Propaganda written by the LEAGUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VOTERS , the best funded the anti-environmental Wise Use agencies. It shows that the so called private property movement is not what they claim to be at all. This is an example of the propaganda used to fuel the movement, as well as showing their real priorities.
To that document, I have only added the html bold symbols for emphasis, and the e-mail quote marks, >, that I have, so far, only partially removed. As introduction I also preceed it with some personnal observations and some Fidonet newsgroup discussion of it and the Wise Use hoax to put it in context. The conversation with Richard Walker illustrates the common arguments of the innocent(?) Wise Use supporter who has been frightened into the faith.
The Wise Use argument is that Big Government and environmentalists are out to steal your property and your jobs. Where have we heard propaganda like that before? Was it Hitler? Any historians? In any case, this document shows this is just lip service, and it reveals their true priorities.
Forgive my very poor editing of the introduction, when time allows, I'll clean it up. The real meat is in the Wise Use document itself.
**Sierran Ä---+-+-+-+-+ Msg#: 12 -- Date: 04-02-95 17:01
From: Doug Bashford - To: Richard Walker Mark:
Subj: The Wise Disguise eco
Richard;
PRIVATE!.TXT, 95,077 bytes "Private Property" Voters? Dec 12 '94
PRIVATE!.ZIP (League's own words.) Download it from ONE WORLD
BBS, Los Angeles 310-372-0987 (1:102/129). See for yourself.
"Wise Use" is known for their slick propaganda, and have on
Since the League of Private Property Voters seems to consider
such things as de-funding US Forest Service road-building or
subsidized grazing, or mining "rights" givaways on US Forest
Service land as "Private Property issues", it is easy to
conclude that they are...
What do they really want? Their "key votes" "QUICK REFERENCE
GRID"s tell us in a hurry. Where's the private property?
zzzzzzzzzzzzz snippets from: PRIVATE!.ZIP zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
K> Published by the
K> LEAGUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VOTERS
We believe mining claims on Federal lands are property rights.
Significant investments of time and money are made based on this
property right to produce hardrock minerals.
We believe grazing permits result from pre existing property rights. These
rights are well documented throughout western water and land use law.
Babbitt's "reforms" ignored and infringed upon these property rights.
[some supporters of LEAGUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VOTERS]
WA PROSPECTORS MINING CLUB
WA RIVERS COALITION
WA SNOWMOBILE ASSOC
WA STATE FARM BUREAU
WA WOOLGROWERS
WALNUT COUNCIL
WESTERN FOREST IND ASSOC
WESTERN MINING COUNCIL
WESTERN RESOURCES ASSOC
WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOC
WESTERN WOOD PRODUCTS ASSOC
WESTERN WY LIVESTOCK USERS ASSOC
QUICK REFERENCE GRID
Cut this page out and then cut along the numbers. Place the grid
on top of any page of the vote index to give you a quick reference reminder
about the issues decided by the votes we included.
> > > House of Representatives Quick Vote Grid < < <
#1 Limit funding for FS multiple use roads.
#2 Raise grazing fees.
#3 No volunteers National Biological Survey (NBS)
#4 Require NBS to get written consent for access.
#5 Raise grazing fees.
#6 Passage of National Biological Survey (NBS).
#7 Mining Law Overhaul Land Restoration.
#8 Passage of extreme Mining Law Overhaul.
#9 Montana Wilderness Bill Passage.
#10 Motorized vehicle access California Desert.
#11 California Desert Act condemnation.
#12 Protect property values Calif. Desert.
#13 Reduce acquisition backlog Calif. Desert.
#14 Passage California Desert Act.
> > > U. S. Senate Quick Vote Grid < < <
#1 Increase grazing, mining, recreation and irrigation fees.
#2 Support a mining royalty.
#3 Economic and employment impact statements.
#4 Raise grazing fees.
#5 Cloture vote on grazing fees.
#6 Cloture vote on water rights and grazing fees.
#7 Cloture water rights, grazing fees and regulations.
#8 Make East Mojave a National Monument (not a park).
#9 California Desert Bill Land acquisition.
#10 California Desert Bill Passage.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz end quotations from: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
LEAGUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VOTERS
Where's the private property?
It's rich guys who want your taxes for subsidies.
They want you frightened so you will support them picking your pocket.
---
Richard Walker said in full to Doug Bashford on 28 Mar 95 09:41:00
on SIERRAN about: The Wise Disguise eco:
db> Where's the private property?
RW> The Devil is in the details. I've read the California Desert Protect
RW> act and it most certainly effects private property.
Yes, of course it does.. Why have you then not cited your gripe
with it? How many times have I asked you to get specific?
Richard, It seems you are really reaching. Please look at
yourself as others see you. It makes me wonder if you are a
source or a victim of this propaganda/urban myth machine.
Are you familiar with urban myths? Such as the lovers at
Lover's Lane who heard on the car radio about the escaped
one-armed maniac? They leave in fear. They get home and
and find a bloody hook hanging from the car door handle.
The source is the friend of a friend and it happened a few
months ago. This urban myth has been with us for over 60
years. Just the right mix of fear, logic and "story value".
Now imagine the power of urban myths generated by the above
documented propaganda mill which is the best funded of all
of Wise Use's arms..
Do you understand why we ask for specific cases? And why your
repeated friend of a friend, and "I heard", and hypotheticals
don't cut it? Because Property rights are already protected
by the Constitution, and other laws. And as the NRA says; more
laws have no effect on those local hick criminal buraucrats
engaged in takings. Is this whole urban myth based on a few
lightening-rod cases? Like lightening, it makes a lot of noise,
but is not something to lose much sleep over? Could it be that
Wise Use has worked some people into a lather over a big noise
in the dark? I do not deny that people are really frightened.
--Doug
... False economic assumptions are the root of all evil.
Origin: ONE WORLD Los Angeles 310-372-0987 (1:102/129)
**Sierran -+-+-
PRIVATE!.TXT, 95,077 bytes "Private Property" Voters? Dec 12 '94
Since I have gotten alot of response by posting parts of this
message on the net, I have archived it at One World BBS.
"Wise Use" is an anti-environmental association that has as
one of it's main planks the "Private Property issue" sales tag.
"Wise Use" is known for their slick propaganda, and have on
this issue attempted to mix and confuse any legitimate "Private
Property" issues with their own agenda -- which seems to loosely
be: who-cares-if-trickles-down? economics. That is; take Public
Property Rights from the middle class and give them to the rich.
Judge for yourself.
"Private Property" issues are indeed sweeping the country as
Rush Limbaugh popularizes it. Wise Use has pushed "takings
legislation" in many states. This sells; "Beware! Big Government
wants to take or regulate all our property!" Very emotional,
as all good propaganda is.
Since the League of Private Property Voters seems to measure
such things as de-funding US Forest Service road-building or
grazing or mining rights on US Forest Service land as
"Private Property issues", it is easy to conclude that they are
a Wise Use organization fitting the above description. Judge
for yourself.
The League of Women's Voters has published a similar pamphlet
(before Nov 6) judging congressmen strictly on environmental
issues according to how they vote.
Near the end of this file is a long list of League of Private
Property Voters associates.
--Doug Bashford
--SAFE
Begin quotation of the full document:
*@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@-=-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-=*
Msg#: 24 Date: 31 Oct 94 15:32:17
To: doug bashford
Subj: 1993-94 Private Property Congressional Vote Index (Part I)
From: Paul Kelly
-=-=-=***################################
K> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Myron Ebell (206) 544 6156
K> November 1, 1994 Chuck Cushman (206) 687 3087
K> Paul Kelly
K> PROPERTY RIGHTS EMERGING AS MAJOR CAMPAIGN ISSUE
K> NEW INDEX RATES CONGRESS
K> Published by the
K> LEAGUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VOTERS
K> WASHINGTON, D C It's no coincidence that many of the most
K> vulnerable incumbents in this year's Congressional elections have
K> recorded some of the lowest voting records on behalf of private
K> property rights.
K> "There are a wide variety of reasons why these incumbents are
K> fighting for their political lives," League of Private Property
K> Voters chairman Chuck Cushman said. "But there is also no doubt
K> that the vast majority of Americans view the ownership of property
K> as a constitutional right. Certainly, they do not appreciate, and
K> are unlikely to forget, the actions of those who put the whims of
K> special interest groups over and above the protection of private
K> property."
K> "All over the country, property rights is emerging as a major
K> issue. Incumbents with poor voting records on property rights face
K> defeat in November," Cushman said.
K> "Americans treasure their constitutional right to own property.
K> What they see coming from the Federal government is one violation
K> after another to that right. The Endangered Species Act and
K> wetlands regulations are only the two best known Federal land use
K> controls. Congress has passed or is considering many more
K> regulations that threaten private property," Cushman continued.
K> The Private Property Congressional Vote Index for the 103rd
K> Congress tabulated fourteen key roll call votes in the House of
K> Representatives and ten in the Senate. Issues covered include the
K> National Biological Survey, requiring written permission before
K> entering private land to look for endangered species, allowing
K> condemnation of private property for parks, designating over nine
K> million acres of new Wilderness Areas in California and Montana,
K> and other Federal land use controls.
K> Average scores nationwide were 41% in the House of
K> Representatives and 43% in the U. S. Senate. Over 280 grassroots
K> property rights organizations are co sponsoring the League's
K> 1993 1994 Index.
K> The 1993 1994 Private Property Congressional Vote Index
K> revealed a slight improvement in Congressional support for
K> property rights, as 111 Representatives and 35 Senators scored
K> 75% or above. In fact, 44 Representatives and 28 Senators turned
K> in perfect scores.
K> Conversely, 232 Representatives and 55 Senators scored 30%
K> or below, and 49 Representatives and 33 Senators did not vote
K> once in favor of protecting property rights. Some of the lowest
K> scoring incumbents face difficult re election campaigns.
K> Three Senate races provide clear choices between defenders
K> and opponents of property rights. In California, Senator Dianne
K> Feinstein (D CA) scored 10% on the Private Property Vote Index.
K> Her opponent, Rep. Michael Huffington (R CA) scored 92%.
K> In Oklahoma, Republican Senate nominee Rep. Jim Inhoff
K> scored 100%, while Democratic nominee Rep. Dave McCurdy scored 0%.
K> And in Arizona, Republican nominee Jon Kyle scored 93%, while
K> Democratic nominee Rep. Sam Coppersmith scored 0%.
K> Other endangered Senate incumbents with low LPPV scores
K> include: Edward Kennedy (D MA) 0%, Charles Robb (D VA) 0%,
K> Harris Wofford (D PA) 0%, Paul Sarbanes (D MD) 0%, John
K> Chafee (R RI) 10%, Robert Kerry (D NE) 10%, and James
K> Jeffords (R VT) 22%.
K> "Property rights is a major issue in many House races,
K> particularly in the West. Endangered House incumbents in the
K> West with low LPPV scores include: Karen Shepherd (D UT) 0%,
K> Jolene Unsoeld (D WA) 7%, Dan Hamburg (D CA) 15%, Karan
K> English (D AZ) 21%, Jay Inslee (D WA) 21%, Larry LaRocco
K> (D ID) 29%, and Pat Williams (D MT) 36%," Cushman continued.
K> "We believe that the 1994 elections are going to send a
K> strong message to the 104th Congress in support of protecting
K> property rights. The League's Congressional Vote Index will
K> help voters distinguish between incumbents who merely claim
K> they support property rights and those who actually vote to
K> defend property rights," Cushman concluded.
K> ***************************************************************
K> PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEX
K> Published by the
K> LEAGUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VOTERS
K> ***************************************************************
K> P. O. Box 423
K> Battle Ground, WA 89605
K> (206) 687 3087
K> FAX (206) 687 2973
K> E Mail ccushman@pacifier.com
K>
K> Private property rights emerged as a major political issue during the
K> 103rd Congress. Consequently, large numbers of politicians have jumped
K> on the bandwagon and proclaimed steadfast support of property rights.
K> The Congressional Private Property Vote Index enables you to judge how
K> closely the rhetoric of your elected Representatives and Senators
K> matches the reality of their votes.
K> The 1993 94 Index tabulates 14 key roll call votes in the House and 10
K> in the Senate. It also presents a cumulative percentage score for each
K> Member of Congress.
K> These votes are not all of equal significance. Nor can we deny the
K> involvement of issues other than property rights in some votes. But
K> taken as a whole, the key votes chosen for the Index cover the whole
K> range of property rights issues and therefore, we believe, present
K> a fair picture of each Member's true position on private property
K> rights.
K> How did Congress do?
K> In the League of Private Property Voters' 1991 92 Index, we stated in
K> the introduction that, "The Congressional regard for property rights
K> ranges, for the most part, from indifference to downright hostility,
K> based on their votes over the past two years." Based on their votes in
K> 1993 and 1994, we can report a slight improvement in the situation.
K> The rights of property owners are still being violated in many ways by
K> the Federal government, but there are indications that an increasing
K> number of Senators and Representatives are becoming aware of these
K> violations. Private property owners even won a few votes in the 103rd
K> Congress.
K> In other words, the tide may at last be turning.
K> This is most obvious in the area of regulatory takings. The
K> Endangered Species Act and Section 404 wetlands regulation are now
K> hitting all across the country, and angry constituents are making their
K> elected representatives take notice. The House debate on the National
K> Biological Survey was, in fact, largely about the Endangered Species
K> Act.
K> While no substantive victories on regulatory takings have yet been
K> won, this is merely because no opportunities arose during the 103rd
K> Congress. After the debate on the National Biological Survey, the
K> enemies of private property rights saw which way the tide was running
K> and decided not to proceed with re authorizing the Endangered Species
K> Act or the Clean Water Act (which includes wetland regulation). They
K> were simply afraid of losing roll call votes on the House and Senate
K> floor.
K> Thus, there is cause for hope in regard to regulatory takings.
K> Whether this hope is realized in the 104th Congress depends, in our
K> view, on whether the grass roots property rights movement keeps working
K> until victory is achieved or assumes victory
K> and relaxes.
K> The less hopeful news from the 1993 94 Index concerns Federal lands
K> issues. It may surprise many people outside the rural West, where most
K> Federal lands are located, that private property rights and interests
K> are mixed up in nearly every Federal lands bill that comes before
K> Congress.
K> The fact is, that although the four chief Federal Lands agencies
K> Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
K> and National Park Service own nearly 30% of the United States, they
K> don't own it in a single block. Millions of private inholdings
K> honeycomb the Federal estate. Nor does the Federal government own its
K> land clear and unencumbered. Grazing permittees own water rights and
K> miners own claims, to take only the two most notable examples of
K> private rights on Federal lands.
K> Members of Congress know this, but a large majority of them outside
K> the rural West continued in the 103rd Congress to vote to ignore and
K> violate the legitimate private property rights of Federal inholders.
K> They do it, not because they don't know any better, but because they
K> treat it as merely a local, mostly Western, issue.
K> More than one Member of Congress has explained to constituents that
K> yes, he did vote against the property rights of landowners in some
K> distant State, but they needn't worry because he'll protect their
K> property rights. This is to turn an important civil right into a
K> privilege available only to those lucky enough to have a powerful
K> political protector.
K> Property rights is no more a local issue than any of our other
K> constitutional rights. How would a politician be treated who
K> suggested that he believed in free speech for Ohioans but not for
K> Oregonians? Or freedom of worship for Baptists but not for Jews or
K> Lutherans? That is exactly how many Members of Congress continue to
K> treat private property rights.
K> Highs and Lows
K> One aspect of the Index's vote ratings that stands out is the large
K> number of very high and very low scores. There are fewer middling
K> scores than 0%'s and 100%'s. This is an indication of how polarized
K> the debate over property rights has become. It also shows that concern
K> over property rights has not yet penetrated very far into most urban
K> areas.
K> Property Rights Are Important
K> Two hundred sixty one grassroots organizations had joined
K> the League of Private Property Voters at press time to officially
K> sponsor this Congressional Vote Index because we all believe that
K> property rights are important. The index is offered as an educational
K> tool. To get the most benefit out of it, it is perhaps useful to
K> consider briefly why property rights and private property ownership are
K> so important. There are five broad reasons. First, secure and
K> enforceable property rights are necessary for civil order. When
K> property ownership becomes vague and unsettled, strife and social
K> breakdown soon follow.
K> Second, our free market economy is based on secure and enforceable
K> property rights. Our prosperity depends on private property ownership.
K> Third, private property is what allows people to pursue their own
K> goals, independent of the state or society. Without the ability to own
K> property, the personal achievement of individuality is put out of reach
K> for all but a few.
K> So far we have stated the obvious. The other two important rules of
K> private property are not widely recognized:
K> Fourth, protecting the environment requires private property rights.
K> When people own resources in common, they take as much as they can as
K> quickly as they can. No one owned the buffalo herds on the Great
K> Plains, for example. That is why they are gone
K> and have been replaced by cattle herds. Many of the professional
K> environmental pressure groups often deny the crucial role of property
K> rights in protecting the environment. That is because political power
K> means more to them than the health of the environment.
K> Fifth and most importantly, our system of limited government.,
K> including our constitutional rights, survives because of the widespread
K> ownership of property. Property is power. If the government owned or
K> controlled all the property, it would possess all of the power.
K> Because property ownership is dispersed (and, of course, land is only
K> one of several forms of property), so too is power. And it is this
K> dispersion of power among the people that keeps our limited government
K> limited.
K> This, by the way, is also why we should be worried about the threat
K> posed by the massive Federal estate.
K> Without the dispersion of power represented by property among the
K> people, our constitutional rights would become mere paper rights,
K> unenforceable against an all powerful government. That is why the
K> protection of private property rights should concern all Americans,
K> whether they own property or not.
K> We offer the Congressional Private Property Vote Index as a means of
K> keeping our elected representatives accountable on this most important
K> of issues.
K> The Editors
K> *******************************************************************
K> CHAMPIONS AND ENEMIES
K> The League of Private Property Voters honors 111 Representatives
K> and 35 Senators as Champions of Private Property
K> Rights in recognition of their scoring 75% or above in the
K> 1993 94 Vote Index. 44 Representatives and 28 Senators
K> achieved perfect 100% ratings.
K> 232 Representatives and 55 Senators deserve the title of Enemies
K> of Private Property Rights for scoring 30% or below. 49
K> Representatives and 33 Senators scored )%.
K> ******************************************************************
K> LEAGUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VOTERS
K> 1995 PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEX
K> UNITED STATES SENATE
K> (1993 1994 Senate Votes)
K> CONGRESSIONAL VOTE SCORECARD
K> 08/02/94
K> The votes listed below show how Congress supported (S) or opposed
K> (O) the League of Private Property Voters support position taken on the
K> following votes. A description of each vote is listed below the
K> scorecard. At the back of the Index is a quick reference guide to help
K> you remember what each vote was about.
K> You will gain the greatest benefit by first looking up your
K> Senator to see what his private property score was on the right side
K> of the chart. Then look below the graph to read each vote
K> description. The League Support Position listed near the top of the
K> graph shows how we believe your Senator should have voted on each
K> issue. Check to see whether your Senator supported (S) or opposed (O)
K> the League Support Position (private property position).
K> 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 PERCENT
K> Year: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 SUPPORT
K> When All
K> League Vote Number: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Voting Votes
K> LEAGUE SUPPORT Position: N N N Y N N N Y Y N
K> Alabama
K> Heflin H (D) O O S S O O O O O O 20 20
K> +++++ end of file *****
+++++ end of file *****
+++++ end of file *****
K> +++++ end of file *****
*@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@-=-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-=*
Msg#: 25 Date: 31 Oct 94 15:32:17
From: kellyp@ ...!
To: doug bashford
Subj: 02:1993-94 Private Property Congressional Vote Index (Part I)
-**=-=-=*
Shelby R (D) S S S S O O O ? ? ? 57 40
Alaska
Murkowski F (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Stevens T (R) S S S S S ? S S S S 100 90
Arizona
DeConcini D (D) S S O S O O O O O O 30 30
McCain J (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Arkansas
Bumpers D (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Pryor D (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
California
Boxer B (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Feinstein D (D) O O O S O O O O O O 10 10
Colorado
Brown H (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Campbell B (D) O O S S S S S O O O 50 50
Connecticut
Dodd C (D) O O O S O O O O O O 10 10
Lieberman J (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Delaware
Biden J (D) O O O O O O O O O ? 0 0
Roth W (R) O S S O S O O O O O 30 30
Florida
Graham B (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Mack C (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Georgia
Coverdell P (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Nunn S (D) O O S O O O O O O O 10 10
Hawaii
Akaka D (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Inouye D (D) ? ? O S O O O O O O 13 10
Idaho
Craig L (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Kempthorne D (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Illinois
Moseley Braun C (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Simon P (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Indiana
Coats D (R) S S S S S S S ? S S 100 90
Lugar R (R) S S S S S S S O O O 70 70
Iowa
Grassley C (R) S S S O S S S S S O 80 80
Harkin T (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Kansas
Dole B (R) S S S S ? S S S S S 100 90
Kassebaum N (R) S O S S S S S S O O 70 70
Kentucky
Ford W (D) O O O S O O O O O O 10 10
McConnell M (R) S S S S S S ? S S S 100 90
Louisiana
Breaux J (D) O O O S O O O O O O 10 10
Johnston J (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Maine
Cohen W (R) O O S O O O O O O O 10 10
Mitchell G (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Maryland
Mikulski B (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Sarbanes P (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Massachusetts
Kennedy E (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Kerry J (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Michigan
Levin C (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Riegle D (D) O O O O O ? O O O O 0 0
Minnesota
Durenberger D (R) O S S S ? S ? S O O 63 50
Wellstone P (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Mississippi
Cochran T (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Lott T (R) S S S S ? S S S S S 100 90
Missouri
Bond C (R) S S S S S S S ? ? O 88 70
Danforth J (R) S S S S S S S S S O 90 90
Montana
Baucus M (D) O O O S S S S O O O 40 40
Burns C (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Nebraska
Exon J (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Kerrey B (D) O O O S O O O O O O 10 10
Nevada
Bryan R (D) O O S S O O O O O O 20 20
Reid H (D) O O S S O O O O O O 20 20
New Hampshire
Gregg J (R) S S S S S S S O O O 70 70
Smith R (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
New Jersey
Bradley B (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Lautenberg F (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
New Mexico
Bingaman J (D) O O O S S S S O O O 40 40
Domenici P (R) S S S S S S S S S O 90 90
New York
D'Amato A (R) S S S S ? S S S S S 100 90
Moynihan D (D) O O O S O O O O O O 10 10
North Carolina
Faircloth L (R) S S ? S S S S S S S 100 90
Helms J (R) S S S S ? S S S S S 100 90
North Dakota
Conrad K (D) O O O S S S S O O O 40 40
Dorgan B (D) O O O S S S S O O O 40 40
Ohio
Glenn J (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Metzenbaum H (D) O O O O O ? O O O O 0 0
Oklahoma
Boren D (D) O O S S O O O O O O 20 20
Nickles D (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Oregon
Hatfield M (R) S O S S S S S S S O 80 80
Packwood B (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Pennsylvania
Specter A (R) S O S O S S S O O O 50 50
Wofford H (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Rhode Island
Chafee J (R) O O O S O O O O O O 10 10
Pell C (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
South Carolina
Hollings E (D) O O O S O O O O O O 10 10
Thurmond S (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
South Dakota
Daschle T (D) O O O S O O O O O O 10 10
Pressler L (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Tennessee
Mathews H (D) O O O S O O O O O O 10 10
Sasser J (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Texas
Gramm P (R) S S S ? S S S S S S 100 90
Hutchison K (R) I I I S S S S S S S 100 100
Krueger B (D) O O ? I I I I I I I 0 0
Utah
Bennett R (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Hatch O (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Vermont
Jeffords J (R) O O O O ? S S O O O 22 20
Leahy P (D) O O O O O ? O O O O 0 0
Virginia
Robb C (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Warner J (R) S O S S S S S S S O 80 80
Washington
Gorton S (R) S S S S S S S O S O 80 80
Murray P (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
West Virginia
Byrd R (D) O O O O O O O S O S 20 20
Rockefeller J (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Wisconsin
Feingold R (D) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Kohl H (D) O O S O O O O O O O 10 10
Wyoming
Simpson A (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Wallop M (R) S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
KEY
P VOTED PRESENT
C VOTED PRESENT TO AVOID
POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
S SPEAKER EXERCISED DISCRETION NOT TO VOTE
? DID NOT VOTE
I NOT ELIGIBLE MEMBER
Senate Votes #1 and 2: Mining Royalties and Higher Grazing Fees
The Fiscal Year 1994 Budget Resolution, known as S.Con.Res. 18, included
projected additional receipts to the Federal Treasury from several sources.
These included President Clinton's plans to impose royalties on mineral
production on Federal lands and to charge much higher grazing fees. Also
included were new Federal recreation fees and surcharges on Federally provided
irrigation.
We believe mining claims on Federal lands are property rights.
Significant investments of time and money are made based on this
property right to produce hardrock minerals.
Imposing a mineral royalty on previously existing mining claims would change
that property right retroactively. Similarly, Federal grazing permits are
based on pre existing property rights primarily private base property,
water rights and Federal range improvements made and paid for by the
permittee.
The current grazing fee formula takes account of the permittee's private
property interests. President Clinton's proposed grazing fee does not.
Two attempts were made to remove Clinton's proposals from the budget
resolution. Both failed. Soon after the votes, several Democratic Senators
from the Western States went to the White House and convinced President Clinton
to remove these proposals from his budget.
An additional irony is that, although President Clinton's budget assumed
higher revenues from mineral royalties, grazing fees, etc., the effect would
in fact be a net loss to the Treasury. A royalty on mineral production and
much higher grazing fees would cause a huge drop in economic activity. The
resulting reduction in individual and corporate income tax revenues would far
outweigh the minuscule sums raised by the royalty and the grazing fee increase.
A sad example is what happened when Congress passed the $100 per claim per year
holding fee on mining claims. One year later two thirds of all claims were
dropped with the government receiving only a fraction of the planned income.
In addition, discovery efforts in the United States dropped to virtually
nothing. Billions of dollars in lost economic activity was lost in that single
disasterous decision by Congress.
Senate Vote #1: Remove Revenues from Grazing, Mining, Recreation, and
Irrigation.
Sen. Malcolm Wallop's (R WY) amendment to S.Con.Res 18 would have taken all of
President Clinton's new Federal lands fees out of the budget. Sen. Jim
Sasser's (D TN) motion to table or kill Wallop's amendment passed on March 23,
1993 by a vote of 59 Yes to 40 No. Supporters of property rights voted No.
Senate Vote #2: Remove Mining Royalties
Sen. Frank Murkowski (R AK) proposed an amendment that would have taken royalty
receipts from Federal mineral production out of the budget resolution. Sen.
Jim Sasser's (D TN) motion to table or kill Murkowski's amendment passed by a
vote of 61 Yes to 38 No on March 25, 1993. Again, property rights supporters
voted No.
Senate Vote #3: Requiring Economic and Employment Impact Statements.
During consideration of S. 171, which would have elevated the Environmental
Protection Agency to department status, Sen. Don Nickles (R OK) proposed an
amendment to require an economic and employment impact statement for every bill
introduced in Congress and every regulation proposed by the Administration.
Normally, laws are passed and regulations are implemented with little knowledge
of and less concern for possible economic effects including effects on
private property. The Nickles amendment was meant to help fill that vacuum.
Sen. John Glenn (D OH) moved to table or kill Nickles' amendment. Glenn's
motion passed on April 29, 1993 by a vote of 50 Yes to 48 No. The correct
private property vote was No.
S. 171 passed the Senate on a voice vote, but never reached the House floor.
Senate Vote #4: Blocking Babbitt's Grazing Regulations
In August 1993, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt proposed radical
changes to the Federal livestock grazing program that threatened to force most
grazing permittees out of business.
We believe grazing permits result from pre existing property rights. These
rights are well documented throughout western water and land use law.
Babbitt's "reforms" ignored and infringed upon these property rights.
Babbitt proposed to impose these new regulations administratively, without any
Congressional oversight or legislation. Sen. Pete Domenici (R NM) proposed an
amendment to the Fiscal Year 1994 Appropriations bill for the Department of the
Interior, which would have prohibited implementing the new regulations during
FY 1994. This moratorium would have allowed Congress time to consider
Babbitt's grazing regulations. Domenici's amendment passed by a vote of 59
Yes to 40 No. Yes was the pro property rights vote. See Senate Votes #5, 6,
and 7 for the rest of the story.
Senate Votes #5, 6 and 7: Interior Appropriations Filibuster.
The House Senate Conference Committee stripped Sen. Pete Domenici's (R NM)
amendment (See Senate Vote #4) to prohibit Secretary Babbitt from imposing his
new grazing regulations during Fiscal Year 1994 from the FY 1994 Interior
Appropriations bill. In its place, the Conference Committee adopted Sen.
Harry Reid's (D NV) so called compromise grazing reforms. Sen Reid's proposals
were nearly as objectionable as Secretary Babbitt's. They would have put most
grazing permittees out of business.
They attacked grazing permittees' private property rights, particularly their
water rights. And, as with Babbitt's proposals, the Congress had not had a
chance to hold hearings or consider Reid's complex changes in the Federal
grazing program or western water law. When the Conference Committee's report
returned to the Senate floor, several Western Senators mounted a filibuster.
They were led by Sen. Pete Domenici.
It takes sixty votes or three fifths of the entire Senate to invoke cloture and
end a filibuster. The Senate had three votes on cloture motions.
Senate Vote #5: First Cloture Vote
On October 21, 1993, the Senate failed to invoke cloture and end debate on
HR 2520, the 1994 Appropriations Bill for Interior and Related Agencies. The
vote was 53 Yes to 41 No. Supporters of private Property rights opposed
Sen. Reid's grazing proposals and therefore voted No.
Senate Vote #6: Second Cloture Vote
On October 26, 1993, the Senate again failed to end debate on HR 2520 by a
vote of 51 Yes to 45 No. Again, the correct property rights vote was No.
By the time of this second cloture vote, it was becoming clear that the
Conference Committee's language on the Federal grazing program not only posed
a threat to grazing permittees but it also included a sweeping Federal
preemption of States' water law.
Senate Vote #7: Third Cloture Vote
On October 28, 1993, the Senate for a third and final time failed to end debate
on HR 2520. The vote was 54 Yes and 44 No. Again, No was the vote in support
of property rights. The debate revolved around the threat to settled water
rights posed by Sen. Reid's grazing language. After the vote, Sen. Robert
Byrd (D WV) admitted defeat and had the grazing language pulled from the
Conference Report. The Senate then passed the Interior Appropriations bill by
voice vote.
Senate Votes #8, 9 and 10: S.21, California Desert Protection Act
The California Desert bill, first introduced by former Sen. Alan Cranston in
+++++ end of file *****
+++++ end of file *****
*@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@-=-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-=*
Msg#: 26 Date: 31 Oct 94 15:32:17
From: kellyp@ ...!
To: doug bashford
Subj: 03:1993-94 Private Property Congressional Vote Index (Part I)
-**=-=-=*
1986, is the largest park and wilderness lock up bill since Congress passed
the Alaska National Interest Lands Act in 1980 and the largest ever in the
lower 48 states. S.21 would create Wilderness Areas totaling nearly 8 million
acres and three huge new National Parks. Approximately 700,000 acres of
private property plus thousands of mining claims, numerous operating mines and
grazing permits would be included inside the boundaries of the new Parks and
Wilderness Areas.
S.21 will require closing many thousands of miles of roads in the California
Desert. Most of the privately owned lands as well as the relatively small
parcels of Federal land where human activities would still be allowed would
thereby be made inaccessible. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D CA) was S.21's
principal
sponsor. California's other Senator, Barbara Boxer (D CA) also supported
S.21.
When both of a State's Senators support a Federal land bill in that State,
final passage is almost automatic. S.21 nevertheless sparked significant
opposition because of concerns about property rights and the effects on the
National Park System of adding three new units to a system extremely short
of money.
Senate Vote #8: Mojave National Monument
Sen. Malcolm Wallop's (R WY) amendment would have designated the proposed
Mojave National Park as a National Monument instead and retained Bureau of Land
Management management.
The proposed 1.5 million acre Mojave National Park contains many activities and
features usually considered unsuitable for a National Park major highways,
oil and gas pipelines, electrical transmission corridors, operating mines,
motorized recreation, hunting and a lot of private property.
Wallop's amendment would have allowed many of these activities to continue
under BLM multiple use management. It lost on April 12, 1994 by a vote of
35 Yes and 62 No. Property rights supporters voted Yes.
Senate Vote #9: Private Land Acquisition
Sen. Robert Bennett's (R UT) amendment would have required the Department of
the Interior to acquire at least 90% of the private land inside the proposed
National Parks within 10 years and would have withheld National Park
designation until the completion of such acquisitions. Bennett's amendment
would have forced the National Park Service to deal with the major problem
concerning private inholdings in National Parks. The League supports
acquisition of land from willing sellers only.
S.21 authorizes the acquisition of all private lands inside the new National
Parks and Wilderness Areas, but it may be decades before the actual purchase
of most of the properties. The NPS currently has a multi billion dollar
acquisition backlog.
In the meantime, owners of Park inholdings can do little with their land except
pay the property taxes. Bennett's amendment was rejected on April 12, 1994 by
a vote of 34 Yes to 64 No. Yes was the property rights vote.
Senate Vote #10: California Desert Passage
S.21 passed the Senate on April 13, 1994. The vote was 69 Yes and 29 No.
Those concerned with private property rights voted No.
LEAGUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VOTERS
1995 PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEX
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
(1993 1994 House Votes)
CONGRESSIONAL VOTE SCORECARD 08/02/94
The votes listed below show how Congress supported (S) or opposed (O) the
League of Private Property Voters support position taken on the following
votes.
A description of each vote is listed below the scorecard. At the back of the
index is a quick reference grid to help you remember what each vote was about.
You will gain the greatest benefit by first looking up your Congressman
to see what his private property score was on the right side of the chart.
Then look below the graph to read each vote description. The League Support
Position listed near the top of the graph shows how we believe your Congressman
should have voted on each issue. Check to see whether your Congressman
supported (S) or opposed (O) the League Support Position (private property
position).
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 PERCENT
Year: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 SUPPORT
When All
League Vote Number: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 Voting Votes
11 13
LEAGUE SUPPORT Position: N N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N
Alabama
Bachus S (R) S O S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93
Bevill T (D) S O S S O S O O O ? O S O O 38 36
Browder G (D) S O S S O S O O O O O S O O 36 36
Callahan S (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Cramer R (D) S O S S O S O O O O O S O O 36 36
Everett T (R) S O S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93
Hilliard E (D) S O S S O O O O O ? O S O O 31 29
Alaska
Young D (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Arizona
Coppersmith S (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
English K (D) S S O O S O O O O O O O O O 21 21
Kolbe J (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Kyl J (R) S S S S S S S S O S S S S S 93 93
Pastor E (D) S O O O S O O O O O O S O O 21 21
Stump B (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Arkansas
Dickey J (R) S O S S O S S O S ? S S O S 69 64
Hutchinson T (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Lambert B (D) O O S S O S O O O S O S O O 36 36
Thornton R (D) S O S S O O O O O O O S O O 29 29
California
Baker B (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Becerra X (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Beilenson A (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Berman H (D) O O O O O ? O O O O O O O O 0 0
Brown G (D) O O O O O ? ? O O O O O O O 0 0
Calvert K (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Condit G (D) S S S S O S O O O S O S S O 57 57
Cox C (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Cunningham R (R) O S S S S S O O O S S S S S 71 71
Dellums R (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Dixon J (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Dooley C (D) S S S S S O O O O S O S O O 50 50
Doolittle J (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S ? S 100 93
Dornan R (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Dreier D (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Edwards D (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Eshoo A (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Farr S (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Fazio V (D) S S S S O O O O O O O S O O 36 36
Filner B (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Gallegly E (R) O S S S S S S O ? S S S S S 85 79
Hamburg D (D) S O O O O O O O S ? O O O O 15 14
Harman J (D) O O O O O O O O O O O S O O 7 7
Herger W (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Horn S (R) O O S S O ? O O O S S S O O 38 36
Huffington M (R) S S S S S S S O S S ? S S S 92 86
Hunter D (R) S S ? S S S S S S S S S S S 100 93
Kim J (R) O O S S O S S S S S S S S S 79 79
Lantos T (D) O O O S O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Lehman R (D) S S S S S ? O O O O O S O O 46 43
Lewis J (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Martinez M (D) S O O S O O O ? O O O S O O 23 21
Matsui R (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O ? 0 0
McCandless A (R) O S S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93
McKeon H (R) O S S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93
Miller G (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Mineta N (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Moorhead C (R) O S S S S S S O S S S S S S 86 86
Packard R (R) S S S S S S S S S ? S S S S 100 93
Pelosi N (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Pombo R (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Rohrabacher D (R) O O S S O S S S S S S S S S 79 79
Roybal Allard L (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Royce E (R) S O S S O S S S S ? S S S S 85 79
Schenk L (D) O O O S O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Stark P (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Thomas B (R) S S S S S S S S S S O S S S 93 93
Torres E (D) O O O O O O O O O S O O O O 7 7
Tucker W (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Waters M (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Waxman H (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Woolsey L (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Colorado
Allard W (R) O S S S S S S S S S S S O S 86 86
Hefley J (R) O S S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93
McInnis S (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Schaefer D (R) O S S S S S S S S ? S S S O 85 79
Schroeder P (D) O O O S O O S O O O O O O O 14 14
Skaggs D (D) S O O O O O S S O O O O O O 21 21
+++++ end of file *****
+++++ end of file *****
*@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@-=-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-=*
Msg#: 20 Date: 31 Oct 94 15:43:00
From: kellyp@ ...!
To: doug bashford
Subj: Vote Index (Part II)
-**=-=-=*
Connecticut
DeLauro R (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Franks G (R) O O S S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
Gejdenson S (D) O O O O O O O O O ? O O O O 0 0
Johnson N (R) O O O S O O S O O S O S O O 29 29
Kennelly B (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Shays C (R) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Delaware
Castle M (R) S O O S O O S O O S S S S O 50 50
Florida
Bacchus J (D) S O O O O O O O O ? O O O O 8 7
Bilirakis M (R) O O S S O S S O O S O S S S 57 57
Brown C (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
Canady C (R) S S S S O S S O O S O S S S 71 71
Deutsch P (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Diaz Balart L (R) S O O S O O O O O S O S O O 29 29
Fowler T (R) S O S S O S S O O S S S S S 71 71
Gibbons S (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Goss P (R) O O S S O S S O O S O O S O 43 43
Hastings A (D) S O ? O O O O O O ? O O O O 8 7
Hutto E (D) S O S S O S S O O S O S O O 50 50
Johnston H (D) S O O O O O O O O ? O O O O 8 7
Lewis T (R) O S S S S S S O S S S S S S 86 86
McCollum B (R) O S S S S S S S S S O S S S 86 86
Meek C (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Mica J (R) O O S S S S S S O S S S S S 79 79
Miller D (R) O O S S O S S O O S S S S S 64 64
Peterson P (D) S O O S O S O O O O O S O O 29 29
Ros Lehtinen I (R) O O O S O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Shaw E (R) O O S S O S O O S S O S O S 50 50
Stearns C (R) S O S S O S S O S S S S S S 79 79
Thurman K (D) O O O S O O O O O S O S O O 21 21
Young C (R) O O S S O S O O O S S S S S 57 57
Georgia
Bishop S (D) S O S S O O O O O ? O ? O O 25 21
Collins M (R) S O S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93
Darden G (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
Deal N (D) S O S S O S O O O O O S O O 36 36
Gingrich N (R) O S S S S S S O O S S S ? S 77 71
Johnson D (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
Kingston J (R) S S S S S S S S O S S S S S 93 93
Lewis J (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Linder J (R) O O S S S S S S S S S S S S 86 86
McKinney C (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
Rowland J (D) S O S S O S O O O S O S O O 43 43
Hawaii
Abercrombie N (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Mink P (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Idaho
Crapo M (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
LaRocco L (D) S S O O S O O O O O O S O O 29 29
Illinois
Collins C (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Costello J (D) O O S S O S O O O O O S O O 29 29
Crane P (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Durbin R (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
Evans L (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Ewing T (R) O S S S O S S S O S S S S S 79 79
Fawell H (R) O O S S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
Gutierrez L (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Hastert D (R) S S S S ? S S O O S S S S S 85 79
Hyde H (R) S O S S O S S O S S S S S S 79 79
Lipinski W (D) S O S S O O O O O S O S O O 36 36
Manzullo D (R) O S S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93
Michel R (R) S ? ? S S S S S S S S S S S 100 86
Porter J (R) O O O S O ? O O O O O O O O 8 7
Poshard G (D) O O S S O S O O O S O S O O 36 36
Reynolds M (D) S O O O O O ? O O O O O O O 8 7
Rostenkowski D (D) S O O O O ? O O O O O O O O 8 7
Rush B (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Sangmeister G (D) O O O S O O O O O S O S O O 21 21
Yates S (D) S O O ? O O O O O O O O O O 8 7
Indiana
Burton D (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Buyer S (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Hamilton L (D) S O O S O O O O O S O S O O 29 29
Jacobs A (D) O O O S O O O O O O O S S O 21 21
Long J (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
McCloskey F (D) S O O ? O O O O O O O S O O 15 14
Myers J (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Roemer T (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
Sharp P (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O ? 15 14
Visclosky P (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Iowa
Grandy F (R) S ? S S O O S O ? ? S S S S 73 57
Leach J (R) ? O O S O O O O O O O S O O 15 14
Lightfoot J (R) ? S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 93
Nussle J (R) O S S S O S S S S S S S S ? 85 79
Smith N (D) ? O S S O O O O O ? O S O O 25 21
Kansas
Glickman D (D) O O O S O O O O O O S S O O 21 21
Meyers J (R) O O O S O O O O O ? O S S O 23 21
Roberts P (R) S S S S S S S S S ? S S S S 100 93
Slattery J (D) O O O S O S O O O O ? ? ? ? 20 14
Kentucky
Baesler S (D) S O O S O O O O O S O S O O 29 29
Barlow T (D) S O S S O S O O ? O O S O O 38 36
Bunning J (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Lewis R (R) I I I I I I I I I S S S S S 100 100
Mazzoli R (D) S O S S O O O O O O O S O O 29 29
Natcher W (D) S O O S O O O O I I I I I I 25 25
Rogers H (R) S S S S S S S S ? S S S S S 100 93
Louisiana
Baker R (R) O S S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93
Fields C (D) S O S O O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
Hayes J (D) S S S S S O S S O S O S O O 64 64
Jefferson W (D) S O S O O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
Livingston R (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93
McCrery J (R) S S S S O S S S O S O S S O 71 71
Tauzin W (D) S S S S S O O S O ? O S O O 54 50
Maine
Andrews T (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Snowe O (R) S O O S O O O O O O S O O O 21 21
Maryland
Bartlett R (R) O O S S S S S S S S S S S S 86 86
Bentley H (R) S S S S S S S S O S S S ? S 92 86
Cardin B (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Gilchrest W (R) O O O O S O S ? O O O O O O 15 14
Hoyer S (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S ? O 23 21
Mfume K (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Morella C (R) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Wynn A (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
Massachusetts
Blute P (R) O O S S O O O O S S S S S O 50 50
Frank B (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Kennedy J (D) O O O O O ? O O O O O O O O 0 0
Markey E (D) O O O O O O O O ? O O O O O 0 0
Meehan M (D) O O O O O O O O O ? O O O O 0 0
Moakley J (D) S O O O O O O O O ? O O O O 8 7
Neal R (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Olver J (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Studds G (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Torkildsen P (R) O O S S O O O O O S O S S O 36 36
Michigan
Barcia J (D) S S S S S S S S O S O S O O 71 71
Bonior D (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Camp D (R) S S S S S S S S O S S S S S 93 93
Carr B (D) S O O S O S O O O S O ? S O 38 36
Collins B (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
Conyers J (D) ? ? O ? O O O O O ? O O O O 0 0
Dingell J (D) S ? O O O S S O O S O O O O 31 29
Ehlers V (R) I I I I I I I I O O O S O O 17 17
Ford W (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Henry P (R) ? I I I I I I I I I I I I I n/a 0
Hoekstra P (R) S O S S O ? S S S S S S S S 85 79
Kildee D (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
Knollenberg J (R) O O S S O S S S S S S S S S 79 79
Levin S (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Smith N (R) O ? S S S S S S S S S S S S 92 86
Stupak B (D) S O O S O O O O O S O S O O 29 29
Upton F (R) O O S S O S O O O S O S O O 36 36
Minnesota
Grams R (R) S S S S S S S S S ? S S S S 100 93
Minge D (D) O O S S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
Oberstar J (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
Penny T (D) O O S S O S O O O ? S S S O 46 43
Peterson C (D) S S S S S S O O O O O S S O 57 57
Ramstad J (R) O O O S O O O O O O O S O O 14 14
Sabo M (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Vento B (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Mississippi
Montgomery G (D) S S S S O S S O O ? O S O O 54 50
Parker M (D) S O S S O S S O O ? O S O O 46 43
Taylor G (D) S O S S O S S O O S S S O O 57 57
Thompson B (D) ? O O S O O O O O ? O O O O 8 7
Whitten J (D) ? O S S ? O O O O ? ? S O O 30 21
Missouri
Clay W (D) S O O O O O O O O ? O O O O 8 7
Danner P (D) S O S S O O O O O S O S O O 36 36
Emerson B (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Gephardt R (D) S O O O O ? O O O ? O S O O 17 14
Hancock M (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Skelton I (D) S O S S O O O O O ? S S O O 38 36
Talent J (R) S S S S S S S S O S S S S S 93 93
Volkmer H (D) S O S S O O O O O O O S O O 29 29
Wheat A (D) S O O O O O O O O ? ? S ? ? 20 14
Montana
Williams P (D) S S O S S O O O O O O S O O 36 36
Nebraska
Barrett B (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
Bereuter D (R) S O S S O O O O S S S S O O 50 50
Hoagland P (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Nevada
Bilbray J (D) S S O S O O O O O O O S O O 29 29
Vucanovich B (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S O S 93 93
New Hampshire
Swett D (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
Zeliff B (R) S O S S S S S S S S ? S S S 92 86
New Jersey
Andrews R (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Franks B (R) O O S S O O S O O O S O O O 29 29
Gallo D (R) O O S S O O S O O S ? ? S ? 45 36
Hughes W (D) O O O S O O O O O O O S O O 14 14
Klein H (D) O O O O O O O O O O O S O O 7 7
Menendez R (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
Pallone F (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Payne D (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Roukema M (R) O O S S O O ? O O O O S O O 23 21
Saxton H (R) O O S S O O O O O O S O S O 29 29
Smith C (R) O O O S O O O O O O ? O O O 8 7
Torricelli R (D) O O O ? O O ? O O O O O O O 0 0
Zimmer D (R) O O O S O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
New Mexico
Richardson B (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Schiff S (R) ? S S S S O S O S S O S S O 69 64
Skeen J (R) S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93
New York
Ackerman G (D) S O O ? O O O O O O O S O O 15 14
Boehlert S (R) ? O O S O O O O O ? O O O O 8 7
Engel E (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Fish H (R) O O S S O O O O O O O S ? O 23 21
Flake F (D) S O O ? O O O O O ? ? S O O 18 14
Gilman B (R) O O O S O O O O O O O S O O 14 14
Hinchey M (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Hochbrueckner G (D) O O O S O O O O O O O S O O 14 14
Houghton A (R) O S S S S O S S O S O S S S 71 71
King P (R) O O S S O S S O S S S S S S 71 71
LaFalce J (D) O O O O O O O O O O O S O O 7 7
Lazio R (R) O O S S O O O O O S O S O O 29 29
Levy D (R) O O S S O S S O S S S S S S 71 71
Lowey N (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Maloney C (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Manton T (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
McHugh J (R) O O S S O S S S S S S S S S 79 79
McNulty M (D) S O O S O O O O O ? O S O O 23 21
Molinari S (R) O O S S O S O S O S S S S S 64 64
Nadler J (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
Owens M (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O ? O 8 7
Paxon B (R) O O S S O S S S S S S S S S 79 79
Quinn J (R) O O S S O S S S O S S S S S 71 71
Rangel C (D) S O O O O O O O O O ? O O O 8 7
Schumer C (D) O O O O O O O O O ? O O O O 0 0
Serrano J (D) S ? O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 7
Slaughter L (D) O O O S O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Solomon G (R) O O S S O S S S S ? S S ? S 75 64
Towns E (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Velazquez N (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
Walsh J (R) O S S S O S S S O ? O S O O 54 50
North Carolina
Ballenger C (R) S S S S S S S S S ? S S S S 100 93
Clayton E (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O ? O 8 7
+++++ end of file *****
Tue Nov 01 1994 at 04:13 UTC
+++++ end of file *****
*@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@-=-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-=*
Msg#: 21 Date: 31 Oct 94 15:43:00
From: kellyp@ ...!
To: doug bashford
Subj: 02:Vote Index (Part II)
-**=-=-=*
Yep, kellyp@ ...! said to doug bashford on 31 Oct 94 15:43:00
about: 02:Vote Index (Part II)....
K> Coble H (R) S O S S O S S S S S S S S S 86 86
K> Hefner W (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
K> Lancaster H (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S S O 29 29
K> McMillan A (R) S O S S O O S O O S S S O S 57 57
K> Neal S (D) O O O S O O O O ? O O S O O 15 14
K> Price D (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
K> Rose C (D) S O O S O ? O ? O O O S O O 25 21
K> Taylor C (R) S S S S S O S S S S S S S S 93 93
K> Valentine T (D) O O O S O O S O O S O S O O 29 29
K> Watt M (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
K> North Dakota
K> Pomeroy E (D) S S ? ? S S O O O O O S O O 42 36
K> Ohio
K> Applegate D (D) O O S S O S O O O S O S O O 36 36
K> Boehner J (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
K> Brown S (D) O O O S O O O O O O O S O O 14 14
K> Fingerhut E (D) O O O S O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
K> Gillmor P (R) O O S S O O S S O S S S O O 50 50
K> Hall T (D) S O O S ? O O O O ? O S O O 25 21
K> Hobson D (R) S O O S O O S O O S S S O O 43 43
K> Hoke M (R) O O S S O S S S O S S S S ? 69 64
K> Kaptur M (D) S O S S O O O O O S O S O O 36 36
K> Kasich J (R) S O S S O S S S S S S S S S 86 86
K> Mann D (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
K> Oxley M (R) S O S ? ? S S S S S S S S S 92 79
K> Portman R (R) S O S S O S S O O S S S S O 64 64
K> Pryce D (R) S O S S O S S O S S S S S O 71 71
K> Regula R (R) S O S S O O O O O S S S O O 43 43
K> Sawyer T (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
K> Stokes L (D) S O O O O O O O O ? O O O O 8 7
K> Strickland T (D) O O O S O O O O O S O S O O 21 21
K> Traficant J (D) S O S S O O O O O S S S O O 43 43
K> Oklahoma
K> Brewster B (D) S S S S S S O O O S O S O O 57 57
K> English G (D) S O S S O S ? O I I I I I I 57 50
K> Inhofe J (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
K> Istook E (R) O O S S O S S S S S S S S S 79 79
K> Lucas F (R) I I I I I I I I S S S S O S 83 83
K> McCurdy D (D) O O O ? O O O O O ? ? ? O O 0 0
K> Synar M (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
K> Oregon
K> DeFazio P (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
K> Furse E (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
K> Kopetski M (D) S S O S S O O O O O O O O O 29 29
K> Smith B (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
K> Wyden R (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
K> Pennsylvania
K> Blackwell L (D) S O ? O O ? ? O O ? O O O O 10 7
K> Borski R (D) S O O ? O O O O O O ? O O O 8 7
K> Clinger W (R) S O S S O S ? ? O S O S S S 67 57
K> Coyne W (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
K> Foglietta T (D) S O O O O O O O O ? O O O O 8 7
K> Gekas G (R) O S S S O S S S S S S S S S 86 86
K> Goodling B (R) O O S S S S S S S S O S ? S 77 71
K> Greenwood J (R) O O O S O O O O O S S O O O 21 21
K> Holden T (D) O O S S O S O O O O O S O O 29 29
K> Kanjorski P (D) O O O S O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
K> Klink R (D) S ? S S O S O ? O O O S O O 42 36
K> Margolies Mezv M (D) O O O S O O O O O O O S O O 14 14
K> McDade J (R) S ? S S ? ? S O O S ? S S O 70 50
K> McHale P (D) O O O S O O O O O O O S O O 14 14
K> Murphy A (D) S O S O ? S O O O ? ? S O O 36 29
K> Murtha J (D) S O S S O O O O O ? ? S O O 33 29
K> Ridge T (R) S O S S O S S ? O ? ? S O O 55 43
K> Santorum R (R) S O S S O O O S S S ? S O O 54 50
K> Shuster B (R) S O S S O S S O S ? ? S S S 75 64
K> Walker R (R) O S S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93
K> Weldon C (R) O O S S O O O O O ? O O O O 15 14
K> Rhode Island
K> Machtley R (R) O O O S O O O O ? ? O S O O 17 14
K> Reed J (D) O O O O O O O O O O O S O O 7 7
K> South Carolina
K> Clyburn J (D) S O S S O O O O O O O O O O 21 21
K> Derrick B (D) S O ? ? O O O O O O O O O O 8 7
K> Inglis B (R) S O O S O S ? S O S S S S S 69 64
K> Ravenel A (R) O O O S O O O O O O O S O O 14 14
K> Spence F (R) ? O S S O S S O O S S S S S 69 64
K> Spratt J (D) S ? O S O O O O O ? O S O O 25 21
K> South Dakota
K> Johnson T (D) O S O S S O O O O O O O O O 21 21
K> Tennessee
K> Clement B (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
K> Cooper J (D) O O S S O O O O O ? O S O O 23 21
K> Duncan J (R) O O S S O S S O S S S S S S 71 71
K> Ford H (D) O O O O ? ? ? O ? O O O O O 0 0
K> Gordon B (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
K> Lloyd M (D) S ? S S O S S O O ? O S O O 50 43
K> Quillen J (R) S S S S S S O S S S S S O O 79 79
K> Sundquist D (R) S S S S S S S S S ? S S O O 85 79
K> Tanner J (D) O O S S O O O O O S O S O O 29 29
K> Texas
K> Andrews M (D) O O S S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
K> Archer B (R) S O S S O S S S S S S S S S 86 86
K> Armey D (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
K> Barton J (R) O S S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93
K> Bonilla H (R) O S S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93
K> Brooks J (D) S O S S O O O O O O O S O ? 31 29
K> Bryant J (D) O O S S O O ? O O O O S O O 23 21
K> Chapman J (D) S O S S O O O ? O S S S O S 54 50
K> Coleman R (D) S O O S O O O O O ? O S O O 23 21
K> Combest L (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
K> de la Garza E (D) S O S ? O O S O ? O O S O O 33 29
K> DeLay T (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
K> Edwards C (D) S S S S S S O O O S O S O S 64 64
K> Fields J (R) S S S S S S S S S ? S S S S 100 93
K> Frost M (D) S S ? S O O O O O ? O S ? O 36 29
K> Geren P (D) S S S S S S O O S S S S S O 79 79
K> Gonzalez H (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
K> Green G (D) O O O S O O O O O S O S O O 21 21
K> Hall R (D) S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93
K> Johnson E (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
K> Johnson S (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
K> Laughlin G (D) S O S S O O O O O ? ? S O O 33 29
K> Ortiz S (D) S O S S O O O O O S O S O O 36 36
K> Pickle J (D) S O O S O O O O O ? O O O O 15 14
K> Sarpalius B (D) S S S S S O O O O ? S S O S 62 57
K> Smith L (R) O S S S S S S S O S S S S S 86 86
K> Stenholm C (D) S S S S S S S S S S S S O S 93 93
K> Tejeda F (D) S O S S O O O O O S O S O O 36 36
K> Washington C (D) S O O O ? O O O O ? ? ? ? O 11 7
K> Wilson C (D) ? O S S ? O ? ? O S O S O O 40 29
K> Utah
K> Hansen J (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
K> Orton B (D) S S S S S O S S S S S S S S 93 93
K> Shepherd K (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
K> Vermont
K> Sanders B (I) S O O O O O O O O ? O O O O 8 7
K> Virginia
K> Bateman H (R) S S S S ? S S S S S S S S S 100 93
K> Bliley T (R) S S S S O S S S S S S S S S 93 93
K> Boucher R (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
K> Byrne L (D) O O O S O O O O ? O O O O O 8 7
K> Goodlatte R (R) S O S S O S S O S S S S S S 79 79
K> Moran J (D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
K> Payne L (D) O O O S O O O O O O O S O O 14 14
K> Pickett O (D) S O S S O S O O O ? S S O O 46 43
K> Scott R (D) S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 14 14
K> Sisisky N (D) O O S S O S O O O ? S S O O 38 36
K> Wolf F (R) S S S S S S S O S S O S O O 71 71
K> Washington
K> Cantwell M (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
K> Dicks N (D) S O O S O O O ? O O O S O O 23 21
K> Dunn J (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93
K> Foley T (D) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X n/a 0
K> Inslee J (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
K> Kreidler M (D) S O O O O O O O O O O S O O 14 14
K> McDermott J (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
K> Swift A (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
K> Unsoeld J (D) S O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
K> West Virginia
K> Mollohan A (D) S O S S O O O O O O O S O O 29 29
K> Rahall N (D) O O O O O O O O O O O S O O 7 7
K> Wise B (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
K> Wisconsin
K> Barca P (D) O O O S O O O O O O O S O O 14 14
K> Barrett T (D) O O O S O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
K> Gunderson S (R) S O S S O O O O S S S S S S 64 64
K> Kleczka G (D) S O O S O O O O O O O S O O 21 21
K> Klug S (R) O O O S O O O O O O O O O O 7 7
K> Obey D (D) S O O S O O O O O ? ? ? O O 18 14
K> Petri T (R) S O S S O S O O S S S S S O 64 64
K> Roth T (R) S S S S O S S O S S S S S S 86 86
K> Sensenbrenner F (R) O O S S O S O O S S S S S S 64 64
K> Wyoming
K> Thomas C (R) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100
K> KEY
K> P VOTED PRESENT
K> C VOTED PRESENT TO AVOID
K> POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
K> X SPEAKER EXERCISED DISCRETION NOT TO VOTE
K> ? DID NOT VOTE
K> I NOT ELIGIBLE MEMBER
K> House Vote #1: Forest Service Multiple Use Roads
K> Congressman Porter (R IL) offered an amendment to the 1994
K> Appropriations bill that would cut $11.9 million from the Forest
K> Service road budget. This is part of an overall attack on logging
K> communities by cutting the FS road budget thereby creating defacto
K> Wilderness areas. The goal is to eliminate logging on Federal forests
K> and eventually to bring these areas into the Federal Wilderness
K> System.
K> Jobs and the local economy of hundreds of small communities are at
K> stake. But there is more. Thousands of miles of road have been put
K> in over the years by the Forest Service. These roads, while initially
K> used for logging, are traveled by ranchers, miners, and recreation
K> advocates to use and enjoy our forests. We call them multiple use
K> roads. The environmental community first attacks the road building
K> program in a particular forest. When they strangle that forest with
K> litigation and appeals, driving up costs and driving down revenue, they
K> then say the proposed roads in that forest are being built below cost.
K> After stopping the roads, often gaining allies among budget conscious
K> conservatives to do it, they then seek to convert the roadless areas
K> to off limits Wilderness areas at great cost to the economy. This
K> proposal was defeated in Committee of the Whole 164 yes, 262 no on
K> July 14, 1993. A no was the private property rights vote.
K> House Votes #2 and 5: Federal Grazing Permits
K> Approximately 27,000 ranchers hold livestock grazing permits on nearly
K> 300 million acres of Federal lands in the Western States. Grazing
K> permits are based on pre existing property rights. These include
K> water rights and private base property inholdings. Permittees also
K> typically own the range improvements and water rights they have
K> created and paid for on their grazing allotments. Recent
K> Congressional and Clinton Administration attempts to radically change
K> the terms and conditions of grazing permits (including the grazing fee
K> formula) are based on denying these pre existing property rights and
K> are designed to capture their value for the Federal government while
K> eliminating grazing on Federal land.
K> House Vote #2: Grazing Fees Moratorium
K> Rep. Ralph Regula (R OH) moved to instruct House conferees to oppose
K> the Senate passed provision (see Senate Vote #4 for a fuller
K> explanation) prohibiting the Clinton Administration from raising
K> Federal grazing fees and implementing new grazing regulations during
K> Fiscal Year 1994. The House Senate Conference Committee was working
K> to resolve the differences between the two chambers' Interior
K> Appropriation bills. The House agreed to Regula's motion by a vote of
K> 319 Yes to 109 No. No was the pro property rights vote.
K> House Vote #5: Federal Grazing Program
K> The House Senate Conference Committee on FY 1994 Interior
K> Appropriations replaced the one year moratorium on implementing
K> Secretary Babbitt's grazing proposals with a new grazing package
K> proposed by Sen. Harry Reid (D NV). Rep. Sidney Yates (D IL) moved to
K> concur with Reid's attack on Federal grazing permittees. The House
K> voted to concur on October 20, 1993 by a vote of 317 Yes to 106 No.
K> Supporters of property rights voted No. The Reid language was
K> eventually stripped from the bill as a result of the Senate
K> filibuster. See Senate Votes #5, 6 and 7.
K> House Votes #3, 4 and 6: National Biological Survey
K> Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt's proposal to create a
K> National Biological Survey to inventory the nation's biological
K> resources without regard to property boundaries sparked an intense
K> debate in the House about property rights and environmental
K> regulation. Supporters of the NBS argued that the new agency would
K> merely gather scientific information; how the information was used was
K> another question entirely. Opponents responded that the survey was
K> nothing more than a feeder program for the Endangered Species Act. It
K> would lead to further regulation of economic activities on both
K> private and Federal lands. Rep. Gary Studds' bill to authorize a
K> National Biological Survey, H.R. 1845, finally passed the House, but
K> only after a number of amendments were adopted (most by voice vote)
K> that limit the Survey's authority and protect property rights.
K> These limits and protections were so unpalatable to Secretary Babbitt
K> and other supporters of the NBS that no attempt has been made in the
K> Senate to pass H.R. 1845. Although it still lacks statutory
K> authority, Secretary Babbitt went ahead and created the agency in
K> November 1993 after Congress included $162 million to fund it in its
K> FY 1994 Interior Appropriations bill. The LPPV Index includes the
K> three most important roll call votes on the NBS.
K> House Vote #3: No NBS Volunteers
K> Rep. Billy Tauzin (D LA) offered an amendment to H.R. 1845 forbidding
K> the National Biological Survey from using volunteers to conduct survey
K> activities.
K> +++++ end of file *****
K>
+++++ end of file *****
K> +++++ end of file *****
*@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@-=-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-=*
Msg#: 22 Date: 31 Oct 94 15:43:00
From: kellyp@ ...!
To: doug bashford
Subj: 03:Vote Index (Part II)
-**=-=-=*
K> It surprised everyone and shocked NBS supporters when the amendment
K> was agreed to by a vote of 217 Yes to 212 No on October 6, 1993.
K> Defenders of private property voted Yes. This is an important
K> prohibition. Volunteers could have self interested motives to find
K> endangered species and would be much harder to control through civil
K> service regulations than Federal employees.
K> House Vote #4: Written Permission to Enter Private Lands
K> Rep. Charles Taylor (R NC) moved an amendment to require that the
K> National Biological Survey: (1) obtain written permission from the
K> owner before entering non Federal property; (2) share information
K> gathered in site surveys with the property owner; and (3) file regular
K> reports with Congress on NBS activities on non Federal property. The
K> amendment passed on October 6, 1993 by a vote of 309 Yes to 115 No.
K> The importance of Taylor's amendment to private property owners is
K> obvious. Even those minimally concerned about property rights voted
K> Yes.
K> House Vote #6: NBS Passage
K> The House on October 26, 1993 passed and sent to the Senate H.R. 1845,
K> to establish a National Biological Survey within the Department of the
K> Interior. The final vote was 255 Yes to 165 No. Although H.R. 1845
K> was vastly improved by the various amendments adopted, the NBS still
K> poses enormous threats to the rights of property owners. The correct
K> vote therefore is No.
K> House Votes #7 and 8: Mining Law Repeal
K> The General Mining Law of 1872 provides incentives to encourage people
K> to discover and develop valuable hardrock mineral deposits on B.L.M.
K> and Forest Service lands in the Western States. The central incentive
K> is the right to stake a claim on a mineral discovery. The claimant has
K> secure tenure in his claims so long as he makes progress in proving and
K> developing the mineral deposit. Eventually, the claimant may be able
K> to patent his claims that is, receive fee simple title to both the
K> surface and subsurface.
K> Millions of people have invested their time and money in mineral
K> exploration and development because of the limited property right
K> conveyed by a mining claim. The bill to destroy the General Mining
K> Law, H.R. 322, would radically change this system. H.R. 322 attacks
K> property rights by applying the changes retroactively to all current
K> claims. Huge investments of time and money made under the old system
K> would thereby be made worthless. An analogy would be if the
K> government declared that it owned all existing as well as future homes
K> on land originally privitized under the Homestead Act. Clearly, few
K> people would have invest heavily if they had known that the government
K> was going to seize all Homesteads. The same is true of mining claims.
K> House Vote #7: Mining Reclamation
K> H.R. 322 would require reclamation standards that would in many cases
K> be impossible to meet. The result would be the closing of many
K> currently operating mines and the abandonment of countless future
K> projects. Rep. Barbara Vucanovich (R NV) proposed to require
K> reclamation to the maximum extent practicable instead. The Vucanovich
K> amendment was defeated by the House on November 16, 1993. The vote
K> was 149 Yes to 278 No. Property rights supporters voted Yes.
K> House Vote #8: Mining Law Passage
K> Rep. Nick Joe Rahall's (D WV) bill to destroy the General Mining Law,
K> H.R. 322, passed the House on November 18, 1993. The final vote was
K> 316 Yes to 108 No. This was an important property rights vote. No
K> was clearly the correct vote.
K> H.R. 322 went to a House Senate Conference Committee along with a
K> Senate mining law bill, S. 775, passed by voice vote in the Senate on
K> May 25, 1993. At the time the LPPV Index was being prepared, the
K> Conference Committee had not resolved the huge differences between the
K> two bills.
K> House Vote #9: Montana Wilderness
K> Rep. Pat Williams' (D MT) bill would create new Wilderness Areas in
K> Montana totaling 1.6 million acres. There are a large number of
K> private inholdings, including mining claims, within the proposed
K> Wilderness Areas. Wilderness designation would make access to these
K> inholdings difficult to impossible, thereby destroying their value.
K> On May 17, 1994, the House voted to pass H.R. 2473 by 308 Yes to 111
K> No. No was the property rights position. The Montana Wilderness bill
K> was still pending in the Senate as the LPPV Index went to press, but
K> any action was unlikely.
K> House Votes #10, 11, 12, 13 and 14: California Desert
K> In 1991, the House passed an earlier version of H.R. 518 rather
K> easily. The bill went nowhere in the Senate because one of
K> California's Senators opposed it. In 1994, it took the House 23 hours
K> of debate spread out over three months and numerous roll call votes to
K> pass the California Desert Protection Act.
K> A large part of the debate revolved around property rights. The LPPV
K> Index includes five votes that cover the whole range of property
K> rights issues.
K> House Vote #10: Access
K> Rep. Richard Pombo (R CA) proposed to keep open 200 roads and trails
K> now used by motorized vehicles through designated Wilderness Areas.
K> These roads are used by recreationists and provide access to many
K> private inholdings and mining claims. Without this amendment, many of
K> the remaining areas of the Desert not designated as Wilderness will
K> also become inaccessible. The amendment failed on a vote of 169 Yes
K> to 191 No. Yes was the pro property rights vote.
K> House Vote #11: Prohibiting Condemnation
K> Rep. Tom DeLay (R TX) proposed to prohibit condemnation of private
K> land within the new Mojave National Park.
K> An area of nearly 300,000 acres in the East Mojave Desert is largely
K> owned by small private landowners. An earlier amendment accepted by
K> voice vote provided for continued access and use of these inholdings.
K> DeLay's amendment would have provided security of tenure. It failed on
K> a vote of 145 Yes to 274 No. Property rights supporters voted Yes.
K> House Vote #12: Endangered Species and Appraised Value
K> Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks George
K> Frampton, Jr. (formerly president of the Wilderness Society) and other
K> radical preservationists have suggested that Federal costs of
K> acquiring private lands can be greatly reduced by using environmental
K> regulations. For example, a 6,000 acre stand of virgin redwoods
K> appraised at half a billion dollars might be worth only 5 10% of
K> that after the stand is designated critical habitat for an endangered
K> species. Rep. Richard Pombo (R CA) first proposed in committee to
K> prohibit using the Endangered Species Act to diminish the value of
K> private land targeted for Federal purchase. (His amendment failed on
K> a voice vote.) Rep. Billy Tauzin (D LA) offered a similar amendment
K> to the California Desert Bill. Most of the desert is habitat for the
K> endangered Desert Tortoise. The House approved Tauzin's amendment on
K> July 14, 1994. The vote was 281 Yes to 148 No. Yes was clearly the
K> correct vote.
K> House Vote #13: Eliminating NPS Acquisition Backlogs
K> The National Park Service has multi billion dollar backlogs for land
K> acquisition and Park maintenance and construction. People who own
K> property inside National Parks can wait decades before their property
K> is purchased by the NPS, but in the meantime are often permitted to do
K> little with it but pay the property taxes. Rep. Ken Calvert (R CA)
K> offered an amendment to delay the date when H.R. 518 became effective
K> until the NPS reduced its backlogs by 50%. It was rejected by the House
K> on July 27, 1994 by a vote of 138 Yes to 288 No. Calvert's amendment
K> would have improved the lot of many National Park inholders throughout
K> the system who may want to sell. It is the position of the League that
K> land should be purchased from onl willing sellers. Many inholders do
K> not want to sell their land. Yes was the private property vote.
K> House Vote #14: California Desert Passage
K> On July 27, 1994, the House passed and sent to the Senate H.R. 518,
K> the California Desert Protection Act. The vote was 298 Yes to 128 No.
K> Supporters of property rights voted No. As the LPPV Index went to
K> press, the Senate and House had not resolved the differences between
K> their two versions, but final passage was still likely.
K> ***********************************************************************
K> ****
K> CO SPONSORS OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEX
K> ADIRONDACK BLUE LINE CONFEDERATION
K> ADIRONDACK SOLIDARITY ALLIANCE
K> AES CATTLEWOMENS
K> AK FOREST ASSOC
K> AK LOGGERS ASSOC
K> AK MINERS ASSOC
K> AK SUPPORT INDUSTRY ALLIANCE
K> AK WETLANDS COALITION
K> ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA
K> ALSEA VALLEY ALLIANCE
K> ALTA CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE
K> AMADOR/EL DORADO/SACRAMENTO CATTLEMENS ASSOC
K> AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION
K> AMERICAN LAND RIGHTS ASSOC
K> AMERICAN LOGGERS SOLIDARITY
K> AMERICAN POLICY CENTER
K> AMERICAN WILDERNESS RESOURCES
K> ANIMAL OWNER & KAREGIVER ASSOC
K> ARKANSAS SCENIC RIVERS LANDOWNER ASSOC
K> ASSOCIATED OREGON LOGGERS INC
K> BIGHORN SHEEP
K> BLACK HILLS INST OF GEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
K> BLACK HILLS REGIONAL MULTIPLE COALITION
K> BLACK HILLS WOMEN IN TIMBER
K> BLUE RIBBON COALITION
K> BOHEMIA MINE OWNERS
K> BONANZA GOLD SHOW
K> BREVARD CHAP CITZ FOR PROP RIGHTS
K> CA ASSOC OF FOUR WHEEL DRIVE CLUBS INC
K> CA CATTLEMENS ASSOC
K> CA DESERT COALITION
K> CA FORESTRY ASSOC (CFA)
K> CA MINING ASSOC
K> CA OFF ROAD VEHICLE ASSOC (CORVA)
K> CA OUTDOOR RECREATION LEAGUE
K> CA WOMEN IN TIMBER
K> CALIFORNIA NEVADA SNOWMOBILE ASSOC
K> CALLME/MAINE
K> CARBON COUNTY COALITION
K> CARROLL COUNTY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC
K> CENTRAL ADIRONDACK DEFENSE COMMITTEE
K> CHELAN CNTY CITIZENS COALITION
K> CHICO CARDIOTHORACIC SURGEONS
K> CITIZENS AGAINST WILDERNESS
K> CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR FREE ENTERPRISE
K> CITIZENS COUNCIL OF SLEEPING BEAR
K> CITIZENS COUNCIL OF THE ADIRONDACKS
K> CITIZENS EQUAL RIGHTS ALLIANCE
K> CITIZENS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
K> CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ZONING
K> CITIZENS INFORMATION NETWORK
K> CLAUDE HOWARD LUMBER CO
K> CO INHOLDERS ASSOC
K> CO OFF HWY VEHICLE COALITION
K> CO PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL
K> COLUMBIA GORGE UNITED (CGU)
K> COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM
K> COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE PROPERTY RIGHTS
K> COMMUNITIES FOR A GREAT NORTHWEST
K> COMMUNITIES FOR A GREAT OREGON
K> CONFERENCE OF 14
K> CONSERVATION WITH COMMON SENSE
K> CURRY COUNTY OREGON PROJECT
K> DAVIS MOUNTAINS TRANS PECOS HERITAGE ASSOC
K> DEFENDERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
K> DEL NORTE TAXPAYER'S LEAGUE
K> DENDROI CONSERVATION
K> EAST MOJAVE PROP OWNERS ASSOC
K> EASTERN OREGON MINING ASSOC
K> EBSEN WOLCOTT FAMILY FOUND
K> ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORG
K> ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES
K> FAIRNESS TO LAND OWNERS COMM
K> FAMILY WATER ALLIANCE
K> FEDERAL LAND BANK ASSOC\MASON
K> FERRY COUNTY ACTION LEAGUE
K> FIRE ISLAND NATL ADVISORY
K> FISHERMEN'S COALITION
K> FL FARM BUREAU
K> FL FORESTRY ASSOC
K> FL LAND COUNCIL
K> FLY IN FOR FREEDOM
K> FOREST FARMERS ASSOC INC
K> FORESTRY CONSULTING SERVICES
K> FRIENDS OF THE RIVER (MA)
K> GABRIEL HOMES
K> GALLATIN VALLEY SNOWMOBILE
K> GORGE RESOURCE COALITION
K> GRANT WESTERN LUMBER CO
K> GRASS ROOTS FOR MULT USE
K> GRASSROOTS FOR MUTIPLE USE
K> GREAT BASIN AGRICULTURE
K> HIGH DESERT MULTIPLE USE COALITION
K> HILL COUNTRY HERITAGE ASSOC
K> ID FARM BUREAU
K> ID MINING ASSOC
K> "I'M A TREE"
K> IN HARDWARE LUMBERMENS ASSOC
K> INDEPENDENT MINING ASSOC
K> INTERMOUNTAIN RANCHES
K> INTERNATIONAL SNOWMOBILE COUNCIL
K> JEFFERSON COUNTY PROPERTY RIGHTS ALLIANCE
K> KLAMATH ALLIANCE FOR RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT (KARE)
K> LA FORESTRY ASSOC
K> LAKE STATES RESOURCE ALLIANCE
K> LANDOWNER ASSOC OF ND
K> LOGGERS LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
K> LUCERNE VALLEY REPUBLICAN WOMEN FEDERATION
K> MASON CTY PRIV PROP ALLIANCE
K> ME CONSERVATION RTS INST
K> MIDWEST TRAIL RIDERS ASSN
K> MINING SUPPORT GROUP
K> MO CATTLEMENS
K> MO LANDOWNERS
K> MOLALLA TIMBER ACTION COMMITTEE
K> MONROE COUNTY UNITED
K> MONTANANS FOR MULTIPLE USE
K> MOTHERS WATCH
K> MS RIVER INHOLDERS ASSOC
K> MT 4X4 ASSOC INC
K> MT MINING ASSOC
K> MT SNOWMOBILE ASSOC
K> MT TRAIL VEHICLE RIDERS
K> MT WOOLGROWERS
K> MULTIPLE USE ASSOC
K> MULTIPLE USE LAND ALLIANCE
K> NATIONAL ASSOC OF MINING DISTRICTS
K> NATIONAL ASSOC OF REVERSIONARY
K> NATIONAL COAL ASSOC
K> NATIONAL HARDWOOD LUMBER ASSOC
K> NATIONAL INHOLDERS ASSOC
K> NATIONAL OUTDOOR COAL
K> NATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS COMM
K> NATIONAL TRAPPERS ASSOC INC
K> NH LANDOWNERS ALLIANCE
K> NM CATTLE GROWERS ASSN
K> NM WOOL GROWERS ACTION COMM
K> NORTH AMERICA WHOLESALE LUMBER ASSOC
K> NORTH OLYMPIC TIMBER ACTION COMMITTEE
K> NORTHERN RESOURCE ALLIANCE
K> NORTHSHORE ASSOCIATION
K> NORTHWEST FORESTRY ASSOC
K> NORTHWEST INDEPENDENT FOREST MANUFACTURERS ASSOC
K> NORTHWEST LEGAL FOUNDATION
K> NORTHWEST MINING ASSOCIATION
K> NV CATTLEMENS ASSOC
K> NV FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
K> OAKRIDGE YELLOW RIBBON COALITION
K> OFF ROAD VEHICLE LEGISLATIVE COALITION (ORVIC)
K> OLYMPIC FOREST PROD
K> OR CATTLEMANS ASSOC
K> OR CATTLEWOMEN INC
K> OR FARM BUREAU
K> OR LANDS COALITION
K> OR PINE LUMBER
K> OR WOMEN IN TIMBER
K> OREGONIANS FOR FOOD AND SHELTER
K> OREGONIANS IN ACTION
K> OSAGE COUNTY CATTLEMENS ASSOC
K> OUTDOORS UNLIMITED INC
K> OVERSNOW ACCESS
K> PA LANDOWNERS ASSN
K> PACIFIC LUMBER CO
K> PACIFIC MINING ASSOC
K> PACIFIC NW 4 WHEEL DRIVE ASSOC
K> PANORAMA WEST CHAPTER/LOG TRUCKERS CONF
K> PEOPLE FIRST
K> PEOPLE FOR THE WEST (WA)
K> PEOPLE IN NEED OF EMPLOYMENT (PINE)
K> PETROGLYPH CITIZENS ALLIANCE
K> POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUE OF SHRIMPERS
K> PRAIRIE WOOD PROD
K> PRESCOTT LIVESTOCK AUCTION
K> PRIVATE LANDOWNERS OF WISCONSIN (PLOW)
K> PROPERTY RIGHTS ALLIANCE
K> PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNCIL OF AMERICA
K> PROPERTY RIGHTS FOUND OF AMERICA
K> PUBLIC LAND USERS ASSOC
K> PUBLIC LAND USERS SOCIETY
K> PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST
K> R COOK ENTERPRISES INC
K> RANCHERS AND FARMERS FOR PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
K> RANCHERS FOR CONSERVATION
K> REDFERN RANCHES
K> REDWOODS, THE
K> RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
K> RIVERSIDE & LANDOWNERS PROTECTION
K> SACRED HEART PARISH
K> SAN DIEGO OFF ROAD COALITION
K> SAVE OUR INDUSTRIES AND LANDS (SOIL)
K> SAVE OUR LAND
K> SHASTA ALLIANCE FOR RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT (SHARE)
K> SISKIYOU CHAPTER WOMEN IN TIMBER
K> SNOHOMISH COUNTY PROPERTY RIGHTS ALLIANCE
K> SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION AND CARE OF WILDLIFE
K> SOUTH EASTERN LUMBER MANUFACTURERS
K> SOUTHERN OR ALLIANCE FOR RESOURCES
K> SOUTHERN TIMBER PURCHASERS COUNCIL
K> SPORTSMENS ALLIANCE
K> STAND UP, TAKE ACTION
K> STONE FOREST INDUSTRIES INC
K> STOP OSAGE PRAIRIE PARK (STOPP)
K> STOP TAKING OUR PROPERTY (STOP)
K> SW OR MINERS ASSOC
K> TAKE BACK TEXAS
K> TAKE CARE
K> TAXPAYERS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND ITS MANAGEMENT (TEAM)
K> TEXAS SHRIMP ASSOC
K> TEXAS WILDLIFE ASSOC
K> TRAIL RECREATION ALLIANCE MI
K> TRANS TEXAS HERITAGE ASSOC
K> TRINITY COUNTY CONCERNED CITIZENS
K> TRINITY COUNTY PROPERTY OWNERS
K> TUOLUMNE ALLIANCE FOR RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT (TUCARE)
K> UMBRELLA GROUP, THE (TUG)
K> UMPQUA LUMBER CO
K> UNITED 4 WD ASSOC
K> UNITED PROPERTY OWNERS OF WA
K> VT PROPERTY RIGHTS CENTER
K> W F R LTD
K> WA COMMERCIAL FOREST ACTION CO
K> WA CONTRACT LOGGERS ASSOC
K> WA COUNTY ALLIANCE
K> WA FARM FORESTRY ASSOC
K> WA FRIENDS OF FARMS AND FORESTS
K> +++++ end of file *****
K>
+++++ end of file *****
K> +++++ end of file *****
*@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@-=-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-=*
Msg#: 23 Date: 31 Oct 94 15:43:00
From: kellyp@ ...!
To: doug bashford
Subj: 04:Vote Index (Part II)
-**=-=-=*
WA INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES
WA LANDS COALITION
WA PRIVATE PROPERTY COALITION
WA PROPERTY OWNERS COALITION
WA PROPERTY RIGHTS NETWORK
WA PROSPECTORS MINING CLUB
WA RIVERS COALITION
WA SNOWMOBILE ASSOC
WA STATE FARM BUREAU
WA WOOLGROWERS
WALNUT COUNCIL
WESTERN FOREST IND ASSOC
WESTERN MINING COUNCIL
WESTERN RESOURCES ASSOC
WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOC
WESTERN WOOD PRODUCTS ASSOC
WESTERN WY LIVESTOCK USERS ASSOC
WHATCOM COUNTY CLUE
WI WOMEN FOR AGRICULTURE
WILD RIVERS CONSERVANCY FEDERATION
WILD RIVERS CONSERVANCY FEDERATION OF MI
WILDERNESS IMPACT RESEARCH FOUNDATION (WIRF)
WIND RIVER MULTIPLE USE ADVOCATES
WISE WOODS INDUSTRY SEEKS EQUALITY
WOMEN INVOLVED IN FARM ECONOMY (WIFE)
WOOD PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS ASSOC
WORKERS OF OR DEVELOPMENT (WOOD)
WORLD ROCKHOUNDS ASSOC
WY FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
WY HERITAGE SOCIETY
WY PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL
WY RESOURCE PROVIDERS
WY WOOL GROWERS ASSOC
YELLOW RIBBON COALITION
***************************************************************************
QUICK REFERENCE GRID
Cut this page out and then cut along the numbers. Place the grid
on top of any page of the vote index to give you a quick reference reminder
about the issues decided by the votes we included.
> > > House of Representatives Quick Vote Grid < < <
#1 Limit funding for FS multiple use roads.
#2 Raise grazing fees.
#3 No volunteers National Biological Survey (NBS)
#4 Require NBS to get written consent for access.
#5 Raise grazing fees.
#6 Passage of National Biological Survey (NBS).
#7 Mining Law Overhaul Land Restoration.
#8 Passage of extreme Mining Law Overhaul.
#9 Montana Wilderness Bill Passage.
#10 Motorized vehicle access California Desert.
#11 California Desert Act condemnation.
#12 Protect property values Calif. Desert.
#13 Reduce acquisition backlog Calif. Desert.
#14 Passage California Desert Act.
> > > U. S. Senate Quick Vote Grid < < <
#1 Increase grazing, mining, recreation and irrigation fees.
#2 Support a mining royalty.
#3 Economic and employment impact statements.
#4 Raise grazing fees.
#5 Cloture vote on grazing fees.
#6 Cloture vote on water rights and grazing fees.
#7 Cloture water rights, grazing fees and regulations.
#8 Make East Mojave a National Monument (not a park).
#9 California Desert Bill Land acquisition.
#10 California Desert Bill Passage.
LPPV
*********************************************************************
+++++ end of file *****
+++++ end of file *****
**Sierran -+-+-
**Sierran -+-+-
Feedback:
Back to Science v. Politics