Sponsor Statement for HJR 52

American Heritage Rivers Initiative

by Representative Jeannette James

HJR 52: Relating to opposition to the designation of any rivers in Alaska as American Heritage Rivers under the American Heritage Rivers initiative.

Many of you will be wondering, "What is the American Heritage River initiative?" It has not been a widely publicized program. President Clinton first announced it on February 4, 1997 in his State of the Union message. Then in May and September there were announcements in the Federal Register. Since his State of the Union message President Clinton issued Executive Order 13061 directing agencies to establish and implement the initiative.

The program has two objectives: (1) to enhance our citizens’ enjoyment of the historic, cultural, recreational, economic and environmental value of our rivers and (2) to protect the health of our communities by delivering federal resources more effectively and efficient. The President’s purpose is to support communities within existing laws and regulations by providing them with better information, tools and resources, and encouraging local efforts deserving of special recognition.

We wonder. It all sounds very good, and quite innocent, just like so many federal Acts and Initiatives in the past. They all seem innocent and even beneficial until they begin touching the lives and rights of real people.

For instance, it was a false promise when people were told there is a self-defense provision in the Endangered Species Act.

John Shuler of Montana killed grizzly bear after it attacked him late one night. Federal officials rendered the "self-defense" provision a nullity saying that Mr. Shuler was at fault for going into the "zone of imminent danger." That zone happened to be his own back yard.

It was another false promise when they adopted Wilderness legislation saying that there was a provision for the protection of "valid existing rights." The promise was that no private land would be taken into wilderness areas without the consent of the owner, that only federal land would become wilderness, and that no buffer zones would be created. Not so, according to Kathy Stupak-Thrall of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Kathy Stupak-Thrall has been compelled to fight government attorneys who say the provisions have no meaning, or they do not apply to her private property and her "valid existing rights." These lawyers say that Congress didn’t know what the language of the phrase "valid existing rights" meant. Therefore, they can interpret it any way they wish.

I would say there is good reason for the distress throughout our country regarding the President’s American Rivers proposal, particularly with an attitude like that driving government attorneys. The American people are not stupid. They are well aware that a legacy of betrayals and broken promises are attached to these types of well-intentioned, pleasant sounding, feel-good programs.

For this reason, many states are joining with U.S. Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho who has introduced legislation asking for the complete withdrawal of the initiative. There are three major areas of concern: 1) the lack of congressional approval, 2) the vague language and absence of definitions, and the excess federal control over private property and state water rights. As a sovereign state, it also conflicts with our rights to control and manage our navigable waters.

One important point is that congress should be making rules and regulations Respecting Federal lands and resources, not the president or his appointees. We are again faced with the President stepping beyond the boundaries of his office. As Chenoweth stated in a press release after a House Resources Committee meeting:

"We are doing things exactly backwards here today. Instead of Congress making the proposal and the Administration commenting on it, we are actually in a position today of taking testimony not on the creation of a new program, but on how to stop it."

In addition, there is no justification of the need for such an initiative, and the details of the initiative are insufficient. It does not include any details on how the cleanup will be accomplished, what will actually be done, or who will do the work. Allowing more time for the public process is another concern. As it is, there has not been sufficient time for reviews and comments by the public on the initiative. Some people believe it is another intrusion of the federal government and a way to get control of all our lands. To protect our sovereignty this initiative must be stopped. I urge you now to vote yes on this legislation.

last updated 2/26/98

Sponsor Statement for HJR 52

American Heritage Rivers Initiative

by Representative Jeannette James

HJR 52: Relating to opposition to the designation of any rivers in Alaska as American Heritage Rivers under the American Heritage Rivers initiative.

Many of you will be wondering, "What is the American Heritage River initiative?" It has not been a widely publicized program. President Clinton first announced it on February 4, 1997 in his State of the Union message. Then in May and September there were announcements in the Federal Register. Since his State of the Union message President Clinton issued Executive Order 13061 directing agencies to establish and implement the initiative.

The program has two objectives: (1) to enhance our citizens’ enjoyment of the historic, cultural, recreational, economic and environmental value of our rivers and (2) to protect the health of our communities by delivering federal resources more effectively and efficient. The President’s purpose is to support communities within existing laws and regulations by providing them with better information, tools and resources, and encouraging local efforts deserving of special recognition.

We wonder. It all sounds very good, and quite innocent, just like so many federal Acts and Initiatives in the past. They all seem innocent and even beneficial until they begin touching the lives and rights of real people.

For instance, it was a false promise when people were told there is a self-defense provision in the Endangered Species Act.

John Shuler of Montana killed grizzly bear after it attacked him late one night. Federal officials rendered the "self-defense" provision a nullity saying that Mr. Shuler was at fault for going into the "zone of imminent danger." That zone happened to be his own back yard.

It was another false promise when they adopted Wilderness legislation saying that there was a provision for the protection of "valid existing rights." The promise was that no private land would be taken into wilderness areas without the consent of the owner, that only federal land would become wilderness, and that no buffer zones would be created. Not so, according to Kathy Stupak-Thrall of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Kathy Stupak-Thrall has been compelled to fight government attorneys who say the provisions have no meaning, or they do not apply to her private property and her "valid existing rights." These lawyers say that Congress didn’t know what the language of the phrase "valid existing rights" meant. Therefore, they can interpret it anyway it wishes.

I would say there is good reason for the distress throughout our country regarding the President’s American Rivers proposal, particularly with an attitude like that driving government attorneys. The American people are not stupid. They are well aware that a legacy of lies, betrayals and broken promises are attached to these types of well-intentioned, pleasant sounding, feel-good programs.

For this reason, many states are joining with U.S. Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho who has introduced legislation asking for the complete withdrawal of the initiative. There are three major areas of concern: 1) the lack of congressional approval, 2) the vague language and absence of definitions, and the excess federal control over private property and state water rights. As a sovereign state, it also conflicts with our rights to control and manage our navigable waters.

One important point is that congress should be making rules and regulations Respecting Federal lands and resources, not the president or his appointees. We are again faced with the President stepping beyond the boundaries of his office. As Chenoweth stated in a press release after a House Resources Committee meeting:

"We are doing things exactly backwards here today. Instead of Congress making the proposal and the Administration commenting on it, we are actually in a position today of taking testimony not on the creation of a new program, but on how to stop it."

In addition, there is no justification of the need for such an initiative, and the details of the initiative are insufficient. It does not include any details on how the cleanup will be accomplished, what will actually be done, or who will do the work. Allowing for the public process is another concern. There has not been sufficient time to allow the public to review and comment on the initiative. Some people even think something sneaky is going on. They believe it is just another intrusion of the federal government and a way to get control of all our lands. It is one important reason that this initiative should be stopped. I urge you now to vote yes on this legislation.