Endangered Species - Baker Amendment (S.1143) - U.S. Senate Vote Report No. 15

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Eden

Report No. 15, dated June 22, 1979, summarizes key U.S. Congressional actions affecting endangered species protections and related water and aviation measures. The Senate rejects the Baker Amendment to S.1143, which would have exempted the Tellico Dam from the Endangered Species Act. It also notes the defeat of an alternative Bell amendment requiring “economic or aesthetic value” tests, and describes House consideration of related water project funding and an aviation noise bill’s main provisions and committee status.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Baker Amendment to S.1143 (June 13 Senate action)

WATER RESOURCES POLICY

House action on Energy and Water Development Appropriations (FY80)

AVIATION NOISE BILL

Senate approval of S.413 and House committee status

Report No.15 June 22,1979 96th Congresslst Session # ENDANGERED SPECIES By a 43-52 vote the Senate rejected the Baker Amendment to s.1143,the billreauthorizing the Endangered Species Act,on June 13. The amendment,offered byTennessee Senator Howard Baker,would have exempted the Tellico dam from provisions ofthe Act,allowing completion and operation of the dam even though the endangered Sna1lDarter wou1d almost certainly have been extinguished as a result.An amendment offeredby Sen.Henry Bellπon(0kla.)was also defeated,14-80. It would have required that anendangered species meet a test of "economic or aesthetic value to man"before it would beprotected. Proponents of the Baker Amendment argued that there should be some provision for"grandfathering"projects begun before the Act was passed and that the review committeeusurped prerogatives of Congress in killing the project for economic reasons.Thoseopposed to amending the Act countered that acceptance of the amendment would "constitutea repudiation of the considered judgment"made by Congress last year and would set aprecedent which would force Congress to resolve similar conflicts in the future. There were no substantive amendments to S.1143. The bill would reauthorize the Actfor a 3-year period at slightly increasing authorization each year. Listed below is the vote on the Baker Amendment.A "Nay"vote is a vote against theamendment. NAY8—52YEAB—43NOT VOTTNG—5BayhExonPereyArmstrongBentsenHazakaw&MorganBaucusTno47eBimpsoDGravelBIdenPresslerBakerHeflinNtunnCanbonMCGovernHartBoschwitProxmireBelimonEelmsPryorHatfeldRandolphBorenHol!mgsSasserBradleyHein2RIbiconBumpersHuddlestonSchmittChafeeKennedyRiegleghwEerChiles1enhyRothBLennChurchLevinBarbanesHarryP.,Jr.JavitsStevensCohenMagnusonStaffordByrd,Robert C.JepsenBbewnrtCranstonMathlas887e09uCochranJohnstonTalmadgeCulverMatsunagaStoneFordKassebaumThurmondDanforthMelcherTsongnsGarnLaxaltTowerDcConcinlMetzenbeumelpGlenn1n7WarnerDoleMoynlhanWelckerGoldwaterLugarYoungDomenlclMuskleWillilam8HatchMCClureDurenbergerNelsonZorinskyDurkinpellPackwoodEagleton BIrdickByrd, HumphreyJackson # WATER RESOURCES POLICY The House of Representatives has passed the Energy and Water Development Appropria-tions B11l for FY80,after brushing back two attempts to delete funding for controversia1water projects.On June 14,the House turned down an amendment offered by Rep.RobertEdgar(Pa.)to delete $9.1 m11lion for the Stonewall Jackson Dam in West Virginia。Edgarwas umable to secure a record vote on his amendment. On June 15,the House rejected by a vote of 210 to 106 an amendment offered by Rep.John Cavanaugh(Neb.)tc delete $6 milion for the O'Neil1 Unit reclamation project inNebraska. Whle the absence of over 100 House members from this roll cal1 vote (whichoccurred on a Friday afternoon)kept the vote totals low on both sides,conservationistsnoted that a ful1 one-third of those present and voting voted to cut the O'Ne11l project.This statistic 11lustrates a continuing significant sentiment against water projectspending,and suggests that the President may well be successful once again if he choosesto veto a water project bill in the 96th Congress. In a surprise_move,the House accepted by voice vote an amendment to the bil1 toexempt the Tellico Dam from the Endangered Specles Act. The significance of thisgesture,attached as a rider to the appropriations bi11,is as yet unclear.The Senatehas recently rejected a Tellico exemption.(See p.1 of this issue.) Following are those members who voted in favorof the Cavanaugh amendment to deletefunding for the O'Ne1l1 Unit,along with those wbodid not vote.All others votedagainst the amendment. ANSWERED"PRESENT"—1 AYES—106 Gephardt Gonzalez Ambro Myers,Pa.Neal Anderson, GingrlchGradiaon Nelgon Calif. Applegate Gray Nolan Oberstar AspinBaileyBedell Green Hall,OhloHamilton OttingerPatten Betlens00 Hsrkin Patterson BereuterBinghamBrsdemas Harrls Paul Hawk

FAQs

What was the Baker Amendment’s purpose regarding the Endangered Species Act?

It would have exempted the Tellico Dam from provisions of the Act, allowing completion and operation even though the endangered Snail Darter would likely be extinguished.

How did the Senate vote on the Baker Amendment to S.1143?

By a 43–52 vote, the Senate rejected the Baker Amendment on June 13.

What do the reported provisions of the aviation noise bills require the federal government to do?

They require the Secretary of Transportation to create a single noise measurement system, assess aircraft noise impact on individuals, and develop methods to identify land uses compatible with varying noise levels.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Eden