Congressional Update -  November 8, 1995
 
By Loretta Neumann, CEHP Incorporated,
For the American Cultural Resources Association and
Other Historic Preservation Friends & Colleagues
 
House Delays Vote on Interior Appropriations
Meanwhile - Action Needed on Continuing Resolution!
Takings Legislation Loses in Washington State, Percolates in U.S. Senate
 
INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS
        The House was scheduled to vote this week on the fiscal year 1996
appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
(which contains funding for many cultural resources programs,  the National
Park Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, etc.)  The bill was
"pulled," however, and is not expected to come up until tomorrow (Thursday,
Nov. 9) and could get delayed until next week. Speculation is that the
Republicans did not feel that they had enough votes to pass it.
 
CONTINUING RESOLUTION - ACTION NEEDED
        Meanwhile, the Continuing Resolution (CR) that continues funding the
government's  pending passage of the individual appropriations bill is set to
go to the House floor this afternoon.  The bill contains a provision
sponsored by Rep. Istook (R-Oklahoma) which states that any nonprofit
organization with an annual budget of $3 million or more that engages in
political activities would be prohibited from receiving federal grants. The
definition of political activities is extremely broad, and the amendment
could affect many organizations involved in advocacy at state and local
levels as well as national. The "Rule" allowing for consideration of the bill
does not allow for amendments that would delete this provision.
 
ACTION NEEDED: Calls to your Representatives in Congress to oppose the Istook
provision on the Continuing Resolution.  [Note: Rep. Istook has become
famous--indeed, infamous--in trying to attach this provision as an amendment
to several different bills.  Just telling your Representative to oppose the
Istook Amendment should suffice.]  The office of any Member of Congress,
committee, or subcommittee can be reached by calling the Capitol switchboard.
 
                Phone: (202) 224-3121
 
"TAKINGS"/PROPERTY RIGHTS
The Sierra Club reports that Washington state voters rejected Referendum 48
yesterday, which would have enacted far-reaching state "takings" legislation,
by a margin of 60% to 40%
(with 92% of precincts reporting). The measure would have forced taxpayers to
pay corporate and other land owners whose land value decreased by any amount
due to public interest regulations and safety, health, and environmental
standards.  The initiative also would have required increased government
bureaucracy to produce expensive "takings" impact studies prior to adopting
regulations or imposing restrictions on land use.
 
This strong demonstration of the popular opposition to "takings" comes as the
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee announced a mark-up of its similarly extreme
"takings" bill, S. 605, for Thursday, November 16.  S. 605 was first
introduced by Sens. Dole, Gramm, Hatch and others on March 23, 1995. It
requires a federal agency to pay owners if property has been taken for public
use, if they lose  the economic benefits of their land or if land is
diminished one-third in value as a result of federal rules.  Agencies must do
a takings impact analysis of the rules and select the one that minimizes
taking of private property. [Note: The Advisory Council's regulations
implementing Section 106 could come under this bill.]
 
S. 605 was referred to the Judiciary Committee; a hearing was held on October
18.  In March, the House passed the Private Property Protection Act, H.R.
925, and also incorporated it into H.R. 9, the Job Creation and Wage
Enhancement Act. It requires a federal agency to pay owners if part of their
property were diminished in value by 20% or more; if devalued 50%, the agency
could be required to purchase it.  The bill is limited to  endangered
species, wetlands and water rights.
 
ACTION NEEDED: Letters to your Senators to oppose S. 605. Implementing this
bill would be enormously expensive, which clearly runs counter to
Congressional efforts to reduce the deficit.  Protecting private property
rights is, of course, a legitimate goal, but this radical legislation is not
the way to do it.  The courts have applied standards that are just and
equitable. This bill would simply tie the hands of federal agencies.
 
How to write to your senator:
 
The Honorable (full name)
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
 
Dear Senator (last name):
                                 # # # #