[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 135 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11402-S11405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE OMNIBUS PARKS LEGISLATION

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as I indicated in my conversation 
yesterday, we have an opportunity, a rare opportunity, to move the 
omnibus parks legislation, including some 126 individual titles. The 
sequence of events that has occurred since our conferees on the Senate 
side met and sent the package over to the House bears some examination 
at this time.
  Let me recount the status of the Presidio omnibus parks legislation. 
When it went over to the House yesterday, we anticipated that the House 
would address it today. However, there was an error in the technical 
submission which resulted in an objection on technical language. As a 
consequence, in order to rectify that situation, it is necessary that 
it come back to this body and that the corrections be taken, which, 
again, are of a technical nature, and it be sent back to the House of 
Representatives for action, and then it would come over here, and the 
anticipated procedure would be that an objection would result and a 
vote to recommit the conference report, which would basically terminate 
the conference report and the Presidio omnibus parks legislation.
  As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which 
reported out this package after working some 2 years, and recognizing 
that it affects the interests in some 41 individual States, and 
recognizing that we knew there were controversial issues in the 
package, including the Utah wilderness, which was withdrawn at the 
request of the administration, the grazing issue which was withdrawn at 
the request of the administration over a veto threat, the Tongass 15-
year extension for the benefit of the Ketchikan pulp contract in my 
State of Alaska, which would enable a $200 million investment to go 
into a new facility, chlorine free, state-of-the-art, which was 
threatened by a Presidential veto, I assume because of objections 
from environmental groups, that, too, was withdrawn. We had the issue 
affecting the State of Minnesota known as the boundary wilderness 
waters. That, too, was withdrawn.

  So, Mr. President, the point I am making here is that there was a 
genuine effort to respond to the administration's concern by 
withdrawing what was assumed to be the controversial issues.
  Well, Mr. President, last night we were in for another surprise. The 
Office of Management and Budget came up with a letter indicating that 
they still were not satisfied. Mr. President, it is the observation of 
the Senator from Alaska that the White House has a goalpost on wheels. 
They simply move it around when it is convenient.
  I am sure there are some legitimate concerns, but they were not 
expressed in the first letter from the White House relative to their 
concerns and objections. They include some new areas that we had not 
been advised were controversial in the last 2 years that we have held 
hearings. So I would like to go over those so my colleagues will know 
just where we are.
  In the receipt of the second proposed veto letter, where it simply 
says that the Office of Management and Budget would recommend a veto 
either through the Secretary of Agriculture or to the Office of the 
President, the letter points out that there are procedures and 
provisions that are unacceptable to the administration that would 
warrant veto action.
  These include, No. 1, unwarranted boundary restrictions to the 
Shenandoah and Richmond Battlefield National Parks in Virginia.
  The second was special-interest benefits adversely affecting the 
management of the Sequoia National Park in California.
  Three, an unfavorable modification of the Ketchikan pulp contract on 
the Tongass in my State of Alaska.
  Four, erosion of the coastal barrier island protections in Florida.
  Five, mandated changes that would significantly alter and delay 
completion of the Tongass land management plan.
  And, six, permanent changes in process for regulating rights-of-way 
across national parks and other Federal lands.
  Mr. President, the indication here is that this administration would 
hold up the omnibus parks package, including the Presidio, that 
magnificent jewel in the Pacific under the Golden Gate Bridge, that 
needs attention and needs attention badly. It needs attention now; it 
cannot wait. It is going to deteriorate.
  We proposed to set up a trust of outstanding citizens in San 
Francisco to manage that like the Pennsylvania Redevelopment 
Corporation has done such an extraordinary job in Washington, DC, in 
renovating the areas along Pennsylvania Avenue.
  The administration is implying, suggesting, recommending they are 
going to hold up this package as a consequence now of these issues 
after we took the controversial issues away.
  Mr. President, let there be no mistake about it, the game plan--the 
game plan--of this administration is evidenced in its letter. That 
letter does not address the legislative package, which is the omnibus 
parks bill, as the vehicle. What it recommends is that we initiate 
further discussions so that the appropriations process can cherry pick, 
if you will, certain aspects, certain portions out of the omnibus 
package and put it in the appropriations process.
  The committee chairman, Senator Gorton of Washington, indicated 
yesterday, in no uncertain terms, that the omnibus parks package was 
the only train leaving, the only bus leaving the station. This was it, 
because he was not going to entertain taking segments out of the 
omnibus parks package and putting it in the appropriations legislation 
that they are drafting. Mr. President, we are in a situation now where 
that bus has left.

  The Senator from Washington is known for his outspokenness, his 
commitment, his word. I have communicated with Senator Hatfield of the 
Appropriations Committee relative to the possibility that is the game 
plan now, to abandon the Presidio omnibus parks legislation, and 
selectively pull pieces out of there and put it, Mr. President, in the 
appropriation package.
  Now, as we look at these issues specifically which I think need 
examination, since the White House brought

[[Page S11403]]

them up, one might say, ``Well, there must be something wrong with 
these.'' On the surface, it may be something bad. We must be out of our 
minds to even consider passing such provisions as objected to by the 
director of the Executive Office of the President.
  Let me read the last sentence of the letter.

       The conference report does not meet the test. We remain 
     willing to work with you to develop a compromise package that 
     could be included in a bill to provide continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 1997.

  There it is, Mr. President. That is what the administration wants to 
do. They want to take the omnibus parks bill, the hours my committee 
has worked--as a matter of fact, the years--126 individual bills that 
are in that package, they want to cherry pick them out. Do you know 
what will happen if that is done? Some of the senior Members with long-
term seniority in this body are going to try and prevail. They will try 
and prevail. We know how that works. But it is not something that I 
will stand and watch silently happen. I am prepared to take whatever 
means is necessary to keep this package together. If it starts coming 
apart, to take whatever means is necessary to block it if it is in an 
appropriations process, because this concept is simply wrong.
  We have held the hearings. We participated in the public process. Now 
it is time to legislate on the package. I am not buying the excuse 
that, ``Well, the Senator from Alaska has put together this huge 
package. Why did we not pass these individually?'' Because every Member 
in this body knows why. There has been a hold on every 1 of the 126 
individual bills that are in this package for over a year, in some 
cases a year and a half, nearly 2 years, by some individuals who wanted 
to use the whole process to force the House to initiate action on bills 
that were objected to in the House. That is why this package exists.
  If there is going to be some political heat around here, Mr. 
President, that political heat goes right down to the White House for 
breaking up or attempting to break up a well put together package, by 
withdrawing Utah wilderness, grazing, Tongass, 15-year extension, as 
well as the Minnesota boundary waters. We have done our part. But, no, 
they want more.

  Mr. President, this is a small item in passing. I am losing 1,000 
jobs directly, 3,000 to 4,000 jobs indirectly. That means 25 percent of 
the economy of southeastern Alaska because this administration will not 
support a 15-year extension. I met the Secretary of the Office of the 
President on Environmental Quality Council, Ms. McGinty. She did not 
recommend the extension. She could not give me a reason.
  I have in front of me a statement from the U.S. Forest Service and 
their consultants. In the summer of 1996 there were enough trees that 
died in my State of Alaska in south central and interior Alaska as a 
result of the infestation of the spruce bark beetle to run that 
Ketchikan pulp mill at full capacity for 8 years. So, there we have it, 
Mr. President. No sensitivity to the dead, dying timber, jobs, people 
out of work, unemployment, no tax base.
  Mr. President, as we look at where we are today, we wonder if it is 
not precisely what the Framers of the Constitution of the United States 
had in mind when they created the three branches of Government. If one 
goes a little off, the other can bring some balance into the process.
  I want to share and examine the issues concerning the permanent 
changes in the process for regulating right of ways across national 
parks and other Federal lands. The resolution of right of way claims, 
or RS 2477, which they suggest that they do not find suitable in this 
legislation, these claims as they are called, have been a complex, 
contentious process. The committee reported an amended bill that allows 
the Department to proceed with the development of new regulations while 
prohibiting their implementation until approved by Congress. That is 
what we did in committee, put the balance in there, so that, obviously, 
it would require the implementation by Congress, and the Department 
could proceed with the regulations while prohibiting the implementation 
until approved by Congress.
  In other words, this legislation provided the ability to keep the 
process going, but Congress wants to act. This does not permanently 
change the process. It just provides a system of checks and balances. 
It is fairly difficult to argue with this logic unless, of course, the 
White House does not want to participate in the check and balance.
  Mr. President, what is even more phenomenal is the fact that the 
original bill was significantly amended as requested by this 
administration. In other words, we have already responded to the 
administration, but clearly OMB does not know anything about it. The 
same bill that is in this package, let me repeat, the same bill is the 
administration's position, and actually relaxes the conditions of the 
moratorium currently in effect. The bill in this package was 
unanimously agreed to by all of the committee members. The Senator from 
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, voted for it, Senator Bradley from New 
Jersey voted for it, Senator Bumpers voted for it. Mr. President, I 
doubt that the President of the United States would seriously veto a 
legislative package of this magnitude over a bill they agreed to--
agreed to it--last May.
  Now, the threat of a veto on Shenandoah and Richmond Battlefield 
National Park in Virginia--well, let's cut to the quick. The Richmond 
Battlefield provision in this package is the same map, same boundaries 
as depicted on the National Park Service's newly released general 
management plan, dated August 1996. The reduction in acreage is the 
administration's initiative. I repeat. This is a plan from the 
administration. During the course of deliberations, a provision was 
added. The land could only be purchased from a willing seller. But, at 
the same time, the restriction to the purchase of lands by donated 
funds only was expanded to include appropriated funds.

  In the case of the Shenandoah National Park, the park boundary was 
reduced from the original 1926 authorization of 521,000 acres to 
196,500 acres, currently managed by the National Park Service.
  The conferees also directed that the Secretary shall complete a 
boundary study, which would address the future needs of the park in the 
way of lands acquisition and give the Secretary authority to acquire 
those lands. The Park Service did not testify or make the case that the 
entire acreage, as envisioned in 1926, was required to complete the 
park. In fact, there are many areas within the original acreage that 
are already developed and no longer possess those qualities for 
inclusion as units for the National Park System.
  The provisions in the package were worked out between the Virginia 
delegation over a period of months--bipartisan, Mr. President. 
Negotiations were intense when the delegation first addressed the 
problems at Shenandoah. They were all over the spectrum. Finally, they 
reached an agreement. The provision protects the park and rectifies the 
problems experienced by their constituents. In conversation with the 
White House staff last night, Mr. President, when asked what was the 
real problem, they allowed that they would probably reach the same 
conclusion, but the program needed more process. Well, it has been 2 
years, Mr. President. Why does the administration object to this? They 
won't tell us. They just put it down.
  Mr. President, they want more process. This comes from an 
administration who, in many cases, ignored any process. In declaring 
the 1.8 million acres in the State of Utah a national monument, there 
was no process, no NEPA, no FLPMA--no process. On one hand, they want 
process, and on the other hand, they make a decision based on political 
expediency. What happens? The President doesn't go to Utah. The 
President sits on the edge of the Grand Canyon and makes his 
pronouncement from the State of Arizona. Why didn't he go to Utah? It 
is clear. He wasn't welcome in Utah. Because of his land grab under the 
Antiquities Act, he would have been protested by children who were 
objecting to the revenue that would be lost to the school fund as a 
consequence of this designation.
  The pathetic part of that action--and it was not the action of a work 
horse, Mr. President, it was the action of a show horse, because that 
legislation, the Antiquities Act had no business being invoked, and the 
administration uses the excuse, well, Teddy Roosevelt did it. It was 
necessary when Teddy

[[Page S11404]]

Roosevelt was around, but he did it right. There was a lot of 
discussion over it. The Antiquities Act was applied by President Carter 
in my State of Alaska, but there was a lot of discussion. There was 
absolutely no discussion in this case--none whatsoever. Check with the 
delegation from Utah, check with the Governor, check with the House 
Members. This came as a surprise. It was a photo opportunity, a crass 
effort to take advantage, if you will, of a designation land grab which 
some of the President's advisers suggested. I have even heard Dick 
Morris was in on the recommendation. So, on one hand, the 
administration talks about a public process. They want more process in 
this parks package. But they have no process in declaring 1.8 million 
acres of the State of Utah a national monument.

  Mr. President, as late as, I believe, the 103d Congress, we had an 
extended debate over California desert wilderness. Not everybody was 
happy, but there was a process, a democratic process, where the people 
were heard. And we passed that legislation. Everybody wasn't happy. I 
wasn't particularly happy, but Dianne Feinstein was very happy. But it 
was a process. That was circumvented here. It was circumvented, and the 
media can't seem to see through it. They proclaim the merits. Nobody 
proclaims the loss of participation or the loss of the process by the 
people of Utah.
  This is not an issue of the State of Alaska, but there is a principle 
involved here. This Senator is introducing legislation, along with 
Senator Craig and others, to take away the President's authority to 
invoke the Antiquities Act, because it has been abused. There is every 
reason that we could have continued the dialog in the next session of 
Congress on the Utah wilderness, to make legitimate designations of 
wilderness for Utah. But here we have a land grab. So when the 
President and the White House talks about process, I want to talk about 
their process. Their process is a land grab.
  Mr. President, the administration has a problem with the extension of 
a few summer cabin leases at Sequoia National Park where they are going 
to develop a campground and other facilities. However, there are no 
definitive plans or moneys programmed at the current time.
  They are ready to sacrifice the whole package on this issue. The 
original bill was heavily amended as a result of a veto threat by the 
Department. All of the erroneous provisions were removed, to our 
knowledge, at that time. Under this bill, the Secretary has total 
discretion to continue to lease it. The language does not direct the 
Secretary to do anything, but he may if he wants to. What is wrong with 
that? Full discretion.
  Last year, we saw Senator Feinstein, my good friend from California, 
as I indicated, prevail in the establishment of the largest park and 
wilderness package in quite a while, the California desert. Now, I 
can't believe my good friend, Senator Feinstein, would support the 
destruction of the Sequoia National Park, nor would I suspect that 
Senator Boxer would allow anything inappropriate to take place. Both 
support this legislation. If the Secretary thinks it is a neat thing to 
do it, why, we have given him the authority to do it.
  The administration cites ``unfavorable modifications'' of the 
Ketchikan pulp contract as a possible veto item. Is this a national 
issue for which the President would sacrifice a billion-dollar 
environmental program for the San Francisco Bay area to clean up the 
San Francisco Bay? I went to school down there, and I know it well. It 
needs cleaning up. This is a great piece of legislation. He sacrificed 
that and the establishment of the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, the 
preservation of the Sterling Forest corridor, which is a federally 
funded purchase of land in New Jersey and land in New York, and a 
bipartisan solution for the management of the Presidio. ``Well, this is 
unfavorable.'' Unfavorable to whom?
  The administration has made it perfectly clear that they would veto 
any timber concession that would allow for environmental investment and 
the continued operation of the only remaining pulp mill in my State, as 
I have stated. As a result, we pulled this provision and will have only 
the President to hold accountable for the jobs that we will lose.
  It is rather interesting, because the President chooses to sacrifice, 
if you will, some of his own--or at least the administration does. Our 
Governor has worked very hard--a Democrat--to try to prevail upon the 
White House. First was ANWR and now the Tongass. Well, unfortunately, 
they have seen fit to disregard his recommendations. They have seen fit 
to disregard the recommendations of the congressional delegation from 
Utah. One can only conclude they have simply written off Alaska and 
Utah--at least politically.
  What I left in this is one sentence that, in my State, would give the 
Forest Service the flexibility to work with the company that still 
holds an 8-year pulp contract, to simply transfer that over so it could 
be made available to the sawmills in the State of Alaska. We only have 
four--two are operating and one co-op, one marginally operation, and 
one in Wrangell is closed.

  That is all I am proposing. Yet, they say this is ground for veto 
threat. After the administration scores a victory for the environmental 
lobby and closes our last pulp mill--our only year-round manufacturing 
facility--are we also to be denied the opportunity to try to salvage 
something? Which is what I propose --and that is allowing the transfer 
of the existing contract from pulp to sawmill because if the pulp mill 
continued to operate for the balance of this contract they would have 
the right to do that to the year 2004 when it would be terminated.
  No. What we have here is a rhetorical reach for the symbol Tongass to 
raise fears about this conference report. Well, this does not sell with 
the Senator from Alaska.
  The White House takes issue with the Coastal Barrier Resource Act 
amendments--in Florida--which appear in this package. The corrections 
remove roughly 40 acres of land in Florida from the 1.272 million acre 
Coastal Barrier Resource System. It has the support of the Florida 
delegation. I understand the Governor of Florida, Governor Chiles, has 
made a concerted effort to try to get the White House to change its 
mind. He strongly supports these changes. This is a bipartisan issue. 
The Florida House delegation are cosponsors of this specific 
legislation. The two Senators from Florida, as I indicated, support it.
  One wonders what the motivation of the White House is. The answer 
perhaps is simple. In this case the bill removes developed lands--40 
acres--from the 1.2 million acre system that is supposed to contain 
undeveloped land. So the executive branch is giving little 
consideration to the legislative branch.
  The administration also cites ``mandated changes that would 
significantly alter and delay the completion of the Tongass Land 
Management Plan'' as a possible veto item. This conclusion represents 
probably the most gross, misleading of any language in the bill.
  The provisions they are apparently referring to--though they are so 
off base it is hard to tell because they know nothing about the 
subject--is one that directs the Forest Service to make recommendations 
to the Congress about potential compensation for Alaska Natives 
unfairly left out of the Alaska Natives Claim Settlement Act. These are 
natives that unfortunately were left out. They were not included, and 
this is only the authority--the authorization--to include them; no 
mandate for land; no designation; just the authority that these people 
have a right as Alaska Natives and indigenous people to their claim 
because they were left out and the other natives shared in that claim.
  This is an equity issue.
  The provision also directs the Forest Service to incorporate these 
recommendations into the Tongass Land Management Plan so that Congress 
can properly evaluate the impact of any recommendation involving land 
status changes on management of the forest. Any proposed changes would 
have to be acted upon by Congress and approved by the President.
  This is a safeguard. What is wrong with that?
  One of the interesting things that Alaskans can understand is the 
significance of this so-called TLMP. No one can do anything in Alaska 
until the TLMP is finished. The purpose was to settle the harvest--
sustainable yield--on 1.7 million acres out of the 17 million acre 
Tongass National Forest. The

[[Page S11405]]

only problem is that by the time the Forest Service completes it--which 
was initially going to be August and now is going to be the end of the 
year--we are not going to have any industry left.

  So it is not going to be applicable, if you will, in any practical 
way because it was designed for an area and level of utilization. If we 
do not have industry, there is no utilization.
  I would encourage my colleagues from other Western States to 
recognize what is happening here. This is a carefully contrived effort 
by extreme environmental groups who want to terminate timber harvesting 
on all Forest Service national land. What does that mean in any State? 
Unfortunately, we have no private timber with the exception of Native 
regional corporations which have been able to select under their 
indigenous selection opportunity. That is private timber. They can 
export it at a higher price. There is no State timber in southeastern 
Alaska. Our people lived in the forests--Ketchikan, Haines, Skagway, 
Wrangell--before the national forests were established. People were 
assured they would have an opportunity for a livelihood. And, since we, 
if you will, designated wilderness in the forests as national monuments 
and left only a small segment, we are faced with the reality of trying 
to continue a modest industry when others clearly are trying to 
terminate it. And it is going to move to other Western States. What are 
we going to do? I guess we are going to simply import our raw materials 
from nations who do not have the same sensitivity, forgetting the fact 
that we are much more environmentally sensitive, and do a better job. 
And we are dealing with a renewable resource here properly managed. We 
have 50-year-old second-growth timber; beautiful timber.
  But in any event, we are faced with this reality associated with the 
general theme of this administration, whether it is timbering, oil and 
gas exploration, opening ANWR safely, whether it is grazing, or whether 
it is mining. There is no substantive support for resource development 
on public lands. They are selling America short, American technology 
short, American know-how short, exporting the jobs overseas, and 
exporting the dollars. And one only has to look at the increasing 
balance of payments deficit to recognize it's significance.
  The cost of imported oil is over a third of our trade deficit. What 
are we doing? We are simply importing more. We tried to put Saddam 
Hussein in the cage not so long ago. He got out. Saddam Hussein is 
better off this week than he was 4 weeks ago. What are we doing about 
it?
  Where is our energy policy? What are we subjecting ourselves to? 
Where is our national security interest? We are 51.1 percent dependent 
on imported oil. During the Arab oil embargo in 1973, we were 37 
percent dependent. What do we do? We created SPR, the stretegic 
petroleum reserve. We created a fall back so we have a supply which we 
need. This administration has chosen to use it as a piggy bank. We paid 
some $27 or $28 a barrel for a 90-day supply. We have never achieved 
the 90-day supply. Now we are selling it at $18 to $19 a barrel to meet 
budget objectives. There is a huge increase in the President's budget 
in the year 2000. This is what they are doing.
  Where are we going, Mr. President? We are sacrificing our national 
energy security. We are sacrificing it in this way. The Department of 
Energy has indicated by the year 2000 we will be 66 percent dependent 
on imported oil. And where does that come from? It come comes from the 
Mideast. Anybody that suggests that the Mideast is a stable area only 
has to recognize the troop buildup, and the fact that we were 
sharpening our missiles a few days ago and firing them a few weeks ago. 
So sooner or later, Mr. President, we are going to pay the piper.

  And the reason for going into this rather extended dialog is simply 
to alert my colleagues of the inevitability that what goes around comes 
around, and history repeats itself. And it is going to repeat itself 
relative to our increased dependence on imported oil and the fact that 
we are losing our leverage with our Arab neighbors as evidenced by our 
effort to generate their physical support in the last go-round with 
Saddam Hussein.
  Finally, Mr. President, as I get back to this analysis of the 
position of the administration, I conclude by saying, as the 
administration letter indicates, that mandated changes are required to 
significantly alter various aspects of this to make changes for the 
purpose of raising concerns that are not documented in any detail but 
seem to be raised as an excuse to find an excuse to initiate a veto 
threat.
  Politics and rhetoric have overtaken substance and reality. It will 
be truly sad if the misleading statements and inferences and threats in 
the administration's recent statement bring down the largest parks bill 
since 1978, the largest environmental package in the last several 
decades. The President of the United States currently has on more than 
one occasion stated he would veto appropriation language that contained 
riders, so I am concluding from the statement from the Office of 
Management and Budget, ``We remain willing to work with you in 
developing a package that would include a bill to provide continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 1997,'' there is your rider.
  Now he wants the rider; he thinks that is a good idea. The reason is, 
one can avoid the legislative process. You just take what you want and 
trash the rest. I tell you, if that happens, there are going to be a 
lot of unhappy Members because some of you will have your bill selected 
and others will not.
  I believe in the legislative process. That is why I am here. That is 
why I have accepted the responsibility of working with my members on 
the committee to bring this parks package before this body. I believe 
in the legislative process, working collectively, and I am proud of the 
fact that we have crafted a bipartisan package that serves to enhance 
our parks and our public lands.
  I have answered the veto letter. I believe my colleagues see that 
there is very little substance, and the President is standing tall, 
perhaps, but standing in the mush.
  So for those who have followed this debate, I would appeal to you 
that the parks package may, indeed, be in jeopardy from objections 
unidentified in detail from the White House--not based on their first 
series of objections, but based on, apparently, an afterthought. Maybe 
for some reason unknown to this Senator, there is a political reason at 
this late date prior to the election for a veto of this package, but I 
cannot imagine what it is. I think they are misreading it downtown. I 
do not think they recognize we have stripped it of its objectionable 
parts, and I encourage those who are out there and are concerned with 
these issues to notify the President, notify the Chief of Staff, Leon 
Panetta, notify their elected Representatives, Senator and Congressman, 
because it is getting late, and if this package, this omnibus parks 
package, is delayed or set aside because of pending business so there 
is not enough time to take it up, the White House and the President are 
going to have to bear that responsibility--not the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, not Congressman Don Young from Alaska, not Frank 
Murkowski, Senator from Alaska, not Ted Stevens, Senator from Alaska, 
not the members from my Energy and Resources Committee, not the 
professional staff, not Senator Bennett Johnston, but the White House 
for obstructing the most significant legislative package that has come 
before this body, as I have said, in several decades.
  So I urge those out in California who are interested in the Presidio 
or interested in the portion of the legislation to clean up the San 
Francisco Bay or any of the other 126 titles in the other 41 States to 
get busy, because the countdown has begun. It is not going to go in the 
appropriations process. I have had that assurance over here. This is 
the right way to do it. This is the right time to do it. There is 
absolutely no excuse for further delay.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed for up 
to a half-hour as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.

                          ____________________