Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Chuck Clement of Rochester, NH, on being named by the Rochester Chamber of Commerce as Business Leader of the Year 2001. Mr. Clement is a third generation owner of Eastern Propane. Thanks to Chuck's leadership and management skills, Eastern Propane is now the 23rd largest retailer in the Nation providing propane, oil, kerosene, diesel fuels, and service throughout New England. Chuck has provided his customers with high quality service and has implemented several service programs to further enhance his business. Due to his commitment to the community of Rochester, he has moved his central office from Danvers, MA, to Rochester, NH, his new hometown. He encourages his employees to give back to the community by donating their time and efforts to organizations including: Strafford County YMCA, Rochester Rotary Club, and the Greater Rochester Chamber of Commerce. Chuck was among the first supporters of the Rochester Public Library Fund and the Rochester Opera House Fund drives. Chuck's outstanding contribution and leadership in his business and community are commendable. His exemplary performance and civic awareness have benefitted the community of Rochester and our entire State. It is an honor and privilege to represent him in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ron Welliver of Nashua, NH, on being named as Police Officer of the Year by the Nashua Exchange Club. Ron has been a dedicated member of the Nashua police force and his community for more than twenty years. An exemplary citizen, he has contributed to the civic needs of Nashua serving as a football coach at Fairgrounds Junior High School and baseball coach at Bishop Guertin High School in Nashua. Ron is a team player at the Nashua Police Department who accepted his award by giving praise and recognition to his fellow police officers. During his career he has worked in nearly all areas of the Nashua Police Department including: detective, undercover narcotics and recruiter assignments. Ron and his wife, Sue, reside in the Nashua area with their two daughters. I commend Ron Welliver for his dedicated service to the people of Nashua and our entire State. He is a role model to the Nashua community who risks his own safety as a law enforcement officer to protect the citizens of Nashua. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to John P. Kelty of Hampton Beach, NH, for his heroic service to the United States of America during World War II. On July 30, 2001 I will present John with the medals he so bravely earned while serving his Nation in battle. John was wounded in action while serving in the Marshall Islands where he volunteered to evacuate fallen comrades while under machine gun fire. He also participated in the battle of POI and NAMUR, Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands. John, a former Marine Private First Class, earned medals for his dedicated military service including: the American Campaign Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Medal with Bronze Stars, an Honorable Service lapel button, the Marine Corps Honorable Discharge button, a Purple Heart Medal, the Presidential Unit Citation with one Bronze Star and a World War II Victory Medal. A family friend of John Kelty, John Taddeo, recently contacted my Portsmouth, NH office to inquire about obtaining the service medals for the former Marine. As the son of a Naval aviator who died in a World War II incident, I was proud to assist with this request to provide the medals that John so courageously earned. I commend John for his selfless dedication to his State and country. He is an American hero who fought to preserve liberty and justice for all citizens of the United States. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I think the Senator knows I am aware of that.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes. Of course.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes. I am very much aware of it. In terms of licensing medicines and doing the research, you know where it is happening. It is happening in the private sector. We can't shut it down. I want health care for Americans, and my constituents want real choice and control over their own decisions. We should not reform something or change something in the name of reform that causes the Federal Government to get in the way of the doctor providing services to the patient. My friend from Missouri pointed out earlier that thousands, if not millions, of Americans could lose their insurance under this bill as it is currently drafted. Is that really what the intent is--to have millions of Americans lose their insurance? I hope not. Over the next few days we could discuss amendments to this bill that will make those badly needed improvements, such as the Senator from Arkansas has just done. I urge my colleagues to cross the partisan divide, enact responsible and reasonable health care, stop the attacks on each other, roll up your sleeves and do something good for the American people. We can do it. I think if we do that we would get the thanks of the American people, rather than this partisan rhetoric that gets nowhere. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I support my colleagues' amendment wholeheartedly and I ask unanimous consent my name be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I compliment my colleague from Maine for the eloquent statement she made regarding those independent business people who do not have the fallback or the luxury of the assets of the giant corporation. There are thousands in Maine and thousands in our neighboring State of New Hampshire. It is hard to see them without the ability to have the 100-percent deduction. It is a struggle to provide those benefits. They do provide them. In spite of the fact they don't have the deductibility, they still provide insurance. It is a tremendous burden. I hope our colleagues will see how important this amendment is. I rise today to make a few general comments about health care in America and about this legislation specifically as we move forward in this debate. We have gone full circle on the health care debate. We started in the early 1990s with an attempt to nationalize all health care in America, which would have been a disaster. We then swung over to HMOs, and now we are back somewhere in the middle. This bill is now moving back toward the national trend. We have a vision for America. This debate is about what vision is accepted. Is the vision you accept one of government control of health care? One of government control of who your doctor is? One of government control of who has access to health care and who does not? Talk to some of our friends to the north in Canada and ask them how that triple or quadruple-tiered system works there. The other vision is what I believe our country stands for. That is a vision of America of limited government, an America of individual freedom and choice and personal responsibility. These are the principles that helped make America the greatest Nation in history. When we talk about these principles in other areas--whether it be regarding business or any area regarding individual responsibility where government does not take a peek at your private life--one cannot isolate health care. We have to say health care is very much a part of the whole concept of America of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and choice. Access to affordable, quality health care is an issue, a health issue that we as a government and society should promote and encourage. It is a shame the Senator from Arkansas has to have an amendment like this. It should be part of the Tax Code to begin with. We achieve this access to affordable health care using the strengths of our system, not accenting weaknesses. The strength of our system is free market, quality care, consumer choice. All Members agree we need health care reform. The question is, What health care reform? The question is, How do we reach this goal? I ask my colleagues, is increased regulation more government control over your life? If it is a problem with the HMOs over what doctor to see or over a health procedure to be used, which is a legitimate concern, how would you like the Federal Government making those decisions? How would you like to deal with the bureaucracy of the Federal Government, as constituents have to deal with, calling each day asking to please help them get the Social Security that, after the Government declared them dead 2 months ago, they have not received for 2 months? Is that who you want to control your access to health care? Is that who you want to go through for a decision on your medical condition, or to see a doctor? Do you want the lawyers in America to run the health care system? That is what is happening in this bill. The trial lawyers will run it. There are no comments made about the trial lawyers on this side of the aisle. We know the reason: The American people do not want a government-run health care system. We want reforms. We want access to our doctors. We want doctors and patients to make the decisions. That is what we want. We don't want anybody in between. There should not be anybody in between. To have the Federal Government in there is a serious error. The question should be, Should patients have recourse if they are harmed by a decision made by their HMO? Of course they should. Better yet, let's have a procedure set up so there is nobody getting in the way to begin with, so that the doctor and the patient make the decision about which medical procedure should be used. I urge both sides to put aside the gamesmanship and partisan rhetoric and work toward real patient protection. We all know this is about politics. We know the political argument: Bash the HMOs, bash the Republicans. The Republicans don't want consumers to have choice. Or the other side: The Federal Government will run the health care system. That is not the issue. We all should work together to help people who need access to health care. Consumers don't want drastic increases in premiums. I haven't found any yet who want premiums increased. I have not found anybody yet who wants a maze of legal wrangling to achieve benefits they are already owed. Do you want to have to go through ten levels of government bureaucracy to get something owed you? I have not found anybody yet who wants to do that. If they are out there, they have not written to me. The President is concerned about patient protection. He worked on it hard as a Governor of Texas and showed a willingness to work in a bipartisan way to improve the insurance system. He extended his hand in this way. I hope the other side will take advantage of it. This is an extraordinary opportunity to achieve reform. It will make a real difference for the people of this country. This is what this debate should be about. I am afraid it is not what it is about. Sure, we can pass a bill right now that bashes the HMO industry, hikes premiums, and delays benefits to patients. Let's look at them one by one. Bash the HMO: Does that make you feel good? Maybe. Does it help you get better benefits, better access to your doctors? I don't think so. Hiked premiums: Anyone want to raise the premiums higher, make it more difficult to receive the health care you are now trying to get? Do you want to delay your benefits to the patients? I don't know anybody who wants that. I don't think anyone wants premium hikes or delays, but such a bill would be vetoed and the status quo preserved. If we have a bill that bashes HMOs and raises premiums, President Bush will veto it, as well he should. Why pass it? President Bush made it clear he will veto this bill in its current form. Why not work here, roll up our sleeves, do what we are paid to do by the taxpayers in this country, and work together to get a bill that will be signed by the President. Why wait for him to veto? If my colleagues are dissatisfied with the status quo, do not want it to continue, and are concerned about constituents who are patients, they need to understand we need to make improvements in this bill. The Senator from Arkansas has made a very good improvement in this bill. We should not even be talking about it. It should be unanimously approved. Instead, it is debated hotly and unfairly on the Senate floor. I don't think the current system is perfect. It is the best system in the world, though. For all the criticisms, does anybody want to go to Pakistan to have heart surgery, or North Korea? It is the best system in the world, with all its blemishes. As Winston Churchill used to say about democracy: It is not perfect, but it is the best thing out there. Remember that when we get to the bashing of the health care system in the country. We have the best doctors, the best nurses, the best hospitals in the world, the best pharmaceutical companies that get bashed on the floor day in and day out. They have made tremendous progress in such diseases as cancer and AIDS and all kinds of disease that impacts us as a people. We have seen how expensive and inefficient health care programs run by the Federal Government can be. I address my colleagues in the spirit of bipartisanship. I think some of my colleagues can admit that on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I used to chair, I reached out on a lot of issues, specifically brownfields and Everglades, and we had bipartisan bills, two of them, both big issues that passed overwhelmingly, 99-0 on one, and 85 on the other. It can be done, but it should not be done out here. People on the respective committees ought to roll up their sleeves and accept reality and quit trying to score political points. You ought to say if President Bush is going to veto this bill, that here are the reasons he is going to veto it. Let's sit down and see if we can address those reasons. If you can't, then fine. We will move forward. But stop trying to score political points by trying to paint the picture that somehow all of us on this side are somehow opposed to having consumers get good health care. It is not true. It is a cheap shot, frankly, to do it. We shouldn't let the heavy hand of Government further aggravate the problems that plague our private health care system. We should reform it. We can increase choices for the employers and the individuals and foster innovation with market-driven ideas and competition. I have tried for a year and a half to get the attention of colleagues on my side of the aisle on a prescription drug plan that reduces premiums and provides more coverage. But I can't get any attention to it--I guess because I am not the guy who is supposed to be bringing it up. I do not know. But I encourage people to take a look at it because it works. If we are talking about reducing premiums, then here is a way to reduce premiums on just those prescription drugs. We ought to discourage frivolous lawsuits while ensuring that patients who are truly harmed have a recourse. That is what we should be doing. If this legislation passes, it will make lawyers wealthy. They are going to do real well. We ought to emphasize what works, get rid of what doesn't, and stop bashing what is good in our health care system, as if it is the worst in the world rather than the best. We ought to cut down on the health insurance fraud. Barry Mawn, head of the FBI in New York, has called health and medical insurance fraud America's No. 1 white-collar crime costing billions of dollars. We should eliminate the fraud and put those dollars to the consumers--to the people who really could use some help. How much new technology could we put into place? How many new medical breakthroughs could we make, if we could take those billions of dollars that we waste in fraud and put it into cancer research, or AIDS research, or multiple sclerosis, or muscular dystrophy, or any other disease? That would be a good step. We could do that, too, on the floor of the Senate today, if we wanted to do it. We ought to offer a clear and compelling vision of how patient empowerment in truly free markets can give Americans a better health a system. I ask you: Would we have the breakthroughs that we have in some of the miracle drugs we have on the market today if the Federal Government had been responsible for doing it? I ask anyone to answer that question, other than to say no.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Tim Beaulac of Gorham, NH, for being named as the Pharmacist of the Year for the Northeast Region, which includes Maine, New Hampshire and a portion of Vermont. He achieved the award with the assistance of other members of the pharmacy staff at the Gorham WalMart Store including: assistant pharmacist, Kellie Lapointe, department manager, Sandy Trottier, and pharmacy technicians Mona Garneau and Karen Taylor. Tim is a graduate of the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and began his career at Berlin City Drug as a pharmacist for ten years. He also was employed at the former City Drugs in Gorham for several years. Tim and his wife, Marylou, have one daughter, Holly, who is a sixth grader at Gorham Middle School. I commend Tim on this exemplary achievement and recognition in the pharmaceutical industry. He has served the citizens of Gorham with dedication and care for many years. The people of Gorham and our entire state have benefitted from his contributions. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Captain Frank Holdsworth of Londonderry, NH, on the occasion of his retirement from the Londonderry Police Department. For 23 years he has served the citizens of Londonderry with dedication and pride. Frank began his career as a special officer and was promoted 6 times earning the titles of patrolman, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, and captain. He has held every position within the police force due to his reliable and professional performance. Frank has been actively involved in community affairs programs at the Londonderry Police Department. He was influential in starting the field training program and also worked with the secret service when presidential campaigns came to town. Frank was in civic groups including: Londonderry Athletic and Field Association, Lions Club and Police Relief Association. I commend Frank for his loyal and dedicated service to the Town of Londonderry. The citizens of Londonderry and the State of New Hampshire are grateful for his contributions to the community and his profession. I wish Frank and his family well as he retires from the Londonderry Police Department. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Kathleen Moore of Goffstown, NH, for her act of heroism. I commend her for the act of risking her own life to save the life of a fellow citizen. While returning home after babysitting for children of a friend, Kathleen spotted a burning automobile that had crashed into a tree. Alarmed by the sound of banging from inside the vehicle, Kathleen, a postal employee, risked her life while aiding Mark Renaud, of Barnstead, NH, who was trapped underneath the burning car. Kathleen, who had lost a daughter and a son in an automobile accident 12 years earlier, heroically pulled Mark Renaud out of the flaming inferno that had consumed the car. Thanks to the selfless actions of Kathleen, Mark is alive today. Kathleen Moore is a role model for the citizens of Goffstown, our State and country. I applaud her act of heroism and charity. It is an honor and a privilege to represent her in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, it is, frankly, really a sad day when we have to be here on the floor of the Senate to defend the Boy Scouts of America as if they have done something wrong and they have to be defended. I have seen a lot of things since I have been in this place. We have had a lot of interesting debates on a lot of interesting subjects. I sit at the desk of Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster didn't know about the Boy Scouts of America in his time. I cannot imagine what Webster would think if he were here today to listen to this debate--or Washington or Jefferson or any of the great leaders. I rise today without equivocation to support the amendment of my friend from North Carolina, to protect one of America's treasures, the Boy Scouts of America. I would like to call your attention to the photograph behind me during the course of these brief remarks. These are the bad people we are keeping out of our schools, these young boys. I had two sons who were Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout. I can't think of anybody who is hurt to be a Boy Scout. When you talk about precluding ``the Scouts,'' the Boy Scouts from being in a school, what does that mean? Does it mean if a Boy Scout comes in in his uniform for his class, is he going to be thrown out of class and sent home? I guarantee you, if some boy came into class and created a disturbance, it is highly unlikely he would be thrown out of class under the current rules and regulations that some teachers have to face. I am trying to be as unemotional as I can about this, but this is such an outrage. The organization, the Boy Scouts of America, has one of the most rich traditions and history in American history, in American culture for all time. How many Boy Scouts are there whose names are on that Vietnam Wall? How many Boy Scouts were in the greatest generation that Tom Brokaw talked about? How many Boy Scouts led the fight in World War I? How many? These are the boys we want to keep from having their meetings in schools that receive billions of taxpayer dollars. I never thought I would see the day when I would have to stand on the Senate floor and go to bat for the Boy Scouts to have that right. But do you know what. Senator Helms, I am proud to stand here with you and do it. We need to do it. Then we will do it. I am with him. The Boy Scouts of America was recognized by Federal charter in 1916 to provide an educational program for boys and men to build character and to train citizens--yes--to promote reverence for God and country. How horrible that must be. We are going to promote reverence for God and country in this time of political correctness. Isn't it awful that somebody might take an oath of allegiance to God and country? What are we coming to? How bad does it have to get before we wake up? Some of the people who are standing here today in opposition to Senator Helms on this amendment not too long ago were standing on this floor defending the right to immerse a crucifix in urine and get Federal dollars to display it as art--the same people. That is what we have come to in America. God bless us. The largest voluntary youth organization and movement in the world-- the Boy Scouts--is under siege right on the Senate floor. Six million American boys are members from a wide diversity--religious, ethnic, economic, disability, special needs, honor students, Eagle Scouts, all of it--are under siege. A large number of Boy Scouts are sponsored by local churches. They meet in church basements. This tradition should be revered and protected by the Federal Government, not attacked by the Federal Government. We shouldn't discriminate against an organization because it teaches boys morality. Senator Helms says we are going to condition Federal education money on a State or locality not discriminating against the Boy Scouts of America. And Senator Helms is right. He is absolutely right. In your heart you know he is right. On June 28, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, upheld the first amendment rights of Boy Scouts of America to maintain its almost century-old moral code and its standard for membership and leadership. The Supreme Court concluded that the Boy Scouts have a right under the first amendment to set standards for membership and leadership by concluding that the first amendment protects the right of a private organization to determine its own membership. The Senate has conditions for membership in this body. Maybe we shouldn't have any conditions. Should we be attacked by the same groups? The Boy Scouts embrace the following oath. I want to repeat that oath. I think it has been repeated here before. But it is the central purpose of why we are here. Why does Senator Helms need to be here to offer this amendment to protect the Boy Scouts? Why? Here is their honor code and the oath that they take: On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country And to obey the Scout law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. These boys, and boys like them, by the millions, are being told they can't even have a meeting in their school or in a school in some communities across America. I will tell you something. Rome died from a lot less than this. When you dilute your moral code to this extent, and if this keeps up, the obituary for America is going to be written. And it is sad to see it is being written here on the floor of the Senate. When the count is taken, I know where I want to be, and I know where Senator Helms is going to be. This is wrong, pure and simple. It is wrong to do this to this organization. There is an organized campaign against the Boy Scouts. It is under siege by the American Civil Liberties Union. It is attacked. The Boy Scouts have recently suffered discrimination and unfounded accusations of prejudice resulting in discriminatory actions being taken against the organization and its members. I know this has been said before. It is not meant to be a cheap shot. It is meant to bring up a point. Senator Byrd talked about it. Delegates at the Democratic National Convention on August 17, 2000, booed the Boy Scouts while the Boy Scouts were leading the delegates in the Pledge of Allegiance. Not all Democrats did that. Very few Democrats did that. But they did it. No one threw them out of the convention. No one threw them out of the meeting. They sat there under their rights booing the Boy Scouts for leading their convention. If I had been a Democrat at that meeting, I would have sought them out and had them thrown out. What a sad day in America. On September 5, 2000, in Framingham, MA, the superintendent of schools considered prohibiting the local Boy Scout troop from recruiting other Scouts on school grounds for exercising their constitutionally protected rights. Can you believe that? They cannot even recruit a Boy Scout on the grounds of Framingham, MA, schools. You wonder why we have problems in America. Should you really be surprised when you hear that children shoot children or children commit crimes or children don't respect their parents or children don't respect their authority? What are we telling them? What message are we sending here? How bad does it have to get before America wakes up? We are in this age of political correctness. That is what we are talking about here--political correctness. Another shocking example of this same thing is in Robbinsdale district elementary school in Minnesota. One of the teachers in that school states that she will not let the Boy Scouts into her classroom. Again, is that the Boy Scouts, the organization, a Boy Scout in his uniform--or a Girl Scout, for that matter? The teacher wrote to the State attorney general: Schools and teachers who continue to do business as usual with the Boy Scouts of America participate in discrimination through complicity, acceptance through silence. I will not. That was printed in the Star Tribune on September 3, 2000. The State of Connecticut has banned contributions to the Boy Scouts-- banned contributions to the Boy Scouts by State employees through a State-run charity. Can you believe that? It is unbelievable. I never thought I would live to see the day that this would happen in this country. If Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington aren't rolling in their graves now, I can't imagine what would ever motivate them to. Let's look at some of the horrible, terrible things the Boy Scouts of America do. Let me read from the Bergen County Record of May 29, 2001. This is a good example of what the Boy Scouts do: Americans marked Memorial Day with solemn remembrance by making pilgrimages to grave sides, bearing flowers and flags to honor soldiers who sacrificed their lives in battle. ``It means a lot to me, coming out here and seeing the veterans,'' said Boy Scout Lee Booker, 15, as he helped place miniature American flags at the foot of 46,850 veterans headstones at the Memphis National Cemetery in Tennessee. And those boys can't meet on school grounds? And you wonder why we are losing our kids. Is it time to defund the Boy Scouts of America? Is this the group that we want to expel from our public schools? That is what this is all about. I applaud the Boy Scouts for all the wonderful contributions that group has provided to American society. I am proud to have an Eagle Scout on my staff--one that I know of; there may be more. Jeff Marschner is a shining example of what an important contribution the Boy Scouts of America make to all of us. They ought to be held in esteem. When they ask to have a meeting, they ought to be asked: Which room do you want? What have they done that is so wrong? The answer is, nothing. What they have done is so right. And they are being punished for it. I am going to say it: Every leader in this country who takes that position--local, State, or Federal--ought to have to pay a political price for it. I would say to my critics on this: What were you doing on Memorial Day while the Boy Scouts of Tennessee were placing miniature American flags on the tombstones of Tennessee soldiers? All persons have the right of freedom of speech and freedom of association. And the Boy Scouts have earned theirs. I hold the first amendment rights of every American in esteem. Freedom of association is fundamental. I do not support the Government attacking groups because of their membership policies. Some membership policies I don't like. I don't like the KKK. I don't like the skinheads. I don't like those organizations. And anybody who can stand in this Senate Chamber and equate them to the Boy Scouts has a real serious problem. If the first amendment is gutted for the cause of forcing the Boy Scouts to change their membership policies, what is next? The Boy Scouts, as an organization, is empowered by our Constitution to determine their own membership criteria--not the Federal Government, not a State, not a local government, not a local school board, not a mayor, not a Governor, not the President, not any unelected bureaucrat in this country. Only the Boy Scouts have a right under the Constitution of the United States to determine their membership requirements for their Boy Scouts, for these boys. That is who has the obligation and the responsibility to do it, and no one else under this Constitution. Children--boys, girls--are this Nation's most precious resource. Yet this is what we do to them in this Senate Chamber--unbelievable. I support the Helms amendment. I have never been prouder in my entire political life than I am today to stand here with Senator Jesse Helms in support of this amendment. I cannot think of one issue that I have ever stood here and talked about that I am more proud to do than what I am doing today. It is not discriminatory. It is fair and simple. It is to protect the Boy Scouts from discrimination, that Boy Scouts cannot be banned from schools that receive millions and millions--and billions--of dollars. The education bill has money. This bill has money, more money than we have ever given to education from this body. And all Senator Helms is asking is that governments that accept this money not discriminate against these young men, and young men like them, shown in this picture. Is that asking too much? I certainly hope not. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Rajesh Nair of Milford, NH, on being named as New Hampshire High Technology Council's 2001 Entrepreneur of the Year. As a former small business owner, I applaud Rajesh, President of Degree Controls, Inc., for his achievements in the field of thermal management controllers for electronics packaging. He and his company have been recognized in their industry as innovative leaders receiving the Partner in Excellence Gold Trophy for the top supplier to Lucent Technologies in Oklahoma City. Rajesh and his company have made other important contributions in thermal engineering further enhancing their success in the industry. The citizens of New Hampshire have benefitted greatly thanks to the economic and civic contributions of Degree Controls, Inc. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent Rajesh in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Michael J. Gerling of Lebanon, NH, on being named as New Hampshire High Technology Council's 2001 Entrepreneur of the Year. As a former small business owner, I applaud the achievements of Michael and his company, Geographic Data Technology, Inc., in the wireless technology market that have resulted in his company's map databases being used for in-car navigation systems for Lexus and Toyota. I commend your staff of over 700 employees for their contribution to the success of Geographic Data Technology, Inc. Working in tandem with his employees, he has created a workplace which promotes open communication allowing employees to discuss important issues directly with you. The citizens of Lebanon and our entire state have benefitted greatly from the economic and civic contributions of your company. Michael's astute approach to high technology opportunities is an asset to the business community in New Hampshire. It is an honor and a privilege to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to Ambassador Malcolm Toon, an outstanding American diplomat with a long and impressive record of service to our Nation. For Ambassador Toon this year's July Fourth celebration has particular meaning since it also marks his Eighty-fifth Birthday. In a diplomatic career that spanned more than three decades, he served as U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Israel and held positions within the State Department as the Director of Soviet Affairs and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs. These assignments provided Ambassador Toon with a degree of expertise and keen insight that would prove invaluable when, in March 1992, he was selected by President Bush to serve as the first U.S. chairman of a newly formed bilateral American- Russian commission tasked with determining the fate of missing service personnel. Under his six-year stewardship, the U.S.-Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIAs overcame many obstacles in pursuit of its humanitarian work on behalf of missing servicemen and their families. Thanks to his leadership and steadfastness, the fates of numerous military personnel have been clarified and a robust archival research program implemented. During his tenure the Joint Commission visited each of the fifteen independent states that comprised the former Soviet Union and urged heads of state and other senior officials to do all within their power to assist in the search for American servicemen still unaccounted for. Similar initiatives were directed at the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. I am personally aware of Ambassador Toon's deep sense of commitment to the POW/MIA issue since, as co-chairman of the Joint Commisson's Vietnam War Working Group, I had the privilege of serving with Ambassador Toon. Prior to embarking on his diplomatic career in 1946, Ambassador Toon served in the U.S. Navy during World War II as a PT-Boat skipper, achieving the rank of Lieutenant Commander and earning the Bronze Star for valor. His academic credentials include a BA degree from Tufts University and graduate studies at Middlebury College and Harvard University. I ask my colleagues to join with me today in recognizing a distinguished diplomat who has contributed greatly to our nation's commitment to the fullest possible accounting for our missing service personnel.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Morton E. Goulder of Hollis, NH, on being named as New Hampshire High Technology Council's Lifetime Achievement Award Recipient. As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I applaud Morton's exemplary achievements as President of M.E. Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for our country from 1973 to 1977, and founder of Sanders Associates, a company which specializes in military electronics research and development. His contributions to the economic environment of New Hampshire are to be applauded. The citizens of our State have benefitted greatly from Morton's selfless dedication to business, education and community affairs in New Hampshire. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to David Gagnon of Milford, NH, on being named as the New Hampshire High Technology Council's 2001 Entrepreneur of the Year. As a former small business owner, I applaud the achievements of David and his employees at Degree Controls, Inc. David, Executive Vice President of Degree Controls, Inc., has achieved high recognition in the field of thermal management controllers for electronics packaging. He and his company have been recognized in their industry as innovative leaders receiving the Partner in Excellence Gold Trophy for the top supplier to Lucent Technologies in Oklahoma City. The citizens of New Hampshire have benefitted greatly thanks to the economic and civic contributions of Degree Controls Inc. His astute approach to high technology opportunities is an asset to the business community in our state. It is an honor and a privilege to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 487.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask for the yeas and nays before I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The Senator is correct; I request a recorded vote. I yield the floor, Madam President.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to discuss my amendment, which is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, but it has a very important point to make. It states that not less than 95 percent of all funds that are appropriated for carrying out elementary and secondary education, administered by the Department of Education, be spent to improve the academic achievement of our children in the classroom; in other words, 95 percent of the money in this bill should go to the classroom for our children, which is where it should go. As a former teacher, I think I would understand perhaps as well as anyone in this body how important it is to get those funds directly into the classroom where the kids can benefit. I thank Representative Sam Graves of Missouri for offering a similar amendment to the House education bill over there which ensures that 95 percent of education money is spent locally. Congressman Graves' amendment was passed overwhelmingly in the House. I believe the Senate should go on record supporting local control of Federal education dollars as well. It might sound like an anomaly--local control of Federal education dollars--but if the Federal education dollars are going to be sent to the State, then give the State the flexibility to spend them. Let the local people make the decisions wherever possible. The other side of the aisle has been offering up amendment after amendment after amendment calling for more funding for numerous education programs. Many of these amendments have been adopted over the past several days and hours. But if we are going to allocate more money for education, then I think we need to make a statement, which I do in my amendment, that it is vital to ensure that the money be spent in the classroom for the children. That is the appropriate way to spend those dollars. After all, if the Federal Government is going to spend billions of dollars on education, then those dollars should go not to some bureaucracy, not to establish some mechanism to send those dollars into the local schools, but, rather, getting the money directly to the local schools. I think we all know the cost of getting dollars into the State from the Federal Government--what it costs you to send the money to the local community--is pretty high. In fact, in New Hampshire it is about 47 cents on the dollar, which is not a good return. As a former New Hampshire teacher and school board chairman, I had the opportunity to see this on both sides, both as a board member and as a teacher--and also as a parent for 26-plus years. I am convinced that decisions regarding education are best executed at the local level and that we should not run our public schools from Washington, DC. We do not need a national school board. Some will say: With all these Federal dollars, how do you do it? We can provide Federal dollars, if we must, but let's do it with as few strings as possible to allow the local boards and the local parents to make the decisions, the local communities. Our public schools--and I say this as a former public school teacher--hold so much promise. I want to make sure the Senate goes on record today that a minimum of 95 cents of every education dollar should go directly to those classrooms. We need to give 95 cents of every dollar. It is a shame we can't give 100 percent, a dollar for every dollar, to those teachers and students in New Hampshire and not to some bureaucrat or bureaucracy in Washington, DC. We need to support education, not regulation, if we are going to spend the money. My amendment simply directs the Department of Education to join our States and local school districts in an all-out effort to direct 95 percent of our Federal education dollars to the place in which it belongs--the classroom. I don't think that is unreasonable. It is important to understand that the Department of Education has not been entirely responsible with the billions of dollars in taxpayers' money we have been giving to them over the years. Some of it has been spent responsibly, but a lot of it has not. Let me give a few examples of some of the waste at the Department of Education. I hate to bring it up, but it is important to understand that if you just continue to throw good money after bad, you never correct the problem. There were 21 cases where grant checks were issued twice to the same recipients, for a total cost to the taxpayers of America of $250 million. Auditors were able to recover the money eventually, but how much time and how much cost was involved in recovering the $250 million? That is the point. It should not have happened. We are careless. We can eliminate a lot of these kinds of mistakes--and maybe some of it is deliberate; I don't know--by simply stipulating that it is the sense of the Congress and the Senate that 95 cents on every dollar go to the classroom, so when these kinds of things happen, these people know they are going to be held accountable, that we mean business, that the Senate means business, that 95 cents of every dollar is going to go to the classroom, not for this kind of nonsense with the duplication of grant checks. Some will say that was just a mistake; 21 mistakes is not a big deal. Maybe it was a mistake, but it is a careless mistake. If the bureaucracy knows it can be held accountable, they will be a little more careful. What would happen if we hadn't found the mistakes? If we had not had an auditor finding that mistake, it would have cost the taxpayers $250 million. I say to every American who is listening to me now, think of any school district, yours in particular, wherever you live in America, and think about the classroom, perhaps the one where your child is. Could you use a little bit of that $250 million in your classroom, if you are a teacher, or your child's classroom, if you are a parent? I can think of a lot of things I could have done with a few million dollars in my classroom when I was teaching, whether it was more textbooks, perhaps raising teachers' pay. It is better than throwing it away in mistakes made by a bureaucracy that has run roughshod over the whole educational system. Let me cite another example of waste at the Department of Education. Twenty-one employees were allowed to write checks of up to $10,000 without supervision--no accountability--from May 1998 to September 2000; 19,000 checks totaling $23 million were written by these people. Who is checking on that? Who is making sure that those 21 employees who wrote checks of up to $10,000 without supervision--who is checking to find out whether that $23 million was the right amount of money? We also have the example of 141 unapproved purchases in the Department of Education totaling more than $1 million-- purchases that were made on Government credit cards for software, cell phones, Internet, computers. Even though DOD guidelines--Department of Defense guidelines--specifically say these things are not to be purchased on credit cards, you have $1 million worth of purchases, 141 purchases totaling $1 million. The point I make here is, the more rein and flexibility you give to the bureaucracy, the more dollars you throw away; without a firm accountability, the more it is going to be wasted. If we pass this amendment and we say the Senate has now spoken and has said that 95 cents will go to the classroom, when we hear about such things, people will be a little bit concerned about it. They will be more self- conscious. They will be more careful. It is going to be a win-win, a win for the kids in the classroom and a win for the taxpayers. This year tax freedom day was May 3, 2001, according to the tax foundation. Tax freedom day is the average day that Americans start working for themselves as opposed to the Government. President Bush's tax cut package will certainly help in that regard, but as it stands now, from January 1, 2001, to May 11, 2001, Americans work for their respective local and State governments and the Federal Government. That is, from January 1 to May 11, every dollar you earn went to one of those governments, local, State, or Federal. You didn't earn anything for yourself. You started earning money for yourself on May 12. I want every American to know that the money spent by the Federal Government should not be wasted, including the Department of Education. If we put this restriction on, we are making a very strong statement that we expect you to be accountable. We don't want to hear any more stories about 141 purchases totaling more than $1 million in unapproved credit card purchases or grant checks issued twice to the tune of $250 million. We don't want to hear about it. We are not going to tolerate it. That is what we are saying if we support this amendment. If you don't care, if you don't want the bureaucracy to be accountable and you couldn't care less whether we waste $250 million, even though taxpayers work hard until May 11 just to pay their bills, then you should vote against my amendment. I encourage you to vote against my amendment if that is what you believe. If you think it is OK that taxpayers can work until May 11 and not get a dime for themselves and you don't care about waste, fraud, or any other abuse in the bureaucracy, then vote against my amendment. But if you care about taxpayers saving their hard-earned money and putting it to use for themselves and you care about getting money directly to the classroom, to the kids, then you should vote for my amendment. That is exactly the way the amendment should be evaluated. You are either for kids getting the money and saving taxpayers money, or you are in favor of wasting taxpayer money and do not care whether the kids get the money in the classroom or not. It is pretty simple. The American people work very hard for that money. The Federal Government should not squander one cent of it. Actually, too many of our tax dollars are spent on bureaucracies at all levels of government, not just the Department of Education. That waste is not going to end tomorrow. We must pledge to do better. We must tell the Department of Education to give the money to the localities. Let them spend it as they see fit. Don't spend it here in Washington, DC, with some bureaucracy to funnel the money. Federal education dollars should not be spent to expand some bloated bureaucracy here in Washington. Lord knows, we have enough bloated bureaucracies here. Those precious dollars should go right to the educational opportunities of our kids. More education dollars should be spent directly in the classroom, and we need to shift the focus of our education system back to the students. This is a great way to do it. It is a simple statement. It is a sense of the Senate. It is not binding, but it is a sense of the Senate that says: We want you to do that. We expect you to do that. If you don't do it at the Department of Education, then we may just have to come after you. We expect you to save the money for the taxpayers and get the money to the students. My amendment supports the proposition that the best education is the education left to the local decisionmakers and that the best way to be accountable to our taxpayers is to eliminate the bureaucracy and the high cost of getting the money to the local community and getting it there quickly and cheaply. The Heritage Foundation issued a report recently titled ``U.S. Department of Education Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education, Where the Money Goes.'' It is a very interesting report. It found that as the United States prepares to enter the 21st century, its educational system is in crisis, the public education system. I agree with that. We talk about the crisis in energy and in other matters. There is a very interesting finding in this report. I will just give a brief quote from it: The vast majority of all Federal education funds does not go to schools or school districts. Think about that. The vast majority of all Federal education funds does not go to schools or school districts. That seems to be a dichotomy if I ever heard one. Why wouldn't it? Where is it going? In 1995, 33 percent of the total $100 billion the federal government allocated for education was spent by the Department of Education . . . 40 percent of Department of Education funds went to local educational agencies, 13.1 percent of total federal education spending. Contrary to what many Americans believe, the Department of Education funds very few elementary and secondary education programs in their local communities. That is an outrageous finding--they are funding very few elementary and secondary education programs. What is the purpose of the Federal Department of Education if it is not going to give money to local communities for elementary and secondary education? How do we get it to the classroom? What actually makes it to the classroom? What gets to the classroom? Let's find out. According to the Heritage Foundation: Audits around the country have found that as little as 26 percent of school district funds is being spent on classroom expenditures. Classroom expenditures are defined as expenditures for teachers and materials for their students--26 percent. If that is acceptable to my colleagues, vote against my amendment. Please vote against it because I want to be honest; I want to be straightforward. If my colleagues think it is OK to take a dollar from the taxpayer for education and 26 percent of that dollar goes to the kids and the rest does not, if that is OK with them, then please vote against my amendment. But if my colleagues really believe we ought to get the money to the kids, then vote for my amendment. Do my colleagues want to increase the bureaucracy and have a lot of people sitting around making decisions they should not be making and wasting money and having all these findings we just discussed a few moments ago? Then vote against my amendment. If they want to eliminate that and get the money directly to the kids, then they should vote for it. My amendment makes several findings to support the conclusion that 95 percent of all funds we are going to spend on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act be spent to improve the academic achievement of our children in their classrooms. My amendment, in finding 4, states that: Several States have reported that although they receive less than 10 percent of their education funding from the Federal Government, more than 50 percent of their education paperwork and administration efforts are associated with those Federal funds. Fifty percent of the paperwork is associated with the Federal funds. We always hear this talk about we are going to eliminate the bureaucracy, we are going to clear up the paperwork. It never happens. We are going to reinvent Government. How many times have we heard all these phrases? It is very simple. Just accept this resolution that it is unacceptable for anything less than 95 percent to go to the classroom and then enforce it. When my colleagues see all those bureaucracies popping up, let's get rid of them and put the money into the classrooms. We need to make sure that education money is not wasted on paperwork and administrative personnel. There always has to be a commission or a board or a bunch of people sitting around juggling papers to determine this requirement or that requirement, how much money goes here and who has to administer it, and then another bureaucracy pops up to administer the previous bureaucracy. Take a look at this. The Department of Education started less than 30 years ago at $2 billion, $3 billion. It is now in the tens of billions of dollars to run it. Unfortunately, only 26 cents on the dollar gets to the kids. My amendment, in finding 11, states: In fiscal year 1998 the paperwork and data reporting requirements of the Department of Education amounted to 40 million so-called-- Only in Government would we hear a phrase such as this-- burden hours, which is the equivalent of nearly 20,000 people working 40 hours a week for one full year. Time and energy which would be better spent teaching children in the classroom. Burden hours, only in Washington. It is like getting on an elevator in Washington. Only in Washington does one get on an elevator to go up to the basement. If you do not believe me, get on the elevator anywhere around here and you find that to be true. Only in Washington, only in Government, do we have these kinds of phrases. It is nonsense. Burden hours, the equivalent of nearly 20,000 people working 40 hours a week for 1 full year. The Federal Government needs to decrease paperwork requirements and data reporting. We have to stop talking about it and start doing it. Those Federal requirements may make for nice Government reports. There is a report right here. Here is the report on the bill. I am sure every Senator has read this word for word, sitting back in their offices at night. They read it before they go to bed. They get up in the morning and read every word of it. Look at this stuff. There are tens of thousands of pages of background that go into this report. Here is another one. Here is the bill. That is the report. This is the bill. This is even bigger and larger. Look, page after page after page--more bureaucracy. The Department needs to look at reducing regulations and how Federal money is spent, reducing paperwork. Madam President, I ask that the Senate go on record that not less than 95 cents of every Federal education dollar be spent or used in the classroom, and I do not think that is an unreasonable request. Has my time expired?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a comprehensive wildlife conservation measure, the American Wildlife Enhancement Act of 2001. This bill will help to increase conservation efforts by promoting local control and State partnerships through flexible, incentive driven conservation programs and increased partnerships with local land owners. The true conservationists are those who live on and work the land, and it is my intention to provide the incentives to help them continue those efforts. People don't come to New Hampshire for the malls. They come to kayak, bike, fish, swim, hunt, hike trails, ski, and more. That's our industry. We cannot, and should not, turn away from that. I believe that when we conserve our wildlife and wildlife areas, we affirm our long-standing tradition of honoring our natural American heritage. This bill is about achieving that goal in a cooperative, partnership approach, something that unfortunately, the Federal Government has too long neglected. This bill will accomplish these goals by infusing additional funds into the popular Pittman-Robertson program; establishing a new competitive matching grant fund that would allow private landowners to apply for assistance to protect endangered and threatened species on their land; and establishing a new competitive grant fund that would allow one or several States to apply for a grant to protect an area of regional or national significance through the purchase of an easement or acquisition. This measure represents our best, and most effective, chances of addressing the growing needs for wildlife conservation in our Nation. Title I of this bill authorizes $350 million a year to enhance the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration program. Unlike the existing Pittman-Robertson program, which is funded through a tax on hunting equipment, the enhanced program would be authorized for a specific time period, would have to compete for funds through the appropriations process and would be held in an account that is separate from the already established Wildlife Restoration Fund. Funds for this enhanced program would be distributed to the States through a formula based on land area and population, with no State receiving less than one percent of the available funding. Projects eligible for funding through the new program would include: acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat; hunter education; wildlife population surveys; construction of facilities to improve public access; management of wildlife areas; recreation; conservation education; and facility development and maintenance. States would pay for a project up front and would be reimbursed up to 75 percent of the total cost of the project. Similar language was included in last year's Commerce-State-Justice appropriations measure, but was authorized for one year, at a level of $50 million. The program has been successful since its inception, and should continue past this fiscal year. My bill would authorize this program for five years at a level of $350 million each year. The State of New Hampshire ranks 44th out of 50 States in land area and 41st in population. Still, the State received $487,000 out of the money appropriated in last year's Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. If my bill were enacted and fully appropriated, even a small State like New Hampshire would be eligible to receive $3.5 million. Believe me, $3.5 million would make an incredible difference not only for New Hampshire, but nationwide. There is not only a demonstrated need for these additional funds, but a keen interest in seeing this infusion of appropriations within a time-tested program, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Program, popular with sportsmen and women and conservationists alike. The second title of my bill establishes a new competitive matching grant fund that would allow private landowners to apply for assistance to protect endangered and threatened species on their land through the development and implementation of recovery agreements. A recovery agreement would provide an economic incentive to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species, list specific recovery goals, schedule an implementation plan, and monitor the results. In return for agreeing to carry out these activities, the landowner would receive financial compensation. Currently any effort that a private landowner undertakes to conserve an endangered species is paid for out-of-pocket. Under this bill though, for the first time, private landowners will be able to apply for a grant to assist in the recovery of endangered or threatened species on their property. In other words, they would be eligible to get compensation for some of the conservation measures that they now have to pay for themselves. That is a big step forward. Since approximately 90-percent of the listed endangered and threatened species inhabit non-federal lands, one of the keys to the successful recovery of our endangered and threatened species is the increased participation of private landowners. This is best achieved through a collaborative, not combative, process that provides landowners with an incentive to participate. This title is an amendment to the Endangered Species Act. This title should not be interpreted as a vehicle for comprehensive reform, but as a great opportunity to get dollars to those land owners who want to protect species today. I welcome the opportunity to work with all of my colleagues on comprehensive reform to the Endangered Species Act through hearings, debate and bipartisan legislation. However, in the meantime we need to provide private land owners the opportunity to protect the habitat of endangered species. The final title of my bill would establish a new competitive grant fund that would allow one or more States to apply for a grant to protect an area of regional or national significance through the purchase of an easement or acquisition. Without a source of flexible Federal funds such as this, States and local communities alone will be unable to protect some of the Nation's most important natural areas. I highlight the Northern Forest that spans the states of New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and New York; the Central Appalachian Highlands; the Mississippi Delta, just to name a few. This flexible funding will allow States and communities to protect vital natural, cultural and recreational areas without creating or expanding Federal units. Such a funding program promotes local control and multi-state partnerships, and is also cost-effective. I am a firm believer in preserving our national treasures for future generations to enjoy. I also believe that the States, local communities and individual property owners are in the best position to identify and protect the species and areas that are in the greatest need of conservation. But they also need financial assistance from the Federal Government to effectively conserve and manage the natural resources that need either protection or restoration. This belief is strongly reflected in my bill. I have received a very positive response for this bill from the interested constituencies, both in New Hampshire and nationwide. In general, there is a growing consensus that we must act now or we will lose many of our special places, and if we wait, what is destroyed or lost will be gone forever. It is our responsibility to act as stewards of the environment. I have said it before and I will say it again: it is not anti-conservative to be pro-environment. This bill is one that should attract the interest of both sides of the aisle. On that note, I would like to thank Senator Reid, my counterpart on the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his leadership on the issue of wildlife conservation. In April, he chaired a field hearing in Reno, NV, on State wildlife and conservation issues. I know he is engaged in this matter, and I look forward to working with him to advance the goals of the American Wildlife Enhancement Act. I encourage my colleagues to support the American Wildlife Enhancement Act of 2001 and ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a comprehensive wildlife conservation measure, the American Wildlife Enhancement Act of 2001. This bill will help to increase conservation efforts by promoting local control and State partnerships through flexible, incentive driven conservation programs and increased partnerships with local land owners. The true conservationists are those who live on and work the land, and it is my intention to provide the incentives to help them continue those efforts. People don't come to New Hampshire for the malls. They come to kayak, bike, fish, swim, hunt, hike trails, ski, and more. That's our industry. We cannot, and should not, turn away from that. I believe that when we conserve our wildlife and wildlife areas, we affirm our long-standing tradition of honoring our natural American heritage. This bill is about achieving that goal in a cooperative, partnership approach, something that unfortunately, the Federal Government has too long neglected. This bill will accomplish these goals by infusing additional funds into the popular Pittman-Robertson program; establishing a new competitive matching grant fund that would allow private landowners to apply for assistance to protect endangered and threatened species on their land; and establishing a new competitive grant fund that would allow one or several States to apply for a grant to protect an area of regional or national significance through the purchase of an easement or acquisition. This measure represents our best, and most effective, chances of addressing the growing needs for wildlife conservation in our Nation. Title I of this bill authorizes $350 million a year to enhance the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration program. Unlike the existing Pittman-Robertson program, which is funded through a tax on hunting equipment, the enhanced program would be authorized for a specific time period, would have to compete for funds through the appropriations process and would be held in an account that is separate from the already established Wildlife Restoration Fund. Funds for this enhanced program would be distributed to the States through a formula based on land area and population, with no State receiving less than one percent of the available funding. Projects eligible for funding through the new program would include: acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat; hunter education; wildlife population surveys; construction of facilities to improve public access; management of wildlife areas; recreation; conservation education; and facility development and maintenance. States would pay for a project up front and would be reimbursed up to 75 percent of the total cost of the project. Similar language was included in last year's Commerce-State-Justice appropriations measure, but was authorized for one year, at a level of $50 million. The program has been successful since its inception, and should continue past this fiscal year. My bill would authorize this program for five years at a level of $350 million each year. The State of New Hampshire ranks 44th out of 50 States in land area and 41st in population. Still, the State received $487,000 out of the money appropriated in last year's Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. If my bill were enacted and fully appropriated, even a small State like New Hampshire would be eligible to receive $3.5 million. Believe me, $3.5 million would make an incredible difference not only for New Hampshire, but nationwide. There is not only a demonstrated need for these additional funds, but a keen interest in seeing this infusion of appropriations within a time-tested program, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Program, popular with sportsmen and women and conservationists alike. The second title of my bill establishes a new competitive matching grant fund that would allow private landowners to apply for assistance to protect endangered and threatened species on their land through the development and implementation of recovery agreements. A recovery agreement would provide an economic incentive to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species, list specific recovery goals, schedule an implementation plan, and monitor the results. In return for agreeing to carry out these activities, the landowner would receive financial compensation. Currently any effort that a private landowner undertakes to conserve an endangered species is paid for out-of-pocket. Under this bill though, for the first time, private landowners will be able to apply for a grant to assist in the recovery of endangered or threatened species on their property. In other words, they would be eligible to get compensation for some of the conservation measures that they now have to pay for themselves. That is a big step forward. Since approximately 90-percent of the listed endangered and threatened species inhabit non-federal lands, one of the keys to the successful recovery of our endangered and threatened species is the increased participation of private landowners. This is best achieved through a collaborative, not combative, process that provides landowners with an incentive to participate. This title is an amendment to the Endangered Species Act. This title should not be interpreted as a vehicle for comprehensive reform, but as a great opportunity to get dollars to those land owners who want to protect species today. I welcome the opportunity to work with all of my colleagues on comprehensive reform to the Endangered Species Act through hearings, debate and bipartisan legislation. However, in the meantime we need to provide private land owners the opportunity to protect the habitat of endangered species. The final title of my bill would establish a new competitive grant fund that would allow one or more States to apply for a grant to protect an area of regional or national significance through the purchase of an easement or acquisition. Without a source of flexible Federal funds such as this, States and local communities alone will be unable to protect some of the Nation's most important natural areas. I highlight the Northern Forest that spans the states of New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and New York; the Central Appalachian Highlands; the Mississippi Delta, just to name a few. This flexible funding will allow States and communities to protect vital natural, cultural and recreational areas without creating or expanding Federal units. Such a funding program promotes local control and multi-state partnerships, and is also cost-effective. I am a firm believer in preserving our national treasures for future generations to enjoy. I also believe that the States, local communities and individual property owners are in the best position to identify and protect the species and areas that are in the greatest need of conservation. But they also need financial assistance from the Federal Government to effectively conserve and manage the natural resources that need either protection or restoration. This belief is strongly reflected in my bill. I have received a very positive response for this bill from the interested constituencies, both in New Hampshire and nationwide. In general, there is a growing consensus that we must act now or we will lose many of our special places, and if we wait, what is destroyed or lost will be gone forever. It is our responsibility to act as stewards of the environment. I have said it before and I will say it again: it is not anti-conservative to be pro-environment. This bill is one that should attract the interest of both sides of the aisle. On that note, I would like to thank Senator Reid, my counterpart on the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his leadership on the issue of wildlife conservation. In April, he chaired a field hearing in Reno, NV, on State wildlife and conservation issues. I know he is engaged in this matter, and I look forward to working with him to advance the goals of the American Wildlife Enhancement Act. I encourage my colleagues to support the American Wildlife Enhancement Act of 2001 and ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, with the approach of Memorial Day, it is my privilege to call the attention of this body to one of the greatest, yet least known, acts of sustained heroism in the history of the United States. It occurred 50 years ago in the sixth month of the Korean war. In December of 1950 American forces accomplished the unbelievable evacuation of 100,000 Allied troops from the port city of Hungnam in North Korea, barely hours ahead of the charging forces of our two newest enemies, North Korea and Communist China. At the same time our American soldiers, sailors, and marines, managed to evacuate another 100,000 persons, all North Korean civilian refugees who were fleeing their own harsh dictatorship and the ruthless Chinese army whose leaders had threatened to cut off their heads because some had been aiding our United Nations forces. One of the most heroic acts in the evacuation of Hungnam is the virtually unknown story of a small American merchant marine freighter, the S.S. Meredith Victory. With space for only twelve passengers, the ship loaded and rescued 14,000 North Koreans--the innocent people of our enemy--old men, young mothers with their babies on their backs and at their breasts, children carrying children. Their rescue was accomplished during one danger-filled voyage of three days and three nights in bitter winter cold that ended in safety and freedom on Christmas Day. The United States Government, through its Maritime Administration, has called it ``the greatest rescue operation by a single ship in the history of mankind.'' The Korean war has been called ``America's forgotten war,'' and the evacuation of Hungnam has been called ``the forgotten battle in the forgotten war.'' I submit, that the heroic story of the men of the S.S. Meredith Victory is ``the forgotten rescue.'' Fortunately, this story is now being brought to the attention of the American people in a new book ``Ship of Miracles'' by Bill Gilbert, a former reporter for the Washington Post who served in the U.S. Air Force during and after the Korean war. The foreword to his book is written by General Alexander M. Haig Jr. whose career included serving as White House chief of staff, NATO commander, and Secretary of State. Appropriately, however, General Haig served in Korea during the war and was directly involved in the rescue of our troops and the refugees from Hungnam. The book was released by Triumph Books of Chicago. General Haig states in his foreword, ``The story of Hungnam and the Meredith Victory is a brilliant yet relatively unknown chapter in American history that can now take its place, during this fiftieth anniversary of the Korean war, among such legendary names as Bunker Hill, Midway, the Battle of the Bulge, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. This book did not just deserve to be written--it needed to be written.'' The men of the Meredith Victory, led by their captain, Leonard LaRue of Philadelphia, emerge as the heroes of this amazing story. Every one of the 14,000 refugees aboard that ship survived, plus five babies born enroute to safety with no doctors to help. There was no food for the refugees, no water, no sanitation facilities, no interpreters, and no protection against the enemy. The men of the Meredith Victory accomplished their rescue while sailing through one of the heaviest- laid mine fields in the history of naval warfare with no mine detectors. They had no anti-aircraft guns in case of an air attack. Radio contact with other ships was forbidden for security reasons. To add to the prolonged tension, the ship was carrying a large supply of jet fuel. The Meredith Victory arrived at Pusan on the southern tip of the Korean Peninsula on Christmas eve but was not allowed to land because the port was already overflowing with refugees and rescued American troops. Captain LaRue wrote later of ``these people aboard who, like the Holy Family many centuries before, were themselves refugees from a tyrannical force.'' The ship did land safely on Christmas Day on Koje- Do island, fifty miles southwest of Pusan. One of the Navy officers who participated in the Hungnam evacuation was the late Admiral Arleigh Burke who became Chief of Naval Operations. He later said, ``As a result of the extraordinary efforts of the men of the Meredith Victory, many people are now free who otherwise might well be under the Communist yoke. Many unknown Koreans owe the future freedom of their children to the efforts of these men.'' Larry King, the talk show host, said `` `Ship of Miracles' will make you proud to be an American.'' The book has already won its first award. Mr. Gilbert has been awarded the Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt Naval History Prize, awarded annually by the New York Council of the Navy League. The Council's president, Rear Admiral Robert A. Ravitz (USNR, ret.), said Mr. Gilbert was selected ``because his book tells a story of American heroism and humanitarianism which has gone overlooked for 50 years and should be told and made a shining part of our military history.'' Admiral Ravitz added, ``At a time when we are reading other stories about what American forces did or didn't do in Korea and elsewhere, Mr. Gilbert has made a valuable contribution to American history of revealing this story of both the bravery and the goodness of America's men in time of war.'' For these reasons, our nation owes a debt to Bill Gilbert on this Memorial Day for writing a book which reminds the American people of that forgotten war and of an heroic incident in that war by the brave men of the S.S. Meredith Victory.