 |
|
 |
National Journal News Service
NATIONAL JOURNAL MARKUP
REPORTS This is their series of comprehensive reports on the July 19 to 25, 2000 CARA markup in the Senate Energy Committee. |
National Journal News Service
WESTERN GOP SENATORS TRY TO BLOCK MASSIVE CONSERVATION BILL
By Cyril T. ZaneskiWASHINGTON (July 19, 2000)-- Apparently lacking votes they need to kill a $3 billion land preservation bill in committee, a group of Western Republicans maneuvered Wednesday to stall action on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
A dozen or so senators filed objections to the length of Wednesday morning's committee markup session on the bill (H.R. 701), saying it violated a rule that prohibits committee meetings from going longer than two hours while the Senate is in session, said Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski, R-AK, who declined to name names. The objection put off for at least one more day any votes on the measure, which is known by its acronym, CARA. Committee markups on the bill had been postponed five previous times.
"It's just a way to delay a process," Murkowski said, shrugging off the maneuver. "It's just Senate procedure. It's something you expect." Nonetheless, he threatened to respond in kind if CARA's opponents insisted on pressing their case. "We can object to other committees and start the games of sixth graders, if necessary," Murkowski said.
Murkowski and the panel's ranking Democrat, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, are co-sponsoring an amendment in the nature of a substitute on CARA that appeared to have support of the majority of committee members present during a two and one-half hour discussion on Wednesday. One of the bill's most fervent backers, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said the votes are in hand to report CARA out of committee despite attempts to slow it down.
"The bill is controversial - it's always been controversial," said Landrieu, whose state would get the third largest annual appropriation under CARA, $172 million. "But the good news for us is that the Senate leadership wants this bill."
CARA -- which supporters are heralding as a environmental legacy bill for the 106th Congress -- would channel almost $3 billion a year in federal royalties from oil and gas production on the outer continental shelf to a wide range of federal, state and local conservation programs, including $450 million to the federal government to buy land for parks and natural resource protection. The bill provides an unusual mandate that requires Congress to appropriate all $450 million for the federal land purchases before other funds are released.
The objections of Western senators to CARA focus on provisions that they say will remove more property from private ownership in states where the federal agencies already own more than half the land. A common theme is that the federal government has been unable to wisely manage land it already controls because of bureaucratic incompetence and funding shortfalls. Wildlife habitats, the bill's opponents say, have degraded under federal control. "Environmental objectives might be best met by improving what they already own," said Sen. Conrad Burns, R- Mont.
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, declared: "Federal forests are the worst-managed in America....The most vibrantly alive lands today are in state and private forests." And he had his own litmus test for conservation: "I believe the great American legacy is the right to own private land."
The Murkowski-Bingaman amendment to the House-passed H.R. 701 attempts to soothe the bill's Western opponents. The measure would force the Department of Interior to seek Congressional approval for each of its proposed land acquisitions and prohibit the purchases of land from unwilling sellers. The Interior proposal was offered by the co-sponsors as a way of allaying fears that Interior would run amok with extra cash for land acquisitions.
The amendment also adds funds for programs that were not included in the House bill: $60 million a year for the Youth Conservation Corps, $250 million for a program for protecting coastal resources, $100 million grants for fisheries management and $50 million for programs that would try to strengthen rural economies.
But the new proposal angered Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., who lashed out against the provision that would have congressional approval of Interior's proposed land purchases automatically trigger $2.5 billion of other conservation spending. "Previously, the bill was an ill-advised but honest entitlement," Gorton said. "Now, it's an ill-advised and dishonest entitlement."
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said the funding mechanism was a clever way to do an end run the appropriations process. "I don't know how we're going to run the government if everyone figures this out," he said.
While CARA would provide cash for all 50 states, the big winners would be five coastal states with oil and gas leases off their shores: California, Texas, Louisiana, Alaska and Florida. The five would net about a third of all the money in the proposal, Gorton said.
Passing CARA would enable members of the Senate to claim a large and popular environmental success. The legislation has apparent widespread national support. Governors of 40 states and an association of the nation's mayors have endorsed the plan. Supporters of the bill distributed a list of about 4,500 national and regional organizations that back the measure. They range from sportsmen's and environmental groups to historic preservationists (the bill includes $150 million a year for historic preservation).
Domenici, Gorton, Craig and Burns were joined in expressing opposition to the bill by Sens. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo.; Gordon Smith, R-Ore.; and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo. Campbell called the bill "a pell-mell effort to lock up more of America's lands."
Smith conceded that the measure is "wildly popular" with many people in his home state, but he objected to provisions that he said would enable federal agencies to do an end-run around Congress for funds and current efforts by federal agencies to restrict public use of public lands. "I want to support this bill," he said, "but not as it stands." Smith said he would vote for the measure if amendments were passed to address his concerns.
Two Republicans joined Murkowski in expressing support for the bill: Sens. Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois and Jim Bunning of Kentucky.
The new version of the bill is more fair in its distribution of cash to the states than earlier versions, Bunning said. He said that a lot of the good that the measure would do for wildlife had "been lost to the din of the furor over property rights." Bunning said he planned to offer an amendment that funds allocated for the conservation programs would not affect Social Security or Medicare spending.
Democrats who voiced support for the measure, in addition to Bingaman and Landrieu, were: Sens. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii; Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Bob Graham of Florida, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.
"Many opponents don't understand the facts," Dorgan said.
Murkowski said opponents of the bill are planning to offer amendments aimed at tying up the legislation in committee. Thomas, for one, said he would offer an amendment that would require no net loss of privately-owned land.
"Some of those amendments we may have to go out to the back room and discuss," Murkowski said.
Recorded Votes: No recorded votes
National Journal News Service
WESTERN GOP SENATORS MANEUVER AGAINST CONSERVATION BILL
By Cyril T. ZaneskiWASHINGTON (July 20, 2000) -- Western Republicans, continuing their battle Thursday against a massive land conservation bill in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delayed the measure's movement by lining up nettlesome amendments and employing a rule that stopped the meeting short.
Opponents of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA (H.R.701), halted the committee markup for the second consecutive day by demanding compliance with a rule that restricts most committee meetings to two hours while the Senate is in session. The panel used its allotted time discussing amendments offered by the bill's opponents.
CARA -- which supporters are calling an environmental legacy bill for the 106th Congress -- would channel almost $3 billion a year for 15 years in federal royalties from oil and gas production on the outer continental shelf to a wide range of federal, state and local conservation programs, including $450 million to the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to buy land for parks and natural resource protection. The proposal is co-sponsored by Energy Committee Chairman Frank Murkowsk, R-Ala., and the ranking Democrat, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and has broad national support from conservation groups, sportsmen and a majority of state and local officials.
At least 15 amendments are expected to be proposed by CARA's foes, who fear that the federal government will use the bill to expand its extensive land holdings in Western states.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., proposed two of the five amendments offered Thursday and promised to add another later. One of Domenici's proposed amendments would require that the National Environmental Policy Act be brought into play for any land purchased by a federal or state agency with CARA grants. The act often forces the preparation of detailed environmental impact statements that can take months or years to complete.
"I truly make this request in good faith," Domenici said solemnly. After a lengthy discussion, he decided to hold back the amendment for possible consideration later.
Domenici promised another proposed amendment that would lift a federal moratorium on most offshore oil drilling in a move that would raise more cash for buying land under CARA-- and also infuriate the bill's environmentalist supporters. He asked Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., a major backer of CARA, to join him in sponsoring the amendment, which is aimed at goading environmentalists who support the bill but oppose offshore oil drilling whose royalties generate the funds to pay for the program.
But Landrieu, whose state would reap $172 million a year under CARA, declined to join Domenici even though she said she supports additional drilling. "CARA should not be the platform for deciding the moratorium issue," she said. "This is a revenue-sharing bill."
Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., joined Domenici in offering another amendment that would require Congress to approve each proposed expenditure in CARA. An unusual provision in the bill would have congressional appropriators approve only $450 million proposed for federal land acquisitions. The other $2.5 billion for state, local and tribal programs would be appropriated automatically once Congress approves the federal portion.
Nickles and Domenici argued that the automatic appropriation amounted to a massive entitlement for 30 programs, from efforts to protect coral reefs and other coastal resources to the Youth Conservation Corps and rural economic assistance programs. But the bill's supporters said the guarantee merely delivers funds to programs that Congress authorized long ago but has never funded fully.
The amendment failed by a vote of 8 yeas and 11 nays [Vote 1] with Murkowski and Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., joining the committee's nine Democrats in opposition.
Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., proposed an amendment that would block additional federal land purchases in some states unless the government first agreed to dispose of some property of equal value. The proposal would apply only in states where the federal government owns 25 percent or more of the land. After a long discussion, Thomas decided to withhold his amendment, promising to bring it back for consideration later.
Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., offered an amendment that would prohibit state and local governments that accepted federal CARA grants from using that cash to acquire land through condemnation. The bill already blocks the federal government from using its condemnation powers, requiring that property be bought only from willing sellers. Smith agreed to withhold his amendment for later discussion with the bill's supporters.
The committee did pass one amendment by voice vote. Offered by Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mt., the measure would require the secretaries of the departments of Interior and Agriculture to consult with the governor before buying land in a state. Burns, who opposes CARA, said he knew the amendment would offer only limited assurances to those who fear expanded federal land acquisitions, but he said he could get nothing stronger approved.
"I went looking for a steak and ended up with a bowl of soup," Burns said.
Landrieu and other supporters of the bill said they expect to fight off many more amendments before the committee can vote on CARA. But she predicted that the bill would eventually be reported by the committee and pass the Senate overwhelmingly.
"I think the full Senate will be more receptive than this committee," Landrieu said. "This is a very difficult committee."
Recorded Votes
Bill: H.R. 701 Vote: 1 Amendment by Nickles and Domenici to make all spending subject to annual appropriations.
Tally: 8 Yes, 11 No, 1 Not Voting
Republicans (11) N Murkowski (R-Alaska) Y Domenici (R-N.M.) Y Nickles (R-Okla.) Y Craig (R-Idaho) Y Campbell (R-Colo.) Y Thomas (R-Wyo.) Y Smith (R-Ore.) NV Bunning (R-Ky.) N Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) Y Gorton (R-Wash.) Y Burns (R-Mont.)
Democrats (9) N Bingaman (D-N.M.) N Akaka (D-Hawaii) N Dorgan (D-N.D.) N Graham (D-Fla.) N Wyden (D-Ore.) N Johnson (D-S.D.) N Landrieu (D-La.) N Bayh (D-Ind.) N Lincoln (D-Ark.)
MURKOWSKI APPEARS TO PICK UP SUPPORT FOR CONSERVATION BILL
By Brody Mullins CongressDailyWASHINGTON (July 21, 2000) -- Supporters of a landmark resources bill appear to have secured the votes needed to muscle the $3 billion bill through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next week, but Republican opponents still intend to make life difficult for them.
GOP foes plan to engage in some mischief by tempting the leading supporters of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA (H.R.701), to vote for tantalizing -- but controversial -- amendments that would almost certainly sink the legislation if adopted.
This scenario emerged Friday as the committee resumed consideration of CARA, which supporters are calling an environmental legacy bill for the 106th Congress. During the markup, senators again rejected an attempt by appropriators to remove special protections enjoyed by the annual appropriation that would be authorized by the bill.
The bill would channel almost $3 billion a year for 15 years in federal royalties from oil and gas production on the outer continental shelf to a wide range of federal, state and local conservation programs, including $450 million to the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to buy land for parks and natural resource protection. The proposal is co-sponsored by Energy Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska., and the ranking Democrat, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and has broad national support from conservation groups, sportsmen and a majority of state and local officials.
At Friday's markup, Murkowski announced that he wants to hold a final vote on the legislation Tuesday, though most of the two dozen amendments filed with the committee have not yet been considered.
The most contentious amendment that came up Friday, offered by Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees conservation spending, would have removed what Gorton called a "budgetary gimmick" that triggers $2.5 billion in automatic resources spending if appropriators allocate $450 million annually for federal land purchases.
"[You] pretend that this bill is not a gimmick, when in fact it is," Gorton declared. "Something is called one thing ... when in fact it is something else."
Bingaman responded that the bill "is not in anyway intended to be dishonest or underhanded."
That prompted Murkowski to ask senators not to call the bill "dishonest" because the word was appearing in Alaskan newspapers.
Later, Gorton dubbed it "disingenuous," adding: "It is easier ... to stomach if it is straightforward."
After the debate, four Republicans sided with Democrats to defeat the amendment on a vote of 7 yeas to 12 nays [Vote 1].
On voice votes to approve other amendments, Murkowski may have picked up one or two new Republican votes that he will need to report the bill out of the committee next week. Murkowski, faced with strong GOP opposition, already has secured unanimous support of committee Democrats for the bill but he appeared Friday to line up help from Republican Sens. Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Gordon Smith of Oregon by accepting changes they wanted to make to the bill.
Bunning, in particular, offered an amendment that would ensure that the new spending does not jeopardize debt reduction. When he first floated the idea earlier in the week, it was criticized roundly by Democrats.
But when it came time to vote Friday, not a single Democrat voiced an objection. Once the amendment was adopted by voice vote, however, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., asked that she be recorded in opposition to the amendment.
Next week, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., plans to offer a provision to permit oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and a separate amendment to remove bans on oil drilling off U.S. shorelines. Though committee members are expected to reject the amendments, a vote could put Murkowski and Landrieu ö the champions of the bill -- in an uncomfortable position.
The composition of the committee would force Murkowski to vote against a provision to allow new oil drilling in Alaska -- an idea he has long supported -- in order to keep the bill free of new controversy.
Landrieu, meanwhile, may be compelled to vote against lifting the offshore drilling moratoria, a vote that could prove costly to a freshman Democrat from a major oil-producing state.
The tough votes are not guaranteed. Murkowski, for example, could persuade Domenici to abandon the amendments. Another possibility is that enough committee Democrats and Republicans would oppose the amendments, allowing Murkowski and Landrieu to cast votes that would not affect the outcome.
Recorded Votes Bill: H.R. 701 Vote: 1 Gorton amendment to make funding discretionary.
Tally: 7 Yes, 12 No, 1 Not Voting
Republicans (11) N Murkowski (R-Alaska) Y Domenici (R-N.M.) Y Nickles (R-Okla.) Y Craig (R-Idaho) Y Campbell (R-Colo.) Y Thomas (R-Wyo.) N Smith (R-Ore.) N Bunning (R-Ky.) N Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) Y Gorton (R-Wash.) Y Burns (R-Mont.)
Democrats (9) N Bingaman (D-N.M.) N Akaka (D-Hawaii) N Dorgan (D-N.D.) N Graham (D-Fla.) NV Wyden (D-Ore.) N Johnson (D-S.D.) N Landrieu (D-La.) N Bayh (D-Ind.) N Lincoln (D-Ark.)
National Journal News Service
MURKOWSKI SETS TUESDAY DEADLINE TO PASS CARA
By Cyril T. ZaneskiWASHINGTON (July 24, 2000) -- The chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee promised opponents of a massive environmental lands bill "all the time they need" to debate the measure. But now, their time has run out, the chairman, Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska., said Monday.
Tired of stalling tactics by the bill's opponents that have cut short five consecutive markup sessions and fouled up the committee's hearing schedule, Murkowski pledged to bring the landmark Conservation and Reinvestment Act -- known as CARA (H.R. 710) -- to a vote Tuesday.
A group of Western Republicans offered 15 amendments last week and promised at least 15 more in hopes of blocking CARA's expected passage out of committee. The bill's opponents also filed five consecutive objections to the length of the markup sessions, cutting short five consecutive meetings, including Monday's. The opponents are exploiting a rule prohibiting committees from meeting for more than two hours or starting later than 2 p.m. while the Senate is in session.
"We have faced something of an unprecedented situation with five straight days of objections," said the ranking Democrat, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. "I think it's time now to move ahead with this bill."
Bingaman and Murkowski are co-sponsoring CARA, which would channel almost $3 billion a year for 15 years in federal royalties from oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf to a wide range of federal, state and local conservation programs. In particular, $450 million would be allocated to the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to buy land for parks and natural resource protection. The measure has broad support from conservation groups, sportsmen and a majority of state and local officials whose own land-buying efforts stand to get a big boost from the bill's passage.
CARA's foes say they fear that federal officials will use the bill to expand the government's extensive land holdings in Western states, where more than half the land area is under government control. They also oppose a provision in the bill that would automatically provide $2.5 million of resource spending if appropriators agree to allocate $450 million for federal purchase.
Noting that a bipartisan majority of the committee is expressing support for the bill, opponents have filed one amendment after another in an effort to prolong meetings and in hopes of attaching a provision that might ultimately kill the measure. Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., promised Monday to offer, for the second time, an amendment that would assure that there be no net loss of private property in Western states as a result of the bill. His amendment would block any additional government land purchases there until federal or state officials sold land of equal value back to private interests.
"I'll give you another opportunity to reject it," a grinning Thomas said of his amendment. Thomas last week had offered the "no net loss" amendment and then pulled it back.
Murkowski expects many other opponents to offer amendments on Tuesday, but he promised to cut short debate and vote before the committee's two-hour limit. "Some of these amendments would be best offered on the Senate floor," he said.
Delays caused by opponents of the bill had forced cancellation of at least three committee hearings, Murkowski said. The committee has scratched hearings on the Clinton Administration's policies on the Columbia River, on wildfires in New Mexico and the rest of the West and on the administration's policy of prohibiting road construction on Forest Service land.
While annoyed by the delaying tactics, Murkowski shrugged them off as part of political life in the Senate. Moreover, he said, some good had come out of the eight or so hours of discussion of CARA in committee meetings last week. "We made some progress," he conceded. "That's the good news."
Recorded Votes: No recorded votes
National Journal News Service
LANDMARK CONSERVATION BILL CLEARS SENATE PANEL
By Cyril T. ZaneskiWASHINGTON (July 25, 2000) -- A massive conservation bill packing almost $45 billion for a broad assortment of federal, state and local resource-protection programs passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday after a bruising five-day battle that pitted Western Republicans against the measure's bipartisan supporters.
"This is the most significant commitment of resources ever made for conservation by the Congress," Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, the committee chairman, said after his panel voted 13-7 [Vote 7] to send the legislation to what promises to be another fight on the Senate floor. Four Republicans joined nine Democrats in supporting the measure in committee.
Backed by a broad coalition of environmentalists, sportsmen and associations of state and local officials, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 701) ö best known as CARA -- would channel almost $3 billion in annual royalties from offshore oil and gas production to environmental initiatives over the next 15 years. The House passed its version of the bill in May by a 315-102 margin.
The Senate bill made an effort to spread cash more evenly than the House legislation. The Senate bill includes $450 million a year in matching grants to state and local governments who want to buy environmentally-sensitive lands, $805 million for enhancing and protecting marine resources, $150 million for historic preservation, $125 million for national parks and tribal lands, $100 million for preserving farmland and forests, and $110 million for a variety of rural assistance programs, including the Youth Conservation Corps. Every state would get some CARA cash under both the House and Senate versions.
Supporters of the bill like Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., hailed the measure for guaranteeing full funding for conservation programs that Congress has never saw fit to support in the past. "This is a fulfillment made of a promise -- a promise made to our children and grandchildren," she said.
But opponents like the American Lands Rights Association, a property rights group, denounced the measure as "a $45 billion pile of pork." And the Competitive Enterprise Institute said CARA would make land ownership "the impossible dream."
Republicans from Western states -- where the federal government already owns more than half of the land area -- decried CARA's infusion of cash that they predicted would lead to even more private land being lost. "Do you want to have the Western states continue to have 75 percent of their states being controlled by federal ownership? I don't think so," said Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo.
The Western Republicans are determined to continue their fight to keep the bill from going to a vote on the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., a supporter of the bill, said CARA faces two hurdles -- the limited amount of time left in the session and competition for attention from "absolutely mandatory votes" on appropriations measures and a proposal that would grant favored trade status to China. "We'll try to find a way to schedule it in September," Lott said in his weekly news conference. "I hope we can."
Lott said he was interested in hearing what opponents of the bill have to say and to consider whether it's possible to find possible compromises. But there was little room for compromise in committee debates.
Thomas and other opponents of the measure are worried about pressure on private landowners to sell even though the Senate version of the bill requires that property be bought only from willing sellers unless Congress authorizes the eminent domain for a specific acquisition. Thomas offered a "no net loss" amendment in committee that would have prohibited the federal government from buying land in a state with more than 25 percent federal land ownership without the permission of that state's governor or without selling back to private ownership a piece of property of equal value. The amendment was defeated 9 yeas to 11 nays [Vote 1].
Thomas' amendment was one of 10 proposed Tuesday by opponents of the bill. They managed to drag discussions of CARA out over 11 hours in five meetings by offering nettlesome amendments and filing a series of procedural objections.
Along with objecting to what they see as the bill's pressure on private landowners, they also dislike an unusual provision that triggers $2.5 billion in automatic spending for conservation programs if congressional appropriators approve a $450 million allocation for the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. Opponents of the measure say the proposed dedicated trust fund would set the conservation programs above all others.
"It is an appropriations bill set in advance to 15 years," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. Programs are "set in concrete in the bill," he said, giving them an unusual guarantee of funding enjoyed by no other federal programs.
Domenici proposed an amendment to limit authorizations to no more than two years; it failed by a count of 7 yeas to 13 nays [Vote 3]. Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., followed with another amendment that would limit funding to periods of five years; it also failed, by a 9 to 11 margin [Vote 5].
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., the committee's ranking minority member and a co-sponsor of CARA, defended the funding assurances. "The bill's purpose is to provide reliable, consistent and stable funding." The idea, he said, is to guarantee that Congress will not continue to ignore the programs as it has over most of the last three decades.
Congress has also ignored funding maintenance programs in the national parks, said Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash. The parks have a backlog of $4.4 billion in proposed maintenance, he said, citing a 1998 study by the General Accounting Office. Gorton offered an amendment that would have required all CARA funding to go to park maintenance until the backlog is erased. His proposal failed when the committee passed Murkowski's proposal for tabling the amendment by a tally of 11 yeas and 9 nays [Vote 2].
The committee also voted down two other amendments. It defeated by an 8-to-12 margin [Vote 6], an amendment proposed by Nickles that would have prohibited any condemnations of land under CARA. Bingaman said it was important to preserve the right of Congress to fully consider all proposed purchases under the authorization process.
And the panel also defeated by a 7-to-13 vote [Vote 4] an amendment offered by Domenici that would have required every federally-funded land purchase to undergo a review under the National Environmental Policy Act, a process that could take months or years for completing detailed analyses of purchases on the environment.
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., offered and then withheld an amendment that would change some aspects of how downed trees and brush are cleared from federal forests.
The panel passed by a voice vote an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that will require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to map conservation easements on wetlands that the agency has acquired since 1977.
Supporters of CARA like Murkowski and Landrieu acknowledged that the bill still faces a tough fight on the Senate floor -- with more of the kind of debate that went on in committee. But both expressed optimism that the legislation would pass.
"Today," Landrieu said, "was one of the highest hurdles. And we cleared it."
Recorded Votes Bill: H.R. 701 Vote: 1 Thomas's "No Net Loss" amendment relating to private and public land.
Tally: 9 Yes, 11 No
Republicans (11) N Murkowski (R-Alaska) Y Domenici (R-N.M.) Y Nickles (R-Okla.) Y Craig (R-Idaho) Y Campbell (R-Colo.) Y Thomas (R-Wyo.) Y Smith (R-Ore.) Y Bunning (R-Ky.) N Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) Y Gorton (R-Wash.) Y Burns (R-Mont.)
Democrats (9) N Bingaman (D-N.M.) N Akaka (D-Hawaii) N Dorgan (D-N.D.) N Graham (D-Fla.) N Wyden (D-Ore.) N Johnson (D-S.D.) N Landrieu (D-La.) N Bayh (D-Ind.) N Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Bill: H.R. 701 Vote: 2 Murkowski motion to table Gorton's amendment that would require CARA money go to park maintenance.
Tally: 11 Yes, 9 No
Republicans (11) Y Murkowski (R-Alaska) N Domenici (R-N.M.) N Nickles (R-Okla.) N Craig (R-Idaho) N Campbell (R-Colo.) N Thomas (R-Wyo.) N Smith (R-Ore.) N Bunning (R-Ky.) Y Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) N Gorton (R-Wash.) N Burns (R-Mont.)
Democrats (9) Y Bingaman (D-N.M.) Y Akaka (D-Hawaii) Y Dorgan (D-N.D.) Y Graham (D-Fla.) Y Wyden (D-Ore.) Y Johnson (D-S.D.) Y Landrieu (D-La.) Y Bayh (D-Ind.) Y Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Bill: H.R. 701 Vote: 3 Domenici amendment limiting the CARA authorization to two years.
Tally: 7 Yes, 13 No
Republicans (11) N Murkowski (R-Alaska) Y Domenici (R-N.M.) Y Nickles (R-Okla.) Y Craig (R-Idaho) Y Campbell (R-Colo.) Y Thomas (R-Wyo.) N Smith (R-Ore.) N Bunning (R-Ky.) N Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) Y Gorton (R-Wash.) Y Burns (R-Mont.)
Democrats (9) N Bingaman (D-N.M.) N Akaka (D-Hawaii) N Dorgan (D-N.D.) N Graham (D-Fla.) N Wyden (D-Ore.) N Johnson (D-S.D.) N Landrieu (D-La.) N Bayh (D-Ind.) N Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Bill: H.R. 701 Vote: 4 Domenici amendment requiring all federal land purchases to undergo a National Environmental Policy Act review.
Tally: 7 Yes, 13 No
Republicans (11) N Murkowski (R-Alaska) Y Domenici (R-N.M.) Y Nickles (R-Okla.) Y Craig (R-Idaho) Y Campbell (R-Colo.) N Thomas (R-Wyo.) Y Smith (R-Ore.) N Bunning (R-Ky.) N Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) Y Gorton (R-Wash.) Y Burns (R-Mont.)
Democrats (9) N Bingaman (D-N.M.) N Akaka (D-Hawaii) N Dorgan (D-N.D.) N Graham (D-Fla.) N Wyden (D-Ore.) N Johnson (D-S.D.) N Landrieu (D-La.) N Bayh (D-Ind.) N Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Bill: H.R. 701 Vote: 5 Nickles amendment requiring that the CARA be reauthorized every five years.
Tally: 9 Yes, 11 No
Republicans (11) N Murkowski (R-Alaska) Y Domenici (R-N.M.) Y Nickles (R-Okla.) Y Craig (R-Idaho) Y Campbell (R-Colo.) Y Thomas (R-Wyo.) Y Smith (R-Ore.) Y Bunning (R-Ky.) N Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) Y Gorton (R-Wash.) Y Burns (R-Mont.)
Democrats (9) N Bingaman (D-N.M.) N Akaka (D-Hawaii) N Dorgan (D-N.D.) N Graham (D-Fla.) N Wyden (D-Ore.) N Johnson (D-S.D.) N Landrieu (D-La.) N Bayh (D-Ind.) N Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Bill: H.R. 701 Vote: 6 Nickles amendment on "willing sellers."
Tally: 8 Yes, 12 No
Republicans (11) N Murkowski (R-Alaska) Y Domenici (R-N.M.) Y Nickles (R-Okla.) Y Craig (R-Idaho) Y Campbell (R-Colo.) Y Thomas (R-Wyo.) Y Smith (R-Ore.) Y Bunning (R-Ky.) N Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) N Gorton (R-Wash.) Y Burns (R-Mont.)
Democrats (9) N Bingaman (D-N.M.) N Akaka (D-Hawaii) N Dorgan (D-N.D.) N Graham (D-Fla.) N Wyden (D-Ore.) N Johnson (D-S.D.) N Landrieu (D-La.) N Bayh (D-Ind.) N Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Bill: H.R. 701 Vote: 7 Vote on final passage.
Tally: 13 Yes, 7 No
Republicans (11) Y Murkowski (R-Alaska) N Domenici (R-N.M.) N Nickles (R-Okla.) N Craig (R-Idaho) N Campbell (R-Colo.) N Thomas (R-Wyo.) Y Smith (R-Ore.) Y Bunning (R-Ky.) Y Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) N Gorton (R-Wash.) N Burns (R-Mont.)
Democrats (9) Y Bingaman (D-N.M.) Y Akaka (D-Hawaii) Y Dorgan (D-N.D.) Y Graham (D-Fla.) Y Wyden (D-Ore.) Y Johnson (D-S.D.) Y Landrieu (D-La.) Y Bayh (D-Ind.) Y Lincoln (D-Ark.)
National Journal News Service
NATIONAL JOURNAL MARKUP
REPORTS This is their series of comprehensive reports on the July 19 to 25, 2000 CARA markup in the Senate Energy Committee. |