[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3258-S3266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ASSISTED SUICIDE FUNDING RESTRICTION ACT OF 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation
pending before us, a bill to prohibit Federal funds being used to
assist in suicides.
I wish to compliment my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, and also my
colleague, Senator Dorgan, for their leadership. I am happy to
cosponsor this legislation. I think it is important that we pass this
legislation today. I am pleased that the House passed it overwhelmingly
by a vote of 398 to 16. It is not often that we find such an
overwhelming vote.
Frankly, I can't see how anyone would vote against this legislation.
This legislation makes sense. It is needed. Some may ask, ``Why is it
needed?"
You might be aware of the fact that the Supreme Court held hearings
earlier this year on whether or not there is a legal right for assisted
suicide. I have read the Constitution many times. I don't find that
right in there. That doesn't mean the Supreme Court might not, nor does
it mean that some other judge might say yes, you have a constitutional
right for assisted suicide, and someone else say yes, that is a
constitutional right; therefore, it should be covered by Medicare or
Medicaid, and, therefore, be paid for by the Federal Government.
So maybe this is a preemptive strike. It is unfortunate to think it
might even be needed. But it is needed. We want to make sure it doesn't
happen. We want to make sure that we don't have more Dr. Kevorkians
running around the country saying, ``You have a legal right to kill
yourself, and therefore, we will help you; and, oh, yes, we want the
taxpayers to pay for it.'' We don't want the taxpayers to pay for it.
We want to send a signal to Dr. Kevorkian that we don't agree with him.
Dr. Kevorkian made a statement which was reported in the New York
Times on April 5 talking about the fact that he publicly burned a cease
and desist order from the State. He said, ``If you want to stop
something, pass a law.''
That is what we are trying to do today. We are trying to make it very
clear that the Congress of the United States overwhelmingly believes
that you should not use Federal funds to assist in something like
suicides, something that is as deadly as suicide.
This would clarify the law. If assisted suicide is legalized by the
Supreme Court, or in any individual State, all it would take is one
district court judge to rule that assisted suicide fits under the
Medicare statute's guidelines. On January 8, 1997, the Supreme Court
heard oral arguments in two cases in which the Federal courts of
appeals have declared a constitutional right to assisted suicide.
Mr. President I think we want to send a very clear signal. I might
mention that this Congress has already passed a ban. In 1995, I offered
legislation banning the use of Medicaid and Medicare funds for assisted
suicide in the balanced budget amendment which passed this Congress.
Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed the legislation. But he didn't
veto the legislation because of this.
An amicus brief, filed by the American Medical Association, to the
Supreme Court on November 12, 1996, contends that assisted suicide
``will create profound danger for many ill persons with undiagnosed
depression and inadequately treated pain for whom assisted suicide
rather than good palliative care could become the norm. At greatest
risk would be those with the least access to palliative care--the poor,
the elderly, and members of minority groups.''
Acting Solicitor Gen. Walter Dellinger recently said in opposing the
idea of a right to assisted suicide, ``The systemic dangers are
dramatic . . . the least costly treatment for any illness is lethal
medication.'' That is reported in the New York Times on January 9 of
this year.
We are a nation built on the principle that human life is sacred, to
be honored and cherished. As public servants, we deal with issues that
affect the lives of people every day. Caring for people is the
underlying aspect of nearly every piece of legislation dealt with in
this Senate.
Dr. Joanne Lynn, board member of the American Geriatrics Society, and
director of the Center to Improve Care of the Dying at George
Washington University, said, ``No one needs to be alone or in pain or
beg a doctor to put an end to misery. Good care is possible.''
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, while dying last November, took the time
to write the Supreme Court on assisted suicide, saying,
There can be no such thing as a ``right to assisted
suicide'' because there can be no legal and moral order which
tolerates the killing of innocent human life, even if the
agent of death is self-administered. Creating a new ``right''
to assisted suicide will endanger society and send a false
signal that a less than ``perfect'' life is not worth living.
There are a lot of groups and a lot of individuals who have endorsed
this legislation.
The American Medical Association said,
The power to assist in intentionally taking the life of a
patient is antithetical to the central mission of healing
that guides physicians. The AMA continues to stand by its
ethical principle that physician-assisted suicide is
fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as
healer and that physicians must instead aggressively respond
to the needs of patients at the end of life.
That was signed by John Seward, executive vice president of the AMA,
on April 15.
Mr. President, this legislation is endorsed by not only the American
Medical Association but also the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American
Geriatrics Society, Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Free
Congress, National Right to Life, Physicians for Compassionate Care,
and the Traditional Values Coalition.
In addition, I ask unanimous consent that letters be printed in the
Record at this point from the Catholic Health Association and also the
Christian Coalition in support of this legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Christian Coalition,
Capitol Hill Office,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1997.
Dear Senator: As of this morning, the Majority Leader was
trying to work out an agreement to bring up the Assisted
Suicide Funding Restriction Act for a vote this afternoon.
On behalf of the members and supporters of the Christian
Coalition, we urge you to vote for the Assisted Suicide
Funding Restriction Act. This legislation overwhelmingly
passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 398-16.
The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act restricts the
use of tax dollars for the purpose of assisted suicide,
euthanasia, or mercy killing. The overwhelming majority of
American taxpayers oppose the use of tax
[[Page S3259]]
dollars for assisted suicide and euthanasia, with 87 percent
of Americans opposing the use of tax dollars for these
purposes. This widespread support, as well as the moral
grounds for opposing the funding of assisted suicide, compels
passage of this legislation.
This is a carefully-crafted bill and we would like to see
it pass in its present form. Please vote for H.R. 1003, the
Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. Thank you for your
consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Brian Lopina,
Director, Governmental Affairs Office.
____
Catholic Health Association
of the United States,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1997.
Senator Trent Lott,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: I understand that H.R. 1003, the
Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, will soon be
considered by the full Senate. On behalf of more than 1,200
health care facilities and organizations, the Catholic Health
Association of the United States (CHA) urges the Senate to
give this legislation swift and favorable consideration.
As health care providers, members of CHA reject physician-
assisted suicide as antithetical to their religious beliefs
and their mission as healers. Because assisted suicide
offends the basic moral precepts of our culture and poses a
grave danger to those at the margins of our society, state
governments have consistently outlawed its practice.
Unfortunately, a Florida state court and two federal Courts
of Appeals recently have misconstrued the Constitution to
``discover'' a constitutionally protected liberty interest in
physician-assisted suicide.
In response to the threat of these cases and a recent
referendum in Oregon, Congress should establish the principle
that federal tax dollars will not be expended for the
purposeful taking of human life. While none are being used
for this purpose today, judicial activism threatens to
undermine our long-established societal consensus against
assisted suicide.
The legislative proposal before you properly distinguishes
between the withholding or withdrawing of burdensome and
ineffective medical treatment and the aiding of another in
purposefully taking human life. Catholic teaching and common
sense support this distinction.
The most important reason to pass this legislation is to
send a signal to disabled persons, the elderly and other
vulnerable people that they are valued members of the human
community. They enrich rather than burden society. The late
Joseph Cardinal Bernardin said it best in his letter to the
Supreme Court: ``There can be no such thing as a `right to
assisted suicide' because there can be no legal or moral
order which tolerates the killing of innocent human life,
even if the agent of death is self-administered. Creating a
new `right' to assisted suicide will endanger society and
send a false signal that a less than `perfect life' is not
worth living.''
CHA has a long and distinguished record of supporting the
goal of universal health care coverage. In addition, we
support meaningful efforts to improve care for the dying.
Yet, we do not support the views of those opposing this bill
on the grounds that it does not accomplish all of these
worthy goals in one bill. Congress should pass this bill and
then move on to legislation that increases health care
coverage and helps to provide those at the end of life with
the care and comfort that they deserve.
Sincerely,
William J. Cox.
Executive Vice President.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, again, I wish to thank sponsors of this
legislation. I have had the pleasure of working with both Senators from
Missouri. Both Senators made outstanding statements in support of this
legislation. In addition, Senator Dorgan--we appreciate his support for
this legislation. It has bipartisan support. We have a lot of
cosponsors on both sides of the aisle.
It is my hope that the Senate will pass the identical bill that the
House passed and that we will send it to the President.
Also, I have a statement from the administration. The Clinton
administration issued a statement of administration policy on April 10,
1997, which states, ``The President made it clear that he does not
support assisted suicide. The administration, therefore, does not
oppose enactment of H.R. 1003.''
Mr. President, there is no reason for us to amend this legislation.
There is no reason for us to delay this legislation. Let's pass this
legislation and send a message to Dr. Kevorkian and others that Federal
funding will not be tolerated and that it will not be legal to assist
in assisted suicide.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his
excellent statement on this issue. I appreciate his leadership on this
issue. When this legislation was initially filed last year, I was not
aware of the fact that he had previously included it in other matters.
But he has been a leader in respecting the will of the American people
not to participate in the funding of assisted suicide.
Mr. President, I might add as well that while House bill 1003 is
largely consistent and almost totally compatible with the bill that
Senator Dorgan and I filed here in the U.S. Senate, the House added
some provisions which I think improve the measure. Both bills were
narrowly and tightly drawn and focused on the fact that we didn't
believe there should be Federal funding for assisted suicide.
The House measure includes provisions designed to reduce the rate of
suicide, including assisted suicide, among persons with disabilities or
terminal or chronic illness, by furthering knowledge and practice of
pain management, depression identification, palliative care, and other
issues related to suicide prevention. The bill would amend the Public
Health Service Act to use existing Federal funds to establish research,
training, and demonstration projects intended to help achieve the goal
of reducing the rate of suicide. That would also, of course, include
reducing the rate of individuals interested in assisted suicide. It
also includes a provision directing the General Accounting Office to
analyze the effectiveness and achievements of the grant programs that
are authorized by the Public Health Service Act.
So, resources now available to the public through the Public Health
Service Act can be used in accordance with this measure to reduce the
rate of suicide. It is important for us not just to be concerned about
Federal funding for suicide, but where possible to help individuals
understand the potential for hope in the situation rather than despair.
I might just also point out that assisted suicide and the potential
for assisted suicide or funding for assisted suicide in a culture are
not really conducive to the development of other therapies. It is
interesting to note that Justice Breyer pointed out a number of
important facts during the Supreme Court's recent oral arguments
regarding the right to assisted suicide. He indicated that supportive
services for vulnerable patients remain undeveloped once a society has
accepted assisted suicide as a quick and easy solution for their
problems. In particular, he noted that in England, which prohibits
assisted suicide, there are over 180 hospices for people who are
terminally ill; 180 facilities designed for compassionate care to help
these people. In a sense, each of us is terminally ill. Each of us
ultimately will die. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, which
allows assisted suicide, rather than having 180 hospices, they have
only 3.
It may be inappropriate to draw a conclusion here, but it seems to me
that once a culture decides that the thing to do with terminally-ill
patients is to help them die quickly, they neglect and otherwise refuse
to develop the kinds of institutions which would help people who really
ought to live and want to live and have many things to contribute.
It is with that in mind that I think it is peculiarly and singularly
important that this Congress respond to the voice of the American
people, which with near unanimity is calling for us to prohibit Federal
funding of assisted suicide. It is with that in mind that I urge my
colleagues to join by voting in favor of this proposal.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Ashcroft has just outlined a
provision that was included in the legislation enacted by the House of
Representatives. Frankly, I think this addition improves the
legislation that we introduced here in the Senate. The amendment that
was accepted by the House and is in this legislation provides for the
prevention of suicide, including assisted suicide. It provides
authorization for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to fund
research and demonstration projects using existing Public Health
Service dollars to prevent suicide among people with disabilities or
terminal or chronic illnesses. That amendment addresses an issue that
is very significant and serious, and I think it adds to this
legislation.
[[Page S3260]]
With this legislation, we are not only saying that we want to prevent
Federal funding of assisted suicide, but also that we want to improve
the availability of compassionate end-of-life care so that terminally
or chronically ill individuals do not feel that assisted suicide is
their only option for relief.
So I think this amendment is a good amendment, and I support it.
Mr. President, I hope we can move along to final passage on this
legislation.
I don't know whether there are those who intend to offer amendments.
I see Senator Wellstone from Minnesota is on the floor. My hope is that
we can proceed on this noncontroversial piece of legislation and finish
it today.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today the U.S. Senate considers H.R.
1003, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997. As an
original co-sponsor of S. 304, the Senate companion to H.R. 1003, I
rise in support of this measure's reasonable and responsible action in
prohibiting the use of Federal funds to support physician-assisted
suicide.
Modern medical technology has made a significant difference in the
health care challenges that patients and providers face today. While
few Americans fear death from scarlet fever or cholera, a growing
number are concerned about the potential for a slow, painful death from
cancer or a degenerative neurological disorder. Advocates for
physician-assisted suicide package the concept as purely an issue of
patient choice and personal liberty in seeking relief from suffering.
Moreover, they argue that this choice harms no one. I respectfully but
stringently disagree. Physician-assisted suicide condones the
intentional killing of a human being as a valid method for relieving
pain and suffering when other means are available to address a
patient's critical medical needs.
Advocates for physician-assisted suicide point to secondary effect,
the circumstance where a patient dies during treatment for pain, as a
factor lending legitimacy to the legalization of euthanasia. Again, I
disagree. A large number of Americans and a majority in the medical
community identify the critical difference between the administration
of pain medication and physician-assisted suicide. In the former, a
physician makes a medical assessment and administers the level of
medication necessary to relieve a patient's pain and suffering. Though
the action is taken with the knowledge that the treatment could cause
death, the physician's sole medical goal is helping the patient attain
relief from suffering. In contrast, physician-assisted suicide is the
intentional administration of a drug, not for pain relief, but to kill.
H.R. 1003 recognizes the critical difference between secondary effect
and physician-assisted suicide.
While patients' rights have been raised in the debate over physician-
assisted suicide, I want to draw attention to the broader implications
of this action on the health care community. The American Medical
Association makes clear in its Code of Medical Ethics that the
intentional act of killing a patient is antithetical to the central
mission of healing that bonds the physician-patient relationship. The
AMA fully endorses H.R. 1003's purpose to assure that the integrity of
doctors working for Federal health care programs and in Federal health
care facilities is not compromised by the act of physician-assisted
suicide. Without H.R. 1003, doctors face a painful dilemma of whether
they are expected to conduct assisted suicide as a form of medical
treatment. The AMA rejects such a concept, and 87 percent of Americans
agree that Federal tax dollars should not support such a questionable
practice.
It is clear to all that patient concerns regarding the health care
threats of degenerative and painful disease must be addressed. This
critical need is one of the reasons why I and other Members of the U.S.
Senate support Federal investment in medical research. The Federal
Government should not invest in physician-assisted suicide as a
legitimate option for pain control however. Medicine today is capable
of managing physical pain, but patients are forced to endure pain and
suffering because this information is not applied uniformly. For the
welfare of patients and families, we should focus our energies on
correcting these failures in medical care delivery, rather than
diverting critical attention toward the questionable promotion of
assisted suicide.
Mr. President, I support the right of Americans to decide whether or
not to withdraw or withhold medical treatment. I also appreciate the
difference between acts to relieve the pain of a dying patient and acts
that intentionally produce pre-mature death. H.R. 1003 does the same.
This measure makes clear that Federal funds do not and will not support
physician-assisted suicide to the detriment of patients, families, and
the medical community. I urge my colleagues to join in support of H.R.
1003's intent to ensure that this vital concern for millions of
Americans is properly addressed.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1003 and I urge
my fellow Senators also to vote in favor of this legislation.
This bill simply prohibits the use of Federal funds for the
controversial and immoral practice of assisted suicide. It rightly
keeps the Federal Government out of the business of killing.
The bill prevents the use of funds to provide health care items or
services ``furnished for the purpose of causing * * * the death of any
individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing.''
Death of the individual has been included because proponents of
assisted suicide, mercy killing, and euthanasia often use other terms
to describe these activities, such as physician aid in dying. In fact,
the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which legalizes these actions under
certain circumstances, specifically provides that ``actions taken in
accordance with [this law] shall not, for any purpose, constitute
assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide''--even though the actions
precisely are assisted suicide or mercy killing! The bill is very clear
about the activity that should not receive Federal funds: an item or
service furnished for the purpose of causing the death of any
individual will not be funded by American taxpayers.
Close observers will note that this broad language is used in
sections 3, 4, and 7 of the bill, while more narrow language is used in
sections 2, 5, and 6, where funds are prohibited for ``causing the
suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual. The broad
language is used with regard to the general prohibition on health care
funding (section 3), the prohibition on the use of funds under the
Developmental Disabilities Assistance Act (section 4), and the Patient
Self Determination Act (section 7) to ensure that the activities and
actions intended not to receive Federal funds in fact do not receive
them. The broad language is necessary because proponents often describe
these activities in different terms; it is used without concern of
unintended consequences because the programs covered in these instances
are clearly and narrowly defined.
The narrow language is used in the bill's findings and purposes
provisions (section 2, which does not have the force of law),
restrictions on advocacy programs (section 5), and restrictions on
funding for mercy killing, euthanasia, and assisted suicide in national
defense and criminal justice programs (section 6) because broad
language, if applied to these programs, could have unintended
consequences. For example, if the broad language were used with respect
to criminal justice enforcement, it may have the effect of prohibiting
capital punishment. But this bill is only about funding for assisted
suicide--mainly in Federal health care programs, because proponents of
assisted suicide are successfully legitimizing assisted suicide--for
some--as a form of health or medical care.
Assisted suicide is not health care. Or medical care. The Federal
Government, supported by all American by all American tax payers,
should not pay for this. This carefully crafted bill will ensure that
that does not happen. It deserves our support.
Some questions have arisen as to whether H.R. 1003 applies to the
provision or withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment, medical
care, nutrition, or hydration. My reading of the bill indicates that
the bill does not address such situations.
H.R. 1003 is a deliberately narrow piece of legislation. It deals
with the issue of Federal subsidies for direct killing, as by a lethal
injection or a lethal drug. It is not designed to address
[[Page S3261]]
or affect in any way, positively or negatively, Federal funding for the
withholding or withdrawal of medical treatment and medical care,
nutrition or hydration. Nor is it designed to address affect in any
way, positively or negatively, such withholding or withdrawal in
veterans' hospitals, military hospitals, or other Federal facilities.
Therefore, Mr. President, no one should read into the adoption of
this legislation any expression of blanket congressional approval for
the practice of withholding or withdrawing of nutrition and hydration
or, for that matter, of any lifesaving medical treatment. This Senator,
for one, is convinced that causing a patient to die of starvation or
dehydration is absolutely wrong. I, for one, would not have supported
this bill as an original cosponsor if I believed that it authorized the
use of Federal funds to withhold or withdraw nutrition and hydration
from a patient.
Indeed, I am convinced that every Member of this body, and I dare say
of the other body as well, can think of at least some circumstances in
which he or she would agree that denial of medical treatment, or of
food and fluids, is wrong and should not be subsidized with Federal tax
dollars. Plainly, then in voting for this legislation we do not intend
some broad sanction for denial of nutrition, hydration, medical
treatment and care.
All we do in section 3(b) of H.R. 1003 is make clear the narrow scope
of this bill: that it deals with direct killing only, and not with
these other practices. Thus, section 3(b) should be read simply as a
scope limitation for this legislation, and not as expressing a
substantive policy position on withholding or withdrawing medical
treatment, medical care, nutrition or hydration. That is a matter for
another day.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to express my firm belief that
ours is a Nation that should direct itself to expanding the scope of
the human community; to ensuring that all its members enjoy full access
to the protection of life, liberty, and happiness. Our culture is one
that increasingly commits itself to death, to killing those that some
do not consider to be part of the human family. For years some in this
country have treated the preborn child as unworthy of that protection.
Recently, the President has vetoed a ban on partial-birth abortions--
has allowed the killing of a child just three inches and 3 seconds from
full protection of the law. Now our culture is moving toward promoting
the killing of the elderly, the handicapped, those who suffer
desperately--instead of offering them support, resources, and hope.
I commend the Senator from Missouri for his excellent work on this
bill and his steadfast efforts to prevent taxpayers from being forced
to support a culture of death. His work reclaims some of our hope that
America can again be a beacon of light in a culture of life.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thought it would be helpful to
share some thoughts about other important issues that I hope the
Congress will address once action is taken on the bill before us to
prohibit Federal funding for physician-assisted suicide.
Because of my involvement in health care issues and the Medicare
Program specifically, I have spent some time in recent months taking
another look at the concerns and dilemmas that face patients, their
family members, and their physicians when confronted with death or the
possibility of dying. In almost all such difficult situations, these
people are not thinking about physician-assisted suicide. The needs and
dilemmas that confront them have much more to do with the kind of care
and information that are needed, sometimes desperately.
I am learning more and more about the importance of educating health
care providers and the public that chronic, debilitating, terminal
disease need not be associated with pain, major discomfort, and loss of
control. We need to focus on the tremendous amount that can be done to
control a wide range of symptoms associated with terminal illness, to
assure that the highest level of comfort care is provided to those who
are dying or have chronic, debilitating disease.
The tremendous advances in medicine and medical technology over the
past 30-50 years have resulted in a greatly expanded life expectancy
for Americans, as well as vastly improved functioning and quality of
life for the elderly and those with chronic disease. Many of these
advances have been made possible by federally financed health care
programs, especially the Medicare Program that assured access to high
quality health care for all elderly Americans, as well as funding much
of the development of technology and a highly skilled physician work
force through support of medical education and academic medical
centers. These advances have also created major dilemmas in addressing
terminal or potentially terminal disease, as well as a sense of loss of
control by many with terminal illness.
I believe it's time for Medicare and other federally funded health
care programs to assure that all elderly, chronically ill, and disabled
individuals have access to compassionate, supportive, and pain-free
care during prolonged illness and at the end of life. As we discuss
restructuring Medicare during the present session of Congress, this
will be one of my primary goals.
Much of the knowledge necessary to assure individuals appropriate
end-of-life care already exists. Much needs to be done, however, to
assure that all health care providers have the appropriate training to
use what is known already about such supportive care. The public must
also be educated and empowered to discuss these issues with family
members as well as their own physicians so that each individual's
wishes can be respected. More research is needed to develop appropriate
measures of quality end-of-life care and incorporate these measures
into medical practice in all health care settings. And finally,
appropriate financial incentives must be present within Medicare,
especially, to allow the elderly and disabled their choice of
appropriate care at the end of life.
I will soon be introducing legislation that addresses the need to
develop appropriate quality measures for end-of-life care, to develop
models of compassionate care within the Medicare Program and to
encourage individuals to have open communication with family members
and health care providers concerning preferences for end-of-life care.
These are the issues that truly need to be addressed by Congress and
encouraged through Federal financing programs for health care, and I am
very committed to promoting the action that Americans and their
physicians are looking to us to help them with. By addressing end-of-
life issues in this manner, there may be a day when the divisive debate
over physician-assisted suicide will become unnecessary.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to address the legislation
before us which would further codify and clarify existing Federal law,
practice, and policy on the prohibition of the use of Federal funds,
whether directly or indirectly, for physician-assisted suicide. This
proposal has received broad bipartisan support within the Congress,
within the administration, and in the medical community.
This is an issue that supersedes the politics of the present, and
cuts to the heart of our concept of respect for life. As a physician, I
took an oath, like physicians for centuries before me, to ``first do no
harm.'' While there are times when the best in medical technology and
expertise cannot save or prolong life, we should never turn those tools
into instruments to take life, and we must preserve the sacred trust
between physician and patient.
I am pleased that this bill is tightly focused and disciplined in its
approach to this controversial issue. However, I am concerned that the
most important issue may be obscured by this debate. Physicians have a
responsibility to ensure that patients are both comfortable and
comforted during their last precious days on Earth. As legislators
responsible for policy decisions impacting the federally funded health
care programs, we also have a responsibility. We must continue to look
for ways to support efforts to provide palliative care, as well as to
support efforts to educate physicians, patients, and families about
end-of-life issues.
We have made enormous progress in treating and managing illness at
the end of life. Over the last 50 years, life expectancy has risen
dramatically as we have learned to manage the complications of
illnesses which were previously considered terminal. The issue of
physician-assisted suicide is an indication of our need to focus on
other
[[Page S3262]]
ways of relieving suffering, while maintaining the dignity of the
terminally ill and their families.
While I do not believe that it is the role of the Government to
intrude upon the relationship between a physician and patient, I do
believe that policymakers have an obligation to create an environment
which supports the quality of care in this country. Therefore, our
votes in support of this bill must also be seen as our decision to take
up a new challenge--that of finding new ways to facilitate the
compassionate care of the dying.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when the able Senators Ashcroft and Dorgan
invited me to cosponsor S. 304, a bill to prohibit the use of Federal
funds for assisted suicide, I unhesitatingly accepted. Now today, I do
hope the Senate will promptly approve H.R. 1003, now pending which is
nearly identical to S. 304 and which was passed overwhelmingly by the
House this past Thursday.
The Supreme Court's tragic Roe versus Wade decision in 1973
established that human beings--unborn children--at one end of the age
spectrum are expendable for reasons of convenience and social policy;
euthanasia is now the next step. Many, including this Senator who in
1973 had just been sworn in, argued that if we can justify in our own
minds the destruction of the lives of those whose productive years are
yet to come, what is to prevent our destroying or agreeing to end the
lives of men and women who can no longer pull their own weight in
society?
That day may arrive as early as this summer. The Supreme Court is
currently reviewing two circuit courts of appeals decisions which, if
upheld, will affirm the constitutional right of individuals to
terminate their own lives with the assistance of Dr. Kevorkian or other
like-minded physicians. But inevitably, those who demand that this
become an acceptable right are also expecting the taxpayers to furnish
the money for it.
At a minimum, Mr. President, surely the Senate will reject the notion
that tax funded programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare, should be used
to terminate the lives of human beings. Despite anybody's looking with
favor on euthanasia, it is absurd to suggest that the American people
must sponsor it with their already-high taxes.
The American people emphatically reject this idea. A poll conducted
last year by Wirthlin Worldwide revealed that 87 percent of people
oppose Federal funding of assisted suicide.
So, Mr. President, the bill under consideration will not outlaw
euthanasia. But it will forbid the use of Federal tax dollars to fund
assisted suicides. And more importantly, the Senate will heed the
American people's belief that paying for such a morally objectionable
procedure is just going too far.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Physician
Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997. This bill would
maintain current Federal policy to prevent the use of Federal funds and
facilities to provide and promote assisted suicide. It would not
nullify any decision by a State to legalize assisted suicide, nor
restrict State or privately financed assisted suicide; nor will it
affect any living will statutes or any limitation relating to the
withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment or care.
The bill is urgently needed to protect Federal programs which have
traditionally been designed to protect the health and welfare of our
citizens. The ninth circuit recently reinstated an Oregon statute which
provided for physician-assisted suicide through the State's Medicaid
Program. This program is funded in part with Federal tax dollars.
Unless we enact this statute, Federal dollars will be used to fund
physician-assisted suicide. There is an immediate and pressing need for
the Senate to act on this matter now. Our Nation has always been
committed to the preservation of the lives of its citizens. The
American people expect that tradition to continue.
Last week, the House of Representatives acted in a decisive vote of
398 to 16 to ban the use of Federal funds to support physician-assisted
suicide and the President has indicated that he does not oppose this
legislation. Mr. President, the American people do not want their tax
dollars spent to assist individuals to commit suicide.
This legislation simply prohibits the use of Federal funds for
assisted suicide. It does not address the issue that is currently
before the Supreme Court in Washington versus Glucksburg. The issue in
that case is whether there is a liberty interest in committing suicide,
and if so, whether that interest extends to obtaining the assistance of
a doctor to do the same. Mr. President, nothing in this legislation
will affect the decision that the Supreme Court will announce later
this summer. What this bill does is maintain the longstanding Federal
policy of preventing Federal funds from being used for this purpose.
The American taxpayer shouldn't be forced to pay for the activities of
Dr. Kevorkian and other physicians who may be engaged in assisting
suicide.
Mr. President, we are not acting prematurely by passing this
legislation. The State of Oregon already has decided that physician-
assisted suicide is legal and that State Medicaid funds may be used for
that purpose. The long-standing policy against the use of Federal tax
dollars is now in jeopardy, and congressional action is now needed. Tax
dollars ought to be used to extend life, not cause death.
Finally, I am pleased to see that this legislation contains a
provision to allow for research into ways we can reduce the rate of
suicide among individuals with disabilities and chronic illnesses.
Modern pain management techniques are improving rapidly, and it is my
hope that this research will reduce the demand for assisted suicide,
whether legal or illegal, in the future. We need to continue pain
research, and make resources available to ensure that health care
professionals are capable of administering these new treatments as they
develop. This is a forward-looking approach and we should encourage
this sort of research--it will improve the quality of life for those
with debilitating diseases.
Mr. President, I think I speak for the vast majority of the American
people when I say that their Federal tax dollars should not be used to
fund physician-assisted suicide. I am very pleased to support this
bill. I commend Senator Ashcroft for bringing this issue to the
attention of the Senate. I hope my colleagues will support the bill,
and I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish we were not here debating this
legislation today--not because I don't think it is right; I do, and I
am a cosponsor of the bill; but because I wish there was no need to
take up a bill like this in the first place.
Unfortunately, our hands have been forced, largely by the courts.
In March of last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
a Washington State law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide was
unconstitutional under the constitutional right of privacy.
Then, a month later, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals struck down
a similar New York State law, arguing that the equal protection clause
of the Constitution gives the terminally ill the same rights to hasten
their own death through drugs as other patients have to refuse
artificial life support.
Although implementation has been delayed by the courts, in 1994,
Oregon voters approved a referendum making physician-assisted suicide
legal in that State.
The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments on the matter--and it is
expected to rule before the end of this term.
Now, if physician-assisted suicide does become legal--through the
courts or through State referendums or by some other means--there will
be no doubt an attempt made to have the Federal Government pay for
this.
I can hear the arguments already. People will demand that Medicare or
Medicaid reimburse physicians who help people commit suicide. Mr.
President, this is not such a farfetched notion.
After the voters approved the Oregon referendum in 1994, Oregon
officials actually admitted they would seek Medicaid reimbursement if
the law were to go into effect.
Now, truth in advertising here, Mr. President. I am opposed to
physician-assisted suicide becoming legal in this country, period. So I
don't want to hide under some false cloak here. I am one of those who
does not support abortion, but I acknowledge that my personal religious
view should not be imposed upon the rest of the world because, for
[[Page S3263]]
me, it is hard to determine and insist that my view on when there is a
human life in being is more accurate than someone who is equally as
religious as me, but might have a different view. But a suicide is a
different story. There is no question that there is a human life in
being. Physician-assisted suicide is the most dangerous slippery slope,
in my view, that a nation can embark upon.
So I make it clear that this has nothing to do with whether
physician-assisted suicide should be allowed. I don't think it should
be. But that is beside the point today. What is at issue is--if it
becomes legal in one State, several States, or all States--is the
Federal Government going to have to pay for it?
To that, I hope we will emphatically say ``no,'' regardless of what
each of us thinks about the legality or constitutionality of physician-
assisted suicide.
No matter where you are on the issue, under no circumstances should
the Federal Government be paying physicians to help people kill
themselves.
Let me say what else this debate today is not about. It is not about
refusing to accept medical treatment. The Supreme Court has already
ruled that individuals have a right to refuse unwanted medical
treatment. I am not sure how a physician or a hospital would bill
Medicare or Medicaid for not providing a treatment that the patient did
not want. But, regardless of that, this bill explicitly states that the
funding prohibition does not apply in such circumstances and does not
apply to drugs given to alleviate pain.
What we are talking about is when physicians specifically give a
patient a drug to kill them--when there is a proactive attempt to kill
a patient. That is what we are talking about--no Federal dollars
allowed.
I commend Senator Ashcroft and Senator Dorgan for their work on this
bill. This has been a bipartisan effort from the start--going back to
when this bill was first put together last summer.
Mr. President, it is important that we swiftly and definitively
resolve this issue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R.
1003, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 304, the Senate companion bill
to H.R. 1003. As a cosponsor, I was especially gratified to learn of
the overwhelming bipartisan vote of 398 to 16 by which H.R. 1003 passed
the House of Representatives on April 10, 1997.
With its resounding votes to pass both the Assisted Suicide Funding
Restriction Act and H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of
1997, the House of Representatives has taken two major actions aimed at
restoring respect for the sanctity of human life in our great Nation. I
trust that in the weeks ahead, the Senate will join the House by
passing both of these bills by large majorities and sending them to the
President.
Mr. President, before he passed away last November, Joseph Cardinal
Bernadin left a moving testimony to the sanctity of life. ``I am at the
end of my earthly life,'' Chicago's Cardinal wrote in a letter
addressed to the U.S. Supreme Court. ``Our legal and ethical tradition
has held consistently that suicide, assisted-suicide, and euthanasia
are wrong because they involve a direct attack on innocent human
life,'' Cardinal Bernadin continued. ``Creating a new `right' to
assisted suicide,'' the Cardinal concluded, ``will . . . send a false
signal that a less than perfect life is not worth living.''
Mr. President, by enacting H.R. 1003, the Congress will be moving to
defend the sanctity of human life by preventing the use of Federal
funds and facilities to provide and promote assisted suicide. This is
indeed a worthy goal and I am honored to be a part of this effort.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the ban on the use of Federal
funds for assisted suicide, and I commend Senator Dorgan and Senator
Ashcroft for their leadership on this issue.
The disabled, the elderly, low-income and other Americans in need are
often totally reliant on federally financed health care. Allowing
Federal funds to be used for assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy
killing could lead to situations in which terminally ill or seriously
ill individuals are coerced into choosing assisted suicide over
traditional medical treatments or pain management therapies. In
addition, many seriously ill people who suffer transient depression
could choose suicide, when, if their depression were treated, they
would not make this irrevocable choice.
I also support the intent of the legislation to exclude certain
medical treatments and procedures from the provisions of the ban.
Evidence of this intent is found in both the language of the Senate
bill and the language contained in the House report concerning section
3(b). This subsection clarifies the exact nature of the medical
procedures and services which are not intended to be covered by the
prohibition on the use of Federal funds. It is important to emphasize
that the ban does not cover individuals who do not want their lives
prolonged by heroic medical treatments or the other specific treatments
identified in the language of the House report on this subsection.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am going to in a short period of
time offer two amendments which I hope will be really noncontroversial.
I just would like to talk about both of them in general terms and then
I will come back in time to offer these amendments.
One of these amendments has to do with what I think is,
unfortunately, very germane and it has to do with our failure still to
provide the kind of mental health services, the kind of mental health
coverage that is so direly needed. I know my colleagues have said one
of the things that concerns them and concerns others is that all too
often some of the people who take their lives are people in a severe
state of depression, people who have not been treated. And then, of
course, you really wonder whether or not this ever should have happened
and this is the last thing you would like to see assisted.
So I really feel that if, in fact, we are saying we do not want to
see this kind of assisted, physician-assisted suicide, or people taking
their lives, that is to say, then I think we really want to make sure
we do not get to the point where some people, some who really want to
take their lives are taking their lives not even necessarily because
they are in terrible pain with a terrible illness but having more to do
with a terrible mental illness. This is an amendment we will come to in
a little while.
The first amendment that I will offer shortly is an amendment which
says it is the sense of the Senate that the Senate supports firm but
fair work requirements for low-income unemployed individuals. I do not
think my colleagues would disagree with that. And low-income workers
who are jobless but are unable to find a job should look for work, they
should participate in workfare or job training programs but they should
not be denied food stamps without these opportunities.
Again, I am just waiting for response from a couple other Senators
before I introduce these amendments, but just in very broad outline the
why of this amendment.
I am going to draw from a study which comes out from the Department
of Agriculture February 13, 1997, which really points to the
characteristics of childless unemployed adult food stamp and legal
immigrant food stamp participants.
Madam President, this is not a pretty picture. We are talking about
the poorest of poor people. If we are going to have vehicles out in the
Chamber and there is going to be an opportunity--and these are just
sense-of-the-Senate amendments--to really try and get the Senate on
record to correct some problems that have to be corrected, then I want
to take full advantage of it. In this particular case, we are talking
about people who are very poor, many
[[Page S3264]]
of them women, many of them minorities.
What we are saying is, yes, work, but if there is not a workfare
program available and someone cannot find a job, then do not cut people
off food stamp assistance, do not say that in a 3-year period you can
only get 3 months' worth of food stamp assistance.
Why in the world would we want to create the very situation we are
now creating which is you are basically taking the most vulnerable
citizens, the poorest of poor people and you are putting them in a
situation where they want to work, they cannot find a job, there is not
a workfare program available, there is not a job training program
available, they are suffering, struggling with HIV infection or dying
from AIDS, they are struggling with mental illness, they did not even
have a high school education, there are no opportunities for the
training, and we are now saying that we are going to cut you off food
stamp assistance. This was the harshest provision of the welfare bill
that we passed.
And so, Madam President, I come to the floor, and I will in a moment
suggest the absence of a quorum just for a moment and then we will move
forward with both of these amendments. But I come to the floor to
introduce both of these amendments. These are sense-of-the-Senate
amendments. I hope they will command widespread support. I say to my
colleagues I am really hopeful for a very strong vote. I know they are
anxious to have the bill come through. I do not think these
amendments--I made them sense-of-the-Senate amendments. I think the
language is very reasonable, and I do not mean to hold up the
legislation at all, but on the other hand I do mean to get some
attention focused on some areas that we really need to address.
Madam President, just for a moment, I would suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I would ask unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator from Minnesota suggests that these are
merely sense-of-the-Senate amendments and that they would not impair
the progress of the bill substantially. If by adding these amendments
to the bill we send the bill to conference, we delay substantially our
ability to move this legislation to the President of the United States
for his signature.
Throughout our comments and remarks, I think it has been clear we are
simply at present awaiting judicial decisions which might authorize on
a momentary basis Federal funding of assisted suicide, so that it is
crucial we not delay this process. And sending this measure to
conference would in fact delay the process.
Second, I should indicate that this is not a measure which is
designed to prohibit assisted suicide. Some suggestions seem to have
been made that this is a measure which would attempt to control whether
or not States could authorize assisted suicide or whether they could
fund it on their own or whether we would be intervening by this
legislation in the capacity of States to determine what is appropriate
or inappropriate for their citizens. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
This is not a measure that relates to the commission of suicide. It
relates to Federal funding of assisted suicide. This bill--and many
people think it unfortunate it would not--does not prevent Kevorkian
from acting. That would be controlled by local jurisdictions and what
the law in those jurisdictions is. So that the alleged relevance of
some of the proposed amendments simply is not consistent with the
content of the measure.
I think it is important for us to understand we ought to act quickly.
We are fortunate that the courts have not already authorized Federal
payments for assisted suicide. But for the injunction of a court in
Oregon, that would have been the case, according to the director of
Medicaid and the Health Services Commission chair in Oregon. And now
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned that lower court's
decision and the matter is still suspended in the limbo of the legal
proceedings. But as soon as the ninth circuit's opinion would become
final, the Oregon officials have indicated they intend to call for
Federal resources to participate in the funding of what they call
``comfort care.'' I would be uncomfortable myself to receive the
``comfort care'' offered there.
But it is, in my judgment, a matter of importance that we act
promptly, that we act with dispatch. The attempt to bring unrelated
issues to this measure is counterproductive, particularly inasmuch as
it is likely to send this legislation to conference and to delay
substantially the ability to move the will of the American people into
the law of the American people, and that will is that we not fund with
Federal resources assisted suicide.
Madam President, I observe the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Margaret Heldring have
the privilege of the floor during the debate on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no
amendments or motions be in order to the pending legislation, and that
there be 10 minutes for debate to be equally divided in the usual form,
to be followed by third reading and final passage of H.R. 1003.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I now ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. For the information of all Senators, a vote will occur
within the next 10 minutes on passage of the assisted suicide bill. I
thank my colleagues for their cooperation.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record a statement of administration policy on H.R. 1003,
including a letter to Senator Trent Lott by the Assistant Attorney
General, Andrew Fois.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1997.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 1003--Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997
The President has made it clear that he does not support
assisted suicides. The Administration, therefore, does not
oppose enactment of H.R. 1003, insofar as it would reaffirm
current Federal policy prohibiting the use of Federal funds
to pay for assisted suicides and euthanasia.
However, the Department of Justice advises (in the attached
letter) that section 5 of the bill, which would prohibit the
use of any federal funds to support an activity that has a
purpose of ``asserting or advocating a legal right to cause,
or to assist in . . . the suicide . . . of any individual,''
exceeds the intent of the legislation and raises concerns
regarding freedom of speech. Therefore, the Administration
urges the Senate to address
[[Page S3265]]
this concern as the legislation moves forward, in order to
avoid potential constitutional challenges and implementation
problems.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1997.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: This presents the views of the Department
of Justice on H.R. 1003, the ``Assisted Suicide Funding
Restriction Act of 1997.'' As you know, the President has
made it clear that he does not support assisted suicides. The
Administration therefore does not oppose enactment of H.R.
1003. We do, however, have a concern that we would like to
bring to your attention.
Section 5 of H.R. 1003 provides that ``no funds
appropriated by Congress may be used to assist in, to
support, or to fund any activity or service which has a
purpose of assisting in, or to bring suit or provide any
other form of legal assistance for the purpose of . . .
asserting or advocating a legal right to cause, or to assist
in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing or any
individual.'' This restriction, by its plain terms, would
apply without limitation to all federal funding. As a result,
we believe that the proposed bill would constitute a
constitutionally suspect extension of the type of speech
restriction upheld in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
In Rust, the Supreme Court upheld a program-specific
funding restriction on the use of federal family planning
counseling funds to provide abortion-related advice. It
explained that the restriction constituted a permissible
means of furthering the government's legitimate interests in
ensuring program integrity and facilitating the government's
own speech. See id. at 187-194. The Court stressed, however,
that its holding was not intended ``to suggest that funding
by the Government, even when coupled with the freedom of the
fund recipients to speak outside the scope of a Government-
funded project, is invariably sufficient to justify
Government control over the content of expression.'' Id. at
199. For example, the Court emphasized that the First
Amendment analysis might differ for restrictions on federally
funded services that were ``more all encompassing'' than the
limited pre-natal counselling program at issued in Rust.
Id. at 200. In addition, the Court explained that the
government's authority to place speech restrictions on the
use of governmental funds in ``a traditional sphere of
free expression,'' such as a forum created with
governmental funds or a government-funded university, was
far more limited. Id. at 200.
The Court affirmed the limited nature of Rust in
Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, 115 S.Ct. 2510 (1995). There, the Court explained
that Rust applies where the government itself acts as the
speaker. ``When the government disburses public funds to
private entities to convey a governmental message,'' the
Court explained, ``it may take legitimate and appropriate
steps to ensure that its message it neither garbled nor
distorted by the grantee.'' Id. at 2519. The government may
not, however, impose viewpoint-based restrictions when it
``does not itself speak or subsidize transmittal of a message
it favors, but instead expends funds to encourage a diversity
of views from private speakers.'' Id.
Here, the bill places a speech restriction on all uses of
federal funds. It would move beyond speech restrictions on
the use of federal funds in specific, limited programs, such
as the one identified in Rust, to establish a viewpoint-based
restriction on the use of federal funds generally. As a
result, the bill's restriction on speech could apply to an
unknown number of programs that are designed to ``encourage a
diversity of views from private speaker, ``Rosenberger, 115
S.Ct. at 2519, and to which the Court has held application of
a viewpoint-based funding limitation unconstitutional. The
bill could also apply to a number of services that are ``more
all encompassing'' than the counselling program at issue in
Rust, see 500 U.S. at 200, and to which application of a
viewpoint-based funding restriction would be subject to
substantial constitutional challenge.
Moreover, the general approach that the bill employs is
itself constitutionally suspect. Unlike the regulation at
issue in Rust, H.R. 1003 does not attempt to identify a
particular program, or group of programs, in which a funding
restriction would serve the government's legitimate interests
in ensuring program integrity or facilitating the effective
communication of a governmental message. It would instead
impose a broad and undifferentiated viewpoint-based
restriction on all uses of federal funds. As a result of the
unusually broad and indiscriminate nature of the proposed
funding restriction, the bill does not appear to be designed
to serve the legitimate governmental interests identified in
Rust. Thus, the bill is vulnerable to arguments that it
reflects on ``ideologically driven attempt [] to suppress a
particular point of view [which would be] presumptively
unconstitutional in funding, as in other contexts.''
``Rosenberger, 115 S.Ct. at 2517 (internal quotations
omitted). We therefore recommend that this provision be
deleted from the bill.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please do
not hesitate to call upon us if we may be of additional
assistance in connection with this or any other matter. The
Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program
to the presentation of this report.
Sincerely,
Andrew Fois,
Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam 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. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time has expired. If there be no amendment to be offered, the
question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill (H.R. 1003) was ordered to a third reading and was read the
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Faircloth] is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith, Bob
Smith, Gordon H.
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Faircloth
The bill (H.R. 1003) was passed.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. ASHCROFT. 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. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Can I use time as
if in morning business to introduce a bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator needs consent to do that at this
time.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is not infringing on anything planned?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have no orders at this time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes on court-appointed attorney's
fees and the taxpayers' right to know how much they are paying.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 598
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S3266]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________