floor, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 64-21, virtually as reported.144 It was believed by many that the 93rd Congress would finally pass land use legislation.145
The House of Representatives
Over the years that Jackson's bills were before the Senate, similar bills had been introduced in the House of Representatives, yet the House had moved very slowly.146 Rep. Wayne Aspinall, chair of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, asserted early jurisdictional control over the land use issue by proposing a bill based on an early draft of S. 992.147 However, during the 92d Congress, while the Senate was reconciling the provisions of Jackson's S. 632 with the Administrations' S. 992, the House bill included provisions not contained in either of the Senate bills, regarding public lands. It required federal agencies to develop land use plans for all federal
(James A. Noone, Congress Moves Toward National Land Planning and Management Legislation, National Journal, June 30, 1973 at 964. The following were the votes on the significant amendments offered on the floor:
On sanctions: Senator Jackson's proposal that the provision be reinstated was defeated 44 to 52. During the debate, Jackson said he preferred to call the provision an "additional incentive" rather than a sanction.
On funding: the Administration offered an amendment to decrease the funding. It was defeated by a vote of 27 to 57.
(James A. Noone, Land Use Planning Bill Headed for House Floor Vote, National Journal, February 2, 1974. "Land use planning, regarded by the White House and many on Capitol Hill as the most important environmental measure before the 93rd Congress, finally has cleared committee in the House, making it likely that a bill will be enacted this year." Id. at 183.
(Richard Corrigan, Interior Department Finesses HUD in Scramble Over Land use Program, National Journal, March 20, 1971, at 597.
(Id. at 597.