Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 4 years ago today, thanks to the hard work of Senator Dodd, we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act. It was one of the first things I did as a newly elected Senator. And I am proud of its success. In fact, it is probably the single most effective law passed by Congress this decade. Now I want to expand the scope of FMLA to apply to participation in our schools. The Time for Schools Act of 1997 will allow parents 24 hours per year to participate in activities in their child's school. As the mother of two children--one a teenager in high school--I know how difficult and how important it is to participate in their education. I have been lucky to have had the opportunity to be involved in their lives. But many parents do not have the time it takes to do those little things that will assure their child's success in school. By expanding the uses of one of the most successful laws in years, I want to give parents something they don't have enough of--time. When I tour schools in my home State of Washington, I often hear young people say, ``Adults don't seem to care about me.'' We know that's not true, but we need to show them that adults do care. And one of the best places to start is to reaffirm the importance of their education by taking steps to help their families get more involved in schools. These days we have many dual-income families and single parents struggling to work to make ends meet. All of these families know how important it is to be involved in their children's learning. However, a recent study, Parents as School Partners research initiative, sponsored by the National Council of Jewish Women's Center for the Child, found that a basic lack of time was one of the main barriers to more parental involvement at schools. Educational studies have shown that family involvement is more important to student success than family income or education. In fact, things parents control, such as limiting excess television watching and providing a variety of reading materials in the home, account for almost all the differences --nearly 90 percent--in average student achievement across States. All sectors of our communities want more time for young people. Students, teachers, parents and businesses feel something must be done to improve family involvement. In fact, 89 percent of company executives identified the biggest obstacle to school reform as the lack of parental involvement. And, a 1996 postelection poll commissioned by the national PTA and other organizations found that 86 percent of people favor legislation that would allow workers unpaid leave to attend parent-teacher conferences, or to take other actions to improve learning for their children. A commitment to our children is a commitment to the future. I want to make sure all young people receive the attention they need to succeed. My legislation will allow parents time to: First, attend a parent/ teacher conference; second, interview a new school for their child; and third, participate in family literacy training. Just last week, I talked to a woman from Bellevue who has an 11-year- old special needs daughter in school. Both she and her husband work during the day, but he cannot get away for school activities. She told me my legislation would allow her husband to attend school conferences and participate in their child's education for the first time. I look at the Family and Medical Leave Act--which has helped one in six American employees take time to deal with serious family health problems, and which 90 percent of businesses had little or no cost implementing--and I see success. People in my State have been able to deal with urgent family needs, without having to give up their jobs. My bill expands the uses of Family and Medical Leave to another urgent need families face--the need to help their children learn. Now we need to grant employees the same peace of mind about preventing problems in school that can lead to bigger problems for their children later on. The time is right for the Time for Schools Act.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, last night the Senate voted on a resolution proposed by the Presiding Officer, Senator Snowe of Maine, regarding the urgent need for breast cancer research funding. I was unable to be here to cast a vote for that bill because I was at home attending a funeral of my staff member, but I wish the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``aye'' on the resolution by Senator Snowe.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with great sadness to commemorate the life of an outstanding individual from our State of Washington. Leslianne Shedd, a member of the United States Foreign Service Corps and a 1990 graduate of the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington, was killed when an Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed in the Indian Ocean last November. A resident of Washington State since the age of two, Leslianne graduated with honor from Puyallup High School in 1986. According to family and friends, Leslianne's lifelong dream was to tour the world. To achieve this goal, she learned four languages, traveled in Europe, Africa, North America, and Thailand, and pursued a career in Foreign Service. Leslianne was traveling from her post at the United States Embassy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to Nairobi, Kenya to celebrate Thanksgiving with friends when her plane was hijacked and then crashed. A commercial officer in the foreign service, she provided assistance to American companies doing business in the region. Before working in Ethiopia, she spent 2 years in the Ivory Coast in West Africa as a United States vice consul there. It is no surprise that a young woman who touched so many lives around the globe has been described by her junior high English teacher as ``a little ray of light.'' Her life provides inspiration to all of us by serving as an example of a forward-looking, intellectually curious, and selfless individual. My thoughts are with Leslianne's parents Bob and Mickey Shedd, her brother Darin and sister Corinne, her friends, and all those touched by her warmth and kindness. Her work and accomplishments remind us all of the importance of public service, international awareness, and generosity. Our Nation and our world are better places because of her. I am certain Leslianne Shedd's legacy of service will be remembered for years to come.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Murray pertaining to the introduction of S. 200 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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 today to introduce a bill that, in one act, will do more to protect and restore the threatened salmon runs on the Columbia River than anything else this Government has tried. This bill will designate the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River, the Hanford Reach, as a recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The bill I introduce today, with Senator Ron Wyden, is identical to S. 1489, my bill from the 104th Congress. That bill was developed with a broad spectrum of local interests who worked for months to create a bill with widespread support. While the 104th Congress did not take action on this bill, I feel confident that my colleagues of the 105th Congress will see the tremendous economic and environmental benefits of designating the reach a wild and scenic river and will help me pass this important legislation. Much has happened in the year since I introduced S. 1489. Most important, the scientific community has verified what many locals already knew: The Hanford Reach will make an enormous contribution to salmon recovery on this embattled river. The Independent Scientific Group [ISG], an expert panel of fisheries scientists, reviewed the full range of salmon recovery programs now in place on the Columbia River. The ISG concluded that the Hanford Reach will be critical to our efforts to recover salmon throughout the Columbia Basin. It suggested that chinook salmon from the reach may serve as a core population from which adults could stray to upstream and downstream tributaries and, given good conditions, may reestablish lost or declining runs. In this last year, we have fostered a growing consensus that the reach is too precious to risk harming. The Governors of the three States of Washington, Oregon, and Alaska recommended protection for the reach, citing it as critical to maintaining healthy stocks of salmon vital to sustaining the region's fishing economy. The Northwest Power Planning Council has endorsed designation of the reach as a wild and scenic river. Likewise, a number of tribal governments have supported continuing Federal protection of the Reach. Many other wildlife and conservation groups, including Trout Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, American Rivers, and the Audubon Society have recognized the importance of this stretch of the Columbia and have joined the effort to save it. Finally, newspapers in Seattle, Portland, Yakima, and elsewhere have endorsed wild and scenic designation. Let me remind my colleagues of the splendors of this 50-mile section of the river. While most of the Columbia River Basin was being developed for agriculture, hydroelectricity, and other economic activities, the Hanford Reach and other buffer lands within the Hanford Nuclear Reservation were kept pristine. Ironically, it was the veil of secrecy and security surrounding the Manhattan project that simultaneously protected the now scarce shrub-steppe ecosystem and created tremendous nuclear and chemical contamination. Fortunately, the arid land, the river's tremendous volume, and new cleanup and restoration technology has minimized the harm done to this vital river. And vital it is. Its free-flowing nature provides superb habitat that produces 80 percent of the Columbia Basin's fall chinook salmon, as well as thriving runs of steelhead trout and sturgeon. It is the only truly healthy segment of the mainstem of the Columbia River. As the Pacific Northwest is struggling to restore declining salmon runs--and spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually to do so--protecting the Hanford Reach is the most cost-effective step we can take since it is already federally owned. The reach is also rich in other natural and cultural resources. Bald eagles, wintering and migrating waterfowl, deer, elk, and a diversity of other wildlife depend on the reach. It contains dozens of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals. Biologists have identified several new plant species that they believe are unique and found only on lands near the reach. This part of the Columbia Basin is also of great importance to native Americans, who have lived along the shores and islands of the reach for millennia. There are over 150 archaeological sites along the Hanford Reach, some dating back more than 10,000 years. The reach's naturally spawning salmon remain a vital part of the modern culture and religion of native Americans in the area. Another area of importance within the reach is the White Bluffs. These fragile cliffs offer dramatic scenery, unique habitat, and fascinating geologic history. Unfortunately, a downstream section of the bluffs has been impacted by irrigation water flowing through the unstable Ringold formation sediments causing it to slide into the river, smothering spawning beds, reducing water quality, and deflecting the course of the river. Should these slumps continue or migrate upstream, some scientists fear the river could become contaminated when it is pushed onto the nuclear reactors lining its south shore. Wild and scenic river designation might help prevent such catastrophes. The reach also provides an abundance of recreational opportunities. It is very close to the tri-cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland, WA, and several hours drive from the major urban centers of Seattle and Portland. It affords residents and visitors opportunities to hunt, boat, fish, hike, kayak, water ski, bird watch, or simply relax and enjoy the solitude. The reach adds tremendously to the quality of life--and economy--of the area. It is because of the reach's importance to the local residents and economy that I convened a diverse group of area citizens in 1995 to develop this bill that I reintroduce today. This Hanford Reach Advisory Panel had a wide array of interests and concerns that we addressed in this bill. For example, there was a concern about the potential impact a wild and scenic river designation could have on the traditional uses of the water and nearby lands. So, the panel incorporated specific language to protect current economic activities, such as agriculture, power generation and transmission, and water withdrawals. This bill excludes the 3 percent of private property recommended in the National Park Service's Record of Decision in order to honor the request of those private land owners. The legislation also guarantees that local government and interests have a formal role in the management of the river corridor, which will come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, this bill includes the advisory panel's recommendation that the Secretary of the Interior and relevant Federal agencies work with local and State sponsors to develop a program of education and interpretation related to the Hanford Reach. The city of Richland and area tribes, among others, have been working with the Department of Energy on a museum and regional visitor center proposal and are eager to make the natural and human history of the reach part of the project. This legislation includes provisions urged by the advisory panel to improve the habitat value, access, and appearance of the Columbia River shoreline in the tri-cities' area. Much of the rivershore is now lined with high, steep levees that were put in place before the network of dams controlled the flow of the river and reduced the need for such flood control structures. This bill directs the Army Corps of Engineers, which built, owns, and maintains the levees, to coordinate with local sponsors on demonstration projects to restore the rivershore. The bill directs the corps to undertake some small levee modification projects in partnership with Kennewick, Pasco, and the Port of Kennewick in the short-term. For the longer term, the corps is directed to undertake a comprehensive study of the levees and determine if rivershore restoration is feasible and should become a Federal priority. Mr. President, let me conclude by again thanking my Hanford Reach Advisory Panel and reiterating to my colleagues the importance of protection of the Hanford Reach. The reach is the last free-flowing section of the mighty Columbia and as such produces outstanding salmon habitat, superb recreational opportunities, and vital economic benefits. I urge my colleagues to take speedy action, pass this important bill and permanently protect the Hanford Reach as a wild and scenic river.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that, in one act, will do more to protect and restore the threatened salmon runs on the Columbia River than anything else this Government has tried. This bill will designate the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River, the Hanford Reach, as a recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The bill I introduce today, with Senator Ron Wyden, is identical to S. 1489, my bill from the 104th Congress. That bill was developed with a broad spectrum of local interests who worked for months to create a bill with widespread support. While the 104th Congress did not take action on this bill, I feel confident that my colleagues of the 105th Congress will see the tremendous economic and environmental benefits of designating the reach a wild and scenic river and will help me pass this important legislation. Much has happened in the year since I introduced S. 1489. Most important, the scientific community has verified what many locals already knew: The Hanford Reach will make an enormous contribution to salmon recovery on this embattled river. The Independent Scientific Group [ISG], an expert panel of fisheries scientists, reviewed the full range of salmon recovery programs now in place on the Columbia River. The ISG concluded that the Hanford Reach will be critical to our efforts to recover salmon throughout the Columbia Basin. It suggested that chinook salmon from the reach may serve as a core population from which adults could stray to upstream and downstream tributaries and, given good conditions, may reestablish lost or declining runs. In this last year, we have fostered a growing consensus that the reach is too precious to risk harming. The Governors of the three States of Washington, Oregon, and Alaska recommended protection for the reach, citing it as critical to maintaining healthy stocks of salmon vital to sustaining the region's fishing economy. The Northwest Power Planning Council has endorsed designation of the reach as a wild and scenic river. Likewise, a number of tribal governments have supported continuing Federal protection of the Reach. Many other wildlife and conservation groups, including Trout Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, American Rivers, and the Audubon Society have recognized the importance of this stretch of the Columbia and have joined the effort to save it. Finally, newspapers in Seattle, Portland, Yakima, and elsewhere have endorsed wild and scenic designation. Let me remind my colleagues of the splendors of this 50-mile section of the river. While most of the Columbia River Basin was being developed for agriculture, hydroelectricity, and other economic activities, the Hanford Reach and other buffer lands within the Hanford Nuclear Reservation were kept pristine. Ironically, it was the veil of secrecy and security surrounding the Manhattan project that simultaneously protected the now scarce shrub-steppe ecosystem and created tremendous nuclear and chemical contamination. Fortunately, the arid land, the river's tremendous volume, and new cleanup and restoration technology has minimized the harm done to this vital river. And vital it is. Its free-flowing nature provides superb habitat that produces 80 percent of the Columbia Basin's fall chinook salmon, as well as thriving runs of steelhead trout and sturgeon. It is the only truly healthy segment of the mainstem of the Columbia River. As the Pacific Northwest is struggling to restore declining salmon runs--and spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually to do so--protecting the Hanford Reach is the most cost-effective step we can take since it is already federally owned. The reach is also rich in other natural and cultural resources. Bald eagles, wintering and migrating waterfowl, deer, elk, and a diversity of other wildlife depend on the reach. It contains dozens of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals. Biologists have identified several new plant species that they believe are unique and found only on lands near the reach. This part of the Columbia Basin is also of great importance to native Americans, who have lived along the shores and islands of the reach for millennia. There are over 150 archaeological sites along the Hanford Reach, some dating back more than 10,000 years. The reach's naturally spawning salmon remain a vital part of the modern culture and religion of native Americans in the area. Another area of importance within the reach is the White Bluffs. These fragile cliffs offer dramatic scenery, unique habitat, and fascinating geologic history. Unfortunately, a downstream section of the bluffs has been impacted by irrigation water flowing through the unstable Ringold formation sediments causing it to slide into the river, smothering spawning beds, reducing water quality, and deflecting the course of the river. Should these slumps continue or migrate upstream, some scientists fear the river could become contaminated when it is pushed onto the nuclear reactors lining its south shore. Wild and scenic river designation might help prevent such catastrophes. The reach also provides an abundance of recreational opportunities. It is very close to the tri-cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland, WA, and several hours drive from the major urban centers of Seattle and Portland. It affords residents and visitors opportunities to hunt, boat, fish, hike, kayak, water ski, bird watch, or simply relax and enjoy the solitude. The reach adds tremendously to the quality of life--and economy--of the area. It is because of the reach's importance to the local residents and economy that I convened a diverse group of area citizens in 1995 to develop this bill that I reintroduce today. This Hanford Reach Advisory Panel had a wide array of interests and concerns that we addressed in this bill. For example, there was a concern about the potential impact a wild and scenic river designation could have on the traditional uses of the water and nearby lands. So, the panel incorporated specific language to protect current economic activities, such as agriculture, power generation and transmission, and water withdrawals. This bill excludes the 3 percent of private property recommended in the National Park Service's Record of Decision in order to honor the request of those private land owners. The legislation also guarantees that local government and interests have a formal role in the management of the river corridor, which will come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, this bill includes the advisory panel's recommendation that the Secretary of the Interior and relevant Federal agencies work with local and State sponsors to develop a program of education and interpretation related to the Hanford Reach. The city of Richland and area tribes, among others, have been working with the Department of Energy on a museum and regional visitor center proposal and are eager to make the natural and human history of the reach part of the project. This legislation includes provisions urged by the advisory panel to improve the habitat value, access, and appearance of the Columbia River shoreline in the tri-cities' area. Much of the rivershore is now lined with high, steep levees that were put in place before the network of dams controlled the flow of the river and reduced the need for such flood control structures. This bill directs the Army Corps of Engineers, which built, owns, and maintains the levees, to coordinate with local sponsors on demonstration projects to restore the rivershore. The bill directs the corps to undertake some small levee modification projects in partnership with Kennewick, Pasco, and the Port of Kennewick in the short-term. For the longer term, the corps is directed to undertake a comprehensive study of the levees and determine if rivershore restoration is feasible and should become a Federal priority. Mr. President, let me conclude by again thanking my Hanford Reach Advisory Panel and reiterating to my colleagues the importance of protection of the Hanford Reach. The reach is the last free-flowing section of the mighty Columbia and as such produces outstanding salmon habitat, superb recreational opportunities, and vital economic benefits. I urge my colleagues to take speedy action, pass this important bill and permanently protect the Hanford Reach as a wild and scenic river.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am honored today to express my strong support for Madeleine Albright's nomination to be the next U.S. Secretary of State. Long after I leave the United States Senate, I will recall fondly the day I voted to confirm Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State; our 63d and first female Secretary of State. Madeleine Albright is a spectacular nominee; I've worked closely with her since I came to the Senate, particularly on the 1995 United Nations Conference on Women. I do speak personally of the great respect she's earned from many on Capitol Hill. And I know that same respect has been earned in Capitals around the globe throughout her distinguished career. There will be no on-the-job training for this public servant. In recent times, no Secretary of State has assumed the post with the breadth of experience and bipartisan support that Madeleine Albright will bring to the State Department. Secretary of State is an enormously important job. One of Secretary Warren Christopher's final public statements underscores the importance of the job performed by the Secretary and the American citizens who work at the State Department and in postings around the world. Secretary Christopher, describing his tenure and accomplishments, said, ``Russia's democracy was in crisis; its economy was near collapse. The nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union was scattered among four new countries with few safeguards. The war in Bosnia was at the peak of its brutality and threatening to spread. North Korea was developing nuclear weapons. The Middle East peace process was stalemated; negotiations were stymied. Repression in Haiti was pushing refugees to our shores. NAFTA's passage was in serious doubt.'' Certainly, Secretary Christopher's tenure was marked by many other difficult issues that met varying degrees of success. My point is to use Secretary Christopher's words to emphasize the enormity and the importance of the task ahead for Madeleine Albright. Madeleine Albright will confront a similar list of issues important to our future economic and security interests. China and Asia as a whole have moved to the forefront and many have written that the President will make this important region of the world a ``legacy issue'' for his second term. I certainly support an activist U.S. role in Asia; from the Russian Far East which is increasingly linked to my State of Washington to South Asia where the threat of nuclear escalation will require careful diplomacy. Hong Kong is on the verge of a return to Chinese sovereignty, and numerous territorial disputes throughout Asia threaten to become military flashpoints. The United States is and must continue to be the stabilizing force in Asia that fosters peace and our economic growth in the region. Numerous regional groupings from APEC to the ASEAN Regional Forum will require U.S. leadership and vigilance. This region, with more than one-half of the world's population, must be a priority of the new Secretary. And I am sure Madeleine Albright will represent the ideals we cherish; the ideals we share with the world through an activist, engaged foreign policy. Europe and the former Soviet states must also remain a priority issue. NATO expansion will be difficult. And international trade issues with the European Community will continue to be difficult as we seek to gain greater market access, end subsidized competition in manufacturing and agriculture, and continue to press for protection of U.S. intellectual property rights. Madeleine Albright, an immigrant from Prague, is uniquely qualified to represent U.S. interests in this region of mature and growing political and economic relationships. Latin America is finally emerging from the throes of the cold war. El Salvador and Guatemala are continuing on important paths to peace and reconciliation. Virtually every Latin American country is now under some form of democracy; the United States must continue to foster this democratic development and reconciliation. NAFTA expansion to Chile and beyond will require a respected leader to negotiate agreements beneficial to the United States and to educate and understand the concerns of a skeptical public. Again, I believe Madeleine Albright will do a fabulous job for the American people in this region of the world. Problems in Africa continue to go largely unnoticed in our country. Children throughout the world continue to suffer the evils of disease and malnutrition. Radical changes may come to Cuba and North Korea in the near future. All of these issues, and many more unforseen events, will require a person like Madeleine Albright. Finally, following her confirmation, I want to urge the new Secretary to be a voice for the State Department and its family of employees, many of whom are scattered around the world in service to our country. I find it refreshing that Ambassador Albright during her confirmation hearing freely talked about the difficulties of conducting foreign relations, on the cheap. As a member of the Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I look forward to working closely with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join over 50 of my colleagues today in cosponsoring legislation to solve an unfortunate tax problem drastically affecting farmers in Washington State and throughout the Nation. This bill will prevent the alternative minimum tax from being applied to deferred payment contracts. Farmers routinely use deferred payment contracts to assist their money management and farm operations. Wheat growers, potato growers, and other farmers in Washington State often enter into contracts requiring them to sell and deliver their crops on a specified date for a fixed amount. While these contracts may be entered into one year, the payments to the farmers agreed to in the contract, either in total or in part, often will not be received by the farmer until the following year. The Internal Revenue Service is now saying that farmers must pay taxes in the year of the contract, not the year of payment. I think it is wrong to require farmers to pay taxes on income they have not yet received. I believe most Americans would agree. Farmers are not trying to avoid paying taxes. They simply consider it unfair to be burdened with a tax liability prior to receiving payment. I am particularly concerned about the retroactive approach the Internal Revenue Service has taken with regard to this issue. While the 1986 Tax Act omitted the exemption from the AMT for farmers, the IRS failed to impose the alternative minimum tax for 8 years. Now, all of a sudden, the IRS is imposing the AMT. And not only for the current year, but for all years open to audit. This could well cost family farmers tens of thousands of dollars. We cannot afford to impose such an egregious obligation on our family farms. It is not right. This bill will correct the situation. This bill will make it clear that the alternative minimum tax shall not be applied to installment sales of farmers. It will insure that farmers pay taxes when they get paid, not before. It is that simple. While fancy terms like alternative minimum tax, deferred payment contracts, and installment sales of inventory property make the issue sound complex, it is really about simple tax fairness--paying taxes on income received, not on income expected. The IRS Commissioner has stated that the IRS will not oppose this legislation. In addition, the Department of the Treasury welcomes ``the opportunity to work with [Congress] to address this matter through corrective legislation''. With a majority of the Senate cosponsoring this bill, my colleagues from both sides of the aisle and all parts of the country, I look forward to its timely consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I stand today in recognition of an extraordinary, colorful lifetime of service and dedication by one individual who strove to make a difference in his community. Father William M. Mobley was, in many respects, larger than life; he was the type of person who several centuries ago would have typified the Renaissance man. He was a soldier, historian, teacher, playwright, and actor. But, in addition to his high intellect and varied cultural interests, Father Mobley was a man grounded in his Catholic faith and dedicated to the everyday concerns of his parishioners. He was known widely as Father Bill in Mukilteo and nearby Everett, cities just north of Seattle in my home State of Washington. It was here that he served St. John's Mission and St. Mary Magdalene Church from 1987 until his death this past Christmas Eve, December 24, 1996. Father Mobley came to the priesthood, and his Catholic faith, late in his life. Born on April 3, 1929, he was raised in Southern Baptist roots in Birmingham, AL. He was first introduced to Catholicism while an Air Force soldier during the Korean war, and converted in 1954. In 1956, Father Mobley graduated with honors from Birmingham-Southern College, where he was widely acclaimed for his acting, directing, and writing abilities in the theater. Though he was offered a prestigious scholarship to the Yale Drama School, Father Mobley turned his attention to helping those around him. Influenced by this desire to serve others, Father Mobley joined Dr. Tom Barton, whom he had met while working at a hospital in Pell City, AL, and traveled to Green River, UT. From 1959 to 1970, Father Mobley assisted Dr. Barton in managing a badly needed medical center that serviced residents of Green River and east-central Utah. In 1970, at the age of 41, Father Mobley entered the Pope John XXIII National Seminary in Weston, MA. Unfortunately, soon thereafter, Father Mobley suffered a heart attack, the first of three he would have in his lifetime, and had to have open-heart surgery. While this would have been an insurmountable hurdle for a lot of people, Father Mobley rose above his physical pains and persevered to complete his ordination in December 1973. He then returned to Utah to serve in the Diocese of Salt Lake City. While there, Father Mobley touched innumerable lives and hearts, participated in charitable work, and ran a retreat house in Logan, UT. But the strains of his physical condition were taking their toll, and finally Father Mobley was forced to move from Salt Lake City, where, due to its high altitude, he was always accompanied by an oxygen mask. Although doctors advised retirement, Father Mobley chose to serve in the Washington Diocese in the Mukilteo and Everett areas, whose residents were fortunate enough to have been touched by this extraordinary person. Today, I celebrate Father Mobley as an active, energetic, and generous man. He was generous with his faith sharing, he was generous with his counsel, and he was generous with his enthusiasm and conversation. Father Mobley was a man of incredible passion and compassion. His friends, family, and parishioners will remember him for his soulful sermons and championing of social justice. Father Mobley challenged those around him to give and love unconditionally. This is a challenge each and every one of us can take inspiration from. He was truly a man who loved his fellow human beings, and he will be missed by those who had the opportunity to know him.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold that. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I also would like to address a bill introduced today called the Universal Children's Health Coverage Act, and I commend the Democratic leader for his commitment to this critical issue. I also thank Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Dodd for their work on behalf of millions of children who lack access to basic health care coverage. As one of the newest members of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, I have been proud to work with them on the Children's Health Coverage Act, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, in the upcoming months on this very important legislation. Since first being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, I have heard time and time again the phrase, ``children are our most valuable resource.'' Sometimes, however, the actions of this body are not always as loud as the words we hear on the floor. If we all truly believe as strongly as I do that children are our most precious and valuable resource, why have we allowed so many children to go without basic health care coverage and why have we not worked harder to help families provide necessary health coverage for their children? We now have the opportunity to go beyond our rhetoric and work toward solutions. The United States has one of the highest rates of uninsured children in the industrial world. Currently, one out of seven children lack health insurance in this country. And if that trend continues, only half of our children will have health insurance by the year 2000. Today, 10 million children lack health insurance coverage, which means that 10 million children have little or no access to affordable quality health care coverage. One child loses private coverage approximately every minute. Children are the fastest-growing segment of society with no health insurance. It is easy to look at this problem solely in terms of numbers. But we also have to look at the faces of those children and their parents. We need to think of what it must be like to know that your child is suffering from an ear infection or strep throat and what it is like not to be able to afford to take them to a doctor or pay for the necessary antibiotic to treat the infection. There is no greater fear for a parent than not being able to take care of their sick child. These are parents who work 40 or more hours a week, sometimes working two and three jobs to meet the basic needs of their family, like food and shelter and utility costs. They are not asking for a handout. They are asking for relief. They work hard and they pay their taxes, but they simply have little or no discretionary income. Many do not have access to employer-sponsored health plans or cannot afford the premium costs for a family, which can be as high as $200 or $300 a month. As I travel around my home State of Washington, I have talked to many of these parents who feel vulnerable, and they are deeply concerned about the lack of health insurance for their children. They know that they are only one major illness away from financial disaster. They also know that their child is not receiving the kind of preventive health care so important to their development. We can all talk about the cost of the Children's Health Insurance Coverage Act or the financial mechanism, but we have to go beyond the simple calculations and look at the cost of not acting on this issue. Who pays for emergency room visits when a child is brought in with rheumatic fever? What is the cost of treating rheumatic fever as opposed to strep throat? What is the cost to the public health threat posed by a child that has not been vaccinated? What is the impact in the classroom of a child who is severely ill? What impact does this have on my child, the teacher, and the community? What is the cost to society for raising 10 million unhealthy children? We all agree that nutritional assistance programs like WIC save $4 for every $1 spent. It is no different when examining health care costs. It is far less expensive to provide a child with a measles vaccine than treat a communitywide outbreak of measles. Ten million children without health insurance is a problem that impacts every single one of us, and we can pay for it now or we can pay for it later. It is just that simple. I believe that it is much easier and much more cost-effective to act now. According to the General Accounting Office, children without health insurance are less likely to receive timely preventive care and less likely to grow up to be healthy, productive adults. According to the Children's Defense Fund, uninsured children are more likely to need emergency room care at later stages of their illness and are more likely to require hospital admission. It does not take a health care expert to know that emergency room visits are, on average, twice as expensive as a doctor's office visit. On average, hospital costs for low-birthweight babies are 10 times the cost of prenatal care. Again, according to the Children's Defense Fund, every $1 invested in basic immunization of preschoolers saves $7.40 in direct medical costs. When we created the school lunch program, we recognized the fact that hungry children cannot learn and are disruptive to other children. The same holds true for sick children. A child with a fever of 102 and a sore throat cannot learn. If we hope to improve education in this country and work to ensure that American students can compete in tomorrow's global economy, we must first begin by guaranteeing that these children are healthy. The Children's Health Coverage Act represents a major step in the right direction. The legislation will provide eligible families a tax credit on a timely basis to cover health insurance premiums. It ensures that the tax credit covers a significant portion of insurance premiums for low-income working families. It guarantees them a market for private children's only health insurance by requiring insurers who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan to offer these policies. It provides direct assistance to uninsured lower income pregnant women so that their child gets a healthy start in life. It ensures a comprehensive benefits package with a focus on preventative services, and provides coverage up to 18 years of age. It utilizes the private health insurance market, and it does not create a new Federal bureaucracy or entitlement, but builds on the success of several current State plans. I recognize that this legislation is only one possible solution. Within the next few weeks, I will be joining Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Dodd in introducing a voucher-based proposal which will meet the same goals and objectives as the bill being introduced today, but it provides for a different approach for assisting families in purchasing coverage. The voucher-based legislation mirrors the plans currently utilized by 14 States in their efforts to help uninsured children. One of these States is my home State of Washington, which has implemented a plan to help uninsured children receive vital health care services. Because of this commitment in the State of Washington, the number of uninsured children has declined. But the States cannot do it alone. And the Federal Government must ensure that every family, regardless of where they live, have access to affordable health insurance and that the benefits are comprehensive and include an aggressive preventative strategy. In the last Congress, we made a commitment to working Americans that they would not lose their health insurance coverage if they changed jobs or had a preexisting condition. The Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation will help hundreds of working families. Now we have the opportunity to build on this bipartisan legislation and work to help working families purchase health insurance coverage for their children. I know that my Republican colleagues recognize the urgent need to give our children a healthy start. And I ask that we use the bipartisan approach utilized in passing the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill to help all of our children. Both the Democratic and Republican leadership are pledged to improving the quality of life for families and putting families first. I can think of no better and important issue for American families than the health security of all of our children. In 1965, Congress made a commitment to our Nation's senior citizens that they would not have to go without health coverage. In 1965, we gave senior citizens access to affordable health insurance coverage to protect them from financial ruin and ensure a longer, healthy life. Let 1997 be the year that we make the same commitment to our children. Again, I want to thank the Democratic leader for his efforts. And I am anxious to begin work on this important initiative and many others that are before us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Frist, the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Senator Daschle and all of my colleagues for the opportunity to discuss a topic frequently in the thoughts of most Americans, and that is education. There have been other opportunities in the past, and they will come again I know, but on this day, at the beginning of the 105th Congress of the United States, I want the Members of the Senate to recognize that education is one of those topics that is a day-to-day concern of most Americans. We spend a lot of our time here talking about many things that are far less important to the American people than education. When Americans vote, education is important to them. When they answer polls, education is always a top concern. When they face obstacles in their lives, they see education as a way around those obstacles. And when they search for ways to make life for their children better than they have had it themselves, education is often the single best answer they will find. Before us today a bill was introduced, the Education for the 21st Century Act. For much of my career in education and policymaking, I have seen bills and acts and programs with ``21st century'' in the title. Well, President Clinton was inaugurated this week, and 4 years from now there will be another inaugural ceremony and a new President will be sworn in, and he or she will become the first President who has a term in the 21st century. I trust that he or she will be gazing into a new millennium of American progress. The bill that was introduced today makes several concrete investments in the new American century beginning some 4 years from now. The first investment is in helping people pay for their education, and the bill does it in three ways. The Hope scholarship allows people a $1,500-per- year refundable tax credit for the first 2 years of college, and allows half-time students a $750-per-year tax credit. Students can instead choose to take advantage of the tax deduction for school expenses, which allows them to deduct up to $10,000 a year for higher education expenses. No matter which option students choose, they can also take advantage of the restored deduction for interest paid on their student loans. These three opportunities aim to help good students of modest means attend that first day of class in their local community college. Based on everything we know about our economy, and with a look at where employment trends are heading, investing and getting people started in school is a prudent move on the part of our Nation. These incentives will help Americans take advantage of the connection between level of education and their employability in the next century. The second part of the investment found in this bill is designed to jump-start efforts to repair some of our Nation's worst crumbling schools. For an investment of $5 billion in school construction incentive funds, we expect to drive about $20 billion in renovation and construction across this Nation. This is important because of the actual bricks and roofing and wiring that it will provide, but it is also an important symbol. It says to all of us that American children deserve to go to school in buildings that are safe, healthy, well-lighted places where learning happens and community spirit abounds. I especially thank Senator Carol Moseley-Braun for her tireless efforts on this issue. People talk all the time about the role of Federal Government in local school policy. By championing this issue, Senator Moseley-Braun has pointed out that the Federal Government does have a role in K-12 education in this country. That role is not passing down curriculum or trying to tell teachers how to teach. The role is guaranteeing certain minimum standards for health and safety and equality, and that is what this proposal is all about. I also want to remind all of my colleagues that it is important to retain flexibility in this proposal so it helps both urban and rural schools. There are schools in places like the small town of Raymond, WA, which the General Accounting Office has previously identified as needing help with school construction funding due to local economic factors. We should not rule out rural schools as we fine-tune this proposal. The third investment in this bill is the reading ability of young children. America Reads will fund 30,000 reading specialists and volunteer coordinators, with the goal of getting children reading on their own by the third grade. It will establish a parents as first teachers challenge grant fund and will work with existing programs like AmeriCorps to maximize efforts. Efforts to build literacy, whether aimed at helping young children read or helping adults read to their children or find a job, acts like yeast in bread dough. They allow people's aspirations to rise, and they will pull this country up to meet the challenges we face. It does not matter what adversity our children face or what they are presented with in life. If they can read, they have a chance to overcome it. The ability to read, write, communicate, and function in the work world-- these things are a precious gift all children and all adults should have. But literacy problems are complicated, so we must make sure our solutions are designed to reflect the most effective techniques we can find. As we move ahead with America Reads, we must allow local flexibility. We must honor the knowledge of those Americans who have been teaching literacy in our communities--in colleges, in schools, in social agencies and in local community-based organizations. We have to recognize that the best indicator of success in reading for a child is the education level of the child's primary caregiver. We must allow the tutor programs under America Reads to work with families to get the best results for children. The act of reading is complicated, and I can tell you that as a former teacher. Reading is a multistep process. A reader has to recognize and decode parts of words, whole words and sentences of words, both through sight and sound, and figure out how the assembled parts relate to meaning. Dynamic research is underway right now by Dr. Reid Lyon at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and by other researchers around the country in places like the University of Washington in Seattle. This research is unveiling just how complicated learning disabilities are. It is showing how the brain processes certain kinds of information in the reading process, and it is pointing to effective techniques for mitigating disabilities. America Reads has to capitalize on the current research and build as many connections as possible between reading tutors, a student's primary reading teacher and the work of literacy researchers. America Reads must also be seen as an unprecedented lens through which we can see literacy and education in general as seamless. Your age, your geographic location, your socio-economic status cannot be barriers to your ability to learn. We have to get K-12 education, higher education, community education, employment training, local family literacy projects and other organizations all working together. We have to look at education, and at literacy specifically, as the tools Americans need to help themselves and to help this country achieve progress. The fourth investment in this bill is technological literacy. This investment is ongoing, and it has already achieved some success. The bill will continue our efforts to improve learning across the country by increasing funds for the technology literacy challenge grants. Over the next 5 years, this bill puts $1.8 billion into these grants to our local school districts so that they can help train teachers to integrate technology into their methods and curriculum to create new resources and to work with leaders in their communities to get students access to computers, the Internet and other high technology resources. I want to especially thank Senator Bingaman for his vision on education technology and thank all who have supported this important issue. One key component of the technology section of this bill picks up on the work that I started last Congress, taking advantage of surplus technology where it is appropriate in schools' technology plans. In the last Congress, if you will remember, we passed the Murray amendment to the fiscal year 1997 Treasury Postal appropriations bill, which said that all Government agencies have to inventory their excess computer equipment and peripherals and then make them available to educational institutions through the GSA. We also passed the Murray amendment to the fiscal year 1997 legislative branch appropriations bill which set up the same process for the Congress itself. I want you to know that progress so far is very good. The letters I sent to heads of Federal agencies have brought in some very good responses, and Government computers are now going to schools. The bill before us does, in a systemic fashion, what I have been setting up at the grassroots level in my State--education technology clearinghouses--a place where people can donate equipment and software, a place where schools can get this technology, and a place where a third party can reject technology that does not meet minimum requirements so it does not enter into our schools or libraries. Several issues have come up in recent months regarding surplus technology. Many are addressed in this bill. If we are using surplus equipment side by side with new equipment, we have to assure that the surplus equipment meets the needs of the school or library that is receiving it. To send them our castoffs with no value sends the wrong message, and we should not be doing it. Schools in my State are using surplus computers as file servers for networks of new computers, and they are using them for word processing and data processing. They have students doing the upgrades in some of our schools, and when the technology is still current generation, these uses are appropriate. When the technology is too old to be useful, we must recycle the components in other ways and not burden our schools and libraries with a gift that is going to cost much more than it is worth. Equity is another concern, and this bill addresses it. It requires clearinghouses to ensure equitable distribution of surplus technology. Technology, a concentrated effort to build reading skills, school construction funding, and tuition assistance--our investments are prudent. The goals are very clear. People from both parties will support these kinds of efforts. With this sort of plan in place, Americans can feel proud of their Government's efforts to help them improve education across the Nation. Let's look out ahead. In just 4 short years, people will be finishing up in the community college programs that they just picked up a brochure for today. They will be finishing the 4-year degree programs they started this fall. They will be graduating from high schools they are just entering this fall or next, depending on their grade, and they will be third graders in the elementary schools that they started on the first day of kindergarten this September. How will their lives be better off thanks to this bill? What will their parents say, hope or dream? What will they think to tell us, if they still remember our names 4 years from now? Will they hail this bill as a success, like the Pell grant or GI bill? Will they thank us for working together across party lines to show support for teaching and learning in this country? We simply have to do the work ahead of us, and we will deserve any praise for our efforts, and we will all be thankful that we took steps today to assure a brighter future for our country.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts by the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and others, in telling us to slow down and take a look at what we are doing in our rush to get out of town. To me this is an issue of fairness. I have listened carefully to the debate over the last 4 days. It is an issue of fairness for thousands of working families across this country, whether or not they will have the right to make sure that they can pay for their families' food on the table, send their children to college, to have working conditions that are fair and reached in fair agreement. I know we all want to leave town. We want to leave quickly. Everyone wants to get home. But let us not leave a legacy of giving special treatment to one company and leaving thousands of workers for many years to come without fair treatment in their employment. I thank the President. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding the time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to express my sincere pleasure that the Vancouver National Historic Reserve will be established as a result of the enactment of legislation by this Congress. We have worked for several years in a bipartisan fashion to establish this important historic site in Vancouver, WA. This vision for cooperative management of the historic resources at Fort Vancouver began with the city of Vancouver and former Congresswoman Jolene Unsoeld. Congresswoman Unsoeld had the vision, leadership, and determination to develop a broadly supported plan to preserve and promote several chapters in the colorful history of the Pacific Northwest. This proposal has been 10 years in the making. Throughout these years, the vision has been for a collaborative effort between the city of Vancouver, the Army, and the National Park Service. In recognition of the opportunity to coordinate the management and interpretation of the historic areas around Fort Vancouver, Congress in 1990 established the Vancouver Historic Study Commission to develop a plan for the area and make a recommendation to Congress. In 1993, the five members of the commission--representing the National Park Service, City of Vancouver, Army, State Historic Preservation Office, and the public-at-large-- unanimously approved a strategy for the area. The commission's report called for the establishment of a Vancouver National Historic Reserve. The reserve would be cooperatively managed by the various public owners of the area through the Vancouver partnership. Key controversies such as the continued operation of Pearson Airpark were addressed and thoughtfully resolved. Legislation to implement the commission's recommendations was introduced in 1994 by former Congresswoman Unsoeld but was unable to pass in the closing days of the 103d Congress. In an effort to maintain progress on the historic area, the city entered into a memorandum of agreement with the National Park Service regarding the operation of the area on November 4, 1995. Nevertheless, legislation was still needed to implement the MOA and the commission's recommendations. During this Congress, we have worked with the city and the Park Service in a bipartisan fashion to address outstanding concerns and develop legislation to effectively establish the reserve. Senator Gorton and I, and Congresswoman Smith, introduced bills to establish the reserve. When the committee began to develop an omnibus parks bill, Senator Gorton and I worked to include the Vancouver Historic Reserve and were successful. The simplified version of our bill included in the omnibus measure raised concerns for the Park Service and was improved during the conference with the House. As last-minute negotiations on this omnibus parks bill progressed, there was some miscommunication regarding the administration's support for the Vancouver National Historic Reserve. As is now clear, the administration fully supports the establishment of the reserve and supports it's inclusion in this omnibus measure. And so do I. I look forward to the development of the Vancouver partnership and the coordinated management it will bring to the historic treasures of Vancouver, WA. Treasures of the entire Pacific Northwest that must be preserved for future generations. The Vancouver National Historic Reserve is truly ``Once Place Across Time''. From the Native American cultures and communities that lived and traded in the region for over 100 centuries to Lewis and Clark's expedition and the Hudson Bay Company's fur trade, the areas of the Vancouver National Historic Reserve are at the foundation of the history and the legacy of the Pacific Northwest and the great State of Washington. Our journey from these beginnings through the decades is also visible through Fort Vancouver, the Vancouver Army Barracks and Officer's Row, and Pearson Airfield. The multiple layers of history tells us so much about our region and ourselves. I look forward to the sense of continuity the reserve will bring to the history of this place. The connection of people and places across the span of time will bring an improved sense of place to this wonderful area of our region and the Nation.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Less than 10 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today as a strong proponent of the bill before us H.R. 3539, the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. This legislation does provide critical aviation safety and reform efforts and it is the principle authority for aviation infrastructure investments. The importance of this bill only underscores the time and serious attention, Members in this Chamber have given to the legislation's express carrier provision. I have listened closely over the last few days to colleagues whom I deeply respect, on both sides of this issue and both sides of the aisle. As much as I want to see the FAA bill pass, I believe we must focus on the question of fairness. Did this provision, we are now debating receive enough public comment and undergo hearings necessary to adequately judge the change? Is this provision so insignificant, that it can be quickly addressed in the rush to adjourn? Are we creating a priority system that places specific companies above others? These questions are serious and far-reaching. This provision raises too many concerns and justifies this Chamber's serious examination of the language. First, one must look at the legislative history of this rider. There has never been a hearing on this provision in a House subcommittee or full committee. Neither have there been any hearings on this provision in a Senate subcommittee or full committee. There have been previous attempts to attach the rider to omnibus appropriations bills, the National Transportation Safety Board reauthorization and the Railroad Unemployment Act. All of these attempts to insert this controversial language have failed. The rider was not on this bill as it passed the House and was not included in the Senate's original FAA reauthorization bill until it reached the conference committee. There are even jurisdictional questions to be answered as the House required a special rule just to consider the provision. In the end, 198 Members of Congress opposed the FAA bill with this added rider. Second, as debate continues on this provision, it becomes clear that this is not simply a technical correction. The term ``express carrier'' has been obsolete for years and was purposely removed from the Railway Labor Act and the Interstate Commerce Act when Congress passed the ICC Termination Act last year. Express carrier was removed, simply because no express carrier existed since the mid-1970's. Congress is charged with promoting an equal playing field for all. Unfortunately, what appeared to be an innocuous correction has become a dangerous reclassification. We must ensure that employees of one company have the same opportunities as those employees in other similar organizations. Many will try to boil this issue down into another labor battle. I prefer to look at the provision as one that denies a specific group of employees, basic rights in the workplace. These opportunities are already granted to these employees' colleagues. All of us are ready for adjournment. Many have felt that they've become hostage to an insignificant technical correction with little impact. Our 4 days of debate will one day, however, appear insignificant. Especially in contrast to the thousands of workers who will forever be held hostage by this language. Mr. President, let's act reasonably. Let's act rationally and by all means let's adjourn. But let's leave this session with a clear conscience and a bill we can all live with, confident that we did not act in haste or shortsightedness. In the interest of good Government and good public policy, let's remove the provision and re-examine it through the normal legislative process. In the interest of good Government and good public policy, lets pass the FAA bill without this express provision. This legislation is strong enough on its own merits. I am certain the House will recognize its responsibility to come back and finish a job, so critical to America's workers.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, would the senior Senator from Washington yield for a question on the bill language amending the Elwha Act included in the Interior section of the omnibus appropriations bill?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to issue a birthday wish to one of the most remarkable people I have had the pleasure to work with in these first 4 years of my term: my almost-92-year-old friend and mentor, Sam Volpentest. For more than three decades, Sam has been working to ensure the economic stability of the communities surrounding the Department of Energy's Hanford Site in southeast Washington. As a representative of the Tri-City Industrial Development Council, he worked closely with Senators Magnuson and Jackson to secure funding and projects for Hanford as the site has transitioned through various incarnations, from helping to win the cold war to cleaning up a nuclear mess to moving onto a healthy, stable future. And although these two illustrious leaders have passed on, Sam has not let up. He has advised and educated a whole new generation of elected leaders about priorities and the importance of the Tri-Cities. Sam is tireless. He has more energy and enthusiasm than almost anybody. People who are half his age would be happy with his energy level--I know I would. He puts that energy to good work for Hanford and for the numerous charities and organizations he supports. I can think of no person who has contributed more time or energy to Hanford's workers and communities than Sam Volpentest. Mr. President, I want to tell one story to illustrate Sam's dogged determination to do the right thing. Early in my Senate tenure, Sam shared with me an exciting new venture for Hanford, dubbed HAMMER--the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response facility. HAMMER was an excellent idea, but a costly one--especially in this budget- cutting climate. However, with Sam at the helm of the project, this important inter-agency, cooperative emergency response program had a chance to make the transition from dream to reality. In 1994, Sam got word that HAMMER funding was threatened. He called my office late one evening and explained how important it was to contact Senator Exon, who would be instrumental in saving HAMMER. Sam arrived at 7 a.m. and camped on my doorstep, and believe me, anyone who has had Sam camp out on their doorstep knows this man can camp. He helped me develop a strategy for winning and we worked every hour of the day to implement that strategy. In the end, we saved HAMMER. Just last year, we broke ground for the extensive HAMMER training course. Today, HAMMER--Sam's mission and one of his many dreams--is almost constructed. The people not only in his community but across the Nation will benefit for years to come for Sam's tenacity and devotion to ``camping'' on doorsteps. Today, on September 30, Sam Volpentest celebrates his 92d birthday. On that day, The Tri-City Herald will publish a list of contributors who have given to ``Sam's 92d Birthday Celebration for Charity.'' Contributors can give $9.20, $92, $920 or more to the organizing committee who will then pass the money on to the Blue Mountain Council of the Boy Scouts of America, the Tri-Cities Cancer Center, and Washington State University Tri-Cities. This is an excellent way to celebrate Sam's continuing charity to his friends and community, and will certainly demonstrate the love and affection so many people have for this remarkable man. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues are blessed with people so tirelessly devoted to their communities as the people of the Tri-Cities and I have in Sam Volpentest. I hope those of you who have the privilege of knowing Sam will join me in wishing him a very happy 92d birthday, with many more to follow.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for working together to report this bill. I will certainly support final passage. One of the most important budget items in this bill to me and my Seattle area constituents is funding for the new Federal courthouse. This courthouse has been needed, and in the works, for almost a decade. As Congress has expanded the role of Federal courts in crime fighting and other areas, our judges have gotten more and more squeezed. There is no doubt a new courthouse is needed. At this time, the General Services Administration, working with the city of Seattle, has tentatively selected the main library for the city as the site for the new courthouse. The library is in sore need of replacement or major restoration. The library is a cherished public asset. The people in and near Seattle check out books at a rate of 1 million per year. They bring their children to story hour, attend the diverse programs, and conduct tremendous amounts of personal and professional research. The city of Seattle recognizes the need for expansion of the Federal courthouse and is committed to working energetically in partnership with the GSA to make this a reality. Seattle has offered to relocate its library to expedite expansion of the courthouse. I am pleased the city and GSA intend to work together, as quickly as possible, to find a mutually agreeable resolution of the cost and timing questions. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman and ranking member for doing their part to move this courthouse toward completion. The need for the courthouse and a smooth, cost-efficient transition to a new library cannot be overstated. I look forward to working with you further in the coming years of this project to ensure the Federal justice system is poised to meet the growing needs of the region, and that Seattle's central library is kept whole in the process.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Can the Senator from Missouri explain what effect this change will have on the collection of residue data?