Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, twenty years ago, President Ronald Reagan took office with daunting tasks before him. A year before, the Soviet Red Army had invaded Afghanistan, and Soviet proxy forces were challenging U.S. allies and interests in Central America, in Africa, and elsewhere. American hostages were still being held in Tehran, and the United States was suffering an acute crisis of confidence. Faced with an expansionistic Soviet Union that intimidated the Free World with nuclear weapons and a Communist ideology spread by Soviet-supported insurgencies and armed coups, President Reagan dedicated his Administration to resisting this global menace and toward winning the Cold War. President Reagan rejected the notion that the Soviet Union would modify its belligerence if only allowed to match U.S. military strength. He rejected the idea that the Evil Empire was indivisible, by implementing the Reagan doctrine, which met the Soviet proxy challenge in the Third World in Afghanistan, Nicaragua and Angola, and by funding Solidarity in Poland. On March 23, 1983, President Reagan set forth a broad vision of building a space-based defense, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), to free the American people from the threat of nuclear annihilation and to protect the public from an accidental nuclear launch initiated by the Soviet Union or by a rogue state or actor. The critics labeled it ``Star Wars'' after the blockbuster hit by the same name and scoffed that it would never work. They publicly floated the notion that SDI was only a bargaining chip for arms control negotiations. America held its breath while President Reagan, remaining faithful to his vision, turned down President Gorbachev's offer at Reyjavik, because it would have meant the end of SDI. Reagan refused to give up his dreams of assured survival to replace assured destruction. Yet only twenty years earlier, President John F. Kennedy, after the Soviet launching of Sputnik, promised to put a man on the moon, and the Apollo program was born. Today, as the technology to intercept incoming missiles is being tested, Reagan's vision, like that of John F. Kennedy, is being realized, and the irrational notion of mutual assured destruction (MAD) pushed by arms control zealots is being dealt a mortal blow. Progress towards a national missile defense has not been impeded primarily by technical limitations, but rather by political obstruction, foot-dragging and by restraints of an imprudent treaty signed with a power that no longer exists. The ABM Treaty signed with the now-defunct USSR denies effective antimissile protections for the United States. As a result, the American people continue to remain undefended in the event of a missile attack. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall more than 10 years ago, and the collapse of the Soviet empire, Russia continues to pursue programs and policies that place the U.S. in conflict with the Russian Government, especially in the area of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear war- fighting. There is also rapid proliferation of ballistic missile and nuclear technology world-wide. In recognition of President Reagan's dedication to providing America with protection from her enemies, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join with me in supporting the renaming of the Army Missile Testing Range in the Republic of the Marshall Islands as the Ronald Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll. I would like to point out that Kwajalein is a valuable national asset with a prime location for space surveillance, the ability to handle both long and short-range missions, and a suite of radars unsurpassed for assesssing missile intercepts. In 1986, President Reagan isssued Proclamation 5564, implementing the Compact of Free Association between the two nations, a key element of which granted the U.S. Department of Defense leasing rights to the Kwajalein Atoll for development of a national missile defense program, or the Strategic Defense Initiative. SDI was Ronald Reagan's greatest dream, and I believe that most of us look forward to its near-term fulfillment. The Marshallese legislature in February of 1999 decided to commemorate President Reagan in this manner by enacting Resolution 85. Therefore, I think it only fitting that the Senate concur in this tribute to a great President, leader and patriot, and a man, who because of his courage in attacking the conventional wisdom of his era, and because of his extraordinary and courageous vision, has changed the course of history. I am also including in the Record a fitting tribute to President Reagan by Winston Churchill which describes the impact that SDI had on the Soviet empire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, twenty years ago, President Ronald Reagan took office with daunting tasks before him. A year before, the Soviet Red Army had invaded Afghanistan, and Soviet proxy forces were challenging U.S. allies and interests in Central America, in Africa, and elsewhere. American hostages were still being held in Tehran, and the United States was suffering an acute crisis of confidence. Faced with an expansionistic Soviet Union that intimidated the Free World with nuclear weapons and a Communist ideology spread by Soviet-supported insurgencies and armed coups, President Reagan dedicated his Administration to resisting this global menace and toward winning the Cold War. President Reagan rejected the notion that the Soviet Union would modify its belligerence if only allowed to match U.S. military strength. He rejected the idea that the Evil Empire was indivisible, by implementing the Reagan doctrine, which met the Soviet proxy challenge in the Third World in Afghanistan, Nicaragua and Angola, and by funding Solidarity in Poland. On March 23, 1983, President Reagan set forth a broad vision of building a space-based defense, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), to free the American people from the threat of nuclear annihilation and to protect the public from an accidental nuclear launch initiated by the Soviet Union or by a rogue state or actor. The critics labeled it ``Star Wars'' after the blockbuster hit by the same name and scoffed that it would never work. They publicly floated the notion that SDI was only a bargaining chip for arms control negotiations. America held its breath while President Reagan, remaining faithful to his vision, turned down President Gorbachev's offer at Reyjavik, because it would have meant the end of SDI. Reagan refused to give up his dreams of assured survival to replace assured destruction. Yet only twenty years earlier, President John F. Kennedy, after the Soviet launching of Sputnik, promised to put a man on the moon, and the Apollo program was born. Today, as the technology to intercept incoming missiles is being tested, Reagan's vision, like that of John F. Kennedy, is being realized, and the irrational notion of mutual assured destruction (MAD) pushed by arms control zealots is being dealt a mortal blow. Progress towards a national missile defense has not been impeded primarily by technical limitations, but rather by political obstruction, foot-dragging and by restraints of an imprudent treaty signed with a power that no longer exists. The ABM Treaty signed with the now-defunct USSR denies effective antimissile protections for the United States. As a result, the American people continue to remain undefended in the event of a missile attack. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall more than 10 years ago, and the collapse of the Soviet empire, Russia continues to pursue programs and policies that place the U.S. in conflict with the Russian Government, especially in the area of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear war- fighting. There is also rapid proliferation of ballistic missile and nuclear technology world-wide. In recognition of President Reagan's dedication to providing America with protection from her enemies, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join with me in supporting the renaming of the Army Missile Testing Range in the Republic of the Marshall Islands as the Ronald Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll. I would like to point out that Kwajalein is a valuable national asset with a prime location for space surveillance, the ability to handle both long and short-range missions, and a suite of radars unsurpassed for assesssing missile intercepts. In 1986, President Reagan isssued Proclamation 5564, implementing the Compact of Free Association between the two nations, a key element of which granted the U.S. Department of Defense leasing rights to the Kwajalein Atoll for development of a national missile defense program, or the Strategic Defense Initiative. SDI was Ronald Reagan's greatest dream, and I believe that most of us look forward to its near-term fulfillment. The Marshallese legislature in February of 1999 decided to commemorate President Reagan in this manner by enacting Resolution 85. Therefore, I think it only fitting that the Senate concur in this tribute to a great President, leader and patriot, and a man, who because of his courage in attacking the conventional wisdom of his era, and because of his extraordinary and courageous vision, has changed the course of history. I am also including in the Record a fitting tribute to President Reagan by Winston Churchill which describes the impact that SDI had on the Soviet empire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men and women of the Rochester Fire Department, whose quick thinking and willingness to put their lives on the line for their fellow citizens helped save the lives of three families trapped inside their burning apartment building. The fire that engulfed the apartment building on 19 Sumner Street the night of January 11th could have resulted in the loss of many lives. Instead, the families that lived there, including two very young children, are alive and recovering today because the men and women of the Rochester Fire Department risked their lives to save these families. We often forget just how much these courageous people risk in the service of others. As they go to work each and every day, firefighters are taking the ultimate risk so they can protect and serve their neighbors. Despite their heroic deeds, the men and women of the Rochester Fire Department remain humble about their amazing rescue. Ask any of them and they will tell you they were merely ``doing their job'', and they would do it again if someone else's family needed help. Their unselfishness, professionalism, and dedication keep all of us safe. I thank the men and women of the Rochester Fire Department for their bravery and hard work. It is truly an honor to serve them and all of the firefighters in our great state.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Terry Wheelock upon the occasion of his receiving the Merrimack Chamber's Presidential Award. Terry has been with the Chamber for many years, and he has proven himself to be an integral asset. Terry has invested much effort, time, and dedication to chamber events and meetings. His love of the game of golf has aided the chamber through fund-raising tournaments. His personality fills the group with enthusiasm, and his talents constantly gain praise from his peers. His warmth and personality have been a constant positive influence for those around him. Mary Jo and I applaud his devotion and hard work for the Merrimack Chamber. Terry, it is a pleasure to represent you in the United States Senate. I wish you the best of luck in you future endeavors. May you always continue to inspire those around you.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Cindy Taylor upon the occasion of her being recognized as the Merrimack Chamber of Commerce 1999 Business Person of the Year. Cindy has faithfully served the chamber and its members for the past two years, and she has become an example for other volunteers to follow. Her position with the Public Service Company of New Hampshire inspired Cindy to become involved with the chamber in 1998. She was almost immediately nominated as the ambassador at various chamber events. In 1999, Cindy became vice president of membership for the chamber. With Cindy at the helm, the committee increased its numbers by 20%. During this period, Cindy also co-chaired the annual banquet committee. This position required an extensive amount of effort in planning and executing the celebration. Cindy's participation in any project guarantees organization, dedication and quality. She is one whose input is valued on all projects, and who desires to hear the opinions of others. She is truly a team-player, and was subsequently nominated as Chamber President for the year 2000. Cindy, it is a pleasure to represent such a valuable woman from New Hampshire in the United States Senate. Mary Jo and I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. May you always continue to inspire those around you.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Master Chief Thomas Peschke upon his retiring from the United States Naval and Marine Corps. Thomas has faithfully served his country and its citizens for more than thirty years. As a Navy veteran myself, I know firsthand the dedication and hard work that this entails. Thomas is one who has exhibited integrity, courage, honor, and leadership, and has gained the respect of his peers, and superiors. He is truly an example by which future generations can set their compass as they sail into the future. I wish Thomas much happiness as he embarks upon his new journey in life. He will be greatly missed. Thomas, it has been a pleasure to represent you in the United States Senate. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. May you always continue to inspire those around you.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dave McDuffee on his receiving the Merrimack Chamber of Commerce Organization of the Year award. This award recognizes one organization or business which is dedicated to reaching out to the community. At the helm of any corporation, there is always one individual who stands out as beacon which lights the path for fellow workers to follow. Dave is such an individual. As President of McDuffee Insurance, Dave has learned that a solid business structure rests on the surrounding community. Dave's working career has been dedicated to both the insurance business and the community. In 1981, Dave started his own insurance agency with offices in Pepperell, Massachusetts and Merrimack, New Hampshire. A few years later, he added another office in Dover. Dave's business, which began with himself and a secretary, has grown to be the largest independently owned agency in New Hampshire with nearly 40 employees. With effort, dedication, and hard work, Dave has built a growing empire in its own right. Few men could do as he has done without his courage and drive. Additionally, Dave has managed to place his agency at the forefront of community affairs. Dave is a firm believer in people and businesses coming together for the betterment of the community. He strongly urges members of his board to participate in community events and activities. His agency has been a sponsor of the Merrimack Chamber's golf tournaments, MYA teams, and numerous other charities. It is an honor to represent Dave McDuffee in the United States Senate. Mary Jo and I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. May you always continue to inspire those around you in their dedication to the community.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise along with Senator Hatch to support the Right to Bear Arms Protection and Privacy Act of 2000. This bill embodies the goals of several bills I have previously introduced, and its passage would be a great relief for millions of law abiding gun owners who want their rights protected. Mr. President, this administration has launched an all-out assault on gun owners and gunmakers in an attempt to blame them for the crime problem that has resulted from the revolving-door criminal justice approach taken by liberal judges throughout this country. I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch to move this bill expeditiously through the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise along with Senator Hatch to support the Right to Bear Arms Protection and Privacy Act of 2000. This bill embodies the goals of several bills I have previously introduced, and its passage would be a great relief for millions of law abiding gun owners who want their rights protected. Mr. President, this administration has launched an all-out assault on gun owners and gunmakers in an attempt to blame them for the crime problem that has resulted from the revolving-door criminal justice approach taken by liberal judges throughout this country. I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch to move this bill expeditiously through the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of this important legislation, I believe the time has come for us to put an end to the Social Security earnings test. Our seniors have worked hard to build a life for their families and have given up a great deal to provide a future for all of us. They have made sacrifices far beyond what has been required of most of us. And yet, many in Washington and in the White House have sought to reward seniors by snatching more and more of their hard-earned dollars. Unfortunately, staying in the work force is often not a choice, but a necessity. Many seniors are forced to work either for survival or because they must supplement their meager monthly Social Security check. Seniors should not be punished for simply trying to make it to the end of the month. This bill represents the first step in reversing many of the punitive taxes we have levied on both seniors and working families across America. I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this monumental legislation. Every year, about 800,000 seniors suffer the affects of the Social Security earnings test--many of whom can barely afford the month's rent or proper meals. Under the current law, recipients of Social Security between the ages of 65 and 69 can only earn up to $17,000 without penalty. However, any income in excess of $17,000 would have the Federal Government taking $1 for every $3 they earn. This means that the Federal Government is imposing a marginal tax rate of 33 percent on the poorest segment of our society. But it does not stop there. Andrew Quinlan, executive director of Capital Watch correctly states: To further add insult to injury, workers must also pay a host of taxes on the original dollar, which may raise their marginal income tax rate to greater than that of sports stars and Wall Street high rollers. Sandra Butler, president of United Seniors Association echoes that thought: The punitive nature of the Earnings Limit is obvious; By itself, the Earnings Limit imposes a 33 percent marginal tax rate on seniors. Ms. Butler continues: In combination with federal income and payroll taxes, the Earnings Limit forces seniors to pay higher marginal tax rates than millionaires. This is unconscionable. I must agree. Some seniors could be looking at a marginal tax rate of 59 percent. This tax is unconscionable. But as Machiavellian as that may sound, it gets worse for seniors who are forced or choose to retire early. Seniors who retire between the ages of 62-65 have $1 for every $2 they earn in excess of $10,080 confiscated from their check. Translation: Uncle Sam is taking half of every dollar earned from those who can least afford it. Established during the depression of the 1930's, the earnings test was meant to discourage older workers from re-entering the labor force and taking jobs from younger workers. However, with the extremely tight labor pool available to employers today, it makes sense to access the experienced, productive, and valuable work force seniors represent. Gerald Howard, senior vice president with the National Association of Home Builders agrees. He says: Because the skills of decades ago are no longer taught in current education and training programs, home builders recognize the special need to keep and utilize the unique talents of retirees. For our nation's home builders, retaining skilled retirees is important in meeting our workforce needs. According to the Department of Labor, 240,000 new workers must be recruited and trained each year to meet the Nation's growing demands in the building industry alone. However, these requirements are not being met. And it is not limited to the building industry. All sectors are feeling the pinch. Dr. Charles Roadman, president and CEO of American Health Care Association has urged the President and the Vice President to ``take bold action to ease the shortage of skilled nursing professionals that has reached epidemic levels'' by supporting the Congress in their effort to eliminate the earning penalty. If we wish to continue growing the economy, we must free up those with the experience and know-how to meet countries employment needs-- our seniors. Unfortunately, the Social Security earnings test serves as a disincentive for those who may wish to work. This disincentive effect is magnified when viewed on an after-tax basis. Senior citizens who work stand to lose a substantial percentage of their Social Security benefits due to the Social Security earnings test. In addition to the earning test tax, they must also continue to pay Social Security taxes, and, most likely, other Federal and State income taxes as well. The Social Security earnings test forces senior citizens to avoid work, seek lower paying work, or get wages ``under the table,'' turning honest folks who are just trying to get by into common criminals. The Social Security earnings test is unfair and inappropriate. It imposes a form of ``means test'' on retirement benefits. Social Security benefits have been earned by a lifetime of contributions to the program. American workers have been led to regard Social Security as a government-run savings plan. Indeed, their acceptance of the near 15-percent Social Security payroll tax has been predicated on the belief that they will get their money back at retirement. Thus, most Americans do not accept the rationale that the return of their money should be decreased just because they continue to work. Additionally, the Social Security earnings test discriminates against senior citizens who must work in order to supplement their benefits. Clearly, the Social Security earnings test is inequitable to our Nation's senior citizens who are in the greatest need of extra income. In addition to being complicated and difficult for folks to understand, the Social Security earnings test is complex and costly for the Government to administer. For example, the test is responsible for more than one-half of retirement and survivor program overpayments. Elimination of the earnings test would help minimize administration expenses, and recipients would be less confused and less tempted to cheat on reporting their earnings. Finally, repealing the Social Security earnings test would greatly aid our country's economy. Our senior would be likely to work more and the American economy would benefit from their experience and skills. The combined increase in the amounts that they would pay in Social Security and other taxes, as well as the additional contribution to our gross domestic product, would largely offset the increase in benefit payments. For decades, our senior citizens have worked and dutifully. They have paid their share into the Social Security retirement account and it is only fair that they receive their Social Security benefits in full when they retire. I ask my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent time be charged equally to both sides, in the quorum.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I just wanted to protect the time I had. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 9, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to hold closed hearings on intelligence matters.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia be permitted to meet on Thursday, March 9, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing on Managing Human Capital in the Twenty-first Century.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session for the consideration of S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act, during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2000.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 9, 2000, to hear testimony regarding Penalty and Interest Provisions in the Internal Revenue Code.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 9, 2000, at 2:00 pm to hold a SD-419.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 9, 2000, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 9, 9:00 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 9, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on active and reserve military and civilian personnel programs in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2001 and the Future Years Defense program.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today has unanimously passed S. 1653, a bill to reauthorize and amend the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Committee on Environment and Public Works, which I chair, reported this bill, again unanimously, last month. At that time, I noted how important it was to get the local communities and businesses involved in protecting the environment. The Foundation was created in 1984 because Congress saw the need to create a private, nonprofit organization that could build public- private partnerships and consensus, where previously there had only been acrimony and, many times, contentious litigation. It was also envisioned that the Foundation would serve as an important tool in our effort to make a difference on the ground in communities throughout the United States. In its 16 years of existence the Foundation has more than lived up to our original expectations. We have long known that the Federal government does not have all the financial resources necessary to solve the numerous environmental problems that exist in our country. We also know that local communities care and know more about their natural environment than the agencies in Washington, D.C. More often than not local communities recognize problems before they become environmental disasters that require significant amounts of money to resolve, if they can even be resolved. In order to ensure that the funds are available to local communities the Foundation has established something called ``challenge grants.'' ``Challenge grants'' are a mixture of federal and non-federal funds directed to on-the-ground conservation projects. They are called ``challenge grants'' because any grant awarded is expected to be matched by non-federal dollars. During this time of fiscal constraint, it is important to use all available resources to help us protect the environment. Local communities, states, individuals, nonprofit organizations and businesses can apply to the Foundation for a ``challenge grant'' for a specific project in one of five major areas: conservation education, wetlands and private lands, neotropical bird conservation, fisheries conservation and management, and wildlife and habitat management. Since 1984, the Foundation has raised over $305 million in private donations using $135 million in Federal funds as leverage. Last year alone, they raised more than $50 million using $17 million of federal seed money. With these funds, the Foundation has financed more than 3,500 conservation projects throughout the United States and in 35 other countries. This is an extremely impressive record. Moreover, all of the Foundation's operating costs are covered by private donations, which means that federal and private dollars given for conservation are spent only on conservation. The Foundation's 1999 annual report was just released, and I encourage all my colleagues to take a look at the number of partnerships that the Foundation has forged with, and the range of innovative projects that they have spearheaded. The organizations that the Foundation works with are a virtual who's who in the business world. Let me take a few minutes to discuss some of the projects they are currently working on. The Foundation has pioneered some notable conservation programs, including implementing the North American Waterfowl Management plan, Partners in Flight for neotropical birds, Bring Back the Natives Program, the Exxon Save the Tiger Fund, and the establishment of the Conservation Plan for Sterling Forest in New York and New Jersey, to name a few. The Shell Oil Company has pledged $5 million to the Foundation over the next five years to create the Shell Marine Habitat Program, a matching grant program. The Shell Marine Habitat Program supports problem-solving habitat restoration projects, practical research, education programs and innovative partnerships to preserve the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf coast marine environments. Funding is focused on efforts to reduce hypoxia and red and brown tides, and to protect barrier islands, coral reefs and other marine habitats. Last year alone $3.4 million were spent on these efforts, $3.15 million of which was from Shell and other private donors. More importantly, this project is receiving a significant amount of local support. A day-long effort last year to restore saltmarsh habitat had over 1,500 volunteers who planted 57,000 plants. It is these kinds of efforts that will make a significant difference to the health of the Gulf of Mexico. Another fine example is the Budweiser Outdoor Programs. For six weeks last fall, a percentage of all bottles and cans of Budweiser sold was allocated for conservation purposes. The Foundation partnership with Budweiser resulted in more than a quarter of a million dollars that will help conserve vital elk and deer habitat, enhance wetlands and sustain healthy upland game bird populations in the Rocky Mountains. In New Hampshire the Foundation worked closely with local organizations to purchase a 60-acre conservation easement along the entire shoreline of Clarksville Pond. Clarksville Pond is a beautiful area located in the heart of the Northern Forest. The owners of this land own a small campground that they needed to make some improvements which they could not afford. The sale of a permanent public access conservation easement was one way the property owners could raise the necessary funds without selling their land, and losing their livelihood. This is a win-win situation for everyone involved. The property owners were able to keep their land, the public was granted permanent access to the pond, and this beautiful area will remain undeveloped. As I said, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has more than fulfilled the hopes of its original sponsors. It has helped to bring cooperative solutions to some difficult natural resource issues and is becoming widely recognized for its innovative approach to solving environmental problems. I strongly support the Foundation's work and want it to continue its important conservation efforts. Mr. President, this legislation is quite simple. It makes three key changes to current law. First, the bill would expand the Foundation's governing Board of Directors from 15 members to 25 members. This will allow a greater number of individuals with a strong interest in conservation to actively participate in, and contribute to, the Foundation's activities. The bill's second key feature would expand the Foundation's jurisdiction. Currently, the Foundation is only authorized to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. S. 1653 would authorize them to work with all agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce. Mr. President, it is my view that the Foundation has an excellent track record, and all the agencies within the Departments of the Interior and Commerce should benefit from their knowledge and experience. Finally, the bill would reauthorize appropriations to the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce through 2004. Mr. President, last year this bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but unfortunately the House was unable to duplicate our efforts. I believe that this legislation will produce real conservation benefits and I thank my colleagues for once again giving the bill their support.