[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 42 (Monday, March 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2792-S2795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             PRESIDIO PROPERTIES ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this morning my friend from New Jersey 
reflected a little history of public lands. I listened intently, and 
while I appreciate his point of view, I suggest there are two points of 
view relative to the history of public lands and the transition that 
has occurred in this country.
  Under the Northwest Ordinance, which, as a matter of fact, predated 
the Constitution, the prevailing philosophy was simply to dispose of 
lands either to the States or the territories or to private 
individuals. And as the several States obtained their inheritance, they 
for obvious reasons began to lose interest in further Federal 
transfers. In other words, they had achieved what they wanted.
  Mr. President, this goes back to the period of about 1788 when this 
Northwest Ordinance prevailed. So they lost the incentive once they 
received their land and further Federal transfers simply were not 
necessary. The State of Arkansas obtained over 11 million acres from 
the Federal Government, over one-third of its total acreage. Only about 
3 percent of New Jersey currently is in Federal ownership.
  So the history of public lands is a history of those States, mainly 
the Eastern States, that have already obtained the lands needed for 
their schools, their roads, their economy, and other purposes. Then we 
have the Western States and territories that basically remain captive 
to the Federal Government and the interests of those Eastern States. 
The definition of ``West,'' as we all know, steadily moved west. It 
moved from what was West, in 1790, Ohio, to Utah and my State of Alaska 
in 1990.
  According to the 1984 BLM public lands statistics, Florida obtained 
over 24 million acres from 1803 to 1984 out of a total of 34 million 
acres in that entire State. Arkansas, as I mentioned, obtained over 
one-third of its entire acreage. Now, there was a time when the State 
of New Jersey looked at the western lands as a source of raising money 
for needs in New Jersey--roads and docks, the harbors, other public 
works in New Jersey--and there was a time when New Jersey wanted the 
western lands basically to feed its industry.
  It was a concept that is not unknown to us, Mr. President. The 
Eastern States had the capital base, and where did they look? They 
looked to the West to put that capital to work in investments that 
could generate a handsome return because the money centers at that time 
were in the East, as they are today for the most part. So the eastern 
at that time, I think it is fair to say, elitists chose to invest in 
the West and generate a return, and they could continue to live in the 
more luxurious lifestyle that existed in the East because the West was 
considered pretty much a frontier. So States like New Jersey and New 
York invested in western lands to feed, if you will, the fruits 
associated with the productivity of the West.
  Now we have seen a change in that, a rather remarkable change. Let us 
be realistic and recognize New Jersey and other States now want western 
lands not necessarily as a return on the investment that was initially 
generated there, although some of it is fourth and fifth generation 
wealth, but they look at the West as a playground, a recreation area 
for themselves and others of that elitist group.
  If the State of Utah is unable to use its school lands to fund 
education, that is even better, because then Utah will become even more 
dependent on the Federal Government and the preferred social agenda of 
Washington, DC. Make no mistake about it. This is not unique to the 
State of Utah.
  Those of us who are westerners question when is enough enough. There 
has been no change in the policy of some of these eastern seaboard 
States and many of the other original States from 1790 until now. What 
has changed is what they want western lands for. There would be a 
considerable difference if New Jersey as a State were 63 percent owned 
by the Federal Government, like Utah, but it is not. The State of New 
Jersey is only 3 percent owned by the Federal Government, so it has the 
luxury to assume that two-thirds of Utah is, one might interpret, for 
the private pleasure of the residents of New Jersey.

  We can get into a long discussion over the various conservation 
measures mentioned by the Senator from New Jersey, but I think the 
Senate should remember that the primary purpose of the national 
forests--a lot of us seem to have forgotten this--the primary purpose 
of the national forests, when they were withdrawn from public domain, 
was simply to ensure a steady supply, a renewable supply, of timber. 
That is almost seen as a joke today, but that was the concept; the 
forests were to be conserved, used, and managed to provide a steady 
supply of timber.
  The Wilderness Act, speaking of history, was originally intended to 
set

[[Page S2793]]

aside pristine areas, untrammeled areas where mankind was not evident. 
Now, in our zealous efforts, we seem to be ready to put almost anything 
into wilderness--roads, structures. Whatever the objective, a 
wilderness designation is not to preserve pristine areas but to prevent 
other uses that some organization or group wants to prevent.
  So, I hope, as we reflect on history, we do reflect on this dichotomy 
associated with the traditions of the influence of the Eastern States, 
which have virtually no public land in those States, which have 
virtually no wilderness in those States, setting the precedent for the 
rest of the Nation.
  I am going to try to leave us with a little understanding of what 
this business of public land and wilderness land is all about, 
reflecting on how some States, like mine, enjoy a significant amount of 
wilderness. My State of Alaska has 365 million total acres. We are 2\1/
2\ times the size of the State of Texas. I am glad my friends from 
Texas are not here to be reminded of that. Out of that 365 million 
acres, we have 57.4 million acres of wilderness. That is quite a bit of 
wilderness. We are proud of that wilderness. We take good care of that 
wilderness. But we think enough is enough.
  If you took the State of Arkansas with 33 million acres of 
wilderness, you add the State of New Jersey with 4.8 million acres, 
West Virginia with 15 million acres, Vermont with 5 million acres, you 
come up with about 57 million acres--equal to what is in my State of 
Alaska. So there are four States. The difference here is we are not 
talking about wilderness in Arkansas, New Jersey, West Virginia, or 
Vermont. We are talking about their total acreage. So I do not want to 
mislead the Presiding Officer when I say Alaska has 57 million acres of 
wilderness out of 365 million acres. If you take the entire landmass of 
the State of Arkansas at 33 million, New Jersey 4.8, West Virginia 15, 
and Vermont 5, you come up with a combined area of 57.8 million acres 
for those four States. That equates to what is in my State alone as 
wilderness.
  Let us go one step further. Let us look at some of these States and 
recognize that Arkansas has 33 million acres in its entire State, 
120,378 acres in wilderness--not very much. New Jersey has 4.8 million 
acres in the entire State, 10,341 acres of wilderness.
  Let us compare that with Utah. Utah has 52 million acres in the 
State, 890,858 acres of wilderness, and we are proposing to add 2 
million to that, that would be 2.9 million acres of wilderness in the 
State, 891,000 managed by the Forest Service and 2 million under BLM 
wilderness.
  I think it is important that we reflect on those comparisons. The 
States in question with large wilderness acreage, outside of the State 
of Alaska, include Arizona at 4.5 million acres, California at 5.9 
million acres, Colorado at 2.6 million acres, Florida at 1.4 million 
acres, Idaho at 4 million acres, Minnesota at 805,000, Montana at 3.4 
million acres, New Mexico at 1.6 million acres, Oregon at a little over 
2 million acres, Washington at 4.2 million acres, and Wyoming at 3 
million acres. So, by this action we would be creating in Utah 
wilderness equal to that existing in Wyoming today.
  What about some of the other States? Interestingly enough--and I hope 
my colleagues from Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, and 
Rhode Island are listening, because these six States that have no 
wilderness. There is no wilderness in Connecticut, no wilderness in 
Delaware, no wilderness in Iowa, no wilderness in Kansas, no wilderness 
in Maryland, and no wilderness in Rhode Island.
  How do you suppose that came about? It came about, as I indicated in 
my opening remarks, when those States that have been around a long 
time--when the Northwest Ordinance philosophy prevailed, back in 1788--
acquired their land. That is where it ended. Now these States are 
saying we do not want any wilderness in our State. We want the 
wilderness out West.
  I think everybody ought to have a little wilderness. I think, before 
I get out of this body, I am going to propose some legislation that 
every State have a little wilderness. They can designate where it is. 
Maybe Sterling Forest should be a wilderness. Perhaps the States of New 
York and New Jersey could designate this transfer of land into a 
wilderness. It is going to be used as a watershed. Why not make it a 
wilderness?
  Another curious consideration is, who owns the States? Alabama is 3 
percent owned by the Federal Government, Alaska 68 percent owned by the 
Federal Government; Arizona, 47 percent; Arkansas, 8 percent; 
California, 44 percent; Colorado, 36; Connecticut, 1 percent; Delaware, 
2 percent; District of Columbia, 26 percent. I am surprised it is not 
higher. Florida, 9 percent; Georgia, 4 percent owned by the Federal 
Government; Hawaii, 16 percent. You get to Idaho, 62 percent of Idaho's 
landmass is owned by the Federal Government; Illinois, 3 percent; 
Indiana, 2; Iowa, 1; Kansas, 1; Kentucky, 4; Louisiana, 3 percent; 
Maine, 1 percent; Maryland, 3; Massachusetts, 1; Michigan, 13; 
Minnesota, 10; Mississippi, 4.
  These are extraordinary comparisons with the prevalence of Federal 
ownership being out West. Missouri is 5 percent owned by the Federal 
Government; Montana, 28; Nebraska, 1; Nevada, 83 percent owned by the 
Federal Government; New Hampshire, 13; New Jersey, 2 percent; New 
Mexico, 33; New York, 1--New York 1--North Carolina, 6; North Dakota, 
4; Ohio, 1 percent; Oklahoma, 2 percent; Oregon, 52 percent owned by 
the Federal Government; Pennsylvania, 2 percent; Rhode Island, 1 
percent; South Carolina, 5 percent; South Dakota, 6 percent, Tennessee, 
4 percent; Texas, the second largest State in the Union, Mr. President, 
has only 1 percent of its landmass owned by the Federal Government.
  Clearly, when they came into the Union, they made certain conditions 
prevail relative to ownership, and the Federal Government today owns 1 
percent of the land mass of Texas, compared with Utah, which is 64 
percent; Vermont, 6 percent; Virginia, 6 percent; Washington, 29 
percent owned; West Virginia, 7; Wisconsin, 10; Wyoming, 49.
  So there you have it, Mr. President, a comparison of the States. Now 
we look at the merits of adding 2 million acres to Utah wilderness, as 
recommended by the delegation from Utah and a vast majority of the Utah 
Legislature, both the house and senate and the Governor.
  I think it is also interesting to note that the process that occurred 
in Utah did not happen by accident. It happened as a result of a number 
of meetings that were held and the consensus that was developed there 
over an extended period of time. As the record indicates, some $10 
million was spent reaching the point we are at today, evaluating just 
what would be appropriate for the State of Utah; 15 years went into 
that study; 16,000 written comments were processed; 75 formal public 
hearings were held. This was a process that was open to the public 
throughout the United States, professionals were hired to make the 
recommendation of 1.9 million, and today we have a proposal of 2 
million acres in the Utah wilderness.
  As I indicated to my friend from New Jersey this morning, the matter 
of Sterling Forest is also somewhat contentious, as evidenced by the 
consideration of some of the specifics, which I will share with my 
colleagues. But nevertheless, I support the Senator from New Jersey in 
his efforts, because I believe he has to answer to his constituents, 
and I believe it is fair to say that both the Senators from New Jersey 
support the Sterling Forest. I respect that process. But I think the 
Record should note who owns the Sterling Forest.
  Sterling Forest is currently owned by the Swiss Insurance Group of 
Zurich. They signed a purchase agreement with the Swiss company for the 
property in June 1995. What is it valued at? I am told it is valued 
somewhere between $55 and $65 million. How much would it cost if we 
were to buy it? The request in the legislation of the Senator from New 
Jersey is for Federal participation of about $17.5 million. This will 
be the Federal figure regardless of the total purchase price. The 
balance of the purchase price is going to be paid by the States of New 
York and New Jersey and the private sector. I understand about 2,400 
acres of Sterling Forest rests in New Jersey. The balance is in New 
York.
  There are those who might think Sterling Forest is just that, an 
ancient

[[Page S2794]]

growth forest, but Sterling Forest has been logged. What you have there 
today is second growth. Hardwood logging has taken place. I thought I 
would ask the question, When was it last logged? The answer was, it is 
currently being logged, Mr. President, by the Sterling Forest Corp., a 
subsidiary of the Swiss Insurance Group of Zurich.
  If the Sterling Forest is acquired, of course, logging is not 
continued, and that is really the business of the delegation from New 
Jersey. The primary reason for purchasing Sterling Forest, as I 
understand, appreciate and support, is to protect the watershed. 
Hunting would be allowed.
  So if anybody wants further information with regard to the situation 
in Sterling Forest, why, I am sure the Senator from New Jersey will be 
happy to provide it. If not, we have the address and phone number of 
the Zurich Reinsurance Center in New York, the principals to contact.
  I do not put this out as a criticism; I simply put it out as a 
reality that here we have an acquisition taking place in the best 
interest of clearly the State of New York and the State of New Jersey. 
There are about 30 square miles, 19,200 acres are in New York and about 
2,400, as I have mentioned, in New Jersey.
  It is also my understanding that what we are purchasing here are 
certain easements owned and managed by the U.S. Park Service that are 
in the Appalachian trail area but that triggers, if you will, a process 
whereby New York and New Jersey will come up with the additional 
funding, and that would be somewhere in the area of $40 or $45 million 
to acquire the land.
  It is also interesting to note Sterling Forest has roads through it 
and other access, so it is pretty hard to suggest, perhaps, that it be 
made a wilderness. Nevertheless, I think it is important that as this 
watershed is addressed, relative to its use as a watershed, that as 
much of the wilderness characteristics as possible be retained for the 
benefit of the citizens of New York, as well as the citizens of New 
Jersey.
  A lot of people do not really appreciate what 1 million acres equates 
to in size. We are talking about adding 2 million acres of wilderness 
in Utah. One million acres is equal to the size of the State of 
Delaware. If we are talking about 2 million acres, we are looking at 
three times the size of the State of Rhode Island. Two million acres is 
about half the size of the State of New Jersey, so it is a big chunk of 
real estate. Unless you have some idea of acreage or the vastness of 
wilderness, you have no idea as to the significance of what that large 
a piece of real estate is.
  As I indicated in my remarks, for those who come from States that 
have little or virtually no wilderness or States with little, if any, 
Federal ownership of their land, it is difficult for those Members to 
have an appreciation of what it means to designate an additional area 
the size of 2 million acres. While many of us support adding 2 million 
acres to wilderness, that is not enough for the advocates here who want 
5 to 6 million acres of wilderness.
  They do not seem to care about the ability of the State of Utah to 
support its schools, support its economy. All they see is a vision out 
there that tells them somehow this is not enough. As I have indicated, 
Mr. President, as you look at the comparisons, what is enough? What is 
reasonable? What is balanced? The people of Utah, in their own good 
judgment, after $10 million and 15 years, have indicated, 1.9 million 
acres. The legislation proposes 2 million acres.
  Mr. President, as we look at the history of Western public lands, 
little is said about the economy of the region. What happens to the 
jobs? We cannot all be employed by the Federal Government. Who pays the 
taxes? We have resources in the West that have fueled the economy of 
this Nation for a long time.
  Where we are lax, Mr. President, is in not recognizing that science 
and technology has given us the opportunity to develop our resources 
better, more efficiently, with more compatibility with the environment, 
the ecology. As we address new and better ways to develop those 
resources, we seem reluctant to go back and review those of our laws 
that protect these areas. We did not update our environmental laws. We 
did not seem eager to look at cost-benefit risk analysis to determine, 
indeed, if it is practical to develop one resource or another.
  So what we have here, Mr. President, is a fast-developing technology. 
The minute you attempt to look at more efficient ways of cutting 
timber, of mining, grazing, oil and gas development, it is suggested 
that you are irresponsibly unwinding the advancements that have been 
made in the environment.
  Mr. President, the water is cleaner, the air is cleaner, we can do a 
better job. But we still need to maintain a balance. That balance 
dictates a healthy economy. Only with a healthy economy can we meet our 
environmental obligations.
  So, when I see my good friend, who I know is very dedicated and 
believes diligently in his point of view, become a self-anointed savior 
of the West, I have to ask, who is he saving the West from? From other 
westerners? Or is it really the elitist group, the big business?
  Let me refer to the charts back here just very briefly with the 
realization that these well-meaning groups somehow get a little overly 
ambitious, in the opinion of the Senator from Alaska--let us recognize 
them for what they are. They are big businesses, just like a lot of 
other big businesses. As I indicated earlier, the environmental 
organization incomes, the 12 major organizations in this country have 
assets of $1.2 billion. They have fund balances--that means immediate 
access to cash--of $1.03 billion. There you have it. The revenues, $633 
million; their expenses, $556 million; their assets $1.2 billion --the 
fund balances at $1 billion.
  There is nothing wrong with that, but let us keep it in perspective. 
They have to have a cause. They resolve one issue and they move on to 
the next so they can generate membership, generate dollars. Let us be 
honest. They accomplish a lot. But there has to be a balance. That is 
what is lacking, because if they had their way, the extreme would 
prevail.
  They pay, as big business does, compensation. Several of the 
individuals who represent these organizations--the National Wildlife 
Federation, the World Wildlife Fund, the Environmental Defense Fund, 
the National Parks and Conservation Association--they pay their chief 
executive officers more than the President of the United States makes. 
That is neither here nor there, but it points out my contention that it 
is simply big business. It is just a different type of business. It is 
worthwhile business, just as are job-developing business is in mining, 
oil and gas, timber, and grazing.

  Some of these people are extremists, though, Mr. President. They have 
to have a cause. The cause here is not wilderness, because 2 million 
acres of wilderness has been offered. It is more wilderness. It is 5 or 
6 million acres of wilderness.
  Where is the balance? They are generating dollars and membership, 
using scare tactics that suggest that the people of Utah are 
irresponsible, that they will go out and haphazardly develop their land 
or overdevelop it, overgraze it, overmine it. That will not happen, Mr. 
President. It will not happen in any State of the Union. But those are 
the scare tactics that they use. They say, ``We must save the West from 
itself.''
  There have been abuses in the West, just like there have in the East, 
but I defy the membership of these organizations to take a look at the 
east coast. Go up in the train. Look at the aging of America. Take the 
train from Washington and look through New Jersey, look through 
Delaware, look out the window, look at New York, go on to Boston. Just 
look at the mess that you see in the backyards of America.
  Where is the energy of these organizations to correct that? It is not 
there. They want to move out to an area where most people cannot visit, 
cannot see for themselves, see what the people in these Western States 
are responsible for. They are doing a good job. They are sensitive. No, 
they do not want to start near home. They seem to have no concern about 
the economy, the jobs, the taxes. I find that perplexing, Mr. 
President. They want to get on their white charger and save the world, 
but they will not start right in their own backyard.
  What we are looking at, Mr. President, is trying to balance this 
process. As I said, there is nothing wrong with Sterling Forest. I 
support it. I support

[[Page S2795]]

the process that is underway here as far as reaching a compromise.
  But we have to recognize reality, Mr. President. We have a trade 
deficit in this country. Over half of it is the price of imported oil. 
We have the reserves in this country. We have substantial reserves in 
my State. We have the technology to do it safely. But the environmental 
elitists need a cause. They say, ``No, you can't do it. You don't have 
the science. You don't have the technology.'' So what we are doing is 
importing it. Fifty-four percent of our oil is imported now. We are 
bringing it in in foreign tankers.
  If you ever have an accident, good luck in trying to find a deep 
pocket like occurred with the Exxon Valdez where you had responsible 
parties. While the ship was operated irresponsibly, at least the deep 
pocket was there.
  Where are the payrolls going to come from? Are we going to ship our 
dollars overseas? The interesting thing, Mr. President, is that other 
countries are not quite so sensitive as ours. Their logging practices, 
their mining practices do not have the same sensitivity.
  So are we not hastening, if you will, by being hellbent to reduce our 
own resource development the onset of the very problems that we are 
trying to avoid. Recognizing that we have the science and technology 
and experience to offset the imports from countries who allow 
exploitation without responsible resource development technology, 
without a response to renewable resources? So, are we really 
accomplishing a meaningful compromise? In many cases, I think not. We 
have many issues relative to development, private land issues, 
endangered species, wetland, Superfund.

  We talk about cost-benefit risk analysis, the need to review our 
environmental laws as we look at new technological advances, to better 
protect our renewable resources. How do we get to a balance, Mr. 
President? I think we have that balance today in the proposal of 2 
million acres of wilderness in the State of Utah.
  As we wind up this debate, as least probably for today, I urge my 
colleagues from the following States to recognize the reality of where 
we are in this legislation. If this package does not stay together, 
Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, West Virginia, 
Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and 
California will be affected because there are titles for public lands 
and changes in those States, as well as Georgia, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Idaho, Wyoming, Ohio, my State of Alaska, New Mexico--some 
56 titles or changes, Mr. President, a pretty significant number.
  Now, the Senator from New Jersey said in a dear colleague letter that 
he had joined with 17 of his colleagues. There are many provisions 
important to our respective States within this omnibus park 
legislation. Well, we have plenty of them, Mr. President. As I said 
earlier today, the majority of these bills were placed on the calendar 
of the Senate April 7, 1995--almost a year ago. The Senator from New 
Jersey could have let these environmental bills make their way to the 
House and go on to the President months ago. Unfortunately, he chose 
not to do so. Mr. President, the direct result of these actions is this 
package. The Senator from New Jersey, by his own actions, is in reality 
the ghost writer of this bill that we are considering today.
  As I said earlier, I accommodated the Senator from New Jersey on 
Sterling Forest because I think it is in the best interest of his State 
and his constituents. Unfortunately, the Senator from New Jersey and 
others do not seem to extend the same degree of confidence and respect 
to the citizens of Utah. I guess that is where we part.
  Now, if this bill stays together, Americans are going to get 2 
million acres of new wilderness. There is nothing in this legislation 
that will prevent another Congress, another day, from adding additional 
wilderness lands in Utah or my State of Alaska. The will of Congress 
prevails.
  The reality is this cannot go piecemeal. One bill cannot go without 
the other. I guess, to quote the three musketeers, one for all and all 
for one, or none. I urge my colleagues to support this package as it 
has been presented, because an awful lot of hard work and an awful lot 
of benefits to an awful lot of States is at jeopardy here. To suggest 
it is irresponsible and to threaten the State of Utah because this 
legislation does not propose enough wilderness, in the opinion of the 
Senator from Alaska is not only unrealistic and impractical, it is 
simply absurd.
  Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to recognize while we have 
had an extended debate here about a lot of titles that are covered 
under the bill, the success or failure of this bill is related 
tremendously to the Utah wilderness. I implore my colleagues who have 
titles and interest in this bill to recognize that this does represent 
a compromise, a 2-million acre compromise. As we have seen, the 
intensive lobbying by a relatively small segment of motivated 
extremists who say 2 million acres is not enough, does not represent 
the prevailing attitude in Utah by a long shot, nor the prevailing 
attitude in the West by a long shot. It represents, perhaps some of the 
elitist Eastern States who simply have their land and do not have a dog 
in this fight.
  This is far too important, Mr. President, to let slide for another 
Congress--15 years, $10 million expended. We have a solid 
recommendation and a solid base of support.
  Mr. President, as we look forward to another day on this matter, we 
have attempted to accommodate each State that had an interest in public 
lands legislation. Now we are down to the point of determining whether 
or not those Members who have an interest will stick together to keep 
this legislation in its package form. I have been assured that it will 
pass in the House if it is kept that way. If it is broken up, if Utah 
wilderness is stricken from the body, the legislation and the packages 
as we know it today will fail.
  I urge my colleagues, in conclusion, to reflect on the significance 
of that reality.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate now, I send a 
cloture motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Murkowski 
     substitute amendment to Calendar No. 300, H.R. 1296, 
     providing for the administration of certain Presidio 
     properties at minimal cost to the Federal taxpayer:
         Bob Dole, Frank H. Murkowski, Rick Santorum, Slade 
           Gorton, Trent Lott, Jim Inhofe, Hank Brown, Ted 
           Stevens, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Conrad Burns, Don 
           Nickles, Larry E. Craig, Jim Jeffords, Judd Gregg, R.F. 
           Bennett, Orrin G. Hatch.
   Mr. MURKOWSKI. For the information of all Senators, under the 
provisions of rule XXII, this cloture vote will occur at Wednesday at a 
time to be determined by the two leaders, according to rule XXII--
whichever.
  I believe the Chair understands that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chair understands that the provisions 
under rule XXII will prevail.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I see no other Senator wishing to be recognized.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair wishes to advise all Members who use time to expedite the 
debate. In the event Members are not here to debate the issue, we will 
proceed to the question.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________