Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I would answer the question, because my colleague from New Hampshire is in New Hampshire attending a funeral. I would otherwise be happy to move to the vote right now. I renew my request that we proceed to the bill.

Mr. GREGG. I will yield for a question. I am sure it will be an excellent question.

Mr. GREGG. I will yield in a second. But the question was why I made this statement. It was because the Senator from Michigan asked me. I was stunned, startled, and surprised by the Senator from Massachusetts who, upon--and I understand that he was in a conversation and probably didn't hear the Senator from Michigan ask me. But had he heard the Senator from Michigan ask me, I am sure he would have said that is a reasonable response to the Senator from Michigan, I agree with it, and we should move to a vote. I am also surprised that someone on the other side of the aisle is objecting to proceeding to the issue without a vote. If that is the case, that is the case; so be it; let us have the vote tomorrow. But if you want to proceed to the issue right now, I am perfectly willing to do that without a vote.

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate that question. I wasn't here this morning when you asked that question. But there is a tempo to this body. And the tempo involves putting on the Record the reasons this bill was, in my opinion, being brought forward in a manner which was inconsistent with the agreements which had been reached, in my opinion, within the committee. There are two items that were represented as being fixed before the bill came to the floor, in my opinion. Neither of those items was corrected. The bill has had a very short shelf life. It was introduced last--we saw it for the first time, I believe, last Wednesday morning. It was passed last Thursday, and it was on the floor without a report on Monday. During that period of it being passed in the committee on Thursday, there was an understanding between Senator Edwards and myself that part of the bill was incorrect and it would be fixed. Between Senator Frist and Senator Edwards, there was another part of the bill that was incorrect which would be fixed. For me, it seems inappropriate to move to the bill in such rapidity without having made that point--that point I spent a considerable amount of time making this morning and this afternoon, and which I am happy to continue to make. But as a practical matter, I think the point has been made. I am willing to proceed to the bill, as the Senator from Michigan said. She came to the floor while I was here. I wasn't here this morning. Regrettably, I didn't hear your excellent speech. I am sure it was an excellent speech. But I was here to hear your last excellent speech. In response to it, I thought: Gee, let us proceed to the bill rather than have a vote tomorrow. We can have a vote tomorrow. I would counsel everyone to vote in favor of it, if they can.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. I would be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. GREGG. I will represent--and hopefully people will take the representation as accurate--that the Senator from Michigan was on the floor asking why I was slowing the bill down and called on me to----

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, crocodile tears are being shed here, I see. We agree to vitiate the vote. But we didn't want to vitiate the vote. We agree to proceed to the bill. We don't want to proceed to the bill. All day we heard about how outrageous it was that we were having to go to a vote. Suddenly, crocodile tears appear to be shed early today. My reason for suggesting that we vitiate the vote was in response to the specific comments of the Senator from Michigan. The Senator from Michigan came to the floor and called upon me by name and by State to proceed with the bill. That is what the Senator from Michigan called upon me to do. I ask if it is possible to read back the statement the Senator from Michigan made just prior to the most recent exchange.

Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Regular order. I ask for regular order.

Mr. GREGG. Regular order. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent we vitiate the cloture vote and proceed to the bill.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent----

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for me to make that request? The Senator suggested I make the request. I am willing to make it.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the bill; we vitiate the vote on cloture and proceed to the bill.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Yes, but I believe the Senator from Minnesota wishes to proceed after the minority leader.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. This bill was reported out of the committee on which I am ranking member. At the time it was reported out, which was last Thursday--so it has been a very quick turnaround and no report has been filed on the bill--there was an understanding within the committee that there would be two issues resolved before it came to the floor. One involved bioequivalency and the other involved the 45-day rule. There are other issues with the bill. There are other issues which may require further work, but those two issues need to be resolved before this bill comes to the floor. As I believe was the understanding when the bill was passed out of committee, it would be passed with those being resolved before it got to the floor. I understand it is being moved to the floor quickly to be the vehicle addressing the other issues involved in drug coverage. The bill itself has some very strong points in it; I have drafted a fair amount of it so I recognize that. But at this time I have to object to the motion to proceed.

Mr. GREGG. Yes. That is why I was asking. The question is this--rhetorical in nature. Unfortunately, in order to reach an agreement, you have to have both sides agree. Senator Frist, who is concerned about the bioequivalency, has not agreed to the language. I have not agreed to the 45-day language. I am sure it could be worked out, and worked out rather promptly, so we would not have to go through the exercise of delaying this bill, and I would be happy to do that. But until we have worked out that issue, I have to reserve my rights and object to the proceeding.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I agree with the Senator from Iowa. Although the general concepts are agreed upon, however, there are differences between these provisions in all three bills that affect the operations of pension plans, and will clearly need to be worked out before the bill is sent to the President's desk. Harmonizing these requirements will require a careful balance between the rights of pension participants and the financial burdens on plan administrators.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, one of New Hampshire's leading citizens, William B. Ruger, Sr., Chairman Emeritus of Sturm, Ruger & Company died peacefully at home on Saturday, July 6, 2002. I have had the pleasure of knowing Bill Ruger for several decades. He was one of America's great gun designers and a true American entrepreneur. Not only was Bill a giant in the firearm industry, his other interests were noted nationally as well. His philanthropy was especially evident through charities in communities throughout New Hampshire, as well as the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY where he served as a member of the Board of Trustees for over 15 years. Also, his Western Art Collection is thought to be one of the finest in the country. In 1999 he was honored by the Camp Fire Club of America, one of the most prestigious hunting and conservation organizations in the country. In awarding Bill their Medal of Honor, they appropriately said, ``he embodies a natural sense of justice and a passion for exploration, not only in the traditional sense, but in a business sense as well. Through the various and substantial endowments he has created, he has established a way to train and educate the youth of our country in the importance of personal responsibility, conservation, and truth.'' New Hampshire, and especially the community of Croydon, has lost a great citizen, and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding this issue and would add that we should facilitate insurance coverage for buildings subject to terrorist attacks, as well as for the people who work inside them. I look forward to addressing these issues in conference.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hollings to introduce S. 2608, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act. We are introducing this much needed coastal protection act along with Senators Cochran, DeWine, Snowe, Biden, Carper, Cleland, Inouye, Breaux, Landrieu, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Kennedy, Kerry, Torricelli, and Murray. In addition, this legislation is supported by the Coastal States Organization, the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, the Trust for Public Lands, The National Conservancy, and the Land Trust Alliance. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act promotes coordinated land acquisition and protection efforts in coastal and estuarine areas by fostering partnerships between non-governmental organizations and federal, state, and local governments. With Americans rapidly moving to the coast, pressures to develop critical coastal ecosystems are increasing. There are fewer and fewer undeveloped and pristine areas left in the nation's coastal and estuarine watersheds. These areas provide important nursery habitat for two-thirds of the nation's commercial fish and shellfish, provide nesting and foraging habitat for coastal birds, harbor significant natural plant communities, and serve to facilitate coastal flood control and pollutant filtration. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act pairs willing sellers through community-based initiatives with sources of federal funds to enhance environmental protection. Lands can be acquired in full or through easements, and none of the lands purchased through this program would be held by the federal government. S. 2608 puts land conservation initiatives in the hands of state and local communities. This new program, authorized through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at $60,000,000 per year, would provide federal matching funds to states with approved coastal management programs or to National Estuarine Research Reserves through a competitive grant process. Federal matching funds may not exceed 75% of the cost of a project under this program, and non-federal sources may count in-kind support toward their portion of the cost share. This coastal land protection program provides much needed support for local coastal conservation initiatives throughout the country. In my role as the Ranking Member of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been able to secure significant funds for the Great Bay estuary in New Hampshire. This estuary is the jewel of the seacoast region, and is home to a wide variety of plants and animal species that are particularly threatened by encroaching development and environmental pollutants. By working with local communities to purchase lands or easements on these valuable parcels of land, New Hampshire has been able to successfully conserve the natural and scenic heritage of this vital estuary. Programs like the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection program will now enable other states to participate in these community-based conservation efforts in coastal areas. This program was modeled after the U.S. Department of Agriculture's successful Forest Legacy Program, which has conserved millions of acres of productive and ecologically significant forest land around the country. I welcome the opportunity to offer this important legislation, with my close friend, Senator Hollings. I am thankful for his strong leadership on this issue, and look forwarding to working with him to make the vision for this legislation a reality, and to successfully conserve our ecologically, historically, recreational, and aesthetically important coastal lands.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hollings to introduce S. 2608, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act. We are introducing this much needed coastal protection act along with Senators Cochran, DeWine, Snowe, Biden, Carper, Cleland, Inouye, Breaux, Landrieu, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Kennedy, Kerry, Torricelli, and Murray. In addition, this legislation is supported by the Coastal States Organization, the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, the Trust for Public Lands, The National Conservancy, and the Land Trust Alliance. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act promotes coordinated land acquisition and protection efforts in coastal and estuarine areas by fostering partnerships between non-governmental organizations and federal, state, and local governments. With Americans rapidly moving to the coast, pressures to develop critical coastal ecosystems are increasing. There are fewer and fewer undeveloped and pristine areas left in the nation's coastal and estuarine watersheds. These areas provide important nursery habitat for two-thirds of the nation's commercial fish and shellfish, provide nesting and foraging habitat for coastal birds, harbor significant natural plant communities, and serve to facilitate coastal flood control and pollutant filtration. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act pairs willing sellers through community-based initiatives with sources of federal funds to enhance environmental protection. Lands can be acquired in full or through easements, and none of the lands purchased through this program would be held by the federal government. S. 2608 puts land conservation initiatives in the hands of state and local communities. This new program, authorized through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at $60,000,000 per year, would provide federal matching funds to states with approved coastal management programs or to National Estuarine Research Reserves through a competitive grant process. Federal matching funds may not exceed 75% of the cost of a project under this program, and non-federal sources may count in-kind support toward their portion of the cost share. This coastal land protection program provides much needed support for local coastal conservation initiatives throughout the country. In my role as the Ranking Member of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been able to secure significant funds for the Great Bay estuary in New Hampshire. This estuary is the jewel of the seacoast region, and is home to a wide variety of plants and animal species that are particularly threatened by encroaching development and environmental pollutants. By working with local communities to purchase lands or easements on these valuable parcels of land, New Hampshire has been able to successfully conserve the natural and scenic heritage of this vital estuary. Programs like the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection program will now enable other states to participate in these community-based conservation efforts in coastal areas. This program was modeled after the U.S. Department of Agriculture's successful Forest Legacy Program, which has conserved millions of acres of productive and ecologically significant forest land around the country. I welcome the opportunity to offer this important legislation, with my close friend, Senator Hollings. I am thankful for his strong leadership on this issue, and look forwarding to working with him to make the vision for this legislation a reality, and to successfully conserve our ecologically, historically, recreational, and aesthetically important coastal lands.