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): # # # #