[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 134 (Thursday, September 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: September 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
VOTE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 1:45 p.m. having arrived, by a
previous order, the quesiton is on the motion to disagree to the
amendments of the House to S. 3. The yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] are necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns],
the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. Nickles], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], and the Senator
from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Montana [Mr. Burns] would vote ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 304 Leg.]
YEAS--93
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--7
Burns
Helms
Kennedy
Nickles
Reid
Roth
Wallop
So the motion was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I reluctantly voted in favor of S. 21 when
it passed the Senate earlier this year. The bill has been significantly
improved by the House. I support the important private property rights
improvements made by the House, and want these provisions to be voted
on and adopted by the Senate in the form of the Johnston-Wallop
substitute. The only way to make this happen is to vote against
cloture.
I will gladly lend my support to the Johnston-Wallop substitute to S.
21 because it includes the pro-private property rights provisions
included in the House version of S. 21, and S. 455, the payment-in-
lieu-of-taxes legislation passed by the Senate earlier this year.
A significant improvement to the Senate passed bill is the Tauzi
amendment, adopted by the House by a vote of 281 to 148, which would
require that lands purchased under the bill be appraised without regard
to the presence of species listed as threatened or endangered under the
ESA. The Tauzin amendment is similar to a provision included within S.
1521, the legislation which I have introduced to reform the Endangered
Species Act. The Senate bill did not include this provision.
Also included within the Johnston-Wallop substitute is S. 455, the
PILT bill, which will force the Federal Government to fulfill its
commitment to communities across Washington State which are missing out
on property tax dollars. S. 455 is important to counties like Okanogan,
which includes 1.56 million acres of federally owned land. By
increasing PILT payments, as required in S. 455, we are living up to a
commitment made to these counties so that they can continue to provide
important services to visitors on Federal lands without bankrupting our
local counties.
I will support the Johnston-Wallop substitute because it will
increase the likelihood of the inclusion of these provisions important
to Washington State in the final conference report on S. 21.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like the Record to indicate
that if I had been present, I would have voted against cloture on the
California desert bill. I am greatly concerned by what this bill will
do to the already tight fiscal constraints on our National Park System
and the question of private property.
This bill will cause further fiscal hardships on Yellowstone and
Glacier National Parks. These parks are already in need of repair, and
we can't tighten our belts much more without jeopardizing the
infrastructure and natural beauty of these parks. This bill adds
millions of new acres--or three new Yellowstones--to our National Park
System, and I don't know how we are going to pay for the 80 million
acres we already have.
I would like to give two examples. This year, I am working to secure
funding for the renovation of two chalets in Glacier National Park.
These chalets are historic but are not in compliance with State
environmental laws. Yet, the Park Service has not added these to their
priority list--it doesn't rate high enough on their already long list.
Our Nation's oldest park, Yellowstone National Park is in need of
updated facilities to accommodate the growing use of the park in the
winter. While millions of visitors come to the park in the summer,
Yellowstone is increasingly attractive to visitors in the winter
months, as well.
Where are we going to get the funds to pay for these new parks? To me
it is simple, Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks are going to
suffer by the creation of these new national parks in California.
Also, I am greatly concerned about the taking of private property by
this bill. While these actions may be occurring in California, it does
effect Montanans. Private property rights are protected by the fifth
amendment of the Constitution which states ``nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' Yet, many laws
have been encroaching further and further on this right because people
in Washington do not respect or understand the importance of
maintaining this right.
This bill places 500,000 acres of private inholdings inside of
Federal conservation units. This means that these private property
owners will be greatly restricted on what actions they can engage in on
their own land. This bill authorizes the purchase of these lands--but
that still doesn't fully protect private property rights.
Last, the cost of this bill is too high. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the acquisition of private property alone
which is authorized in this bill, would cost somewhere between $100 to
$500 million. The administrative and construction costs over the next 5
years would cost $36 million, and $1 million lost in offsetting
receipts for fiscal years from 1995-98.
Mr. President, I cannot support this bill. I would urge my colleagues
to vote against this bill.
____________________