 |
|
|
|
 |
Good summary of CARA Senate Energy and natural Resources Committee markup and votes.
The Congressional Green Sheets Environment and Energy Daily Report
www.greensheets.comJULY 26, 2000
CONSERVATION FUNDING BILL CLEARS SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE Declaring it "the most significant commitment of resources to conservation ever made by Congress," Chairman Frank Murkowski successfully steered his version of the landmark Conservation and Reinvestment Act through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee over the strong objections of many in his own party.
After more than 11 hours of debate over four days, the Energy Committee Tuesday voted 13-7 to adopt the $2.99-billion package offered by Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking Democrat Jeff Bingaman (N.M.). Three Republicans joined Murkowski in supporting the bill: Sens. Gordon Smith (Ore.), Jim Bunning (Ky.) and Peter Fitzgerald (Ill.). All the panel's Democrats voted in favor of the measure.
Bill supporters easily fended off six hostile amendments from Western Republicans in the final markup session.
Moving the bill out of the Energy Committee "was a high hurdle, probably the highest," Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told reporters after the markup. Landrieu has been a leading supporter of CARA legislation since she and Murkowski introduced the first version (S 25) at the beginning of the Congress.
"There is more support for this bill outside the committee than in it," Landrieu said.
The legislation -- which would dedicate revenues from federal offshore oil and gas leasing for impact aid to coastal states and to beef up land acquisition and state fish and wildlife programs -- is highly popular in most states and has been the subject of intense grassroots lobbying. It is opposed by property rights advocates across the country and some senior members of the Appropriations and Budget committees in both chambers.
The measure is a substitute for the House-passed CARA package and is meant to strike a balance between HR 701 and Bingaman's bill (S 2181) to permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
As approved, the measure would ensure funding for federal land acquisition and funnel additional OCS revenues to coastal areas, state and local parks and recreation, open space preservation, wildlife habitat, endangered species, historic preservation, forestry and farmland conservation, and youth conservation corps programs.
After clearing the substitute, including several non-controversial amendments accepted over the four days, the committee ordered HR 701 reported by voice vote.
The Energy Committee's endorsement of the bill was hailed by conservation groups.
"The legislation presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to preserve our nation's natural heritage," according to Will Rogers, president of the Trust for Public Land.
But property rights groups and some fiscal conservatives abhor the measure.
"It is a threat to American property owners and anyone who wants to own property. And massive government land acquisition will do great harm for the environment," according to Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
CEI and other groups argue that the government owns too much land already and doesn't take care of what it does own.
Committee action: On Tuesday, the Energy Committee considered amendments by:
-- Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.), chairman of the parks subcommittee, to require that in states that are more than 25 percent federally owned, the government must sell off an equal value of land in that state for every CARA-funded acquisition over 100 acres, unless the state's governor agreed to waive the "no net gain" requirement. The amendment was defeated on a 11-9 vote. Bingaman argued that the provision would give governors a veto over congressionally approved acquisitions.
-- Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), chairman of the Appropriations interior subcommittee, to require that no funds from CARA be released until the backlog of maintenance projects on National Park Service lands is fixed, which he called "a fundamental responsibility we have as good stewards." The amendment was tabled on an 11-9 vote. Gorton estimated fixing the parks' problems would take two years of CARA funds, and offered to modify his amendment so that the CARA money would be dedicated for that purpose until the backlog was eliminated. But Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) argued it would be a mistake to give NPS maintenance needs greater priority than the programs for wildlife, farmland and other needs that would be paid for by CARA.
-- Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, to require that CARA be reauthorized every two years. The amendment was defeated on a vote of 13-7, with Smith and Bunning joining other bill supporters in voting to reject the amendment. Domenici said CARA as proposed would be "set in concrete for 15 years, as if there's been no change, no needs that are more vital." But Bingaman said, "There's no 60-vote point-of-order involved in changing" CARA. If circumstances change, CARA could be amended at any time by "a simple act of Congress," Bingaman said.
-- Domenici to make federal land acquisitions under CARA explicitly subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190). It was rejected on a 13-7 vote, with Thomas and Bunning among those voting no. Murkowski argued, "We've been trying to limit the expansion of NEPA," and said the amendment would greatly expand the use of the law, which requires environmental analyses of most government actions. Bingaman added that he and Murkowski had been careful to draft the bill so that the application of NEPA was unchanged, but that Domenici's proposal would apply NEPA to congressional actions, which "has never been contemplated before."
-- Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) to make the bill's authorization last for five years rather than 15. The committee voted 11-9 to reject that language. Nickles argued that no other authorizations are for so long and that the many programs funded by CARA should be scrutinized before that deadline. Murkowski and Bingaman said that the 15-year authorization was tied to the reauthorization schedule for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They argued that the bill encouraged strong oversight by Congress and could be amended by any future Congress.
-- Nickles to strengthen the willing-seller language. It was rejected on a 12-8 vote, with Gorton joining the nays. Even though Nickles agreed to modify his amendment to apply only to future authorizations, opponents argued that the language would improperly bind the hands of future Congresses.
-- Bingaman to make a technical correction to the coastal impact allocation language. The amendment was accepted on a voice vote.
-- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) to require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, within 48 months of enactment, to produce maps of all the conservation easements the agency acquired before 1977 to protect wetlands. The amendment was accepted by voice vote.
-- Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) to add language specifying that funding for land acquisition provided by the bill would not, in and of itself, reserve or imply a water right for that land. Water rights already attached to purchased land would have to be accounted for in the transaction. The government would have to apply for any new water rights through the normal adjudication process. The committee agreed by voice vote to add the language, the final version of which was still being drafted by committee staff at press time.
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) had planned to offer an amendment to authorize use of CARA money for 28 forest stewardship projects to help clear out dead wood and brush and otherwise make Western forests better able to withstand fire. But committee Democrats felt the projects did not belong in CARA and were disinclined to accept a further extension of language that now appears in the Senate version of the fiscal 2001 interior funding bill. That bill includes waivers to the National Forest Management Act and language to enable the Forest Service to trade goods for services, which critics worry would provide a new incentive for logging. Burns said he would bring the amendment up on the Senate floor and Murkowski indicated he would support him.
(For more on last week's votes, see July 24 Weekly Bulletin, p. 25.)
Congressional Green Sheets is a publishing company that provides objective analysis of environment, energy and natural resources issues before the U.S. Congress. In addition to Green Sheets Express, it publishes the Congressional Green Sheets Weekly Bulletin, Floor Briefs, Special Reports and the Briefing Book, a 200-page reference work. The company offers subscribers access to its publications at its site on the World Wide Web -- www.greensheets.com.
For subscription information, contact Congressional Green Sheets: Phone: 202-546-2220 Fax: 202-546-7490 E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 2000 Congressional Green Sheets, Inc. All rights reserved. Congressional Green Sheets is a registered trademark of Congressional Green Sheets, Inc. Green Sheets Express is a trademark of Congressional Green Sheets, Inc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlBe informed! Don't allow yourself to be snowed by CARA.
For More Information Contact:
[_private/navbar.htm]
American Land Rights Association
Tel: 360-687-3087 - FAX: 360-687-2973Email us with questions or comments about this web site.
All pages on this website are ©1999-2006, American Land Rights Association. Permission is granted to use any and all information herein, as long as credit is given to ALRA.
