[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24817-24821]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      H.R. 2614--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. BOND. Let me move to the bill before us. It has been thoroughly 
covered with faint praise. Maybe it deserves a hearing in its own right 
before this thing gets pasted all over the place. I would like my 
colleagues and our constituents to know what is in it because I think 
there are some good things in it.
  The conference report on H.R. 2614, the Certified Development Program 
Improvement Act, has grown over the past week to include not only a 3-
year reauthorization bill for the Small Business Administration, but it 
includes extensive tax legislation, provisions to reform and improve 
the Medicare program, and, as I mentioned, pension reform. We might 
call this bill ``Small Business and Friends.'' A lot of important 
luggage is being carried on the train that our little small business 
bill is pulling.
  As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I will comment first 
on the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000. This is, as I said 
before, the result of many months of work by the Senate and House 
Committees on Small Business. The bill is the conference agreement to 
reauthorize most small business programs at the Small Business 
Administration, and it reauthorizes the Small Business Innovation 
Research Program.
  To summarize the provisions briefly, this includes an 8-year 
reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, the 
SBIR Program. This program was initially implemented in 1983 and allows 
Federal agencies to award research grants and contracts to small 
research firms. This is vitally important to develop the capacity in 
the economy as a whole, and the country as a whole, to do high-quality 
research needed by the Federal Government.
  Some 50,000 SBIR awards have been made since the inception of the 
program. It contains measures to ensure that small businesses receive 
the appropriate allocation of Federal R&D

[[Page 24818]]

funds, to require that agencies retain more comprehensive information 
on the program's operations that will improve its management, and to 
protect the intellectual property of the small businesses that 
participate in the program.
  The conference report also establishes what we call the FAST program, 
a matching grant initiative to provide incentives to States to assist 
in the development of high-tech small businesses.
  We have noted, particularly those of us from the heartland, that 
companies on the east and west coasts generally receive the vast 
majority of SBIR awards, while companies in the South, Midwest, and 
Rocky Mountain States receive proportionally very few awards. Out in 
the heartland, we, too, have technology. We have research capabilities. 
The FAST program will help even out the concentration of the awards by 
providing wide latitude to States to provide the type of help their 
high-tech businesses need to succeed and create high-paying quality 
jobs for their citizens.
  The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 also includes a 
comprehensive reauthorization of the credit and management assistance 
programs that are included in the broad umbrella of small business 
programs administered by the SBA. The omnibus bill includes the 
flagship 7(a) guaranteed business loan program, the Small Business 
Investment Company program, and the Microloan program. Certain 
improvements were made to the Microloan program championed by the 
ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. John Kerry. The Microloan program has 
been expanded. We also included aspects which will be especially 
beneficial to women-owned small businesses across the United States.
  In addition, this extensive legislation would reauthorize and make 
improvements in the management assistance programs, including the SCORE 
and Small Business Development Center program. As a result of the 
continuing oversight responsibilities of the Committee on Small 
Business, the bill includes a significant improvement package for the 
HUBZone program. This is a program which I was pleased to present and 
have adopted by Congress, signed by the President, that provides set-
aside contracts to bring jobs and economic opportunity to areas where 
there has been high unemployment and high poverty. This is a 
geographically based program, which actually takes the jobs to the 
communities that need them to help people get from welfare to work by 
using the power of the Federal Government as a purchaser to create 
business opportunities.
  First and foremost, the bill, H.R. 5545, addresses the inadvertent 
exclusion of Indian tribal enterprises and Alaska Native corporations 
from the program. These provisions resulted from extensive negotiations 
between the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, and the Alaska congressional delegation. The HUBZone section 
of the bill also seeks to clarify the effects of the HUBZone price 
evaluation preference on commodity procurements in which the range of 
bid prices tends to be small, and the HUBZone price evaluation 
preference would be overwhelmingly decisive.
  In addition, the legislation makes other improvements and 
clarifications in a variety of SBA programs to make them more 
effective. For example, there has been some confusion among the Federal 
agencies about contract preferences for service-disabled veterans. This 
bill would make it absolutely clear that service-disabled veterans are 
on the same preference level as the small disadvantaged businesses and 
women-owned small businesses for Federal contracting opportunities.
  The conference report incorporates the new market venture capital 
program of 2000. The purpose of this program is, similarly, to promote 
economic development, new investment, and job opportunities in low-
income areas. It accomplishes this goal by providing incentives to 
encourage small venture capital firms to invest in targeted low-income 
communities and economically distressed inner cities and poor rural 
counties.
  This is a program that has been developed with bipartisan support. 
This is certainly something that will assist us in this country in 
getting more people off of welfare, making sure that job opportunities 
go to the places and the people who most need them.
  When the Congress enacted my HUBZone legislation 3 years ago, it 
established the Federal contracting incentives to lure small businesses 
into distressed cities and rural counties. I believe this new market 
venture capital program will add an additional building block in our 
strategy to make sure these economically distressed areas are 
attractive to small businesses and that they will be able to bring job 
opportunities and new vitality to these historically neglected areas of 
the Nation.
  As everybody now has heard from the other side, the conference report 
does deal with taxes. I believe it is a great victory for the American 
taxpayers. The tax portion has four sections. First, the legislation 
includes the Foreign Sales Corporation Repeal and Extraterritorial 
Income Exclusion Act of 2000. I can see that is going to be a real 
winner. That title really rolls off your tongue, the FSC Repeal and 
Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000. That one will be a 
winner. But it is must-do legislation, seriously. We have to do it by 
November 1, if we are to avoid a potential trade war--at least 
sanctions --with the European Union.
  Second, the conference report includes a House-Senate compromise on 
the Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000, which has enormous 
bipartisan support, having passed the House earlier this year by a vote 
of 401-25 and being reported out of the Senate Finance Committee by 
unanimous vote. That legislation includes sweeping changes encouraging 
retirement savings, expanding pension coverage by increasing 
contribution limits on IRA and other types of pension plans, increasing 
portability, and providing meaningful relief for women who often take 
time off to raise their families. And it contains a number of 
provisions to reduce regulatory burdens that are very excessive and 
will be especially helpful to small businesses, our constituency in the 
Committee on Small Business.
  The third part of the tax portion of the conference report is a 
minimum wage increase and a package of small business tax provisions. I 
raised questions about raising the minimum wage when it first came 
here. I think it can be detrimental to small business. I do not believe 
it is good economics. We know it is good politics. It is always nice to 
promise somebody a raise, particularly when you don't have to come up 
with the money that they are being paid. This is great election year 
politics. I know everybody wants to do something. It makes you feel 
good to give somebody a raise out of someone else's pocket.
  The problem is, right now it probably won't hurt small businesses too 
much because most small businesses I know of, if they are hiring 
reasonably competent workers, have to pay well over the minimum wage. 
The real downside is that the very people it is supposed to help are 
the ones who may not get the jobs. Right now we see people who have 
never had a job before, teenagers, first-time employees, perhaps 
persons with disabilities, often minority students coming out of 
college, have trouble getting jobs. If the minimum wage is raised, we 
may see in the United States, as we do in Europe, high unemployment 
among teenagers.
  What the minimum wage does is make it very difficult to get on the 
first rung of that ladder of economic progress. It is like putting 
grease on that first rung of the ladder and saying, boy, this is going 
to make it easy to slip onto that first rung. Unfortunately, the grease 
on the first rung of the ladder too often slips people off, when 
businesses find they just can't make a profit, hiring people at an 
inflated minimum wage.
  I hope we will continue, as a result of the economic and fiscal 
restraint of the Republican-led Congress, if we can keep the economy 
going as it has since

[[Page 24819]]

the Republicans took control of the Congress beginning in 1995, we hope 
that wages will continue to go up and productivity will continue to go 
up so we don't need the minimum wage. If the time comes when there are 
tight economic times, the victims of the increased minimum wage will be 
the small businesses, the smallest businesses, the ones with the lowest 
profit margin and the most needy workers, the workers very often not 
supporting their families but trying to get on the first rung of the 
economic ladder so they can build a bank account and make enough money 
to start a family.
  In addition to the minimum wage, however, there are small business 
advantages from this bill. I appreciate the work of Chairman Roth to 
include a significant package of small business tax relief items, 
including something that has been my top priority since we began in 
1995, and that is 100 percent deductibility of health insurance for the 
self-employed starting in 2001. I have been working on it for over 5 
years to ensure that the self-employed are on a level playing field 
with their corporate competitors.
  In the past we said, you can have it, but it was 2007 and then 2003. 
A lot of self-employed people said: That is nice, but I can't wait 
until 2007 or 2003 to get sick. Well, now I hope we will have it in 
2001, so they will be able to afford the health insurance for 
themselves and their families. Coupled with a new above-the-line 
deduction for employees who pay for the majority of their health 
insurance costs, we will now reach more than a million of the uninsured 
and help them get the coverage they need and deserve.
  Second is a repeal of the Clinton-Gore installment limitation, which 
has been an unforeseen barrier to small businesses looking to sell all 
or part of their business assets, in many cases to fund the small 
business owner's retirement.
  Third, a clear safe harbor for small businesses to use the cash 
method of accounting. This has been a real nightmare for the smallest 
businesses, to have to come up with accrual accounting. They are in 
business to make widgets or sell hamburgers, not to be accounting 
specialists who have to come up with an accrual system. Now small 
businesses with gross receipts under $2.5 million can continue to use 
cash accounting. It also lets the IRS know that it can stop its 
campaign to force small businesses into using the more burdensome 
accrual accounting rules.
  We will increase expensing of equipment up to $35,000 per year, which 
will reduce compliance costs by allowing small firms to deduct 
purchases rather than setting up elaborate depreciation schedules to 
figure out how to deduct them over many years.
  Something we are proud of, particularly in the Ninth Congressional 
District in Missouri, which is represented by my colleague on the House 
side, who has been a champion of this measure, and my Senate colleague 
to the north, Senator Grassley, is the new farmer, fisherman, and ranch 
risk management accounts --the FFARRM accounts--which permit farmers, 
fishermen, and ranchers to make tax-deductible contributions of up to 
20 percent of the income in good years for use during subsequent 
economic declines. The bill also provides important alternative minimum 
tax--or AMT--relief for farmers who use income averaging, and it 
extends the work opportunity tax credit through June 30, 2004.
  The fourth component of the tax package is the Community Renewal and 
New Markets Act of 2000, which is intended to reinvigorate our 
distressed communities. This portion of the legislation includes the 
House-Administration compromise on empowerment zones/renewal 
communities and new markets tax credit, which creates 40 renewal 
communities and 9 empowerment zones.
  This certainly was not my recommended legislation, but this was part 
of the bipartisan compromise we reached with the President and 
incorporated it in the bill. These renewal communities would have a 
zero capital gains rate, and the legislation creates a new-markets tax 
credit for equity investments in qualified low-income communities. The 
goal of this program is to bring the innovation and creativity of 
America's businesses--and especially small businesses--into these 
renewal communities to make real economic change for the future.
  The legislation also increases the low-income housing tax credit and 
private-activity-bonds volume caps, which are key financing features 
for renewal communities. They included provisions to help clean up 
brownfields by allowing expensing of brownfield cleanup costs, except 
Superfund sites, through 2003. That is good for communities and for the 
environment.
  These four core components of the tax package provide important tax 
relief for Americans throughout our economy.
  The legislation also addresses several other priorities, such as the 
school construction bond provision which I have already mentioned. This 
is another avenue to address construction and modernization needs 
without a Federal stranglehold. It is my belief that local school 
districts know best how to address their needs. While providing them 
this assistance, it keeps the Federal camel's nose out from under the 
tent.
  The adoption tax credit, which is very important and has been 
addressed previously on the floor, is to encourage loving families to 
adopt children. It also makes other strides toward improving and 
reforming our Tax Code as which we are going to have to rely. The White 
House leadership, next year, I believe will complete that work.
  Medicare. This legislative package addresses the problems caused by 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as implemented with the chronic 
incompetence of the Health Care Financing Administration. I have heard 
time and time again health care providers talk about what is happening 
to them under the BBA. When you ask the questions, you find out it is 
how HCFA has implemented the BBA. They have used the BBA to cut far 
more than Congress ever mandated.
  What they seem to want to do is to cut out choice for patients--cut 
out the choice they have of going into a Medicare insurance plan such 
as we have or an HMO plan as is available to FEHBP members; it puts out 
their choices to use home health care.
  HCFA has gone about doing everything in its power to collapse the 
present system. I guess--and I can only surmise --that they would like 
to see the kind of health care plan that was so infamously run up the 
flagpole in 1993 without getting any salutes.
  I remember hanging around here in August of 1993 as they talked about 
Mrs. Clinton's health care plan and kept waiting for somebody to try to 
introduce it and get a vote on it. But as we looked at that June bug 
longer and longer, as people got to look at it more and more, the 
minimum amount of enthusiasm I saw initially grew even less. But HCFA 
has never given up. By killing off parts of our health care system one 
at a time, they hope maybe we can have a totally Government-run health 
care system.
  The Vice President on the campaign trail has said he hopes to be able 
to go to a European system within a few years. Well, if you let HCFA in 
control long enough to kill the existing health care system, there may 
not be anything left.
  This Medicare bill, just very briefly, provides benefits to patients 
and providers worth $32 billion, benefits for nearly 40 million 
Americans relying on Medicare. Glaucoma screening, colonoscopy 
screening, mammography, nutrition therapy services for some patients, 
additional coverage of immunosuppressive drugs --all have been added to 
the Medicare program. Help for just about every type of Medicare 
provider to allow them to continue to provide high-quality care to 
seniors and the disabled. Hospitals, particularly rural hospitals, home 
health care, nursing homes, hospice providers, and Medicare HMOs that 
have been driven out of the field by cuts, and targeted help for 
particular health care providers that are most in need. As one who 
lives in a rural community, the bill targets $1.7 billion for rural 
health care providers to help them deal with the unique challenges of 
rural health care, which I think is very important.

[[Page 24820]]

  More than $6 billion to Medicare HMOs will help address the 
widespread withdrawals from the Medicare program we have seen in the 
last couple of years.
  Why have HMOs been leaching Medicare? Not because they are evil 
incarnate, as some would have us believe. If that were the case, the 
seniors losing their HMO coverage would not be so upset. No, these 
providers left because the payment system for HMOs is seriously flawed 
and in many areas has provided inadequate reimbursement. This new 
funding will address this issue.
  Approximately $1.5 billion in assistance to home health care 
providers. Home health care patients have, by far, borne the greatest 
brunt of HCFA's maladministration of the BBA. They were supposed to 
save $16 billion over 5 years, and they are on the path to save $55 to 
$60 billion by eliminating too much of home health care and making it 
unavailable. It has been devastating. Tens of thousands of seniors 
previously receiving home health care lost it during the crisis of the 
last few years. The bill postpones for 1 additional year the 
potentially devastating 15 percent cuts which are addressed in this 
legislation. They would be the death knell of home health care.
  Next year, we need to get rid of that completely. We need to get a 
brand new Medicare system, such as the bipartisan deal that was worked 
out in the Breaux-Frist commission before the White House pulled the 
plug on it.
  Finally, this bill helps community health centers, the clinics that 
exist in more than 3,000 urban and rural medically underserved areas 
nationwide, ensuring that they continue to receive adequate 
reimbursement from the State Medicaid programs so they can pursue their 
mission of providing care to those Americans who would otherwise not 
get any.
  There is a long list of more than 40 organizations, led by the 
American Hospital Association, supporting this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a letter from the AHA to Chairman 
Bill Thomas on the House side listing the letters of support for the 
provisions printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, overall I believe this is an excellent 
package that is badly needed by seniors, the disabled, hospitals, 
nursing homes, and other providers.
  Finally, we have already had a lot of discussion about the Pain 
Relief Promotion Act. Obviously it is controversial. The bill simply 
amends the Controlled Substances Act to prohibit the use of federally 
regulated drugs to help his or her life.
  Let me be clear about that. Simply put, this would prevent any effort 
to assist in a suicide by using controlled substances such as powerful 
pain killers. The bill goes further in its efforts to provide 
appropriate relief to people suffering great pain. It provides a 
variety of provisions and educational programs to encourage appropriate 
pain relief. Indeed, under this legislation for the first time ever the 
Controlled Substances Act would explicitly recognize that aggressive 
pain relief is an appropriate and fully warranted use of controlled 
substances.
  I believe a vast majority of Americans share a simple belief--that I 
hold very strongly--that doctors we rely on to nurture and extend our 
lives should not be party to efforts actively to promote someone's 
death. The bill simply recognizes that consensus.
  It looks like we are going to have lots of discussion and have an 
opportunity to hear many different views on this legislation. But 
before we paint it as the most ugly duckling coming down the path, I 
thought my colleagues and those who may be watching or listening still 
at this late hour would like to know that there are some beautiful 
limbs and beautiful facets of this that are very important bipartisan 
measures.
  I hope we can pass this because there are many priorities that the 
President has asked for, that leaders on the Democratic side have asked 
for, and I believe our side wishes as well that are beneficial to a 
great number of American people who are waiting for our response.
  I thank the Chair. I apologize to my colleague from Nevada whom I 
misled into thinking that it was going to be a short set of remarks.

                               Exhibit 1


                             AHA, Advancing Health in America,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 2000.
     Hon. Bill Thomas,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, House Ways and Means 
         Committee, Washington DC.
       Dear Representative Thomas: On behalf of the 5,000 members 
     of the American Hospital Association (AHA), I am writing to 
     express our views regarding the ``Beneficiary Improvement and 
     Protection Act of 2000'' (BIPA). We believe this legislation 
     will take another step forward in addressing the unintended 
     consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). 
     Consequently, as we approach the remaining hours of the 
     congressional session, we are urging Members to vote in favor 
     of this legislation, and have recommended that the President 
     not veto the legislation.
       As we understand the provisions of the legislation, it 
     includes a number of provisions that provide much needed 
     relief to hospitals and health systems throughout the 
     country. Such provisions include: a full market basket 
     inflationary update in FY2001, and elimination of half of the 
     reduction in FY2002; temporary elimination of the reductions 
     in Medicaid DSH state allocations in FY 2001 and 2002, and 
     allow the program to grow with inflation in those years; 
     increase the adjustment for Indirect Medical Education to 
     6.5% in 2001 and 6.375% in FY 2002, and establish an 85% 
     national floor for direct Graduate Medical Education 
     payments; equalize payments to rural hospitals under Medicare 
     DSH; increased flexibility for critical access, sole 
     community, and Medicare dependent hospitals; increased bad 
     debt payments from 55% to 70% for all beneficiaries; and a 
     full market basket update for outpatient hospital services.
       The bill will also provide relief to home health agencies 
     and skilled nursing facilities. As our members operate 
     approximately one-third of the home health agencies and one 
     fourth of the skilled nursing facilities, relief in this area 
     is also vitally necessary, and is an important feature in the 
     bill. In addition, the bill includes important beneficiary 
     protections, particularly the execrated reduction in 
     beneficiary coinsurance for hospital outpatient services.
       At the same time, we are disappointed that certain 
     provisions we have advocated, such a full market basket 
     increase in FY2002 for both inpatient and outpatient hospital 
     services, complete elimination of the impact of the BBA's 
     reductions in Medicaid DSH, and maintaining the IME 
     adjustment of 6.5% beyond FY 2001, were not included. We are 
     also concerned that additional reductions in the hospital 
     inpatient market basket in 2003 were included in the bill. We 
     look forward to working with you in the next congress to 
     achieve these additional changes.
       Again, we appreciate your efforts to achieve additional BBA 
     relief this year.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Rick Pollack,
                                         Executive Vice President.


medicare, medicaid & schip improvements act of 2000--letters of support

       Federation of American Hospitals,
       National Association of Community Health Centers,
       American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association,
       HealthSouth,
       National Association of Long Term Hospitals,
       Acute Long Term Hospital Association,
       National Association of Children's Hospitals,
       Kennedy Krieger Institute,
       National Association of Rural Health Clinics,
       National Association of Urban Critical Access Hospitals,
       American Medical Group Associates,
       Mississippi Hospital Association,
       Tennessee Hospital Association,
       The University of Texas System,
       National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems,
       Healthcare Leadership Council,
       National Association for Home Care,
       American Association for Homecare,
       American Federation of HomeCare Providers,
       Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care,
       American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging,
       Visiting Nurses Associations of America,
       National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization,
       National PACE Association,
       Association of Ohio Philanthropic Homes, Housing and 
     Services for the Aging,
       John Hopkins Home Care Group,
       Patient Access to Transplantation Coalition,
       LifeCare Management Services,
       American Cancer Society,
       Alliance to Save Cancer Care Access,

[[Page 24821]]

       Intercultural Cancer Center,
       The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation,
       National Kidney Foundation,
       The Glaucoma Foundation,
       Juvenile Diabetes Foundation,
       National Multiple Sclerosis Society,
       American College of Gastroenterology,
       American Academy of Ophthalmology,
       American Optometric Association,
       American Dietetic Association,
       American Association of Blood Banks/America's Blood 
     Centers/American Red Cross,
       Association of Surgical Technologists,
       AdvaMed,
       GE Medical Systems,
       Landrieu Public Relations,
       National Orthotics Manufacturers Association,
       American Orthotic and Prosthetics Association,
       UBS Warburg.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri did not mislead 
me. He never has. The fact is, he didn't contemplate our leader coming 
forward and saying a number of things that the Senator felt deserved a 
response. I enjoyed listening to the Senator from Missouri, even though 
I may not have agreed.
  Mr. President, first of all, just a couple of comments on what my 
friend from Missouri just said.
  With the pension provision in the bill--now some $64 billion--it is 
true there was some action taken in the Finance Committee. But not a 
single second was spent on this floor dealing with the $64 billion 
provision which is jammed into this bill.
  On the budget amendment, $80 billion--nothing in finance. In fact, 
the chairman of the Finance Committee said he would allow a vote in the 
Finance Committee if all the Members promised not to bring up 
prescription drugs in any way, or Patients' Bill of Rights. The 
minority would not agree to that. It seems totally reasonable in the 
Finance Committee that this is something that should have been brought 
up. As a result of the chairman's action, the matter was not brought 
before the Finance Committee. And again this $80 billion matter 
received no floor consideration.
  New markets initiative: $25 billion--nothing in the Finance 
Committee; no action taken on the floor.
  Keep in mind that I have gone over just a few things; in fact, three. 
We are already up to about $200 billion, and not a single minute spent 
on the Senate floor with $200 billion of the taxpayers' money. That 
doesn't take into consideration foreign sales. That is $4.5 billion. 
The Finance Committee spent a little time on that; nothing on the 
floor. Why? Because the outlandish proposition was made that if this 
came to the floor, someone was going to offer an amendment. Pardon me. 
But isn't that what the Senate is all about? People have a right to 
offer amendments to pieces of legislation. But because there was this 
terrible threat that on a piece of legislation a Senator will offer an 
amendment, we have no floor action on it; again, $4.5 billion.
  I also say there is going to be plenty of debate tomorrow on a number 
of these issues. But on this bill itself, there has been no conference 
and no Democratic involvement at all in bringing this bill to the point 
where it is. The Democrats were not even allowed to see the document 
until it came here.
  These are members of the Finance Committee. One of the most 
bipartisan and, I would say, nonpartisan people I have ever worked with 
is the senior Senator from Louisiana, John Breaux, a senior Member of 
the Finance Committee. He was not allowed to look at any of the papers. 
He was not happy about that.
  Today the bill was dumped in our lap.
  I would also say about the assisted suicide that there will be lots 
of debate on it tomorrow. The Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, feels 
very strongly about this, as he should. Why? It doesn't matter how you 
feel on this issue. The fact is that the voters in the State of Oregon 
said we feel this way on assisted suicide. As a result of the people of 
Oregon passing a law in the State of Oregon, we now have this action.
  It seems to me those who keep talking about States rights should 
leave a State alone. People of the State of Oregon voted a certain way. 
If you disagree with what the people of the State of Oregon did in 
voting in favor of assisted suicide, then let's at least have the 
ability on the Senate floor to debate the issue which we have been 
prevented from doing.
  My friend from Missouri, for whom I have the greatest respect, talked 
about health care.
  They always throw in the 1993 Clinton health care plan. Let's bring 
this down to reality so people really understand what this is all 
about.
  When the health care debate started, 80 percent of the people of 
America favored reforming the health care system. But then comes 
Halloween and the masquerade by the health insurance industry. They 
spent over $100 million trying to abuse and frighten the American 
people. They succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. They were 
probably even surprised on how they succeeded in frightening the people 
of America with their Harry and Louise ads and with their clever 
manipulations.
  As a result of that, we got no health care reform because after they 
did their television and radio advertising, 80 percent of the people in 
America didn't want health care reform. They were frightened. They were 
confused.
  That doesn't take away from the fact that we now have 45 million 
people with no health insurance. It doesn't take away from the fact 
that we have many people who have insurance that gives them minimum and 
inadequate rights. That is why we tried to pass the Patients' Bill of 
Rights--to give patients certain rights.

                          ____________________