[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.

                          ____________________