Thursday's ACHP Debate & Congressional Vote Update (fwd)

Hugh W. Jarvis (hjarvis@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Wed, 19 Jul 1995 18:40:34 -0400

Sorry for those who may have already seen this. We are trying to keep
cross posting down to a minimum.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 15:30:00 MST
From: Brian Kenny - MCDOT <>

Orig From:
Subject: Last Thursday's ACHP Debate and Vote Update (826 lines)

The following memo from Loretta Neumann of CEHP is provided by ACRA for the
Historic Preservation Community. The memo presents the reasons (as far as
know them) why we won, the debate on the floor of the House verbatim, and a
listing of how the representatives voted. I will try to get out a list of
House e-mail addresses later today to complement the list from the Senate.

Tom Wheaton
Exec. Dir. - ACRA

Date: Sat, Jul 15, 1995 4:43 PM EDT

TO: ACRA & the Archaeology & Historic Preservation Community
FR: Loretta Neumann, CEHP Incorporated
Re: Interior Appropriations & ACHP debate & votes

I thought you might enjoy seeing the actual debate in the House of
Representatives on Representative Sanders' amendment to restore the funding
for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. It was quite late on
Thursday evening when it came up (around 11 pm) and few Members of the House
were on the floor at the time. The debate was rather tame, as these things
go. And the vote count--on the surface at least--seems strange. We had more
Republicans voting with us than against us, and we lost a number of
that we thought would vote with us.

I've talked to several congressional staffers who have confirmed that a
couple things happened that caused the vote to go the way it did. We were
especially helped by two Republicans (Rep. English from Pennsylvania and
Jack Kingston from Georgia) who spoke up in support of the amendment. This
helped us gain Republicans at the critical early votes. However, vote was
skewed by the fact that the increase in funding for the Advisory Council
(over $2 million) was offset by taking the same amount from the operating
budget of the Secretary of the Interior. Thus some of the representatives
voted for the amendment as a swipe at Secretary Babbitt, and others voted
against it to show their support for him.

Nevertheless, the 267 to 130 vote was astonishingly large and lopsidely in
our favor. It helps us greatly with the Senate, which will act soon after
the House finishes its work and which may want to cut the Council anyway,
along with other programs, by a certain percentage--we've heard as high as
20% to 30%. But given the strong House vote, and the encouragement we had
already received from our previous contacts with the Senate, it is unlikely
that the Senate would try to eliminate the Council entirely.

Also encouraging is the fact that the amendment had the support of both Don
Young (R-AK), the chairman of the House Resources Committee, and James
(R-UT), chairman of the Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National
Forests and Lands. They have jurisdiction over the National Historic
Preservation Act, which authorizes the Council, and they will be responsible
for the reauthorization of the Council's funding next year. One of our
arguments against the Appropriations Committee's action was that it was
premature to eliminate the Council now, before the authorizing committee
(e.g., the Resources Committee) had a chance to consider the matter. To
abruptly abolish the Council without a thoughtful analysis of its
responsibilities and provisions for handling its functions would create
with what is now a relatively orderly process.

Meanwhile, the House has not completed its work on the Appropriations bill,
but only on Title I, which includes the Interior Department programs. On
Monday they are scheduled to take up Title II, which includes the Forest
Service, Department of Energy, certain Indian health and education programs,

The most controversial parts of the Interior Appropriations bill are yet to
come relating to the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. Those
of you who care about these programs still have an opportunity to voice your
concerns. The Appropriations Committee cut both endowments severely (40%),
leaving the funding level at $99.5 million for each, with a scheduled phase
out in three years. House Republicans apparently have further agreed to cut
off all Federal funding to NEA within two years, a year earlier than they
planned. They are likely to do the same to NEH. Both have provided
significant funding for a variety of scholarly, scientific and educational
programs related to archaeology and historic preservation.

show of interest can do a great deal to help. At a minimum they should
maintain the funding levels that the Appropriations Committee approved and,
better yet, they should increase them. Certainly they should not abolish
these agencies (whether in two years or three) that have done so much to
benefit the American people.

Again, the phone number for the Capitol Switchboard is (202) 224-3121.

Following is the debate on the Sanders' amendment, verbatim from the
Congressional Record, followed by the breakdown of the vote itself. Please
write your representatives and thank them if they voted for the Sanders'
amendment and express disappointment if they didn't. If they weren't there
for the vote, you can write anyway, and ask them how they would have voted
they had been there. One exception--if you are from Chicago and in Rep. Sid
Yates' district, he was very supportive when the bill was being voted on in
the Appropriations Committee, and should be thanked for speaking up. He has
been ill, so it's not surprising that he was not on the floor when the vote
was taken so late at night.

July 13, 1995


Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask unanimous consent
that they
be considered en bloc.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.

The text of the amendments is as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 37, line 19, strike `$55,982,000'

Page 75, strike line 14 through 17, and insert `For expenses necessary for
the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, $3,063.000'.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple, and I want to move
quickly. It transfers $2 million from the salary and expenses of the
Department of the Interior
into the Council for Historic Preservation. This is a relatively small sum
money, but it is
extremely important for historic preservation.

Without this amendment, the bill provides for the elimination of the
Council for
Historic Preservation. This amendment saves the Council and funds it at the
level requested
by the Clinton administration. The Council plays an essential role in
historic preservation
when the Federal Government's actions, like plans to build a highway,
threaten historic

When the Federal Government's actions, like plans to build a highway,
threaten historic
properties, there is a consultation procedure that promotes input from the
local community
preservation interests and private property interests. Without the Advisory
Council, special
interests would have too great a voice in the process.

The Council is extremely important, because many federally funded projects
have a
potentially devastating impact on our historical and cultural resources.
Thanks to the
Advisory Council, historical landmarks throughout the Nation have been
rehabilitated rather
than replaced. But today, Federal projects threaten many sensitive historic
buildings and
districts. Those communities have a right to be heard, and that is what this
amendment is all

This is an issue of balance. Special interests with goals that are
inconsistent with historic
preservation already have a significant advantage. They have the political
clout to lobby the
Federal Government and trample on local community interests. We need to
allowing the communities to have a voice, and that is what this amendment is

Mr. Chairman, everyone benefits from historic preservation. In a rapidly
changing world, it is
imperative for our children to understand their roots, how their communities
evolved, and
where they came from. What this amendment does is transfer $2 million from
bureaucracy into a council that has historically done an excellent job, and
would urge the
support of my colleagues for this.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is late in the night. The gentleman is bringing a very
important amendment
to the House. I think most Members are not probably aware of what the
Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation does, but, as the gentleman has pointed out, they
work as an
interagency function.

As an example, when we were having difficulties with NASA in some structures
that had
historic importance with regards to our entire culture in development of the
space age, they
intervened and worked out and negotiated an agreement between the agencies.
They had a
high-profile organization with various appointments, individuals very often
that are
distinguished, that many times are professionals and an excellent staff.
have just done a
tremendous amount of work in terms of the national government and the
agencies that we
have and, of course, in terms of training.

Now, as I said earlier, if the gentleman would continue to yield, our State
Preservation Officers are really carrying out national policy with regards

What this agency has done is, of course, set up training programs, which
keeps them abreast
of many of the issues and negotiates settlements. For the amount of dollars,
obviously, it is a
difficult amendment, because it removes money from our beloved Secretary of
Bruce Babbitt's shop. But, nevertheless, I think that he does not
have always the
support. The Park Service does not have the high-profile position, but this
these appointments have served us many times over.

So I know that my colleagues face difficult decisions here. I think this is
one that we would
do well to keep, considering the scarce dollars we have and how we can best
stretch that to
meet these needs. They are fulfilling a good function. I would hope my
colleagues, in spite of
the late hour, would listen to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think this underlines and provides a very important Federal
between our agencies and between our States with the Federal statement.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I am somewhat surprised at my colleagues from the other side of the aisle
wanting to give
this vote of no confidence in their Secretary of the Interior. But
that is what the
thrust of this would be.

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman would yield, he might help pass this amendment
he keeps
putting that out.

Mr. REGULA. I would point out our subcommittee reduced the office of the
more than 13 percent below the enacted level of $62.5 million, and this is
one of the highest
cuts proportionally that we took, and I do not think it is fair to the
Secretary to take any

Now, that is on the side of where the money is coming from. Where is it
going? It is going,
as proposed in the gentleman's amendment, to the Advisory Council on
Preservation, nice to have, nice to do, but not needed, because the law very
clearly says that
every agency has to take into account the impact of its activities on the
historic resources.
They already have to do it by law. Sure, they can get an advisory council to
do some paper
and send it over. They do not have to pay any attention to it. The law does
not require that
they do anything with the advice they are given by the advisory council, and
people enjoy
serving on the advisory council, and it is nice to have, but it is $3

As we went through the list of priorities, we felt that this is something we
can live without. If
we had lots more money, that would be one thing, but I do not want to
penalize the
Secretary of the Interior any further than we have already. He has a lot of
and I would think that the gentleman from Minnesota certainly would not want
to do that to
his Secretary.

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate the gentleman's
of my
beloved Secretary Bruce Babbitt. I must say, though, that, and I hope that
can rectify
some of the cuts and make adjustments in terms of providing for the
opportunity for the
advisory council, I think we have to look at the record in terms of the work
that this council
has done. This has been a working council. This has not been an honorific.
These are
important works; in other words in the absence of their work, many
that we
have had between the agencies simply would not have taken place.

So I do not think we want to underestimate the work that they have done and
that agencies
will do this on their own. Yet they will not.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I think, as the gentleman has pointed out,
is nice to
have, but there are a lot of things that are nice to have. Here is an
opportunity to save, in this
round, $2 million. We leave them a million to close out. In the future we
will be saving $3
million year after year after year, and that is what we are trying to do in
this bill is to get on a
glide path to savings that will benefit the taxpayers.

They have no statutory responsibilities. It is nice to have, but we do not
think it is nearly as
important as having the money in the Secretary's office to administer the
huge agency that is
known as the Department of the Interior, and we strongly oppose this

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment, and let me say I
going to
keep my remarks very brief.

But I think this is a very significant amendment. By protecting and
continuing the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, we will be supporting local historic
preservation. In my
view, this is extremely important because this is the sort of activity that
protects our cultural
treasures. We are voting tonight, if we vote for this amendment, for our
historical buildings
and properties, for our archaeological sites, for our cultural districts,
for a council which
has demonstrated that it can be a catalyst for local preservation efforts.

May I note that this amendment provides no additional cost to the taxpayers.
What we are
doing is transferring resources for the bureaucrats to historic
and I think that is
very important.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I think everything has been said except for one thing. This is
not a huge
advisory council, and maybe that is one reason why many Members have never
heard of it.
They do not think what it does is very significant.

If you live in an area where there is a big historic preservation movement
even a small
one, this advisory council is there. Their work is very important, and I do
support the
amendment and appreciate the gentleman for offering it.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to
have it.


Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and this were--ayes 267, noes 130,
not voting 37,
as follows:

Roll No. 511

[Roll No. 511]


Abercrombie (D-HI)
Andrews (D-NJ)
Bachus (R-AL)
Baesler (D-KY)
Barcia (D-MI)
Barr (R-GA)
Barrett (R-WI)
Bartlett (R-MD)
Bateman (R-VA)
Becerra (D-CA)
Bentsen (D-TX)
Bereuter (R-NE)
Berman (D-CA)
Bilbray (R-CA)
Bilirakis (R-FL}
Bishop (D-GA)
Blute (R-MA)
Boehlert (R-NY)
Boehner (R-OH)
Bonior (D-MI)
Borski (D-PA)
Boucher (D-VA)
Brewster (D-OK)
Browder (D-AL)
Brown (D-OH)
Bryant (D-TX)
Bunning (R-KY)
Callahan (R-AL)
Calvert (R-CA)
Castle (R-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Chapman (D-TX)
Clayton (D-NC)
Clement (D-TN)
Clinger (R-PA)
Clyburn (D-SC)
Coble (R-OK)
Coleman (D-TX)
Collins (R-GA)
Collins (D-IL)
Combest (R-TX)
Condit (D-CA)
Conyers (D-MI)
Coyne (D-PA)
Cramer (D-AL)
Cremeans (R-OH)
Cunningham (R-CA)
Danner (D-MO)
de la Garza (D-TX)
DeFazio (D-OR)
DeLauro (D-CT)
Dellums (D-CA)
Deutsch (D-FL)
Dicks (D-WA)
Dixon (D-CA)
Doggett (D-TX)
Dooley (D-CA)
Dornan (R-CA)
Doyle (D-PA)
Dreier (R-CA)
Duncan (R-TN)
Dunn (R-WA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-TX)
Ehlers (R-MI)
Ehrlich (R-MD)
Emerson (R-MO)
Engel (D-NY)
English (R-PA)
Eshoo (D-CA)
Evans (D-IL)
Everett (R-AL)
Farr (D-CA)
Fattah (D-PA)
Fields (D-LA)
Filner (D-CA)
Flake (D-NY)
Flanagan (R-ILL)
Foglietta (D-PA)
Foley (R-FL)
Forbes (R-NY)
Ford (D-TN)
Fowler (R-FL)
Fox (R-PA)
Franks (R-CT)
Franks (R-NJ)
Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Frost (D-TX)
Furse (D-OR)
Gejdenson (D-CT)
Geren (D-TX)
Gilchrest (R-MD)
Gilman (R-NY)
Gonzalez (D-TX)
Gordon (D-TN)
Goss (R-FL)
Gutierrez (D-IL)
Gutknecht (R-MN)
Hall (D-OH)
Hall (D-TX)
Hamilton (D-IN)
Hansen (R-UT)
Hastings (D-FL)
Hayes (D-LA)
Hefley (R-CO)
Heineman (R-NC)
Hilliard (D-AL)
Hobson (R-OH)
Holden (D-PA)
Horn (R-CA)
Houghton (R-NY)
Hyde (R-IL)
Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Jacobs (D-IN)
Jefferson (D-LA)
Johnson (R-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson, E.B. (D-TX)
Johnston (D-FL)
Jones (R-NC)
Kanjorski (D-PA)
Kaptur (D-OH)
Kelly (R-NY)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kennedy (D-RI)
Kennelly (D-CT)
Kildee (D-MI)
Kim (R-CA)
Kingston (R-GA)
Kleczka (D-Wi)
Klink (D-PA)
Klug (R-WI)
Knollenberg (R-MI)
LaHood (R-IL)
Lantos (D-CA)
LaTourette (R-OH)
Laughlin (D-TX)
Leach (R-IA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lewis (R-CA)
Lewis (D-GA)
Lewis (R-KY)
Lightfoot (R-IA)
Linder (R-GA)
LoBiondo (R-NJ)
Lofgren (D-CA)
Longley (R-ME)
Lowey (D-NY)
Luther (D-MN)
Maloney (D-NY)
Manton (D-NY)
Markey (D-MA)
Martini (R-NJ)
Mascara (D-PA)
McCarthy (D-MO)
McCollum (R-FL)
McDermott (D-WA)
McHale (D-PA)
McHugh (R-NY)
McIntosh (R-IN)
McKeon (R-CA)
McKinney (D-GA)
McNulty (D-NY)
Meehan (D-MA)
Meek (D-FL)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Metcalf (R-WA)
Meyers (R-KS)
Mfume (D-MD)
Mica (R-FL)
Miller (R-FL)
Mineta (D-CA)
Minge (D-MN)
Mink (D-HI)
Molinari (R-NY)
Mollohan (D-WV)
Montgomery (D-MS)
Morella (R-MD)
Nadler (D-NY)
Neal (D-MA)
Ney (R-OH)
Oberstar (D-MN)
Ortiz (D-TX)
Orton (D-UT)
Owens (D-NY)
Pastor (D-AZ)
Payne (D-NJ)
Payne (D-VA)
Pelosi (D-CA)
Peterson (D-FL)
Peterson (D-MN)
Pickett (D-VA)
Pomeroy (D-ND)
Quillen (R-TN)
Quinn (R-NY)
Rahall (D-WV)
Ramstad (R-MN)
Reed (D-RI)
Riggs (R-CA)
Rivers (D-MI)
Roberts (R-KS)
Roemer (D-IN)
Rogers (R-KY)
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Rush (D-IL)
Sanders (O-VT)
Sanford (R-SC)
Sawyer (D-OH)
Schaefer (R-CO)
Schiff (R-NM)
Schroeder (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Scott (D-VA)
Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Serrano (D-NY)
Shaw (R-FL)
Shays (R-CT)
Sisisky (D-VA)
Skaggs (D-CO)
Skelton (D-MO)
Slaughter (D-NY)
Smith (R-NJ)
Solomon (R-NY)
Souder (R-IN)
Spence (R-SC)
Spratt (D-SC)
Stearns (R-FL)
Stenholm (D-TX)
Stupak (D-MI)
Talent (R-MO)
Tanner (D-TN)
Taylor (D-MS)
Tejeda (D-TX)
Thomas (R-CA)
Thompson (D-MS)
Thornton (D-AR)
Thurman (D-FL)
Tiahrt (R-KS)
Torkildsen (R-MA)
Torres (D-CA)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Towns (D-NY)
Traficant (D-OH)
Tucker (D-CA)
Upton (R-MI)
Velazquez (D-NY)
Vento (D-MN)
Visclosky (D-IN)
Waldholtz (R-UT)
Walsh (R-NY)
Wamp (R-TN)
Waters (D-CA)
Watt (D-NC)
Waxman (D-CA)
Weldon (R-PA)
Weller (R-IL)
Whitfield (R-KY)
Wilson (D-TX)
Wise (D-WV)
Woolsey (D-CA)
Wyden (R-OR)
Wynn (D-MD)
Young (R-AK)
Young (R-FL)
Zimmer (R-NJ)
Allard (R-CO)
Archer (R-TX)
Armey (R-TX)
Baker (R-CA)
Ballenger (R-NC)
Barrett (R-NE)
Barton (R-TX)
Bass (R-NH)
Beilenson (D-CA)
Bevill (D-AL)
Bliley (R-VA)
Bonilla (R-TX)
Brown (D-CA)
Brown (D-FL)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bryant (R-TN)
Bunn (R-OR)
Burr (R-NC)
Burton (R-IN)
Buyer (R-IN)
Camp (R-MI)
Canady (R-FL)
Cardin (D-MD)
Chabot (R-OH)
Chenoweth (R-ID)
Christensen (R-NE)
Chrysler (R-MI)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cooley (R-OR)
Cox (R-CA)
Crane (R-IL)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cubin (R-WY)
Davis (R-VA)
Deal (R-GA)
DeLay (R-TX)
Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Dickey (R-AR)
Dingell (D-MI)
Doolittle (R-CA)
Ensign (R-NV)
Ewing (R-IL)
Fawell (R-IL)
Fazio (D-CA)
Frank (D-MA)
Frisa (R-NY)
Funderburk (R-NC)
Ganske (R-IA)
Gekas (R-PA)
Gephardt (D-MO)
Gillmor (R-OH)
Goodlatte (R-VA)
Goodling (R-PA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gunderson (R-WI)
Hancock (R-MO)
Hastert (R-IL)
Hastings (R-WA)
Hayworth (R-AZ)
Herger (R-CA)
Hilleary (R-TN)
Hinchey (D-NY)
Hoekstra (R-MI)
Hoke (R-OH)
Hostettler (R-IN)
Hoyer (D-MD)
Hunter (R-CA)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Inglis (R-SC)
Johnson, Sam (R-TX)
Kasich (R-OH)
King (R-NY)
Kolbe (R-AZ)
Largent (R-OK)
Latham (R-IA)
Livingston (R-LA)
Lucas (R-OK)
Manzullo (R-IL)
Matsui (D-CA)
McDade (R-PA)
McInnis (R-CO)
Miller (D-CA)
Moorhead (R-CA)
Moran (D-VA)
Myers (R-IN)
Myrick (R-NC)
Nethercutt (R-WA)
Norwood (R-GA)
Nussle (R-IA)
Obey (D-WI)
Olver (D-MA)
Oxley (R-OH)
Packard (R-CA)
Pallone (D-NJ)
Paxon (R-NY)
Petri (R-WI)
Pombo (R-CA)
Porter (R-IL)
Portman (R-OH)
Poshard (D-IL)
Radanovich (R-CA)
Rangel (R-NY)
Regula (R-OH)
Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Roth (R-WI)
Roukema (R-NJ)
Royce (R-CA)
Sabo (D-MN)
Salmon (R-AZ)
Saxton (R-NJ)
Seastrand (R-CA)
Shadegg (R-AZ)
Skeen (R-NM)
Smith (R-MI)
Smith (R-WA)
Stockman (R-TX)
Stokes (D-OH)
Studds (D-MA)
Stump (R-AZ)
Tate (R-WA)
Taylor (R-NC)
Thornberry (R-TX)
Vucanovich (R-NV)
Walker (R-PA)
Weldon (R-FL)
White (R-WA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wolf (R-VA)
Zeliff (R-NH)
Ackerman (D-NY)
Baker (R-LA)
Baldacci (D-ME)
Bono (R-CA)
Clay (D-MO)
Collins (D-MI)
Costello (D-IL)
Fields (R-TX)
Gallegly (R-CA)
Gibbons (D-FL)
Green (D-TX)
Greenwood (R-PA)
Harman (D-CA)
Hefner (D-NC)
Istook (R-OK)
LaFalce (D-NY)
Lipinski (D-IL)
Martinez (D-CA)
McCrery (R-LA)
Moakley (D-MA)
Murtha (D-PA)
Neumann (R-WI)
Parker (D-MS)
Pryce (R-OH)
Reynolds (D-IL)
Richardson (D-NM)
Rose (D-NC)
Scarborough (R-FL)
Shuster (R-PA)
Smith (R-TX)
Stark (D-CA)
Tauzin (D-LA)
Volkmer (D-MO)
Ward (D-KY)
Watts (OK)
Williams (D-MT)
Yates (D-IL)

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Watts of Oklahoma for, with Mr. Bono against.
Messrs. LONGLEY, CHAMBLISS, and CREMEANS changed their vote from `no' to

Mr. ZELIFF changed his vote from `aye' to `no.'
So the amendments were agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
# # # #