lmj-wint97.98-1

America's Congressman Chenoweth

Since being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives by the first district in the State of Idaho, Congressman Helen Chenoweth has been adopted nationally by grassroots leaders and small property owners across America because of her powerful conviction to the fundamental principles of freedom and unwavering protection of property rights and individual liberty.

This graceful mother of two was quite a surprise to her fellow colleagues when she first joined them in the Republican Revolution of 1994. Her tall beauty, soft voice and innocent smile can easily give the false impression that she could be swayed by the political whims of the day. But, as many have learned, Helen is anything but easily swayed when politics conflict with the constitutional principles she holds deep in her heart.

Congressman Chenoweth has taken on fights which many avoid, aggressively attacking the regulatory agencies, even making them testify under oath before her committee, which they are not accustomed to doing, and battling the radical environmental agenda.

She has also earned the reputation of being one of the most studious Congressmen in Washington D.C., meticulously reading the bills and issue backgrounds. At the start of her second term she was voted by her colleagues to Chair the Forests and Forest Health subcommittee of the House Resources Committee, a distinct honor for her and a clear warning to the land management agencies.

Many states have tried to adopt Helen as their own — Texas made her an honorary citizen early in her first term — but what she is most proud of is her western heritage and the hard working citizens she represents. Liberty Matters recently sat down with America’s Congressman Chenoweth for this personal interview.

LM: You were first elected to Congress during the Republican Revolution of ’94. Tell us about your background and what inspired you to run?

HC: What inspired me to run was that for the last 30 years we have been developing land management policies which have done two things; they have separated humans and the human element away from our beloved land, and have created a dramatic deterioration of the land. I thought it was a joke when people started asking me to run for Congress because I never had any ambitions to run for elective office. But after a number of businessmen and community leaders approached me, I decided to throw my hat in the ring. I feel this is a battle for freedom today. The battle for our freedom really does start with our land and being able to nurture the land and leave it a better place than we found it.

Before I came to Congress, I had been the State Chairman of the Idaho Republican Party, then I was Chief of Staff for Congressman Steve Symms, who then went on to the Senate. After that, I started my own consulting firm and worked primarily on natural resource issues in the state of Idaho, the West coast and in Washington D.C..

LM: One of the cases you worked on was the John Pozsgai case.

HC: Yes, the Pozsgai case was another reason that I was motivated to run for Congress. It shocked my senses as it did most Americans’, to see a man who risked his life fighting for freedom in Hungary, fight his way to America because he believed that here he was able to reach the American dream, and then have his whole life disrupted because he put some fill dirt on his own private property. For that he was sentenced to a prison term. Because of the federal governments’ actions that strong spirit to fight for freedom had been dimmed. I felt that should never happen again and if there was even one event I could prevent such as the Pozsgai incident by being in Congress, it was worth the battle.

LM: You are one of the few in Congress who fights for constitutional principles in spite of the politics. Why is this so important to you?

HC: Without the Constitution we wouldn’t have freedom. The Constitution purely states that there are certain terms that we hold to be self evident, that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights -- among those the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It goes on to say that we will form a government to protect these rights, and then the Constitution lays out the limited nature of how the federal government should operate. It is a document that limits the federal government. Americans loaned certain power to the government as defined in the Constitution, but no more than is defined.

LM: Do you find that Congress respects and weighs constitutional principles when creating bills?

HC: I would say a growing number of very strong minded articulate Congressman, such as my friend John Shadegg from Arizona, will debate constitutional issues and there are a number of us here working to bring the Constitution back to the level that it should be. One of the issues I introduced is the Bricker Amendment stating that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land rising above Treaties and Executive Agreements. That alone is the only thing we can do to restore the rights that have been ceded by the Administration. Through Executive Agreements and Treaties we have seen our constitutional rights fully abused. The Biodiversity issue, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, the Kyoto Climate Control issue have all been done, not under the rule of Congress, as our nation was set up, but through assertion by the President. And whether President Clinton is in office or President Reagan or any other President, our rights would be better protected if we passed the Bricker Amendment.

LM: You have said you will work to pass the Bricker Amendment no matter how many years it takes.

HC: Even though I won’t be in the Congress that long, I will give the Bricker Amendment everything I have and if we can pass it that’s great, if we can’t, I want everyone to know that it’s going to be a burning issue for me for as long as I live, or for as long as it takes to get it through.

LM: Early in your first term you challenged the Line Item Veto and are a litigant in the lawsuit filed against that authority. Why do you oppose the Line Item Veto?

HC: When we evaluate the Line Item Veto, we are giving away the power the Constitution gave to the House to promulgate all bills and particularly all bills involving appropriations and the spending of money. When we give the President the authority to change the formulation of the bill and sign it into law lining out certain items, we have given to him our strongest hold card in the balance of power. We give the Administration the power to rule and regulate without the checks and balance provided for in the Constitution. This is our fault. It is not the fault of the people. It is the fault of the Congress who was willing to give away their power. I was one of four Republicans who voted "no." I think that issue is coming back to haunt us. There’s some interesting history here. Between Presidents Washington and Nixon, those Presidents had the authority to line an item out on a bill, but then they were required to send it back to Congress to either redraft it with the Senate or to take the item off. During the Nixon administration they took the presidential decision away and made it an up or down vote. But, during the Reagan administration they wanted this ability back to help cut down on spending. By the Clinton Administration, instead of re-instituting presidential authority, they instituted Line Item Veto which is entirely different.

LM: Are Democratic leaders continuing to target your upcoming race?

HC: I’m not receiving the same kind of pressure that I did in 1996 when they dumped 5 million dollars in "independent" campaign money to try and unseat me. In 1996 my campaign was the most heavily targeted campaign in the nation by the labor unions and the environmental community. I am hoping they realize that I’m not a good investment. But a letter recently sent out by House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) indicated that there are four leaders of the new revolution that they have to unseat. These are Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Helen Chenoweth. At least I’m in good company.

LM: Americans have a great distrust for Washington politics. What can people do to change that?

HC: Well, they have reason to distrust Washington politics. Washington has become a place run by people who never worked in the real world. They are working without the experience and wisdom that sometimes a certain number of years working in the real world can produce. When I see these young law school graduates, or college graduates joining the ranks back in D.C., I’m alarmed because they are writing laws as well as rules and regulations that have dramatic consequences. That is why many in Washington want to give the power back to the states, back to the local units of government, but most importantly, as far as I am concerned, back to individuals with real world experience. The people must remember not to trust the politicians to always represent their best interest. Without strong input through telephones and letters, the employees of the citizens can sometimes get off on the wrong track. When constituents believe that politics are dirty and there is nothing they can do about it, it only gets worse. Since America took its country back in 1994 we can see things are getting better. We can see a restoration of the American vision -- the American dream. We are restoring America so that individual freedom and self respect and dignity and mutual respect for people and people’s property are once again cherished. That takes time but step by step we are making it better. Ultimately, this is a citizen’s government and the citizens must be watchful of their government. We will get the kind of government we deserve if we abandon that institution.

LM: You have fought President Clinton’s American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Why is this program so dangerous to American liberty?

HC: Well, thanks to Liberty Matters who first alerted me to this notification in the Federal Register, I think we all recognized how dangerous it was. We already have a number of programs where communities can get federal help to clean up their water front areas. This is one of the most dangerous programs to come down the pike in a long time because while the White House is trying to say all we’re doing is helping people, they bring the kind of help that means 12 different agencies ranging from the Department of Defense to the National Endowment of the Arts. What they propose is strict federal land use controls on private property, state property and our water. This is a massive takings issue. They propose to include entire river stretches and entire watershed areas and when we realize that the Mississippi River’s watershed constitutes about 40% of America’s land base, you can see this is massive federal land control. It never fails to shock me that the Clintons are attorneys and yet this whole program was instituted in a manner that did not comply with the Administrative Procedures Act. An Initiative is an entirely new animal. As such, the White House said they didn’t need to give the proper notice and the ability for people to respond to it. It makes us realize that today we are in a situation where the rule of law is being totally disregarded at the highest levels of government and it must stop. That’s why, on the Rivers Initiative, I have put forth a bill, H.R. 1842, that clearly instructs that the administration may not use any taxpayer money whatsoever in any of their agency activities under the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.

It’s also important for your readers to know that based upon the promise of Ms. McGinty (President Clinton’s top environmental adviser, and chairman of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality), we were able to pull our whole Idaho delegation together and exempt our state from the ramifications of that program. Your readers should encourage their Congressmen to do the same.

The River’s program is an abuse of the trust given to this administration and on its face it is a misappropriation of federal funds.

LM: The Endangered Species Act is up for reauthorization. Do you think this Act has worked at saving species, and should we be trying to save the Act?

HC: I have more faith in the American people then I do in Acts like Endangered Species. When we look at the spotted owl and the method used to inventory the spotted owls (where they left out second growth forests) they only evaluated about 10% of what was actually there. This is one reason why I, and American citizens in general, don’t trust the government. We have not seen, by the actions of government, a restoration of the spotted owl. What we have seen is a deterioration of habitat in the forest because we’ve been prevented from entering into the forest, and taking care of our federal lands as we would our own personal gardens.

In spite of everything that has happened with the salmon, and the wolves, we are seeing that, through government force and fiat, major programs have failed to take into consideration strong scientific data and good strong scientific protocol. Decisions have been made that are truly political and not scientific. These species have not gained and the American people have suffered greatly in trying to fund this program and in the massive takings of private property and jobs and the loss of American civil rights because of the Endangered Species Act.

The best way to preserve species is to preserve the human species and then encourage an engagement between management agencies and the American people to work together. We can’t enhance a species by taking away peoples’ ability to make a living and taking away their property. That only builds hostility.

When the public realizes the ramifications of the program, such as loss of land in the Northwest, the loss of economical electricity, the loss of water transportation and low cost shipping of agricultural goods on our working rivers, I think the American people will back away and say that’s too high a cost. There must be a better way.

LM: Many property rights bills have been proposed to protect property owners, however, the bills have a percentage threshold of property the government can take before they owe compensation. Do you believe there should be a threshold?

HC: No. I don’t agree with the threshold. There was one bill, Mr.Pombo’s bill, that I voted for in my Freshman term because I felt it was a step forward. But the Constitution is very clear, it does say that the federal government may take property, but it doesn’t give a percentage of property government can take without due process and just compensation. I think that history bears out the fact that if you give the government an inch, it’s going to take a mile. Those of us in a position of guiding future public policy have to maintain a healthy mistrust of the government and the nature of government to try to promulgate its own self interest, which is to grow bigger. To answer your question very directly, no, I don’t believe in the threshold.

LM: What do you think have been your most important accomplishments in Congress?

HC: I think that as we will look back on my term in Congress, it will be measured not by what I was able to get through the Congress — although in my first term alone, I wrote and passed 8 bills into law which is not too bad for a Freshman from a small state — but my work will be better measured by what I’ve been able to stop by questioning if it’s constitutional, and if it’s the proper function of the federal government.

I realize that a Congressman not only has an obligation to their legislative duties, but an obligation to use the voice that the constituents have provided for them. I intend to use that voice to continue to alert the American people to become more involved in government and fight for their rights. Their rights to life, to make responsible decisions for themselves and their rights to private property and private ownership. Their rights to raise their children using their own best judgment to raise strong vigorous future citizens. That’s what built this country and that’s what will restore the American dream and renew the pillars of this great society.

LM: Which of all the founding fathers would be your favorite?

HC: Thomas Jefferson. He had such a deep understanding of the concept of the citizen’s government and he knew that the citizens must be not only vigilant, but work with a passion to maintain their freedoms. He encouraged that. As a man who worked in government even against his will for most of his life, his heart was always with the people and with a free society. As I study his life, he was sometimes bogged down, but never gave up, never.