REFERENCE: Vol. 136 No. 69 Congressional Record -- Senate Tuesday, June 5, 1990; (Legislative day of Wednesday, April 18, 1990) 101st Cong. 2nd Sess. 136 Cong Rec S 7135 TITLE: TONGASS TIMBER REFORM ACT -- MOTION TO PROCEED SPEAKER: Mr. JOHNSTON; Mr. MITCHELL; Mr. MURKOWSKI; Mr. STEVENS; Mr. WIRTH TEXT: [*S7135] Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 497, H.R. 987, the Tongass Timber Reform Act. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I object, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The majority leader still has the floor. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move we proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 497, H.R. 987, the Tongass Timber Reform Act. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is fully debatable. Is there debate? The Senator from Louisiana. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we accomplished what I thought was a minor miracle on this legislation because we took two sides which had been wrangling and arguing in diametric opposition for years and came out of the Energy Committee with a bill that was supported in writing by the two Senators from Alaska. I have a letter from them, Mr. President, which I would like to offer for the Record at this time and just to read a sentence from it. It is a letter dated April 6, 1990, addressed to Dear Colleague. It says: "We are now prepared to support as a reasonable compromise the committeepassed bill." I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, April 6, 1990. Dear Colleague: The Senate may soon consider legislation making significant changes in the management of the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska. As the Senators from Alaska, we are willing to advance reasonable reform measures for the Tongass such as eliminating the $40 million direct appropriation for the forest and the requirement that 4.5 billion board feet of timber be made available for harvest each decade. However, we will not accept measures included in the House passed Tongass wilderness bill which abrogate federal contracts with the only two year-around manufacturing plants in our state and add to the existing 5.4 million acres of wilderness in the Tongass by placing an additional 1.8 million acres into wilderness. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources recently voted unanimously (19-0) to report a bill to make reforms and land designations in the Tongass National Forest. Neither the Tongass bill (S. 346), which we strongly oppose, or our bill (S. 237) emerged from Committee. The Committee bill went well beyond our proposal in that it permanently withdraws 673,000 acres from timber harvest, requires changes to existing contracts, and prescribes no-harvest zones along fish streams, matters not addressed by our legislation. It also repeals the $40 million Tongass Timber Supply Fund and the 4.5 billion board foot timber supply requirement which were an integral part of the 1980 Tongass wilderness bill. The Committee passed bill is a compromise that leaves many on the fringe unhappy. The Wilderness Society now objects to the compromise bill because they would like to see new Tongass wilderness legislation passed over the objection of our Governor and Congressional delegation. The timber dependent communities in our state are concerned because they believe the Committee bill places so much additional timber off-limits that jobs will be lost and mills will close. Nevertheless, we are now prepared to support as a reasonable compromise the Committee passed bill which addresses timber funding, timber supply, fish stream protection, and pulp mill contract issues and removes valuable timber lands from timber harvest. We support this measure now so that we can bring an end to a divisive issue which has plagued our constituents living in communities surrounded by the Tongass forest. We hope that you also will support the unanimous Committee action. Sincerely, Frank H. Murkowski. Ted Stevens. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on the other side, all of the environmental organizations have agreed to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter dated May 24, 1990, addressed to Senator Mitchell and signed by some 17 different environmental organizations, including Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, the Resources Conservation Department of National Wildlife Federation, National Resources Defense Council, et cetera.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: May 24, 1990. Dear Senator Mitchell: We are writing to ask your assistance in scheduling early Senate consideration of one of the most important natural resource bills to be considered by this Congress -- the Tongass Timber Reform Act. We're pleased at the interest that you and your staff have already shown on this issue. Enacting a strong, sound Tongass Reform bill is one of our highest priorities for this Congress. In order to assure adequate time for a full conference with the House, we believe it is critical to complete Senate consideration of the Johnston substitute to HR 987 at the earliest possible date. Although the Johnston substitute does not go as far in the protection of key fish and wildlife areas as the House bill, and is less stringent in other key respects, we believe that it embodies the basis for a House-Senate [*S7136] negotiation that can result in responsible fiscal policies and critical protection for America's greatest remaining rainforest. The opportunity to protect and conserve so much natural wealth does not come along every day. Although we understand that amendments may be offered to revise some portions of the bill, we hope that disputes over the amendments do not needlessly delay a vote on the Johnston substitute to HR 987. Thank you for considering our request. Sincerely, Kevin Coyle, President, American Rivers; Brent Blackwelder, Vice-President, Friends of the Earth Environmental Policy Institute; William Lienesch, Director of Federal Activities, National Parks and Conservation Assoc.; Justin Ward, Natural Resources Defense Council; Thomas A. Schatz, Senior Vice-President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Phoebe Driscoll, Chairperson, Garden Club of America; Jill Lancelot, Director of Legislative Affairs, National Taxpayers Union; Mike Matz, Washington Director, Public Lands Program, Sierra Club; Sydney J. Butler, Vice- President for Conservation, The Wilderness Society; Rupert Cutler, President, Defenders of Wildlife; Brooks Yeager, Vice-President, Government Relations, National Audubon Society; Sharon Newsome, Vice-President, Resources Conservation Department, National Wildlife Federation; Bart Koehler, Executive Director, Southern Alaska Conservation Council. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, one would think, with broad support on this bill from the two Senators from Alaska, from all the environmental groups, and a unanimous vote of the committee, that we would be able to bring this bill up on the floor of the Senate and dispose of it quickly in a period of over 2 months. But this legislation was ordered reported on March 7 by the Energy Committee. It was actually reported to the floor on
March 30. I have been trying on a daily and weekly basis ever since that time to bring it up. What has happened is that first one group and then another will object to the time agreement. I finally have urged the majority leader to bring it up and let us discuss the matter here on the floor. If there is anyone who has shown good faith to the Alaskans, who has shown sympathy to the Alaskan timber industry, who has tried to preserve the jobs in Alaska consistent with the environment, it is I. Mr. President, there are over 53 cosponsors to the Wirth bill, which I believe if brought up on the floor of the Senate, would easily pass by more than a majority, perhaps by more than 60 votes. I have prevailed upon the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Wirth] to join in this coalition and pass a bill that all sides could support. He has agreed to do so. But, Mr. President, we cannot have a one-sided deal. If we are going to have a compromise on this bill to which I am bound and I will stick, then we cannot be in a position of having to invoke cloture on our compromise bill. If we are forced to go to cloture, as far as I am concerned, then we go to cloture and then the deal is off. We do whatever the Senate wants to work as its will. I hope we do not have to do that, because I have tried and I have tried to do this by compromise. My friend, the senior Senator from Alaska, has said that he wants to get an agreement out of the House. Mr. President, I can tell my colleagues, the House is not going to give us a bottom line on what they are going to agree to at conference. I will not give the Senators from Alaska a bottom line as to what I would agree to at conference. To do so would make the conference superfluous. That is what conferences are for. The House cannot force its will on the Senate. It takes both the House and the Senate, of course, to agree in conference. I think I have shown the Senators from Alaska my good faith in wanting to preserve their jobs in Alaska, and I am willing to do that in conference. But we have to get to conference before that happens. I plead with my friends from Alaska, do not force us to go to a cloture vote on this. Do not break the feeling of compromise that we had on this bill. Everybody supports this. We can go to conference and try to work it out. I know what the interests of the Alaskan Senators are. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, This is the first time I heard there is agreement on the Senator's side to proceed with this bill. To my understanding, there is still disagreement on the unanimous- consent agreement form that was pending here the last evening we were here. I had no information that the Senator had agreement on his side to proceed.
As a matter of fact, when this Senator went home on the recess, he understood there was still an objection and the Senator himself might withdraw one of the amendments he intended to offer. I am hearing things now that indicate there was unanimous agreement on the floor to proceed, but somehow the Senators from Alaska were the obstacle. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator from Louisiana, is that correct? Did the Senator have an understanding on his side that Senator Metzanbaum's amendment was withdrawn and the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana was still the same as we were informed they were? Mr. JOHNSTON. I am not saying there is agreement to the shape of the bill. But there is agreement to bring the bill up. At sometime or another we have to bring the bill up. We have been trying for over 2 months to get time agreements and work it out. I think the time is on the floor. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield further? Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. STEVENS. I want to inform the Senator and the Senate that this Senator for 22 years has lived by the rules of the Senate and the comity in the Senate. This is the first time I know that this type of procedure has been used on a motion to proceed that affects a bill from one State and one State only, when the two Senators were not prepared to take it up until there had been an opportunity really to get this time agreement. The time agreement was not offered. We did not have a chance to object to the time agreement or try to work it out. There has been a motion to proceed now to this bill, a bill, as the Senator has indicated, I support as it is written. It is my understanding there are going to be amendments offered here to change the bill that this Senator and Senator Murkowski supported as it came out of committee. The representation has been made somehow by the Senator from Louisiana that we are reneging on our commitment to support the bill. Is the Senator willing to pass the bill as it came out of committee without any change? Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the only amendment that I want to offer would be the amendment to restore it to the way that it was introduced as a compromise amendment in committee. I think the junior Senator from Alaska understands that. The junior Senator from Alaska, I believe, has an alternative to that which we will debate and are glad to consider. But I propose, as everyone has known all along, to put the amendment on class 2 streams, restoring the bill to the way it was proposed to the committee. As far as I am concerned, that can be all the amendments that are offered. I am glad to agree to a time agreement to that. If the junior Senator from Alaska would like time for a second-degree amendment as an amendment to that, consider it, debate it, that is fine. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, when two Senators represent one State and have 20 percent of the land mass of the United States and already have 65 percent of the wilderness of the United States in that State, to present a bill without a time agreement on the floor, in my opinion, is wrong. I have so informed the Senator from Louisiana before. We have been trying to work out a time agreement. I have discussed it with the Senator from Colorado, he is on the floor; I have discussed it with unnumbered Members of the Senate and House so far, trying to find some way to accommodate the goal of achieving the passage of the bill as reported by the committee. I want to ask the Senator a question. Would it not have been more proper under the normal procedures of the Senate to try and work out a time agreement here? Why do we have to [*S7137] move on this bill? Why could we not have explored this time agreement? I ask the Senator. He is the chairman of the committee. He has a letter from the two of us saying we support that bill as it came out of the committee, and now we are faced with the concept of bringing the bill up free and open, subject to amendment. Why is that so, Mr. President? I ask, the chairman, why did this bill come up without a time agreement? We did not object to a time agreement. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has the floor. Mr. STEVENS. I have asked him a question, Mr. President. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am trying to answer. I have been trying for over 2 months to get a time agreement. I am ready to enter a time agreement right now. It is a very, very simple matter. If there is willingness to agree, we can agree right now. As far as I am concerned, I am willing to bring up the bill itself with only one amendment with whatever time that the Senators from Alaska wish, and that is to provide, with respect to class 2 streams, a 100-foot buffer, which is the way the bill was initially introduced. That would be the only amendment which I desire to consider, other than perhaps technical amendments. I am ready to proceed with a time agreement on that. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield further, Mr. President? Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator authorized to offer that amendment on behalf of the Members on his side of the aisle? Are there no other amendments to be offered? Mr. JOHNSTON. No, there would be no other amendments to be offered. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator still has the floor.
At the appropriate time, I would like to suggest the absence of a quorum and we will have a discussion of that. This is the first time this Senator has been so advised. Just below this, Mr. President, is the question of whether there is going to be comity on this floor or not. I want to remind the Senate it takes unanimous consent to do almost anything around here, and this Senator does not like to be surprised. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, for 2 months I have been trying to deal with this. I am not charging bad faith on anybody's part. There has been too many players and too many amendments. When one gets nailed down, then the water squirts out of another hole. It is a very simple matter. I am ready to have a time agreement on that one amendment. I do not know why we cannot do that at this time. Does the junior Senator from Alaska see any reason why we cannot proceed with that? Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator from Louisiana will yield for a question relative to the proposal that I think we are all very much aware of in the interest of moving on here in good faith. Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, I yield. Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think the Senator from Louisiana recalls that prior to going out on the recess as a consequence of a meeting we had there was request for a written proposal proposing a time agreement, and on May 24 that proposal was submitted to the Energy Committee. The proposal was for 2 hours of debate equally divided on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the H.R. 987. There was 1 hour of debate evenly divided on an amendment regarding land exchange which has already been referred to by the chairman with a proposal that no second-degree amendments would be in order. There was further a proposal that the committee substitute to H.R. 987 would be modified to include a committee amendment regarding buffer zones, a committee amendment regarding a land exchange for the gold belt, a committee amendment to make minor boundary adjustments to the Yakutat forelands. That is a LUD II management area. And a committee amendment to the title to H.R. 987. The proposal further stated that the amendment would be in the usual form, that no motions to recommit be in order, and that no other amendments other than the committee reported substitute on the Greens Creek land exchange amendment would be in order As the committee chairman will recall, I advised him of my intention to substitute for the reference of buffer zone the State forest management practice as adopted by the State of Alaska at the termination of the last legislative session and signed into law by the
Governor, because obviously it is in the best interest of the State to have uniformity with regard to buffer strips of land within the State. I had communication with the chairman of the committee earlier today, but we have not had formal response to this proposal. So in order to make sure we all understand where we are coming from, it is the feeling both the junior Senator and senior Senator have attempted to move in a positive manner and in a responsible manner in order to expedite this process. The senior Senator obviously is concerned, as is the junior Senator, with the disposition of this legislation once it gets to the House. That is probably something on which we cannot get a lot of satisfaction, but nevertheless we have already seen a substantial portion of the Tongass put into wilderness and we have seen what the House bill would do to our industry as we know it today. There is great and growing concern. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am prepared to reply to my friend. I did receive his request. I had been gone on the recess and just received it this afternoon. However, it is very easy to reply to it. Mr. President, what the junior Senator from Alaska suggests is a time agreement which is in all respects agreeable save two. He proposes to amend by unanimous consent the bill with respect to buffer zones and the goldbelt land exchange. So that he would amend that by unanimous consent without any debate. Mr. President, we could not agree to the buffer zones. Even though the amendment of the Senator may be perfectly reasonable and even though we would be glad to agree to a time agreement on his amendment as a second degree or as a first-degree amendment, we could not agree by unanimous consent because it introduces new terminology on the question of classification of streams. Our amendment uses Forest Service classifications on Forest Service lands. The Forest Service is familiar with it, has it all mapped out. The Murkowski language uses State statute language for Federal lands. The State continues to support the approach that I would propose, and the United Fishermen of Alaska support our approach. Now, I am not here seeking to debate it. I am simply telling him why I cannot by unanimous consent accept his language. I will be glad to debate it, and we could agree on a time agreement with respect to that, and perhaps he would win. Frankly, I think it is something that could be debated. It is not -- considering the matters at issue in this bill -- a very big part of the bill. Now, the second amendment, Mr. President, has to do with the goldbelt land exchange. I initially proposed to put in the goldbelt land exchange myself along with the Greens Creek land exchange. However, Mr. President, Greens Creek has run into tremendous controversy. I think both land exchanges are good things to do. I think they are both broadly supported. However, any time you get into a land exchange and you have not had
full and complete consideration, then I think it is best not to do it on the floor. I think it is best to go back to committee. And so while I do not oppose the goldbelt land exchange at all, I would prefer to take it back to committee and have it there considered on an expeditious basis. So there are only two matters on which there is any disagreement and both are relatively minor matters. We ought to be able to put together a time agreement on the floor right now. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield, Mr. President? Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, I will yield. Mr. STEVENS. I do not know about the rest of the Senators, Mr. President. I am going to ask the Senator from Louisiana if he realizes we are supposed to be meeting with our visitor from Greece. I would like to be there. I also would like to know why [*S7138] we cannot work this out in the normal procedure. We would have some sort of negotiation off the floor and present a time agreement. There has been no time agreement presented here. I still would like to see us proceed in the normal way. Does the Senator not want to work this out so he does not force the two Senators to put the Senate into long nights and into quorum calls and demand 51 people come to the floor and object to everything you can find? I support the bill as it came out of committee, Mr. President. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, it is so simple. It is so easy. Why can we not agree right this minute? Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator agree to the time agreement that the Senator from Alaska has offered? Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator from Alaska wants more than a time agreement. He wants to pass his amendment by unanimous consent. I just said I cannot agree to his amendment passed by unanimous consent, which is opposed by the State of Alaska, by the fishermen of Alaska, and -- -- Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would ask that the Senator yield. Mr. JOHNSTON. We can debate that. Let us debate it. I have given the reason why I could not go along with it by unanimous consent. Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator will yield. The Senator made a statement that the amendment was opposed by the State and opposed by the fishermen. I think that is an incorrect assumption. The State Forest Management
Practices Act is what the Senator from Alaska is proposing to substitute for the buffer strip amendment as it has been proposed in the bill. The Senator from Alaska is proposing basically 100 feet on class 1 and class 2 streams under a Forest Service definition. I am sure the Senator from Louisiana can appreciate the difficulty of having continuity in management. What we are trying to propose here simply is to have consistency of management on the lands in Alaska as opposed to having two different types of management schemes when the land adjoins one another, and the streams go into the next parcel. The State has, I think, done an excellent job in establishing forest management practices. It says on private lands, 66 feet buffer strips, and it says on State lands 100 feet on streams and all other streams capable of bearing major anadromous fish populations. That is what the Senator from Alaska is proposing. Mr. JOHNSTON. If I may reply to the Senator, he makes a good argument. But we could surely agree to a time agreement on that argument. The information I have as given to me by staff is the State continues to support the Johnston language. The united fishermen of Alaska support the Johnston language. That may not be so. We could find that out as debate went on. But surely I should not be required to agree to the amendment by unanimous consent in the face of that kind of opposition to it. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield, Mr. President? Mr. JOHNSTON. If I may first of all get this straight. Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would be happy to respond to the Senator from Louisiana. Let me refer to the letter, which I will introduce, the letter of May 24, which I believe the Senator's professional staff has, the second paragraph: As noted in the State of Alaska's testimony before the Senate Energy Committee on February 26, 1990, I support mandatory no-cut buffer zones with a minimum width of 100 feet on both sides of all anadromous and high-value resident fish streams in the Tongass National Forest, the same standard we recently adopted in the revised Alaska Forest Practices Act as a minimum protection for areas on all State and municipal lands south of the Alaska range. Mr. JOHNSTON. I know. But as part of that same letter it states: On balance we believe Senator Johnston's amendment provides appropriate mandatory prescriptions in conjunction with secretarial discretion in protecting valuable fish streams and water quality in the Tongass forest. That is from a letter from the Governor of Alaska that the Senator referred to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to the Senator from Louisiana, I think the Senator from Louisiana would recognize the significance of public land States such as Alaska and other States and the necessity of trying to have uniformity of managment. Obviously, the Governor has seen fit to sign the State Forest Management Practices Act, which is the uniform application of State authority on private and State lands. Another portion of this letter, on page 2, the Governor says: On the other hand high-value fish streams are not protected by mandatory buffer zones using the Forest Service stream classification approach Which is the point of the Senator from Louisiana but would be protected under the State approach. The relative impacts of these differences cannot be readily quantified. But we believe the net effect would be inconsequential for the Tongass National Forest. Mr. JOHNSTON. I have a copy of the letter. But I ask my friend, is he willing to agree to a time agreement on his amendment as well as my amendment, which would restore the bill to the same position it was when introduced in the committee? Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Louisiana will recall when we were negotiating, it was the intent to try to negotiate as much as possible including the proposed amendments. I think the Senator from Louisiana would agree that the initial intent both on the Greens Creek and gold belt was to negotiate those into the unanimous-consent agreement within the time agreement as well. It was in that spirit of the junior Senator from Alaska to propose this substitution in keeping with the uniform position as suggested by the chairman of the committee that we negotiate these amendments in the heart and body of the bill. Mr. JOHNSTON. Does the Senator continue to support the bill as passed by the committee? Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator does. Mr. JOHNSTON. Does the senior Senator from Alaska? Mr. STEVENS. The senior Senator does support the bill as it came out in the committee. Mr. JOHNSTON. Are the Senators from Alaska prepared to pass that bill at this time? Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would be prepared to not object to proceeding with a motion, provided this Senator has the conference he asked the majority leader the privilege of holding before we consider the bill on the floor of the Senate. Mr. JOHNSTON. This we are, Mr. President.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, We are going to take more time than that. I assure the Senator. May I ask him, can he remember a bill affecting his State handled in this manner on the floor of the Senate? Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, no, I cannot. Of course this is unusual, and Alaska is a special case, Mr. President. But if you are gong to say that no bill is going to be passed with respect to Tongass, not agreed to by the two Senators, proposed and agreed to by the two Senators from Alaska, you might as well put this bill down. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? Does the Senator know of any bill that ever passed the Senate over the objections of the two Senators of that State? Mr. JOHNSTON. The answer is no. The Senator has professed to support the bill as reported by the committee. I say prepared to proceed with it. The answer is "No." They want to agree with the House or something. Mr. President, we have been doing this for 2 months. Mr. WIRTH. Will the Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. WIRTH. We have been doing this for longer than 2 months. There has been some suggestion here there is some lack of comity. I think it is important to review the record. This legislation was initially introduced by me almost 4 years ago. We went through extensive deliberations in the last Congress, and at the request of the junior Senator from Alaska, the chairman agreed not to move on the bill until we had further hearings in this Congress. So then I went up to Alaska with the junior Senator in early 1989 to accommodate the Senator from Alaska, and we held extensive hearings up there. [*S7139] Hundreds and hundreds of witnesses were heard on the subject of this legislation. We accommodated the request of the Senators from Alaska in doing that. We then came down and there were other issues the Senators wanted to hear. We held not one more hearing, but two further hearings on this legislation. Talk about comity, comity. We have been doing everything, bending over backward, to accommodate the Senators from Alaska attempting to work it out. The legislation then was worked out on compromise. That was voted out in committee, I believe, 19 to nothing. Everybody reported out that bill, 19 to nothing, out of the Energy Committee. Talk about comity and compromise, we reached that. That was in March of this year. We are now in June of this year. We have now had an extensive period of time to work this out, and to simply bring talk about comity. The chairman has done, it seems to me,
everything possible. I have never seen such an effort to accommodate the requests of the Senators from Alaska. Now the distinguished senior Senator has just suggested no more than 20 minutes ago that why do we not just pass the bill as reported out by the committee. That was the suggestion made by the senior Senator from Alaska no more than 20 minutes ago. Why do not we go ahead and do that? Can we ask unanimous consent to pass the legislation as reported out by the committee? Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. WIRTH. What is wrong with that? The Senator has suggested it. We have accommodated him again. Let us accommodate him one more time and pass out the bill as suggested by the senior Senator from Alaska. One last accommodation, and let us get this passed. Mr. JOHNSTON. I think the senior Senator from Colorado makes a good suggestion. Let me first observe that this is not a wilderness bill, Mr. President. The senior Senator from Alaska has asked a number of times, have we passed wilderness bills pertaining to one State over the objection of the Senators from that State. The answer is, this is not a wilderness bill. But, just to get this show on the road if it is possible, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to consideration of H.R. 987; that no amendment be in order; that we proceed to consideration of the committee substitute; and vote thereon after a period of 2 hours evenly divided; that upon the adoption of the committee substitute, we go immediately to third reading, without any intervening business; that we then proceed to final passage, without further intervening business or motions or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, parliamentary inquiry. Is it possible to suggest the absence of a quorum at this time? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has the floor and can suggest the absence of a quorum. It is not in order for another Senator to do so. The Senator from Louisiana has the floor.