Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from California yield?

Mrs. MURRAY. When it gets to conference we will see somewhere between $25 and $100 million. So mammographies will be impacted.

Mrs. MURRAY. Would the Senator not agree, in this legislation as currently drafted, it says if there is a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities it will be exempt as well? This amendment will not only be applicable because of the cost but it will also be because a substantial number of mammograms are done by small entities. Is that not correct?

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from California yield?

Mrs. MURRAY. Then I assume the Senator from California feels, as I do at this point, that we will not be dismissed by a sense-of-the-Senate [[Page S 9870]] amendment; that on the underlying amendment, that clearly says to all women in this country that we will continue forward and put in place assurances for them on mammographies, there will be a vote on this floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. The next Congress.

Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator from California will yield.

Mrs. MURRAY. Would the Senator yield? Is it not clear that $98 million is darn close to $100 million, and could reach $100 million? And not only that, it is my understanding that in the House bill that has passed the threshold is $25 million.

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from California agree with me--because I feel very puzzled and baffled and really concerned--that this amendment which deals very specifically with women, our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our friends, who have had breast cancer, and who are counting on us as the Nation's leaders to assure them that when they go in for a mammography, that they have strict standards; that this amendment that deals with women, and women alone, has a sense-of- the-Senate second-degree; that I believe, if I am not mistaken, when the Senator spoke to it this morning she was not even able to send her own amendment to the desk. When her amendment was at the desk we were not allowed to speak about breast cancer for over an hour, but we did listen to a long litany about charts and graphs and process and long words and ambiguities. And we are finally here able to speak to the realness of this. But I also heard when this was being discussed before, ``Do not worry about this. It is only going to cost $98 million.'' Is that what the Senator from California heard as well?

Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from Delaware yield for a question, Mr. President?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield for a question?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from California, her amendment specifically exempts the Mammography Quality Standards Act regulation from the underlying bill, is that correct?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, for this amendment and for her very well- stated words on this issue. I hope that all of our colleagues took the time to listen to what she had to say. She stated it very clearly for all of us why we need this amendment to exempt the Mammography Quality Standards Act regulations from the requirements of S. 343. I think we all know that breast cancer has taken the lives of far too many women, and the long list of those who have died include many of my own friends. I am sure everyone on this [[Page S 9843]] floor knows of someone who has been touched by breast cancer. It is a growing health concern and problem in this Nation, and it is a great threat to women's health. It is estimated that during the 1990's, nearly 2 million women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 460,000 women will die from this deadly disease. I assure everyone listening that will include people you know--your sisters, your mothers, your daughters, your friends. In 1992, Congress understood that and they passed the Mammography Quality Standards Act. The FDA is responsible for issuing regulations under that act to ensure that medical procedures for mammography exams are safe and effective and that mammograms are properly administered and interpreted. Most of the regulations implementing the Mammography Quality Standards Act are due to be released October of this year. The regulations the FDA hopes to implement will set standards, as the Senator from California has said, for x ray film quality, requirements for staff, for reading and interpreting those x rays, and standards for recordkeeping. Those regulations will ensure that mammograms are done correctly and safely so that we can increase the chances of early detection. Under the Dole bill, implementation of these quality controls in mammography will qualify as a major rule, either because they may cost $100 million to implement or because they may cause a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. They will then be subject to the cumbersome, expensive and lengthy cost-benefit analyses and risk-assessment process. At a time in this Nation when women are already confused by the mixed messages we receive about breast cancer and other diseases affecting us, I believe this bill sends yet another disturbing message: That Congress will demand that the FDA choose the lowest-cost alternative by placing a dollar value on a woman's life. We cannot let that happen. The potential positive effects of these regulations on the lives of women in this country are substantial. Improving the quality of mammography translates directly into early detection of breast cancer. Early detection of breast cancer increases the likelihood of successful treatment and survival. Delay in issuance of these regulations will cost women's lives. Mr. President, my colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon, summed up a simple and important message that is being lost in this debate on regulatory reform. He said what we need in this field is some balance, and I could not agree more. The American people want their elected officials to reduce wasteful and unnecessary spending and make their Government work efficiently. They want a balanced approach to decisionmaking about regulations. They do not want costs to be either the only or primary reason for a regulation. They want us to manage their tax dollars prudently, while also protecting their health and their environment. The amendment before us on mammography takes a step toward protecting their health. I hope that I can support eventually a comprehensive bill that provides true Government efficiency and rational decisionmaking. Unfortunately, S. 343 as now drafted does not do this. I urge my colleagues to look carefully at the amendment before us and to support it. I can assure all of you that women across this Nation are disturbed by the mixed messages they have received about mammographies over the last few years. One day we are told if you are over 40, have one every 5 years. Then we are told, if you are over 50, have one every year. Then we are told you do not need to have one until you are a certain age. Those messages are disturbing because they will cause women not to have mammograms. And when we go in to have one, we want to know that it is safe, effective, and we can be assured of that. This amendment will assure that this bill will not undo the important progress that we have made on this issue in the past several years. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to accept this amendment so that we can move to a better bill. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah. I simply rise today to support the Johnston-Baucus amendment that strips the Superfund provisions from this bill. It touches on one of the most pressing issues facing my home State of Washington: the cleanup of the tons of nuclear waste that is contained at the Hanford Reservation. The bill before us specifically targets Superfund sites and subjects activities costing more than $10 million to immediate cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. This assessment will be required even where agreements have been reached and cleanup has already begun. All cleanup would come to a screeching halt so that the Government could analyze the benefits of cleaning up toxic waste. Hanford cleanup has come under intense and justified scrutiny by this Congress. Its critics have railed that it has cost billions of dollars and has resulted only in reams of documents, not any actual cleanup. This bill would only exacerbate those problems. Cleanup that is finally getting underway would stop while the Department of Energy conducted potentially dozens of more analyses on the benefits of cleaning up the nuclear waste that today is seeping toward the Columbia River. Mr. President, there is a lot we do not know about the risks of radioactive waste. We do not know how to clean it up, where to store it, or how fast it migrates, or any number of things. Because so much is unknown, a detailed generic cost-benefit analysis and risk- assessment process would be endless and very costly. Let me add, however, that while I do not support the cumbersome approach taken in the current bill, I do believe the Hanford site and other Superfund sites will benefit from a cost-benefit analysis. In fact, I will encourage us to move toward a bill that incorporates risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis into the decisionmaking structure at Hanford. We should try to develop a bill that requires consideration of costs but does not impose inefficiencies or unnecessary taxpayer- funded analytical costs that result only in reports, but we should not do it on this bill. Finally, I would like to remind this body that the Department of Energy is facing tremendous budget cuts and possibly elimination. Burdening it with this review process while at the same time demanding that it improve the pace of its cleanup and reduce costs is a recipe for disaster in my home State. This bill is not the place to make the reforms most of us believe are necessary to improve Superfund. The place to make those changes is in reauthorization of CERCLA before the authorizing committee with its indepth knowledge of this important law. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnston- Baucus amendment to strip the Superfund provisions from this bill. Both current and future citizens who live near our Nation's nuclear waste facilities will thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will speak on the floor later on the entire regulatory reform bill and its affect on the American public. I rise today to speak specifically to the Daschle amendment because it affects me personally and I feel very strongly about it. The underlying Daschle amendment on the floor for debate right now takes us a step closer to protecting a particularly vulnerable segment of our population--our children--from the most American of foods, the hamburger. The Center for Disease Control estimates that thousands of people become ill each year due to E. coli-contaminated meat. In fact, one of the first tough issues I had to deal with upon my election to the U.S. Senate was visiting young children in hospitals in my hometown of Seattle and in Tacoma who had innocently eaten Jack in the Box hamburgers and then found themselves in critical condition after being infected by E. coli. Three of those children died in that outbreak. All I could do was stand there and assure those families that I would try to do all I could to make sure that this would not happen to any other child in our State or in this country. Since that outbreak in the Pacific Northwest, this country has suffered 50 outbreaks of E. coli in 23 other States. E. coli repeatedly appears in ground beef that has been inspected under current meat inspection methods. But help is finally on the way. This past January, USDA proposed a new meat inspection system that requires modern food handling techniques, safe storage, and scientific testing at slaughter houses and meatpacking plants. I think we all know that such a revised regulatory system is long overdue. But I am afraid that even with the amendment adopted yesterday by this body, this meat inspection regulation will be delayed because its opponents may--and very likely will--petition and subject this rule to the cumbersome review required by this bill. And any delay in this vital regulation's implementation will allow more children to become ill. Consequently, this Congress could become responsible for the illness and perhaps the death of thousands of children in this country. I do not pretend to be an expert on the intricacies of this regulatory reform bill. I do know, however, that I have given my word to families who have lost children due to our current regulatory system's failure. I promised them I would work to protect children from lethal food products. So I strongly support the Daschle amendment ensuring the most expeditious implementation possible of E. coli regulations. Mr. President, I intend to keep my word to the families who lost children in my State, who ate hamburgers that were tainted by E. coli. I intend to do it by voting for other amendments to S. 343 that will ensure that the Government works efficiently and cost effectively and that it will encourage general protection of human health and our environment. We have to remember that it is our responsibility as the Nation's leaders to have commonsense protections in place and to ensure that those are there for all of our constituents. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Daschle amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to comment this morning on the Department of Energy's proposal to import spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors through commercial ports such as Tacoma, WA. Before I begin, I would like to thank DOE, and in particular Mr. Charles Head, for the outstanding efforts put forward by DOE to ensure that the citizens of Tacoma have had adequate opportunities to review information and make comments on DOE's proposal. The additional public hearing held last week was well received and well attended and the extension of the public comment period until July 20th is appreciated. DOE's efforts have not gone unnoticed. Mr. President, I fully appreciate the United States nuclear nonproliferation policies and objectives. I also understand the important role that removing spent nuclear fuel from the global marketplace plays in those policy objectives. Nonetheless, I would like to express my serious concerns regarding DOE's proposal. DOE's draft environmental impact statement on the handling of foreign spent nuclear fuel does not adequately assess the potential risks that alternative #1, the importation and interim storage of foreign spent nuclear fuel in the United States, could pose to the citizens of the United States, particularly those who reside in the port communities suggested as points of entry in the DEIS and those near proposed waste storage facilities. Along with my colleagues from the State of Washington, I recently sent a [[Page S 9475]] letter to Secretary O'Leary outlining the reasons behind our concerns. I ask that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record. In summary, we raised concerns over the evaluation of the potential exposure of the general public to radiation, the inadequate training and equipment possessed by Tacoma emergency response units to deal with a radiation emergency, the failure to address the potential for terrorist activities during the importation process, and the proposal to use the Hanford nuclear facility as an interim storage facility. Given these concerns, we asked DOE to no longer consider using commercial ports such as Tacoma, but to limit further consideration of alternative #1 to military ports. It has recently come to my attention that alternative #2 in the DEIS, facilitating the management of the spent nuclear fuel overseas, may be a better choice. Although the DEIS presents a number of difficulties in implementing alternative #2, it may be more feasible than previously thought. There is a processing facility in Scotland that is apparently both able and willing to take the spent nuclear fuel and reprocess it into more stable, less threatening material. I want to encourage DOE to fully investigate this possibility. It could ensure that we meet our nuclear nonproliferation goals without threatening the health and safety of United States citizens. I look forward to working with DOE and the administration to ensure that we meet our nuclear nonproliferation objectives while simultaneously protecting the citizens of the United States. The letter follows: U.S. Senate Washington, DC, June 8, 1995. Hazel O'Leary, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary O'Leary. We are writing to express our concerns over the alternatives proposed in the Department of Energy's (DOE) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the management of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from foreign research reactors. We are concerned about the proposed option of importing the foreign SNF through commercial ports such as Tacoma, WA. While the desire to encourage other nation's research reactors to switch to low-enriched uranium (LEU) from highly- enriched uranium (HEU) is an integral component of the United States overall nuclear nonproliferation policy, importing foreign SNF through commercial ports may not be necessary. The DOE DEIS lists two military ports among the ten possible ports of entry for the SNF. We feel that DOE should limit further consideration of importing SNF to these or other appropriate military ports because of the considerable concern amount citizens and city officials about importing SNF through commercial ports. First, there is significant apprehension about the threats to public health importing this SNF through commercial ports would create. Although DOE has stated that the threats to public health are not significant given the state of the material and the overly cautious design of the storage casks, we are not convinced that no public health threat exists. There is public concern that longshoremen, sailors, and average citizens could potentially become exposed to significant radiation levels. Whether this risk is real or only perceived is irrelevant. Importing foreign SNF through commercial ports would at best threaten public confidence and citizens' sense of security and at worst pose a significant threat to public health. Second, the DEIS states: ``Primary responsibility for emergency response to a foreign research reactor SNF incident would reside with local authorities.''. Although the port and city of Tacoma have emergency response plans for hazardous materials, neither the Police and Fire Departments nor the Port workers are properly equipped or trained to contend with a significant radiation emergency. Properly equipping and training these people would add a significant and unnecessary cost to the overall proposal. In addition, it is not clear that Police Officers, Fire Fighters, and port workers would be willing to undergo such training, knowing that it opens them up to potential future radiation exposure. In fact, port workers in Tacoma may declare their unwillingness to handle the material during even routine transport procedures, let alone emergencies. Third, importing foreign SNF through commercial ports runs contrary to the overall policy objective of reducing the world-wide availability of HEU and other nuclear waste. If lengthy, unnecessary and relatively low-security transportation of SNF occurs through commercial ports, the increased opportunities for theft, hijacks, and sabotage could result in greater accessibility to the SNF than desired. As current events have unfortunately revealed, the United States is not immune to terrorism, either foreign or domestic. Even if this material could not be used in the making of nuclear weapons, and some of it could, the very fact that it is radioactive makes it dangerous. Transporting this material through commercial ports would create an unnecessary threat to national security. These concerns present a compelling case for DOE to preclude further consideration of commercial ports like Tacoma, WA for the importation of foreign SNF. While removing HEU and other nuclear waste from the global marketplace is an essential aspect of nuclear nonproliferation, importing this material through military ports may prove more reasonable given the increased protection that could be provided to public health and safety and national security. We are also concerned about the proposal to store the foreign SNF at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. This idea is unacceptable given the current state of affairs at that facility. The current environmental problems associated with the storage of nuclear waste at the Hanford site have resulted in clean up costs near $50 billion. In addition, current budget pressures will make it difficult for DOE to meet its legally enforceable clean up schedule. Additional waste management responsibilities could further hamper the Department's efforts at the site. In summary we would appreciate DOE limiting further consideration of this proposal to military ports and adequate storage facilities. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Patty Murray. Jim McDermott. Norm Dicks.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this conference report takes a bad budget and makes it worse. No one disputes the fact the deficit must be reduced. For the past 2 years, we worked--with common sense--to slash one-third of the deficit we inherited in 1993. We made tough choices. We eliminated hundreds of programs, and cut hundreds more. The new majority in this body has built upon our good record of cutting spending. I commend my friends on the other side of the aisle-- they have responded to a call for smaller Government, and reduced spending. But, they have gone too far. They are misunderstanding the needs of average Americans. The revolution has certainly come to Washington, DC, Mr. President, and, let us see who wins and who loses in the battle. The richest Americans win, Mr. President. This conference report overflows with tax cuts for wealthy Americans. Households who earn $200,000 per year win--they get a nice tax break for their kids. What about families at the lowest end of the income scale? they are not even eligible for this tax break. And, what about the kids of middle-class Americans? They lose in the revolution, Mr. President. Ten billion dollars is slashed from student loans. And, children of low-income families will see their health insurance cut. Despite the fact the Senate voted unanimously for my amendment to protect impact aid from the budget ax, children who rely on this program are put in jeopardy. And, what happens to the kids of our family farmers? They lose, too. This revolution will drive small family farmers out of business. This budget cuts $13 billion out of commodity programs over the next 7 years. There is no hope for them to inherit their family farms, and rural America will be changed forever by this budget resolution. And, what happens to my generation--the children of elderly parents? We lose, too. Medicare--the safety net for our Nation's elderly--is pulled away from our parents, by a $270 billion cut. In this revolution, Mr. President, the children of America lose. The elderly lose. Farmers lose. And, veterans lose. Average Americans, trying to raise their kids, go to work, run a business, and care for elderly parents--they all lose. Our Nation's precious environment is a loser in the revolution. This budget clear-cuts funding for environmental and natural resources initiatives. It proposes the leasing of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It cuts environmental spending by 30 percent by the year 2000. My friends and neighbors in Washington State know I will fight to maintain funding to clean up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. With this budget, funding will be difficult to find. But, I refuse to turn my back on Hanford. Of course, ultimately, our economy loses. This plan will place our economy at risk. Since the new majority has been in place, consumer confidence has been dropping and the economy has been slowing down. Americans feel embattled. Everyday people feel there is no hope. This budget does nothing to restore hope. Mr. President, I will do all in my power to give hope to average Americans. To maintain the high standard of life we enjoy in this country. That is why I supported amendments in the Budget Committee and here on the floor last month--amendments that would have restored some Medicare and Medicaid cuts without increasing the deficit; amendments to lower the proposed taxes on America's working families. It is plain and simple--by cutting the earned income tax credit, this budget will raise taxes on 224,000 taxpayers in my home State alone. Unfortunately, Mr. President, these attempts to restore some fairness and common sense to the budget were rejected. But, this is just one step in the process. We have 13 appropriations bill, and a reconciliation bill, which must come before us--and go across the President's desk--before these cuts become reality. It is going to be a long, hot summer, Mr. President. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I know the real work is yet to come. And, I will be working to make sure we retain programs that are important to average Americans. As we see today, the budget that emerged from the House-Senate conference is too radical. It gives Goliath an advantage. I congratulate my friends on the other side of the aisle. This is their day. It is the day for the wealthiest among us to celebrate. But, it is a sorry day for average Americans. I oppose this conference report, and urge all colleagues to vote against this budget.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as I stated many times, we are all in this body working to get to a balanced budget. I spent 2 years on the Budget Committee doing that. It was difficult, but we were moving toward it. I say to my colleagues, $245 billion in tax cuts, if we took that back, would go a long ways in helping kids get education and caring for our senior citizens.

Mrs. MURRAY. Someone earning between $30,000 and $75,000 will get back $14.62 a week. I have to tell my colleagues that I have had a number of families say to me: I know I have to pay my taxes, but I want something in return. And what I want in return is to know that my kids are going to get a good education, to know that my parents are going to be taken care of when they are sick and elderly and dependent on me. I want a quality of life. For $14.62 back, I will give that back to the Government. But we are not giving it back to them. We are taking everything away--their education, their care for their parents, and their security.

Mrs. MURRAY. Absolutely.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, what really is unfair is those people who are only going to get $760 back are the ones who are going to see all of the impacts to their family. Their kids will not be able to go to college. Their out-of-pocket expenses for health care are going to go up dramatically. They are going to see real-life costs to them. They are not going to see $760. They will have to pay more for doctors visits and more for their kid's education. They are going to see more costs to them. And then they are going to turn around to their neighbors, wealthier neighbors, and see them benefit dramatically from this budget proposal.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, can the Senator from Connecticut tell us how much money you will get back if you earn, say, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, under this tax cut?

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Connecticut. He has hit exactly why I am so saddened and concerned by this budget proposal that obviously has the numbers and will pass this Congress this week. He has pointed out to us who is going to be hurt in this budget, and it certainly is middle class, average Americans. And they are going to see it everywhere. It is for people like me before I came to this body, who are responsible for raising their kids and taking care of their parents and earning middle-income salaries, who are going to feel the effects. Their kids will not be able to go to college; they will not be able to afford it. Programs in their schools will be gone. Goals 2000, the one hope we have given to kids that we were going to try to improve their education, parents will see that removed for their children. The young families who are worried about their aging parents on Medicare not only have to worry about the costs to their parents going up by $3,200, as my colleague has pointed out, but those families that are trying to rush [[Page S 9363]] to work and care for their kids and worry about their education are going to receive increased calls from their parents saying: Can you help me out? I cannot get to the doctor today. I just cannot afford it. That burden and that stress is going to come out in every walk of our families' lives. And who will bear the real brunt of that stress as we go through this will be the children. So much we hear about children on this floor and why they need a balanced budget. Well, the stress that is put on our kids, the loss to them is really going to be felt, and I think it is a sad day. I think my colleague from Connecticut would agree with me.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 240--the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Mr. President, Americans need to be assured that their investment are secure--that our money has been invested in good faith. And, if an American investor has been the victim of fraud--no matter how big or little--how rich or poor--they should get equal treatment under the law. Guilty parties must be held accountable. Mr. President, I am not rich. I know that investments are risky. There is no guarantee that you will make money in the stock market, or the bond market, or on any investment. I learned a long time ago--from my parents--that you should not invest money you cannot afford to lose. So, now as a parent myself, I am very conservative in my investments. I believe in personal responsibility. But, Mr. President, there is an appropriate Federal role in this process, as well. We cannot abdicate our responsibility to protect the American people. And, Mr. president, we in Congress have a unique role in promoting investor confidence. We have a duty to encourage critical investments--it is needed for capital formation--it is needed for economic growth and job creation. This is especially true in my home State of Washington--where many consumers invest in small high-technology companies. For Washington State and for the entire country--we must be vigilant to ensure proper protection for investors. That is why I am a big supporter of the work of the Securities and Exchange Commission: Chairman Arthur Levitt and his staff do a great job in exposing fraud and protecting even the smallest of investors. Section 105 of this bill gives the SEC new authority to sue for damages from securities fraud--so that victims of fraud will recover more of their losses. Right now, Americans--who have been defrauded--have been getting only pennies on the dollar for their losses. Victims of fraud deserve better; they deserve more. This bill will help change that. Mr. President, that is why this bill is so critical. It returns some common sense to our legal system. I have been pleased to work with my good friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, on this legislation. He has provided real leadership on this issue together with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. This bill is the best of bipartisan cooperation--it passed the Banking Committee by a vote of 11 to 4, with the majority of Democrats, voting in favor of this much needed reform. I have heard from so many people in my home State of Washington on this issue. Many have told me the present system operates at the expense of the investors it was intended to protect--everyday, hardworking Americans. We have all heard the stores of court cases which diminish investments. They inhibit job creation. They slow economic growth. How many times do small business people settle suits out of court just to make them go away? And, as I said, how many times do small investors--who have actually been the victims of fraud--only receive pennies on the dollar of their investment? This bill returns power and benefits to the little guy. Sections 101 and 102 of the D'Amato substitute are critical in this regard. This reform will provide a mechanism for real plaintiffs--instead of a few lawyers--to take charge of the cases. That way, the interest of plaintiffs are taken into account. And, investors are the ones who lose money when fraud occurs--they have a right to have more of a say in steering the course of litigation. Right now, small investors lose out--we all lose out--because company resources are wasted on settling suits, instead of inventing new products. Biotech companies waste their resources on settling nuisance lawsuits instead of finding the cure for AIDS and breast cancer. High-technology companies waste their time and resources on legal fees--instead of giving us a cutting technological edge that will bring us into the 21st century. I have heard from many of these companies in my home State. Companies such as these--new, growing, forward-looking--are a point of civic pride in the Pacific Northwest. They reflect the high-technology, high- wage economy of the future. I have real letters from real people expressing the importance of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.