<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:42836.wais]
AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S AMERICAN HERITAGE
RIVERS INITIATIVE
__________
JULY 15, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-836 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held July 15, 1997....................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho, prepared statement......................... 10
Hansen, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Prepared statement....................................... 3
McHale, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 14
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 5
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey, prepared statement................ 6
Pickett, Hon. Owen B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement...................... 64
Statement of Witnesses:
Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Secretary, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC................................... 26
Glickman, Hon. Dan, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC................................ 28
McGinty, Kathleen A., Chair, Council on Environmental
Quality, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC. 24
Prepared statement....................................... 69
Additional material supplied:
American Heritage Rivers Initiative, frequently asked
questions and answers...................................... 94
Council on Environmental Quality, Briefing Paper, American
Heritage Rivers Initiative................................. 65
Proposal with Request for Comment........................ 84
Letter to Hon. Don Young from Ms. McGinty.................... 83
Letter to Kathleen McGinty from various Members.............. 67
Webb, Hon. Wellington E., Mayor of Denver, Resolution No. 51,
submitted by............................................... 81
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S AMERICAN HERITAGE
RIVERS INITIATIVE
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1997,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC,
Hon. James Hansen, [member of the Committee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. The Committee will come to order. Chairman Don
Young has asked me to chair this hearing at this time. I am Jim
Hansen. I represent the first district in Utah.
This morning, the Committee will hear Administration
testimony on the controversial American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. This oversight hearing is the result of tremendous
public outrage and concern expressed to the Congress during the
past several months and the need to have accountability for the
Federal agencies undertaking this activity.
This Committee has jurisdiction over the Council on
Environmental Quality, the Department of the Interior, and the
Forest Service under the direction of the Department of
Agriculture. This hearing will raise serious questions about
Federal agency participation in and the coordination of this
initiative throughout the United States and may very likely
lead to further Congressional oversight hearings in order to
provide the American public an opportunity to express their
concerns on this issue.
This hearing this morning was postponed from the original
date of June 26, 1997, at the request of the Council on
Environmental Quality. Furthermore, through negotiation between
this Committee and the Council on Environmental Quality, the
testimony of these five Administration witnesses was agreed to,
although this Committee originally requested that all 12
Federal agencies involved in the implementation of this
initiative provide testimony.
We appreciate the attendance of Kathleen McGinty, Secretary
Bruce Babbitt, Secretary Glickman, and we haven't had the
opportunity to have our former colleague, Mr. Goodman, before
us before. It is a pleasure to have him here. Dan was a joy to
work with on legislation, and I think we accomplished some good
things, and the Administration appointees before the Committee
this morning and look forward to their testimony.
The President first mentioned the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative during the State of the Union Address on January 4,
1997. The basic thrust of the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative is that the President will designate by proclamation
ten rivers during the calendar year with the potential for an
unlimited number to follow at a later date. Rivers will be
nominated by communities submitting plans to a Federal
interagency task force that will make recommendations to the
President.
This vague and broad statement which has no prior
coordination within the executive branch has resulted in the
Council on Environmental Quality coordinating this initiative
within the Cabinet and involving at least 12 Federal agencies.
This far-reaching initiative involves designation of Federal,
State, and private lands in ten so-called American Heritage
Rivers that will encompass hundreds of miles of shoreline
involving multiple overlapping city, county, and State
jurisdictions, and in fact, international boundaries.
For example, the Council on Environmental Quality documents
specifically refer to the potential of designating the entire
length of the Mississippi River under one U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers district, and hundreds of miles of the Rio Grande
River forming the boundary between Texas and Mexico.
The Committee on Resources has the Congressional
jurisdiction over designation of Federal lands, wild and scenic
rivers, trails, wilderness, recreation areas, and heritage
areas, among other considerations.
The Committee and the Congress sometimes take decades to
reach consensus on these designations and eventually pass laws
authorizing the establishment. The unauthorized proclamation of
such areas by the President will at a minimum create confusion
with the American public, and at worst, is a direct challenge
to Congressional jurisdiction and authority.
Following the May, 1997, publication of notice on the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative in the Federal Register,
this Committee requested an extension of the public comment
period for 90 days until September 9, 1997. On June 20, 1997,
the Administration provided for only 60 more days of public
comment until August 20, 1997. Today, this Committee formally
requests an additional 60 days of public comment until October
20, 1997. This time will allow the American Public and local
and State elected officials to have an adequate opportunity to
address this issue.
Media and press reports, private citizens and organization
accounts, Council on Environmental Quality documents requested
by this Committee all reveal that a disturbing case for Federal
agency misconduct seems to be developing. Meetings were held
with limited public notification and involvement. Special
invitation only meetings were held and State governmental
agencies have not been involved. Furthermore, there are
reported instances of Federal employees promising enhanced or
priority funding for rivers designated under this initiative.
The Administration has informed this Committee that there
are no fiscal year 1997 or fiscal year 1998 funds specifically
authorized or appropriated for this American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. How-
ever, documents provided by the Council on Environmental
Quality describe a Federal program that will be created by
executive order issued later this summer that will require
reprogramming of over $2,000,000 of agency funds for this
initiative.
For instance, the so-called river navigator position will
cost over $100,000 per designated river and will be utilizing
Federal employees. Staffing and meetings for a so-called blue
ribbon panel will cost over $300,000. In addition, the long
awaited tool box of agency information on resources available
to designated rivers will cost over $300,000 in staff and
production costs.
The staffing estimates do not account for the Federal
employees currently involved in the Federal interagency task
force but does reflect that these Federal employees are
involved full-time on this project.
I am increasingly concerned with the Administration's
arrogance and abuse of unilateral Presidential actions. The
creating of the ill-conceived Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument, cutting huge land deals on the Headwaters
Forest and the Crown Butte Mine were all examples of executive
actions taken without Congressional approval.
This Committee has already demonstrated that the monument
was purely politically driven, and all you have to do is go
down and spend months on it as I have, and you will see that.
Moreover, now the Administration wants Congress to bail
them out of the Headwaters and Crown Butte land deals because
once the political advantage of this announcement wears off,
there is no substance to these actions, and now, this new river
initiative that again appears to be politically motivated.
Yes, once again, documents provided by the Administration
reveal that politics is a major consideration in the
designation of these rivers.
I don't believe there is a Member of Congress who does not
believe in conservation; however, this Nation believes in the
democratic process that provides for debate and refining of
ideas.
This Committee looks forward to the testimony we will
receive from the distinguished panel this morning. The
Committee members have many questions to ask following your
prepared remarks, so I hope that your schedules have been
arranged to remain until we have completed all questions from
members of the Committee for the record.
[Briefing Paper on Council on Environmental Quality's
American Heritage Rivers Initiative may be found at end of
hearing.]
[Statement of Hon. James Hansen follows:]
Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah
Good morning. The Committee on Resources will come to
order.
This morning this Committee will hear Administration
testimony on the controversial American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. This oversight hearing is the result of tremendous
public outrage and concern expressed to the Congress during the
past several months and the need to have accountability for the
Federal agencies undertaking this activity.
This Committee has jurisdiction over the Council on
Environmental Quality, the Department of the Interior, and the
Forest Service under the Department of Agriculture. This
hearing will raise serious questions about Federal agency
participation in, and coordination of this initiative
throughout the United States, and may very likely lead to
further Congressional oversight hearings in order to provide
the American public an opportunity to express their concerns on
this issue.
The hearing this morning was postponed from the original
date of June 26, 1997, at the request of the Council on
Environmental Quality. Furthermore, through negotiation between
this Committee and the Council on Environmental Quality, the
testimony of these five Administration witnesses was agreed to,
although this Committee originally requested that all 12
Federal agencies involved in the implementation of this
initiative provide testimony. We appreciate the attendance of
Katie McGinty, Secretary Babbitt, Secretary Glickman and the
Administration's appointees before the Committee this morning,
and look forward to their testimony.
The President first mentioned the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative during his State of the Union Address on February 4,
1997. The basic thrust of the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative is that the President will designate, by
proclamation, 10 rivers during this calendar year, with the
potential for an unlimited number to follow at a later date.
Rivers will be nominated by ``communities'' submitting plans to
a ``Federal interagency task force'' that will make
recommendations to the President.
This vague and broad statement, which had no prior
coordination within the executive branch, has resulted in the
Council on Environmental Quality coordinating this initiative
within the Cabinet, and involving at least 12 Federal agencies.
This far-reaching initiative involves designation of Federal,
State and private lands into 10 ``so called'' American Heritage
Rivers that will encompass hundreds of miles of shoreline
involving multiple overlapping city, county, and State
jurisdictions, and in fact, international boundaries. For
example, Council on Environmental Quality documents
specifically refer to the potential of designating the entire
length of the Mississippi River under one U.S. Army, Corps of
Engineer District, and hundreds of miles of the Rio Grande
River forming the boundary between Texas and Mexico.
This Committee on Resources has the Congressional
jurisdiction over designation of Federal lands, wild and scenic
rivers, trails, wilderness, recreation areas, and heritage
areas, among other considerations. This Committee, and the
Congress, sometimes take decades to reach consensus on these
designations, and eventually pass laws authorizing their
establishment. The unauthorized ``proclamation'' of such areas
by the President will, at a minimum, create confusion with the
American public, and at worst, is a direct challenge to
Congressional jurisdiction and authority.
Following the May 19, 1997 publication of notice on the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative in the Federal Register,
this Committee requested an extension of the public comment
period for 90 days, until September 9, 1997. On June 20, 1997,
the Administration provided for only 60 more days of public
comment, until August 20, 1997. Today, this Committee formally
requests an additional 60 days of public comment, until October
20, 1997. This time will allow the American public and local
and State elected officials, to have an adequate opportunity to
address this issue.
Media and press reports, private citizen and organization
accounts, Council on Environmental Quality documents, requested
by this Committee, all reveal that a disturbing case of Federal
agency misconduct seems to be developing. Meetings were held
with limited public notification and involvement. Special
invitation only meetings were held and county and State
governmental agencies have not been involved. Furthermore,
there are reported instances of Federal employees promising
enhanced or priority funding for rivers designated under this
initiative.
The Administration has informed this Committee that there
are no fiscal year 1997 or fiscal year 1998 funds specifically
authorized or appropriated for this American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. However, documents provided by the Council on
Environmental Quality, describe a Federal program that will be
created by Executive Order, issued later this summer, that will
require reprogramming over $2 million of agency funds for this
initiative. For instance, the ``so called'' river navigator
position will cost over $100,000 per designated river, and will
be utilizing Federal employees. Staffing and meetings for a
``so called'' blue ribbon panel will cost over $300,000. In
addition, the long awaited ``tool box'' of agency information
on resources available to designated rivers will cost over
$300,000 in staff and production costs. The staffing estimates
do not account for the Federal employees currently involved in
the Federal interagency task force, but does reflect that these
Federal employees are involved full time on this project.
I am increasingly concerned with this Administration's
arrogance and abuse of unilateral Presidential actions.
Creation of the ill-conceived Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument, cutting huge land deals on the Headwaters
Forest and the Grand Butte mine, are all examples of Executive
actions taken without Congressional approval. This Committee
has already demonstrated that the monument was purely
politically driven. Moreover, now the Administration wants
Congress to bail them out on the Headwaters and Crown Butte
land deals because once the political advantages of the
announcement wear off, there is no substance to these actions.
And now, this new Rivers Initiative that again appears to be
politically motivated. Yes, once again, documents provided by
the Administration reveal that politics is a major
consideration in the designation of these rivers. I don't
believe there is a Member in Congress who does not believe in
conservation; however, this Nation believes in a democratic
process that provides for debate and refining of ideas.
This Committee looks forward to the testimony we will
receive from this distinguished panel this morning. The
Committee members have many questions to ask following your
prepared remarks, so I hope that your schedules have been
arranged to remain until we have completed all questions from
Members of the Committee for the record.
Mr. Hansen. I ask unanimous consent that the former member
of this Committee, Doc Hastings, be allowed to sit on the dais.
Is there objection?
Hearing none, so ordered.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask
unanimous consent that the statement by Mr. Pallone of the
Committee be inserted in the record.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
Mr. Miller. And that my statement be inserted in the record
in its entirety.
I just wanted to say that I welcome our distinguished panel
of witnesses here today, and I strongly support the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative. I believe that this is an important
initiate to try to coordinate State, local, and Federal efforts
at watershed management and helping local communities to reach
a consensus on how we manage the rivers.
This theme of management of these water resources has been
explored in the Water Policy Review Commission on which I sit
as a member, and we have been taking testimony from local
communities about the management of these rivers.
Obviously, there can be no discussion of American history,
American culture, or American heritage without the discussion
of America's rivers, and unfortunately, too often, we find too
many of our rivers in serous trouble because of a lack of
coordination, the lack of local input, and the lack of good
decisionmaking processes. Hopefully, this initiative will bring
to these watersheds and to these communities the help that is
necessary so that we might engage in better decisionmaking
about our rivers.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses.
[Statements of Hon. George Miller and Hon. Frank Pallone
follows:]
Statement of Hon. George Miller, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Good morning. I want to welcome our distinguished panel of
witnesses here today. I hope they will be able to dispel some
of the rumors that have been circulating regarding the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative has grown into a
government-wide effort to improve communication about Federal
rivers programs, and to coordinate Federal agency activities
affecting rivers. I don't think anyone could fail to support
the goals of improved communication and agency coordination. I
hope that this Initiative achieves these goals and increases
public awareness of Federal resources for river conservation.
In addition, I applaud the effort to work with local
communities to determine local needs for river conservation. In
several places in the West, local watershed councils have
proven that citizens working together can be effective in
reaching consensus on managing rivers. Many of the best
decisions about river management come from local watershed
groups working together with State and Federal agencies. This
theme is being explored in some detail by the Western Water
Policy Review Commission, on which I sit. I expect that the
Commission will strongly recommend expansion of these efforts.
I am pleased to see that the Administration has chosen to
extend the comment period on the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. The public has expressed considerable interest in
this program, and further public comment is warranted. However,
I hope that the extended comment period will not lead to
indefinite delays in coordinating agency efforts on rivers.
Making Federal programs work together is an objective that the
Administration should pursue regardless of other factors
affecting this Initiative.
I look forward to the witnesses' testimony. Thank you.
------
Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome Ms.
McGinty, Secretary Babbitt, and Secretary Glickman and thank
them for coming today to provide us with information on the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative currently being developed
by the Clinton Administration. This promises to be an important
and useful initiative for river communities around the country
and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words of
support for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Our country has been built around our Nation's rivers. From
the very beginning, rivers served as an essential means of
transportation, and therefore as a conduit for trade and
commerce. Rivers have provided endless recreational
opportunities. They have also provided an important national
aesthetic.
The goal of the American Heritage River initiative is to
support communities in their efforts to restore and revitalize
the economic, historic, cultural, recreational, and
environmental values of their rivers. Under this new
initiative, communities will nominate themselves to be selected
as American Heritage Rivers, and the President will designate
10 such rivers in his next State of the Union Address.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative acknowledges the
critical role that rivers have played in America's development.
Perhaps more importantly, however, the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative also acknowledges the role that these rivers can
still play in the continued growth and enhancement of river-
front communities nationwide. And for that reason, I am very
excited about the prospects of this initiative and its
potential for improving the quality of life of a lot of people
in this country.
While this is an initiative based on rivers and the
restoration and revitalization of river related resources, it
is really about people and communities. It is the local
communities that must voluntarily nominate their river, create
partnerships among affected groups to ensure broad based
support for the nomination, identify common goals, and develop
a plan to achieve those goals. In this way, the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative helps communities at the local level
to work together to realize their own goals and improve their
communities in ways that they themselves have chosen.
And that is why there is a lot of support for this
initiative at the local level. The U.S. Conference of Mayors
has already endorsed the Initiative. And I know that my office
has been contacted by local officials from the district that I
represent who are very interested in the initiative and who
plan to nominate the Raritan River to be an American Heritage
River, a nomination that I would welcome and whole-heartedly
support and one that I think would be well deserving of the
honor.
I think the bottom line here is that the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative is going to help communities to focus their
own resources, better coordinate Federal assistance, as well as
to leverage sources of non-government assistance in order to
conduct economic development, historic preservation,
environmental restoration, and educational and recreational
activities along our Nation's rivers. And that is something
that I think deserves widespread, bipartisan support.
Again, I would like to thank Ms. McGinty, Mr. Babbitt, and
Mr. Glickman, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Army Corps of Engineers for coming here today and I
look forward to hearing their testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman from California. I can
see that we have quite a few members here, and I am sure more
will be coming.
I am sure most of you have opening statements. We have a
lot of ground to cover and a lot of witnesses, and we have our
two secretaries and the chairman of the counsel. I would
appreciate it if we could be brief in our opening statements.
I will start in the order they arrived. Mr. Hill.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this important oversight hearing.
As with most Federal programs, this initiative seems well
intended, particularly for those communities that are
interested in finding new tourism opportunities. However, as
with all proposals, the devil is in the details.
A lot of questions need to be asked today. For example,
will the American Heritage Rivers Initiative serve as a simple
nonregulatory purpose or is it an incremental approach that
will lead to more infringements on local sovereignty and
individual property rights? Moreover, what effect will this
have on the American taxpayer, particularly when Congress has
not authorized the initiative?
Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe we need to find answers to
these questions on behalf of the American people and the people
of Montana. They deserve nothing less than accountability from
the Congress and from the White House.
I look forward to closely examining the proposal and
hearing from our distinguished witnesses.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
Ms. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, I think
it is a great initiative which the President announced during
his State of the Union Address. It is community-based,
denominated, and still coordinates the efforts of many Federal
agencies, and it is yet another program to help rebuild
America's towns and cities as well as restore some of our
important natural resources.
As I welcome the panelists and look forward to their
testimony, I think about a river out of our Virgin Islands, the
Salt River, the only point within the United States where
Columbus actually was known to have landed. It is a great
historical area and a valued natural habitat.
While we had not planned to restore the entire river, the
estuary is in need of restoration and protection, and it has
the potential for wonderful recreational tourism and
educational development. I wonder if it would qualify for this
program, and I hope that during the course of this morning,
that could be answered for me.
I am pleased to join you, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of my
colleagues and welcome our panelists this morning.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr.
Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, I want
to thank you and the leadership of this Committee for having
this hearing here today.
I welcome the guests who are going to be testifying as
well. I think that the purpose of this hearing, of course,
should be to answer some of the questions that we have as
Members of Congress as to whether or not such a designation as
this should be actually authorized by Congress, should it be an
administrative procedure, whether or not there was sufficient
time given to the public of this country to have sufficient
input into the process.
As a result, I will be very interested to hear some of the
answers that are going to be proposed here today in
relationship to those, and I welcome the opportunity to
participate in this hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Pickett.
Mr. Pickett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interests of
time and hearing what our witnesses have to say today, I will
submit my statement for the record.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Crapo.
Mr. Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief also,
but I do want to associate myself with the chairman's remarks
and to also indicate that it is of great concern to me and my
constituents that we now face yet once again in this arena the
same battle which we seem to fight constantly these days, and
that is whether all wisdom does flow from Washington.
I can tell you that I have just come from a meeting where
we have been discussing some of the water and river issues in
my community, and if you want to see how another Federal task
force or a federally managed program can foul up a river
system, just take a look at the Columbia River system in the
Pacific Northwest.
The last thing we need is another Federal initiative to
move Federal management into decisions of this type.
I have introduced legislation that would require the
Federal Government to comply with State substantive and
procedural water law with regard to the allocation, management,
and use of water, and it is of concern to me that this
initiative not only seems to move back toward the approach of
saying that all wisdom comes from a federally managed task
force, but it seems to say that that wisdom which some seem to
think flows only from Washington now flows only from the
executive branch in Washington.
It appears to me that we have a lot of important questions
to answer today about not only the wisdom of this initiative at
all, but how it has been proposed in a manner which excludes
Congress from any effective involvement in development of
policy regarding the management of the Nation's rivers.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The people in my
State are quite concerned over the initiative, but I think not
so much because they know of many details. There were not that
many disclosed, quite frankly, but because of the manner in
which it was introduced and suggested in the Congressional
Record, given a very short period of time for public comment,
and that it has really caused a number of folks that I
represent to view this whole initiative with some degree of
skepticism, that also taken in light of what has happened in
our neighboring State with the Grand Staircase-Escalante
heritage program there done in large part without the knowledge
of the Congressional delegation, the Governor, the members of
the legislature and their home State, and in fact, announced
from a neighboring State, not even from the State that was
affected.
There are several examples like this that we have heard,
the discussions about reintroduction of grizzly bears in Idaho
to the objection of members of that State's entire delegation
in that case, almost, as I recall, unanimous opposition in the
State legislature.
In Kentucky as well, this biosphere initiative has in the
same way encouraged the opposition of the Kentucky State
legislature, yet these initiatives continue to move forward and
be presented by the Administration as represented here today,
portions of the Administration represented here today, and it
is for those reasons that I think that the citizens and
taxpayers throughout the country, rightly so, view these
programs and this initiative with great skepticism and
hopefully, as a result of this hearing here today, we will be a
little bit more knowledgeable about the intent and the
objectives of the Clinton Administration.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been
outspoken on this issue, this initiative since I first read
about it in the Federal Register, and it is no secret that I am
adamantly opposed to it.
I think my colleague from Idaho very clearly stated what
our western perspective is. It seems like every time I open the
Federal Register, there is a new effort by the Federal
Government to become the nanny of the western resources. From
the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management's proposed
law enforcement regulations which is a direct assault on the
Constitution in many ways to the lock-up of billions of dollars
in resources over the Escalante National Monument set-aside
which took private rights and State property, I am very
disturbed and very suspicious, and we have a right to be.
Today, we examine the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
initially proposed May 19, 1997, with only a 3-week comment
period which was thankfully extended. The American Heritage
Rivers Initiative creates a new entity called the river
community which is not defined to propose a new designation.
It establishes a river navigator, a Federal official, to
help guide the river communities through the designation
process. Interestingly, this river navigator is tabbed to be a
GS-13 to a GS-15 to the tune of a salary of up to $100,000 a
year--all, Mr. Chairman, without Congressional authorization.
Ten rivers per year, the possibility of ten rivers per
year, ten times river navigators, at $100,000 salary per year
is $1,000,000 just in salary--per year. The river navigator's
tenure is 5 years. That is $5,000,000 plus ten additional
rivers per year. The numbers start adding up pretty fast into
the millions.
The last time I checked, the Constitutional role of
Congress is to authorize the funds, and I don't remember
authorizing $5,000,000 per year for river navigators. Do you,
Mr. Chairman?
Probably the most offensive and alarming issue here is the
scope of area covered by these nominations. A designation may
include the length of the area whether it be an entire
watershed, the length of the entire river, and may cross
jurisdictional boundaries, as you stated.
This can literally mean by definition from mountaintop to
mountaintop, and given that the Mississippi River drains
approximately 40 percent of the U.S. mainland, 40 percent of
the U.S. could conceivably be an American Heritage River.
Mr. Chairman, whether this designation has legal teeth or
not is not the issue. The issue is private and State property
rights and self determination and State determination. The
Idaho Constitution and Code, like many western States,
expressly claims all waters within its boundaries as State's
waters. How can we allow the Federal Government to designate
something it doesn't own?
If the Clinton Administration is truly serious about
American Heritage Rivers, let us take the $5,000,000 they are
taking from other on-the-ground programs and clean up our
historical surroundings. It is an embarrassment to this Nation
when people from around the Nation and around the world come to
the capital of the United States to watch people pull fish from
the tidal basin with blisters on them and open sores and to
watch garbage and tires floating around as one gazes out from
the historic Thomas Jefferson Memorial.
The Anacostia and the Potomac Rivers are historic and
certainly part of our heritage. The rivers were used by
explorers and settlers to trade with Native Americans, by the
British in an effort to hold on to the colonies, and by the
architects of our capital city to bring marble and granite into
Washington to build the Federal city, and the Hudson Bay and
other places full of history need our attention.
I would suggest to the Clinton Administration that they
take on these projects first, and when they have brought these
projects up to a standard that they are satisfied with, that
can then be the measuring standard by which they measure all
other rivers that they wish to take into this particular
program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a full statement that I
would like to enter into the record with your permission.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
[Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth follows:]
Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on this
very important issue.
From the perspective of the western States, I have to ask
the question: When is enough, enough? It seems every time I
open the Federal Register, there is a new effort by the Federal
Government to become the nanny of western resources. From
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management proposed law
enforcement regulations--which would have thrown out the
Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments--to the Utah Monument--which
locked up billions of dollars in resources including over of
billion dollars of Utah's school children--the Clinton
Administration's appetite to control western resources appears
insatiable.
(And certainly there have been many programs in between:
the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Program; the
introduction of grizzly bears into Idaho over the strenuous
objections of the Governor, the legislature and Idaho's
congressional delegation; the Uniform Action Guidelines for the
Sawtooth National Forest designed to end grazing; the Owyhee
Resource Management Plan, again, to end grazing; the illegal
July 2, 1996 USDA memo to illegally end salvage timber
operations in violation of congressional intent; Forest Service
efforts to end historical jet boating in Hells Canyon; EPA's
Idaho water quality standards; takings of water for bull trout
and salmon--the list literally goes on and on. When is enough,
enough?)
Today, we examine the American Heritage Rivers initiative.
Proposed on May 19, 1997 with only a 3-week comment period
initially, the initiative proposes to des-
ignate ten rivers per year as American Heritage Rivers. It
creates the fictional entity ``river community'' which is not
defined--to propose a designation. It establishes a ``river
navigator,'' a Federal official to help guide the river
community through the designation process. Interestingly this
``river navigator'' is tapped to be a GS-13 to GS-15 to the
tune of up to one hundred thousand dollar salary--all without
congressional authorization.
Mr. Chairman, 10 rivers per year, times 10 river navigators
at a hundred thousand dollar salary per year is one million
dollars--just in salary. The river navigator's tenure is 5
years, that's five million dollars, plus 10 additional rivers
per year. The numbers start adding up pretty fast. Millions
upon millions of dollars, just in river navigator salaries.
Last I checked, the Constitutional role of Congress is to
authorize the funds. I don't remember authorizing five million
dollars per year for river navigators. Do you, Mr. Chairman?
Additionally, the ``river community'' is only vaguely
defined. Who is a member? In today's environment, when an
individual in Maine can protest each and every timber sale in
Idaho with a mere postcard, I am left with little comfort as to
who is a member of the river community! Additionally, the
ambiguous definition includes ``. . . parties . . . that
support the designation and the goals of American Heritage
Rivers.'' This is truly amazing to me. This definition leaves
absolutely zero room for detractors--the private land owner who
objects to his land being included in the designation has no
voice in the so-called ``river community.'' Private property
rights are again under attack by the Clinton Administration.
But probably the most offensive issue here is the ``Scope
or Area Covered by Nomination.'' A designation may include
``the length of the area, whether it be an entire watershed,
the length of the entire river, [and] may cross jurisdictional
boundaries . . .'' Mr. Chairman, this can literally be mountain
top to mountain top. And given that the Mississippi River
drains approximately 40 percent of the U.S. mainland, 40
percent of the U.S. could conceivably be an American Heritage
River.
Mr. Chairman, whether this designation has legal teeth is
not the issue. The issue is private property rights and self-
determination. The Idaho Constitution and code, like many
western States, expressly claims all water within its borders
as Idaho's water. How can we allow the Federal Government to
designate something it doesn't own? It is the height of
arrogance! Additionally, the designation will become nothing
more than a tool by environmental extremists to further lock-up
resources and control or take private and State property.
The proposal purports to utilize a Federal ``Good
Neighbor'' policy and to more effectively and efficiently
coordinate and deliver Federal support to the community. These
are laudable goals and I am pleased to know the Clinton
Administration is trying to be a ``Good Neighbor.'' But why
does it take this proposal? Shouldn't the Federal Government
already be a ``Good Neighbor?'' Shouldn't the Administration
already be striving for efficiency? Is this proposal a tacit
admission that the Clinton Administration is not striving for
these goals?
If the Clinton Administration is truly serious about
American Heritage, let's take the five million dollars they are
robbing from other on the ground programs and clean-up our
historical surroundings. It is an embarrassment to this Nation
when people from around the Nation and world come to the
Capital of the United States to watch people pull fish from the
tidal basin with blisters and open sores, and to watch garbage,
tires and debris float around as one gazes out from the
historic Jefferson Memorial. The Anacostia and Potomac rivers
are historical, and certainly part of our ``heritage.'' The
rivers were used by explorers and settlers to trade with the
Native Americans, by the British in an effort to hold-on to the
colonies, and by the architects of our capital city to bring
marble and granite into Washington to build the Federal city.
And the Hudson Bay and other places full of history need our
attention. We've got a ``good neighbor'' trying to tell the
west how to live its life, when it can't even take care of its
own backyard.
Mr. Chairman, I introduced H.R. 1842 to stop this ill-
conceived program, and I urge my colleagues to join me.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, in closing I'd like to quote the
seminal U.S. Supreme Court case on western water law, the 1978
California v. U.S.: ``The history of the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States in the reclamation of the
arid lands of the Western States is both long and involved, but
through it runs the consistent thread of purposeful and
continued deference to State water law by Congress. [Indeed],
to take from the legislatures of the various States and
territories the control of water at the present time would be
something less than suicidal. If the appropriation and use were
not under the provisions of State law, the utmost confusion
would prevail.'' Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more. When is
enough, enough?
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, I want to express my appreciation to you for holding these
hearings and thereby giving us an opportunity to look into this
very important subject of American rivers.
I want to say that I have been excited about this program
ever since the President announced it in the State of the Union
Address earlier this year. I think it is a terrific idea and
one that ought to be supported by all of the American people.
I can tell you that the people in my district do support
it. In the intervening period between his announcement of the
program and today, my district office has had numerous calls
from people on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats,
even the State government in New York, which of course is
currently a Republican State government with Republican
Governor, strongly supports the program and has spoken out in
favor of it much to their credit.
Most of the support that we have seen has come from
nonpartisan organizations, environmental, civic, other
organizations stretching all along the Hudson River, excited
about the prospects of this program, looking forward to it, and
hoping that the Hudson River will in fact merit the designation
of one of America's National Heritage Rivers. It is a very,
very exciting program.
Of course, there have been those who have raised the
specter of government control which of course in the context of
this particular program is nonsense, but it is not the first
time that we have heard that.
When I was a member of the State legislature, I initiated a
program creating the Hudson River Valley Greenway which is a
multi-county project that stretches all along the Hudson River,
all along its tidal length at least as far north as the Federal
dam at Troy, about 150 miles. In that particular context,
people raised the specter of government control. Of course, it
wasn't true, and that program has survived, and people
understand that.
Even in the context of the designation of the Hudson River
as an American Heritage area last year, which came through this
Committee, Mr. Chairman, for which I and the people that I
represent are very grateful for the fact that the Hudson River
was designated an American Heritage area along with a number of
other areas around the country. I think that that was a
marvelous, very strong step forward in celebration of the great
heritage of this country in providing an opportunity for people
to become better acquainted with the American Heritage.
This program, I think, is a great one. I have seen in the
course of my tenure in public service an enormous improvement
in America's rivers as a result of the clean water program and
the Safe Drinking Water Act. The quality of America's rivers
have improved enormously.
Unfortunately, in the 1980's, the Clean Water Act funding
was changed and as a consequence cut back rather sharply, and
so the progress that was made in earlier years has been slowed
down. The kind of things that Mrs. Chenoweth talked about just
a few moments ago are the result of that.
If we had continued to fund the clean water program at the
rate that it was originally envisioned and which was supported
by ear-
lier administrations, we would have rivers today that although
they are a lot cleaner than they were, would in fact be even
cleaner than they are. We need to go back to that program and
reassess it. I hope that this Congress will address itself to
that issue, that we will adequately fund those programs.
Is the gentleman signaling me?
Mr. Miller. I just want to know if the gentleman would
yield for a moment when he is done.
Mr. Hinchey. Yes.
Mr. Miller. I just want to say that the heritage corridor
area that you spoke of that we dealt with last session is
interesting, because it started out much the same way with an
awful lot of opposition from people. But when we started to run
out of time in the session, there was no end to members that
wanted to make sure that their local communities in fact
received that designation.
In this session, we now have one of the strongest opponents
of that legislation seeking extra-legislative measures by which
to get an area included that he fought so hard last year to get
excluded.
I think when people start to understand the nomination
process and the work that local communities go to to get this
designation, I think we will find that ten rivers will be a
limitation, given the interest of local communities and Members
of Congress.
Mr. Hinchey. I thank the gentleman for that observation. I
think it is very important. My time is almost over. I will just
end by again saying to the representatives of the
Administration here, my thanks to the Administration, my thanks
to the President for this initiative.
I think it is an extraordinarily positive and powerful one,
and I hope that the Congress will address itself to it. There
will be no impediment to its enaction because I think the
American people want this project and they want it badly.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from Washington, Mrs. Smith.
Mrs. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I have had a
different experience. My phones have been ringing off the hook
in my district offices from all over the State of Washington
with people very concerned who happen to live along the
Columbia River.
They have watched several Federal initiatives take their
property. One whole section cannot use their property even
though these people have paid taxes for years. They can't even
paint their own homes the color that would be their choice
because it is within so many miles, not even visible of the
river.
It has gone so far that they are wondering what this next
Federal intervention will be, because you see, when the Federal
Government does this, it starts losing reasonableness. The
common sense of the people who also love the river, rely the
river for families to be able to eat. This is the area that I
come from.
We have a little problem with those from other States
around the Nation saying that they have to move in the Federal
Government to take care of our beautiful State. We have
cooperative agreements with other States of Idaho and Oregon.
We care deeply. This is our State. My grandchildren fish on the
river. We boat on the river. Most of my family relies on the
river.
We not only don't share the values of the President. We
share the values. Where we differ is this, do we believe that
we care more than the President for where we live? Does he
really believe that we are so irresponsible, we who live in
those two States, that he has to bring in 12 Federal agencies?
I guess this is the question I am going to be looking to
have answered today. If this program is indeed voluntary as it
says, nonregulatory, community-defined, and honorary, why do we
need the Federal Government, in fact 12 Federal agencies,
involved in this?
We really love our State. We care for our environment. Our
family plans on living there for many years, and I just can't
believe that the President who lives here cares more about it
than we do.
I will be looking for that answer during the testimony and
looking forward to reassuring the folks in my State that they
are not going to just see the big hand of government from the
East Coast come again, tap them on the shoulder, and say we
certainly know best.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. I have no statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. We have two Members of Congress who
are with us who we would like to hear from, Mr. McHale from
Pennsylvania. We will turn the time to you and then to Doc
Hastings from Washington.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL McHALE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. McHale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
members of the Committee. I am honored and pleased to be here
this morning. I will have a formal statement for the record,
but if I may in the next 5 minutes, I would like to simply
summarize my testimony.
Although my testimony is going to focus on one river, the
Lehigh River, I think in many ways the story of the Lehigh is
the story of our Nation's rivers. My purpose in appearing
before the Committee today is to warmly and enthusiastically
endorse the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
The distinguished author, Norman McLane, once wrote,
``Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs
through it.'' That phrase describes not only a wonderful book,
it also describes my congressional district, a region of
eastern Pennsylvania shaped socially, economically, and
environmentally by the Lehigh River.
A good friend of mine, Dennis Shaw, once wrote the
following description of the Lehigh, ``With its headwaters in
the Pocono plateau, the Lehigh River drains an area of
approximately 1,364 square miles containing parts of present
day Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Lackawanna, Lehigh, Luzerne, Monroe,
Northampton, Pike, and Schuykill Counties.
The river flows south and east for 75 miles before joining
the Delaware, the forks of the Delaware, in Easton,
Pennsylvania. More than 1,000,000 citizens live and work within
the Lehigh watershed.
Mr. Chairman, my commitment to the protection and the
restoration of the Lehigh River is not based on an abstract
study of history. Within the past month, I have canoed the
Lehigh's rapids, fished its waters, camped on its banks, and
hiked more than ten miles along its shores. I have lived within
a mile of the Lehigh River my entire life.
We are a community defined both literally and symbolically
by the Lehigh River. The Act of Assembly of the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives dated March 6, 1812, defined Lehigh
County as follows, ``That and all that part of Northampton
County being within the limits beginning at the Bethlehem line
where it joins the Lehigh River; thence along said line until
it intersects the road leading from Bethlehem to Lehigh Water
Gap.''
Literally, the county where I live is defined by the Lehigh
River. Modern history along the Lehigh reflects a checkered
past, including long periods of short-sighted greed,
unsustainable consumption, and environment abuse.
Mr. Chairman, today in my brief testimony, I am not going
to give you a complete environment or social history of the
Lehigh River, but just let me point out a couple of critical
dates.
In 1740, David Nitchman was the first European to come and
settle in our community. At that time, the area where I now
live was described as follows, ``It was wild and a forest, at a
distance of 50 miles from the nearest town, and only two houses
occupied by white people. No other dwellings were to be seen in
the whole country except the scattered huts or wigwams of
Indians.'' Here they commenced a settlement, Bethlehem. That is
my home town. That is where I live today. That is not some
Federal abstraction. That is the community in which I am
raising my children.
On May 6, 1772, a record catch of 5,300 shad were harvested
in the Lehigh River about a half-mile from where I live today,
but in 1829, we turned a corner. It was a year of decision, in
some ways positive and in some ways quite negative.
John James Audubon, the distinguished naturalist and
artist, spent 6 weeks in the upper Lehigh painting and studying
that portion of the river, but in that same year, the Lehigh
Coal and Navigation Company constructed a dam at the forks of
the Lehigh where it flows into the Delaware River, permanently
impeding the flow of shad and their annual migration up the
Lehigh.
By 1872 when coal had been discovered in northeastern
Pennsylvania, 1,000 canal boats travelled the canal parallel to
the Lehigh River transporting that coal to Philadelphia and New
York, and there were consequences from that.
By 1953, there were no shad caught in the Delaware. By
1968, the pollution block in Philadelphia meant that the shad
could not spawn as they had historically spawned up the
Delaware.
By 1970, we again turned a corner with the passage of the
Clean Streams Act. In that year, the pollution of the Lehigh
had become so bad that an entire five-mile stretch of the river
would not sustain aquatic life.
I remember what that was like 25 years ago. I witnessed a
river that had become an open sewer.
In the past two decades, we have seen a river restored.
Having spent 200 years destroying the natural beauty, the water
quality, and the aquatic life of the Lehigh River, our
community has recently dedicated itself to a more worthy goal,
40 years of river restoration.
Where do we go from here? The Lehigh River is now part of
the National Heritage corridor with modest annual funding
through the Department of the Interior. There was a management
action plan that was approved in 1994, and I strongly support
the continuing efforts in the private sector as well as the
public sector to restore this great river.
All of the existing public and private efforts to protect
and restore the Lehigh River will be dramatically reinforced by
the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Mr. Chairman, if I may with your indulgence, have one more
minute.
I believe that this program is the single most important
conservation effort proposed to date by the Clinton
Administration. The more efficient and effective delivery of
existing Federal services and expertise, the sharing of river
restoration experience, and the availability of river-related
data via the Internet and a well planned web site will prove to
be a tremendous aid in the environmental protection,
recreational improvement, and economic development of the
Lehigh River.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is in the
conservation tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and
Rachel Carson. It deserves the support and the funding of
Congress.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we who live, work, and are raising
our families along the Lehigh recognize that there is a reason
why our region has become known worldwide as the Lehigh Valley.
In the words of Norman McLane, a river runs through it.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Washington, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
courtesy that the Committee has given me to sit here.
I want to just mention a couple things real briefly. I
live, of course, in an area where the Columbia River flows
through, and specifically in the tri-city area, we would like
to enhance our river shore there, and there was a consultant
that came through and suggested very strongly that perhaps the
local community look at the Heritage River Initiative that is
being proposed.
I sent a letter to them and said, we don't know what really
is in there before you pursue this. Maybe you ought to look and
see what it is all about.
I just received letters back from one of the commissioners,
and actually, it is signed by all the commissioners in one of
the counties that is impacted, Benton County, and if I may
quote one sentence here, they say this, ``Much of this
activity,'' regarding the American Heritage Rivers Initiative,
``has taken place with very little public information or
understanding about the initiative or its potential
ramifications,'' which I think is true.
There is another local organization that is looking into
this, because there is a suggestion that has been made that
tourism will increase. We have a tri-cities visitor and
convention bureau that has been very active for 25 years in
this area. They sent me a letter and they just make this
statement, and I will quote, ``The infor-
mation we have received has made us less inclined to pursue the
President's initiative.''
Now, the reason I mention this, and this kind of reflects
the comments that I have heard certainly on this side of the
aisle, as we go down this path, is that the question that at
least the local people have in my view, and I would like to
know if--certainly, I will listen to the testimony to see if
this could be answered, is the unintended consequences that
happen because we have legislation that is supposedly warm and
fuzzy and nice for local areas, but as we go down the line,
something changes, and I just may add with my friend from
Pennsylvania and his testimony, clearly from his perspective,
this is a conservation initiative. Clearly from his
perspective.
I can tell you from the west if that is the main
initiative, then I have some great doubts that this ought to be
a conservation initiative. Clearly, we don't understand where
the Administration is going on this, and I would certainly like
to see that clarified.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the courtesy and I look
forward to the testimony that will be forthcoming.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon, my
colleague from the third district.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like many of my
colleagues, I also have considerable concerns about the real
import of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Americans today unfortunately do not place a great deal of
trust in the Federal Government. Much of their cynicism is
fueled unfortunately by experience.
For instance, last fall, this Administration in order to
pick up a few votes in California disregard the law, the Utah
congressional delegation, and the people of Utah in secretly
crafting a massive 1,700,000-acre national monument in southern
Utah, entirely within my district.
All of this was done in the dark and without any public
input. No wonder my constituents are cynical about this latest
proposal by the Administration. This proposal is built on the
premise of trust us. We in Utah know about Federal agencies and
their false assurances and empty promises.
My fear and that of my constituents is that this program is
nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by the Federal
Government to grab more regulatory power. This hollow program
offers no new money for real solutions for these communities.
Instead, the initiative as proposed by Council on
Environmental Quality would give participating communities
$100,000 to hire a government bureaucrat, and for what purpose?
To help clean up rivers? No. To help restore historic landmarks
or landscapes? No.
In fact these bureaucrats, so-called river navigators, have
one primary purpose, slopping at the Federal trough for
possible taxpayer funds.
America's rivers and associated communities do need
improvements, but the solutions will come from our communities,
from our people, and not from river navigator-types.
This initiative offers our towns and cities no real
answers, no real plan. That is why the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative and the river navigators should be set on the
appropriate course--downstream.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Hawaii, Mr.
Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Do you
suppose we might take advantage of the fact that Mr. McHale is
here and perhaps question him inasmuch as he just testified? Is
that in order, as opposed to making statements at the moment?
Mr. Hansen. Would you repeat your question?
Mr. Abercrombie. I said, do you suppose we might take
advantage of the fact that Mr. McHale is here testifying?
Mr. Hansen. Mr. McHale has already given his testimony, but
you have 5 minutes. If you would like to have an interchange
with Mr. McHale, by all means, use your time.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much.
Good morning, Mr. McHale.
Mr. McHale. Good morning, Neil. How are you?
Mr. Abercrombie. Very fine, thank you.
In your statement, I missed the first part of it, and you
may have covered it, but I want to refer to something that Mr.
Hansen and I believe others have commented on, and to get your
reaction.
Obviously, you are in favor of carrying forward with this
initiative. Now, taking into account or accepting for
conversation sake that this may not have gone through all of
the examination and analysis that would be required, and that
the Committee's hearing today and possibly subsequent hearings
is entirely in order to accomplish the legislative goals, is it
your contention that this is something that we should fund in
addition to whatever funding may already be associated with
various departments, whether it is the Council on Environmental
Quality or the Department of the Interior or the Forest Service
subdivisions within it?
The reason I ask the question is that Mr. Hansen has
pointed out that if I understand it correctly, now there will
be reprogramming of already authorized and appropriated funds,
and I don't think that is a good idea necessarily, or I think
it is certainly something that should be examined. I think that
Chairman Hansen has pointed that out.
So for conversation sake, if we accept the idea that the
Heritage Rivers is a good idea, is it your contention that we
should authorize and appropriate new funds to do that, or is
the reprogramming you would accept at this stage?
Mr. McHale. My study of the program would indicate that the
vast majority of the funding can be reprogrammed.
What we are talking about here is not the creation of a new
bureaucracy or the creation of new statutory authority. We are
talking about the more efficient administration and delivery of
existing Federal programs.
For that reason, I think that existing funding would for
the most part be satisfactory, but I, as an individual Member
of Congress, would vote for additional funding as necessary to
supplement the existing funding, although I suspect that amount
of funding would be very modest.
I would simply say to Mrs. Chenoweth and other friends and
colleagues who are skeptical about this program, I strongly
support your belief that this program should never be imposed
upon you. I think you deserve credit that there is an extended
period of comment on this program.
Once we complete that analysis, however, for those parts of
the country such as my own that would very much at the local
level like to participate in this program, so long as we
adequately protect you from any imposition of the program, why
not allow us to participate?
Our rivers in the northeast have experienced for the most
part a degradation that fortunately has never been inflicted
upon the rivers of the northwest.
We have a major challenge ahead of us in restoring those
rivers, and this program can be a very significant aid in that
process.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. McHale, I would like to followup on
that point.
While there may be some trepidation on some of the members'
parts with respect to the implementation of this program, isn't
it the case or would it not be the case in many instances that
absent Federal assistance, local resources might not be
sufficient to be able to handle the difficulties that might be
encountered in comprehensive regional considerations that might
come up with respect to the restoration, et cetera.
Mr. McHale. That is absolutely correct. We have a 75-mile
stretch of river along with 1,000,000 people live. That is
nearly equal to the population of most of the States that are
represented before me.
We have a large concentration of population along a stretch
of river that has received heavy industrial use over the last
100 years. We have three major cities, Allentown, Bethlehem,
and Easton, that are attempting to coordinate that restoration
and revitalization effort.
All we want is advice from the Federal Government. We want
those who will come in with that expertise and at our request
and to the degree that we solicit, step into our community and
assist us in a partnership that will ultimately clean up,
restore, and economically develop a river, the like of which
simply doesn't exist, for instance, in the State of Idaho, a
magnificent State where I am about to travel in 2 weeks, and
where I have spent a great deal of time.
The rivers of Idaho are very different from the rivers of
Pennsylvania. We have silt, we have mine drainage. We have had
a century of pollution where we are making major strides to
clean up that pollution, but clearly in that process, the
Federal Government can be a partner.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. I will recognize the gentleman from Tennessee
who did not use his time before for questions.
Mr. Duncan. I just have one question. Paul, do you have any
objections to or problems with the Congress voting on this
before it is done rather than doing it by executive order
without the Congress voting on it?
Mr. McHale. Jimmy, I want to protect our rivers, and I want
to do it in a way that encourages debate, encourages
congressional participation. Certainly in terms of funding,
Mrs. Chenoweth is correct. We hold the power of the purse, and
I think that gives us an adequate safeguard on the substance of
the legislation, but I have to smile.
We heard references earlier from Mr. Cannon and some other
folks about a President taking unilateral action. The President
of the United States acting without the consent of Congress and
in fact, deliberately attempting to circumvent the will of some
Members of Congress, took executive action to protect the
natural resources of the United States.
I am not referring to Bill Clinton. I am referring to Teddy
Roosevelt. Read his autobiography. What is objected to today is
precisely what Roosevelt did nearly a century ago, and with the
wisdom of hindsight and history, we now recognize that
Roosevelt fortunately protected the natural resources of our
Nation so that we of this generation might be able to enjoy
them.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. I have no comments at this time.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. No comment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No comment.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I guess that covers----
Mrs. Smith. Mr. Chairman, just one question.
Mr. Hansen. If we may, we will recognize the gentleman from
California and the gentlelady from Washington, and then let us
get on with the witnesses, could we please?
The gentleman from California.
Mr. Miller. I guess, Mr. Chairman, that Paul is a witness
here, so we can ask him questions, right? He is a witness.
Let me just ask you, the way you frame this bill and the
way I understand it, let me see if we are clear on this.
My understanding is that local communities at some point
are going to make a decision to nominate a river for
participation.
Mr. McHale. Not only must they nominate, but in evaluating
those applications, the level of local public support is the
decisive factor in determining whether or not an individual
river will be so designated as an American Heritage river.
For instance, in our case, the Republican mayor of
Allentown who watched the State of the Union Address came to me
immediately after that address and said, Paul, this is a
wonderful opportunity for the Lehigh River. We are attempting
to develop an entire management plan for that watershed. Could
you please do what you can to intervene with the Federal
Government so that we at the local level by nominating our
river can have it be designated as one of the first ten.
I really don't think and I appreciate the sensitivity and
respect it, but I really don't think that the issue will be the
imposition of the status on any local community. I frankly
think you are going to see enormous competition among all of
the potential rivers to be designated for those ten that will
be actually be chosen.
I don't think anyone will have this designation forced upon
them.
Mr. Miller. As I see the record developing, it starts to
appear that you are essentially almost going to have to have a
consensus in the local community.
Mr. McHale. Yes. From what I have read, and of course, the
Administration witnesses can amplify this, I can't imagine that
a river would be chosen for this program over the objection of
the local Member of Congress.
Mr. Miller. Maybe we should give the local Member of
Congress the veto, and we will find out strong they are.
Mr. Hansen. That is an excellent idea.
Mr. Miller. That would be a great idea. We have kind of
been here before. I mean, we have scenic highways, and we have
heritage highways, and we have now heritage corridors. We had a
lot of early opposition to these things, and then hindsight,
people in communities decide they made the right decision.
I remember being up in the Rocky Mountain National Park out
on the back side of it. They have a scenic highway designation
that was hard fought coming up to one of the rivers there. An
old fellow got up out there from his bar, and he fought this.
He led the local organization, he put up all the window signs,
he organized the ranchers, said that this was a Federal land
grab and so forth. But it was a fact of life a couple years
later. When we were in this meeting out there trying to work
out who was going to feed the wildlife in the national park,
the farmers or the Federal Government, somebody asked him what
he thought now about that scenic corridor, that scenic highway,
and what was the best thing about it. He said the best thing
about it was it puts butts on his barstools in the bar that he
runs.
The fact of the matter is what local communities have found
out if they do comprehensive planning, organization, and
promotion, that many of these assets become huge economic
engines for activity and for income for these communities and
these designations.
I think you are right. I think there is going to be serious
competition to try to get in under the wire of ten. And I also
think that those of us who have lived on rivers and watched all
the disjointed decisions by all of the Federal agencies, all
the lack of communication between the agencies, it would be
wonderful to have a navigator.
I am just going through a base closing. I went through one
before. We didn't have any help from the Administration. This
Administration, we have a navigator for that base closing and
you know what? Every time the city and the county and the local
agencies have a problem, they go to that fellow from the Navy.
He works it out with the Fish and Wildlife Service; he works it
out with the State of California; and we are so far ahead of
schedule, it is making our heads spin. That is the difference
in how you can approach this.
We see it in brownfields. We see it in all kinds of
approaches where communities have been left to fend for
themselves, and now somebody comes along and offers help, and
somebody wants to act like it is some grand conspiracy.
Fine, opt out, but I think you are going to find that
communities are going to want to opt into this. We are asking
for $500,000,000 to restore the river that runs by my
congressional district because of a lot of individual
disjointed decisions that have been made in the past, and
nobody thought about the comprehensive impact, and now, we have
an ecological disaster. Thank you, Paul.
Mr. McHale. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentlelady from Washington will
be our last question, and then we are going to go to our
witnesses.
The gentlelady from Washington is recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. Smith. Thank you. I think as I listen to this
discussion and as I was listening to you, you said it OK
because we looked at history for the President or other
authorities to step outside the balance of power of the
Constitution, which I call breaking the law.
As a budget person, that is my background both at the State
and corporately. If I take this amount of staff, and I have the
document of the staffing, and I take it out of other areas and
I put it to a new area, I am stating they are overstaffed; the
other areas are overstaffed.
Now, this Administration testified they needed more people
in these areas, so what they are saying now is we are going to
take them out of other areas to start this new program;
therefore, the President has decided to replace Congress in the
Constitution. That is not OK.
Do you believe these other programs are overfunded enough
to transfer all this staff or are you really saying, and this
is a little bit disturbing as a colleague, that we can step
aside as a Congress and say yes, whether it be a Republican or
Democratic president, that they can start a new program;
authorize it, knowing full well that they are violating the
separation of powers where Congress is supposed to authorize so
we protect the people at home from one person having all the
power?
I very rarely hear another official say it is OK in
history, therefore, it is OK now to violate the Constitution,
so I guess I have to ask you as a colleague, what other
programs and areas do you believe that the President should be
able to step out and say I am going to start a program without
a vote of Congress, because we might be setting a precedent
here that there will be others coming and saying we don't need
Congress. You might not have to run again.
Mr. McHale. Mrs. Smith, I have taken an oath to the
Constitution of the United States as a member of the State
legislature, a Member of Congress, and as a United States
Marine on more than a dozen occasions throughout my lifetime.
I have to say that respectfully, your paraphrase of my
testimony was wholly inaccurate.
We have the power of the purse under Article I of the
Constitution. No chief executive, Bill Clinton or anyone else,
should have unilateral power.
We have considerable authority through the appropriations
process to approve or disapprove action taken by a President of
the United States. I was simply pointing out with historic
accuracy that in the autobiography of Teddy Roosevelt, the kind
of action that has been undertaken by President Clinton and has
been criticized in this committee room today was precisely the
same action that Teddy Roosevelt undertook and about which he
wrote with pride.
One hundred years later, if Roosevelt had not taken that
action, almost a century later, we would not enjoy the forests
of the northwest that were protected from greed and
extravagance and consumption, but for Teddy Roosevelt's
intervention.
We have enormous power under the Constitution. I praise
Mrs. Chenoweth, although I would never vote for her bill. It is
constitutionally proper in that she seeks to terminate funding
in the exercise of our authority under Article I of the
Constitution.
I believe the President, and you may disagree with his
decision, but I believe the President can exercise authority
under Article II that allows him to create this program. We
then decide under Article I whether we are willing to pay for
it.
Mrs. Smith. Then I guess the answer you have is this should
not go forward unless Congress votes for it, and I think that--
--
Mr. McHale. For the money for it, yes.
Mrs. Smith. [continuing] is the point I wanted to get to,
that he has authorized a new program. He does not have the
money by his own testimony and those that are coming before us,
because they have said they don't have enough money in their
programs; therefore, this cannot go forward constitutionally.
As you said, you took an oath to the Constitution without a
vote of Congress, and that is the point I want to make. We can
vote here, but should we only need one person, the Founding
Fathers would have chosen a king. Therefore, I am going to be
objecting unless we debate this and we all decide to start this
new program or not in the Congress.
That is probably the most important thing that we address
today. I appreciate your support of the rivers. I also support
the rivers, but I also support the Constitution and don't
believe we should step aside just because it is convenient for
the moment or because historically someone else did it. Thank
you.
Mr. Hansen. We appreciate Mr. McHale coming before us our
good friend from Pennsylvania, and the comments that you have
made.
Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Hansen. We will go to our witnesses. I am going to
editorialize for 30 seconds.
This is to my good friend from Pennsylvania. I, too, have
great feelings about Teddy Roosevelt, one of my heroes in life.
He had the 1906 antiquity law, however, we have a park bill in
1915 and 1916; the 1969 NEPA; the 1964 wilderness; and 1976
FLPMA, which in my opinion give 1,000 times more protection
than what President Roosevelt did, even though I think he was
right in what he did, and I applaud his actions.
I think we have much better laws now to protect. In fact,
if anything, the 1906 antiquity law takes away protection as we
have seen in southern Utah.
With that, we will excuse you and ask our next panel to
come up. We are very honored to have with us our two
Secretaries, the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the
United States Department of the Interior; the Honorable Dan
Glickman, our former colleague, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. We are honored to have Kathleen
McGinty, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and
we appreciate our three witnesses being with us.
Dan Glickman, who is probably the most articulate person on
tort reform on light aircraft that I have ever met in my life,
and we are grateful for all three of them.
Kathleen McGinty, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN A. McGINTY, CHAIR, COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. McGinty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee for the opportunity to testify today on the very
important American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Mr. Chairman, this initiative represents a historic
opportunity to support efforts to revitalize the communities
that surround 3,500,000 miles of rivers and streams that flow
throughout our Nation.
American Heritage Rivers focuses on the powerful link
between healthy rivers and healthy communities. As prescribed
and called for by the National Environmental Policy Act, this
initiative is built on the fact that environmental, cultural,
and economic goals are inextricably linked and that citizens'
voices have to be central to Federal action.
Why rivers? Because, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, as Mayor Richard Riordan has said of the Los Angeles
River, ``Rivers often represent the heart of our city or
community's spirit. Rivers, with their beauty, their history,
their lore, their economic force, provide a centerpiece, an
organizing principle around which disparate elements of a
community can come together to work toward the economic,
cultural, and environmental revitalization of their place,
their home.''
Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege and opportunity of
seeing this happen in every part of our country. My own home
town is Philadelphia.
Twenty years ago, the Delaware waterfront was no place you
wanted to be, crime and drugs, trash and decay. But as the
bicentennial of our Nation approached, that river captured the
imagination of Philadelphians. It had a story to tell, we
realized, Penn's Landing, George Washington's crossing; it was
part of what made our city and indeed, our country, great.
Philadelphians were determined to take that waterfront back,
push the pushers out, revitalize the historic buildings.
Revitalizing that waterfront then compelled ideas to take back
Front Street, Second Street, Third Street with the result that
all of downtown Philadelphia, now 20 years later, is thriving
and whole and very much alive.
Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 1969 was voted America's
dirtiest city. Today, Chattanooga is hailed as a miracle city,
as one of America's most livable, and where did it all start?
With the inspiration of a high school student who said, hey,
the Tennessee River is a pretty unique and wonderful resource.
Why don't we celebrate by putting a first-of-its kind fresh
water aquarium on its banks? Chattanooga did, and now that
aquarium, and indeed, the entire city, is world-renowned.
St. Paul, Minnesota, I just visited there with Mayor Norm
Coleman and some 20 other mayors of the upper Mississippi,
Republicans and Democrats alike, who gather because of their
tremendous enthusiasm for this initiative. Mayor Coleman has
taken to calling St. Paul, St. Paul on the Mississippi, and
will tell you in no uncertain terms that reconnecting that city
with its wonderful river was the single most important factor
that enabled him just recently to convince a major software
manufacturer to locate in the heart of the city, bringing jobs
back into that city. The river restored makes that city an
attractive, exciting, unique, and extremely compelling place to
be.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer some declarative
statements on what this initiative is and what it is not.
It is 100-percent voluntary. Communities don't have to
participate, and once participating, can opt out at any time.
It is 100-percent locally driven. This is purely bottom-up.
Whether to participate and to plan for participation are
completely under the control and in the hands of local
citizens.
It is 100-percent nonregulatory. There are absolutely no
new regulatory requirements or restrictions of any kind that
will come as part of this program.
It is 100-percent in compliance with and indeed compelled
by the National Environmental Policy Act. Through this
initiative, environmental, economic, and social concerns are
finally being integrated and brought into one coherent whole in
a way that is designed and driven by local communities.
It is also 100-percent directed by the President and Vice
President's effort to reinvent government. The initiative is a
directive to Federal agencies better to serve the citizens that
the meet, to do more with less, to cut red tape and bureaucracy
so citizens can access resources that they pay for in an
efficient and effective way.
What this initiative is not, it is not an attempt by
Federal agencies to take on new authorities and
responsibilities. Rather, it is an effort to execute current
authorities as those agencies are already directed to do, that
is, in a coherent and coordinated way, in a way that most
responsibly expends taxpayer's dollars, in a way that most
efficiently and effectively serves the citizens of this
country.
It is not an attempt to take anyone's private property.
Private property rights will in no way be adversely affected
through this effort. To dispel any notion to the contrary,
language on protecting private property rights penned by
President Reagan will be included in the final program.
Finally, this initiative is not a program of the United
Nations. No foreign government or governmental entitles are
involved in any way, either directly or as some have been
concerned, by way of deploying surveillance systems of some
kind. There is just nothing of the kind involved in this
initiative.
Mr. Chairman, we have consulted far and wide on this
initiative. This has been a very open and public process.
First, of course, the President announced it in the State of
the Union so that all could be aware.
Second, we immediately established a home page and a
hotline on this initiative, and we have received 31,000 hits to
that home page.
Third, we have held more than a dozen meetings in every
region of the country where hundreds of people representing
every walk of life, business, agriculture, arts, and education;
Federal, State, local governments; and environmental concerns
all participated.
Fourth, we have sent senior Administration officials to
every meeting we have been invited to by others on this
initiative. Mayors, Members of Congress, the American Farm
Bureau, property rights groups, the Western States Coalition,
to discuss this program and there have been at lest ten such
meetings, Texas, Washington State, Iowa, Missouri, et cetera.
Fifth, we published a Federal Register notice seeking
comment on every aspect of this program and we have now
extended the comment period so now we will have received more
than 90 days of comment on the program.
Sixth and finally, we have had at least 14 meetings on this
program on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Chairman, this ia a positive initiative. It is based on
principles this Congress and this Committee have espoused. It
is locally driven. It cuts bureaucracy and red tape. It brings
economic and social concerns in environmental decisions. Purely
and simply, it is government at the service of citizens.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Letter to Kathleen A. McGinty may be found at end of
hearing.]
[Statement of Kathleen A. McGinty may be found at end of
hearing.]
[Letter from Kathleen McGinty to Hon. Don Young may be
found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Secretary Babbitt, we will turn the
time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I
appreciate the chance to come back and appear before this
Committee and I would like briefly to describe for you the
roots of my involvement in this program.
It really began back in 1995 when this Congress was taking
a wrecking ball to the environmental laws of this country. I
responded by leaving town for considerable periods, because I
felt that it was really time to get out and reconnect with the
American people and see what I could learn about how the
environmental laws of this country were being used.
I very quickly discovered that there was something new
happening in this land, and you have already heard from the
Congressmen and from Katie about this phenomenon.
Citizens all over this country are turning back to
rediscover their heritage and their roots in the rivers that
nourish their communities and that are entwined in the history
of this country.
I spent 3 days going up the Hudson River that summer in the
area described by Mr. Hinchey, and I saw a remarkable
renaissance in communities like Poughkeepsie, Troy, and
Peekskill where waterfronts are literally being revived, and
what I heard from the citizens of those communities was that
part of that grassroots success in Poughkeepsie was their
ability to go to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, not in Washington, but at the local level and to
commandeer HUD resources and put them to use for their vision.
Up in Troy, I heard from a community, which has restored
its waterfront, about how they had gone to the Environmental
Protection Agency and brought those programs down and connected
them with that river. I heard communities talking about the
Corps of Engineers and how the Corps, at their request, had
joined in these partnership efforts.
I spent a summer day on the Susquehanna River in
Pennsylvania, floating down to Harrisburg and then floating
further down where I saw, as the Congressman intimated, on the
Lehigh River, a most extraordinary sight of that river. The
shad runs are now proliferating up that river, and what the
citizens in those communities told me was that they had gone to
the Fish and Wildlife Service and to the National Marine
Fisheries Service, not in Washington, but in their own
communities and the State of Pennsylvania and said, you are the
Federal Government, but you are here to serve us, and we are
going to show you want we need in this community.
Several months ago, actually in June of this very year, I
was out on the Cuyahoga River at the request of Congressman
Regula. I had visited the Cuyahoga a year before, because I
wanted to go back to where the river burned and to see what had
been happening out there in the last few years.
Of course, what I found, where the river burned was a lake
restored, and out on the Cuyahoga, I saw an entire new
riverfront development. I saw fishing boats out on the mouth of
that river. I saw blue herons sweeping down across the river in
search of a meal.
Congressman Regula took me upstream, 100 miles upstream, to
a national recreation area. Beyond that were the headwaters of
the Cuyahoga. I listened and met with citizens who told me that
as part of their effort to restore their river, they had gone
to the National Park Service--to the rivers, trails and
conservation division of the service--and to the heritage and
historic preservation groups and brought them into the
community and said, we want you to direct your efforts in aid
of our vision, and it is happening. The communities are driving
it. They came to this Congress last year and had their efforts
translated into legislation in the form of a heritage
conservation area.
Two more examples, because unlike the Congressman from
Pennsylvania, I believe these are western issues, and I want to
tell you, as a westerner, I believe that western communities
are as interested in this President's initiative as any
communities in the east.
I was out in Seattle during the course of the summer at a
place called Piper Creek, which runs through suburban Seattle
where I saw an entire high school and its teachers with their
kids out on Piper Creek saying we believe we can restore the
salmon running out of Puget Sound up Piper Creek into Seattle.
They took me out one summer day, and they actually showed me
that the salmon had returned for the first time within memory
of anyone in Seattle.
I said how did you do that, and they said we went to the
Environmental Protection Agency and got assistance at our
request to clean up a wastewater treatment plant. Then we went
downtown to the Fish and Wildlife Service and said what do we
need to do to get the salmon spawning in this stream.
Lastly, I would like to say just a word about the McKinsey
River in Oregon. This is a tributary of the Willamette River
which runs right by Eugene and several other cities. The
citizens have come together and formed what they call a
watershed council. It has on it county commissioners,
representatives of the local utility companies, educators,
citizens, and representatives from, I think it is Weyerhaeuser,
but, at any rate, a local forest products company. They have
set out to restore the entire river. It is a magical place when
you see the steelhead and the salmon spawning and they were in
danger of losing them. They are out there restoring wetlands,
planting alders and poplars along the banks of the river,
working with the county to put together a riparian protection
plan.
I asked them what can we do, and they said, Mrs. Smith,
they said we don't need any programs, any new programs. What we
need is access to existing resources. They said, we have gone
to the Forest Service, the Natural Resource Conservation
Service, and they are helping us do this. We have gone to the
Bureau of Land Management, and they are helping us inventory
the landscape around this river, and we have received some help
from the USGS. They are providing us hydrographic data sets and
maps.
It was at that moment that I realized what this concept is
about. It is not about new programs. It is, as Katie McGinty
said, about empowering citizens to access existing programs.
You have voted to help them, and we are reconnecting with their
effort.
That is, of course, the reason that the President in his
State of the Union address--I would like to showcase these
examples, and I would like to help local citizens get better
access to these resources by coordinating their availability.
And it is in that spirit I come here simply to recite my
experience and to say I think this is an important moment in
which this Congress, by helping us with these programs, can
come to the aid of your constituents all over this country.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Secretary Dan
Glickman, we will turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN ZIRSCHKY,
ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
ARMY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Glickman. Thank you, Jim. It is an honor to be here and
to be here with so many people that I served with before.
I would just make a couple comments. I hear a couple of
things being said today. One is, I hear from some folks about
this distrust of the Federal Government, and I served 18 years
in this body. I understand that. I would hear that from time to
time myself.
The other issue which my colleagues have talked about is
the issue of empowerment, which is there are communities in
this country who do use the resources that the taxpayers of
this country pay every year to try to help themselves, and the
goal is to try to find a way to give them the right to choose
how to spend the money in the most effective way possible.
How do you blend those two things? What we are trying to do
is to take a program to focus existing Federal resources on
helping communities achieve their vision for a rivers future,
not the government's vision, their vision, existing resources
achieving their vision, empowerment.
In a way actually, it reduces the kind of distrust there is
of the Federal Government because it gives them the power.
Let me tell you, I am involved with an issue on the
empowerment zones. Many of you in this room have experienced
it. We have a couple in particular, one in the Rio Grande
Valley of Texas, and one in the Mississippi Delta where what we
have done is taken existing resources in very distressed, poor
areas and given to the communities the power and the authority
to spend existing dollars, use existing laws to help them track
jobs, improve their environment, rebuild education systems
where appropriate, taking the programs that were there that
were rather hodgepodge and uncoordinated and saying to them,
you decide how best to coordinate those programs. You talk with
your representatives from the Mississippi Delta or south Texas
and they will tell you that for the first time, we actually
have those programs coming together in a rather meaningful way
to see economic development.
In a sense, the American Heritage Rivers program is like an
empowerment zone for rivers, to give people the authority at
the local level to spend those dollars and to coordinate those
resources as much as possible. We call it a river navigator,
but I would call it a river facilitator to cut through the red
tape and help obtain technical assistance and funding from
existing Federal programs.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides most of
the technical assistance on private lands in this country,
stream bank restoration, riparian restoration, those kinds of
things, working with landowners on a positive basis. The Forest
Service and other agencies do the same thing.
What this does is provide one-stop shopping, so that people
can come to basically one place with the mindset and the
innovation at the local level and say how best can we use these
Federal resources. This is something we are trying to do at
USDA generally.
Historically, we have had several shops out there and every
county in America advising farmers and ranchers how to do
certain things, and oftentimes, you would get conflicting
advice. What we are trying to do at USDA service centers around
the country is to in fact put in one office folks that serve
our farmers and rural communities so that the full range of
Federal help is there.
In a sense, that is what we are trying to do here on the
American Heritage Rivers Forum. We do that in our urban
resources partnership, which is done and many people in this
room and others have seen this program because it places
resources directly in the hands of communities together to
decide how best they can improve their areas in the urban parts
of this country in terms of resources.
It is the same kind of thing that we do here, so what USDA
will do is use our Forest Service, our Natural Resources
Conservation Service, our extension service, our farm service
agency and other parts of rural development to help with funds
and technical know-how.
We have agencies as does Secretary Babbitt known around the
world for successfully disseminating the latest science-based
technologies, information, land management practices, to help
landowners and communities utilize their resources in a
responsible way, but it is the local communities that are going
to decide basically what is the responsible way to use these.
It is not the Federal Government. We have funds and technical
assistance to help people to do that.
I want to repeat a few things before I stop. This program
is not a new regulatory program. We will continue to support
voluntary community-led grassroots efforts.
It is not an expensive new program. We can use existing
funds to get this done, just using them in a more effective
way, and it is not a new legal mandate. The initiative will
operate within already existing programs and legal authority.
No new authorizations are asked for or are needed.
Last week, this Congress approved a bill, and I believe it
came out of this Committee, if I am not mistaken, the Quincy
Library Group's pilot project. I was actually very much
involved in that. I went out there to Quincy Library Group and
talked with them 2 years ago, right after I came to this job,
and they said to me they had environmentalists, they had timber
people, they had local community people, and they said we would
like to come together to see what we can do locally to best
manage our forests.
All of you working with them and working with a variety of
groups approved a bill 429 to one, I believe, which is a
demonstration of how people with divergent groups, local
communities, can draw down and lay down their proverbial swords
and work together to develop a plan that provides environmental
and fire protection and keep some timber mills open as well.
I guess what I am saying is that the communities are very
diverse out there. They are not all of one mindset. They are
going to sit down together and try to develop a consensus to
get this done.
We think this proposal has a great opportunity to empower
local communities to use resources in a much more effective way
than they are doing right now. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony
of the panel.
I am going to recognize the members in the order they came
in from majority to minority, and I would appreciate it very
much if you would stay within your time. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to commend
you for your testimony and for the process that you have
undertaken, and thank you for extending the comment period, but
for the process that you have undertaken on behalf of this
initiative.
Again, the suggestion has been made that somehow, this is a
surprise, that this is--I guess if you weren't listening to the
State of the Union, that somehow, this has snuck up on
everybody. I look at the list of organizations, the national
organizations that you have notified, from the forest products
people, the pulp people all over the different States, river
basins; the Governors' association; the National Rifle
Association; the sporting goods manufacturers; the tribal
councils of all the various States and regions and their
organizations; local regulatory agencies and planning
associations; towns and townships; various educational and
environment organizations; various nonprofit organizations; all
of the water interests; the petroleum industry, the refiners'
association; the people that basically were brought up around
the river communities.
We have all used these rivers at different times for
different purposes. And a lot of communities are now rethinking
what is the future of their river, and what can be restored and
as communities have changed, what additional values can be
brought to the river or how have values changed in the
communities from the way the rivers were used in the past.
I just think that again, this is a very, very welcome
initiative. Good portions of our Nation are going through this
kind of rethinking as they are trying to build livable
communities, as they are trying to get on that list of good
places to retire, good places to live, a place to take a
vacation.
If you walk by the magazine racks in an airport, the lists
are out, because it is the beginning of summer--where to spend
your money, where to take a vacation, where to get away from it
all, where are you safe. Whether they are big urban cities on
big rivers or whether they are small towns looking to see how
they can change from one economy to another, they want to
engage in this process.
I think to have the Federal Government suggest that we are
going to try to come in a cooperative manner rather than
sitting back and waiting for you to come up with an idea, then
we will whack it around for a few months and bounce it around,
and tell you we will get back to you later, that we will get in
on the ground floor is exciting.
It is exciting. In fact, probably this initiative, as
creative as it is for the Federal Government, it is probably a
little bit behind what is going on in local communities. But it
brings some very added direction in terms of instructing these
agencies to try and work together for the benefit of these
communities. If the resources of somebody in a position like
the navigator can be created, that is a godsend when you are
trying to do this kind of comprehensive planning.
I just think that the fact that again, we have two of the
lead agencies, departments, right here in front of us that have
an awful lot to say about the life cycle of these rivers, from
the headwaters to the oceans, between the Interior and
Agriculture, there is an awful lot you can do to help
communities. There is an awful lot you can do to just sort of
go along with business as usual.
We would prefer that you try to help the communities, and I
guess there will be an effort to knock this off the track. That
seems pretty clear. I only hope that Members of Congress fully
understand, Ms. McGinty, as you have pointed out, the voluntary
nature of this: the fact of the community seeking these
resources, seeking this help, that that is the initiator. It is
not the Federal Government coming in and directing them how to
do this or not do this, but there is certainly ample evidence
that there is a lot of enthusiasm in the various river
communities for a program of rehabilita-
tion in some instances or just recognizing the culture and
history of these rivers.
I come from the San Francisco Bay area, and we come in
through the Delta from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers,
and one of them is dead and runs into the ground, and the other
is in a lot of trouble. In the State, we have obviously put a
lot of value on these rivers in the last couple of years. With
the help of the Federal Government, as I said, we are talking
about $500,000,000 to try to go back and correct some of the
mistakes that everybody now acknowledges were made.
I think if we would have had a process like this in the
beginning where we could have thought about in a comprehensive
way what some of the results might have been, how much money we
could have saved, and maybe some of the parts of that river
community that could have been preserved.
We used to have a wonderful Italian fishing community,
commercial fishing industry, that just went by the wayside
because we weren't smart enough about the refineries and their
impacts on the rivers. Today, we have cleaned up the river, but
there is nobody left to fish in it in terms of the skills and
the talent.
There is a lot to be learned from this initiative. I would
hope that people would give it very, very serous consideration.
I certainly applaud the President for this and for the time and
effort that the three of you have put into this to make a very,
very user-friendly effort by the Administration.
Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Montana, Mr.
Hill, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Coming from the State
with the original river that runs through it, Montanans take
great pride in their rivers and as a matter of fact, have taken
great strides in making sure that our rivers are protected. I
think we have among the most difficult, if you will, or
toughest water quality standards in the Nation.
I just have a few questions, and I will start by saying
that with all the success stories that you have outlined,
perhaps that would make the most compelling argument that you
don't need this program rather than that you do need it.
I can certainly see that in many instances, people believe
that the myriad of bureaucracy that we have in the government
makes it difficult to solve problems when people want to draw
together to do that.
Katie, you have held briefing sessions around the country
on this program, as I recall. Is that correct?
Ms. McGinty. Yes. We have had formal meetings in more than
12 places in every region of the country.
Mr. Hill. Have you done any briefing sessions at all in
Montana with any groups on this issue?
Ms. McGinty. I could get back to you on that. I don't know
off the top of my head that one has been in Montana, but there
certainly has been one in that region of the country.
Mr. Hill. I would appreciate if you would make that
information available for the record.
Ms. McGinty. Sure.
Mr. Hill. I would also be curious about who got invited to
those meetings and how the list of people that was invited was
selected and that sort of thing so we would have that for the
record.
If I could just ask a few questions about this being a
collaborative process, because I am a big proponent of the
collaborative method of dealing with, I guess, what you would
say is the gridlock with regard to the conflict between
economic and environmental policy with regard to the country.
When you talk about seeking designation, would, for
example, you insist on having the Governor of the State's
support before you would designate a river in a State a
heritage river?
Ms. McGinty. A central element of this program is that any
applications that come forward, and again, they come forward
from the grass roots needs to show broad-based support and a
central piece of that will be the support of elected officials.
Mr. Hill. But would the Governor's support be important, do
you think?
Ms. McGinty. It would be of extreme importance.
Mr. Hill. So if the Governor was opposed, would you say
that that would automatically suggest to you that you don't
have broad-based public support?
Ms. McGinty. I would say that would be an extremely high
hurdle for that particular river.
Mr. Hill. How about local governments, county and city
governments? Would you be seeking the county and city
governments--would that be a necessary element?
Ms. McGinty. Again, this is bottom-up, so we will be
seeking no one on this, but if an application comes forward, we
would very much expect to see, and the Federal Register notice
is very clear on this, letters of support or endorsement from a
broad spectrum, including local representatives and locally
elected officials.
Mr. Hill. So if local governments were opposed and a
citizens' group wanted a listing, in your judgment, would that
rule out then a listing designation?
Ms. McGinty. I think it would make it very difficult. That
would be an extremely high hurdle for that particular
application.
Mr. Hill. And the citizens' group that we are talking
about, these grassroots groups, do you have in mind or do you
intend to have in the rules that there be local government
officials represented in these citizens' groups in terms of
both seeking the designation, and then if the designation is
sought, setting the goals, and also hiring, for example, the
coordinator? Would you see that local government people--in
your view, would local government people have to be part of
that process?
Ms. McGinty. It would be extremely important, and that is
noted in the Federal Register again. I guess I would note on
that point as well that the Conference of Mayors, for example,
has unanimously passed a resolution in support of this
initiative, so we have been reaching out to make sure that
local government entities are very well aware of this program.
Mr. Hill. One last question. One of the things that I heard
in your testimony and in Secretary Babbitt's testimony was a
discussion about restoring waterfronts and rivers that have
problems.
Those of us in the west, of course, see the resource of
water a little differently. Because we have protected our
water, we look upon water and these rivers, of course, as
potential for economic development, the use of the water and
the use of the water areas as opposed to restoring them.
Are you going to make a commitment here that you will be
working with those of us in the west where we want to see
development of our water resources, that this effort will be an
equal effort to helping us if our local communities want to
develop those resources as opposed to just focusing on
restoring environmental damage that has occurred in the past?
Ms. McGinty. Absolutely, and the central focus of this
initiative is to show the integration between economic and
historic and cultural factors with the environment, what was
typically thought of only as an environmental issue to show the
interlinkages between economic and cultural-social factors with
environmental issues.
Mr. Hill. Certainly, I think we can all agree that the
resource of the U.S. Government can solve problems or compound
them, and it is my hope that if you go forward with this
program, that it will be solving problems, not compounding
them.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I need some
help in understanding some of the definitions that are in this
proposal.
First of all, tell me exactly who would be included or what
is included in the river community? Is it just a section of a
river or is it the whole river? What happens when there is a
conflict between one party of one section of the river wanting
this designation and someone else upstream, downstream,
wherever it may be, not wanting this? What do you see as the
river community? Who is going to compose that river community?
Ms. McGinty. Certainly not the Federal Government. This
again will not be a top-down command-and-control, one-size-
fits-all. It----
Mr. Gibbons. I understand that. That was part of your
testimony.
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mr. Gibbons. On the local level, who is going to be in this
river community?
Ms. McGinty. It will have to be a broad and diverse
constituency of people who not only have an interest in but
live in or are connected to or are a part of that community.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me give you an example. For example, if I
went to my colleague, Mr. Hill's, State and went fishing on the
Missouri River, I am a user of that river. Am I now part of
that river community because I use it as a recreationist or
some other part of that river exercise? Can I then say or
petition the government as a user of that river to have it
included?
Ms. McGinty. That is not at all what we have in mind. The
thought behind this is people who find that community and call
that community their home.
Mr. Gibbons. So you would say residents along the river
would have the ability to choose whether or not that river
would be designated.
Ms. McGinty. We would be looking for very strong and
lasting connections to the area that----
Mr. Gibbons. Fishing is a strong and lasting connection to
me, so you are going to say that that is not a qualification.
Ms. McGinty. If you came to the table with an application
that was supported by a broad spectrum of people who have lived
there for 100 years or who have lived there or are going to
call this their home for 100 years, that would make a
difference.
Mr. Gibbons. So a special interest can't just waltz into
your community without local support and get it designated.
Ms. McGinty. Right.
Mr. Gibbons. Right. How many river communities along a
stretch of river do you envision?
Ms. McGinty. Again, that will depend on how many
communities are interested in pursuing an application.
Mr. Gibbons. Now, if we had the Missouri River, and say we
had ten river communities seeking application for designation
as an American Heritage river, would we then have ten river
navigators for each one of those communities?
Ms. McGinty. Not necessarily. Each of those river
communities would have identified to them a river navigator.
Now, whether or not that river navigator could serve more than
one community, I think would have to be dependent upon the
complexity of the issues that are being faced and the demand on
the person.
Mr. Gibbons. Technically, you are saying there could be?
Ms. McGinty. Could be, again, depending on the
circumstances, but also could not be.
Mr. Gibbons. The river navigator has the ability to
evaluate local solutions to local problems. Does that
evaluation include being able to change the local community's
desires or their solutions to the environmental problems?
Ms. McGinty. No, the river navigator will have no
decisionmaking authority of that kind.
Mr. Gibbons. Secretary Babbitt, you have thought about this
American Heritage River program for about 7 months now, haven't
you?
Mr. Babbitt. Well, Congressman, since, I would say the
beginning of 1995 actually.
Mr. Gibbons. So 2 years, a little over 2 years now. Name
for this Committee the top ten rivers that you are going to
recommend under the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Mr. Babbitt. Well, in all modesty, Congressman, I don't
think I am going to make the recommendation. It is not my
function.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, you have thought about it. You have
envisioned them, you have talked about them, and you have some
out there. Can't you tell this Committee? Why won't you tell
this Committee the ten you would recommend?
Mr. Babbitt. The reason I can't tell this Committee,
Congressman, is because that is not the idea of this program.
The idea of the program is to say to communities around the
United States, if you are interested in this program and if you
have all of the stakeholders in your community interested, make
your case.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, there are some rivers----
Mr. Babbitt. Don't you see that----
Mr. Gibbons. I see your position, but I say there are some
rivers that deserve a higher priority. The Hudson might have a
higher priority than the Boise River in Idaho.
Mr. Babbitt. But in my testimony, the point that I made
repeatedly was, what this is really about is about responding
to local needs expressed compellingly by local people. That is
from where it has got to come.
I could point you to a lot of really interesting river
restoration issues. For example, in the west, if you were to go
up to Henry's Fork in Idaho, you would see a really remarkable
group of people working together there. They are all over the
landscape. They are in every state, and it is a powerful,
grassroots movement which I think involves the very best of the
American tradition.
The irony is that we have a Republican bench here voicing
skepticism and outright opposition to a concept which you
should be embracing because of its obvious and powerful
orientation to empowering local communities.
Mr. Hansen. The time for the gentleman from Nevada has
expired. As we are a little heavy on the Republican side, I am
going to take one more Republican, and then we will go back and
forth, if that is all right with everybody. That is what we
have done in the past.
Staff tells me that we have two folks here that are good
for information we may want. Mr. Robert H. Wayland, Director of
the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We have two
additional chairs on either end. Maybe we could put these folks
up, and Mr. John Zirschky, Acting Assistant Secretary of Civil
Works, Department of the Army in Washington, DC. Maybe we could
ask those two folks to come up for questions.
We will go to Mr. Crapo for 5 minutes, and then the
gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crapo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Babbitt, I
would just say you are correct about the significant progress
we have been making on the Henry's Fork in Idaho.
The concerns that we have are that we have been able to do
that without this initiative, and we are concerned frankly that
perhaps this initiative would put the Federal Government in
charge of the very process that has helped us make such good
progress. We want to make sure that it works right and is
facilitated properly.
That is the reason for a lot of these questions. Ms.
McGinty, I think I will focus my questions on you to speak,
because I believe you have the expertise and understanding of
the development of this, and most of my questions are going to
be somewhat technical as to how it operates.
The first question is, who is in the American Heritage
Rivers Federal interagency team? Who is that?
Ms. McGinty. Well, it would include representatives of the
12 or 13 different agencies who are coming together to be part
of this initiative. If you would like, I could read those off.
Mr. Crapo. No, I just wanted to understand it. The way I
read the documents, it sounded like it was Federal officials.
Ms. McGinty. I am sorry, Federal?
Mr. Crapo. It sounded like it was a group of Federal
officials representing the agencies.
Ms. McGinty. Exactly right. That is what the interagency
team is. Yes.
Mr. Crapo. I know that there have already been questions
here about the river community, but bottom line, after you look
at all the qualifications and who might qualify to be in it and
so forth, who picks the river community?
Ms. McGinty. There will be a process through which the
applications again, which come from the communities themselves,
will be reviewed by at least the interagency team, but this is
a question, a specific question that we have posed for public
comment, what is the best process we might put together for the
final selection of which rivers should be part of the program.
Mr. Crapo. I will give you my public comment on that right
now, and it gets back to the Henry's Fork that has been working
out in Idaho, and that is, if you have a Federal team picking
who the community representatives will be, that doesn't quite
to me sound like the community-based decisionmaking that will
work.
Ms. McGinty. Let me be clear, Congressman, I am sorry. At
the end of the day, the selection process will not select the
local community or the local plan or who at the local level
participates. The only question is, when we receive, which has
been commented on before, what I think will be many, many more
applications than the ten rivers we imagined, how do we pick
our way through all of those applications to select the ten
that we can focus on, and that is a question that we have posed
for public comment, who would be the best panel or body of
people to help us make that decision.
Mr. Crapo. I think the question I am trying to get at then
is whatever the title is or the name is, we are talking here
about community-based decisionmaking.
Ms. McGinty. Yes.
Mr. Crapo. I want to be sure that the people who live in
the community are the ones who choose who is in their
community. Is that going to happen under this initiative?
Ms. McGinty. Yes, that would absolutely be the case.
Mr. Crapo. So we are not going to have a Federal team or a
Federal official who says yes, this person is in the community,
this person is not.
Ms. McGinty. No, we will not define the community,
referring back to the earlier questions.
Mr. Crapo. Then I assume that to participate with the
Federal Government in this initiative, some river community has
to become qualified to be a river community. Who decides what
river community is qualified to be the river community?
Ms. McGinty. What we are looking for is a broad spectrum of
people.
Mr. Crapo. But you are looking. That is my point is not
what you are looking for, but who makes that final decision?
The reason I ask is because we are having a dispute in
Idaho right now on another watershed where two groups are
competing as to which one is the community that gets to be
involved in the collaborative decisionmaking process.
I want to know, when that happens, do you or does a Federal
official decide under this initiative who is the river
community?
Ms. McGinty. That may be a very good example of the broad
support that will be looked for as these applications come
forward. If it is the case that there is this significant
disagreement in the community, that would be an application, I
would think, that would have a very high hurdle to overcome.
Mr. Crapo. But the bottom line is, it would be decided here
in Washington.
Ms. McGinty. It would probably be fatal to it. What is
decided here in Washington is only among the applications that
we no doubt will receive, which ones can we focus on first, but
the details of who is a member of the community, what does the
community envision as its future, what tools, what assistance
from the Federal Government does the community want and does
the community not want, that will be purely and wholly in the
province of local citizens.
Mr. Crapo. One last question, and I really should have
spent my whole 5 minutes on this one, and that is, it seems to
me that if we are going to try to facilitate--you and I have
had many communications about the problems of managing the
Columbia River system, and it has all of the problems, I think,
that any river system could present.
Is this new decisionmaking body or this new effort going to
actually have authority to make decisions like Endangered
Species Act decisions, or will that still be decided in the
current system that we have under Federal law?
Ms. McGinty. All according to the current system. There is
no new authorities that are presented from this program.
Mr. Crapo. My time is up. I would like to explore with you
why it would help to add another Federal regime on top of the
current system and not change the current system, but I guess I
will have to do that at another time. Maybe I can meet with you
and we can discuss that.
Ms. McGinty. I would be happy to.
Mr. Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands.
Ms. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
testimony and I do share your enthusiasm for this initiative. I
have three questions.
Ms. McGinty, you said that there were about 31,000 hits on
the American Heritage web page. About how many of them were
opposed to the initiative?
Ms. McGinty. I would have to respond in terms of exact
numbers, but we have received overwhelming statements of
support on this initiative. I mentioned the Conference of
Mayors unanimously voting in favor, and in fact, that
resolution was introduced by a western mayor, Wellington Webb,
from Denver, Colorado.
We have just received significant amounts of positive
interest and support for the program.
Ms. Green. Thank you. Going back to the question that I
raised in my opening statement, I am not sure who would be best
to answer this, but is there any requirement that might
preclude Salt River from being designated if we chose to apply?
Maybe Secretary Babbitt.
Ms. McGinty. Is there anything that I would be aware of now
that would preclude the application?
Ms. Green. Yes.
Ms. McGinty. I would be aware of nothing, but I enjoyed
very much your recitation of the history of that river.
Ms. Green. Finally, I am at a loss, and maybe you can help
me to understand why and where does the objection to this
initiative come from, because it recognizes and it supports the
bond and the romance that people have always had with their
rivers, which has been memorialized by many of our great poets.
It protects the resource, it is locally driven, it cuts
Federal red tape, it encourages broad public comment, and it
revitalizes our towns and cities, so I don't know--I am trying
to figure out where the objections come from.
Ms. McGinty. Well, we have been a bit surprised ourselves.
We have extended the public comment period to make sure that
anyone who has a view gets a chance to comment, but as I
reflected in my testimony, there have been some who have been
afraid, for example, that the United Nations is somehow
involved in this program which we have been trying very clearly
to dispel any notion that that is the case.
I don't know where ideas like that originate, but we
certainly find them troubling and want to be of service to
dispel those kinds of misapprehensions.
Ms. Green. Thank you. No further questions.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Just the order that I have coming
in, next on the Republican side would be Smith, Chenoweth,
Duncan, Cannon, Schaffer, Doolittle; on the Democratic side
would be Hinchey, Abercrombie, Romero-Barcelo, Kildee, and
Faleomavaega. If anybody wants to argue with that, switch with
your neighbor, if that is the case, and John Peterson.
John, I think you are just in front of John Doolittle, so I
know this is tense information for all of you, but I will get
to you, believe me.
The gentlelady from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It sounds like there
is a lot of consensus, and one thing that I listened to the
passion of Mr. Babbitt about the community efforts, and I share
that passion. I have traveled the State and worked with any
different groups in my region and other parts of the State.
The community successes are so great, but there is a joke
in the communities, and it is about a farmer, but they often
apply it to themselves. There is a knock at the door, and the
culmination of this joke is, we are the Federal Government and
we are here to help you.
It isn't really a very funny joke, because many of them
have so many overlapping Federal interventions, and they are
already suc-
ceeding when they can get us with our good intentions out of
their way.
I don't even question your passion or your good intentions,
but you stated, as did Mr. Miller, who is now gone, all of
these success stories that happened from individual
initiatives, State cooperative efforts, and now, all of a
sudden, we have decided we are going to add another person.
I did want to clarify that to you, that it is the question
of adding another layer. Does that really bring it together or
does it cause more questions? Is the Columbia River Gorge up
first? Is the environmental action up first? Is the issue of
tributaries up first?
We have so many different layers. Now, you say you are
going to cooperate and help coordinate, and it only will come
from our State, but what we found in the Columbia River Gorge
is that those that were--by the way, the word connected scared
the soup out of me, connected, that they hiked in the Columbia
River Gorge. Very few of the folks that are administering that
program really have much to do with the taking of property that
has happened, as you can't even use your property in the
Columbia River Gorge.
But diverting back to my concern, it is very hard for all
these communities that finally succeed when the Federal
Government, no matter how well intentioned you are with another
agency or another passion from your heart, to really believe
that if they are already being successful, that they need your
passion.
With that, I am going to turn back, Mr. Babbitt, to some
budget questions, because that is my heart. I am very concerned
about the budget.
I have heard you testify about increasing people for
environmental programs, increasing budgets, and how there is
not enough money. I also believe that comes from your heart,
but I guess my question is, you are asking for, and I have the
budget--are you going to ask for specific FTEs for the
navigator position? If so, how many? Do you plan to submit a
reprogramming request to the Congress for the use of the funds
for an unauthorized program?
Could you give me a preliminary on what your budget is
going to look like in the request for this new program? Then
would you tell me, being that you have too much money in other
programs, which ones you are going to reduce the FTEs on in the
other programs, because again, you have testified so eloquently
on not having enough money and then traveled the Nation saying
that you didn't have enough money.
So share with me why you have too much money now that you
can start another program.
Mr. Babbitt. Congresswoman Smith, I appreciate your
compliments on my eloquence.
Mrs. Smith. I think I said passion, but eloquence is fine.
Mr. Babbitt. Passion. Let me see if I can translate that
into just a couple of detailed observations.
The first one that I would like to re-emphasize to you is
that this kind of approach is grounded indeed in what is
already happening, and it is a very new way of looking at how
communities can achieve their results, because decisions are
not made by the agencies. Decisions are made by the community
who in the process of working on river restoration inevitably
turns to the Fish and Wild-
life Service, the Park Service, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. There is a profound revolutionary
distinction here, because for the first time, this
Administration is saying to communities, you are in command.
You go to those Federal agencies and tell them what you want.
It seems to me that that should be enormously appealing.
Now, what have we learned in places like the Willamette
Valley? Let me tell you what I have learned from those
experiences.
When a community which has set out to restore its watershed
begins to look around and say, we need a hydrographic data set
from the geological survey, we would like a watershed analysis,
a hydrologist, actually, from the Bureau of Land Management. We
would like a grant from the Natural Resources Conservation
Service. We would like some help from the Corps of Engineers.
It gets pretty confusing, and what we have actually already
found is that it is very helpful to say to those communities,
we are going to put John Jones from the Fish and Wildlife
Service at the other end of the telephone.
Mrs. Smith. Mr. Babbitt, we are going to have to conclude.
I am understanding what you are saying. I don't understand why
it has to be done with this action as you have it now.
My question isn't being answered. I have the spreadsheet on
the expected FTEs needed for this new program. I understand
your desire to coordinate, although from my experience, we are
already doing it and very successfully so.
Would you please tell me where you are going to show us
that you are going to shift FTEs, that is the employees--you
are hiring a bunch of new employees, what agencies you are
going to shift them from, or are you going to ask for an
appropriation? If so, would you please put that in writing,
because, see, we are supposed to pay the bills of the country,
and we are supposed to authorize programs, and even though you
think this is right, we probably should debate whether or not
this new program is started.
If you would give us the budget numbers for that, that is
what I am really asking for.
Mr. Babbitt. Let me just briefly tell you what I might do
and then refer you to Ms. McGinty.
If push comes to shove, I think what I would probably do is
call up the person from the Fish and Wildlife Service who is
answering the phone in that river valley and say keep doing
what you are doing. You are now the river navigator.
Mrs. Smith. So you would say the people that were providing
a service before of answering the phone now would become the
river navigator, so we really didn't need the person answering
the phone?
Mr. Babbitt. Quite to the contrary. We do need the person
answering the phone, and that is why they are answering it
right now.
Mrs. Smith. We are just going to rename them something else
now, retitle them, but how could they spend all their time as a
river navigator when we needed them so desperately for
answering the phone before?
I guess what we need to do is, you describe why we don't
need the other services and why we need the new program. Again,
please, give me in writing where you plan on reducing other
services and adding this new one.
Mr. Babbitt. I would be very happy to order Ms. McGinty to
provide you those figures.
Mrs. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babbitt.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman from New York. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It seems to
me that some of the opposition at least to this program seems
to be fairly even-handed.
On the one hand, some people are afraid that their
communities will be designated and their rivers will be
designated. Then on the other hand, they are worried that
somebody else may be designated and thereby get the benefits
that they won't. It is kind of an interesting situation.
The points that you made in your testimony about the
voluntary nature of this project are, of course, ones that need
to be emphasized again and again, because I think it is those
points that precisely answer some of the criticism or what
seems to be the criticism.
I am wondering, in the short period of time since the
President announced the program and now, what kind of
indications have you had of support from communities around the
country? What kind of inquiries have you had for information?
Even what attempts have there been to make application for the
program up to this point?
Ms. McGinty. We have had extensive statements of support
for the program. I have mentioned the mayors' resolution, but
in addition to that, mayors in different parts of the country
are coming together themselves. In the upper Mississippi, there
are some 20 mayors who are coming together voluntarily to say
we think that this can be a great economic driver for us if we
get this label and this kind of exposure on this program.
In addition to that, we have heard from a diversity of
interests. Local government, yes, but business concerns,
environmental and recreation concerns, people from all
different walks of life have been interested in this program.
Mr. Hinchey. Have there also been expressions of fear, even
outrage, about some of the implications that are imagined to
flow from a project like this?
Ms. McGinty. There have been some, and we have been
determined to do our best to be responsive to those concerns.
For example, just on Saturday, I traveled to Washington State
to visit with a group called the Western States Coalition, a
property rights group, that I know Congresswoman Chenoweth
spoke to the night before I did.
We are making ourselves available to every group, no matter
what their viewpoint, to share with them every piece of
information we have and to get their ideas on how this program
can best be formulated.
Mr. Hinchey. And you have addressed this on a number of
occasions, but I want to give you an opportunity to do so
again, and that is, with regard to concerns about the
regulatory nature of the program, my understanding is that this
is not a regulatory pro-
gram at all. This is a program that does not vest in anyone any
new regulatory authority, but merely seeks to coordinate more
effectively and more efficiently those activities that are
being conducted by the Federal Government often in cooperation
with State and local governments, and to bring the services
that are deemed by virtue of present law necessary for the
benefit of the people to flow to those constituencies more
readily and more effectively.
Ms McGinty. That is exactly right, and the President is--
there has been concern raised that the public isn't well enough
aware of this program. The whole point here is to shine a
spotlight on resources that are already out there, that the
citizens of this country pay for, but they have little or no
idea that they are there to be of service to them.
We are highlighting it for specifically that reason so that
citizens know about it and have an ability to access it.
Mr. Hinchey. There is, I think, a great deal of concern and
interest and support for this program, especially perhaps in
the eastern part of the country, because as Representative
McHale observed, it is precisely the rivers in the eastern part
of the country that have been the most abused for a longer
period of time.
Secretary Babbitt makes the point that there are rivers
also in the western part of the country and the people in that
part of the country are equally concerned about the health and
vitality of their rivers.
I know that there has been a lot of attention paid, say,
for example, to the Columbia River basin, and people there are
concerned about it. Perhaps, Mr. Secretary, you would like to
speak to the kinds of activities that the Federal Government
has engaged there in the Columbia River basin and how a program
like this might help to coordinate those activities and improve
them.
Mr. Babbitt. Congressman, just a couple of thoughts. I grew
up alongside the Colorado River. That is a river which no
longer reaches tidewater. It is not as if there hasn't been
some development going on in the west.
We are dealing in the California Bay delta with the San
Joaquin River which doesn't make it to the delta.
I do think that the restoration issues in the west are
surprisingly similar to the issues in the east. I would say as
a generalization that east of the Mississippi we tend to be
dealing with industrial pollution as the No. 1 issue. West of
the Mississippi, we tend to be worrying about water quantity
and efficient use and how it is we balance irrigation,
hydropower, and fish runs with maintaining instream flows or
adequate protection of all the other values.
Mr. Hinchey. I thank you all very much for your testimony
and your candid answers to these questions. Mr. Chairman, thank
you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer Mr.
Hinchey's question since the Secretary didn't.
What the Federal Government is planning on doing to the
Columbia River is bypassing dams and taking that working river
and no longer allowing us the ability to have low cost
hydroelectric power. You noticed the Secretary didn't want to
answer your question.
I do want to say that in the west, we have working rivers
because we are a working State. We also have enough rivers in
our roadless and wilderness areas to put four eastern States
inside our wilderness areas, so we have rivers of all kinds.
Mr. Hinchey. Would the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. Chenoweth. I will yield on your time, sir.
I do want to say that I have before me an executive order
that was drafted, Ms. McGinty, and so whether we have the
consent of Congress or not, I guess the President is going to
go ahead and do this by executive order.
It states that NEPA and FAQA give him the ability to
combine 12 agencies and their resources and all the rules and
regulations that empower these agencies to embark on this new
program.
I do not find anywhere in NEPA or FAQA the authorization
for the President to embark on this kind of program. I would
like for either you or Mr. Babbitt to give us a written opinion
as to where the authority lies in these two statutes that he
cited.
I also want to refer, Ms. McGinty, to your statement where
you indicated that some people are worried about this being
brought on by the United Nations, and I do want to say that I
have not heard anyone, anyone in this body talking about this
project being connected with the U.N. This is not an issue
involving the U.N. It is an issue involving States' rights and
private property rights.
You also indicated there was nothing about aerial
photography----
Ms. McGinty. Surveillance.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, you are very good at wordsmithing,
but in your Federal Register publication, you do talk about
aerial photography. There are enough photographs of our rivers
done by various agencies over the years that certainly the
results of those photographs and satellite surveillances could
certainly be used without having this in the Federal Register.
People who have been concerned about aerial photography
probably have a reason to be concerned if it is in the Federal
Register.
I do want to say that you talk about there being no new
regulations and no new agencies, but Ms. McGinty, we are
sitting here facing two people who sit on the President's
Cabinet, and I imagine you sit in on it quite often.
We are talking about three people who say there will be
nothing new, and yet you are proposing to bring 12 agencies to
bear on helping communities become empowered.
With all the rules and regulations behind them to enforce
with, we don't exactly feel sanguine about this. We don't
believe that you are really going to empower communities, and
while my good colleague, Congressman McHale from Pennsylvania,
talked about President Roosevelt had to deal with the greed of
the time when people misused our resources, yes, he did.
But indeed, this is what is happening as I listen to this
testimony. You are proposing to use funds that this Congress
has allocated for certain specific purposes, and holding out
the carrot of the dollars to certain communities, you are
appealing to the nature of wanting more Federal dollars in
certain communities.
I think that would be fine if this particular White House
were as concerned about balancing the budget, making sure that
we can allocate the scarce resources and scarce tax dollars
into Medicare and Social Security, and the needs of humans.
This is almost a situation of Marie Antoinette saying if the
peasants don't have bread, let us give them cake.
The problem is that when we find, and I agree with Mrs.
Smith about the fact that the Secretary, Mr. Babbitt, spoke
very eloquently and passionately about floating from the rivers
in the east or the midwest into the west, floating down the
McKinsey and into the Willamette Valley, but sir, with all due
respect and I really mean this for the office that you hold, I
suggest you spend time on the tidal basin, truly, or in the
Anacostia River. Truly, I do. This is the government's city,
and this is where you can set the example. Let us clean up our
own house first and then look to the other areas that may need
to be cleaned up.
We already have the clean water standards that the areas
that you talked about have already apparently responded to to a
degree, because they are restoring without this American
Heritage Rivers Initiative, communities are restoring
themselves.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The time of the gentlelady has
expired. The gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Babbitt, I
can't remember your entire background. I don't believe you are
necessarily an engineer, but one of the points was made in this
past admonition with respect to States' rights, property
rights, expenditures and balancing the budget.
If I wasn't mistaken in there, I heard the phrase low cost
hydroelectric power. If I am not mistaken, doesn't a lot of
that low cost hydroelectric power come as a result of Federal
expenditures to see to it that people who are the beneficiaries
of that get it at a heck of a lot lower cost than they would
otherwise if they were paying for it themselves exclusively,
locally?
Mr. Babbitt. Congressman, I think that is a fair statement.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK. Thank you. In other words, there is a
role for the Federal Government, isn't there, when our House
constitutes the Nation's house, and those of us who might not
be the immediate beneficiaries of something like low cost
hydroelectric power nonetheless help to pay for it, because we
all consider ourselves brothers and sisters in this Nation.
Mrs. Chenoweth. If the gentleman will yield----
Mr. Abercrombie. No, I cannot yield. You can speak on your
own time, I think is the expression.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That was----
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, would you direct the member,
please, to allow me to have my own time?
Mr. Hansen. This is Mr. Abercrombie's time.
Mr. Abercrombie. Now----
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Abercrombie----
Mr. Abercrombie. [continuing] Mr. Babbitt, in case you were
not able to hear all of that, is it not the case that there are
instances in this country in which as a result of the
utilization of our natural resources and a combination of
Federal dollars that comes from all of us, do we not regard
each other as brothers and sisters in a house that constitutes
the United States of America and are quite willing to help with
Federal dollars, tax dollars, different sections of the country
whether we benefit immediately from it or not, because we see
it in the Nation's interest?
Mr. Babbitt. Congressman, I share the sentiment which you
have expressed.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much. Now, with regard to
the local recommendations and the heritage rivers, let us get
back to that. I realize it is not always an easy task to
determine which constitutes the voice of a community or
communities. I think Ms. McGinty responded to that. If I
understood her point correctly, if there is contention at the
local level or the regional level with respect to the
suitability of a river or a river in a region being suitable,
if there is contention about that, if there is discussion, that
would probably make it more difficult for them ultimately then
to be recommended, right?
Mr. Babbitt. Congressman, I think that is correct, yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. Now, with regard to the recommendations,
this does constitute a competition in some respects. That is a
fair statement also, isn't it?
Mr. Babbitt. Sure.
Mr. Abercrombie. Many might call, but not everyone will be
chosen at least initially. It may take a period of time.
Now, in that regard then, isn't the idea of the navigator
and this is a legislative process after all--you are not fixed
on this, right? We could perhaps modify this if there is
commentary and testimony in that direction.
But if the case is that we generally come up with what you
are proposing, isn't the object of the navigator and the object
of the program to make available to local communities services
of the Federal Government which are already being paid for
about which they may not be necessarily be aware? They may not
be fully informed, right?
Mr. Babbitt. That is correct.
Mr. Abercrombie. Along with regulation also comes services,
does it not, and those things are not necessarily always
understood by everybody or immediately available to them.
Would the duty of the navigator be to work something like
with the base closures? I want to draw a parallel there.
We have a base closure coordinator in my area that has been
invaluable in terms of running interference between Federal,
local, State agencies and groups acting in terms of good
offices and as an honest broker.
Would you see the navigator in that kind of a context?
Mr. Babbitt. Someone used the phrase facilitator----
Mr. Abercrombie. Excellent, facilitator.
Mr. Babbitt. [continuing] which I thought was equally
descriptive.
Mr. Abercrombie. Maybe that is even a good job description
for the navigator.
Last question, and perhaps you could answer it more in
writing to the chairman.
I am still not fully resolved on the question of the
reprogramming of funds. I think the chairman has, over and
above the policy question, the chairman has a key point to
make, it seems, with respect to the question of reprogramming.
I am very ill at ease with the idea that there are funds
that could be reprogrammed if it is going to come at the
expense of that which we have already authorized and
appropriated for.
I will say that Mr. Hansen and Mr. Young, as well as
hopefully with the assistance of the minority, have worked very
hard to see to it that dollars and positions are held to
exactly where they should be, that there is not excess in them.
I think Mr. Hansen prides himself on that, and I think that
we need to have more information as to whether reprogramming is
something that would be in order as opposed to additional
funding if we decided to go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's
comments, and hope to followup on your last question.
Mrs. Smith. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a long
hearing, but there are a couple of things that I would actually
like to focus on just for a moment.
From the background documents that you were so kind to
provide, Ms. McGinty, to the Committee, it is clear that you
expect many applications for these river projects. Therefore,
one of the tasks you have is setting up criteria for how those
would be selected.
One of the documents you provided refers to the selection
process and says the selection committee will recommend more
American Heritage Rivers than can actually be designated,
giving someone else [the President?] a further choice. This
could ensure that designated American Heritage Rivers, and then
you have three starred items, or your staff developed three
items, and those were either to serve political purposes are
located where agencies can staff them are diverse [river,
landscape, community, geography, et cetera].
Now, politics of course, a political purpose is broadly
stated. Having mayors involved, of course, is certainly
important, but would you also see this as being a forum of
where you would consider how the President appears to segments
of the population as being important politically as a
consideration?
Ms. McGinty. Well, that is not our intention, and again,
this effort has been from in every----
Mr. Cannon. Pardon me. The question is, would that be a
consideration that would be reasonable in the White House? How
does the selection of this river as opposed to that river
affect the President?
Ms. McGinty. That would not be a consideration that would
influence our view as to which river should or should not be
designated an American Heritage river.
Mr. Cannon. You would not consider the implications of
Presidential politics in choosing a river?
Ms. McGinty. These applications are being derived from the
bottom up.
Mr. Cannon. Right, but they are going to come and you will
be able to choose them, and you are telling me that you
wouldn't consider the implications of a choice of a river in
Presidential politics, even though politics is clearly a
consideration according to your staff.
Ms. McGinty. We will consider whether there is a broad
basis of support----
Mr. Cannon. I don't want the hierarchy. I only want to
know, will you consider the implications of a choice----
Ms. McGinty. We have no intention of making this decision
on the basis of politics, and I personally have spent, I think,
more time with Republican mayors----
Mr. Cannon. If I may, the question is not----
Ms. McGinty. [continuing] on this very----
Mr. Cannon. [continuing] a question of uniqueness. Are you
telling this Committee that you will not consider Presidential
politics in a choice of rivers when you have a choice between
two that are very close?
Ms. McGinty. I will answer again, I have no intention of
considering politics in making the decision. This is a program
that will recognize----
Mr. Cannon. Wait a minute. I am not suggesting that
politics is not an appropriate consideration. It clearly is,
and that is how we live in America.
Clearly, your staff has already considered politics an
appropriate consideration. I am only trying to figure out
whether you are saying what levels and what kind of
consideration you are going to give to this.
Are you telling this Committee that you will not consider
Presidential politics in the process of picking one river as
opposed to another where they may be close?
Ms. McGinty. Our eloquent Secretary helps me with a single
word answer. Yes, that is what I am telling you, we will not
consider Presidential politics.
Mr. Cannon. And yes means no, you will not?
Ms. McGinty. Exactly right.
Mr. Cannon. Does that mean you will also not consider
congressional politics, how the choice of a river will affect a
congressional candidate?
Ms. McGinty. We will consider the views of the elected
representatives of the people in question, but I want to----
Mr. Cannon. Please. I have a short time, and I want to cut
to the chase here.
The President just a week or so ago talked about how he can
advance the interests of his presidency by gaining control of
this House.
Are you telling me that you will not consider in the
process of choosing between river designations the difference
between the effect on congressional races?
Ms. McGinty. Yes, I am telling you I will not.
Mr. Cannon. Well, that absolutely strains credibility. You
also told the Governor and the delegation of Utah that you had
no plans, no imminent plans, to designate 1,700,000 acres in
southern Utah, and that was clearly political and clearly
intended to enhance the position of the President.
Let me just close by saying that Mr. Glickman has pointed
out that this facilitator, which I think is a better term, will
have a tendency to be able to focus the resources that already
exist and enlist the agencies, the Forest Service, the
Conservation Service, the Extension Service, on these kinds of
programs. I think that you used the term using a spotlight or
highlighting these kinds of things.
What you do when you do that is distort the process. You
can't take resources unless we have overfunded you, Mr.
Glickman, out of the system and put them into this kind of a
program without changing the nature and usage of those
resources. You can't spotlight without distorting.
I was pleased as I finished my opening statement my
colleague from Washington leaned over and said, do you have an
opinion on this matter, Mr. Cannon? The fact is, I have
opinions.
I was pleased that the Secretary made his position clear
when he said that the Congress was taking a wrecking ball to
the environmental laws of this country. Let me say, I believe
in process, and I believe in the rule of law, and I believe
that if we do that, we will be fine in America, whether we are
Democrat or Republican.
On the other hand, the bald statement that Presidential
politics will not be considered in this reallocation of
resources around America I don't think is credible, and
therefore, I think you should reconsider. Thank you.
Mr. Glickman. May I just make one quick comment?
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Secretary, go ahead.
Mr. Glickman. Thank you. I think it is important to
recognize again from USDA's role, we are out there spending a
lot of taxpayer resources on important things, and I want to go
back.
We have a model--we have a couple models. One is called our
RC&D model; it is resource, conservation, and development model
where we help and facilitate community involvement in
conservation projects. That has been going on for a very long
time.
The other model is the empowerment zone enterprise
community model, where communities come together, come up with
a program, use existing resources.
If you go to these empowerment zones, enterprise
communities, it is extraordinary what they have done themselves
with already appropriated assets out there deciding for
themselves how best to allocate them, and using our help, to
facilitate working through bureaucratic roadblocks, and it
works very well.
That is basically what we are talking about here.
Mr. Cannon. May I respond to that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hansen. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. The Secretary has said he cannot understand why
conservatives and Republicans are opposed to this kind of grass
roots activity.
We are not. We believe in grassroots activity. I think that
Mr. Crapo went to great lengths to describe how a project like
this on the grass roots is working in Idaho.
What we are concerned about is the distortion of the
political system through diverting resources one way or another
for facilitators or choosing parts of the Nation as opposed to
other parts in a very broad program that has virtually no
controls.
That is the problem. We believe in grass roots, and we also
believe that if programs are so bureaucratic they need a
facilitator or a navigator to get through them, that maybe
those programs ought to be eliminated and give the money back
to people at the grassroots level so they can choose how they
wish to use those resources.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I will yield in 1 minute, Chris.
This has been an interesting debate, and probably a very
intriguing and interesting idea, but we don't know the details,
and frankly, I think it comes down to process.
I am not sure how the process works, and you will have to
excuse us for being just a little suspicious, but some of us,
when you talk about all of the people that you have talked to,
we didn't see that happen.
As Mr. Cannon brought up about the monument, we were
specifically excluded, especially when we are starting to
subpoena the records on this and find out that it was done
strictly for political reasons, and we find out that we
extinguish protection, and we have 1,700,000 acres of rolling
sagebrush surrounded by beautiful parks. It makes a lot of us
wonder.
I honestly think when you just said a minute ago, Kathleen
McGinty, that you would consider the views of the
representative, a few months ago, we were not only not
considered, we were specifically excluded. Therefore, possibly
you can't blame us for being a wee bit suspicious.
We would hope that we see a little more openness from the
Administration this time. I don't think we intend to dismiss
this proposal out of hand, but we would like to put out the
hand of fellowship and work with you, if we could. If we can't,
then we will go to the mat as we have done in the past, and you
know, we have our tricks in the bag just like you folks do,
too, and please don't take it personally. I have great respect
for all three of you, but I would hope that we could work
together and we can work something out. If we can't, of course,
we will try to put moratoriums and we will try to block you
with money and we will try to block you with legislation, but
please, I would hope that we could somehow remove the
suspicion, but right now, I don't think there is a good feeling
toward some of our members as has been illustrated today
predicated on past performance.
I have used my entire minute almost, and thank you for
listening to me.
The gentleman from American Samoa. Now, do you think Mr.
Kildee is next or do you want to argue about this?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am not going to argue, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. I will recognize you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The ranking member of the Subcommittee of Lands
and National Parks.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is not very
often that this Committee has the privilege of having the
presence of two distinguished members of the President's
cabinet, Secretary Babbitt, and certainly, our former
colleague, Secretary Glickman. I am very, very happy to have
them both here with us this morning, and certainly, Ms. McGinty
also, representing the Council on Environmental Quality.
Mr. Chairman, I think it was about a month ago that I saw a
full-page article, believe it or not, in the Denver Post
outlining the recent development or establishment of a 9,000
acre national park in my district. I want to personally commend
Secretary Babbitt for taking the time to go to American Samoa
to dedicate this national park. His presence at this event
meant a lot to the Samoan people.
This national park includes a very rare rainforest in our
nation. It has about 55 species of rare birds. It also contains
over 200 plants of medicinal value that are now being studied
at the National Institute of Health for cancer research.
Secretary Babbitt, I can't thank you enough for coming to
our little island territory. The coral formations that we have
in this island territory are among the rarest in the world.
These coral formations are about as big as this chamber, this
room. I want you to know that on behalf of the people of
American Samoa, we are very appreciative of your work and your
being with us.
I need clarification Ms. McGinty, based on information
provided by you, Secretary Glickman, and Secretary Babbitt,
would you say that as far as the Administration is concerned,
the Administration has not exceeded its authority in any
statutory sense, and that you are acting strictly within the
confines of current law. Am I correct on that?
Ms. McGinty. Absolutely, and we feel not only do we have
the authority but the absolute responsibility and obligation to
manage the programs that this Congress has directed us to
manage in the most efficient, effective, and responsible way
possible.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Maybe I wasn't very clear. We keep
throwing around ten rivers, and I am sure of the fact that we
have hundreds of rivers in our Nation.
Can you explain a little more specifically. You have not
selected the ten rivers. You are in the process of receiving
applications from all sectors of our country. Is ten the magic
number or is this just the beginning, at least for you to
consider seriously, in terms of the President's initiative on
this?
Ms. McGinty. It is just the beginning to see if it works
and to take some steps forward and see how that all plays out.
We have not yet begun to receive applications because we
have been going the extra mile to make sure citizens are
involved in the design of the program, even down to the
application form and what it should look like. We are receiving
extensive comment on that, and so we won't actually even begin
to receive applications until sometime in September.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Maybe this is probably the bottom line of
the concern, not only, I am sure, for our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, but on this side as well: cost factor
potentials.
You are talking about the idea, and I am sure that most
Americans support the idea that we need to clean up our rivers.
We are talking about rivers that are connected to chemical
plants, rivers that are connected to nuclear power plants,
sawmills, the kind of situation where, obviously, environmental
issues are very, very se-
rious, and I am making a similar analogy to the fact that we
need to also clean up America's nuclear waste.
You are talking about a program that could potentially cost
hundreds of billions of dollars. I want to ask our friends, has
there been any cost estimate taken by the Administration on the
potential cost, not just for cleaning up ten rivers, but for
other rivers that are just as important. Rivers, not just to
the eastern side of our country, but all over the country? Do
you see this as a foreseeable problem?
I see that we are kicking around $2,000,000, but I am sure
that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Are you looking
seriously at the cost of this program to the American taxpayer?
Ms. McGinty. Not through this program and that is--I
appreciate the question because it enables us, I think, to
address the question that has been asked about reprogramming
and new programs.
This is only about the better execution of current
programs. We don't envision new funds of any kind or new
programs or new initiatives of any kind. This is just
reinventing the delivery service of current programs.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So basically, somewhere down the line,
the Administration, if it feels that there will be a necessity
for asking for funds, then it will at that appropriate time
come and ask the Congress for further legislation that will not
only enhance the initiative but clarify even more the cost
factors?
Ms. McGinty. Yes, but again this initiative only seeks to
coordinate current authorities and appropriations. There is no
intention to buildup a new initiative or a wholly new program
here and seek new moneys. There is no intention to do that at
all.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McGinty, you
mentioned, and I am quoting that this is a historic opportunity
to coordinate--I guess this is where the quote ends, a historic
opportunity to coordinate the services and efforts of several
agencies and so on.
I would like to ask you what makes it impossible for this
kind of coordination to occur today?
Ms. McGinty. It does occur today, and in every instance, it
is a different set of agencies that necessarily need to be
brought together, et cetera, but what we have found is that
there are communities across the country specifically trying to
organize themselves around rivers and specifically asking in
that instance, we would like to help more easily access the
Federal resources that we pay for.
Mr. Schaffer. But what is preventing that to occur to make
it more easily accessible today?
Ms. McGinty. Well, this is evidence that it is happening
and we are furthering it along. That is the purpose of----
Mr. Schaffer. When you mentioned the word historic, what
was it you were referring to?
Ms. McGinty. I could refer back, I guess, to the actual
quote. I said this is a historic opportunity to support efforts
of our communities to revitalize their riverfronts.
Mr. Schaffer. Secretary Babbitt, as I recall, you were
present when the President was in Nevada and signed the
executive order on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument.
Mr. Babbitt. Yes, in Arizona.
Mr. Schaffer. Arizona, I am sorry, I thought it was Nevada.
Since that time, the entire Utah delegation has gone on
record as opposing that particular measure. The Utah State
legislature has, the Governor has. Virtually every elected
official representing that State has gone on record in an
official capacity opposing it.
My question to you is, are you supporting or promoting any
effort to repeal that designation in Utah?
Mr. Babbitt. Absolutely not. I support the President's
action.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me move up to Idaho for a moment. The
grizzly bear reintroduction in that area is opposed by the
Governor, opposed by the Idaho legislature, opposed by the
Idaho delegation. Are you supporting any effort to repeal the
grizzly bear reintroduction in Idaho?
Mr. Babbitt. I am supporting, Congressman, an ongoing
effort, I think of considerable promise, to structure a local
advisory committee for the first time under the Endangered
Species Act which is going to pioneer an entirely new way of
working these reintroduction issues. Now----
Mr. Schaffer. I don't want to spend too much time as far as
the details of the program. I am just asking whether there is
any effort that you are supporting to repeal the initiative.
Mr. Babbitt. Absolutely not.
Mr. Schaffer. This is for Secretary Glickman, I suppose.
The biosphere program was one that was defended and explained
in front of the Resources Committee recently, and one of the
executives and directors in your agency was confronted with the
question of the Kentucky State legislature has in fact opposed
that initiative, and I am curious as to whether you or your
department is supporting the repeal of the biosphere
initiatives in Kentucky.
Mr. Glickman. I do not believe we have been actively
involved in that issue. I will check on that for you. Not in
Kentucky.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask Ms. McGinty a related question.
Let us suppose that a city within a State secures the American
Heritage designation under this Act, and then a State
legislature through a resolution or the Governor or the
delegation from that State requests that the designation be
repealed. Will that program be repealed, that designation be
repealed?
Ms. McGinty. Well, we certainly would take that extremely
seriously, and I would think that that could prove fatal to the
initiative, yes.
Mr. Schaffer. Do you understand how many of us from western
States may not take great comfort from that assurance here
today, given the explanations you just heard on other programs
that have been initiated in other States where the official
opinion stated by elected officials, Governors, State
delegations, has gone ignored?
Ms. McGinty. I respect your views, certainly, but the whole
point here is to be responsive actually to other principles
this Congress has laid out in terms of locally----
Mr. Schaffer. I am trying to beat this light here. On May
19, you submitted to the Federal Register the details of the
plan and gave 21 days for public comment.
Now, the Administrative Procedures Act suggests 60 to 90
days. Why was 21 days suggested and why May 19?
Ms. McGinty. That was on the heels of an intensive 4-month
process that involved public meetings in every region of the
country with hundreds of people participating; 31,000 people
accessing and using the home page that was set up for this; a
hotline set up.
It was at the heels of a much longer public process, and
again, it has been extended.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask, there are many of us who are
concerned about private property. In fact, in Colorado and many
western States, water rights are allocated as a property right
within our State constitutions.
Let me ask, if the program is truly voluntary as you say
and nonregulatory, would the Administration be willing to write
into the program a mandatory and explicit opt-in provision
whereby private landowners along a designated heritage river or
holders of water rights on a river in question could only be
included if they gave their written permission to be included?
Ms. McGinty. Well, we are in the middle of receiving broad
public comment, and that is something we certainly will
consider and give top priority to as well.
Mr. Schaffer. Do you have any plans to include that at the
moment?
Ms. McGinty. I just don't want to prejudge the ability of
the public to comment at this point. I think it would be
inappropriate to prejudge the conclusion of a public comment
process.
Mr. Schaffer. My time has run out apparently, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, both
Mr. Secretaries and the rest of the panel, coming from a Great
Lakes State, Michigan, where Dan, you studied, I understand
better than many the importance of rivers, lakes, and streams
to our society.
In 1992, I wrote the law that protected 1,000 miles of
rivers throughout the State of Michigan under a different Act,
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and at that time, my bill was
really opposed by a great number of people. I can recall going
to hearings in the Upper Peninsula. There were signs out,
``kill the Kildee bill,'' but what has happened since then is
that my legislation is being lauded by local governments. I get
thanks for what I did back then. Local citizens are lauding it.
I think sometimes there is a certain period of the unknown, and
I think that is why we have hearings like this.
Really, in 1992, I was kind of a bum up there, and now, I
am kind of a hero for helping to help preserve those rivers
which do refresh and refurbish the Great Lakes every day as
they pour into them.
I have been very interested in this bill. I know that Mayor
Dennis Archer, who you know very well from the city of Detroit,
is thinking of having Detroit apply for one of the rivers to be
des-
ignated as such. There would really be an example of the mixed
use which I know you are concerned about.
In some areas, rivers such as the Saba River should be used
for only certain things, not for the commercial ships that come
in from Germany or Sweden as we see on the Detroit River. In
the Detroit River, you can see a Swedish ship coming down, and
a German ship coming down through the Great Lakes and the St.
Lawrence Seaway. You can find recreational use on that river,
you can find fishing on the river, even speedboat racing on the
river, but multiple use, and the city of Detroit is interested
in using and upgrading that great waterway, the Detroit River,
which is the boundary between the United States and Canada at
that point. To really upgrade its economy with mixed uses.
These mixed uses certainly would fit well into the Heritage
bill, would they not?
Ms. McGinty. In fact, the mayor has spoken to me about his
interest in this, and in his mind, just to pick up what
Secretary Glickman has said, with the wonderful experience that
Detroit has had with the empowerment zone, General Motors
coming back into Renaissance Center, the Ren Cen, he sees this
as a very logical extension of that progress.
Mr. Kildee. Exactly right. The new General Motors building
is right in that renaissance zone. I just drove by it yesterday
as I was coming back from Michigan, and although it is not part
of my district, some wonderful things are happening in the
enterprise zone down there.
This would be a great addition to Detroit. I would
certainly hope that it would be a river that would be
considered, but I think that those who think that this going to
take a river and negate something in the economy are wrong. The
mayor of Detroit recognized this as something that would be
very positive to the economy, this multiple, mixed use, which
that river certainly lends itself to. I certainly would hope
that he does apply, and that consideration will be given to
Detroit, because Detroit is making an enormous comeback, and
that would be a great thing.
Let me ask a question of Mr. Wayland from the EPA. Can you
cite an example of watershed projects that have achieved
environmental results and enjoyed broad community support, such
as industry, local government, farmers, ranchers? Can you give
us some examples of some watershed projects that have that
support?
Mr. Wayland. I would be delighted, Congressman, and there
are so many to choose from that it is difficult to know where
to go, Secretary Babbitt earlier spoke about Henry's Fork,
which meets all the criteria you specified.
I think we are very proud of our involvement in the Clear
Creek watershed above Denver. It is a municipal water supply
source for the city of Denver affected by many abandoned hard
rock mining operations. It had lost its ability to support
aquatic life. It is a recreational river which presented some
hazard to those who were looking to shoot its rapids.
The local governments, the State of Colorado, EPA, other
Federal agencies, Coors Brewing Company, many private sector
interests have been working for over 3 years collaboratively to
identify an action plan to undertake the cleanup and protection
of that river.
It is a very inspiring story and one that we are very
pleased to be associated with. We have a facilitator. She is a
Superfund remedial project officer. Holly Flinio is the EPA
person who works with that community and our resources have
helped to fund a local facilitator, Carl Norbeck, who is on the
ground. I visited this watershed many times, and I have seen
tremendous progress as we look at people pulling together, and
they have enlarged their circle of interest as they have seen
progress build in steady and slow stages from addressing the
most serious problems of ecological contamination to other
opportunities that they have a shared vision for.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. Before I finish, I would like to
commend Secretary Babbitt for not only your interest in the
environment, but I will take this time to commend you for your
interest in the rights of Native Americans, including your
latest statement on the Interior appropriations bill. Thank
you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much for coming before us. I
consider it a real pleasure as a freshman Member of Congress to
have a chance to visit with two Cabinet people and a top
advisor to the President simultaneously, but time will not
allow me to ask you the questions I would like to.
I would like to share a couple thoughts with you first. As
a freshman Member of Congress, I guess I am a little surprised
at your sensitivity to being questioned so hard about this
program, and showing some annoyance that, ``How dare they
question this grassroots program?''
I come from rural northwestern Pennsylvania, the largest
rural district east of the Mississippi. It is mostly timber and
mostly rural. Three beautiful rivers of Pennsylvania flow
through my district; so I represent rural America at its best.
When I look at what has happened in rural Pennsylvania and
in the rural west, I would like to share with you, and all of
you are veterans of public policy. You have been around the
mill. I guess that was why I was surprised at your sensitivity
to being questioned so severely, because we live by perception.
The perception in rural America, and I don't mean this in
any personal way, because you are nice people, but people fear
Katie McGinty in rural America. People fear Mr. Babbitt.
Because of the first 4 years of this Administration, rural
America is struggling, and I think the issue that bothers me is
the bigger issue. The rural economy is far more fragile.
We just heard from Mr. Kildee that Detroit loves these
ideas and they are ready to embrace them, but that is a city
and urban area.
The rural economy is so narrow, when you lose a portion of
it, you don't recover the same as an urban-suburban area does.
Rural America is struggling and kind of hanging on by its
fingernails in many parts of this country and in parts of my
district, and that is why there is sensitivety from rural
legislators that I think you need to think seriously about.
We are struggling. The worst policy is a policy that takes
away a person's job and the right to earn a living and feed
their family. When economies go down, the question of the
national monument had big impacts. Your enforcement of the
Endangered Species Act, some of your property rights policies
or insensitivities there, timber issues, recreational policies.
All of those, whether we have hydro power in the future or not,
those are all questions that are fearful in the hearts of rural
people.
I guess I would like to share with you why there are a lot
of questions from rural legislators; people in rural America
who are scared of their economic future. What you have to deal
with, whether this is the most perfect program in the world, is
history, and history has been that you have not been as
sensitive to how things have impacted the rural economy as you
should have been. At least that is how people in the fifth
district feel.
Mr. Glickman. May I comment, if possible? Mr. Peterson, I
understand it. I live with it. I am Secretary of the rural
department. I view myself as an advocate for people who live in
underserved areas that often don't benefit by population and by
industrial development and who often lose access because of
banks closing or highways not as good or air service is not
there or electric rates are higher.
This is a big part of what I do, and we spend billions of
dollars a year on water systems, sewer systems, rural
development projects generally.
I guess what I am saying is that rural America needs a
spark to expand, to develop, to create this economic growth
that we have often seen in areas of urban America, and we have
to look at different options rather than just all of the
traditional options.
One of the great things we have is our advocates up here on
Capitol Hill for rural America. It has made a massive
difference, but I go back to this idea.
I went down to the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas, one of
the poorest areas of the country, heavily rural, heavily fresh
fruit and vegetable, in bad shape economically, one of the
highest unemployment rates in the United States. They sat down
and they said we got to jump-start rural America. We are going
to die unless we do something different, so they became an
empowerment zone.
This is this concept where they got together
collaboratively and they decided what they needed to do to
marshall their resources. Through that, they had been able to
do a lot of things on economic development and new jobs,
enhancing their educational opportunities, and in fact,
attracting industry from urban America as well.
I want you to know that from my perspective, and I think
Secretary Babbitt and Katie McGinty agree, we view this as a
way to facilitate rural America, not hurt it, but help it.
Mr. Peterson. I guess I could comment that the Agriculture
Department was not included in that fear, and this isn't
personal, but I am serious about the Department of the Interior
and some of your policies.
Rural America is frightened by them, because in the big
picture, they don't feel that you feel their pain and the
fragility of the rural economy.
Rural America is hurting, and I think that is why you have
problems with this proposal, although it may be perfect, is
history. They don't think you have been sensitive enough to how
these proposals in the last 4 years have affected people, not
the Agriculture Department, but the Department of the Interior.
Do you have any comment to that, Mr. Babbitt?
Mr. Babbitt. Congressman, I appreciate the intensity of
your concern and your remarks. I indeed believe that there is a
substantial amount of real fact and perception out there that
needs to be dealt with, and I guess what I would say is that I
think the way to do that is to try to step away from the broad
generalizations and move toward specifics out on the landscape.
I would only say to you without prolonging this unnecessarily
that we have tried very hard to be site-specific, to get down
on the ground, to engage and to kind of step away from a
rhetorical debate which I think simply isolates us all from
each other. I appreciate very much the context and the insights
that you offer. I think they are fair, and I think it is our
obligation to be responsive.
Mr. Peterson. Ms. McGinty, do you have anything to say?
Ms. McGinty. Just a second, to recognize and just to offer
at any time that we can be personally and immediately available
to constituents of yours who have concerns. That is our
obligation and responsibility, and we will do it immediately.
Mr. Peterson. In conclusion, I would just like to say that
I think sometimes what is looked at, we get into a political
debate and we shouldn't because rural America is rural America.
Whether it is Republican or Democrat doesn't really matter, but
rural America is in trouble economically.
I don't think that many people will argue with that, and I
think we need to look in the multitude of programs and changes
that are happening simultaneously. A number of them have
impacted rural America, and not positively, and that is the
concern we have, and I will be critical of Congress.
I don't think this Congress is as sensitive as I would like
it to be to rural issues. I think as I am here a while, people
will realize that I will be outspoken about rural. I was in
Pennsylvania State government and I will be here, because it is
where I come from and it is who I represent.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Do any of the members have any
further questions for this panel?
We will go back over to this side. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I have no further questions, and I
certainly would like to associate myself with the gentleman
from Michigan's earlier statement in thanking Secretary Babbitt
for his sensitivity and support of Native American issues,
which is part of this Committee's jurisdiction.
We have a saying where I come from when the chiefs meet in
council. After sitting cross-legged for four or more hours, one
of the chiefs will complain that the mat is hot, and so I think
with that statement, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our two
distinguished members of the President's Cabinet, Ms. McGinty,
our friends from EPA and the Department of the Army for being
here. The mat is hot, and I think it is time to go home.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I recognize the gentlelady from
Idaho for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to followup
on the President's executive order where he cites NEPA and I
will direct this question to Mr. Babbitt.
Since the President has cited NEPA as the tool for his
authority to engage in this program, has the White House
planned or have they completed an environmental impact
statement which definitely is clearly required in NEPA for any
major Federal action as has been interpreted by numerous
Supreme Court decisions?
Mr. Babbitt. Congresswoman, it is not--I am a recovering
lawyer. I am now in a different line of work, but it is not at
all clear to me that this is the kind of situation where an
environmental impact statement is desirable or required, but I
obviously defer to the lawyers. The reason, I think, is it is
really important to see this as an enhancement of a whole
series of ongoing issues.
I told Congresswoman Smith, for example, that out in
Oregon, I could effectively turn to Katie McGinty and say,
there is already a facilitator out there; we will give them a
new title.
This isn't so much a new program as it is the President of
the United States exercising his power to say to 13 Federal
agencies, I see some good things out there, and I would like to
put the weight of my office on behalf of all Americans behind
what you are doing, and I would like to showcase successful
efforts. I would like to admonish agencies to learn from those
efforts, to step up their efforts, and to be certain that they
are facilitating.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would be interested in another legal
analysis based on whether this constitutes a major Federal
action as defined.
Mr. Babbitt. I will happily direct Ms. McGinty to respond
to that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And your budget, right? And whether this
constitutes a major Federal action, and based on previous
Supreme Court decisions with regard to that triggering the need
for an environmental impact statement.
Ms. McGinty. Would you like that comment now? This program
derives from the National Environmental Policy Act, and in
fact, it is an example of what the National Environmental
Policy Act requires.
Every agency in every policy, every program, every action
they undertake is directed by the National Environmental Policy
Act to achieve an integration and coherence among
environmental, economic, and social considerations.
That has not been, as some of your constituents, I think,
would probably tell you, very effectively exercised in the
past. Yes, we have had some environmental decisionmaking. Has
it effectively incorporated economic and social considerations?
Not always.
This program is about saying you have got to achieve that
integration that NEPA directs you to achieve.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I think that there is a term that I have
heard the Secretary use. It is called cumulative impact, and
this coming together of 12 or 13 different agencies for a new
single purpose, I believe, would constitute a major Federal
action, and that is my concern. That is how I am framing the
question.
I do understand your answer, but I have a concern along
this line.
I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you also,
if you don't mind. On April 16, 1997, a memo from CEQ about
this pro-
gram lists the AmeriCorps as one Federal agency that was
helping draft the Heritage Rivers budget proposal.
AmeriCorps is largely an agency that deals with social
issues, such as poverty and education. Does this indicate that
the rivers program will go beyond the environment and engage in
social action issues like poverty and hunger?
Ms. McGinty. Precisely. Integrating social, historical,
cultural, and economic opportunities into environmental issues
to achieve that integration, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And what organizations representing private
property owners, if any, did the Administration consult with
before the President announced this program?
Ms. McGinty. Well, we have consulted with many
organizations who have private property rights concerns. I
personally have had the representatives of the property rights
groups who visited Washington in June in my office.
On Saturday, as I mentioned, the Western States Coalition
to whom you spoke on Friday night, I also visited and spoke
with them on Saturday. We have visited with the American Farm
Bureau. They have been part of this. We have accepted every
invitation they have sent to us.
Any organization that has raised a concern, we have
responded to it immediately.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I won't go on, but just one simple
statement. Most of those people met with you after this was
published on May 19, so I think the course was already set.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question that
you answered about social and historical and environmental
considerations being given great weight with respect to how we
manage rivers is of great concern to people in the west, I can
assure you.
Again, our Constitution, which is the primary definitive
document as to how we allocate and distribute water rights in
our State and other States like it places great weight on the
economic aspect of water allocation and appropriation.
Water rights in Colorado and most western States is a
property right, plain and simple.
I guess my question is, do you believe that it is possible
that this initiative could change the allocation or the
distribution of water rights within a State?
Ms. McGinty. No.
Mr. Schaffer. Very good. Many people are concerned again
along the lines of the property rights issues that you had
described. They are concerned about the erosion of these
rights, and they are concerned about their tax dollars going to
hire Federal bureaucrats which in fact lobby against them
before some county commission or water board or water court and
so on.
I would like to ask, in order to allay those concerns and
in fact reaffirm the statements that you made today that this
has no impact on property rights, would the Administration be
willing to incorporate a provision prohibiting these river
navigators and all other Federal employees involved in this
program from intervening in local zoning and land management
decisions involving private property?
Ms. McGinty. We will reiterate and direct in the strongest
possible terms, and in fact the terms that we will adopt are
President Reagan's terms admonishing the agencies about the
sanctity of private property rights. Yes.
Mr. Schaffer. So having said that, that sounds pretty
strenuous, the way you state that, so is there anything that
you can see that would prevent you from prohibiting river
navigators and all other Federal employees involved in this
program from intervening in local zoning and land management
decisions involving private property?
Ms. McGinty. The river navigator, facilitator, or whatever
we wind up ultimately calling this person will do only those
things that the local community call on them, ask, request of
them to do.
Mr. Schaffer. What prevents you from making a commitment to
this Committee today that these river navigators and other
Federal employees associated with this program will be
prohibited from being involved in local zoning and land
management decisions?
Ms. McGinty. I am just trying to be very clear that there
is no part of this program which is about encouraging or
fomenting or setting up a situation----
Mr. Schaffer. Having said that, is there anything that
prevents you from making a commitment to this Committee today
that you will prohibit these river navigators and other Federal
employees associated with this program from intervening in
local zoning and land management decisions?
Ms. McGinty. I just believe that I would need to understand
the situation that you are pointing to and the problem that
occasions your question more, and I would be happy to visit
with you about it before----
Mr. Schaffer. Let me say that your reluctance to
essentially promise this Committee that what you had said
earlier about the sanctity of property rights is very
troubling. I went through a whole litany of examples, and it
doesn't stop with the ones that I ticked off in this Committee.
Time after time after time, this Administration has ignored
the stated and official policy positions taken by Governors,
State legislatures, delegation members. Again, you have stated
most emphatically that this will have no impact on private
property.
All I want to know is if you can promise this Committee
that these new Federal bureaucrats associated with this
program, who you say will have no impact on local zoning, no
impact on land management decisions, will be prohibited, flat
out prohibited from participating in a county commission
meeting or where zoning is concerned.
Now, there is nothing inconsistent with that request, and
what you have stated on the record here today, yet you are
still not willing to make that commitment formally to this
Committee. I just want to know what prohibits you or anybody
here from making the commitment that essentially the statements
that you have made are something that warrant backing them up
in the proposal and making the commitment to the Committee.
Mr. Babbitt. Congressman, let me, if I may, give you an
example that occurs to me.
It may well be possible out there somewhere that a
Department of Agriculture official will be involved in a
facilitator role. The way you phrase this, you would be asking
the Department of Agriculture to refrain from enrolling private
property in the conservation reserve program.
Now, that is in fact a decision that relates to the
management of private property.
Mr. Schaffer. No.
Mr. Babbitt. I would suggest----
Mr. Schaffer. Mr. Secretary, I asked it related to this
program. This is a new program that you have proposed.
Mr. Babbitt. Congressman, the whole point is that we have
spent the last 3 hours describing how the purpose of what we
are doing is to facilitate and put together existing programs
of which the Conservation Reserve Program is one.
Mr. Schaffer. But with respect to this program and local
zoning and local management decisions involving property
rights, your CRP agents, your other agents in the Federal
Government can make all the testimony they want under current
law.
I am narrowing this discussion to the issue that is before
us today and being discussed today, not CRP, not----
Mr. Babbitt. But this program, Congressman, don't you see,
talks about facilitating a whole series of existing programs,
many of which provide enormous specific benefits to private
property owners and it is your----
Mr. Schaffer. So the local zoning and property rights
issues and land management issues are then a part of this. This
is maybe--does this explain the reluctance to make the
commitment to the Committee?
Mr. Babbitt. If it is your desire to prohibit the use of
the Conservation Reserve Program of all of the various NRCS
programs, of the grants that are made to private property
owners by the Fish and Wildlife Service, if it is your
intention to prohibit private property owners from receiving
the benefits of those programs, your question appears to be to
be designed to do that.
I can't understand why it is that you would choose to do
that.
Mr. Schaffer. That is an interesting strategy you are
trying to employ here, but it is not going to work and I will
tell you why.
It is because the programs that you mentioned, CRP and
others, are specifically authorized in statute. This one is
not.
Ms. McGinty. This is only going to coordinate programs,
each one of which is authorized and appropriated by this
Congress. That is specifically why there is no request for
additional employees. There is no request for additional moneys
or reprogramming of moneys. This is about efficiently and
effectively doing our jobs faithfully to execute the law.
Mr. Schaffer. Mr. Chairman, I realize that I have tested
the patience of the clock here in limiting my time and I am out
of it, but I would merely say that for those who had some
question as to why there is great reluctance among western
States to see this program go through unchallenged and without
any oversight, I hope their eyes were opened today.
Example after example after example has been cited not only
by me but other members of this Committee where this
Administration has in fact betrayed the trust of western
States, western legislators, western Governors, western elected
officials, western delegations of all sorts where the stated
official opinion of those States has been ignored on grand
scales time after time after time.
I would just merely say that the Department of the Interior
in particular is an agency that we have tried to trust as often
as we possibly can, but that patience has just been tested far
too frequently. The words of the Department of the Interior
just ring hollow on western ears, and I think it is
unfortunate.
This could have been a good program, I believe, but the
attitude toward western States, the reluctance to essentially
make the commitments in front of this Committee to back up the
words that have been expressed I find very troubling and are
precisely the reason we are so skeptical about this program in
the west.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's
comments. I appreciate the patience of all of you in being with
us. It is very kind of you to spend your time with us today,
and we spend a lot of ours here discussing this issue.
I think we are going to keep coming back down to the idea
of process. I think it is going to come down to the idea of how
do you step through it. Many of the things that come out of the
Administration are very laudatory, and I agree with many of
them.
The other side of the coin is that it is the process that
bothers us. Many of us spend a lot of time going into our home
States of Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, and there is a very
tremendous skepticism predicated on some of these areas.
As the gentleman from Colorado pointed out, possibly at the
time that you could make some definite commitments, it would
make life a lot easier for us. I can tell you that many of the
Governors out there both R&Ds do not want to have things happen
in their State without consent.
As past speaker of the House of Utah, I know I would be
offended if in that position if we didn't have at least some
people tell us about it.
It is going to take a while to overcome this last hit of
September 1996, believe me. It is going to take a long time for
people to get over it.
I would hope that when we get into these things, we could
keep in mind that we would like to work together. I think
political divisions aren't as important as what is good for the
country, and I would hope that would be the case with all of
us.
I appreciate all three of you being here, and the two other
folks who joined us. It has been kind of you to be here. This
hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Hon. Owen B. Pickett, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome this oversight hearing
into The American Heritage Rivers Initiative announced by the
President in his State of the Union address earlier this year
and look forward to hearing from the witnesses who will be
testifying before the Committee today.
On May 21, 1997, the Administration announced in the
Federal Register its initiative to ``Restore and protect
America's Rivers.'' In an unusual move, a 3-week, public
comment period was set aside ending on June 9, 1997. Under
normal circumstances, public comment periods are held open for
a minimum of thirty days in order to provide adequate time for
interested citizens to file their views. The abridged public
comment period was of concern to me because of the unusual
nature of the arrangement being proposed where the executive
branch of the U. S. Government, through its agencies, was
undertaking the implementation of a new Federal program that
has not been authorized by Congress and for which no moneys
have been appropriated by the Congress to these agencies to be
expended for this purpose. This strikes me as being quite
unusual and if successful, reason for alarm. Federal agencies
are generally considered to be creatures of Congress but this
will no longer be true if they can, by unilateral action of
their own, extend their reach and usurp moneys appropriated to
them for other purposes to pay for their unauthorized
activities.
There have already been a number of instances where
excessive and unauthorized action taken by Federal agencies has
resulted in private property owners being denied the full use
of their property. To provide some additional time to try and
properly evaluate this proposal, I sent a letter to Ms. Karen
Hobbs, Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of
the President, requesting a sixty day extension to the public
comment period. I hope our witnesses today will be able to
clear up some of the concerns about the process being used to
implement The American Heritage Rivers initiative and assure us
that ample due process safeguards are in place to protect our
citizens against unwarranted and unauthorized actions by
Federal Government agencies. There is a good measure of
enthusiastic support for the ultimate goal of the
Administration's effort to preserve for future generations the
rich natural and cultural legacy of our Nation's rivers. As a
member of the leadership review board for the Elizabeth River
Project, a non-profit organization committed to environmental
preservation planning for the Elizabeth River in Hampton Roads,
Virginia, I am aware of the immense local public support
available to restore and preserve our Nation's waterways. There
are many other willing and anxious citizens ready to join
groups such as this one to ensure that our water resources are
protected and enhanced in every appropriate way as quickly as
possible. But as laudable as this objective is, it should not
obscure or deter adherence to established constitutional
principles nor diminish by Federal fiat the Constitutional
protections afforded to our people.
The Administration's far-reaching initiative deserves the
thoughtful and deliberate consideration of this Committee. I
look forward to hearing the testimony of the distinguished
panel.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2836.032