| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
HB 126A: FEDERAL NATURAL RESOURCE POLICY ACCOUNT - 1997 General Session Sponsor: Joint Agriculture, Public Lands & Water Resources Interim Committee HB 126A represented the fourth attempt in recent years to establish a discretionary fund in the governor’s office to be used by the state or local governments to monitor and challenge federal natural resource policies which "adversely affect" Wyoming. Funds within the account could be spent by the Governor to monitor federal natural resource issues; coordinate and communicate with local governments, other states and the federal government; assist counties with federal land use plans; litigate when necessary; and recognize and support economic development. The bill appropriated $1.5 million from the Policy Development Reserve Account for these purposes. Proponents of the bill argued that money was needed to increase the state’s level of involvement in communicating and coordinating with federal agencies. Supporters also insisted that litigation would be only a last resort, to get federal authorities to look more favorably upon development plans supported by the state. Opponents characterized the proposed account as a "slush fund" to use taxpayers’ money to fight the legal battles of the extractive industries, since all the other activities listed in the bill were already being conducted. Opponents also questioned how state government would decide which side to support in cases where a federal policy benefitted one group of taxpayers but hurt another. The bill contained no criteria guiding the Governor’s discretionary use of the fund. HB 126A saw six separate votes on the House floor, two joint conference committee (JCC) votes, and a demand by the House leadership for a third conference committee when the House failed to concur, 26-32, with the second JCC report. When the Senate leadership refused to appoint a third JCC, the House took the unusual step of reconsidering the previous vote. This also failed, 29-31, and the bill died. The votes below are the third reading (final passage) votes in the House and Senate. A YES vote means the legislator supported establishing a discretionary account for litigation against the federal government on natural resource policy issues. A NO vote means the legislator opposed establishing such a discretionary account.
www.equalitystate.org Copyright 1999, Equality State Policy Center | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||