[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.
____________________