PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-222.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 23, 1999
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 - Title I: Use of Controlled Substances Consistent With the Controlled Substances Act - Amends the Controlled Substances Act to provide that for purposes of such Act, alleviating pain or discomfort in the usual course of professional practice is a legitimate medical purpose for the dispensing, distributing, or administering of a controlled substance consistent with public health and safety even if the use of such a substance may increase the risk of death. Declares that nothing in this Act authorizes intentionally dispensing or administering a controlled substance for purposes of causing death or assisting another person in causing death.Prohibits the Attorney General, in determining whether a controlled substance manufacturer, distributor, or dispenser registration is consistent with the public interest under the Act, from giving force and effect to State law permitting assisted suicide or euthanasia.Authorizes certain educational and research programs carried out by the Attorney General under the Act to include educational and training programs for local, State, and Federal personnel on the necessary and legitimate use of controlled substances in pain management and palliative care and means by which investigation and enforcement actions by law enforcement personnel may accommodate such use.Title II: Promoting Palliative Care - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Administrator of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to carry out a program to: (1) develop and advance scientific understanding of palliative care; and (2) collect and disseminate protocols and evidence-based practices regarding such care, with priority given to pain management for terminally ill patients, and make such information publicly available. Defines "palliative care" as the active total care of patients whose prognosis is limited due to progressive, far-advanced disease.Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to health professions schools, hospices, and other entities for programs to provide education and training to health care professionals in palliative care. Sets forth requirements for grant applicants. Provides for the evaluation of such programs to determine their effect on knowledge and practice regarding palliative care. Makes funds available for such grants and contracts.
People & committees
Sen. Nickles, Don [R-OK] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-222.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on HELP.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7532-7534)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1272 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1272 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1272 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1272 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.