[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9536-S9553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill


                           Amendment No. 1219

  (Purpose: To express a Sense of the Senate that hearings should be 
   conducted and legislation debated during this Congress that would 
                 address Federal funding for the arts)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have at the desk amendment No. 1219 for 
myself and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. I would like to 
present it at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for himself and Mr. 
     Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 1219.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. 3  . It is the Sense of the Senate that, inasmuch as 
     there is disagreement as to what extent, if any, Federal 
     funding for the arts is appropriate, and what modifications 
     to the mechanism for such funding may be necessary; and 
     further, inasmuch as there is a role for the private sector 
     to supplement the federal, state and local partnership in 
     support of the arts, hearings should be conducted and 
     legislation addressing these issues should be brought before 
     the full Senate for debate and passage during this Congress.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I offer this as chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee with the hope that the Senate will agree that 
this matter should now go to the authorization committee, and that the 
extent of the problem be reviewed with appropriate hearings.
  This is a commitment that the Senate will consider legislation in 
this Congress to deal with what future mechanism, if any, should be 
used to carry out the Federal role as it may be defined in support of 
the arts.
  I am pleased my friend from Connecticut has cosponsored this. I am 
hopeful the Senate will agree to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

[[Page S9537]]

  Mr. DODD. I want to commend our colleague from Alaska. I think this 
is a very responsible approach to take. I urge our colleagues to 
support it.
  There are a lot of ideas out here about how we might create a true 
endowment rather than going through this process year in and year out. 
We are politicizing this issue to an extent I don't think it deserves. 
We truly ought to look for ways to resolve this matter intelligently.
  I think a good set of hearings, examining various ideas on how to 
best fund the Endowment for the future make a lot of sense. I urge our 
colleagues to support this suggestion and try to come together and see 
if we cannot get beyond this amendment process we go through each and 
every year which I don't think serves our interests well, regardless of 
one's perspective on how we ought to fund the National Endowment for 
the Arts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1219) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the majority leader and I, and I think 
most Members, do wish to complete action on this bill today.
  At this point, I know of three or four rather hotly contested 
amendments: One by Mr. Hutchinson, the Senator from Arkansas, on 
American heritage rivers; the possibility of one on immigration reform 
that is, of course, not particularly germane to this bill, by the 
Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack; an Indian gambling amendment by 
Senators Enzi and Brownback; and one relating to money for gang 
suppression on Indian reservations which would close down the Wilson 
Center here.
  I hope we could move forward on each of these promptly. I note that 
the Senator from Arkansas is present. Perhaps his amendment can be put 
up next. We would seek a time agreement on it. I don't believe the 
other side is ready to agree to a time agreement yet. Perhaps the best 
thing to do is let the Senator from Arkansas introduce his amendment, 
speak to it, and as he speaks to it and others are concerned about it, 
we can see whether or not a time agreement can be reached.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Just briefly, I have been consulting with a number of my 
colleagues who are concerned about the amendment. I think they are 
prepared to come to the floor. I know the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut is here and is prepared to respond to the statements and 
arguments made by the Senator from Arkansas.
  We are prepared to enter into a time agreement, if perhaps we can 
work one out in the not too distant future.
  I yield the floor.


       Excepted Committee Amendment Beginning on Page 96, line 18

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is the committee amendment to which 
all of these National Endowment for the Arts amendments--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment begins on page 96, line 12, 
through page 97, line 18.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe we are in a position to which we 
can adopt that committee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on that 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.
  The excepted committee amendment beginning on Page 96, line 18, was 
agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1196

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I call up amendment number 1196.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 1196, previously proposed by the Senator from 
     Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of September 16, 
1997.)
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following 
Senators be added to the amendment as cosponsors: Senator Shelby, 
Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Allard, and Senator Kempthorne.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment that 
I think supports one of our most fundamental rights, the right of 
property ownership. The fundamental right, I believe, is at least 
eroded, threatened, by the Executive order signed by the President on 
September 11. I am sure it is a well-intended Executive order, 
designating the American heritage rivers initiative. The initiative is 
intended, in the words of the President in his Executive order ``to 
help communities protect their river resources in a way that integrates 
natural resource protection, economic development and the preservation 
of historic and cultural values, things that we all support.''
  The difficulty is that we have an Executive order that, originating 
from the executive branch, has not gone through the committee process. 
It has not received any congressional authorization, has not received 
any appropriation, but simply is something that has been ordered by the 
President. The funding for this initiative comes from eight Cabinet 
departments including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, 
the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, 
Department of Commerce, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, Department of Interior, and the Department of Energy. In 
addition to all of the Cabinet departments, there is funding from a 
number of agencies as well: EPA, NEA, NEH, and the Advisory Council of 
Historic Preservation.
  The end result is funding from various departments and agencies apart 
from any congressional hearings, and apart from any congressional 
authorization or appropriation.
  I support riverfront revitalization but not at the expense of 
trampling upon basic property rights and subverting plans and desires 
of local communities. I think riverfront revitalization should be 
community-led and a community-driven process, not something that is 
dictated through an Executive order in Washington.
  My amendment allows for the riverfront renaissance that communities 
desperately need, while offering protections from further Federal 
encroachment. It allows the President's Executive order to go forward 
and it would allow the rivers initiative to go forward.
  Congress has never authorized or appropriated one dime for the 
American heritage rivers initiative, nor has it even defined the term 
``river community.'' The Executive order contains the term ``river 
community'' without any kind of definition. This amendment would 
require congressional review of the 10 rivers that have been nominated 
for designation. The Executive order lays out 10 rivers to be 
designated as American heritage rivers. We would simply say that when 
those 10 rivers are designated, that Congress should have the right of 
review and designation, confirmation of those designated rivers.
  The amendment would require that all property owners holding title to 
lands directly abutting the riverbank shall be consulted and asked for 
letters of support or opposition to the designation.
  Now, it has been wrongly conveyed by the opposition of this amendment 
that somehow every property owner along the river would have veto power 
and that if any property owner objected to the designation or objected 
to participation in the heritage rivers initiative, that suddenly the 
whole project would therefore be ended, or any possibility of receiving 
that designation would be eliminated. That is not the case at all. We 
simply believe that those most involved, those whose lives are going to 
be most affected, the property owners along the river, would have the 
right to say yes or no. I think that makes perfect sense and that 
process is not guaranteed under the Executive order.
  Let's ensure that they are notified and at least that they have the 
right of commenting and expressing their opinion.
  In the amendment, we would define the river community as those who 
own property, reside, or who regularly conduct business within 10 miles 
of the

[[Page S9538]]

river considered for designation. It is absolutely necessary for us to 
place a definition as to what a river community is, and how it should 
be defined.
  The amendment would make the initiative subject to the existing 
provisions of the Clean Water and Safety Drinking Water Acts. I hope 
that would be supported by environmentalists. All of us are concerned 
about the enforcement of environmental laws, and an Executive order 
that will somehow be able to circumvent existing environmental law. The 
amendment would ensure that this process, as it goes forward, would be 
subject to existing provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Safe 
Drinking Water Act.
  I agree we must revitalize our rivers and preserve their historic 
character. This amendment ensures that it is not at the expense of 
those who have chosen to be a part of the surrounding communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We need to define 
river community, we need to comply with existing environmental laws, 
and the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We need to 
ensure that property owners are notified that they have the right of 
comment, that they have the right to write letters of opposition or 
support.
  We need to provide in this Executive order for congressional review. 
If there is one complaint I have heard from my constituents across the 
State of Arkansas, it is that, we as the elected representatives of the 
people, too often have simply given up our legislative authority. We 
have allowed the executive branch, through various Executive orders, to 
usurp what is legitimately and constitutionally our right and our 
responsibility. This amendment represents one small area where we can 
say that the President has issued an Executive order, and we now will 
ensure that we have the right of review. This amendment would do that.
  I think that we can once again assert our proper role by ensuring 
that we can review the designation of the heritage rivers. Most 
importantly, we would protect property owners from the encroachment of 
an ever-growing Government and an ever more intrusive bureaucracy. We 
would ensure that the plans of the local communities are not subverted 
because of this new Executive order and that local communities, drive 
the entire process. I believe the amendment is reasonable, it is 
temperate, and it will reassure our citizens, our constituents, and 
those along these important American heritage rivers, that we take 
their rights as property owners and citizens of this country and value 
them greatly.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
of my colleague, Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas. His amendment deals 
with the American rivers heritage initiative. I should start off by 
emphasizing that his amendment does not stop the initiative, it does 
not end it, and it does not hurt our rivers and their protection. This 
amendment merely ensures that the Federal Government, based right here 
in Washington, DC, does not become the controlling authority of rivers 
that have been used, cherished and developed by local communities all 
around this country, which, in some cases, the decisions made here in 
Washington may actually go against the wishes of the local community.
  I raise the question, why is our President so afraid of having local 
input into such an important process as the designation of our American 
rivers as heritage rivers?
  This amendment ensures that the people who live alongside of a river 
continue to have a say in the future of that waterway. They are the 
very ones who enjoy it for recreation, and they use it for commerce, 
and they actually own the private property on its banks.
  This initiative lists the members that will be involved in a 
committee responsible for implementation. Each heritage river will have 
a local bureaucrat that is going to sort of oversee the management of 
the committee. There is going to be a committee superintendent. Look at 
the members who serve on that committee. We have the Secretary of 
Defense, the Attorney General, Secretary of Energy, the Chair of the 
NEA, and the Secretary of HUD. These are all bright people, hard-
working people, I am sure; but how can they honestly know more about a 
river, let's say, for example, that runs through Denver, CO--which is 
the South Platte River--than those people who actually live in Colorado 
along the South Platte, who actually know more about the seasonal 
impact on this particular river? If they don't know more, why are they 
put in charge of future development of the river above and beyond local 
control?
  Nobody out West wants to come to Washington and try to tell people 
who live along the Potomac how to control that particular river. Why 
does anybody want the administrators of these various agencies who live 
right here in Washington, DC, to have that type of control? And, 
frankly, their knowledge of a river may be nothing more than their 
perception of what they see happening on the Potomac River during rush 
hour when they are sitting on the 14th Street Bridge.
  So I do believe that the real expertise is back at the local 
communities, the people who live by and use the waters that we are 
talking about in the heritage river designation. I know of one entity 
in Colorado that certainly doesn't believe the control should belong in 
Washington. They believe it should be back at the local level. That one 
entity happens to be the Denver Post, which recently released an 
editorial against the initiative, saying that common sense argues 
against the possibility that a Presidential appointee would know more 
about the designated streams than those who live along its riverbanks. 
I happen to agree wholeheartedly with that editorial.
  I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Denver Post, Sept. 14, 1997]

                       Just Say No to Platte Plan

       Colorado water watchers are eyeing President Clinton's 
     proposed Heritage Rivers project suspiciously, and with good 
     reason.
       The plan would designate 10 American waterways as Heritage 
     Rivers, each to be run by a presidential appointee who would 
     coordinate local efforts with 13 federal agencies. Thus the 
     feds would become the rivers' bosses advising locals on where 
     to build parks and flood-control projects and setting 
     riverbed-cleanup priorities.
       If this project is to do grand things for 10 American 
     rivers, then each river bosun and his crew of 13 would need 
     to know more about these streams than the people who live 
     along their banks, and common sense argues against the 
     possibility.
       The South Platte, principal waterway of Colorado's 
     urbanized Front Range, is a candidate. Although once 
     exploited and neglected, the Platte is now flowing along 
     nicely, thank you, and that is because over the past century 
     Coloradans have figured out where to build those local parks 
     and flood control projects and set those cleanup priorities.
       A look at the results bears this out. The Platte supplies 
     most of the Denver metro area's water. Its system of 
     reservoirs works well and provides flood control and 
     environmental safeguards. Platte River Greenway riverbed 
     rejuvenation has been a spectacular and continuing success, 
     with new parks to be built in Denver this year. In short, the 
     South Platte is not a river at risk.
       There is, of course, plenty left to be done. Denver Mayor 
     Wellington Webb envisions the Platte as a showpiece among 
     urban waterfronts. He has supported the Heritage program and 
     pushed Denver as a candidate for more federal support. But 
     how much support the Heritage project might produce isn't 
     clear. No funds have been allocated, and no one knows where 
     its budget will come from.
       The Colorado Water Congress, a coalition of cities, 
     counties, conservancy districts, farmers and other water 
     users warns that its fuzzy goals could upset the delicate 
     balance of water regulation between states and even upstream 
     and downstream towns, spawning a tangle of interagency 
     conflicts.
       With a little luck, the South Platte might not be one of 
     the chosen ten. If it is, Colorado should decline on grounds 
     that it ain't broke, so don't fix it.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, along with the problem of allowing the 
Federal Government unchecked control of local rivers, there are several 
other problems with this initiative. I am worried about the lack of a 
requirement stating that only affected individuals and organizations 
can apply for designation. Senator Hutchinson's amendment puts limits 
on what designates a river community and allows for the actual 
interests of those who would be affected to be considered. It

[[Page S9539]]

requires the opinions of property owners affected to be considered--
something the administration obviously does not feel concerned about.
  There has been a long trend in this country of slowly cutting away 
the rights of private property owners. The administration's latest end-
run around the Congress--the establishment of this initiative--without 
congressional authorization or appropriation, and the lack of a 
guarantee as to what constitutes a local community, and the lack of 
input from the affected property owners in this initiative, is merely 
another power grab of the Federal Government at the expense of local 
government, local communities, and local property owners.
  A vote for this amendment will be a step in the right direction. And 
I, again, would like to compliment my colleague in the Senate for 
stepping forward and addressing this issue. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of his initiative.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the amendment proposed by the Senator from 
Arkansas is a most interesting one. I think it is one that I am very 
likely to support. There is, however, some opposition on each side of 
the aisle. So we have been unable to reach any kind of agreement on a 
time limit on it. A number of my friends on the other side of the aisle 
do wish to speak to it. They are not here at the present time, so I 
will suggest the absence of a quorum. I also suggest that there are 
other amendments on which time agreements may be relatively easy to 
reach. On this one it can't be reached. If the Senator from Arizona, 
[Mr. Kyl], is within hearing, I would appreciate taking up his 
amendment as soon as possible. The same thing holds true for the senior 
Senator from Arkansas, who has one on which there might well be a time 
agreement.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise, with all due respect to my colleague 
from Arkansas, in opposition to his amendment. I say to my colleagues 
here, with all due respect, my colleague is certainly one who has 
advocated in the past that we ought to try to remove or eliminate as 
much bureaucracy as possible. I think he is joined in those sentiments 
by most of us here in Congress, that we ought to be trying to not 
overburden a process but trying to streamline it as much as possible.
  I commend President Clinton for coming up with a very innovative and 
creative idea on how we might highlight the importance of our river 
system in the United States. This program of designation of 10 great 
rivers in the United States, I think, has great value. It is something 
that is community driven, rather than something coming from Washington.
  Let me just share with my colleagues how this would work. First of 
all, there are no mandates or regulations involved in this at all. In 
fact, it must be supported by the congressional delegations, the 
communities involved, and it is very explicit as to how this process 
would work. The amendment being offered by our colleague from Arkansas 
would require communities to go through additional layers of Government 
approval before a river could be designated an American heritage river.
  Just to give you an example, those of us in the New England area are 
united--in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. We 
have all come together in a delegation--the communities, the States--
requesting that the Connecticut River be one of those designated 
rivers. Very explicitly, if that support in the delegation from the 
Governors in the communities along the river is not present then that 
river is not going to be selected. It has been felt very, very 
important that there be community-driven, community-based support for 
these efforts. And if it is nonexistent, the designation doesn't 
happen.
  Some of my colleagues may not want that designation. I can tell you 
categorically that if the Senators in those States do not want the 
rivers in their States, be it Colorado, or in Arkansas, then it won't 
happen. You don't have to worry about that. Nothing is going to be 
foisted on any State here that is not supported by the communities.
  What we are suggesting here is that we in the New England States 
would like one of these rivers. In all due respect, I don't think it 
would be fair for me in this kind of a situation to be suggesting as a 
Senator from Connecticut that the people of Arkansas or Colorado, or 
any other State, ought to be denied that designation if they feel they 
very much like to see the Arkansas River or the Colorado River 
designated as one of these great rivers, with no regulations, no 
mandates, no money involved in it. It merely takes existing resources 
and tries to manage them in a way that the people at the local level 
would like to see them designated and to enhance the cultural, the 
economic, and environmental issues that they feel are very important.
  I can tell you categorically that in my part of the country one of 
the problems that has happened over the years is that too much of our 
development has occurred right on the river denying people access to 
the river. One of the wonderful things about this city--our Capital 
City--that I appreciate every morning as I come to the Capitol is you 
can actually watch people on the banks of the Potomac River enjoying 
the river. For too many of our cities, of course, we saw the highway 
systems, and so forth, be developed between a city and its river. There 
is a great interest now in this country to try to restore, if you will, 
the vitality of these rivers--to see if we can't come up with ways to 
recognize the importance of them.
  Again, the requirement that our colleague from Arkansas adds here 
would delay the initiative designed to provide prompt assistance to 
community-led efforts. After communities submit nomination packets to 
the administration, the President selects rivers for designation. The 
Council on Environmental Quality would have to forward these 
nominations to Congress which must provide approval. However, the 
amendment, as outlined, no process, or deadline, for congressional 
action would be required then to get approval basically of almost every 
single property owner. Imagine getting approval from the Connecticut 
River States, from the Canadian border on down to the Long Island 
Sound, of every private property owner in New Hampshire, Vermont, 
Massachusetts, and Connecticut. It would kill it. Why not have an 
amendment to eliminate it altogether? That might make more sense than 
making people go through a process that just kills it by bureaucracy. 
Why not have an amendment that would say this amendment ought to be 
eliminated? If that were the case, I would disagree with it. I would 
oppose it. But at least it would be clear. The intent here, by 
establishing a very lengthy process that would deny these community-
driven programs, I think, would be a huge mistake.
  Let me also point out that there are no additional dollars involved 
here at all in what has been suggested, and no new regulations, or 
changes in existing law. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative does 
not change the existing prioritization process for the Clean Water Act, 
the Safe Drinking Water Act, or any other applicable Federal law. Given 
that the American heritage rivers initiative imposes no new 
regulations, any activity undertaken to designate rivers would 
naturally abide by the laws governing priorities of the Clean Water Act 
and the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other Federal laws.

  State and local reviews: Any projects identified in a communities-
nomination packet must undergo applicable State and local review 
processes. Property owners are key at this stage of the review. I can 
say categorically that they are involved now in our New England area 
with the Connecticut River. We pulled together the support. We have 
solicited opinions from our local communities to get behind this 
effort. Obviously, local property owners have a more than adequate way 
of expressing their feelings about whether or not we ought to be going 
forward. There is strong feeling, in our area anyway, that this is a 
process that we approve of. We support fully and strongly that it ought 
to be included.

[[Page S9540]]

  As I said earlier, if delegations don't want rivers in their States 
to be included in this competition, if you will, to designate 10 
rivers, then that is it. You are out. Don't worry about it. There is no 
way in the world that you are going to be included in this.
  So, if the Colorado River wants to be excluded from the process, I 
can categorically tell you that it will be out--or the Arkansas River. 
If anyone stands up here today and votes for this amendment, I promise 
you that you won't be included. You are out. Don't worry about it. But 
for those of us who would like this designation, who feel strongly 
about it in a bipartisan way, who believe that there is something of 
value here in trying to restore our rivers, to give attention to them, 
to appreciate the value of them historically, environmentally, 
economically, we would like this designation. We think it will help us, 
and our local communities want it. They support it.
  Frankly, to go through a long morass of bureaucracy, and going 
through one agency after another, coming back and getting approval, 
having every single property owner express their view one way or the 
other, this is just killing it--choking it to death.
  So my hope is that our colleagues here would oppose this amendment. 
Again, this has broad-based and community-based support in the country, 
and I think has great value in terms of those of us who care deeply 
about seeing these rivers restored.
  I can tell you. I live on the Connecticut River. I have my office on 
the Connecticut River. In fact, it is a better Connecticut River. I can 
remember the days only a few years ago when the thought of swimming in 
that river, or fishing out of that river, or eating any fish out of the 
river, was unheard of. Today it has come back because there have been 
great local efforts to restore the vitality of that river. The salmon 
are coming back. The Connecticut River shad are back.
  Dartmouth, in New Hampshire, and the University of Massachusetts all 
understand the value of this. Our communities of Hartford and 
Middletown in Connecticut, and Springfield, MA, all believe that this 
is a very worthwhile project, and are solidly behind it.
  It is not just one river. But I can tell you also that it is highly 
competitive. I know my colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, is 
deeply interested in the Hudson River. And great support exists in that 
State for the designation. I know the same case exists across the 
country. I think it is a healthy process that communities and States 
are going through.
  To add to the regulatory burden here by requiring, as this amendment 
would, a tremendous effort to get some designation here where there is 
apparently opposition within those States, I would say to those people 
that you need not worry about it.
  In fact, for those of us who would like to designate and realize that 
it is highly competitive, maybe we ought to realize it the way it is 
here. If we get a good vote, we can eliminate a lot of rivers from 
being designated. Because I can clearly tell you, if Members vote for 
this, that is going to be a pretty strong case for those of us who want 
the designation--that Senators who vote for this, those rivers ought to 
be excluded from this process; and that we will just go with the 
colleagues here who come from States that represent rivers that would 
like to have this designation.

  This is no money regulation. There are no regulations, no mandates, 
no money. It is community-based, community-driven, and community-
supported.
  And, if you are opposed, if you are not included, why in the world do 
we go through a process here where we require Congress to come up and 
support or deny and elongate things? It basically kills this. This is 
making a huge mountain, if you will, out of a trickle, in a sense. This 
is not that big a deal except to the extent that it allows for these 
rivers to be designated as important natural resources that our States 
would like to protect and preserve for future generations. That is all 
it really is, and no more than that.
  To come up here and suggest somehow that this is some great big 
Federal program is dictating to local communities somehow denying them 
the process of making decisions about their own futures along these 
rivers is just not the case.
  So, Mr. President, I urge our colleagues here, with all due respect, 
to reject this amendment when the time arises.
  I note my colleague from Rhode Island wanted to be heard on this. I 
will be glad to yield to him, or seek his own time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Arkansas would 
like to say a few words. Would he? If not, I will proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am going to do something that I think is highly irregular. I 
earlier asked unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with. But after reading the letter that came from the Sierra 
Club, and a number the other organizations, and after listening to the 
comments of my esteemed colleague, and my good friend, Senator Dodd, I 
really think that it is essential that the amendment be read.
  So I am going to proceed to do that. It is very brief. But I think 
the American people, whenever my colleague says there is some great 
morass, that we are adding some great regulatory burden--there are some 
I guess that would say democracy is a great regulatory burden; to ask 
people to have some input on whether or not as property owners they 
want to be part of this, that it is a terrible burden, I guess; but 
that it is a big process to ask Congress to use its proper role in 
review. I mean, when we look at wild and scenic rivers, we review that. 
We have the right to make a determination on that.
  I would like to read the amendment. I think we can perhaps better 
focus our debate when we understand exactly what is in the amendment.

                  American Heritage Rivers Initiative

       During fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     the President and other officers of the executive branch may 
     implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative under 
     Executive Order 13061 only in accordance with this section.
       Nominations.--The President, acting through the Chair of 
     the Council on Environmental Quality, shall submit to 
     Congress nominations of the 10 rivers that are proposed for 
     designation as American Heritage Rivers.

  It doesn't exclude any rivers. The President, acting through his 
chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, will submit the 
nominations.

       Prioritization.--The nominations shall be subject to the 
     prioritization process established by the Clean Water Act, 
     and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

  The point there being that we ought to comply with existing law, and 
that if we were going to prioritize these rivers it should be on the 
basis of where the greatest need is as determined by the Clean Water 
Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

       Consultation with Property Owners.--

  I used to wonder why the American people would object to this 
amendment.

       To ensure the protection of private property owners along a 
     river proposed for nomination. All property owners holding 
     title to land directly abutting riverbank shall be consulted 
     and asked to offer letters of support for or opposition to 
     the nomination.

  I suppose that is a great burden--to notify the property owners, and 
let them express themselves pro or con. But I think that is what 
America is about. I think that avoiding that kind of process is what 
the American property owners today, the landowners of this country, so 
object to.
  Consultation of property owners; that is No. 3.

       Designation.--The American Heritage Rivers Initiative may 
     be implemented only with respect to rivers that are 
     designated as American Heritage Rivers by act of Congress.

  That goes back to our review process.
  Then the definition of river communities, which was totally omitted 
in the Executive order.

       Definition of River Community.--For the purposes of the 
     American Heritage Rivers Initiative, as used in Executive 
     Order 13061, the term ``river community'' shall include all 
     persons that own property, reside, or regularly conduct 
     business within 10 miles of the river.

  Without that definition, someone in another State could nominate a 
river in Arkansas, or Connecticut, or Rhode Island. Or somebody in 
Washington State could nominate--I mean we have

[[Page S9541]]

to have some kind of definition as to what we mean. We are filling that 
void through this amendment.
  That is the entire amendment. I have read it all, every word of it. 
So let the American people determine whether or not there is something 
so objectionable as has been characterized by those who are opposing 
the amendment.
  I have much more to say. But that was the point of my seeking 
recognition--to simply read the amendment for the American people, and 
for my colleagues in the U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, to respond to my colleague from Arkansas--I 
know my colleague from Rhode Island wants to be heard--my colleague 
must be aware--I presume he is--of how the process works. The 
suggestion somehow that this process excludes local property owners 
from expressing their opinions is just not the case. In fact, it is 
very, very clear, as laid out by the Executive order, how the process 
would work. Certainly local input and people expressing their views, 
whether or not they are in favor or opposed to this, is very much a 
part of the process here.
  This is complicating it by mandating through law. The implication 
here obviously is that Congress is going to make the decision as to 
whether or not these rivers in various areas are going to be designated 
so you have a vote of 51 to 49 picking this river or that. We are 
trying to avoid that, to keep the politics out of it.
  If you go back and look at how it works, it requires that there be 
local input and approval and support at the local level. That is the 
whole idea. Obviously, to have Washington sit here and pick 10 rivers, 
we don't know whether you want to be designated. So this is entirely 
superfluous. The process exists right now that requires that effort. 
Support from local communities is all through the Executive order from 
the administration as to how this would work.
  My point is, if that is the case, if that is what we are doing, it 
requires that input. To all of a sudden say we are going to have here a 
law that makes us go through congressional hearings and looking at all 
of this I think just is making more out of this than has to be the 
case.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today because I believe the amendment 
before us is simply another thinly veiled attempt to attack the 
President's American Heritage River Program and to prevent any American 
river from participating in this innovative initiative.

  Rivers have always been an integral part of our Nation's history, and 
throughout Virginia and across the United States activities are already 
underway to enhance the economic, historic, cultural, recreational, and 
environmental value of our rivers. Local government officials, 
conservationists, and riverfront developers, however, have complained 
that they cannot figure out which Federal programs they can use to pay 
for their redevelopment and river restoration projects or how to make 
their way through the red-tape. The American Heritage Rivers Program is 
designed to lend a hand of assistance to these community-led waterfront 
projects. The program will assist localities in gaining access to 
existing Federal resources and will help bring their plans to life.
  Mr. President, the American Heritage Rivers Program is voluntary and 
locally driven. This is a citizens-up effort to revitalize our hometown 
rivers. Communities will nominate outstanding stretches of America's 
rivers and 10 rivers will be rewarded special recognition. Each 
American heritage river will have access to a river navigator, a full-
time liaison who is knowledgeable about the needs of the community and 
the multitude of Federal agencies and programs that could help meet 
their needs. The river navigator will help cut redtape and match 
priorities identified by the community with the services of the Federal 
agencies. The river navigator, however, will not have any power over 
local decision-making.
  The American Heritage Rivers Program is solely an effort to increase 
local access to Federal programs that affect rivers, not to increase 
Federal management or regulation of rivers. The Federal Government will 
only respond directly to community needs.
  Mr. President, the Federal Government has the authority and 
responsibility to coordinate the use of its limited resources in the 
best possible manner. If Federal agencies already have programs 
authorized and appropriated by Congress that are relevant to preserving 
and revitalizing our rivers, then an initiative that will help to 
ensure these services are delivered more effectively and efficiently is 
exactly what we need.
  I'm not sure when this program became so misrepresented that 
individuals suddenly began to fear that the implementation of the 
American Heritage River Program would place an unprecedented Federal 
stranglehold on property owners. Today I heard the American Heritage 
Rivers Program referred to as an aquatic assault on the American people 
launched by President Clinton. That 13 Federal agencies will 
participate in the takeover of our Nation's rivers and a Federal 
employee will be appointed to control all land use and management 
activities within the designated area.
  My only guess is these fears are rooted in a general distrust of 
anything that mentions the involvement of the Federal Government. But, 
in this instance, I find this distrust and these fears unwarranted.
  The American Heritage Rivers Program simply promises to make a better 
use of existing sources of Federal assistance and will only coordinate 
the delivery of those services in a manner designed by the community. 
And communities can terminate their participation at any time.
  Mr. President, the sponsor of this amendment says his constituents 
want a community-led process that will make the right decisions for 
their particular community, not a federally dominated process that 
could dictate to property owners how they can use their land. If that 
is what the people of Arkansas want, then that is exactly what the 
American Heritage River Program has to offer. But, Senator Hutchinson's 
amendment does not improve the American Heritage River Program, it only 
interferes with the President's initiative.
  This amendment would add unnecessary delays and burdensome 
requirements to an initiative designed to streamline Federal assistance 
to community-led efforts. This amendment would even allow Members of 
Congress to block designations in other regions of the country, where 
community and congressional support are strong. Additional 
congressional bureaucracy will only stifle these citizen-led efforts.
  Right now in North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia, our rivers are 
under assault and the attack is by a cell from hell, a fishing-killing 
microbe called pfiesteria. We should be focusing our resources on 
finding the source of this microorganism and ensuring our water bodies 
are safe for swimming and for fishing. We should not be considering 
amendments that attack any new or innovative approaches to river 
protection and revitalization. That's why Mr. President, I ask my 
colleagues to support the citizens and communities from around the 
country who continue to express resounding support for the American 
Heritage River Program and to vote against the Hutchinson amendment 
which stands in their way to protect and revitalize their rivers.
  I agree entirely with my colleagues from Connecticut and Rhode 
Island, from whom we will hear in just a moment.
  This was designed to simplify the process. As I listened to the 
amendment actually read, it will complicate the process. It will add 
additional burden to something that is entirely voluntary. There is no 
new money; there are no new mandates; no applicable provision of 
Federal law is in any way disturbed. This is simply an attempt to help 
communities that want to enhance both their environment and their 
prospects for economic development to do so with the aid of a navigator 
who will simply coordinate the assistance.
  The Federal Government is already authorized to bring to bear on the 
project. That is what the National heritage river initiative is all 
about. I hope my colleagues will recognize that by adding a very 
significant regulatory burden you would very substantially undercut the 
prospects for the success of this particular initiative. It is entirely 
voluntary. Anybody who does

[[Page S9542]]

not want to be a part of it does not have to be a part of it.
  In my own State of Virginia, there is enormous excitement by the 
business community, by the environmentalists, by all who want to 
preserve and enhance our environment and who want to take advantage of 
economic development that flows from it. I hope at the appropriate 
time, Mr. President, our colleagues will vote against this particular 
amendment. And with that I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, every so often we are put in a difficult 
situation with amendments presented by somebody we have great affection 
and respect for, yet we are not in a position to agree with the 
amendment. Such is the instance here where we are now wrestling with 
the amendment presented by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, 
with whom I have had the privilege of working on the Environment 
Committee and who is a very valuable member of that committee. Just 
yesterday we worked closely on a very major piece of legislation which 
unanimously came out of the committee, and part of the reason it was so 
successful in the committee was because of the help from the Senator 
from Arkansas.
  But I must say I think he is making a mountain out of a molehill 
here, if you would. Maybe I ought to put it in river terms in some 
fashion. What occurred was in the State of the Union Address the 
President announced a plan to create initiatives designed to assist 
communities in their efforts to clean up and restore rivers and 
riverfront areas.
  Last week, he signed an Executive order creating the American 
heritage rivers initiative. He had previously announced that he was 
going to do it and had used that term, American heritage rivers.
  This amendment would, in my judgment, derail that designation and add 
a whole series of complexities to it that I will touch on in a minute. 
Since the announcement of this initiative in the State of the Union 
Address, communities along two major rivers in my State, the Blackstone 
River and the Woonasquatucket River, have been invigorated by the hope 
of gaining this designation. They have had rallies and gatherings, and 
I have had the privilege of attending some of those. I could not help 
but think, when the President announced this initiative, that he was 
describing an ongoing project we have in our State. It is the so-called 
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor which was created by 
legislation that I authored some 10 years ago.
  In my years as Governor and first few years in the Senate, I came to 
view the Blackstone River as a nearly impossible problem. Many years of 
pollution from toxic substances had wiped out much of the wildlife 
along the river, and there had been terrific economic change. What once 
were great mills there had moved away or been abandoned and, indeed, it 
was a languishing situation.
  Once this designation was made, as a result of technical assistance 
and advice from the National Park Service, a modest investment of 
Federal funds, enormous commitment from the local communities, business 
people, and residents, this whole area is experiencing a renaissance.

  Today, community leaders from the Blackstone River Valley are sharing 
what they have learned with individuals from the other rivers, the 
Woonasquatucket, for example, and they are working together on an 
application for designation as an American heritage river. They want 
this designation. Individuals from the communities are writing the 
President, sharing their thoughts with him what the rivers mean to 
them, and we know this is a competitive situation. I must say I didn't 
know the whole Connecticut River was seeking it, and that is a powerful 
aggregation. They are favored. It goes through, I guess, three or four 
States--starting up on the Canadian border and coming down Vermont and 
New Hampshire and Connecticut, Massachusetts. However, we are very 
anxious that our rivers, the Blackstone and the Woonasquatucket, taking 
the two together, would receive this designation.
  The question is this Executive order. I ask unanimous consent that a 
copy of the President's Executive order be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CHAFEE. Section (d) of the Executive order says the following. I 
think this is important:

       Agencies shall act with due regard for the protection of 
     private property provided by the Fifth Amendment to the 
     United States Constitution.

  That is what it says. There is nothing in this Executive order that 
interferes with the rights of individual property owners along the 
rivers. Nominations for this designation must come from the communities 
and have to be supported by a broad range of individuals. Once the 
designations are made, if a community finds it no longer wants to be an 
American heritage river, it can opt out. They are not bound into this 
thing. It is a very modest program. They get a designation. They get 
somebody from the Federal Government, one of the agencies that will 
help the communities along the river, do some things that will improve 
the quality of life along the river, make the river a more attractive 
entity in their lives.
  As I say, the Federal role in these areas is limited to supporting 
community-based efforts to protect and restore the rivers. So I support 
the President's plan to designate 10 rivers. I support the goals of the 
initiative which are to protect natural resources, encourage economic 
revitalization, and preserve historic and cultural treasures, and I 
vigorously support the efforts of the communities that I mentioned 
along the Blackstone River which is part in Massachusetts and part in 
Rhode Island, and the Woonasquatucket River to get this coveted 
designation.
  I would like to close, Mr. President, by touching on the Senator's 
amendment, but I want to underscore that applications for this 
designation have to come from the communities. This is not some 
President in Washington reaching out and saying that this river is 
going to be an American heritage river. It can only come about through 
the community seeking that designation. It has to have support from 
local residents. As I say, if they do not want to be in it any longer, 
they can get out.
  So for those reasons I reluctantly oppose the amendment of my 
distinguished colleague from Arkansas.
  The Senator from Arkansas read his amendment, and there are a couple 
of things in there that I find troublesome and I must say I am not 
quite sure what they mean. In the prioritization section, he says:

       The nominations shall be subject to the prioritization 
     process established by the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act and other applicable law.
  Now, it may well be, I suspect, that under the Clean Water Act the 
prioritization is those rivers that are what we call most unclean, if 
you want to use that word, or the ones that are the most polluted. This 
is not geared solely toward a river cleanup in the sense of pollution 
control. That, of course, comes under the Clean Water Act. The Senator 
is quite right; that is an important part of prioritization of the 
Clean Water Act.

  But this isn't the way, as I understand it, this act is to work. It 
isn't solely the President reaching out and saying we are going to 
designate the dirtiest rivers as American Heritage rivers because they 
need the most help. There is very little financial help from the 
Federal Government, totally unlike the Clean Water Act where there are 
massive grants, as the distinguished Senator knows, for wastewater 
treatment facilities, either municipal or the law, of course, forces 
the private companies that pollute in any fashion to clean up their 
act. That is not what this is designed for.
  It goes on--and this is the point the Senator from Connecticut was 
making, that the provisions in this act really add a great layer of 
bureaucracy and red tape on top of what is an innocent process just 
getting the designation.
  Example:

       Consultation With Property Owners.--
       To ensure the protection of private property owners along 
     the rivers proposed for nomination, all--

  All, every single--

     property owners holding title to land directly abutting the 
     river shall be consulted.


[[Page S9543]]


  Now, this can go on forever, trying to find who is along the river. 
Are they a tenant? Do they own it? What proportion of ownership do we 
have? In my State, we have factories that have been abandoned. They are 
owned by families that have disappeared. It is very hard to trace the 
ownership and find out who exactly lives there and owns the property.
  Then we get to definition of a river community, in which the Senator 
says, ``For the purposes of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, as 
used in the Executive order, the term river community' shall include 
all persons that own property, reside or regularly conduct business 
within 10 miles of the river.''
  Now, I am not sure what the Senator means by that, but that is an 
impossible job, to bring in every person who lives within 10 miles of 
the river--lives there, owns property, or regularly conducts business. 
I don't know what that means. Suppose I am a regular attendee at a 
coffee shop along the river somewhere; I don't live within 10 miles, 
but I have lunch every day at this coffee shop. Do I fall under the 
term ``river community''?
  So for those reasons, Mr. President--and again, I would be open to 
explanation on this river community definition that the Senator 
includes--I hope that this amendment will not be accepted.

                               Exhibit 1

 Executive Order--Federal Support of Community Efforts Along American 
                            Heritage Rivers

       By the authority vested in me as President by the 
     Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, 
     including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (Public Law 91-190), and in order to protect and restore 
     rivers and their adjacent communities, it is hereby ordered 
     as follows:
       Section 1. Policies.
       (a) The American Heritage Rivers initiative has three 
     objectives: natural resource and environmental protection, 
     economic revitalization, and historic and cultural 
     preservation.
       (b) Executive agencies (``agencies''), to the extent 
     permitted by law and consistent with their missions and 
     resources, shall coordinate Federal plans, functions, 
     programs, and resources to preserve, protect, and restore 
     rivers and their associated resources important to our 
     history, culture, and natural heritage.
       (c) Agencies shall develop plans to bring increased 
     efficiencies to existing and authorized programs with goals 
     that are supportive of protection and restoration of 
     communities along rivers.
       (d) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, agencies 
     shall act with due regard for the protection of private 
     property provided for by the Fifth Amendment to the United 
     States Constitution. No new regulatory authority is created 
     as a result of the American Heritage Rivers initiative. This 
     initiative will not interfere with matters of State, local, 
     and tribal government jurisdiction.
       (e) In furtherance of these policies, the President will 
     designate rivers that meet certain criteria as ``American 
     Heritage Rivers.''
       (f) It is the policy of the Federal Government that 
     communities shall nominate rivers as American Heritage Rivers 
     and the Federal role will be solely to support community-
     based efforts to preserve, protect, and restore these rivers 
     and their communities.
       (g) Agencies should, to the extent practicable, help 
     identify resources in the private and nonprofit sectors to 
     aid revitalization efforts.
       (h) Agencies are encouraged, to the extent permitted by 
     law, to develop partnerships with State, local, and tribal 
     governments and community and nongovernmental organizations. 
     Agencies will be responsive to the diverse needs of different 
     kinds of communities from the core of our cities to remote 
     rural areas and shall seek to ensure that the role played by 
     the Federal Government is complementary to the plans and work 
     being carried out by State, local, and tribal governments. To 
     the extent possible, Federal resources will be strategically 
     directed to complement resources being spent by these 
     governments.
       (i) Agencies shall establish a method for field offices to 
     assess the success of the American Heritage River initiative 
     and provide a means to recommend changes that will improve 
     the delivery and accessibility of Federal services and 
     programs. Agencies are directed, where appropriate, to reduce 
     and make more flexible procedural requirements and paperwork 
     related to providing assistance to communities along 
     designated rivers.
       (j) Agencies shall commit to a policy under which they will 
     seek to ensure that their actions have a positive effect on 
     the natural, historic, economic, and cultural resources of 
     American Heritage River communities. The policy will require 
     agencies to consult with American Heritage River communities 
     early in the planning stages of Federal actions, take into 
     account the communities' goals and objectives and ensure that 
     actions are compatible with the overall character of these 
     communities. Agencies shall seek to ensure that their help 
     for one community does not adversely affect neighboring 
     communities. Additionally, agencies are encouraged to develop 
     formal and informal partnerships to assist communities. Local 
     Federal facilities, to the extent permitted by law and 
     consistent with the agencies' missions and resources, should 
     provide public access, physical space, technical assistance, 
     and other support for American Heritage River communities.
       (k) In addition to providing support to designated rivers, 
     agencies will work together to provide information and 
     services to all communities seeking support.
       Sec. 2. Process for Nominating an American Heritage River.
       (a) Nomination. Communities, in coordination with their 
     State, local, or tribal governments, can nominate their 
     river, river stretch, or river confluence for designation as 
     an American Heritage River. When several communities are 
     involved in the nomination of the same river, nominations 
     will detail the coordination among the interested communities 
     and the role each will play in the process. Individuals 
     living outside the community may not nominate a river.
       (b) Selection Criteria. Nominations will be judged based on 
     the following:
       (1) the characteristics of the natural, economic, 
     agricultural, scenic, historic, cultural, or recreational 
     resources of the river that render it distinctive or unique;
       (2) the effectiveness with which the community has defined 
     its plan of action and the extent to which the plan 
     addresses, either through planned actions or past 
     accomplishments, all three American Heritage Rivers 
     objectives, which are set forth in section 1(a) of this 
     order;
       (3) the strength and diversity of community support for the 
     nomination as evidenced by letters from elected officials; 
     landowners; private citizens; businesses; and especially 
     State, local, and tribal governments. Broad community support 
     is essential to receiving the American Heritage River 
     designation; and
       (4) willingness and capability of the community to forge 
     partnerships and agreements to implement their plan to meet 
     their goals and objectives.
       (c) Recommendation Process.
       The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (``CEQ'') 
     shall develop a fair and objective procedure to obtain the 
     views of a diverse group of experts for the purpose of making 
     recommendations to the President as to which rivers shall be 
     designated. These experts shall reflect a variety of 
     viewpoints, such as those representing natural, cultural, and 
     historic resources; scenic, environmental, and recreation 
     interests; tourism, transportation, and economic development 
     interests; and industries such as agriculture, hydropower, 
     manufacturing, mining, and forest management. The Chair of 
     the CEQ will ensure that the rivers recommended represent a 
     variety of stream sizes, diverse geographical locations, and 
     a wide range of settings from urban to rural and ensure that 
     relatively pristine, successful revitalization efforts are 
     considered as well as degraded rivers in need of restoration.
       (d) Designation.
       (1) The President will designate certain rivers as American 
     Heritage Rivers. Based on the receipt of a sufficient number 
     of qualified nominations, ten rivers will be designated in 
     the first phase of the initiative.
       (2) The Interagency Committee provided for in section 3 of 
     this order shall develop a process by which any community 
     that nominates and has its river designated may have this 
     designation terminated at its request.
       (3) Upon a determination by the Chair of the CEQ that a 
     community has failed to implement its plan, the Chair may 
     recommend to the President that a designation be revoked. The 
     Chair shall notify the community at least 30 days prior to 
     making such a recommendation to the President. Based on that 
     recommendation, the President may revoke the designation.
       Sec. 3. Establishment of an Interagency Committee. There is 
     hereby established the American Heritage Rivers Interagency 
     Committee (``Committee''). The Committee shall have two co-
     chairs. The Chair of the CEQ shall be a permanent co-chair. 
     The other co-chair will rotate among the heads of the 
     agencies listed below.
       (a) The Committee shall be composed of the following 
     members or their designees at the Assistant Secretary level 
     or equivalent:
       (1) The Secretary of Defense;
       (2) The Attorney General;
       (3) The Secretary of the Interior;
       (4) The Secretary of Agriculture;
       (5) The Secretary of Commerce;
       (6) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
       (7) The Secretary of Transportation;
       (8) The Secretary of Energy;
       (9) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (10) The Chair of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation;
       (11) The Chairperson of the National Endowment for the 
     Arts; and;
       (12) The Chairperson of the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities.
       The Chair of the CEQ may invite to participate in meetings 
     of the Committee, representatives of other agencies, as 
     appropriate.
       (b) The Committee Shall:
       (1) establish formal guidelines for designation as an 
     American Heritage River;

[[Page S9544]]

       (2) periodically review the actions of agencies in support 
     of the American Heritage Rivers;
       (3) report to the President on the progress, 
     accomplishments, and effectiveness of the American Heritage 
     Rivers initiative; and
       (4) perform other duties as directed by the Chair of the 
     CEQ.
        Sec. 4. Responsibilities of the Federal Agencies. 
     Consistent with Title I of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969, agencies shall:
       (a) identify their existing programs and plans that give 
     them the authority to offer assistance to communities 
     involved in river conservation and community health and 
     revitalization;
       (b) to the extent practicable and permitted by law and 
     regulation, refocus programs, grants, and technical 
     assistance to provide support for communities adjacent to 
     American Heritage Rivers;
       (c) identify all technical tools, including those developed 
     for purposes other than river conservation, that can be 
     applied to river protection, restoration, and community 
     revitalization;
       (d) provide access to existing scientific data and 
     information to the extent permitted by law and consistent 
     with the agencies mission and resources;
       (e) cooperate with State, local, and tribal governments and 
     communities with respect to their activities that take place 
     in, or affect the area around, an American Heritage River;
       (f) commit to a policy, as set forth in section 1(j) of 
     this order, in making decisions affecting the quality of an 
     American Heritage River;
       (g) select from among all the agencies a single individual 
     called the ``River Navigator,'' for each river that is 
     designated an American Heritage River, with whom the 
     communities can communicate goals and needs and who will 
     facilitate community-agency interchange;
       (h) allow public access to the river, for agencies with 
     facilities along American Heritage Rivers, to the extent 
     practicable and consistent with their mission; and
       (i) cooperate, as appropriate, with communities on projects 
     that protect or preserve stretches of the river that are on 
     Federal property or adjacent to a Federal facility.
        Sec. 5. Responsibilities of the Committee and the Council 
     on Environmental Quality. The CEQ shall serve as Executive 
     agent for the Committee, and the CEQ and the Committee shall 
     ensure the implementation of the policies and purposes of 
     this initiative.
        Sec. 6. Definition. For the purposes of this order, 
     Executive agency means any agency on the Committee and such 
     other agency as may be designated by the President.
        Sec. 7. Judicial Review. This order does not create any 
     right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by 
     any party against the United States, its agencies or 
     instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other 
     person.
                                                  William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, September 11, 1997.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of 
offering an amendment that is opposed by a chairman for whom I have the 
greatest respect and greatest esteem and the highest regard. So it is 
with that recognition that were I not so convinced of the merits of 
this amendment, I would have to rethink its value and its submission.
  When we talk about making a mountain out of a molehill, I think the 
opponents of this amendment are making a mountain out of a molehill. 
This amendment has the simple purpose of protecting the rights of 
property owners and ensuring the input and participation of those most 
affected by these designations. It is not too much to think that 
Congress ought to ratify this designation, that Congress ought to have 
a say or view in the designation of these rivers in what could be a 
very, very broad program--eight cabinet departments, and four Federal 
agencies We have a process for the Wild and Scenic Rivers. Why not have 
a say in the American heritage rivers initiative as well.
  Now, my esteemed colleague said there is very little money involved. 
We do not know. It has not been authorized, nor has it been 
appropriated. How much money is involved in this? Who can really give 
me an answer to that? There is no answer because we have eight cabinet 
departments and we have four Federal agencies, each one taking a little 
bit out of their pot. How much is involved? I would pose that question 
to those who are opposing this amendment. This has been presented as 
just a small initiative; that really we are making too much out of it 
and this is just a voluntary program. If it is a small program, we have 
eight cabinet-level departments involved and four Federal agencies 
participating in it. That sounds like a rather major initiative to me.
  If you will compare the simplicity of my three-page amendment to the 
length of the Executive order, which has been submitted for the Record, 
I think one will see who is making a mountain out of what molehill.
  Now, my esteemed colleague gave us some historical background as to 
how this initiative came forward. Let me just amplify a little bit 
more. The President officially announced this in his State of the Union 
Address. It was published during the month of February in the Federal 
Register, although it was not noticed to a great extent. Several public 
hearings apparently were held in the spring but congressional offices 
were not uniformly notified of hearing dates. Equally troubling was the 
short 3-week public comment period that was posted in the May 19 
Federal Register. Because of the scope and the goals of the initiative 
and the magnitude of possible designations, I along with 15 of my 
colleagues signed a letter to Kathleen McGinty, chair of the Council on 
Environmental Quality, asking for a 120-day extension.
  That is all we asked for, extend the comment period. They gave 3 
weeks for the public. This is being presented as, Well, we would 
welcome all of those who are concerned about this to have adequate 
input. The fact is, the administration gave 3 weeks for public comment, 
and we as the elected representatives of the people said, Please extend 
that to 120 days. The administration only agreed to a mere 3 weeks. I 
think that was a very inadequate response to a program that has never 
been authorized and never been appropriated.
  As I read the letter that has been sent out to all of my colleagues 
from the American Rivers, from the National Audubon Society, National 
Trust for Historic Preservation, the River Network, and the Sierra 
Club, I hardly recognized the amendment of which they were speaking. 
They outlined their objections to the Hutchinson amendment. They say 
the Hutchinson amendment imposes ``unprecedented, onerous and 
unnecessary requirements.''
  I read the amendment. So let the American people make their judgment 
as to whether that is an appropriate characterization of the amendment 
and whether asking Congress to approve, asking the property owners be 
notified and given the opportunity to say yes or no to it, whether they 
like it or not, if that is an onerous and unprecedented requirement.
  Then they have four bullets in which they express their objections. 
Listen to these objections. These are the objections of the American 
Rivers, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Sierra Club, the 
National Audubon Society, and the River Network. Objection No. 1, ``All 
designations would require congressional approval.'' Boy, that is 
something to object to, that Congress would actually approve it. They 
object, ``The amendment would require all property owners along rivers 
to be identified and asked to support or oppose the nomination.'' Boy, 
that is something to object to, to actually notify the property owners 
and give them an opportunity to say whether they support it or oppose 
it. This is the objection of these groups to this amendment. That is an 
onerous requirement, to notify property owners about this new 
designation that is going to impact their lives, impact their property, 
the use of their property. They object, they say, ``The amendment would 
prohibit the initiative to assist nondesignated rivers.'' I don't see 
that in the amendment.
  Then they say, ``The amendment would create and impose on river 
communities a 20-mile-wide Federal corridor including all persons who 
own property, reside or regularly conduct business in the corridor.'' I 
say to my distinguished colleague who questioned the definition, if you 
don't like definition, give us a different definition. But at least 
there is a definition of what a river community is. Because in the 
Executive order there is no definition of what we are talking about 
when we say a river community. We thought there ought to be some kind 
of definition as to what a river community is, and the best way to 
define it is to designate those who are most impacted by it.
  So, once again, I would never present any legislative offering that I 
am authoring as being a perfect legislative remedy. But I am suggesting 
that there

[[Page S9545]]

is nothing intemperate or unreasonable about what we are seeking. We 
are seeking to ensure that private property rights are protected, that 
property owners have an opportunity for input, and that congressional 
review and approval be preserved. That is our prerogative as those 
elected by our citizens.
  Once again, if there is a mountain being made out of a molehill, it 
is those who would oppose a very commonsense amendment that would 
ensure that those most impacted by another Federal initiative will have 
input and have some protection for their rights and that those they 
elected to represent them up here would have a final say on whether 
those rivers are so designated or not. I ask my colleagues to look 
beyond the rhetoric and look at the reality of what this amendment 
does, the purpose of the amendment, and then grant their support for 
the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will be relatively brief here. I gather 
there are a couple of our colleagues who want to come over and be heard 
on the amendment itself.
  Let me suggest, first of all, to my colleagues here who have been 
following this, there were more than 90 days of comment on the 
initiative. In fact, as a result of that period of comment, there were 
a number of important changes and clarifications to address some of the 
concerns expressed regarding the initiative's implementation. I ask 
unanimous consent those changes be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material is ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Important Changes to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative as a 
                        Result of Public Comment

       The goal of the American Heritage River initiative is to 
     support community-led efforts to spur economic 
     revitalization, protect natural resources and the 
     environment, and preserve historic and cultural heritage. 
     After more than 90 days of comment on the initiative, the 
     Administration made a number of important changes and 
     clarifications to address some of the concerns expressed 
     regarding the initiative's implementation.
       The Administration is committed to ensuring that private 
     property rights, water rights, and other rights are fully 
     respected and protected under the American Heritage Rivers 
     initiative.
       The American Heritage Rivers initiative will work in 
     coordination with laws and regulations that seek to reduce 
     pollution, improve water quality, protect drinking water, 
     manage floodplains, promote economic development, facilitate 
     interstate commerce, promote agriculture, protect wetlands 
     and endangered species, preserve important historic and 
     archaeological sites, and address other concerns.
       The American Heritage Rivers initiative will not conflict 
     with matters of state and local government jurisdiction, such 
     as water rights, land use planning and water quality 
     standards, nor will it change interstate water compacts, 
     Indian tribal treaty rights, flood damage reduction, or other 
     existing rights. By achieving greater coordination between 
     programs and local needs, American Heritage Rivers will work 
     to build mutual understanding and better solutions to 
     existing and future problems. It will provide a forum in 
     which federal officials, community organizations, and other 
     stakeholders can examine how the range of regulations are 
     implemented locally.
       Employees of the federal government, including the River 
     Navigator, may not as a result of the American Heritage 
     Rivers initiative infringe on the existing authority of local 
     governments to plan or control land use, or provide or 
     transfer authority over such land use; nor may the initiative 
     affect any existing limitations on or create any new 
     authorities for the participation of federal employees, 
     including River Navigators, in local zoning or land 
     management decisions involving private property.
       The initiative will not supersede, abrogate, or otherwise 
     impair the authority of each state to allocate quantities of 
     water within its jurisdiction; and any proposal relating to 
     water rights in a community's plan must comport with all 
     applicable laws and interstate compacts. Nothing in this 
     initiative is meant to preclude any holder of a state water 
     right from exercising that right in a manner consistent with 
     state law.
       In implementing the American Heritage Rivers initiative, 
     federal departments and agencies shall act with due regard 
     for the protections of private property provided by the Fifth 
     Amendment to the United States Constitution.
       The American Heritage Rivers initiative is voluntary and 
     locally driven; communities choose to participate and can 
     terminate their participation at any time. Nominations must 
     come from the people who live and work along a river. Those 
     who rely on the resources but live outside the area may be 
     included in discussions about the plan of action, but may not 
     submit a nomination.

  Mr. DODD. Furthermore, let me lay out how this works. This is not 
just sort of throwing this out. We are going to have some sort of 
political determination made regarding these 10 heritage rivers.
  First of all, the administration stated that if a Senator or a Member 
of Congress opposes a designation in his or her State or district, the 
designation will not occur. That at least gives people an opportunity 
here to express the wishes of their communities. So, today we will have 
a vote on this. I presume that is the way people want to express how 
they feel about this. If colleagues want to vote for the Hutchinson 
amendment, the amendment of my colleague from Arkansas, that's a good 
indication of where you stand on this, and that can certainly narrow 
down the process, I suppose, here. That would be, I presume, an 
expression of how your constituency felt on this.
  Second, the administration has proposed a panel of experts 
representing economic development, including agriculture, natural 
resources, environmental protection, historic and cultural 
preservation, to review all the nominations and make recommendations to 
the President. This would not only, I think, ensure a fair and 
objective process, but guarantee the designations are made in a timely 
manner. So it is not going to be made by one individual. You bring 
together people to determine what are the qualifications that ought to 
be looked at. Certainly, some of the already existing Federal laws 
regarding clean water are very, very important. There are other 
considerations, and that ought to be a part of it.
  Third, there must be broad-based support for this. In the nomination 
package submitted, communities must show a broad base of support, 
including property owners, State, tribal, local governments, before 
this package is going to be accepted.
  Let me suggest here, by the way, that it spells it out. ``The 
administration recommends that supporters should reflect''--I am 
reading here, now, ``the diversity of the community, including but not 
limited to property owners, as appropriate, and as stated in the 
Federal Register notice they should include farmers, ranchers, 
landowners, businesses and industries, education, arts organizations, 
youth groups, community leaders, developers, community development 
organizations, historical societies, environmental groups and other 
nonprofit organizations, elected officials, State, tribal and local 
governments.'' You can't get much broader than that. You have to 
demonstrate that kind of support.
  Private property owners are an important element here. It is not 
limited to that. If we are going to ask people to give comment out 
here, certainly we are suggesting that ought to come from those people, 
but there are other entities as well that are affected by it. 
Businesses are affected by it. Universities are affected by it. 
Communities are affected by it.
  What the Register says here is get the comments from everybody here 
including private property owners. Does it say to get every single 
private property owner? No; that would be a nightmare. On the 
Connecticut River, 500 miles of river through four States and congested 
urban areas, are you going to get a comment from every private property 
owner? Why not kill the whole thing? That's the idea. Get rid of it. 
Have an amendment that says there should be no designation of 10 
heritage rivers. That's a lot cleaner. But the idea somehow in four 
States where we are applying--no guarantee we are going to be accepted; 
we are for this in four States--the delegations are for it, the 
communities are for it, we have to go back now and go through 510 miles 
on both sides of the Connecticut River, 10 miles on either side, and 
get comments from every single property owner, with all due respect, 
kills this.
  There is a cleaner way of killing it; a cleaner way of killing it 
than maiming this process and adding a huge bureaucracy where we go out 
now, because we like this, and go through the next year or two where 
local communities, at some expense, are going out and getting comment 
from every single property owner. Talk about adding to the burden of a 
process. There is no

[[Page S9546]]

mandate here, no regulations, no money. Just a designated 10 rivers in 
the country as being heritage rivers. Talk about adding to the cost of 
local taxpayers and communities--this amendment does that.

  Here we require, the administration requires, broad-based comment. 
Nominations may only be made--they may only be made by members of the 
community. That is the only way this can occur. It doesn't occur 
because some Senator nominates it. It has to come from the community. 
That is exactly the purpose and the intent here. So, the idea of going 
across and saying we are going to exclude everyone else in the 
process--there are no new regulations or changes in existing law. The 
American heritage rivers does not change the existing prioritization 
process for the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, or any 
other preexisting law. Given that the American heritage river 
initiative imposes no new regulations on any activities undertaken or 
designated on designated rivers, people would naturally abide by the 
law, obviously, in areas that are covered under those provisions of 
law. Any project identified in a community's nomination package must 
undergo applicable State, and local review processes. Property owners 
are key at this stage of the review. The administration believes such 
review should remain a local issue and Federal agencies should assume 
no additional roles in what is a local decision.
  In the nomination package, communities must demonstrate that members 
of the community have had an opportunity to comment and discuss the 
nominations and plan of action. That is required. When you submit your 
package from a local community, you have to demonstrate you have gone 
out to the community and solicited the views of the people of your 
community.
  It even goes further, so it is not just a mayor or select person in 
town, but it is actually that you have to demonstrate in the local 
community you have solicited the comments and the views of people in 
that community, including your private property owners.
  In implementing the American heritage river initiative, Federal 
departments and agencies are required to act with due regard for the 
protection of private property owners, provided by the fifth amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution, and as directed by Ronald Reagan, President 
Reagan's 1988 Executive Order No. 12360.
  I must say here, this has been pretty well thought out here, 
requiring applications must come from the community. The community 
leaders must solicit the opinion of people in their communities. It 
also solicits the views of others in addition to the private property 
owners along those rivers, but doesn't require every single one of 
them, as does this amendment, as it insists. I read it to you. It says 
here:
  ``To ensure the protection of private property owners along a river 
proposed for nomination, all property owners''--I am reading now line 
17, 16 and 17--``all property owners holding title to land directly 
abutting river bank shall be consulted and asked to offer letters of 
support for or opposition to the nomination.''

  All 510 miles of the Connecticut River? Along the Mississippi River, 
all property owners? Colorado River, all properties owners are required 
here? It would be a nightmare. Why not just a simple amendment, ``There 
shall be no designation of American heritage rivers''? It is cleaner; 
up or down, yes or no.
  What if in the process we go through this process by communities, by 
towns all across the country going through this process, at great cost, 
and at the end we don't get designated, someone else does? I understand 
that. But why make us go through all of this? Why not just say, ``We 
don't like the program; get rid of it.''
  As I said earlier, if people don't want this, if Members of Congress, 
the delegation does not want it, believe me, you won't be included. It 
is simple, straightforward, guaranteed, no problem. If any Senators 
here decide they don't want their States to be included, the rivers 
that run through them, vote that way today and, believe me, the process 
gets thinner. Believe me, it gets thinner. Those of us in the New 
England States certainly feel that.

  Senator Chafee of Rhode Island pointed out, on page 3, the definition 
of a river community:

       For the purposes of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative 
     . . ., the term ``river community'' shall include all persons 
     that own property, reside or regularly conduct business 
     within 10 miles of the river.

  I have almost 500 miles of Connecticut River, add 10 miles on either 
side of it and go up and down there, you add to my nightmare of 
everyone who abuts the river. Now I have to go 10 miles to either side. 
This gets unbelievably cumbersome to try to do something as simple as 
designation of 10 heritage rivers--no mandates, no regulations, no 
money to try to manage it here and nothing can be done by a Federal 
agency that runs into opposition of local agencies and governments.
  This has been well thought out, Mr. President, well thought out by a 
panel of people who will designate it. It is not going to be made by 
someone in the White House who picks out a river, but to try to see if 
we can't come up with a group of people here who will make intelligent 
choices about this.
  This is really pretty straightforward. Again, I can tell you, and it 
may differ from place to place in the country, but I gather it is 
pretty competitive. We have people all across the country excited about 
this.
  We have had about six different meetings in my State. We invited the 
head, the chief administrator, for the Environmental Protection Agency. 
We had a huge crowd turn out expressing their support--the communities, 
the business leaders--saying this is something we really want here.
  Now to go back and say we have to get every single property owner for 
10 miles on either side on this thing to designate river communities, 
this would be a great blow, I think, to millions of people in this 
country who would like to see their rivers restored, who like the fact 
that there is a President in this country who has said we ought to pay 
attention to this.
  Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a process where more rivers 
can be designated in the future. I suspect we are going to have a lot 
of hurt feelings at the end of this process. We only have 10 that are 
going to be designated out of the entire country. But the fact that 10 
will be and maybe others can be to highlight the importance of these 
rivers, the communities and all the activities associated with it, I 
think ought to be applauded. The fact that the administration has put 
in place a very deliberate, thoughtful process of where this should 
begin, how it ought to be conducted, who makes the decisions, who is 
going to be consulted, I think is something that deserves applause, 
rather than coming up, as I say with all due respect, with an amendment 
that would basically gut this process entirely and make it impossible 
for millions of people across this country to celebrate their rivers 
and to try to restore them to the cultural, historic, economic, and 
environmental importance that they ought to have in this country.
  For those reasons, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to 
table this amendment and hope my colleagues will support it. I say that 
with all due respect for my colleague from Arkansas. We have worked 
together on a number of different issues. I have great respect for him. 
I enjoy his company and service. I just have a fundamental disagreement 
with what this amendment would do. I think it would be dangerous to 
what has otherwise been a very ennobling effort and one that ought to 
enjoy broad-based support here.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, with mutual respect for Senator Dodd's 
opposition to this amendment, three times my distinguished colleague 
has suggested that a vote for the Hutchinson amendment will be a vote 
not to participate in the American heritage rivers initiative. I assure 
my colleagues, and I hope that Senator Dodd will join me in assuring my 
colleagues, that this process is not so political that casting a vote 
for an amendment designed to protect the private property owners would 
somehow jeopardize later approval or selection as an American heritage 
river. It is simply not the case.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield on that point, I will clarify it 
for him.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes, I will yield.

[[Page S9547]]

  Mr. DODD. Any Member of Congress who wants to can object to their 
State being included and it will exclude that nomination. Obviously, 
one can interpret a vote here.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reclaiming my time, that, of course, is the case, but 
a vote for the Hutchinson amendment is not, as it has been suggested, a 
vote against this initiative or a vote against having a river in your 
State participate in this program.
  I think it gives the wrong appearance and the wrong suggestion for 
Members of the Senate that somehow their vote on this amendment might 
influence whether or not rivers in their States would be selected and 
be so designated.
  There are many who came and asked me to sponsor an amendment similar 
to what was passed in the House in which funds were simply cut off for 
this program. I resisted the desire to do that, because I didn't think 
that the goals, as stated for the initiative, were bad, but I did 
believe that there needed to be some protections, and some assurances.

  Senator Dodd says that this is somehow some backdoor way of killing 
the program. Well, the House in effect did that. I resisted that 
because I didn't want to indicate I wasn't supportive of the goals of 
the initiative. But I did believe that we needed to have a process that 
ensured that it would guarantee the rights of private property owners 
along these precious historic rivers would be protected.
  It has been asserted that we have such a process in place. My 
confidence in that process is somewhat shaken because of my experience 
with the administration over this issue.
  Fifteen U.S. Senators signed a letter asking for the comment period 
to be extended for 120 days, but we could not get the administration to 
honor that request. Because our simple request was denied, I have a 
hard time accepting that the requests of average citizens would be 
honored.
  The process may look good on paper, but that is not the process in 
reality. If, in fact, there is such confidence that property owners are 
going to have input and those most affected are going to have adequate 
input, then there shouldn't be any problem in accepting an amendment 
that puts that assurance into statutory language.
  The fact is, the process has been short-circuited. Those most 
impacted and those most affected are not being given an opportunity to 
express themselves.
  It has been suggested that this is a small program, voluntary 
program, no money involved. How can that be asserted? We don't know how 
much money is going to be spent. Nobody can tell me how much is going 
to be spent on this initiative because no one knows. There has been no 
authorization. There has been no appropriation. We have eight Cabinet-
level departments involved and four Federal agencies involved. Let's 
put that in the amendment, ``No money will be spent. We are going to 
designate these rivers and no money will be spent.'' No. We are not 
going to get that assurance because that is not the case.
  How broad are the implications of this initiative? No one knows, 
because Congress has been cut out of the process, until this moment. An 
Executive order, a short comment period, the process moves forward, and 
when one Senator dares to stand along with some colleagues who have had 
some courage to cosponsor the amendment, suddenly we are imposing some 
terrible, onerous burden upon this program. Who objects to that? I 
believe this is why we were elected: to look at the executive branch, 
to rein in agencies that may go off without adequate public input and 
without a proper process. All we are doing in this amendment is 
assuring there is going to be such a process.
  They say, ``Well, this is terrible to have to notify all the property 
owners.'' There are a lot of ways of notifying, and we have, both on 
the State and Federal level. There are many different kinds of public 
notification. You can do that through newspapers. You can do that 
through radio. You can do that through public service announcements. As 
a former radio station owner, it was something we did that all the 
time. It is common knowledge that newspapers give public notice all the 
time.
  It is important to ensure in statute that we are going to have public 
notice to all property owners and that their input is desired. We want 
to know if you are for the initiative or against it, give us your 
ideas. Give us your suggestions--that is not some kind of onerous 
burden. It is a fundamental part of freedom. It is part of liberty. It 
is part of the essence of a democratic republic. It is an asssurance to 
the citizens of our country that they will have adequate input. It is 
not to stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and say, ``Well, we 
can't possibly notify everybody.'' We can and we should. The Amerian 
public should know, and they have the right to give their thoughts and 
their suggestions on whether they are for it or they are against it.

  If one is convinced that the property owners' input is going to be 
guaranteed under the current process, there surely should be no 
objection to supporting this amendment and guaranteeing that they are 
going to have proper input. The fact is, we need to reassure the 
citizens of this country that we in the U.S. Senate do take the rights 
of property owners seriously and that when we are going to designate 
their property, we are going to give it a title--we don't know what all 
the implications of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative may be--it 
is incumbent upon us to guarantee that they are going to have the right 
to be involved in that process. That is what this amendment is about. 
Let's let them know. Let's let them have input. Let's let their elected 
officials be able to make the final decision.
  It is argued that for Congress to review and to approve the 
designations of these rivers is somehow to politicize the process. 
Anybody who has watched the executive branch operate over the last 4 
years--for that matter, I suspect you go could go back much further; I 
have been in Congress since 1993--if you look back over those years, I 
think it is very difficult to argue that designations and decisions 
being made in the executive branch are somehow nonpolitical.
  If you wanted to depoliticize the process, bring it before the U.S. 
Senate, bring it before the House, bring it before the appropriate 
committees and let us ratify it. We do it all the time. We do it for 
the wild and scenic rivers. This will allow Congress to have the same 
kind of input and the same kind of ratification process that we have on 
other programs.
  No, that is not a bad thing; it is a good thing. It is a good thing 
to notify property owners, to ensure public input, to allow the elected 
representatives of the people to have a say-so in these kinds of 
programs. For many of us who have looked at the use of the Executive 
order over the last few years, we understand, we understand well, that 
a nation that was built upon three equal branches of Government and a 
system of checks and balances. Too often the legislative branch has 
allowed our prerogatives to be usurped by an executive branch that 
would just as soon govern by Executive order. Whether it is totally 
meritorious or whether it may not be totally meritorious, we should 
have a say in those kinds of decisions. Here is an area in which we, as 
the legislative branch, can reassert our rightful constitutional 
authority to review these decisions.
  So I ask my colleagues to, once again, look at the actual language of 
the amendment, look at the intent of the amendment, look beyond the 
rhetoric and support this very responsible, moderate, temperate 
provision to ensure that the rights of our citizens are protected. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in strong opposition 
to this amendment, which would severely undermine the American heritage 
rivers initiative proposed by President Clinton in his State of the 
Union Address this year.
  Since the President's announcement, many communities across the 
Nation, including impressive coalitions along the Connecticut River, 
Blackstone River, and Merrimack River in Massachusetts and New England, 
have expressed their strong support for this new program. They 
recognize it as an excellent opportunity to work in partnership with 
the Federal Government to protect the environment and cultural 
resources that make each of these rivers a unique part of our history 
and heritage.
  The initiative is designed to join the National Park Service's 
technical expertise with local decisionmaking, so

[[Page S9548]]

that cities and towns across the country can decide how best to 
revitalize their rivers and communities.
  This amendment would impose a host of unnecessary Federal mandates 
that would make it difficult for communities to nominate their rivers 
for designation as American heritage rivers. It would be impossible to 
carry out the program as President Clinton intended. The amendment 
would dictate the size of each river corridor--requiring uniform 
boundaries with a 20-mile-wide span along each river--rather than 
allowing flexibility for local circumstances. It would require 
mandatory participation of each and every property owner within the 20-
mile-wide boundary of the corridor, and upset the ongoing application 
process that many communities are pursuing in good faith to meet a 
December 10 deadline. It would also require congressional approval of 
the President's selection of rivers, injecting politics into a 
nomination process that is currently based on merit.
  This amendment is a frontal assault on the American heritage rivers 
initiative. It would strip citizens of their ability to protect and 
revitalize their rivers on their own terms, and give Congress the 
authority to micromanage these important local efforts.
  The American heritage rivers initiative has great potential, and has 
won high praise from communities across the country. It makes no sense 
to change the ground rules of the game at this late stage, and I urge 
the Senate to reject this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the last 2 weeks, we have seen 
firsthand the threats facing our rivers. In Maryland and Virginia, 
rivers have been plagued with fish washing up along the banks with 
lesions. Although the State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies have 
not been able to pinpoint the cause, I think we all can assume it is 
linked to the health of these rivers. The President's American heritage 
rivers initiative was launched to identify those rivers which are 
facing the greatest threats and assist communities revitalize the 
health of their backyard resources.
  In Vermont, many of our rivers have already suffered such 
environmental harm that they can no longer sustain healthy fish 
populations. Even in Vermont's first nationally designated wilderness 
area, the 16,000 acre Lye Brook wilderness of the Green Mountain 
National Forest, streams are too toxic for fish. While the streams are 
remote from Vermont's population centers and industries, it stands 
square in the path of storms from the midwest, which carry pollutants 
that puff out of coal-fired power plants and cause acid rain.
  Although I would argue that Vermonters are the most environmentally 
aware and involved citizens in the country, they cannot take on these 
environmental threats alone. The American heritage rivers initiative 
will empower these communities to access Federal resources to help them 
protect, preserve and develop their river resources. This is assistance 
Vermonters have been asking for--assistance where the community 
identifies the need, where the community controls the projects and 
where the community decides the outcome. This program is voluntary. 
This program is grassroots.
  Since the President announced this initiative, I have heard from 
Vermonters up and down the Connecticut River asking me to nominate 
their river for this initiative. Although I whole-heartedly support the 
nomination of the Connecticut River, I told those communities that the 
nomination had to come from home, not from Washington. And this is as 
it should be. The nomination of the Connecticut has created a new 
enthusiasm for the Connecticut River in Vermont. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I received 
that demonstrates the widespread interest in nominating the Connecticut 
as part of this initiative.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Connecticut River


                                      Watershed Council, Inc.,

                              Easthamption, MA, February 18, 1997.
     Re ``Heritage River'' designation for the Connecticut River.

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: In his ``State of the Union'' address, 
     President Clinton announced a national conservation 
     initiative of singular relevance to the Connecticut River. He 
     stated his intention to designate ten of the Nation's most 
     significant rivers as ``American Heritage Rivers.''
       The Connecticut not only merits national recognition, but 
     it is the symbol of what a heritage river should be--an array 
     of extraordinary local conservation and economic development 
     actions that are bolstered and reinforced by government 
     resources and expertise. We ask for your support and active 
     efforts in Washington to see that the Connecticut is selected 
     as one of the Nation's ten Heritage Rivers.
       Designation is intended to create a partnership between the 
     federal government and those who work at the local level to 
     protect and responsibly use river resources. It will not 
     bring federal regulation and mandates. Instead, it will 
     redirect federal resources and expertise to help Valley 
     residents safeguard our river environment, sustain and renew 
     our river communities, and preserve the historic and cultural 
     fabric of our river Valley. Individuals, communities, and 
     organizations already working in the watershed will define 
     the partnership and determine the support they want from the 
     federal government to aid us in conserving our river 
     resources and building the watershed economy.
       The Watershed Council has put together a ``Connecticut 
     River Fact Sheet'' for you, detailing the many resources that 
     make the River special and worthy of heritage designation (a 
     copy is enclosed). Summarized, the top three reasons are:
       1. The Connecticut is New England's longest river and 
     largest river system. The 410-mile river has a 11,260 square-
     mile watershed that encompasses parts of four states--
     Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. 
     Besides its rich diversity of plants, animals, birds, fish 
     and other wildlife, the Connecticut supports recreation, 
     power generation, agriculture, and urban revitalization. It 
     provides 70% of Long Island Sound's freshwater. Its ``special 
     places'' include the Northern Forest at its headwaters, the 
     Connecticut River Macrosite below Hanover, NH, an 
     internationally recognized estuary wetland area below 
     Middletown, CT, and a host of significant historic, geologic 
     and cultural sites in the Valley.
       2. The Connecticut River faces challenges that local and 
     state governments alone cannot resolve. The New England 
     Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission is about to 
     issue a report entitled ``The Health of the Watershed'' 
     detailing the water quality threats facing the River. 
     Problems that need attention include nonpoint source 
     pollution, toxins in fish, erosion, flow fluctuation, 
     combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and upgrading existing sewage 
     treatment plants.
       3. There are willing local partners up and down the River 
     ready to work in partnership with the federal government. 
     There is a diverse network of nonprofit groups and local 
     agencies ready to take advantage of the opportunities and 
     resources that designation would bring to the Connecticut 
     River. These include nonprofit land trusts and local 
     conservation and historic preservation groups in each of the 
     four states; hydropower dam operators; the Great Falls 
     Discovery Center partnership in Turners Falls; the 13 
     regional planning commissions in the Valley such as the North 
     Country Council, the Joint River Commissions, the Franklin 
     County and Pioneer Valley Planning Commissions, the 
     Connecticut River Assembly and the Gateway Commission; urban 
     revitalization efforts like Riverfront Recapture in Hartford 
     or the Springfield Economic Development Council; Hartford's 
     Metropolitan District Commission; and statewide and regional 
     conservation organizations like the Connecticut Chapter of 
     The Nature Conservancy, the Society for the Protection of New 
     Hampshire Forests, the Vermont Natural Resources Council, and 
     the Connecticut River Watershed Council.
       For the Connecticut to shine in the company of rivers that 
     are already part of our national consciousness--the 
     Mississippi, the Columbia, the Rio Grande--we must all 
     champion its heritage nomination. Competition for this 
     national recognition and the allocation of scarce federal 
     resources it will mean will surely be fierce.
       The decision on which rivers will be designated is expected 
     within the next 90 days, so time is of the essence. We urge 
     you to write to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit this month to 
     express your support for selecting the Connecticut as a 
     heritage river. Secretary Babbit has visited the Valley 
     several times in the recent years and has spoken eloquently 
     about the Connecticut's natural and cultural values, so he 
     personally knows our River.
       If you have further questions about the President's 
     American Heritage Rivers Initiative or need more information 
     about the Connecticut, please do not hesitate to have your 
     staff contact me. Meanwhile, the Council is already working 
     with a network of individuals, communities, and organizations 
     to gather the local nominations that will win the designation 
     for our River.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Whitty Sanford,
                                     Associate Executive Director.

  Mr. LEAHY. This widespread interest in the Connecticut River would 
not be recognized by Senator Hutchinson's amendment. His amendment 
would only define the ``river community'' as persons who live within 10 
miles of the river. The Connecticut River connects

[[Page S9549]]

four States and supports a watershed of over 11,000 square miles. I 
would argue that the river community stretches throughout this 
watershed.
  This amendment would also give priority to those rivers based on the 
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Although I certainly 
agree that these laws should be key parts of the criteria, it overlooks 
the other half of the President's initiative--economic revitalization. 
Many of our great American rivers were once the focus of our national 
economy as the primary means of transportation and commerce. Much of 
this role has been lost, but the economic link between communities and 
rivers has not. The Connecticut supports a rich agriculture community, 
a recreation network and a renewed sportfishing industry. The economic 
importance should also be recognized.
  I support the President's interest in highlighting 10 rivers for 
revitalization and hope that the program moves along quickly to bring 
our communities together around their rivers. I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the Hutchinson amendment so that the program will not be bogged 
down with unnecessary delay.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Senator Hutchinson that would have severe 
consequences for President Clinton's American heritage rivers 
initiative.
  The American heritage rivers initiative is designed to support 
community efforts on behalf of their own river resources and will help 
these communities tell the rest of the Nation just how special their 
river is. The Federal Government has a lot of expertise to offer to 
local communities on how to accomplish that goal, and we ought to be 
looking for ways to share that wealth with communities who want it. I 
wanted to take a moment to explain why I think the initiative is the 
right way to accomplish these goals.
  The initiative involves no new regulatory requirements for 
individuals or State, tribal, and local governments. It is a voluntary, 
community-defined effort that gives riverbank communities the option to 
work in partnership with the Government to help cut redtape and match 
community priorities with services provided by Federal agencies. The 
initiative will allow communities to partner voluntarily with the 
Federal Government so that existing resources can be used more 
effectively. In this time of increasingly scarce funding, this is 
certainly worth encouraging.
  Individuals, communities, and organizations already working in the 
watershed will define the partnership and determine the support they 
want from the Federal Government to conserve river resources and build 
the watershed economy. This initiative isn't a land grab by the Federal 
Government, or even a potential one. It is simply an effort to help 
sustain and renew river communities, and recognize the rich history and 
tremendous contributions of rivers to the Nation.
  Second, safeguards are in place to ensure that the initiative will 
protect the interests of river communities. Most importantly, 
nominations for designation as an American heritage river must come 
from the communities themselves. Unless a community wants an American 
heritage river, they don't have to have one. And there are 
opportunities to designate only stretches of river in case the local 
communities feel that designation of the entire river would be 
appropriate.
  The nominations themselves must meet several criteria that 
demonstrate designation is not going to interfere with anyone's 
interests. For example, the nomination must have broad support from 
individuals and organizations along the river. This means that a river 
won't be designated unless it makes sense to the community--the people 
who are closest to the resource and understand it best--that this 
action will be beneficial. Also, the nomination must show that the 
different interests who live in the community--public, private, and 
local government groups--are willing to cooperate to protect the river.
  Now what happens if a river receives an American heritage 
designation? The Federal Government simply makes a commitment to use 
existing staff, resources and programs to assist river communities in 
their river restoration and community revitalization efforts. These are 
relatively simple services but can be essential for local communities 
struggling to gain the attention of the Federal Government. For 
example, an Internet Home Page will be set up to provide communities 
with information on river conditions and where to access other kinds of 
information important to the interests of the community such as 
available grants, and where to get aerial photographs and advice from 
experts. This kind of non-intrusive assistance will help to streamline 
the bureaucracy that can be encountered when communities plan 
initiatives to revitalize their surroundings. A commitment to a better-
functioning government is in everyone's interests. In addition, this 
isn't a perpetual designation--any community may have this designation 
terminated at its request at any point in the future.
  If a river receives the American heritage designation, the Federal 
Government agrees to act as a ``good neighbor'' to those communities 
involved. This means that the Federal Government will ensure that its 
actions have a positive effect on the natural, historical, economic, 
and cultural resources of the river communities. Agencies will be 
required to identify ways to inform local groups regarding Federal 
actions and must consult with American heritage river communities early 
in the planning stages of those actions to take into account the 
communities' goals and objectives. Communities also will be granted 
greater flexibility to try out new and innovative approaches that 
support their needs. Reducing the bureaucratic obstacles communities 
face and committing the Government to plan around the communities' 
objectives means that the Federal Government will be more responsive to 
the needs of local areas--something we all want. The initiative will 
allow riverbank communities to build their watershed economy and 
conserve their river resources in better, smarter ways than might be 
possible currently.
  In New England, communities along the Northeast's longest river and 
largest river system--the Connecticut River--are sold on the American 
heritage rivers Initiative. The Connecticut traverses four States from 
its headwaters in New Hampshire to Long Island Sound and affects 
millions of lives and livelihoods in the States through which it flows. 
Unfortunately, the Connecticut faces problems that State and local 
governments cannot resolve alone--run-off from lawn care and 
agricultural fertilizers and discharges from sewage treatment plants 
pour into the river. Some fish contain unhealthful levels of toxins. 
Sewers overflow into the river when it rains. A network of ready-and-
willing groups up and down the river want to work in partnership with 
the Federal Government to help the Connecticut. These include State and 
local conservation and historic preservation groups, local businesses, 
hydropower dam operators, regional planning commissions, and urban 
revitalization efforts. Designation of the river as an American 
heritage river would benefit every regional, state, and local effort to 
promote the Connecticut River Valley as a place of unmatched quality, 
where there is an opportunity to raise a family, expand a business, or 
spend a vacation.
  Rivers are a cornerstone of this Nation's great history and define 
the distinctive character of riverfront communities. Rivers are 
lifelines that rank among our greatest environmental, economic, and 
human resources. What we say and do in caring for all our rivers will 
say to future generations not what we think about ourselves here in 
1997, but what we want the world to be for our grandchildren, and their 
grandchildren. The American heritage rivers Initiative will help ensure 
that our legacy to future generations reflects our commitment to work 
together to conserve and restore the environment, to protect cultural 
and historical resources, and to promote responsible economic 
development and tourism on our Nation's most important assets. The 
initiative deserves out support. I urge opposition to Senator 
Hutchinson's amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition because I would 
like to speak briefly on the introduction of legislation on campaign 
finance reform and to submit my bill today

[[Page S9550]]

since the bill is going to, apparently, be considered in some form by 
the Senate next week.
  I have consulted with the distinguished manager, Senator Gorton, who 
stated that it would be acceptable to him for me to take 10 minutes, 
and I consulted with Senator Enzi, who has been waiting to speak on 
another matter, and I consulted with Senator Dodd, who may not be 
officially in charge of the bill.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a point of information, Mr. 
President? Is this just to introduce some legislation? He is not asking 
for any votes on any matter?
  Mr. SPECTER. I am just about to ask unanimous consent to proceed as 
if in morning business for the purpose of introducing legislation, but 
I wanted to state my purpose as to why I was seeking that time at this 
moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object if it 
is for the purpose of introducing legislation, as long as my colleagues 
are satisfied with this, I am as well.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 1191 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Arkansas.


                    Amendment No. 1196, As Modified

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, in participating in this debate on the 
Hutchinson amendment on the American heritage rivers initiative, and 
listening to I think some very valid points that have been made by my 
esteemed colleague, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, and 
would modify the amendment to read, on page 2, section (b), No. 3, 
``Consultation With Property Owners.--To ensure the protection of 
private property owners along a river proposed for nomination, the 
comments of all property owners holding title to land directly abutting 
river bank who wish to comment shall be considered.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
appreciate my colleague's efforts to modify this. I point out that it 
appears to me you have still got to go out and try to get the comments. 
But, nonetheless, I appreciate the purpose behind his effort here, so I 
have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Will the Senator send the modification to the desk?
  Mr. DODD. I would like to see a written version of this so we could 
have it.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to provide a written version.
  The amendment (No. 1196), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 152, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

             TITLE VII--AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE

     SEC. 701. AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE.

       (a) In General.--During fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, the President and other officers of the 
     executive branch may implement the American Heritage Rivers 
     Initiative under Executive Order 13061 (62 Fed. Reg. 48445) 
     only in accordance with this section.
       (b) Designation by Congress.--
       (1) Nominations.--The President, acting through the Chair 
     of the Council on Environmental Quality shall submit to 
     Congress nominations of the 10 rivers that are proposed for 
     designation as American Heritage Rivers.
       (2) Prioritization.--The nominations shall be subject to 
     the prioritization process established by the Clear Water ACt 
     (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300f et seq.), and other applicable Federal law.
       (3) Consultation with property owners.--To ensure the 
     protection of private property owners along a river proposed 
     for nomination, the comments of all property owners holding 
     title to land directly abutting river bank who with to 
     comments shall be considered.
       (3) Designation.--The American Heritage Rivers Initiative 
     may be implemented only with respect to rivers that are 
     designated as American Heritage Rivers by Act of Congress.
       (c) Definition of River Community.--For the purposes of the 
     American Heritage Rivers Initiative, as used in Executive 
     Order 13061, the term ``river community'' shall include all 
     persons that own property, reside, or regularly conduct 
     business within 10 miles of the river.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. My point in the amendment of course is to make 
Congress a partner in this process. And to the extent that this would 
be difficult to implement, this change I hope will be helpful. I 
appreciate the Senator's indulgence.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe that most of the debate on this 
amendment has been concluded. The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], 
has wanted to speak on it, on the same side as the Senator from 
Connecticut. He tells us that he can be available in about 10 minutes.
  So on my own behalf, and on behalf of the majority leader, if, at the 
conclusion of Senator D'Amato's comments, debate seems to have been 
concluded, it will be appropriate either to vote on the amendment 
directly or for the Senator from Connecticut to make a motion to table.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague would yield, I will inquire here and make 
calls and see whether or not anyone else would like to be heard on the 
amendment. If no one does want to be heard, I certainly have no 
objection to going to a vote on this.
  I would like to be able to comment myself at some point here on the 
modification to the amendment that has been made by the author of the 
amendment at some point here. That is why I want to see the writing, to 
make sure I understand exactly.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me first of all say my opposition to 
my colleague's amendment is difficult for me. I have the utmost respect 
for him. We have a fine working relationship. Occasionally we have a 
disagreement, as on this amendment. I know he feels very strongly about 
it.
  My interests in the wilderness areas and the rivers of this country 
go back to the time when I was Governor of the State of Arkansas. Long 
before Congress considered wilderness legislation, Arkansas was 
considering it. I must confess before God and everybody that my 
wilderness proposal was the only substantive legislation I lost or was 
unable to pass in my first term as Governor. It was considered a little 
bit of a radical concept.
  Now, of course, we have millions and millions of acres in the 
national forests and State forests set aside for wilderness areas. It 
was a concept whose time had not come in 1971. I remember one 
legislator said, ``Who wants a wilderness? If you want one, go grow 
one.'' That is how shallow the thinking was about wilderness back then.
  Fortunately, I was able to designate a few rivers as scenic rivers. I 
am pleased we were able to do that. I am a strong believer in 
preserving everything that has any aesthetic or cultural value.
  Now, as I see this proposal, not my colleague's proposal, but as I 
see what the President is proposing, I just do not understand, frankly, 
the opposition. We have had some calls in our office suggesting that 
this is a United Nations plot to take over private property. Well, I 
wouldn't be standing here saying that the President's idea is a good 
one if I thought for a minute it was going to take people's property 
away from them, that there was some kind of cabal or conspiracy to do 
such a thing as that.
  I guess that you could compare this to a scenic highway. In Arkansas 
we designate scenic highways in our State. You know why we do that? To 
entice tourists to drive on those scenic highways. You drive a few 
miles west of Washington, DC, and all you can see are signs saying 
``Scenic Highways.'' I have never heard any outcry from anybody in my 
State opposing scenic highways. We love them. They do wonders for the 
Arkansas tourist industry.

[[Page S9551]]

  If I understand the proposal on the heritage rivers, it is designed 
so that the President would have to be told or he would have to be 
requested by the people in the local community that they want to 
declare their river an American heritage river. If he did it, it would 
be an honorary designation more than anything else. The only time any 
Federal resources would be committed to it would be if the local 
community decided that they wanted to start a new project along the 
river, as we have done in Little Rock, AR, with a beautiful new park.
  In 1972, I attended a Southern Governors' Conference in Austin, TX. 
We always have a big dinner at the close of those things. Lady Bird 
Johnson was my seatmate at dinner. I had never met her before. She is a 
very gracious, charming woman. The Lady Bird Johnson Park out here is a 
real tribute to her. She told me, ``Governor Bumpers, I was in Little 
Rock about 2 weeks ago and I was staying in a brandnew hotel. I looked 
out my window toward the river and there was the county jail and a sand 
and gravel operation.'' She said, ``I believe that Little Rock is the 
only city in the world on a major river that doesn't have a riverfront 
park that utilizes the beauty of the river and builds on the beauty of 
that river.''
  I came back and reported that to the city fathers in Little Rock. It 
was rather embarrassing when she brought it to my attention. To make a 
long story short, we now have one of the most magnificent riverfront 
parks in Little Rock, AR, today, of any State in the Nation. We have a 
week-long Riverfest festival which everybody in Arkansas takes great 
pride in.

  There is nothing underhanded or sinister in this proposal. The 
President is not asking for legislative authority. He is simply saying, 
if the community of Little Rock came to him and said, ``We want this 
river in our State declared an American heritage river,'' he could 
proclaim it, like giving them a plaque. Everybody in this body has 
1,000 plaques. What is wrong with that, providing recognition to 
aesthetic values in this rather meager way?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Very briefly, my colleague from New York is here and I will 
yield to him, but I want to make a quick comment on the modification 
offered by our colleague from Arkansas to his amendment.
  Certainly, while I appreciate the attempt here to lessen the burden 
of contacting every single person and property owner of this amendment, 
still I respectfully suggest that it has some major flaws.
  No. 1, it still suggests that Congress knows better about the wishes 
of local communities. We have a fundamental disagreement about that. As 
my colleague, Senator Bumpers, said--and I am confident my colleague 
from New York will agree--this is community originated. The idea that 
we would have the say over what our local communities want is contrary 
to the steps we have taken in the last few years. We have tried to 
strengthen our local communities in almost every process.
  No. 2, the consultation process suggests here that only private 
property owners be consulted for comment here. Obviously there are a 
lot of other interests here that would want to comment, beyond private 
property owners. What is suggested by the Executive order, you get 
broad-based comments, including private property owners. And if we 
adopt this language, the argument is you exclude in the process these 
other people.
  No. 3, the amendment says that we ought to define ``river 
communities'' as those that are 10 miles on either side; yet to make a 
case, if we exclude them from commenting here, as the amendment does by 
implication here, that, in my view, would be a mistake.
  Last, this amendment, underlying it all, presumes that the program is 
intended to be some large, costly bureaucratic effort. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. It is anything but that. It is designed to be 
just the opposite of that, to be a community-based effort here to 
recognize and designate the importance of the great rivers of this 
country.
  Certainly I appreciate that there are those who get concerned when 
they hear about Washington wanting to help, their abundance of good 
humor about Washington wanting to help. In this case, that is exactly 
what it is. It has been a wonderful inspiration, Mr. President, to see 
the communities come together all along these rivers and, in multi-
States, sort of competing in a healthy way to be designated one of the 
10 heritage rivers.
  As I said at the conclusion of my earlier remarks, we ought to be 
applauding this. This is a worthwhile effort here. There is nothing 
sinister about it. There is nothing underhanded, no secret agenda, no 
mandates, regulations, or dollars associated with this in any way. Yet 
I suggest here, by this amendment, when you start reading it, I can see 
someone saying, ``Look, I wish to comment on this, but I didn't get a 
chance to comment,'' and you are in a lawsuit before you know it 
because we have adopted laws here that say that anyone who wishes to 
comment ought to be able to comment.
  Once you start doing that, you are inviting people to suggest 
otherwise--``I wasn't heard,'' ``I should have heard,'' ``I wish to 
comment, you didn't give me a chance.'' I don't think we want to go 
down that road.
  With all due respect to my colleague from Arkansas, I know my 
colleague from New York, when he completes his remarks, will move to 
table this amendment. I will join him in that motion and urge my 
colleagues to support us in that effort.
  I thank Senator D'Amato and Senator Bumpers for their leadership and 
hope we can reject this amendment and by doing so recognize the 
important effort that the President has undertaken as he did in 
mentioning this effort in the State of the Union Message.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first of all, let me say, as well-
intentioned as the legislation of the Senator from Arkansas is, I 
believe it presents a number of obstacles. I think while there are 
those of us who are concerned with respect to undue Federal intrusion, 
that is not so in the American Heritage Rivers Program because it is a 
program that by its very implementation must take place through the 
initiatives of the local communities.
  This is not a question where the President or Washington or Big 
Brother designates a river and says, ``I want this river to be in the 
program.'' This program comes about as a result of the initiatives of 
the State and local governments.
  For example, in New York, Governor Pataki has recommended that the 
Hudson River be one of those rivers that applies for designation. 
Indeed, they have. Not only has the request come from the State, but it 
really has come as a result of dozens and dozens of communities and 
community groups along the Hudson River petitioning to be part of this 
process, that will help ongoing initiatives including the Hudson River 
Estuary Management Program, the Hudson River Greenway Program, local 
waterfront revitalization programs. Again, dozens of communities and 
cities want to be part of this process.
  The fact is that the State is ready to spend, along with this and 
local initiatives, some $75 million on the Hudson River.
  What we are talking about is enhanced services to deliver the kind of 
upgrading that will bring an improvement of services to the people on 
the river. If this amendment were enacted, we might well see an entire 
program that is ready for implementation and that involves local 
initiatives thwarted, only because the initiative is a voluntary 
program that is locally driven and community based.
  Now, some of the requirements that this legislation would bring about 
would have the effect of denying access to and tying up the process. To 
notify property owners in a 10-mile area and take comment--and I see my 
colleague says that is not necessary; maybe he would like to address 
that--but the burdens placed upon implementation, and the fact we get 
into this process of having to designate raises concerns. Would 
Congress have to designate 10 rivers annually? And should that really 
be the province of Congress, to say which of these rivers should be 
part of this program? Now, I believe in the separation of powers. I 
think it is absolutely essential. But I am wondering how we would go 
about that. Really, shouldn't it be the State and local governments 
petitioning the executive branch and having various requirements that 
they must meet? And, of

[[Page S9552]]

course, we may or may not agree with the selection modality. I am not 
suggesting that we just sign off. Obviously, we as representatives of 
our States and communities want to be in a position to see that there 
is fairness. That is why we are here, to keep some balance in the 
allocation of resources. I don't know whether or not we should be the 
people who, on an annual basis, authorize the selection process of 10 
rivers. I think that really should lie within the province of the 
executive branch having to meet some kind of competitive standard.

  We are very excited by this Presidential initiative. Let's be very 
candid here. The Governor of New York and the President of the United 
States, in terms of political philosophy, have not always lined up on 
the same side. Indeed, I say, on many occasions, they take opposite 
points of view. So I think it is important when the Governor points out 
that this is an opportunity for a State-Federal partnership on a basis 
that makes sense without there being undue intrusion--because we reject 
undue intrusion. There is a process that is underway. Now, I can just 
imagine, if the Hudson River isn't designated, we will probably launch 
a hue and cry as to why not. Of course, that is part of the process. If 
it is not designated and we think it should be, we would be prepared to 
ask those questions. That is part of democracy; that is part of the 
process.
  No one has the absolute, and no one's decisions and actions can go 
without the risk of being challenged in the court of public opinion, 
and that is what we would be doing. But I have every reason to believe, 
notwithstanding the political differences and philosophical 
differences, for the most part, we will get reasonable decisions. I 
think some of these issues are going to be very easy. There are some 
bodies of water where the local governments and State officials are 
anxious and can put forth a good case to be designated. Then they will 
get down to areas where it gets competitive and where reasonable people 
might disagree. Are we going to say there won't be some politics 
entering into it? Of course, there will be. But it will be right here 
on this floor within this body, I note, to the chagrin of many. The 
Presiding Officer would not believe that. But I can attest to the fact 
that I believe that would be the case, in my limited experience in 
observing these matters in the course of the past 17 years. And so it 
would be in the House of Representatives.
  Taking the political jockeying that would take place in terms of 
designating these rivers between the House and the Senate, that would 
really be a lulu. You know, there is something called the rights of the 
minority, which this body in particular ensures, and I like that. I 
think it is important. Even though we may have legislation and the 
majority supports it, oftentimes, I think it is a necessary and 
important right. I think if we were to reflect on the history of this 
body, we would find that sometimes those who are not in the majority 
have held up legislative initiatives and, in the fullness of time, it 
has come out that they were correct. So it is not bad. But I want to 
say that it could be used in the manner which would make it difficult 
to get designations of the kinds of rivers that should be qualified.
  So I will be, of course, forced to move to table this amendment on 
behalf of myself and Senator Dodd at the appropriate time. I don't 
intend to do that until my colleagues have an opportunity to express 
themselves.
  Mr. GORTON. If the Senator from New York will yield, the Senator from 
Minnesota is here wishing to speak. I think it is appropriate that the 
Senator from Arkansas get to terminate the debate. If the Senator from 
New York doesn't wish to stay, perhaps it would be appropriate for me 
to ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New York, together with 
the Senator from Connecticut, be allowed to move to table at this 
point, but ask unanimous consent that after the motion to table is put, 
but before it is voted on, that the Senator from Minnesota have 5 
minutes and the Senator from Arkansas have 5 minutes, after which a 
vote would take place on the motion to table. Would that be acceptable? 
I put that request to the Chair.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I make a motion to table on behalf of 
myself and Senator Dodd, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes of debate remaining. The 
Senator from Minnesota has 5 minutes. The Senator from Arkansas has 5 
minutes.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I really am in strong opposition to the 
amendment of my friend--and he is a friend--from Arkansas. I find it 
hard to understand why we would be creating additional hurdles, as this 
amendment does, for communities to work together to restore and protect 
rivers and riverfronts. I think that is what this debate is all about. 
We have a President who has initiated a program that will help local 
communities restore and protect rivers without any additional 
regulation, and Mr. President, for the life of me, I don't know why we 
would want to support an amendment that would delay the start of this 
program, and which I think really would have no obvious benefit for our 
country.
  Mr. President, while the Congress does have an oversight role--and I 
acknowledge that--this amendment, I believe, is a misplaced effort to 
involve all property owners in the designation process, that would 
really create a whole new cumbersome process and give some form of veto 
power to a single property owner who might decide to object, for 
whatever reason. So I think the amendment, however good-intentioned, is 
mistaken.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that this amendment is about stopping 
the American Heritage Rivers Program, not protecting property owners 
from some imagined Federal takeover of their property. The Senate is 
supposed to be a voice of reason. I think by perpetuating the myth that 
the Federal Government is somehow engaged in a land grab or a power 
grab through this program is a dangerous game, and I think it is one we 
should be very cautious about entering into.
  Let me speak, in the last couple of minutes, about Minnesota. We have 
some fine rivers in the State of Minnesota and many communities who 
want to see this program go forward. One of those rivers, I think most 
of my colleagues are acquainted with, is called the Mississippi River. 
It flows right past the State of my friend. I don't need to tell my 
colleagues how important this river is to the Nation, how important it 
is to our Nation's culture, our history, and our economy. I will tell 
you that in Minnesota we have mayors from communities such as Bemidji, 
at the headwaters of the Mississippi and from Minneapolis, St. Paul, 
South St. Paul, St. Cloud, Anoka, Wabasha, Winona, and others, working 
with mayors in other States along the Mississippi to develop their 
nomination for this program.
  So we have a lot of communities seeking designation of the Upper 
Mississippi River to improve access to Federal riverfront 
revitalization programs, and who are fully respectful of property 
rights, like other local governments across America who want to compete 
in this program. I think that if this amendment was passed, it would 
place an insurmountable roadblock in front of the aspirations of local 
communities in the State of Minnesota and across America who are trying 
to make improvements and make the most of their river resources. Let me 
repeat that. I think if the amendment passed, the biggest problem is 
that it will create an insurmountable roadblock for a lot of our local 
communities who are doing their level best to make improvements and 
make the most of their river resources. That is the problem.
  I applaud the President's work. I applaud this initiative, this 
program, and I hope my colleagues will vote against the Hutchinson 
amendment. I will certainly strongly support the Dodd-D'Amato motion to 
table.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I think it has been a good debate. I 
think

[[Page S9553]]

some of the suggestions made and some of the points are very valid. We 
have tried to respond to those.
  I want to assure my distinguished colleague from New York that I 
believe the Hudson River's possibilities and its chances of being 
designated as an American Heritage will be enhanced by the adoption of 
this amendment. One of the provisions is prioritization, which would be 
in accord with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
That will help the Hudson River. We don't designate the rivers in 
Congress. Congress doesn't designate them, but we would like to have 
the right of approval. I think that is proper and appropriate.
  The amendment does not undermine the Clinton Executive order. 
Instead, it assures that the rights of property owners will be upheld 
through the notification and comment process. It further assures that 
the true interests of those residing near, owning property, or 
conducting business in the area of the river will be heard, and that 
their interests will not be muted by powerful outside lobbyists or 
interest groups who desire to force their will on a selected community.
  It should be understood that this initiative has never been 
authorized, money has never been appropriated. It sweeps money from 
eight Cabinet departments, four governmental agencies, allowing the 
Federal bureaucracy to dominate what should be a community-directed 
initiative.
  My friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, made the 
analogy of the Scenic Highways Program in the State of Arkansas, in 
which highways are called scenic highways, and signs are put up, and 
how that helps tourism. I remind my good friend that the scenic 
highways in Arkansas are approved by the State legislature. So I think 
if we are going to carry that analogy, Congress should assert itself in 
its proper role in approving these designations. That is what it is all 
about.
  We don't know the cost of this initiative, the magnitude of it. 
Congress needs to be involved in it. We want congressional approval. 
Executive orders are being overutilized by this administration. 
Congress needs to reassert itself as an equal branch of Government. We 
want the property owners to be protected. I have shown my good faith in 
trying to make that workable. It is a workable amendment. We want those 
rivers to be prioritized in compliance with existing law, the Clean 
Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is a good amendment, it 
is a simple amendment, in contrast with the lengthy Executive order the 
President has issued.
  This is a very simple amendment that provides very basic protections 
and ensures congressional input on these decisions in this program that 
will be made. I will close with this. I ask my colleagues this 
question: If you owned property along one of these rivers, wouldn't you 
want to be consulted? I think the answer to that is ``yes,'' and if the 
answer to that question is ``yes,'' then you need to vote against this 
motion to table and support the Hutchinson amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 247 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Stevens
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1196) as modified, 
was agreed to.

                          ____________________