[House Report 105-781]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-781
_______________________________________________________________________


 
   TERMINATE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMERICAN 
                       HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE

                                _______
                                

October 6, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1842]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1842) to terminate further development and implementation 
of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommend that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 1842 is to terminate further 
development and implementation of the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    President Clinton's 1997 State of the Union speech 
announced the creation of the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative (AHRI). With the Council of Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) as its coordinator, AHRI is based on Vice President 
Gore's government reinvention efforts and seeks to improve 
access and efficiency of existing federal programs for 
designated rivers. Each designated river will be assigned a 
``river navigator''--a federal employee who will serve as a 
liaison between the community and federal programs. This person 
will be selected by the sponsoring federal agency with input 
from the community. The position will be completely federally 
funded unless the community offers non-federal funds.
    During April and May of 1997, federal agencies held 
meetings in 15 major cities throughout the Nation to promote 
AHRI. Less than 1000 people attended these meetings. Many were 
held in large cities which are not representative of the Nation 
at large. Moreover, many believe these meetings were not 
properly noticed and open to all and thus did not comply with 
the Administrative Procedures Act and the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
    CEQ published a four-page notice in the Federal Register on 
May 19, 1997, briefly describing AHRI and allowing an unusually 
short 21-day public comment period. The Resources Committee 
requested a 90 day extension for this public comment period and 
was granted a 60 day extension until August 20, 1997. CEQ, at 
the Committee's request, briefed Congressional staff on June 6, 
1997. Because this briefing raised more questions than it 
answered, the Committee decided to hold an oversight hearing on 
July 15, 1997, and again on September 24, 1997.
    At a September 11, 1997, White House press conference with 
Vice President Gore, President Clinton issued a four-page 
executive order (E.O. 13061) to implement AHRI. He cited 
authority under the National Environmental Policy Act as his 
legal basis. Later a 21-page description of AHRI was published 
in the Federal Register.
    Executive Order 13061 created the American Heritage 
Interagency Committee which is composed of the Secretaries of 
Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban 
Development, Transportation and Energy. The Attorney General, 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and 
Chairmen of the National Endowment for the Arts, National 
Endowment for Humanities and the Advisory Council in Historic 
Preservation are also included.
    A nomination process was also outlined which allows ``local 
communities''--a term never defined--until December 10, 1997, 
to submit a ``nomination packet'' for their river to be 
eligible for AHRI designation. Out of all nominations 
submitted, the President can select ten per year.\1\ The 
nomination packet is to include a description of the river 
area, its notable resource qualities, the communities ``plan of 
action,'' and a listing of who supports the nomination and what 
opportunities they had to discuss the nomination and the plan 
of action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ A later issued executive order resulted in the naming of 14 
rivers as American Heritage Rivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A panel of experts on river issues was authorized to 
recommend rivers for the President to designate. The panel is 
to include a broad range of interests ranging from 
environmental to agriculture, mining and labor. It was to 
closely review all nomination packets and make its 
recommendations to the President early in 1998. Because of 
AHRI's controversial nature and bureaucratic inertia, the 
President did not actually name American Heritage River 
selections until July 30, 1998.
    Many believe that AHRI clearly violates the doctrine of 
separation of powers as intended by our Founding Fathers by 
completely bypassing the Congress. This was best stated by 
James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 46 that, ``The 
accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and 
judiciary in the same hands, whether of one a few or many, and 
whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be 
pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'' For example, 
Executive Order 13061 was drafted with no consultation with the 
leadership of Congress. This illustrates yet another abuse of 
power by the President which is similar to that used to create 
the 1.7 million acre Escalante-Staircase National Monument in 
Utah without even consulting its Governor and Congressional 
delegation.
    The Administration repeatedly stated that AHRI is 
completely voluntary, non-regulatory and honorary despite the 
fact that a multitude of federal departments and independent 
agencies are needed to implement it. However, the Committee 
never received solid commitments to back up this statement. For 
example, the Administration refused to assure Congress that 
river navigators would not meddle in local zoning and other 
issues involving property and water rights. Also, a voluntary 
program would only include private property with the 
landowner's permission. Despite several requests, no such 
provision was ever written into the program.
    The Committee believes AHRI is a new federal program that 
creates a new layer of federal bureaucracy. The Administration 
argues it is merely a means of making new programs more 
efficient. As a result, the Committee on several occasions 
asked for a comprehensive review of all budgetary reprogramming 
required in Fiscal Year 1998 for the AHRI. The Administration 
was completely unresponsive to these requests.
    Because of these concerns and the Administration's 
unwillingness to address them, H.R. 1842 was introduced. By 
eliminating funding for the program, H.R. 1842 would allow 
Congress to exercise its proper statutory and Constitutional 
authority.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 1842 was introduced by Congressman Helen Chenoweth (R-
ID) on June 10, 1997, and referred to the Committee on 
Resources. The bill has 52 cosponsors. On July 15, 1997, the 
Full Committee conducted an oversight hearing on the American 
Heritage Rivers Initiative. Testimony was presented by 
Administration witnesses only (Committee on Resources Printed 
Hearing 105-36). On September 24, 1997, the Committee conducted 
a second hearing on H.R. 1842. Testimony was heard from 
Representatives Nancy Johnson (R-CT), Wally Herger (R-CA), 
Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Robert Scott (D-VA), Doc Hastings (R-WA), 
Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) and Silvestre 
Reyes (D-TX). Other witnesses included Ms. Kathleen McGinty, 
Chair, Council on Environmental Quality; Mr. Dan Bloomquist, 
Montanans for Multiple Use; Mr. David L. Bright, Sr. of 
Harrison, Arkansas; Mr. Bill DeVeny, Idaho Farm Bureau 
Federation; Mr. David Allan Ealy of Perrysville, Indiana; Ms. 
Lois Van Hoover, Idaho Multiple Use Coalition; Ms. Carol 
LaGrasse, Property Rights Foundation of America; Mr. Robert S. 
Lynch, Central Arizona Project Association; Ms. Linda Borque 
Moss, Western Heritage Center; Mr. Reginald William Nelson of 
Richmond, Virginia; Mr. William Perry Pendley, Mountain States 
Legal Foundation; Mr. Gordon Ross, Commissioner, Coos County, 
Oregon; Mr. Peter Samuel, Schuylkill River Greenway and 
Heritage Corridor; Mr. Desmond K. Smith, Trans Texas Heritage 
Association; Mr. David Young, Commissioner, Buncombe County, 
North Carolina; and Ms. Mary A. Yturria of Brownsville, Texas 
(Committee on Resources printed Hearing 105-70).
    On October 22, 1997, the Committee on Resources met to 
consider H.R. 1842. No amendments were offered and the bill was 
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a 
rollcall vote of 15-8, as follows:


    At the next Full Committee meeting for consideration of 
bills, November 5, 1997, a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which H.R. 1842 was reported was agreed to by voice vote. The 
bill was then ordered favorably reported to the House of 
Representatives by voice vote.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8, and Article IV, section 3 of the 
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority 
to enact H.R. 1842.

                        COST OF THE LEGISLATION

    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 1842. However, clause 7(d) of that rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in 
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                     COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XI

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R. 
1842 does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 1842.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
1842 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, November 3, 1997.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1842, a bill to 
terminate further development and implementation of the 
American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1842--A bill to terminate further development and implementation 
        of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative

    H.R. 1842 would prohibit the use of funds appropriated or 
otherwise made available to any federal agency, including the 
Council on Environmental Quality, to develop or carry out the 
American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1842 would have no impact 
on federal spending because the bill would not affect federal 
appropriations. Fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the Council 
on Environmental Quality do not contain any funding for this 
program and prohibit the council from using the funds of any 
other federal agency for this or other purposes. No specific 
funding for the initiative was requested by the President, and 
no funds have ever been provided to any agency.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
and would have no significant impact on the budgets of state, 
local, or tribal governments. H.R. 1842 would not affect direct 
spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
not apply.
    The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was 
approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                    compliance with public law 104-4

    H.R. 1842 contains no unfunded mandates.

                        changes in existing law

    If enacted, H.R. 1842 would make no changes in existing 
law.

                                
