Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. But we must be careful, as a nation, as we hunt these people down--and we have to do that--and as we seek retribution against anyone who will have supported them, that we not cast our net so wide that we catch nations which do not threaten us and people who are not our enemies. We must be careful to use the rule of law so that we do not abandon what has made us great in order to confront this type of evil. We are a nation which is built on openness and law, and it would be a mistake if we abandon it as we attempt to pursue these individuals. No rock must be left unturned to find them; it is clear they live under rocks. But in that process, let us not paint with a brush that causes us to create enemies that do not exist today. Let us also not act in a way that creates martyrs of those people who would also act in this way. This is a time that will test America. America has been tested before and we have met it. We shall certainly be resilient in the face of this test. I appreciate the courtesy of the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, as some of my colleagues here today and so many Americans across our country, I rise to express great sorrow, and send our prayers to those who lost loved ones and who have been injured. Unfortunately, in my own community right next door, the copilot of the American Airlines Flight 11, Tom McGuinness, came from Portsmouth and leaves behind a 14-year-old son and a 16-year-old daughter. One of the fire chiefs who went into the building to save lives, Jack Fanning, testified before our committee on the issue of terrorism just a few weeks ago. This touches all of us in extraordinarily personal ways, and it touches our Nation dramatically. We wish to also congratulate and express great appreciation to those people who are risking their lives to rescue the injured and the harmed--firefighters, policemen, the citizenry who are stepping forward during this time of crisis. There has been significant harm to our Nation. But we are a resilient people and a resilient country, and we shall not allow these doers of evil, these perpetrators of such huge criminal activity to fundamentally harm our society. The fact that we meet today and the fact that our Nation goes forward is a reflection of our strength and our commitment to maintaining the openness and freedom that comes with the greatest democracy in the world. We stand here united and resolute that we shall not allow this democracy to be undermined by such horrific and criminal acts. We as a Congress have recognized for a fair amount of time that terrorism is the threat which we as a nation see as most imminent. Clearly, since the end of the cold war that has been true. We have attempted to address that threat. Obviously, in this instance we were not successful. But I think it is important that we review where we are and what we need to do as we move forward because this is not the end, regrettably, of the issue. This is simply a sign of what our times are going to bring. We need to prepare, and we need to plan the battle lines. The issue of terrorism and the confrontation of it basically divides itself into three categories. The first is maintaining adequate intelligence capability. The second is apprehension of people who would commit terrorist acts. And the third is dealing with the events should they occur, as they regrettably have in New York and here in Washington. In hearing after hearing, we have heard regrettably that we were not ready but that we were moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, it was predicted that there would be a major terrorist event in this Nation. In fact, at three different hearings that I know of when I was chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the Justice and State Departments, it was clearly stated by our intelligence community that they anticipated a significant terrorist act sometime in the future. No one was specific as to when. We now know when. It has occurred. How do we prepare so it does not occur again or so we can mitigate the damage? First, our commitment to intelligence must be dramatically increased. During the 1980s and into the 1990s, we allowed our intelligence community to basically atrophy in the area of human intelligence-- people on the ground. We have electronic intelligence of immense capability. It needs to be improved, especially in the area of encryption. But specifically, we need more people involved in intelligence efforts. We have to, as a nation, recognize that this is, for all intents and purposes, a war, and that it is going to take soldiers, and that some of those soldiers are going to have to participate in counterintelligence activities that are covert and personal, something from which we have shied away as a society. We are going to need to commit significant resources to this. In the area of apprehension, we need to get more coordination between our Nation and those other nations that should be helping us so that when individuals whom we know are threatening us or some other democratic government are on the move, when those individuals are planning, we have the capacity to apprehend them. This means significantly increasing the efforts of the FBI in reaching across international boundaries, something our committee has tried to do, something to which former Director Freeh made a major commitment: the expansion basically of the overseas activities of our premier and key law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Most importantly, we need to get coordination within our own house, not only in the area of apprehension but, even more importantly, in the area of response. We have watched what has happened in New York. We congratulate the city of New York, the State of New York, and the Federal people who are on the ground. An extraordinary effort and a heroic and courageous effort has been undertaken. The fact is that within our own Federal agencies we have considerable overlap, inconsistency, and lack of command and control. Our committee has suggested, on innumerable occasions, that we centralize control over counter terrorism activity and, specifically, response activity and consequence management, both in FEMA and in the Attorney General's office. We have to have budgetary line-item operational personnel control. There are 46 agencies in this Government today that have some level of responsibility to counter terrorism. The overlapping confusion of purpose is dramatic. As the hearings showed--which I chaired, along with Senator Stevens and Senator Warner and Senator Shelby from the Intelligence Committee; the first tripartite hearing of that nature, where we had every major agency come before us to discuss their role--we saw that unquestionably there is confusion. This has to be sorted out. One way to sort it out we will have a chance to vote on tomorrow in the Commerce-State-Justice bill when we approve a Deputy Attorney General whose sole purpose will be the coordination of counterterrorism activity across agency lines. That must be done. We were not fortunate, of course, but the fact that this occurred in New York, a city that is extraordinarily well prepared, I am sure, saved many lives. The next event we do not know where it will occur, and we need to be ready. The last issue we must address is, who do we respond against? It is very obvious that we are dealing with people who are fundamentally evil. We have, as a nation, confronted such people in the past, but they have been sponsored by a nation, whether it was Adolf Hitler or the forces of Japan during World War II. But today there is an amorphousness to the threat which is hard to identify. The people who have committed this act are, for most purposes, religious fanatics, it would appear. They are driven by a cause for which they are willing to give their life and take innocent lives in order to make their point. That is a threat that is extraordinarily difficult to overcome. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to briefly mention to Senator Hollings an EDA project that is of significant importance to employment in a section of New Hampshire that has traditionally experienced high levels of unemployment. The project is the Mountain View House. This project was inadvertently left out of the Senate Report, but it would be my hope that the Economic Development Administration would consider an application for the Mountain View House within applicable procedures and guidelines and provide a grant if warranted. Will you join with me in urging the EDA to consider this vital initiative in New Hampshire?

Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the amendment in the first degree.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I urge the question on the underlying amendment, as amended.

Mr. GREGG. Hopefully it will not hit New Hampshire. Because of NOAA, we can predict where a hurricane will go with a great deal more accuracy. Certainly, States such as South Carolina and those that are located along the hurricane trough have taken full advantage of it. This agency goes way beyond the issues of atmospherics. It goes into quality of water, ocean activity, marine fisheries, and we have made a huge commitment in this area in this bill. Environmental conservation is extraordinarily important as part of the NOAA initiative in this bill, and, as the chairman was reciting, we have put a large amount of dollars into it, especially in the Coastal Zone Management Program and the National Estuarine Research Reserve. The committee recognizes that 90 percent of the commerce in this country enters through our ports, and our nautical charts are grossly outdated. This year we address this problem by aggressively increasing funding for mapping and charting, electronic navigational charts, shoreline mapping, the survey backlog, and securing additional hydrographic ships. Because of the critical importance of fishing to our economy and our cultural history, the committee is funding a new $54 million fishery research vessel, as was mentioned by the chairman --this is absolutely critical--along with making a significant effort to protect and preserve the right whale population which is very important to my part of the country. Given the current concerns regarding our national energy policy, the committee is providing funds through NOAA again to examine an extension of the U.S. claim to the mineral continental shelf, implementation of a regional temperature forecasting system to better project electricity demands, and to develop an air quality forecasting system to minimize the impact of powerplant emissions on air quality. The committee funded the following programs: Coastal Zone Management grants at $65 million, $5 million over last year's level; National Sea Grant College Program at $56 million, the same level as the budget request; the National Weather Service's Local Warnings and Forecasts Program at $80 million; the National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System at $156 million. This is a recognition by this committee of the significance and importance of NOAA and the role it plays in maintaining the quality of our science in this country but, more importantly, the quality of the life of our citizenry. As was mentioned by the chairman of the committee, we have made a strong commitment to the judiciary which has its own unique problems, and we continue to work hard, especially in the area of pay. I personally believe we should do something aggressively in the area of paying our judges. I suspect the Chair also feels this way, as he is the fellow responsible for these judges. The fact is, it is very hard to attract into the judiciary high-quality individuals who might have young children or especially families whose kids are about to head off to college under the present pay scale, and something needs to be done. We are trying to address that in this bill. Again, as was mentioned by the chairman, the State Department has been aggressively addressed. I am happy to report, as the chairman has alluded, that the arrears situation is much improved, thanks to the good work of our former Ambassador to the U.N., Richard Holbrooke. Mr. Holbrooke accomplished what many said could not be done: He successfully negotiated a new U.S. assessment rate both for the regular budget and the peacekeeping account so that the burden is more fairly distributed. For me, the renegotiation of the assessment scale is a perfect example of how the United States can use its large contribution to the U.N. as a leverage to demand fairness, accountability, and reform. Our ``tough love'' policy vis-a-vis the U.N., the basis of the Helms-Biden legislation, is successful because it is premised on good intentions and high expectations. I also want to mention that funds have been made available in this bill for information technology in the total of $210 million. As the chairman of this committee mentioned, for the last 4 years I have been extremely supportive of this attempt to try to upgrade the IT capabilities of the State Department. I have been disappointed, however, by the lack of progress made by the Department in this area. The only goal the State Department has achieved is providing e-mail capability to all Department desktops. Most desktops still do not have Web access. The networks of various U.S. agencies operating overseas have not been integrated, and the classified system needs to be overhauled. I am encouraged by Secretary Powell's recognition of IT as one of the Department's top priorities. The fiscal year 2002 mark fully funds IT, and I congratulate Senator Hollings for his commitment in this area. Hopefully, the Department will make good use of these funds. Lastly, I want to mention something that is especially important to me personally, and that is the bill's effort to eliminate the illegal diamond trade that has fueled the violent conflict in African nations such as Sierra Leone, Congo, and Angola. Nowhere has the effect of this illicit diamond trade been more graphic than in Sierra Leone. As early as 1991, a criminal gang called the Revolutionary United Front, or RUF, began taking control of many of the Sierra Leone diamond mines. Since then, RUF has used profits from the sale of diamonds to terrorize civilians for no other reason than to expand their influence. The RUF is notorious for its use of forced amputations, murder, and rape in waging its war of terrorism. I assure you, there will be no end to the violence unless we address this problem at its root. As long as the RUF can profit from the sale of conflict diamonds, the butchery will continue. What is needed is a ban on the importation into the United States of diamonds from countries that fail to observe an effective diamond control system. Clearly, this will involve substantial commitment on the part of the Africa's diamond-producing countries. But the onus cannot fall entirely on them. It is equally the responsibility of diamond-importing countries to do all we can to ensure we are not facilitating the trade in conflict diamonds. In the past, we have been unable or unwilling to act even while effective preventive measures, measures such as the ones I have introduced today and which Senator Hollings has been kind enough to include in this bill, are at our fingertips. There are things we can do to make the situation in Africa better. The key is to act. We have a chance to save lives, to promote peace, merely by changing the way we do business. This bill goes a long way in addressing the appalling events currently taking place in much of West Africa. Again, I thank Senator Hollings for his commitment in this area and his willingness to support this effort and be a leader on it. In conclusion, I also thank Senator Hollings, and especially his staff, for all they have done to make this a bipartisan bill and a bill which I can enthusiastically support. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill brought forward by the Senator from South Carolina. I thank Senator Hollings for the tremendous courtesy and teamwork approach he has taken on this bill relative to the Republican side of the aisle. I especially thank his staff, led by Lila Helms, for their efforts to make sure we had an approach that involved all the different players on the committee. This has been a bill which Senator Byrd, during the full committee markup, described as the ``most bipartisan bill in his memory.'' We are very proud of that. I think it is very much a reflection of the leadership of Senator Hollings and the approach he has taken. So I express my deep and sincere thanks to him. Senator Hollings has outlined pretty specifically the areas this bill funds and some of the initiatives in the bill. Let me talk about a couple, however, that I would like to highlight myself. First, the appropriation level on this bill is significant, $41.5 billion, which is over the President's request by a fair amount--about one-half billion dollars. It is my hope--and I have discussed this with Senator Hollings--as we move through the process that we can come a little closer to the President's request. I note, however, that the bill is within our budget resolution and the allocation given to this committee. So as a practical matter it does not in any way negatively impact the budget. It is a rather responsible bill. The reason it spends these dollars is because it has significant agencies that it funds. The Department of Justice is, of course, a critical agency; the Department of State; Department of Commerce; Judiciary; FTC; FCC; and the SEC. These are all agencies that play a huge role in the deliverance of quality Government in our country. It is our obligation to strongly support them. One area on which we have focused a considerable amount of time in the committee has been the issue of terrorism and our preparation for terrorism as a government. Earlier in the year, we had a joint hearing that involved a large number of Senators participating, at which hearing we had present and testifying all the major agencies that impact terrorism within the Federal Government--I believe the number is 42, or maybe 46. I myself even lost count, even though I stay fairly attentive to this issue. We heard from the leaders of each agency. We heard from the Secretary of State, the head of FEMA, the Attorney General, of course, and down the line. We heard from leaders within our communities and agencies. We heard from the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The conclusion, which was clear and regrettably unalterable, is that there are simply too many people trying to cook this pie, too many people trying to stir the stew, and, as a practical matter, the coordination necessary in order to deliver a thoughtful and effective response to the threat of terrorism is not that strong. Terrorism can be divided into three basic areas of responsibilities, the first being intelligence, both domestic and international; the second being interdiction, again domestic and international; and the third being consequence management should an event occur. In all these areas, there is a significant overlap of responsibility and, as a result, through this hearing and many other hearings we have held, we have come to the conclusion that we have to become more focused within especially the Justice Department, which has a huge role in this area, but within other agencies which naturally fold into the Justice Department. We have suggested in this bill that we create a Deputy Attorney General who would serve as a national go-to person on the issues relating to domestic terrorism. This individual would obviously work in tandem with a lot of other major players, including FEMA, but as a practical matter at least we would have one central place where we could begin and where people could look to more response to terrorism. It would be a central place where not only the response would occur but the responsibility would occur and therefore we would have accountability, which is absolutely critical and which today does not exist. This bill creates that position and funds it, along with funding a significant increase in the counterterrorism activity at a variety of levels which are critically important to our efforts to address this issue. I do not want to sound too pessimistic about our efforts in this area. Compared to 4 or 5 years ago when we began this initiative, we are way down the positive road. We have, in effect, up and running a first responder program in a number of communities across this country, and we are moving aggressively across the country to bring critical areas up to speed. We have an effective intelligence effort and effective interdiction effort, but we still have a long way to go. If you put it on a continuum time of a person, it is as if this person were born 5 years ago and we were now in mid-adolescence, in our late teens, moving, however, aggressively into a more mature approach to the issue. Another area I think needs to be highlighted, on which I congratulate the chairman, as I have with counterterrorism, is the issue of NOAA. NOAA is absolutely a critical agency for us. It is one of the premier agencies in our Nation in addressing the question of scientific excellence. I was just watching the weather today and noticed there is a hurricane off the northern part of our east coast. It is going to be pushed off the coast in New England because of the weather patterns.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to respond to the Senator from Arizona who earlier today, in listing programs in this bill he felt were inappropriate--I believe he used the word ``pork'' or some other derogatory reference to those programs--cited a $150,000 proposal in this bill to build a barn at the John Hay estate in New Hampshire. I honestly believe the Senator from Arizona has done a disservice to the people of New Hampshire by citing this item as one of the items on his list. It appears to me the research on that list may be rather weak if he is putting on the list items such as this. I want to give the history of this situation. The John Hay estate is owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service. John Hay was Abraham Lincoln's secretary. He was Theodore Roosevelt's and William McKinley's Secretary of State. He served for years as a public servant of extraordinary import in our Nation's history in the latter part of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th century, playing a major role in a number of very significant events, especially in the period 1890 to 1905 when he died. As part of his lifestyle, he was a Renaissance man. He had been, as I mentioned, secretary to Lincoln and is quite famous for his notes on Lincoln. In Washington, he started something called the Five of Hearts, a very famous historical group that met regularly at his home, which is now the Hay-Adams--Hay-Adams was not actually his home. His home was where the Hay-Adams is. That is the physical location. That group involved five people of incredible intellectual capacity, and they became known as the Five of Hearts. He was part of that group and his wife was also. As part of his effort and as part of the culture of that time actually, he wanted to set up a community which would be a respite from the hectic life of policy and government, and he chose the shores of Lake Sunapee in New Hampshire to try to do that. He came to New Hampshire and purchased a significant amount of land at that time--over a thousand acres--and an old farm and began to try to attract to that part of New Hampshire during the summer people who were world leaders in order to think and relax in what was really a bucolic atmosphere; it still is. It is a fabulous pastoral setting. It is a lot like what Saint-Gaudens, who was another significant person in that period and tremendous artist in our history, had done in another part of New Hampshire called Cornish. He built a farmhouse; he took the old farmhouse and renovated it. It was situated on 1,000 acres. Of course, with any farmhouse there was a barn, as one might expect in that period. His family has owned that property for years and years. In the late 1980s, his daughter gave the property as part of her estate to the U.S. Government because she thought it was so important it be preserved as part of history because it is a truly unique piece of property. One of the things he did on that property was bring in some extraordinary plants. In his travels he collected plants of alpine nature and built an alpine yard which is one of the rarest gardens in this country and has been designated so by the national garden groups. He built other gardens around the home. He had Theodore Roosevelt there and planted trees. There is a Theodore Roosevelt tree which grows outside the house. The house itself was architecturally unique and presents a classic example of a Greek revival farmhouse in the New England tradition which existed in the late 19th century. But most of those homes have been lost either through fires or being torn down over the years. The gift of this property to us, the people of America, by his family was an extremely generous act. At that time it was given to us, it involved only 100 acres but over a mile of frontage on the lake. Frontage on the lake is extremely expensive. The house itself was not in good repair, and the barn was not, and the gardens were at risk because the gardener who had been managing them for over 50 years was getting a little old and decided to give it up. So as a result of a community effort with over 600 people involved, called the Friends of John Hay, we restored this home. There has been a fair amount of Federal dollars committed to trying to restore the home over the years. Senator Rudman, my predecessor, got the initial funds, and I have been successful in obtaining funds to restore the home. Why? Because, of course, it is a Federal property and we have responsibility. It would be as if we owned the home, and we may well own the home of Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, for all I know, and are restoring that home. But it is a Federal responsibility for which we have responsibility. More importantly than that, it is a property that had such a magnetic effect in the region as a truly unique, historical site architecturally and because of the gardens, that the community around the property has risen up with great energy, enthusiasm, and support. There are over 600 people who participate now in maintaining the gardens in what is a voluntarism that is rather significant and instructive and now has the gardens back to where they should be, as the home is back to where it should be. As part of this property, as I mentioned, there was a barn. The barn was also an architecturally unique building, with unique windows and unique buttresses inside. But more importantly, as part of the property, being a traditional New England home, it set the nature of the property. This winter, for those who had the good fortune to go to New Hampshire and ski, we had great snow. We had such great snow, it never stopped snowing all winter long. Throughout our State and Vermont and Maine--Vermont does not get as great snow as we get, but they still get snow--a lot of homes, buildings, schools, in fact, found their roofs caved in. Regrettably, what happened at the Hay estate was, the barn, which was a historical barn, had a snow base on it which it could not maintain, even after 100 years--maybe not 100; maybe 85. Regrettably, the barn collapsed under the weight of the snow. I guess it is the position of the Senator from Arizona that when a building that is on a historical site, which is the responsibility of the Federal Government to maintain, collapses, we should simply leave it there: Historical building that collapsed? Just leave it there. I guess that is the position of the Senator from Arizona. What these funds were for--$150,000, which is not a great deal of money when you consider the character and size of the barn--was to restore the barn, put it back together, put it back up, and hopefully put in buttresses which will withstand the next major snow, which, of course, we hope to have again for our skiers. The fact is, for the Senator from Arizona to come down here and represent it as somehow pork or inappropriate that the Federal Government has a responsibility to maintain a historical site of such significance, which had such huge community involvement when there was a disaster affecting that site which was the result of an act of God-- by the way, an excessive snow year is pushing the envelope on how you define what are appropriate expenditures at the Federal level. I cannot think of anything more appropriate than for the Federal Government to manage the property that has been given to the people of this country in a reasonable way. The reasonable thing to do, of course, is to rebuild the historical barn so the integrity of the property is maintained. I believe the Senator from Arizona is misguided on this point. I want to put that in the Record. I will be happy to invite the Senator from Arizona on his next trip to New Hampshire, which appears to be reasonably frequent, to stop by at the Hay estate and see the barn, see the estate, see the gardens, maybe meet with the 600 people who work there on a regular basis as volunteers, and ask them whether that barn is an important part of that estate and whether the Federal Government has a responsibility to at least rebuild the barn when the people are volunteering literally thousands of hours to maintain the estate for free. I look forward to the Senator stopping by at the John Hay estate.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, on the managers' package we are working to try to reach an agreement. Hopefully, we will reach an agreement. If we do not reach agreement--is my understanding correct that we have to reach agreement by the end of today? What is the parliamentary situation if we do not reach an agreement by the end of today?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield? That quote would be much better if it were read in French.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in congratulating Senator Kyl for bringing this amendment forward. It is exactly one of the items we need to improve this bill significantly. This bill has a lot of problems. We all know that. But an amendment such as Senator Kyl's will at least help it out in some parts. It will be very constructive to the whole process. I certainly hope my colleagues in the Senate will join in supporting it. It is the right amendment. I congratulate him for bringing it forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. GREGG. I rise to say I wish we were voting on the amendment of the Senator from Delaware. I believe the punitive damages issue in this bill is a major issue. I understand the decision not to go forward. We know the probable outcome of the vote. But there is no question in my mind that his amendment would cause a movement in the right direction on the issue of punitive damages. This bill, as all of us have pointed out who have concerns about it, is going to be candy land for lawyers. One of the reasons it is going to be is because of the punitive damage language which allows forum shopping for the best punitive damage opportunities; whereas, under today's law, punitive damages are radically distributed, and should be because the purpose is to create quality health care, and punitive damage awards would drive up insurance costs. That is passed on to the consumer, which means fewer people can afford insurance. As a practical matter, I want to say that I think the Senator from Delaware is on the right track, and I hope the conference will listen to his comments.

Mr. GREGG. As I understand it, we are down to two amendments on our side: Senator Kyl's and Senator Frist's, which will be the substitute. I hope we can get a time agreement on Senator Kyl. How much time does the Senator need? He does not know. And Senator Carper, on the other side, is going to make a statement and maybe offer an amendment. Before they go, since people are a little confused, so they can get ready, we are heading toward the finish line. Before we get to the finish line, I want to mention that a lot of people do a lot of work around here. They are called the staff. They are extraordinary. I especially want to thank my staff, Senator Kennedy's staff, Senator Frist's staff, who have worked so hard on this. I am sure there are many folks on the other side, but I specifically want to thank Stephanie Monroe of my staff, Colleen Cresanti, Steve Irizarry, Kim Monk, and Jessica Roberts for all they have done to make this process move smoothly for me and allow me to be successful. They really have put in extraordinary hours. I greatly appreciate it. They are exceptional people, and we thank them very much. Now I suspect the Senator from Arizona is probably ready.

Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. amendment no. 853

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Nevada will modify his amendment and we will have a voice vote, and the Senator from Tennessee will have an amendment agreed to, also. Hopefully, we can dispose of those two amendments right now.

Mr. GREGG. I also ask that the Nickles amendment be defined as relevant, rather than liability, and, since the majority leader has asked to reserve two relevant amendments, the Republican leader be given two relevant amendments.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I ask if the majority leader would be willing to adjust his unanimous consent so Senator Ensign could modify his amendment, which is pending, and also, because we have not seen the Kennedy, Daschle, or Carper amendments, we would want to reserve the right to have a second-degree amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Actually, we did reverse the order on the Snowe----

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am not sure what the Senator from Virginia wishes to do. I hope they will not second degree your amendment but, rather, offer an amendment which would be a stand-alone, side-by-side amendment.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. It has not. And then Senator Frist has a substitute. Is there anybody else who has an amendment? That appears to be our list.