September 19, 1972
Page 31195
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment, which I shall state very briefly and explain my reasons for it, is to substitute the Executive Office of the President for the Secretary of the Interior as the administrative agency at the Federal level.
Mr. President, the legislation before us would rest responsibility for "procedural" review of State land-use plans in an Office of Land Use in the Department of Interior. I question the viability and the wisdom of this provision. The Interior Department has a long and distinguished history of involvement in development of public land, wilderness areas, and national parks.
Unfortunately, the Interior Department has no broad-based planning responsibility as would be established under S. 632. The Interior Department has no awareness of issues relating to State
and local tax patterns. The Interior Department has had no involvement or experience in the Nation's urban areas where 70 percent of the population lives and where the major, critical land-use planning problems exist. Because of the Interior Department's limited experience in these areas, I am concerned that solutions to urban-based land-use problems, at worst, may be misjudged and at least delayed or complicated. Sound evaluation of public policy requirements argues that an Interior Department traditionally oriented toward public lands and rural areas will not comprehend other issues, including the host of problems which confront urban areas in 50 States.
An argument can be made for charging several Federal agencies with the lead agency role in land-use planning. But any fair evaluation of the Federal structure demands the conclusion that no single agency has either the ability or the breadth to do the job. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, has experience in comprehensive planning in urban areas but has limited understanding in such matters as watersheds, irrigation rights, wilderness needs, and mineral exploration which affect many important land use decisions outside of urban areas.
The Environmental Protection Agency, with knowledge of environmental issues, has but little involvement with the social and fiscal implications which affect land use planning in urban areas or the land management issues which must be recognized in non urban areas.
For this reason, it is essential that, should the Federal Government assume the role in guiding development of State land-use planning program assigned by S. 632, coordinating it must occur through an agency with the breadth to recognize all of the broad issues, with capacity to bring together all of the experience of Federal agencies relating to the land-use planning which does not exist in the narrow line agencies. Only the Executive Office of the President has the overall capability to coordinate this responsibility.
My amendment would vest responsibility for implementation of this legislation in the Executive Office of the President. I admit that this is an imperfect solution, but land use is so complex – land use involves so many facets of public activity – land use involves the programs of so many Federal agencies – that land use must be within the responsibility of a Federal office which has the capability to bring to bear all of the resources of the Federal Government.
Under my amendment, the President would have to establish an Office of Land Use Planning in the White House. That office should be able to draw immediately the best talent available from the Departments of Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Agriculture as well as EPA, independent agencies, the academic community, and the private sector. I do not expect this office to be political. Like the Office of Management and Budget, it should be an agency composed of civil servants dedicated to a specific responsibility.
The White House, which has ultimate responsibility for implementation and coordination of those national policies to which I have referred, is the only logical location for the responsibilities proposed by this bill and the amendments thereto. Mr. President, as an indication of the
breadth of Federal programs that are involved and that would be subject to this planning process, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a table found in the committee report, listing the 112 programs which would be involved in this planning process, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the Department of the Interior.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter I have received from the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, dated September 11, 1972, which bears on this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES AND THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,
September 11, 1972.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: Your speech of August 16th, before the U.S. Senate, discussing S. 632, the Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1972, raised several issues that have been of particular concern to the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. We share your concerns, and join with you in your desire for full consideration of these issues as the Senate considers S. 632.
During our testimony before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on S. 632 and S. 992, the predecessors to the bill now before the Senate, on June 7, 1971, the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors supported Federal assistance and guidance for developing a land use planning partnership between Federal, state, and local governments.
However, our testimony stated that in facing the issue of protecting our environment "there is a very real challenge, and that is to establish such a protective mechanism without depriving local governments of control over community development decision making which they must maintain to be responsive and viable entities in the overall Federal system.”
We identified three fundamental difficulties with the legislation then before the Committee: first, the role of local governments in the land use planning and management process; second, the impact of state and Federal land use controls on local revenues and the ability of local governments to carry out those governmental functions so dependent upon the property tax base; and third, whether the Department of the Interior would be the proper agency to establish and administer national and state land use policies and programs.
Since our testimony, the land use bill has been subject to numerous revisions. We have worked closely with the Interior Committee to assure that local governments will be fully involved in the planning for land uses of statewide and national concern, and that the primary responsibility for local land use decisions will continue to be placed in the hands of elected local officials.
Still remaining are the issues of the financial impact of the Federal land use legislation and the proper agency to administer the Federal program. The property tax issue may not be resolved, but it goes to the heart of the effects that the legislation will have. In addition, many of the specific questions asked in your speech can only be answered in the context of a full discussion of the financial impact of land use controls. Revenue sharing, which you have so strongly supported, will reduce cities' dependence on the property tax to some degree. However, only fundamental reform of the property tax system can make land use reforms truly effective. S. 632 may or may not be the appropriate vehicle for such reform. We do agree very strongly that the issues must be raised during the Senate debate on S. 632.
The National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors also testified during last year's hearings that Federal responsibility for land use should be vested in an agency within the Executive Office of the President, such as the Domestic Council. We have sought responsibility in an agency which would have overall involvement in making domestic policy and would be able to take a comprehensive view of the issues in the context of a national growth policy. We feel that the Department of the Interior, as proposed in S. 632, or any other particular department or agency with particular mission orientations would be too narrow in its perspective. In addition, the lack of experience of such functional agencies with land use planning in general, and with urban land use planning in particular, would make implementation of land use policies and coordination with existing federal programs very difficult. The National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors therefore, support an amendment to S. 632 to place responsibility for the program in the Executive Office of the President.
The Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act, S. 632, holds the potential for being one of the most significant bills ever considered by the Senate. It has potential for governing the relationships of the Federal, state, and local governments and for controlling all private and governmental activities. Virtually all public and private activities impact on land usage and could be governed by this bill. Such major legislation merits full discussion and broad consideration of all the elements and impacts it may have. The National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors hope these serious concerns that we share with you, as well as the numerous other issues raised by S. 632, will be fully discussed and, hopefully, resolved. We applaud your initiatives in raising these issues, and shall work toward their resolution.
Sincerely,
ALLEN E. PRITCHARD, Jr.,
Executive Vice President National League of Cities.
JOHN J. GUNTHER,
Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Mr. MUSKIE. I read a paragraph from the letter
The National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors also testified during last year's hearings that Federal responsibility for land use should be vested in an agency within the Executive Office of the President, such as the Domestic Council. We have sought responsibility in an agency which would have overall involvement in making domestic policy and would be able to take a comprehensive view of the issues in the context of a national growth policy. We feel that the Department of the Interior, as proposed in S. 632, or any other particular department or agency with particular mission orientations would be too narrow in its perspective. In addition, the lack of experience of such functional agencies with land use planning in general, and with urban land use planning in particular, would make implementation of land use policies and coordination with existing federal programs very difficult. The National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors therefore support an amendment to S. 632 to place responsibility for the program in the Executive Office of the President.
Thus speaks the voice of the urban areas of this country on this issue.
Mr. President, I should like to refer to another communication, which is found in the committee report, from the one agency at the Federal level which concerns itself with the relationship between the Federal, State, and local levels of government. That is the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.,
April 12, 1971.
Senator HENRY M. JACKSON,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: This is in response to your request for the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations' views on S. 632, the Land and Water Resources Act of 1971.
While the ACIR has not taken a specific position on all the issues raised in S. 632, it has adopted several policy positions having a bearing on the bill.
Urban Growth and Planning – In its 1968 report on Urban and Rural America: Policies for Future Growth, the ACIR recommended "... the development of a national policy incorporating social, economic, and other considerations to guide specific decisions at the national level which affect the patterns of urban growth." In an earlier report, Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System, the Commission stressed the importance of a strong well-staffed State planning program directly under the Governor. The Commission concluded that the planning function should include formulation for the consideration by the Governor and legislature of comprehensive policies and long-range plans for the effective and orderly development of human and material resources of the State. More specifically, the Commission in its Urban and Rural America report recommended "... the development of State policy incorporating social, economic and other considerations to guide specific decisions at the State level which affect patterns of urban growth." The States were urged to "... give consideration both to the national policy and to the views of local governments in the formulation of State plans and policy dealing with urban growth."
Grant Consolidation. – The Advisory Commission in its 1967 report Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System, recommended "... that the Congress and the President strive toward a drastic decrease in the number of separate authorizations for Federal grants ... " In the same report, the Advisory Commission further recommended "... consolidating in so far as possible into a single Congressional enactment a set of planning requirements both functional and comprehensive to be applicable to Federal grant and aid programs, both present and future ..."
The following comments are those of the staff only, although some of the discussion relates to those general policy positions of the Commission stated above:
"The purposes of the bill are not inconsistent with the ACIR's basic position on the need for a national urbanization policy.
"Yet, it might be appropriate to consider this legislation within the broader context of such a national policy, which in the long run will probably emerge as a consequence of piecemeal consideration of measures such as this. Legislation introduced in the last session of Congress (H.R. 13217 and S. 3228, Balanced Urbanization Policy and Planning Act of 1969) implemented ACIR recommendations concerning comprehensive and functional planning assistance grants.
Title III of these bills sought to develop an intergovernmental system of planning and coordination that buttresses the development of a national urbanization policy. The following principles set forth in Title III are pertinent to S. 632 as land use is basic to other kinds of planning:
"(a) comprehensive planning assistance is confined generally to general purpose units of government and one set of area wide multi-jurisdictional agencies within a State is used (unless no overall State assistance program is established) ;
"(b) comprehensive planning must be consistent with that of the next larger jurisdiction (which complements the thrust of Title IV of the 'Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968');
"(c) functional plans must be consistent with comprehensive planning and not inconsistent with the functional plans of the next larger jurisdiction;
"(d) emphasis is placed upon the States if they choose to take up the challenge laid down by this Title, but bypassing is permitted to localities and area wide jurisdictions if this responsibility is rejected;
"(e) an attempt is made to place the allocation of funds on a formula basis, rather than on an across-the-board project basis; and
"(f) finally, immediate responsibility for administering the program is assigned to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but operating within broad guidelines to be established by the Executive Office of the President.
"Enactment of this broad comprehensive and functional planning grant program admittedly is a difficult assignment. Extensive institutional arrangements would have to be made in both the executive and legislative branches of the Federal government.
"We are concerned that possible conflict, overlap, or duplication may occur between the categorical program activities proposed by the bill and those now being carried out in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's comprehensive planning assistance (701) program. A substantial amount of the funds granted under the 701 program have gone to States and local governments for land use planning and related activities. The provisions of the existing 701 program already authorize grants which would accomplish much of what is sought by S. 632 in encouraging land use planning. Consideration then might be given to increasing the funding level of 701; to assure that an adequate amount is reserved for land use planning. Congress could specify that 40 to 50 percent of 701 funds be earmarked for grants to States, river basin commissions, and interstate agencies. Alternatively, 701 might be folded into S. 632.
"We feel it is essential that the land use planning component of urban growth policy, as proposed by S. 632. be integrated with the broader comprehensive planning process encompassing the full spectrum of physical, social, human and economic issues. To accomplish this objective, we feel that HUD should be assigned with the responsibility for disbursement of grant funds for land use planning.
"However, in evolving the organization and procedures for carrying out the broad purposes of S. 632, Congress ought to consider assigning to an identifiable unit of the Domestic Council those policy responsibilities set forth in Title I. Moreover, the importance of relating national land use policy with the development of a national urban growth policy as called for in Title VII, Part A, of the 'Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970' should be underscored. Therefore, we would urge that the Land and Water Resources Council not be established as an independent unit, charged with policy and program functions, apart from those responsibilities that Congress has already called for in the development of a national urban growth policy. At the very least, S. 632 should be amended to make clear that its purposes provide an institutional framework to implement Title VII of the 'Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970.'"
"To ensure coordination of Federal agency activities with statewide land use plans, we feel that responsibilities for this function must rest with the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office of the President. In short, we are suggesting that the policy, coordination, and grant disbursement responsibilities under the Act should rest with the Domestic Council, OMB, and HUD, respectively.
"Finally, the far-reaching effects of S. 632 and similar bills emphasize the necessity for Congress to provide within its standing committee structure a means to assure continuing systematic review and study of the progress toward a national urban growth policy. While the ACIR does not presume to say whether this responsibility should be exercised by select or special committees, we do feel that a decision must be made for effective oversight of the kind of new responsibilities envisaged by S. 632"
You and your committee are to be complimented for developing and deliberating on this wide-ranging omnibus legislation. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this bill.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM R. MACDOUGALL,
Executive Director.
Mr. MUSKIE. I read a brief excerpt from the letter:
To ensure coordination of Federal agency activities with statewide land use plans, we feel that responsibilities for this function must rest with the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office of the President. In short, we are suggesting that the policy, coordination, and grant disbursement responsibilities under the Act should rest with the Domestic Council, OMB, and HUD, respectively.
Mr. President, I think it only makes sense that if we adopt this kind of far-reaching legislation, going all across the board, involving 112 different Federal agencies and programs, involving all 50 States, involving up to 90,000 local units of government, overall supervision of this process ought to rest at the very top level of government where all the Federal programs can be coordinated, under the supervision of the President, the Executive Office itself. Without that kind of provision, I would find it very difficult to support this legislation – charging an agency which has had primary responsibility with public lands with the supervision of a public policy that relates only to nonpublic lands. We are talking about a department which now seeks to extend its jurisdiction beyond the public lands which have been its traditional jurisdiction to nonpublic lands which have never been its traditional jurisdiction.
So, Mr. President, I urge the adoption of my amendment by the Senate.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment of the junior Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) to transfer the administration of the Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1972 from the Secretary of the Interior to the Executive Office of the President.
There are some duties which for compelling reasons must be located in the Executive Office, chiefly those which involve policy development and which require intimate and continuing contact with the President and his immediate aides.
I find no such compelling reasons in regard to the duties created by the proposed legislation.
These duties are primarily administrative and technical in nature. They will involve a sizable staff competent to review planning activities in the States and the necessary clerical force required to administer a significant grant program. Although the impact of the program proposed in this measure will, I believe, be of tremendous significance to the Nation's future, the day-to- day decisions which will be made by its administrators will seldom require or command the personal attention of the President and his immediate staff. There are adequate existing means, through the Cabinet and existing advisory groups, to bring issues regarding this or any other program to the President's attention when the need arises.
I surmise that the purpose of the amendment being proposed is to avoid the conflicts of jurisdiction among agencies. The bill as reported assigns responsibility for program administration to the Interior Department, and fully recognizes that many other departments and agencies have an interest in the program. The answer to dealing with shared jurisdiction is not, however, to locate this program in the White House.
The bill reported by the committee deals with this question by establishing within the Office of Land Use Policy Administration a National Advisory Board on Land Use Policy – section 203 – which is composed of representatives of all concerned departments and agencies. In addition, the Executive Office of the President is required to formulate all guidelines. All Federal review functions of State processes and programs are done through an interagency procedure with special review responsibilities for the Secretary of HUD and the Administrator of EPA. Finally, no State program can be declared ineligible until a special ad hoc hearing board appointed by the President declares it so.
Mr. President, the Executive Office is not a good location for agencies which should be accessible to the public and to non-Federal governments. Executive Office Agencies, by their nature, are primarily concerned with the President's priorities and needs. They are prestigious, but they are ill-equipped for field work.
The program which is being proposed here is primarily a State grant-in-aid program. The Federal agency which administers it must remain accessible and sensitive to the States, local governments, and the general public which are carrying out the planning effort and being affected by it.
We should resist the temptation to resort to the Executive Office as an easy answer to coordination and jurisdictional problems. If we do not, we will soon erode the value of that location both for our new activities and for those which already reside there. Furthermore, we will destroy the viability of the most important organizational entity in the executive branch.
My bill, which is before the Senate at this time, has been supported by all the conservation groups. The bill includes the Interior Department as the agency to administer the grant-in-aid program and the conservation groups have all gone down the line 100 percent in favor of such an approach: the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, the Wilderness Society, the Environmental Policy Center, the Friends of Earth, the National Recreation Association, the Sports Fishing Institute, and so forth. I mention these organizations because they have been of great assistance to us as we have carefully worked out this measure over a period of 2½ years.
I must say that the Interior Department is the logical place to administer the program. To turn it over to the White House and, in effect, have a Cabinet officer in the White House, will do violence to the whole concept of administering executive programs.
I trust and I hope that the amendment will be voted down.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President will the Senator from Washington yield?
Mr. JACKSON. I yield.
Mr. CHURCH. Do I correctly understand that the pending amendment would, in effect, transfer the administration of the program envisioned by the bill from the Interior Department to the White House?
Mr. JACKSON. The Senator is correct. This is something unprecedented. There is absolutely no precedent for setting up, in effect, a Cabinet office within the confines of the White House. That is what we are talking about here. That is why the conservation groups and all the others are concerned and support this measure which places administrative responsibility in the Department of the Interior.
What are they going to do? Bring in all the expertise from the other departments? They will have to set up a bureaucracy in the White House, which will be unprecedented.
Mr. CHURCH. That was going to be my next question. The administration of the bill is highly technical in character, is it not, and will require considerable expertise? That is true, is it not?
Mr. JACKSON. The Senator is correct. It would require a very large personnel buildup within the White House.
Mr. CHURCH. Is it not also true that the one place this expertise does exist now, and in considerable measure, is at the Department of the Interior?
Mr. JACKSON. The Senator is correct. In the area of land use, the list is long. The Interior Department has numerous environmental programs which involve our parks and the use of public lands and collection of land resource data through the Geological Survey. That is why the conservation groups have strongly supported the Interior Department concept.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has referred to functions which have to do with public lands. Why does the bill exclude public lands if the expertise exists with respect to it? The Senator is talking about precedents. There is no precedent for the Interior Department's having jurisdiction over nonpublic lands.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, we have a separate bill on the calender – S. 2401– dealing specifically with public lands, the administration of public domain lands.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this argument, that there is no precedent for putting these functions in the Executive Office of the President in the White House, and that there is no expertise there for dealing with it.
Well, Mr. President, Congress created the Office of Science and Technology, not in NASA but in the White House.
Congress created the Council of Environmental Quality, not in the Department of the Interior, or in any other Department, but in the Office of the White House.
A classic example is the Office of Emergency Preparedness, which is in the Office of the White House. Why? All of these are located in the White House because of the perceived need for the coordination of these activities.
Let me read some of the programs involved in this process, none of which are in the Department of the Interior:
LIST OF PROGRAMS
Airport and Airway Development Act.
Appalachian Regional Development Act.
Atomic Energy Act.
Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act.
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Federal Aid Highway Act.
Federal Power Act.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Flood Control Act.
Higher Education Act.
Housing Act.
Hill-Burton Act (hospital construction).
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
National Housing Act.
Public Works and Economic Development Act.
Rivers and Harbors Act.
Rural Electrification Act.
Public Land Sale Act.
Urban Mass Transportation Act.
These programs, Mr. President, are not in the Department of the Interior.
Let me refer to some planning processes now existing, which are not in the Interior Department.
Broad-based land use and related plans already called for, under section 701 of the Housing Act. That is not in the Interior Department.
Section 204 of the Model Cities Act. That is not in the Interior Department. Sections 109 and 134 of the Highway Act. That is not in the Interior Department.
Title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. That is not in the Interior Department.
The Clean Air Act. That is not in the Interior Department. And so forth. All of these would continue without modification under S. 632, with the new land use planning bureaucracy merely being added on the top but in a parallel agency, not in an oversight agency, after establishment of the process. That is all that S. 632 requires, without any goal or principles to begin with. There is no assurance that anything would be accomplished through the new planning activities unless there is effected coordination of existing Federal planning processes in existing Federal programs.
Mr. President, the Senator from Washington speaks about lack of precedent. This whole legislation is without precedent. There is no precedent for it anywhere in American history for 200 years. There is no precedent to guide us with respect to such legislation. I submit there is at least this much, that the history of Congress in legislating indicates when any new Federal function is adopted which requires the coordination of existing programs, departments, and agencies, the place to put that role and that function is in the Executive Office at the White House. If that is not the proper place for it, then we should transfer NASA, the Council of Environmental Quality, the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and all the others away.
What we are talking about is a new program and a new policy that affects not just 112 Federal programs but all the 50 States and over 90,000 local units of government.
We are putting all of that into one department of Government, the Department of Interior, which has no experience, none whatsoever, with respect to nonpublic lands. We are urged to consider precedents in making that determination.
Mr. President and my colleagues in the Senate, precedent indicates that is the last place it should be located in.
Thus, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. JORDAN of Idaho. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TUNNEY). The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. JORDAN of Idaho. Mr. President, I see no real purpose in setting up an overlapping bureaucracy in the White House to supervise the land use and planning program. The expertise in this field is largely concentrated in the Department of the Interior which has jurisdiction over 450 million acres of public lands now. That is where the expertise is and where this kind of land use planning is concentrated.
I see no use establishing an overlapping bureaucracy at the White House, as the same thing can be done by each agency in the Department of the Interior.
Thus, I shall resist – and I hope other Senators will, as well – the amendment of the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE).
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TUNNEY). The Senator from Washington is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Maine has cited the precedent of OST and OEP. It is quite apparent that we are talking about two different things. There are a total of 15 professionals running the Office of Science and Technology. And in OEP there may be 35.
Do we want to set up a huge bureaucracy that would be unparalleled? I am talking about a Cabinet-sized operation to administer grant-in-aid programs. We have never administered grant- in-aid programs from the White House. We would be going down the wrong road. It would be a mass of confusion. It would be a waste of the taxpayers' funds.
I urge that the amendment be rejected.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Idaho. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced – yeas 19, nays 56, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]