Volume 144, No. 34 covering the 2nd Session of the 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE FRENCH BROAD RIVER DOESN'T NEED NEW BUREAUCRACY” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E455-E456 on March 24, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE FRENCH BROAD RIVER DOESN'T NEED NEW BUREAUCRACY
______
HON. CHARLES H. TAYLOR
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 24, 1998
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I commend to your attention this article written by Will Haynie for the Asheville Citizen-Times--a newspaper in North Carolina's 11th Congressional District. It provides a persuasive argument against the American Heritage Rivers Initiative as proposed by President Clinton.
Old Man River Doesn't Need the Feds
(By Will Haynie)
The song says that Old Man River, he just keeps rolling along. In today's political environment permeated by hype and hysteria, some say that may be easy for an old man, but a French Broad needs federal help.
After the American Heritage Rivers Initiative was announced, the result was a knee-jerk reaction to jump on the federal bandwagon to do something nice for rivers. Not for all of America's rivers, but just for the ten whose communities jump through the federal hoops required for a chance to be personally picked by the president. And with this president, how could ours lose with a name like French-Broad?
The American Heritage Rivers initiative was announced by President Clinton in his State of the Union Address in February 1997. This is an executive branch program, the details of which I viewed at the web site maintained by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (the address is http://www.epa.gov/rivers).
The efforts to nominate the French Broad for American Heritage River status sparked a healthy local debate over the role of the federal government and its control over our lives and property. This debate combines the best lessons from history and social studies along with some environmental science topics thrown into the mix.
With such a precious natural resource as the focal point, it's tempting for even the most conservative of us to respond by supporting what looks at face value to be a good intention.
But one thing I learned spending a lot of my youth around water is to look before you leap. Sometimes smooth surfaces hide harmful obstacles.
One obstacle in this initiative is that it comes straight from the executive branch of the federal government and involves the allocation of the funds and assets. When our constitution was framed, the representative branch was given such powers.
One of the initiative's stated goals is to ``protect the health of our communities by delivering federal resources more effectively and efficiently.''
Two of the most famous lies in the world are ``the check's in the mail'' and ``we're from the federal government and we're here to help you.'' Add another one to that list: ``we will deliver federal resources more effectively and efficiently.'' Sure, like the speed of the Post Office, the thriftiness of the Pentagon, and the courtesy of the IRS.
Is this to say that paying our federal taxes and acting in a law-abiding manner are not enough reasons to get effective, efficient service from federal agencies? Do we now have to petition the feds and hope for special designations just to get what we are owed?
The third stated requirement for communities whose rivers receive the designation is ``the willingness . . . to enter into new, or to continue and expand existing partnership agreements.''
The EPA also states ``designated rivers and their communities will also receive a commitment from federal agencies to act as `Good Neighbors' in making decisions that affect communities.'' That statement raises another question: where does that leave communities who either don't seek or seek but don't achieve American Heritage status? They better not count on the feds to be their good neighbors. They didn't buy an indulgence.
Proponents of The American Heritage Rivers Initiative swear it is not a federal land and power grab. Yet the initiative lists ten contact agencies involved with the program, and the only state agency listed is the North Carolina Historical Preservation Office.
The biggest mystery in this initiative is the statement that federal agencies will support local communities ``within existing laws and regulations.'' Really?
Then, why must we approach the federal government by pleading and petitioning and promising to play by their rules so we can get protection for our river?
Nobody wants the French Broad River to be an open sewer. But running to the executive branch so all the king's horses and all the king's men can put it back together again is not the only solution, and it certainly isn't the best solution. Our congressman is called a representative because that's what he does for us in Washington.
Rep. Charles Taylor has presented a viable plan for the French Broad that will use existing channels to make all applicable agencies do their jobs for us without having to be petitioned to do so. The river is not yet in perfect condition, but it's a lot cleaner than it was fifty or even twenty-five years ago. We're making too much progress to call in the feds, even if they are ``here to help us.''
____________________
Alerts Sign-up