Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I was unaware of the figure, but $240 billion in subsidies does not surprise me. We are saying that if we are going to hand you another giveaway, which this bill does, what are you going to give us back? In this bill, they give nothing back.

Mrs. MURRAY. I would say to the Senator from Illinois that there are a lot of taxpayers out there who would like to earn $1 million and only pay $275.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. This is what it would look like.

Mrs. MURRAY. In the permanent thinking of mining, those decisions are looked at. But once this is there, it becomes abandoned. It falls to the taxpayers to have to clean it up.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on our side?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are coming to the end of this debate. Obviously, there will be a tabling motion on my amendment. We have heard a lot on both sides. The one thing we all share is the understanding that the mining industry is an important industry in this country. We understand it provides jobs in many of our communities. We want to make sure that is retained in a fair way. The mining industry did not like the position of the mining law. Instead of allowing reform of a law that was written almost 130 years ago in a give-and-take fashion, they have come sweeping into the Interior bill, and in that bill the proponents have changed that portion of the law that the mining industry does not like. Maybe that portion of the law needs to be changed because of current technology that is out there. However, they should give something back. They already have an incredible deal. They pay $2.50 to $5 an acre for the land they use. They pay no royalties and now in this Interior bill they are allowed incredible mass use of our public lands. We have heard a lot about the law and the BLM manual. Let me show Members what the statute says. This is the 1872 law. It is very clear. It says: Such nonadjacent surface ground may be embraced and included in at application for patent for such vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith . . . on no location made on or after May 10, 1872, of such nonadjacent land shall exceed five acres. And for placer claims: Such land may be included in an application for a patent for such claim and may be patented therewith subject to the same requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable to the placers. No location made of such nonmineral land shall exceed five acres. The law is clear. The BLM manual from 1976 to 1991 was also very clear and talked about 5 acres. This was changed in 1991 at the end of the Bush era. It was changed to read: A mill site cannot exceed five acres in size. There is no limit to the number of mill sites that can be held by a single claimant. We are not here to debate the BLM manual. We are here to say: Should the law that was written in 1872 be changed to favor one side of this debate in this Interior bill before the Senate right now? We are saying if we are going to change a part of the law, this law, then we should ask the industry what they will give us in return. Will it be royalty that other industries have to pay? Is it more per acre? Should environmental law apply? Should they clean it up? We should debate it. It should be part of the 1872 Mining Act reform. I think this Congress ought to get into this debate. To do it blatantly for one side in this bill, this night, is not the way to do it. That is why we are debating this issue. I hope many of our colleagues will understand this is a giveaway to an industry that does not pay royalties, that only pays between $2.50 and $5 an acre, less than any Member would pay to go camping on our public lands. I think it needs to be done in a fair way. I urge my colleagues to step back. What are we doing for the taxpayers of this country? Let's be fair to them. Let's be fair to our public lands. Let's be fair to the law and do it right and not do it in a rider on the Interior appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to table. I thank all of our colleagues who came to the floor to help with this debate.

Mrs. MURRAY. No, they do not.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. This would be one example, I say to the Senator from Illinois, of what a dump site looks like. Here is another one we have. I will put this up as well. This shows where we have an open pit mine, which is what we are talking about, and where the rock is dumped.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct. That is where they dump the rock they have extracted.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. In order to have a claim, you stake your claim on our public lands, lands owned by the taxpayers, and then you have the right to go ahead and move forward and dig your hard rock, and all you have to pay is $2.50 an acre.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment to protect Americans from hate crimes. It is unfortunate that the amendment's chief sponsor, Senator Ted Kennedy, couldn't be here to take part in this debate. Senator Kennedy has worked tirelessly to enact this crucial piece of legislation. He has my heartfelt appreciation for his work on this and my sympathy for the loss of his nephew. I can't possibly match his passion and eloquence on this issue, but I am here today to discuss and support his amendment on hate crimes prevention. Hate crime is real. Despite great gains in equality and civil rights over the later part of this century, hate crimes are still being committed. Those who commit these heinous crimes must be punished. We all remember Matthew Shepard. He was a young man who just last fall was viciously struck down in the prime of his life. Tragically, he is now a reminder of what happens when he do not stand up to hate and bigotry. We must treat hate crimes as the deadly threat they are and do more to prevent them. These are not simply assaults. They are violent crimes motivated by hate and bigotry. Passing this amendment gives us more tools to fight hate. I am pleased to join with many of my colleagues as a co-sponsor of this important legislation. The amendment would expand the definition of a hate crime and improve prosecution of those who act out their hate with violence. If someone harms another because of the victim's race, gender, color, religion, disability or sexual orientation, they will be punished. No longer will the activity of the victim matter, but the actions and motivations of the perpetrator will be the focus. It is important to note that the prosecutor would still have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminal act was motivated by prejudice. No one can beat a person to death and leave them to die without being motivated by a deep sense of hate. In the case of Matthew Shepard, it was no simply robbery. The motive was hate. I know some of my colleagues argue that the states are doing an adequate job of handling hate crimes on their own. I commend them for their efforts, but I believe the federal government has a further role in this as well. We already prosecute at the federal level many crimes that are motivated by prejudice. We need to strengthen these federal hate crimes laws and increase the role of the federal government in ending this violence. It wasn't that many years ago that we stood up for equality and justice by forcing the states and private citizens to end segregation and discrimination. Now we must do the same for hate crimes against any of our citizens. I ask that my statement appear in the Record immediately following the text of the hate crimes amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my amendment will provide the Pacific coastal tribes of Washington, Oregon, and California with salmon recovery funding. I would like to start by expressing my deep appreciation to Subcommittee Chairman Gregg and subcommittee ranking member, Senator Holllings, for including in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, $80 million for the Pacific coastal salmon recovery account. Given the fiscal constraints I am pleased the money was made available. The Pacific coastal salmon initiative was proposed by the Administration to help address the rash of endangered species listings of salmon along the coast. The Administration's initiative called for the funding of $100 million with up to 10% of that money going to the Pacific coastal tribes. Another portion of the initiative called for increased personnel for the National Marine Fisheries Service in order to handle a higher workload brought about by new ESA listings around the nation. The NMFS received some funding in the bill to undertake this initial work. The only party to this initiative that did not receive funding was the tribes. I do not know why this decision was made, but I believe it sends the wrong message and we must remedy the situation. My amendment directs funds to Pacific coastal tribes to participate in the salmon recovery process. We need them to make this process work. I would like to recognize that my amendment to ensure tribal participation is cosponsored by Senators Inouye, Boxer, Feinstein, and Wyden. I would also like to recognize the support of Governor Gary Locke of Washington and Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon. Lastly, I appreciate the support of King County Executive Ron Sims, Pierce County Executive Doug Sutherland, and Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel. The reason all these people are supporting this amendment is that they know the tribes are a vital partner in the coordinated effort to recover salmon. Successful recovery is going to require all parties working as a team. Leaving the tribes out of the equation is not a way to build the team. Some may suggest that my amendment is unnecessary because the tribes can apply to the states for a portion of the money being provided to the states. However, tribes should not have to receive these funds through a state grant process or via any other mechanism that might diminish their roles as sovereign governments. It is Congress that can do the right thing at this stage to respect the rights of the Tribes to be self-governing and join their counterpart governments in this vital partnership. I appreciate the cooperation of the Chairman and my colleagues in agreeing to the adoption of my amendment to make the Pacific coastal tribes true partners in our effort to recover threatened and endangered salmon runs.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that has passed the Senate now for 3 years unanimously. My resolution, which I am submitting today, along with Senator Warner and 28 other original cosponsors, establishes October 21, 1999, as a day of national concern about young people and gun violence. For the last several years, I have sponsored this legislation. This year, Senator Warner has joined me in leading the cosponsorship drive as we pledge to our young people across the Nation that we support their strong efforts to help stop the violence in their own schools and communities. I thank Senator Warner for his help and partnership in work on this issue. Sadly, this resolution has special meaning for all of us after the tragic events that occurred earlier this year in Littleton, CO, and Conyers, GA. These school shootings across the Nation have paralyzed their communities and shocked the country. In recent years, we have seen similar shootings from Mississippi to Oregon. These events have touched us all. Adults and young people alike have been horrified by the violence that has occurred in our schools, which should be a safe haven for children. We are all left wondering what we can do to prevent these tragedies. I am again introducing this resolution because I am convinced the best way to prevent gun violence is by reaching out to individual children and helping them make the right decisions. This resolution simply establishes a special day that gives parents and teachers, government leaders, service clubs, police departments, and others a way to focus on the problems caused by gun violence. It also empowers young people to take affirmative steps to end this violence by encouraging them to take a pledge not to use guns to resolve disputes. A Minnesota homemaker, Mary Lewis Grow, developed this idea of student pledges and for a day of national concern for young people and gun violence. In addition, Mothers Against Violence in America, the National Parent Teacher Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of Student Councils, and the American Medical Association have joined the effort to establish a special day to express concern about our children and gun violence and support a national effort to encourage students to sign a pledge against gun violence. In 1998, more than 1 million students across the Nation signed this pledge card. The student pledge against gun violence gives students the chance to make a promise in writing that they will do their part to prevent gun violence. The students' pledge promises three things: First, they will never carry a gun to school; second, they will never resolve a dispute with a gun; and third, they will use their influence with friends to discourage them from resolving disputes with guns. Just think of the lives we could have saved if all students had signed and lived up to such a pledge just last year. Consider that in the months between today and the day we demonstrated our concern about youth violence last year, we have had terrifying outbreaks of school violence. Sadly, 12 students and one teacher have been killed, and more than 25 students have been wounded in shootings by children at school. In addition, we have lost many more children in what has become the all too common violence of drive-by shootings, drug wars, and other crime, and in self-inflicted and unintentional shootings. We all have been heartened by statistics showing crime in America on the decline. Many factors are involved, including community-based policing, stiffer sentences for those convicted, youth crime prevention programs, and population demographics. None of us intend to rest on our success because we still have far, far too much crime and violence in this society. So, we must find the solutions that work and focus our limited resources on those. We must get tough on violent criminals--even if they are young--to protect the rest of society from their terrible actions. And we, each and every one of us, must make time to spend with our children, our neighbor's children, and the children who have no one else to care about them. Only when we reach out to our most vulnerable citizens--our kids--will we stop youth violence. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to join in this simple effort to focus attention on gun violence among youth by proclaiming October 21 a ``Day of Concern about Young People and Gun Violence.'' October is National Crime Prevention Month--the perfect time to center our attention of the special needs of our kids and gun violence. We introduce this resolution today in the hopes of getting all 100 Senators to cosponsor it prior to this passage, which we hope will occur in early September. This is an easy step for us to help facilitate the work that must go on in each community across America, as parents, teachers, friends, and students try to prevent gun violence before it ruins any more lives.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in opposition to the Smith resolution on normal trade relations for China. Once again, the Senator is confronted with an effort to circumvent the legislative process and radically change U.S. policy towards China. I oppose this effort. But I also caution my Senate colleagues, that the approach advocated here today is very dangerous to U.S. foreign policy. United States-China relations are at a very delicate stage now. The relationship is very troubled at the moment. The accidental U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and accusations of Chinese nuclear espionage have given policymakers in both countries numerous reasons to be cautious about this important relationship. Today's debate will be a brief one. With my time, I want to make a couple of points to articulate why we must once again defeat the effort to deny NTR or MFN status to China. First, trade is the foundation of the United States-China relationship. Certainly, there are problems on the trade front. We have a troubling deficit, problems with issues like transshipment and intellectual property rights violations, and market access issues--to name just a few. Many of these issues are under consideration in the talks led by the United States over China's accession to the World Trade Organization. I continue to support China's accession to the WTO on commercially viable terms. I think we are very close to a WTO agreement that will be strongly supported by the Congress. Yes, trade with China is very important. But, perhaps more important, is the fact that trade has opened China's doors to the world. Our government is able to engage China on a number of issues from drug smuggling to cooperation on issues like human rights, North Korea, nuclear expansion in South Asia, and global environmental problems. Like it or not, if we end our trade relationship with China as some suggest, all of these beneficial openings to China will be curtailed or lost. It is not just government-to-government contacts that we should be worried about. My personal opinion is the American people are having a far greater impact on the Chinese people than any congressional debate could ever have. Students and scholars, adoptive parents, business and tourist delegations, sister city delegations, and local government officials from my state are actively engaged in China. These folks are making a difference that benefits both the American and Chinese people. I do not want to see these people-driven initiatives for change jeopardized by passage of this resolution. One in five people in Earth live in China. It is an immense population that impacts Us all in so many ways--the world's food supply, pollution problems, and the use of natural resources, to name a few. The United States has the ability to cooperatively assist in China's development; we must not shy from this opportunity to aid both the Chinese and American people. My second point addresses reform in China. Within China today a furious debate is raging. Leaders like President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rhongi are under attack by more conservative anti-Western forces. The Embassy bombing and other issues have emboldened the hard line forces within China's leadership. There are elements within the Chinese Government that do not want to move forward with constructive ties with the United States. The resolution before the Senate today, in my estimation, sends a very dangerous message to China. The message is the United States is recoiling towards a more confrontational posture towards China. Passage of this resolution will strengthen those in China who argue that China should treat the United States as an adversary. If that happens, the relationship will certainly spiral in dangerous directions for both the Chinese and American people. If we undermine the reform forces in China, it will have dangerous implications for this country. At the United Nations, where China is a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States will have a very difficult time as the world's lone superpower. In Asia, where economic recovery is beginning to take place and where we have 100,000 military personnel, our efforts to preserve decades of peace will be jeopardized. And, the United States will be alone in the world in seeking to isolate China economically, potentially causing problems with our allies in Europe and Asia. Though I strongly oppose this resolution, I do not mean to imply that the China relationship is easy or that the United States should make concessions to the Chinese. That is simply not the case. The United States-China relationship is very difficult for this country and will be so for some time. I have many objections to Chinese actions. But, I believe, to change China, we must be an aggressive participant in the global effort to engage the Chinese Government and the Chinese people. This resolution before us today would seriously threaten our ability to contribute to change in China. And that is clearly not in our national interest. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Smith resolution.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a class of students from Tahoma High School in Maple Valley, Washington who are the champions of the Region One--Western States award of the ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals. This outstanding group earned the highest cumulative score in their geographic region during the first two days of the ``Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals, competing against 50 other classes from across the country. Their remarkable understanding and appreciation of the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government assure me that this emerging generation will contribute much to the future of civic life. These Tahoma High School students serve as role models to their peers, not only by expressing their views and arguments in a poised and mature manner, but also by expressing them as they relate to government. I commend these students on beginning this important civic dialogue at an early age, and sincerely hope that they make it a life- long commitment. The honored students, led by Mark Oglesby, are: Adam Baldridge, Mary Basinger, Josh Bodily, Sydney Brumbach, Katie Carder, Erica Chavez, Elizabeth Dauenhauer, Steven Dekoker, Meaghan Denney, Nathan Dill, Marisa Dorazio, Jesse Duncan, Jayson Hart, Jon Hellstom, Carolyn Hott, Daniel Lindner, Casey Lineberger, Clark Lundberg, Karrie Pilgrim, Michael Pirog, David Rosales, Jason Shinn, Jeremy Sloan, Justin Sly, Donny Trieu, Orianna Tucker, Jessica Walker, Raymond Williams, and Elizabeth Zaleski.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senators Snowe and Reid as a cosponsor of the resolution congratulating the U.S. Women's Soccer Team on their wonderful performance in the 1999 World Cup tournament. Through hard work and dedication, they have achieved the ultimate goal and placed first in the world. This is truly a feat that will inspire women throughout our country to strive to their highest aspirations. The U.S. Women's Soccer Team will surely have an impact on America's already rising numbers of young women and girls playing sports. They have created a wave of excitement and pride throughout the country, in men and women, boys and girls. All of the women who participated in the World Cup tournament are inspirations throughout the world, to women in their own countries and to women worldwide. Many young women share the dreams the women on the U.S. Women's Soccer Team had. The fact that they were able to accomplish their dreams is an inspiration to all of us. Their win shows that if girls truly believe in themselves and their abilities, their dreams too can come true. This U.S. Women's Soccer Team also embodies the success of Title IX, a law enacted in 1972 to eliminate sexual discrimination in American education and expand sports participation by girls and women. Without Title IX, it is possible that such a success would never have occurred. It is possible that these women would never have had the chance to play soccer. It is possible that their talent would never have been realized. Title IX gave them a chance. The success of Title IX was made especially vivid in our team's victory. Young women need positive role models as they are growing up. The U.S. Women's Soccer Team embodies such positive role models. They are women who do not work just for themselves but rather for each other and for their team. Their success shows that women can achieve anything they sincerely put their hearts and minds into. The U.S. Women's Soccer Team has proven to young women that they can prevail not only in athletics, but in anything and everything through hard work and dedication. Such role models are invaluable. So, yes, the 1999 U.S. Women's Soccer Team joins the ranks of the landmark role models. They will go down in history as the first U.S. women's soccer team to win the World Cup. They will be remembered in the same light as other women who have had a tremendous impact on our society. Their success will not be forgotten, but will live on in its inspiration of many young women and girls throughout our country and world. I am honored to recognize the U.S. Women's Soccer Team for its glorious victory. These talented, strong, and committed women have done a wonderful job and set a very positive example for all people, but especially for girls and women of all ages.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as we prepare for final passage of the Republican HMO legislation, I come to the Senate floor to express my disappointment and my frustration with this end product. This bill is a failure and ultimately we will all suffer the consequences of the majority's reluctance to protect patients. I had high hopes at the beginning of the week that we could come together on some of the key areas of agreement and produce a good bipartisan bill to protect patients. I had hoped for a bill to put the health care decisions back into the hands of patients and consumers. Our health care system is in a state of flux. It has moved from a system that served people only when they got sick and encouraged overutilization. Now we have a system where economic barriers are erected to prevent patients from accessing care. We have gone from a system of waste and over-utilization to a system where patients cannot get the care for which they paid. Decisionmaking--life and death decisionmaking--is now too often solely in the hands of insurance executives focused on profits and quarterly reports. Who is looking out for the patients? We need to restore a balance with a system where insurance protects you when you become ill, but also helps prevent you from becoming sick in the first place. We need a system where the ultimate decision rests in the hands of patients based on the medical advice of their physicians. We need a system where people are fighting illness, not fighting the insurance company. We need a system where doctors are not spending 45 minutes on the phone with an insurance company so a sick child can be admitted to a hospital. We need a system where parents are free to stop at the first, closest emergency room and not drive to the one their insurer commands if their child has been hit by a car. I know such a system does and can exit. One of my greatest concerns is what the failure of Patients' Bill of Rights means to managed, coordinated care. Let me tell my colleagues, I support managed care. I support a coordinated care approach that is focused on prevention and early detection of disease. HMOs and managed care were born in my state of Washington. The original HMO law, signed by a Republican President in the early 1970's was enacted because of the new, revolutionary form of health insurance still in its infancy in Washington state. I want to be clear, health maintenance organizations are not the enemy. One of my colleagues yesterday made a statement that the Democrats saw HMOs as the bad guys. He tried to make a point that some how supporting the Health Security Act in 1994 and the Patients' Bill of Rights was contradictory. He was wrong. Our intent is to ensure patients the right to receive the care they have paid for, not to eliminate coordinated care. The experience in Washington state has taught me that we can have a system that reduces overutilization and unnecessary care while actually improving health care benefits. I know that good managed care structure has increased our immunization rates. I know that it has contributed to the fact that almost 70 percent of women in Washington state over the age of 55 receive mammagrams. I know that a good managed care structure has increased our average life expectancy and reduced our infant mortality. It has reduced the number of people who smoke and decreased the incidence of heart disease. We have a healthier population in Washington state, in part because we have the benefits of a coordinated care delivery system that focuses on prevention and reduces wasteful, unnecessary health care services. Unfortunately, things are changing in Washington. Due to mergers and acquisitions we now have health care plans being run by companies in California and other states. We now have for-profit insurance companies using HMOs and more importantly, we have premiums from HMO participants going to enhance short term profits. Our once envied system has deteriorated. I am hearing more and more from patients and physicians about the obstacles they must over-come to access health care. They must push hard to get wise health care decisions, not just big economic benefits. I honestly believe that if we fail to restore some kind of balance, managed care will become a thing of the past. People will demand changes and will dismantle managed care. We will then be back to a system where only the very wealthy have regular and consistent access to quality health care and where you only see your doctor when you are ill, not to prevent illness. I had hoped that a uniformed standard set of protections for patients would restore some trust to managed care. That is the only way we can ensure that the ``outrage of the day'' does not become the guiding force in state legislatures. If my colleagues think that by killing our balanced and fair Patients' Bill of Rights it will end this debate, think again. You can be sure that in the next session of the legislature in each state there will be new patient protection bills ranging from access to expanded, mandated benefits. Patients will demand this. Ultimately, these single ``outrage of the day'' bills will be the nail in the coffin for managed, coordinated care. We will see the end of a health care delivery system that encourages prevention and keeps people healthier, longer. We will see a return to a system where access is only provided to the ill. Not only does this jeopardize health insurance, it jeopardizes biomedical research and development. Why invest in research that prevents illness or prevents hospital stays or detects cancer sooner, when no one will have access to it? Why double NIH research dollars, to prevent illness and to find cures for deadly diseases like cancer and MS, if patients are not encouraged to seek care to prevent illness or to seek regular, prevention and early detection care? Doesn't it seem to be a contradiction to encourage biomedical research when we do not have a health care delivery system that invests in wellness? Our Patients' Bill of Rights will not result in pushing people off of insurance. Our bill is a reasonable, cost effective proposal that does enhance managed care, not diminish it. It rewards those insurance companies that do offer a good package and a good product. They will no longer have to compete with companies that do not look at their beneficiaries as people, but rather premiums. There are good insurance companies out there. I know this to be true as there are several in Washington state. While I have heard of some problems in the state, I believe it is a combination of consumer misinformation and distrust. But, unfortunately these good companies have to compete in a very price sensitive market with companies that have policies in place to limit and deny access to quality care. I am also disappointed that most of my Republican colleagues refused to engage in an open and honest debate. They offered amendments sold as access to emergency room coverage or improvements in women's health or access to clinical trials, when in fact their underlying bill is nothing more than a simple statement only saying we support patients, but not supporting and enforcing access to care. My Republican colleagues say they want these things, and as participants in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan we have these benefits and protections, but they do not provide them to all insured Americans because the insurance lobby has told them to say no. This is a short sighted strategy as parents with sick children, cancer survivors, patients with MS or Parkinsons, and women denied access to ob/gyn care will ultimately be heard. Wait until they discover that for $2 more a month they cold have gone to the ER or they could have participated in a new life saving clinical trial at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. They could have gone to see their ob/gyn when they first found the lump on their breast or their child could have seen a pediatric oncologist following a diagnosis of cancer. What do my colleagues think will happen when families realize that for the price of a Happy Meal each month they could have saved their child? There will be outrage and it will be heard all the way to Washington, DC. I hope that this issue is not dead. I hope some how this is not the end of the debate and that like so many other issues we will be able to put aside partisan differences and work towards real patient protections.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. These are world-class physicians, top physicians in cancer research, who think the best thing they can do for this patient is the clinical trial; and they are being told no.