no mistake about it, I support public broadcasting, and I have 
been a longtime supporter of local stations. I wish that the amendment 
can be configured differently so we do not cut back on local stations. 
I understand that could not be done. We want to fight to bring a fair 
share of available Federal dollars to public stations, of course, in my 
State and every other State in the country.
  We have a dynamic system of public broadcasting in this country, and 
there are many quality programs on its airwaves. But, we also have a 
responsibility to the American taxpayer. While so many worthwhile 
Government initiatives face the budget axe, does public broadcasting 
deserve a big raise? The President does not think so. The Senate should 
agree with him.


                       vote on amendment no. 2461

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 1:20 having arrived, the question 
occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2461, offered by the Senator from 
Arizona [Mr. McCain], to the committee amendment on page 68, line 18 of 
the bill.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], 
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. 
Heflin], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Mathews], and the Senator from 
Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--26

     Bradley
     Brown
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Specter
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Heflin
     Jeffords
     Mathews
     Pryor
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2461) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 2462

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on amendment No. 2462 offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. 
Brown] to the committee amendment on page 51 line 16.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], 
the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. 
Heflin], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Mathews], and the Senator from 
Arizona [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Heflin
     Jeffords
     Mathews
     Pryor
  So the amendment (No. 2462) was agreed to.


                Committee Amendment on Page 51, Line 16

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the underlining 
committee amendment on page 51, line 16.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 51, Line 16, Through Page 52, Line 
                                   17

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the pending matter before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendment on page 51, line 16.
  Is there further debate on the committee amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.
  The committee amendment on page 51, line 16, through page 52, line 
17, was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 68, Line 18, Through Page 69, Line 
                                   5

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask that the other excepted committee 
amendments remain excepted, except for the excepted committee amendment 
on page 68, line 18, through page 69, line 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so 
ordered.
  Without objection, the committee amendment beginning on page 68 is 
agreed to.
  So the committee amendment on page 68, line 18, through page 69, line 
5, was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Do I understand, Mr. President, that the amendment on 
page 68, line 18, through page 69, line 5, has been agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. And the excepted amendment on page 51, line 16, through 
page 52, line 17, has also been agreed to, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. That amendment has 
been agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, basically, we are at a point here where I 
know of no other amendments that are to be offered. We are waiting here 
for amendments. I hope, if any Senators have any amendments to the 
bill, that they will come over so that Senators can get out of here at 
a reasonable hour.
  We have no other amendments pending right now. We are open for 
business. Otherwise, we are just going to be here later this afternoon, 
probably with some procedural votes. So I hope we can get some 
amendments out here.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may be so bold as to suggest to the 
leadership, if this matter can be set aside temporarily, the Defense 
Subcommittee would like to at least lay down our bill, and you can 
resume whenever you want to.
  Mr. HARKIN. If I might respond to the Senator, I would like to 
consult with the leader in that regard. But I hope that we would at 
least see some finite end to this bill before we do that. Perhaps we 
could discuss that.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair informs the Senator the Senate is now considering the 
amendment on page 63, line 5.
  Mr. HELMS. I understand. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for the amendment I am sending to the desk to be keyed to page 78, line 
24.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.


 amendment No. 2463 to Excepted Committee Amendment beginning on Page 
                        78, Lines 16 Through 23

            (Purpose: To protect the Nation's blood supply)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2463.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . PROTECTION AGAINST THE HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS.

       Chapter 51 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1118. Protection against the Human Immunodeficiency 
       Virus

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever, after testing positive for the 
     Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and receiving actual 
     notice of that fact, knowingly donates or sells, or knowingly 
     attempts to donate or sell, blood, semen, tissues, organs, or 
     other bodily fluids, except as determined necessary for 
     medical research, shall be fined or imprisoned in accordance 
     with subsection (c).
       ``(b) Transmission Not Required.--Transmission of the Human 
     Immunodeficiency Virus does not have to occur for a person to 
     be convicted of a violation of this section.
       ``(c) Penalty.--Any person convicted of violating the 
     provisions of subsection (a) shall be subject to a fine of 
     not less than $10,000 nor more than $20,000 and imprisoned 
     for not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years, or both.''.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, let me pose a question that is far more 
than just an idle thought. Should anybody who is HIV positive and who 
knows it, be able to escape criminal prosecution if he or she donates 
their tainted blood, tissue, or other bodily fluids? It does not matter 
whether that blood is actually used or not. The issue is, should 
someone who knows that he or she is HIV positive and he or she donates 
blood or body tissue, be able to escape prosecution?
  I hope and believe the Senate is going to say, overwhelmingly: No, 
sir. They should not be in a position to escape prosecution.
  Today, 12 States have enacted laws holding such individuals 
criminally responsible. And with this amendment, the American people 
will see how many Senators and which Senators are willing to do, on a 
Federal level, what a dozen States have already done.
  Specifically, this amendment will make it a felony for any 
individual, knowing that he or she is HIV positive, to donate blood or 
semen or tissues or organs or other bodily fluids, and anybody 
violating this provision will be subject to a fine of up to $20,000 or 
imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.
  I believe this amendment is just plain common sense. The 12 States 
that already have similar statutes are as follows: California, 
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Virginia.
  I am not going to take up the Senate's time with a lengthy discussion 
of this amendment. I think, as the lawyers say, it is res ipsa 
loquitur: The thing speaks for itself. But I doubt that any Senator can 
express the need for this amendment as eloquently as a fine citizen of 
North Carolina, Mr. Burt Brummet, who lives in Pinehurst. Mr. Brummet, 
with whom I talked at length one evening, is responsible for my 
offering this amendment.
  Let me tell you about Mr. Brummet. Let me tell you why I want to 
title this amendment, ``The Brummet Blood Supply Protection Act of 
1994.''
  Mr. Brummet contracted the AIDS virus from a blood transfusion he 
received in 1991 during surgery to replace a heart valve. And that sort 
of hit home with me because I had a heart valve replaced a year later. 
I suspect Mr. Brummet's story will hit close to home with a lot of 
Senators, either Senators who had similar surgery or had surgery in 
their families.
  I do know this, that millions of Americans who have received tainted 
blood transfusions, or have run the risk of it, will understand the 
need for this amendment.
  But back to Mr. Brummet. He is a fine gentleman. He is retired there 
from another State. I forget where he moved from, but Pinehurst is a 
retirement community and the fine folks there are gentle and decent, 
and most of them are getting up in years, like the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Anyway, Mr. Brummet contacted me in December--December 6, I think the 
date was. He talked to me on the telephone about a letter he had sent 
me explaining exactly what happened to him. He said:

       Dear Senator Helms, approximately 3 years ago during heart 
     surgery I was transfused HIV infected blood at the Moore 
     Regional Hospital, in Pinehurst, NC.

  That is Moore County Regional Hospital. Continuing in his letter, he 
said:

       As is frequently the case, the hospital and the doctors 
     have kept this a secret, even though we have urged them to go 
     public with this information.
       For many reasons, I am convinced that there is much bad 
     blood in the Red Cross blood bank system. The American public 
     is not aware of this danger, and most doctors seem hesitant 
     to discuss this prior to surgery.

  He continues:

       Because I believe there are measures that can be taken to 
     improve the availability of clean blood, I feel it is my 
     Christian duty to do what I can to prevent this from 
     happening to others * * *
       In May, 1991, I entered Moore Regional Hospital, Pinehurst, 
     N.C., for heart surgery. The details of this are not 
     important to the message I wish to convey other than to say 
     that the aortic heart valve was replaced. The surgery 
     appeared to be successful and the recovery was slow but 
     perhaps normal for this type of surgery.
       Slightly more than one year after this surgery, our family 
     doctor, Dr. Donald Wallace, called us to say that the 
     American Red Cross had advised the hospital that I had been 
     transfused with HIV infected blood.

  The letter continues:

       Because my wife, Ellen, had been exposed by me during that 
     past year, it was his opinion [meaning Dr. Wallace] that we 
     should both be tested for the AIDs virus. Our blood tests 
     showed that I was positive and Ellen was negative. We were 
     advised by our doctor that we should keep this a secret from 
     our friends and the community.
       After digesting this tragic news for a couple weeks, we 
     decided it was our Christian duty to go public with this in 
     the hope that we might be able to do something to prevent 
     this from happening to someone else.
       Although we have gone public with my HIV condition for 
     several months, the doctors and the hospital personnel 
     continue to keep this a big secret event to the point of 
     denial, still claiming that the blood is safe.
       The American Red Cross obviously wants this to remain a 
     secret because the blood bank business is the most profitable 
     enterprise they have had for a long time. The hospital and 
     the doctors want it to remain a secret for fear it might 
     affect the availability of blood.
       In my opinion, there is only one reason that so little is 
     being done to assure that clean blood is available for 
     transfusion. Only a relatively few people are infected as I 
     have been. Our country's actions respond to public opinion. 
     Not enough people are in my group to bring sufficient 
     pressure to initiate action.
       As I'm sure you understand, when a person is infected by 
     whatever means, promiscuous sex, homosexual activities, dirty 
     needles, etc., there is a period of a few months, or in some 
     cases years, before sufficient anti-bodies are generated to 
     result in a positive test for the virus. As a result, there 
     is a period * * * during which an infected donor can infect 
     others even though that person tests negative for the virus. 
     Understanding this fact, it is obvious that there is blood in 
     the blood blanks that will infect persons having 
     transfusions. The American Red Cross has admitted that is 
     what happened to me.

  Mr. Brummet continues:

       How many people are infected by AIDs virus from blood 
     transfusions is unknown. I'm excluding the hemophiliacs. The 
     American Red Cross says the number is very small. In fact 
     they have gone so far as to say publicly that no one has been 
     infected by transfusion from their blood bank in recent 
     years.
       Others have said that as many as one thousand people are 
     infected each year by transfusion from infected blood. From 
     the studies I have done, the number may be greater than one 
     thousand, because there are many people infected who are not 
     yet aware of it, and many cases are never reported. The 
     effect is not obvious for some time. With the number of 
     infected people being suppressed by doctors and by the blood 
     banks, it is impossible to get an accurate reading on this * 
     * *

  And then he concludes:

       This whole subject is generally swept under the rug and the 
     majority go along with very little concern about the hazards 
     of blood transfusions. I wish to do something about this and 
     I believe you will help me. In some manner I wish to be a 
     spokesman for the people infected by the AIDs virus because 
     of transfused blood, if that is what it takes * * * Very 
     truly yours, Bert Brummet.

  The point, Mr. President, is this, and this is perfectly obvious: Mr. 
Brummet is a citizen who did nothing wrong. He did nothing to cause the 
HIV infection in his body. Just the same, he believes, and I think 
justifiably, that his life is now ruined because some irresponsible 
individual donated AIDS-tainted blood. I admire him for his efforts to 
ensure that others are not also unsuspectingly infected.
  Of course, I do not suggest, nor imply, that the pending amendment 
will stop all donations of AIDS-tainted blood and tissue. Of course, 
this amendment can do no such thing, but it is a step in the right 
direction.
  As I have stated, there are 12 States which already have taken the 
step of making it a crime to knowingly donate AIDS-tainted blood or 
tissue. Moreover, 27 States have made it a crime for someone to 
intentionally transmit HIV to another individual. I listed the 27 
States earlier:
  Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.
  Despite these commendable efforts by States to protect their citizens 
from those who intentionally transmit the AIDS virus, their ability to 
do so is limited inasmuch as donated blood travels in interstate 
commerce. The only way to protect innocent transfusion recipients in 
these--and other States--is by enacting a Federal statute applicable to 
every individual who knowingly donates AIDS-tainted blood in this 
country no matter where he or she donates blood.
  The States need a Federal statute to support their efforts. Donated 
blood travels in interstate commerce. Tainted blood donated in New York 
City, as matters now stand, can easily find its way transfused into a 
patient in North Carolina. If carjacking is a Federal crime, and 
Congress has voted to make it so, Congress should do the same for those 
irresponsible, mean-spirited people who knowingly donate infected blood 
or other bodily fluids.
  Mr. President, I reiterate that the proposal contained in this 
amendment is merely a good step in the right direction. It will not 
entirely eliminate the donation of AIDS-tainted blood. But if this 
amendment prevents even one innocent American from living through the 
kind of torment which has been imposed on Mr. Brummet and his family, 
then Congress will have taken a giant step in the right direction--
certainly for those who otherwise will run the risk of having AIDS-
tainted blood pumped into their veins.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I would be willing to delay this vote until 
next week, if the manager of the bill wishes to do so.
  Mr. HARKIN. We are trying to get 1 minute.
  Mr. HELMS. I am just thinking about the Senators who have schedules. 
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2463. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], 
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. 
Bumpers], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], the Senator from 
Tennessee [Mr. Mathews], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Gregg], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], and the Senator from Vermont 
[Mr. Jeffords] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
[Mr. Hatch] would vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Jeffords
     Mathews
     Pryor
  So the amendment (No. 2463) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, last night, Dee Dee Myers at the White 
House challenged the Republican leader and me to show the 
administration where the 17 taxes were in the Mitchell health care 
plan. So I immediately went home and got a copy of the plan that was 
available. What I wanted to do, very briefly, is to show the 
administration, in yet another gesture of bipartisanship, where these 
17 taxes are. And what I have here, now, is the bill in the form it was 
available last night. So what I am going to do is to go through this 
very thick bill and give the people at the White House a way to find 
these 17 taxes.
  The bill that was available for me to use in response to the White 
House had unnumbered pages. Normally, that means that you have thrown 
something together real quickly, or maybe you are trying to hide 
something, or maybe numbers do not go that high; I will let people 
judge what the case may be. But here is a simple way, I think, of 
finding the 17 taxes.
  First of all you need to get a scale like this one. So you get the 
scale and you put the bill on the scale like this, and you will find 
that the bill weighs almost exactly 14 pounds.
  To find the taxes, what you do is you take off the first 11.1 pounds. 
After you take off the first 11.1 pounds, if your scales are right, you 
should be on subtitle (a), entitled ``financial provisions.'' The next 
2.9 pounds of the bill contains 16 of the taxes. Then to find the 17th 
tax--I have tried to find a simple way to do that--put the entire bill 
back on the scale. Next, take off 2.1 pounds from the top, and that 
gets you to a section that is titled ``distribution,'' which is where 
you will find the 17th tax.
  I do not have the time now, and I do not want to disrupt debate on 
the pending bill to go through all of the taxes. But let me just go 
through three taxes, I submit, that nobody understands.
  The first tax is a 1.75 percent tax that every American will pay on 
their health insurance premiums. The second tax is a 25-percent tax 
that you will pay on your health insurance premiums if your premiums go 
up by more than 2 percent above the general rate of inflation in a 
year.
  So imagine this: You get your bill for your insurance next year, and 
your premiums have gone up by more than 2 percent above inflation, as 
premiums did for 75 percent of Americans who had health insurance last 
year. You are already unhappy because your premiums went up by more 
than 2 percent above the general price index. And so the Government 
sends a bill saying that because your insurance premiums went up, you 
now have to pay a 25-percent tax on the increase.
  Finally, there is a provision in this bill that says that at an 
effective date in the future, if you have insurance that costs more 
than the Clinton administration says that insurance ought to cost--for 
their so-called standard benefit package--then you are going to be 
taxed on the amount of those insurance premiums above the amount that 
the President claims you should be paying. And you are going to be 
taxed at your effective tax rate.
  My point in all this is twofold. No. 1, if you have a good scale like 
this one, you can take the bill that was available yesterday at the 
time the White House asked Senator Dole and me to find the 17 taxes, 
and if you remember these prescriptions--with the bill on the scale, 
take off the first 11.1 pounds to find 16 of the 17 taxes; put the 
entire bill back together on the scale, take off 2.1 pounds, and you 
find the 17th tax. It is interesting--and I will conclude on this 
point--that there are three pounds of taxes in the Mitchell bill. There 
are 0.2 pounds of insurance reform and portability and permanence 
reform, and there are 10.8 pounds dead weight Government.
  I submit that if we took out the 3 pounds of taxes, took out the 10.8 
pounds of dead weight Government, that would leave us 0.2 pounds where 
we are reforming insurance, making it portable and permanent, and 
making it easier to get and keep. We could then supplement that with 
about one-third of a pound to reform medical liability. Then, we could 
sit down and see what we could do to help people get health insurance, 
and we could adopt a good bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I wonder if the Senator will permit me to borrow his 
scale?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, would the majority leader like the bill as 
well?
  Mr. MITCHELL. No thanks.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator for permitting me to borrow his 
scale. I now place it on my desk. I ask everyone to look at it. And 
there is the Republican bill.
  Mr. GRAMM. That is not true.
  Mr. COATS. That is not true.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Of course, it registers zero on the weight scale 
because there is no bill. It registers zero in its provisions because 
there are no provisions.
  I introduced a bill 1 day after I announced that I had one. Our 
Republican colleagues announced in June that they had a bill, and we 
still have not seen it.
  I do not think anyone here should be surprised about that, but I say 
to my colleagues, and I invite any of my colleagues who wish to come 
over during this day while we are in session to inspect the Republican 
bill. You have to look hard. Perhaps from this angle you might see 
something. No. Not from here either.
  It is the stealth bill. We spent a lot of money developing a stealth 
aircraft that no one could see, no one could feel, no one could weigh, 
no one could track on radar. I think our Republican colleagues have 
finally succeeded in getting it done. No one can see this bill. It has 
no weight. It cannot be observed. It cannot even be tracked on radar.
  I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, early this morning I asked, on the Senate floor, if it 
would be possible for the Senate to engage in this serious debate in a 
serious manner. The Senator from Texas yesterday used the word 
``Gestapo'' to refer to my bill.
  Mr. GRAMM. If the Senator will yield, if he will go back and read 
that newspaper story, he will see that that was not my quote. What I 
said was printed in the second half of the paragraph.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I see.
  Mr. GRAMM. I do not doubt the person who used that quote had a reason 
for using it.
  But what I said is that the majority leader's health care plan would, 
in all probability, bankrupt the country and destroy the greatest 
health care system in history, which was a strong statement. But the 
other statement was not my statement.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Does the Senator disavow the statement by his colleague 
that my bill would create a Gestapo police in the United States?
  Mr. GRAMM. I certainly would not use that word, but the bill would 
have health care police telling us that we had to buy the majority 
leader's benefits plan, not the one we chose.
  So I can see where people with flowery imaginations and effective 
vocabularies might conjure up all kinds of images. But lacking both the 
vocabulary and imagination, I did not conjure up any such images.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I might say that response is as 
substantive as the Republican bill that is on this scale here.
  If I could just briefly--I do not think any of this kind of 
discussion, gimmicks with scales and pejorative words like ``Gestapo'' 
and attacks on others serves any useful purpose and surely does not 
enhance the stature of the Senate.
  I asked for this scale only because I thought the Senator from Texas 
was trivializing a serious issue.
  I renew the appeal I made this morning. This is a very serious 
matter. It affects every American family. There is ample room for 
principled disagreement. There is ample room for substantive, reasoned 
debate.
  There is no need for gimmicks. There is no need for pejorative words 
like ``Gestapo,'' and others, on either side.
  We are elected to serve all of the people. I hope that in the next 
few weeks we can concentrate on the fact that we represent the American 
people, not on which party we belong to, not on which State we 
represent, and certainly not to continue to lower ourselves with this 
kind of gimmick. We can disagree on this bill without this kind of 
disagreeable action.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, will the distinguished Republican leader 
yield 1 minute?
  Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I appreciate the good words of the majority 
leader.
  The point I wanted to make was that last night the Republican leader 
and I were asked to show where these 17 taxes were. The problem is, 
with what was available last night, it was difficult for me to say 
where these 17 taxes were because the bill had no page numbers.
  So, I asked my staff to try to dig out the taxes so that we could 
respond to what was a very serious and a very legitimate question that 
was posed by the White House.
  In trying to identify where the taxes were, they came up with a 
scale, which at that point was the effective way to find the taxes.
  What is the point of all of this? The point of all of this is that we 
need a serious debate. We need a lengthy debate. We need to go through 
the bill in detail to see that we all know what is there.
  But when you get underneath it all, there are 17 taxes here. People 
need to know what they are so they can decide whether they are trivial, 
whether they are important, and whether they are burdensome, whether or 
not what they get from this bill is worth what is they will have to 
pay. That is a legitimate issue and an issue that must be debated so 
that we understand it.
  I believe in the old biblical admonition: Ye shall know the truth and 
the truth will make you free.
  I believe if we fully understand this bill, we will decide to reject 
it. And since that is what I believe is in the public interest, I look 
forward to debating health care legislation when we have the new bill 
with page numbers, which I understand is now available. At that point, 
I will not need my scale. I was delighted to lend my scale to the 
majority leader, but I have reminded him that I have written--and we 
have copies of--two bills. We have had four other Republicans write 
health care bills. The Republican leader has written a health care bill 
which is in line behind the majority leader's bill to be drafted in 
legislative language. It is not as if there is no alternative.
  What is not offered as an alternative is a Government-run system, 
because we do not want it and the American people do not want it.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, if I could respond, I wish to point out 
18 Republican Senators signed their names on a bill introduced last 
November, all of whom have repudiated the bill now. To say they have 
introduced the bill, I think, does not mean anything in that context.
  So, we are going to have this debate next week. I have been trying to 
get the health care bill up. It is our colleagues who have asked to 
delay bringing up the bill. So I do not want any implication left by 
the Senator that somehow we have been causing this delay. We are going 
to get to it next Tuesday, if our colleagues do not object, and there 
will be ample time for everyone to debate it then, and I hope we will 
do so in a serious and responsible way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. the Senator from Kansas has the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me just set the record straight. I guess 
I can quote the Governor of New York this morning, who said no bill was 
better than the Mitchell bill. That is after weighing, I guess, 
Governor Cuomo trying to satisfy himself today on our side.
  I think the facts are that at least at this time we are not in the 
majority and our bills are drafted last. I would not want to leave the 
impression that is the only reason our bill is not drafted. We have 
been told that after they draft the majority leader's bill and after 
they draft modifications, then they will complete drafting our bill. 
That is the way it works. We understand that. We are the minority. The 
Democrats have the majority, and that is why our bill is not here.
  And as the majority leader knows, all these things slip from time to 
time. We thought we would get his earlier. We got it later. That is no 
problem. But I think the facts are that we have had our material in the 
drafter's office, but there is only so much they can do.
  So I want the Record to reflect the reason our bill is not here. And 
there may be a lot of flaws in our bill, too. I am not suggesting that. 
I said from the outset this is a very complicated issue, and there are 
big, big differences in all these bills. I know Members on the other 
side repudiated the Clinton bill after they cosponsored it. They jumped 
off the Clinton bill.
  We all had changes of positions from certain facts without listening 
to the American people. The funny thing is when we listen to people who 
send us here sometime we change our mind. If we do not listen, we put 
on the narrow glasses right down the beltway and are going to stick 
with the ideas we had initially.
  My view is we are going to have a lot of time for the American people 
to try to understand what may be in the majority leader's bill and what 
we call the American option plan and other plans, and I hope and I know 
that debate will start sometime next week and we are looking forward to 
it. I think it is going to be a good debate. It does not mean we are 
not going to have differences. And we are going to spell out those 
differences, and I hope that we can do that and reach the right 
conclusion.
  But the American people should not be shut out of this process and 
the American people are not going to be shut out of this process. They 
have every right to know what is in the majority leader's bill, what 
may be in the bill I am sponsoring along with 39 of my colleagues, or 
any other bill that may be offered here as a substitute, or any 
amendment that may be offered.
  This is affecting everybody in America. You cannot shut out the 
American public. I do not think that is anybody's intent. But when you 
get a 1,410-page bill--and when you get our bill, I suppose our bill is 
going to be several hundred pages--you have to wonder how do we have 
time, unless we are on the Finance Committee, to really understand what 
may be in that bill.
  And I think that is all we are suggesting, let us give the American 
people a look. Let us let the American people look through our eyes and 
our reflection, at least, on what may be in a bill that may affect 
their lives or the lives of their families.
  So I just say that we are prepared to do that. I hope we can do it in 
the spirit the majority leader suggested early this morning.

                          ____________________