PDF (239KB)(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
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.
