[Pages H8556-H8566]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 901.

{time} 2015

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill [H.R. 901] to preserve the sovereignty of the United States
over public lands and acquired lands owned by the United States, and to
preserve State sovereignty and private property rights in non-Federal
lands surrounding those public lands and acquired lands, with Mr.
Sununu in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier
today, amendment No. 27 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Vento] had been disposed of.
Pursuant to the previous order of the House, it is now in order to
consider amendment No. 5 printed in the Congressional Record.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Farr of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Farr of California:
On page 10 of the bill, after line 8, insert the following:
``(d) Subsection (b) shall not apply to California Coastal
Ranges Biosphere Reserve.''

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] and a Member
opposed, each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, is this the amendment that affects
the Central Valley California district or is this the amendment that
affects the Redwoods?
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, it affects the California coast
ranges, only to central California.
Mr. Chairman, if I may continue, this amendment is very simple. What
it says is that we want to be exempted from the bill of the gentleman
from Alaska [Mr. Young]. And that is the California coast ranges. This
includes State forests, the Jackson Demonstration State Forest, the
Landels-Hill Big Creek Reserve, which is part of the university. This
amendment exempts the California coast ranges and the biosphere reserve
from the bill.
What it does is retain existing biosphere designations for the State
forests, for the Channel Islands, the National Marine Sanctuary, for
the Audubon Canyon, Bodega Marine Reserve, Cordell Banks National
Marine Sanctuary, the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge, the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area, the Gulf of the Farallones National
Marine Sanctuary, the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, and the Marin
Municipal Water District.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey],
myself, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Capps] are affected by
this amendment and to my knowledge we all support it. I will not speak
for the gentleman from California Mr. Riggs, but for Ms. Pelosi, Ms.
Woolsey, Mr. Farr of California, and Mr. Capps, we think that the
process for the designation of biosphere reserves has been adequate. It
has gone up through a local process. It has gone up through the State
lands commission.

[[Page H8557]]

Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts the California coastal range
biosphere reserve, which includes the Elder Creek area of critical
environmental concern, the Heath & Marjorie Angelo Coast Range
Preserve, the Jackson Demonstration State Forest, the Landels-Hill Big
Creek Reserve, the Redwood Experimental Forest, the Redwood National
Park, the Redwood State Parks and the western slopes of Cone Peak in
Los Padres National Forest. These properties are part of the coast
range reserves. They have come up through a bottoms up process and they
have been designated and we would like to be exempted from it. We do
not want Congress to intrude upon the fact that these have been in the
process, been in the biosphere reserve program for some time.
In fact I can speak to one of them, the Landels-Hill reserve, because
our group of people have an inholding in there which is private
property. We enjoy having that designation. It allows us to have an
internationally recognized place to do biological study on weather
data, on climate, on the fisheries of the reserve. And it is one of the
most unique ecological zones on the Pacific Coast because the distance
between the shoreline and the highest coastal peak is in the shortest
ecological zone, meaning we have more ecological units in a shorter
distance and it makes it an ideal study area.
So these California coast ranges have been part of the biosphere
reserve program and the amendment says, do not mess with them. Do not
take them away. Allow us to be what we have historically been. Mr.
Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman accept this amendment because
I think that he will see that the Members of Congress overwhelmingly
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the chairman
of the Committee on Resources, for yielding time to me.
The gentleman from California, my home State colleague, concluded his
remarks by saying that the Members of Congress affected by his
amendment support his amendment. I want to make it clear to my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle that I do not support this
amendment for a number of reasons, not least of which is very little
consultation by Mr. Farr prior to proposing his amendment.
I was attempting to ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] to
yield to me so that I could ask him if he has any kind of map or survey
plat or property description that accompanies his amendment so he could
show us perhaps precisely the land areas involved. I would also like to
know from him why he feels, briefly, why he feels it is necessary to
take land such as the coastal redwoods that are permanently protected
under public ownership in my congressional district, namely the
Redwoods National Park and the California State Redwood Parks, and
apply to them this further designation of biosphere reserve under
international auspices. The gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], I
wondered if I yielded to the gentleman if he could tell me where
interested Members might obtain a precise description of the land areas
involved here?
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer the
gentleman. As the Congressman from the district, he knows it very well.
He knows that the Redwood State Park has had a biosphere designation,
and that is why he has cosponsored the bill to wipe it out, to say that
it cannot exist, that the State Parks Commission has no ability, not
under old law and certainly not under new law, because the new law will
not allow anything but Federal lands to be approved by congressional
approval, and that it is going to cost untold sums of money to go out
and do the research because they have to do an economic impact within a
10-mile radius in order just to have an international study zone.
The gentleman knows that because it is in his district that the
Redwood National Park has had the biosphere since the early 1980's. He
knows that the northern California coast range under the Bureau of Land
Management has had that designation since 1983.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, since the gentleman is
being unresponsive to the query that I posed to him, which I thought
was a very reasonable one, instead he prefers to talk around it.
The unfortunate aspect of this is that this is a very, very generic
amendment that has potentially far-reaching legal implications and real
impacts on local residents. I can tell the gentleman, since I think he
stipulates that I might know my congressional district better than he
knows my congressional district, that my constituents would not favor
his amendment and in fact would strongly support the underlying bill
offered by the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman
from Alaska [Mr. Young]. I do not think I have to belabor this debate.
I was able to watch the interchange between the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]
earlier back in my office. I think Mr. Pombo put it well, that we do
not need another layer of regulation or potential regulation, an
overlay on top of all the other existing protections that these lands
already enjoy at considerable, I will not yield, so I would appreciate
the gentleman not interrupting me, that are already permanently
protected and maintained at considerable expense to taxpayers.
I can further tell the gentleman that there are many of my
constituents who still have very strong feelings and reservations and
misgivings about the creation of the Redwood National Park by the
legislative branch of the Federal Government, by the Congress back in
the early 1970's. They believe that there were some promises made then,
specifically ``If you build it, they will come,'' that somehow tourism
will take the place of timber production as a way of life and as a
mainstay of our economy, that have not today almost 30 years later
materialized. So we do not appreciate this intrusion in our affairs,
Mr. Chairman. We do not want to be subject to the gentleman's
amendment.
Therefore, I feel compelled to oppose the amendment, and will be
happy to continue this debate. Although I might suggest to the
gentleman, if it in fact is the case that the other Members of Congress
whose districts are affected by the gentleman's amendment support his
amendment, perhaps he would consider excluding my district from the
gentleman's amendment and therefore we might allow the House to move
forward with its business. I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the
Committee on Resources, for yielding me the time.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from San Francisco [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time and for his leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor. I
urge my colleagues to support the central California coastal biosphere
reserve as an exception to the legislation presented by the very
distinguished chairman of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to represent an area which was included in
the United Nations biosphere reserve program in 1989, the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area and many surrounding sites, including the Gulf
of Farallones Islands and Cordell Banks National Marine Sanctuaries and
Point Reyes National Seashore across the bay.
The area of reserve encompasses 85,710,300 acres. During this time,
since 1989, collaborative activities include a symposium on
biodiversity on the central California coast, a tide pool monitoring
and public education program and research exchange program with a
similar reserve in France, and workshops with educators and scientists
exploring opportunities for new environmental education programs. The
fact that this area has been designated a biosphere reserve has
enhanced its standing as worthy of protection.
Our distinguished colleague the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr],
the maker of the amendment, has spelled out very clearly the land areas
that are covered by his amendment and has

[[Page H8558]]

enumerated some of the other collaborative efforts relating to weather
and other environmental concerns.
Mr. Chairman, it is important for our colleagues to understand a
biosphere reserve does not change what is already taking place in a
designated area. It does not change the management of a site. It does
not change the ownership of the site.
A biosphere reserve designation does foster cooperation, shared
research and science and a greater understanding of the natural value
of the resource. All of the uses of the site are regulated in
accordance with the conservation and management goals of the
administering agencies. There is no significant change in what exists
except that knowledge about protecting the area by preserving its
resources becomes elevated through scientific research, education and
collective problem solving. United States law prevails in these areas,
the laws we have created to protect the rich and diverse national
treasures.
For my communities, this effort is very important because of the
outreach of the biosphere reserve partners to engage inner city youth
and to enhance opportunities for young people to understand and respect
our environment.

{time} 2030

It provides an invaluable contribution for an urban population.
The Department of the Interior, the agency we have entrusted with the
protection of our national parks; the Department of Commerce, the
agency which we have entrusted with the protection of our marine
resources; the State of California, the governing body for a State
population of more than 32 million people; universities and private
organizations all contribute to this important effort. These partners
do not advocate policy in management practices, but together provide a
cooperative framework for making the best information and technology
available to all of the partners, domestically and internationally, in
performing their responsibilities to protect the resources we have
deemed irreplaceable.
Mr. Chairman, there are no black helicopters; there are no U.N.
troops and there is no global takeover. The U.N. Biosphere Reserve
Program is a legitimate program that fosters understanding and elevates
our knowledge of the biodiversity that surrounds us. It has been in
effect since 1970, under four Republican Presidents, two Democratic
Presidents. It came into being under President Nixon and was
reauthorized under President Bush. There is nothing sinister about it.
I urge my colleagues to support the Farr amendment and to oppose the
legislation that is the underlying bill on the floor.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side
have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] has 8 minutes
remaining and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has 10 minutes
remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to rise in strong opposition to the amendment and urge a ``no''
vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to respond to the comments of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Riggs].
For 15 years the California Coast Ranges Biosphere Reserve Program
has been in existence. This bill wipes that out entirely. My amendment
puts it back in. This bill creates a bureaucracy. My bill prohibits in
having a bureaucracy.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is opposing this amendment
without permission from the University of California, without
permission from the California Department of Forests, without
permission from the Jedediah Smith and the Prairie Creek, the
California Parks and Recreation, all of those in his district. The
point that I am trying to make is that if the gentleman accepts this
amendment, there is no change, no change to the law that has been there
for the last 15 years. In all that time the gentleman served in
Congress he never opposed those designations because there was no
impact.
Frankly, what I am appalled about with this entire bill is that the
gentleman is taking scientific studies and saying that we can no longer
collaborate in these studies if indeed they have an international
perspective when these studies are petitioned in a bottoms-up process.
And this bill would no longer allow, the gentleman is not only saying
that they are wiped out, the bill also says they can never get back in.
State Parks can never get back in, California Department of Forests
can never get back in, University of California can never get back in,
the Prairie Creek and Jedediah Smith and Del Norte Coast State Parks
can never get back in. Why? Because the bill says the only way they can
get back in, after doing very extensive studies, if Congress so
decides, can only be for those areas that are a Federal designation.
So if the gentleman wants no bureaucracy, if the gentleman wants to
keep things the way they are in a peaceful state, and if the gentleman
wants to allow these State and local and I would even say private
agencies and the Cone Peak area, of which there is a lot of private
inholdings, to allow them to maintain the international biosphere
program, this is the only way he can do it, by adopting the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I suggest respectfully that this amendment is, frankly, unnecessary.
As I mentioned before, I not only oppose it, but under the bill all
areas that have been designated have a 3-year grandfather clause. And
if everybody loves these areas, the people that represent these areas
can come back, bring them before the committee and they become a
reality.
All we are asking, to get back to the original intent of the bill,
901, is put this back in the hands of the people of America, the United
States Congress, that makes these designations. But under my bill, in
the sense of fairness, I did give them a 3-year grandfather clause.
So I do not believe this amendment is necessary. We can do it through
the proper process. So I strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California,
[Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to respond to the last
comments by my colleague, just to point out to him that I was not aware
until this very moment that I needed the permission, I believe that was
the exact word used, the permission of the University of California,
the permission of various regulatory agencies at the State and local
level to represent, and I hope protect, the best interests of my
constituents.
I did not know that. I thought they elected me and trusted me to act
and use my own independent judgment to act on what I thought was in
their best interests and what constitutes good public policy.
And I hope the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] will not take
this wrong, we are not saying over here that we support current law. To
the contrary, we are saying we support the bill that came out of the
Committee on Resources because it will restore Congress' proper
constitutional role in managing Federal lands.
These are lands, by the way, that do not belong to a university, they
do not belong to a resources agency, they do not belong to any
bureaucracy. They belong to the people, all the taxpayers who foot the
bills, which is a simple fact of life that too often gets lost in this
place when we debate these kinds of issues.
Allowing the administration to arbitrarily nominate and designate
land further centralizes land use policy-making authority in the
executive branch and diminishes public participation in the process.
That is the big problem that we have here. We do not want the Congress
to be bypassed repeatedly, as it has been in the process of designating
these sites.
We believe that the people of the Nation, who are represented by us,
their elected Representatives here in Congress, we are the best
arbiters of these kinds of issues, not some faceless international
council.
So that the real problem we have here, I believe, is that we become a

[[Page H8559]]

party to these international land designations. I am glad we are having
the opportunity to debate it here now, maybe expose this issue to the
American people, but by becoming a party to these international land
designations, made again by some faceless international council, a lot
of us are concerned that the United States of America, the sovereign
United States of America, may be indirectly agreeing to terms of
international treaties, such as the Convention on Biodiversity, to
which the United States is not a party and which the United States
Senate has refused to ratify.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side
have?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has 7
minutes remaining.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
I want to state what this is all about, why we are getting so worked
up. The U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program is a program that supports
ecological research collaboration and coordination at an international
level. It involves 114 countries. It is supported by the
administration, going back since 1974 by four Republican presidents and
two Democratic Presidents. It receives support from 15 U.S. Government
agencies for interdisciplinary scientific research in projects of
mutual interest.
Why should that cause so much problem? It is so passive. It is so
unintrusive. It has no ability to vest regulatory authority. It has no
grants and money that come with it. It has no effect on property. No
one has ever been able to get up and speak of one instance where it has
affected property values; and, in fact, most of the people that oppose
this do not even have these in their districts.
The 15 agencies that were directed to come together were a
collaboration ordered by OMB to participate in a collaborative program
so that we could have, frankly, something that Republicans have offered
for a long time, one-stop shopping. Simplify the Federal Government.
Why? Why are we so much opposed to local State parks, to local
nonprofits, such as the Audubon Society, to State universities, such as
the University of California, which the gentleman from California [Mr.
Riggs] does have land ownership in his district, why are we opposed to
those organizations? We can say let us have Federal land that has to
get into this, to have permission of Congress. I wish the author would
take that amendment, but he has not. In fact, he said that these
properties can no longer, any of them, ever be in the program unless,
one, they are Federal lands and they come back through in an act of
Congress.
I think that is wrong. This amendment simply says those properties
that have been in the program, and I might add they were nominated by
President Ronald Reagan, and the gentleman has represented them for all
these years and there has been no problem and all of a sudden the
gentleman wants to knock them out.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes
an important point that under this legislation, and we will offer an
amendment later to exempt the current biospheres area, but obviously
this is important to us in California, the amendment the gentleman has
offered; that this legislation wipes out this designation without
regard to merit, whether local people like it, whether the local State
agency thinks the research is important, or whether the local
universities who are involved, or local citizens groups who are
involved in these programs, whether the foundations that have put land
into these programs, this is not a question of a review and then
weeding out the bad ones. This takes 47 programs and just wipes them
out in all the different States, in all the different districts, in all
the different characteristics. Just wipes these programs out without
any consideration of merit.
As we pointed out, I think several times tonight, this particular one
that the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] has pointed out has been
in existence for 15 years. No one has clamored to this committee saying
get rid of this. No one has said this is harming the land. Others have
existed for longer than that, 25 years. But this legislation comes
along without regard to local opinion, involvement, concern, or
support. The Federal Government just comes along and wipes it out, our
unobtrusive Federal Government brought to us by the House Committee on
Resources.
One would think Members would be asked whether or not they consent to
this or not. But that is not what is going on here. Just flat out
wiping them out. If anybody thinks that is not the heavy hand of the
Federal Government, tell that to people who have spent so many
resources trying to preserve and protect these areas and learn how to
take care of them.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to again stress it is not the Government. We are asking the
Congress to accept their role. All these projects were unauthorized.
They never were authorized. We did not do our job. We blindly set aside
because a certain party was in control of the House that believed in
this type of thing and we did not do our duty.
So we are not doing anything in this bill. We are giving them the 3
years. If they are as good as they say they are, they can come back.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Pombo].
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Here we go again. These particular sites have no regulatory
authority, no money, no grants. They cannot do anything, they are
totally powerless. But if we do not have them, the developers and the
miners and the loggers are going to destroy all of these unique
environmental areas.
Now, there is something that is contradictory about that. Either they
have regulatory authority, either they have power to do something or
they do not. We cannot argue both sides.
Now, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] will be the first to
stand up and say that his district has unique environmental qualities
that need to be protected. He will be the first one to stand up and say
that the people of the First District in California want to protect
those areas, and they have city councils, they have boards of
supervisors, they have State representatives who fight day in and day
out to protect those areas. The gentleman himself has spent an
inordinate amount of time back here in Congress trying to protect the
unique environmental qualities that exist in northern California. But
that is the way it is supposed to work.
We do not need an international organization, an international
designation that Congress never looks at, that Congress never has
oversight authority on, that Congress never approves. Why do we need
something that is kind of behind the doors to protect something? Do we
really feel that the people of that particular area cannot protect
their own resources; that they do not have anybody there with enough
smarts or enough caring or enough compassion to protect their
resources?

{time} 2045

And there is no one in Congress who can protect these areas.
Throughout the entire country, there is no one that can protect them.
We need an international organization that can step forward and tell us
what needs to be protected and how we are going to do that.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I respond to somebody who is very familiar with this program, unlike
those who have been talking, many of whom have none in their district.
What they are taking away is the ability for America and for private
landowners, for States, and for anybody other than the Federal
Government to ever get into an interdisciplinary scientific research
that may be done on a standardized basis around the world.
I think this is an embarrassment to take this away, say you have to
come to Congress, and even if you are private

[[Page H8560]]

land, you cannot get it, if you are State land, you cannot get it, and
if you are local land, you cannot get it.
This has existed because we ratified the treaty back in 1974. There
may not be congressional authorization because there has never needed
to be.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to remind the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] that there
is no Biosphere treaty. There has never been a treaty. Let us keep that
in mind. Let us not stretch this truth. There was no treaty.
Mr. FARR of California. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman,
the World Heritage Convention was ratified in 1973.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Not the Biosphere areas.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs.
Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr.
Young] for yielding me the time.
I just want to say that the United States Supreme Court has addressed
this issue in a very, very interesting case, Fong Yue Ting versus
United States, where that highest court in the land wrote:

To preserve this Nation's independence and give security
against foreign aggression and encroachment constitute the
very highest duty of every nation, and to attain these ends,
nearly all other considerations are to be subordinated. It
matters not in what form such aggression and encroachment
come.

I believe the Supreme Court understands what we are dealing with.
Furthermore, I just want to wind my comments up by saying that George
Washington, in a letter dated October 9, 1795, wrote:

My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply
strictly with all engagements, foreign and domestic; but to
keep the United States free from political connections with
every other country, to see them independent of all and under
the influence of none, is my ardent desire.

I share that. While I believe in a strong and vigorous trade policy,
the sovereignty of the United States of America is so very important,
and the protection of private property rights must be protected.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a property owner, and
I want to protect private property rights. Support this amendment. I
rise as a former county supervisor. Support local control. Support this
amendment. I rise as a former State legislator. Support States' rights.
Support this amendment. And I rise as a Member of the United States
Congress, saying, thank God that this country has been a global leader
in environmental protection and environmental resource management.
And in a time when we recognize global, global warming and global
environmental pollution, which our national Defense Department says is
not in our national security interest to keep the world being polluted,
that we can have international agreements that allow us to have some
commonality and science, if there is anything that ought to be
protected, it is that. Give us back our property rights. Support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Nothing in this bill precludes any scientific study, any type of
cooperation with other countries. All we are doing is getting back the
responsibility of this Congress that we swore to uphold. The
Constitution of the United States is all I am asking for. I urge a
``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
[Mr. Farr] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House, it is now
in order to consider amendment No. 51 printed in the Congressional
Record.

Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Vento

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 51 offered by Mr. Vento: Page 10, line 15,
Following the word ``special'' insert the following: ``,
including commercial.''

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and a Member
opposed will each control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment follows a different tack than that which
had been offered before. In this new-found enthusiasm in this Congress
to reassert its prerogatives and control, absolute control over land
use designations and limits as they apply to preservation and study and
surveys and really international voluntary conventions, I am offering
an amendment which permits us to assert the same sort of control over
commercial type of activities that are of an international nature.
A key component of the pending legislation is a requirement that
Congress specifically approve the recognition of any U.S. lands for
conservation purposes as a result of agreement with a foreign entity.
However, at the same time, this legislation does not require similar
congressional action when the U.S.-owned lands are leased, oftentimes
at a loss to American taxpayers, to foreign-owned companies for
drilling, for mining, for timber harvesting, or other commercial
endeavors. Claims can be made, and under law, hundreds of millions of
dollars of U.S. public land assets are handed over to foreign
corporations or persons for a pittance, to foreign entities.
The Vento amendment establishes parity in that process. Under my
amendment, the legislation requires for specific congressional
authorization where it be extended to cover commercial uses and
development of U.S. lands by foreign companies and U.S. subsidiaries of
foreign companies or entities. My amendment would not prevent such
activities from occurring. It would encourage Congress to approve such
actions, which has, of course, been the siren song that we have heard
over and over again tonight. We need Congress to approve all of these
specific conservation, these voluntary conservation agreements.
The Vento amendment is a responsible provision that responds to
foreign exploitations which are now occurring and which neither the
Congress nor the administration can legally stop.
Many of my colleagues would remember the public outcry when it was
revealed that a concession facility at Yosemite National Park was going
to be managed by a Japanese conglomerate, Matsushita. No legal recourse
was available to block this action.
A similar outrage was voiced when the Secretary of the Interior was
required, under Federal law and under court order, to release and to
honor a claim and patent to release Federal lands containing more than
$10 billion in gold to a subsidiary of a Canadian-owned corporation for
less than $10,000.
Nothing has been done to prevent the repeat of this type of land use
policy, a real ripoff of the American public. A foreign firm can
operate the concession at the Statue of Liberty or any of our national
parks. And foreign firms can continue to exploit American resources
while ripping off the U.S. taxpayers.
We now have an opportunity to change those policies. While the Vento
amendment will not prevent these activities from moving forward, it is
intended to require Congress to consider the national consequences and
specifically authorize those actions. If we are going to require
Congress to approve actions to recognize U.S.-owned lands for
conservation purposes, then Congress should also approve actions by
foreign firms which exploit U.S. lands.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H8561]]

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, if the Vento amendment does what it says it does, it is
not germane. It was written, so it does not really say anything.
I do not want it in the Record to say that we happen to agree that we
have to enter, if you read in this section the term ``international
agreement'' means any compact, executive agreement, conservation,
bilateral agreement, or multilateral agreements between the United
States or any agency of the United States, any foreign entity.
And I am suggesting, respectfully, that the attempt of the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is to preclude any type of activity under
treaty, including the other treaties, such as NAFTA, and allowing other
countries into our lands, as well we go into their lands.
So I adamantly oppose the amendment because all it is is including
commercial, and I am suggesting, respectfully, it is written very
cleverly, but if it does what he says it does, and I do not believe it
is, it would have been nongermane and I would have made a point of
order. But it does not do that.
So I, very frankly, urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Rahall], a distinguished member of the Committee on
Resources.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, the black helicopters are, indeed, circling over our
lands. They are out there circling as we speak. And the agents of
foreign powers are, indeed, locking up our public lands, intent upon
not only controlling them, but ultimately America's very natural
resource heritage.
But to be sure, Mr. Chairman, and let us be sure about this, the
pilots of these helicopters are not wearing the blue helmets of the
United Nations. Rather, they are wearing the corporate emblems of
foreign conglomerates based in South Africa, Australia, Luxembourg, and
Canada.
These foreign agents are not from the United Nations. Their weapons
are not World Heritage sites or International Biospheres. Indeed, the
true threat comes from the foreign conglomerates, multinational mining
firms, who swoop down upon our public lands owned by the American
taxpayers and extract the gold and the silver, with no rent, no
royalties paid to the American people, the owners of this land.
The U.N. charter in this instance is not the issue. It is our very
own mining law of 1872, of 1872, which continues with reckless
disregard to our economy and our environment to turn over our Federal
assets to the control of foreign nationals.
So I rise in support of this amendment, to this bill, the American
Lands Sovereignty Protection Act, for if we are to protect the
sovereignty of our American lands from foreign powers, then we must
include commercial developments undertaken by foreign powers in this
legislation. That is what this amendment is all about.
As my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], said, it
is about parity in this process. It is about restoring sanity and
reasonableness to the fanaticism behind this bill. Our lands, our
resources, owned by all Americans, are being claimed by foreign
entities. Are we in Congress having a say on it? No. The hard-rock
minerals of these lands are being mined, with no return to the public,
and these lands are being privatized by foreign entities for a mere
pittance, $2.50 or $5 an acre. That is what we are giving away to
foreign entities, allowed under the mining law of 1872, yes. Should
these practices be condoned in 1997? No, of course not. This House is
on record, by an overwhelming majority, in a bipartisan manner, as
saying no.
So the real issue here today is not what the proponents of H.R. 901
make it out to be. It is not about the United Nations. It is not about
black helicopters descending upon an unsuspecting populace. It is, in
these times of budgetary constraint, about the relinquishment of our
lands and minerals to multinational conglomerates for what amounts to
fast food hamburger prices.
So I say to my colleagues, vote ``yes'' on the Vento amendment. Cast
a vote for America. Allow us in Congress to have a say where foreign
entities are going to come in and control our concessionaires at the
Statue of Liberty or Yosemite or at other national park areas. Let the
Congress have a say on these issues before we lose further lands to
foreign conglomerates.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

{time} 2100

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to acknowledge the gentleman's
cosponsorship of this amendment. I neglected to do that in offering it,
and I appreciate his guidance and strong support as a former chairman
of the Subcommittee on Mining and Minerals for many years on the
Committee on Natural Resources. I appreciate the gentleman's strong
support and his cosponsorship of this amendment. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I urge support
for this amendment.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I thank him for introducing this amendment
along with the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], who has just
spoken, because this amendment takes us right to the crux of what this
legislation is about.
This legislation is about international mining companies, timber
companies and others that seek to beat back those individuals and local
communities who want to protect the ecosystems, that want to protect
the watersheds, that want to protect their local communities, that want
to protect our national parks and our heritage areas. This bill is
about beating those people back, under the guise of the sovereignty of
the United States.
Yet the proponents of this legislation would happily hand over
billions of dollars of taxpayer-owned platinum or gold or silver or
coal or timber and think nothing of it, and have done that, and have
supported that effort. They would think nothing of delegating their
authority to the Department of Interior to enter into a lease for
billions of dollars of what belongs to the taxpayers, and as the
gentleman from Minnesota pointed out, the taxpayers get nothing back.
A private person can own the land right next to this and they can get
royalties in the millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions. We
get nothing, because these people are willing to delegate their
authority over these lands to some bureaucrats who give it away to
international mining companies who want to destroy maybe the Clarks
Fork River, who wanted to take $1 billion out of the lands of Idaho.
The gentleman says this is only about treaties. Well, maybe that is
why the western Governors are not happy with fast track, because I say
to my colleagues, we need this law to protect us in the future, because
we do not get a right under arrangements like NAFTA, under the
arrangements under fast track.
So what we have here is those great protectorates of a constitutional
power, who will not let a faceless bureaucrat enter into a research
grant to protect lands, will gladly hand them over to Canadian mining
companies, South African mining companies, Canadian timber companies,
``Come on in and get all you want.'' Do we think that is really what
the taxpayers want? The taxpayers have said time and again they are
tired of that arrangement, they are tired of seeing us lose money, they
are tired of seeing us enter into leases where people spend $270, $270,
and they have $1 billion worth of minerals.
My colleagues on the other side are worried about sovereignty? I do
not think so. I think it only cuts one way.
My colleagues are only worried about it when somebody wants to do a
little

[[Page H8562]]

research and not harm the land, but when somebody wants to come in and
tear up the landscape, walk off with the gold, walk off with the
platinum, there is silence on the other side. So apparently, it is open
season for international companies who want to come and rape and ruin
the land and take the gold and take the silver.
Somehow this committee cannot figure out how to stop that, but if
someone wants to come and study the watershed in the Redwood National
Forest or somebody wants to study the Channel Islands or somebody wants
to study the Big Ben Park down in Texas to see whether it can be
protected, whether it can be developed in a way that is compatible; if
someone wants to study the Everglades, somehow one is giving up
sovereignty. But if somebody wants to give away the legacy of this
country and the heritage of this country and its gold and its silver
and its platinum, this committee says, ``Come on in, buy it for $5 an
acre, and we will give you millions of dollars.''
Mr. Chairman, the greatest scam going in the history of the American
taxpayer. This is one where we just back up the big old dump truck, we
put the shovel in the ground and we take the gold and do not even say
``thank you'' to the people of the United States.
I think the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and the gentleman
from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] have put their thumb right on what this
bill is about. Read it on the Internet, folks. This is a big push by
those corporate interests to try to drive out of these communities
people who have concerns for the environment, the watershed, the
habitat and the wildlife, because then there is nobody to stop them
from taking the gold and the silver and the platinum of this Nation.
This is a travesty, it is a travesty. It has been denounced by every
editorial board, every public interest group, every periodical. Since
1872, somehow these people have not figured out how to amend the law so
the taxpayer could get a fair break, and now they are going to use this
law to drive off the researchers and the local communities and the
universities and the State park system who are trying to protect the
lands, the heritage and the history of this country. Do we think, my
colleagues, maybe it is not on the level? Maybe it is just not on the
level, and my colleagues ought to vote for this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to say to my colleague that I have heard some great demagoguery
in my life, but that is one of the best, because this amendment only
applies to commercial:

In this section, the term ``international agreement'' means
any treaty, compact, executive agreement, convention,
bilateral agreement, or multilateral agreement between the
United States or any agency of the United States and any
foreign entity or agency of any foreign entity, having a
primary purpose of conserving, preserving, or protecting the
terrestrial or marine environment flora, or fauna.

That is all this does. This is just a great platform for my good
friend from California [Mr. Miller] to talk about the evils of mining,
the terrible things that occur. It has nothing to do with this bill. It
is a great smokescreen, and I compliment him on it. It is one of those
issues that I am very pleased to say that I hope everybody could see
through it.
This amendment is a mischievous amendment. It does nothing. I am
tempted to vote for the silly thing, because it does nothing, it means
nothing. It is a disaster when it comes to having taken the time to put
this in this bill. As I told the Parliamentarian, and in fact, it is
out of order if that is what it really does, because it does not do
that with the amendment.
The amendment is an innocuous little amendment, but it gives them a
platform to talk and pontificate on the terrible evils of the mining
law. My good friend from West Virginia, [Mr. Rahall], now, he does not
have any foreign people digging the mountains out in West Virginia, no;
destroying the environment, no. Those are not foreign countries, and in
fact, they are all pure, homemade countries, but they are destroying
West Virginia, but that is all right. But do not mess with the public
lands. Lock it up so his price of coal goes up and his people get rich.
I do not blame him, but I am suggesting respectfully, that is a
little hypocritical.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield? The gentleman
brought up my name. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I did not bring up the gentleman's name.
Mr. RAHALL. These happen to be private lands, I will have the
gentleman know.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota controls the time.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Minnesota for yielding, and I would respond to my chairman of the
Committee on Resources, let us not mix apples and oranges here. West
Virginia, these are private lands, these are private people that have
come in.
Is the gentleman asking that the private developers not be allowed to
do what they want on private land?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am not saying that. Is the
gentleman telling me they are all privately owned companies? Is there
any foreign money in those companies?
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, absolutely, take back the time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say as well
that my coal miners are paying their taxes, their royalties to the
Federal Government for mining on private land, not lands owned by the
Federal taxpayers.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
point out that this amendment does in fact have an impact, we believe,
because as we look at foreign entities and we look at the purpose of
conserving, obviously if we are not conserving, if one is taking the
products out of the land, mining or doing other activities, one still
has to prepare an environmental impact statement. I would suggest to my
colleagues that it is a lease agreement or other agreements that have
to be entered into.
The fact is that as we look at what has happened, and I admit that
this only affects those foreign entities that are coming in to do that,
foreign countries, maybe even publicly owned foreign companies, but for
instance, we have gold mining that has gone on. The value of that by
the Barrick Gold Strike Company is $8.9 billion in Nevada that was sold
for a pittance. Gold Fields Mining Company, United Kingdom company,
purchased for $1,700; estimated value, $266 million. The first one,
incidentally, was purchased as a $9 billion value, purchased for less
than $9,000. The Faxcalk Company of Denmark, Travatine, purchased for
$270; estimated value of the claim, $1 billion.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
What has this got to do with the gentleman's amendment to this bill?
Nothing.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this is another classic example of
nothing about nothing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Peterson].
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I have been a part of the legislative process for 20 years, and I
want to sincerely say to my colleagues, the American public deserves a
more upright and honest statement of the facts. I urge my colleagues
tomorrow to read the record that has been created here tonight. I want
to tell my colleagues, it is far from the truth. To make such
outlandish statements that the sovereignty act is to take away the
protection of public lands so people can take advantage of them is not
true.
The American public had very little to say, if anything, at the local
level, at the State level and at the national level about the biosphere
program. It was created by administrations with no legislative
oversight and no legislative funding and no legislative input. There is
great concern among people around this country that decisions are going
to be made in the future and are currently being made by world people,

[[Page H8563]]

people from around the world, and they do not want America governed
that way, they want America governed by Americans at the local level,
at the State level and at the national level. And for my colleagues on
the other side to make these statements that have been made, and I mean
this sincerely, they owe the American public an apology because they
have talked about everything but the truth.
We heard about this being overreaching and so damaging. We had others
call it crazy, trivial nonsense, and we had other ones saying it was
all done by local community requests. The American public want to
understand world agreements, and they have a right to. They want to
understand international commitments that our Government makes, and
they have a right to.
In conclusion, those who want to deprive the average American, those
who want to deprive the American citizens from having the right to
understand what biospheres are about, having the right to react to
their local government or their Congress, whether they agree or
disagree, and they may agree, but give them the right. When it is not
to be publicly debated, people think we have something to hide when
they do not have a shot, they do not have a bite of the apple. That is
what America is all about. We cannot have too much sunshine, we cannot
have too much people participation.
People in America are concerned about the proposal of world
government and other countries making decisions in this country, and
generally in a huge percentage they are opposed to that, and we should
be sensitive to that for the long run of this country, because most
other countries do not really care about the future of America, but
Americans do, and they should have the right to understand clearly
every agreement, every international commitment that is done, and it
should be done in the sunshine, and that is what this whole bill is
about, not the rhetoric we heard a few moments ago.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy if the gentleman would
yield me some of his time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Vento] will be postponed.
The point of order is considered withdrawn.

{time} 2115

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House, it is now
in order to consider an amendment without a number offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] that will strike section 4(b).

Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California:
On page 9 of the bill, beginning at line 1, strike all
through the end of line 16, and renumber subsequent
subsections accordingly.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] will control
15 minutes, and a Member in opposition will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation as currently drafted wipes out the
Biosphere Reserves that have existed in this country for between 15 and
25 years, and have had the continued support of the local communities
where they exist.
Some of them are as grand as the Big Bend in Texas, some of them are
as grand as the Redwood Coastal Range in the State of California, the
Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska, Golden Gate National Recreation
Area, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Mojave National
Preserve, the Olympic Peninsula in the Pacific Northwest, one of the
great, great sites in this country.
These designations were first started in the early 1970s. This
occurred throughout the 1970s. They have been worked on and researched,
and assets have been brought to this effort by universities, by local
foundations, by national foundations, by local civic organizations that
have been brought into researching the effort, by the various park
systems of the various States where these are involved.
The fact of the matter is there has been very little or no outcry
about this because people did not realize what they had. What they had
with this designation was the opportunity to participate in research
not only in their local areas, but to be able to coordinate and work
with other research going on around in other places of the world. It
gave us a chance to look at some of these landscapes, and we know we
mismanaged them when we managed them in very small portions. Now we are
able to look on them in a grander scale.
But this legislation wipes them out, just wipes them out. It does not
matter if those of us in California who are so concerned with the
Channel Islands, with the watersheds in the south of San Francisco, or
with our great redwood parks, it does not matter, it just wipes them
out. It does not matter that the people in Texas are proud of the Big
Bend, and the Big Bend is serious desert research, habitat research. It
just wipes them out.
It does not do that for the Heritage areas. It grandfathers them in.
What this amendment would simply do is grandfather in the existing
areas, and then if the bill passes, new areas would have to be
designated in accordance with this legislation.
But what it does not do is it does not throw away the effort, the
time, and the experience that we have gained in these programs. It is
not a unilateral withdrawal from the biosphere program. It in fact
leaves that in place, since there has been little or no complaint about
the existing ones.
It is interesting that most of the people who have argued about this
have been people who do not have these in their areas. People have come
down and made remarkable speeches about the Constitution and what have
you. They just do not happen to have a Biosphere Reserve. There are not
people asking for time saying get rid of that biosphere in Texas or
Arizona, get rid of that biosphere in California. So what we have here
is legislation that deals with a problem that does not exist.
I do not think that is fair to these local organizations. I do not
think that is fair to the parks department in our States that have put
assets and resources and time and effort into this, or to the
foundations, or to the universities that have engaged in this research.
So I would simply leave the status quo. The last one designated was in
1991. It is not like they are roaring on here and designating them
every year. There are only 47 nationwide. Then let the bill work its
will on those programs.
This amendment is no more complicated than that. I would urge when
the House votes tomorrow, that it votes to grandfather and exempt these
provisions from this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] claim the
time in opposition?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I do claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] is recognized for
15 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my good friend, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller], he propounded the statement that he does not hear anybody
yelling, get rid of these biospheres. I would like to invite the
gentleman

[[Page H8564]]

from California [Mr. Miller] up to my district.
I just took the honorable chairman of the Committee on Resources and
the honorable gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] and a number of
other Members up to the Catskill Mountains, where there was a proposed
biosphere about to go in. They heard an earful.
I would invite them to come to another mountain range that I
represent, called the Adirondack Mountains. As a Representative from
that area with one of the largest U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United
States, I have a personal interest in this bill on behalf of the
600,000 people that I have the privilege of representing.
In my congressional district, the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere
Reserve was created in 1989. It was created at the request of a quasi-
governmental agency called the Adirondack Park Agency. If I have time,
I will talk about how Nelson Rockefeller rammed this down the throats
of the people I represent some 30 years ago. It was at the request of
two Governors. One was a very liberal Governor from the State of New
York, and one was a very liberal Governor from the State of Vermont.
Without even any input from the State legislature or without
congressional hearings or real input from any of the local citizens of
the Adirondacks, this area was designated in the middle of the night,
without anybody knowing about it, as a U.N. Biosphere Reserve.
The system completely bypassed the people directly affected by this
program. None of us knew about it. In this case, and in many cases in
this country, I would submit that with congressional oversight and
public input, many of these U.N. sites would not even have been
designated.
In fact, in 1994, this was only just 3 years ago, the Catskill region
of New York, again in my district, was nominated for designation as a
U.N. Biosphere Reserve, and we almost did not know anything about that.
But we got wind of it. When I found out about it and when local
officials and residents raised cain about it, and showed their
opposition, the nomination was defeated.

That is probably what would have happened all over this country had
these not been snuck in in the middle of the night. The American Land
Sovereignty Act before us tonight unequivocally states that no lands in
this country can be included in any international land use programs
without the clear and direct approval of Congress.
That makes sense, because even on that side of the aisle, and I
respect the gentleman and I believe he would let his constituents know
about it, I do not think he would try to sneak it in in the middle of
the night, if I look around, all of these Members look like respected
Members of this body.
Most all of H.R. 901 protects individual private property rights.
That is the most important thing. Executive branch political appointees
cannot and should not be making property decisions in the place of
individual landowners. This bill is a first step in the right direction
in returning power to the elected Representatives in Congress as well
as to the local citizens and officials.
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, this bill, if we defeat the Miller
amendment, reasserts the constitutional rights of property owners all
across the country to control their land without interference from some
international organization. That is what this debate is all about.
Please come over here and defeat the Miller amendment, and we can
defeat all of these amendments, and then vote for this bill that means
so much to the people in this country.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Capps].
Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise because the Channel Islands Biosphere
Reserve is in our district, in the Twenty-second District of
California. I have had an opportunity to watch the cooperative work
that goes on there with the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the national
parks, the Channel Island National Park, and I would say most
especially the University of California. And the Chair knew I was going
to say that.
I think it is very, very positive work. It ought to be continued,
too. I do not have the fear about world government that I think people
on the other side have. I think this is really an attack on the United
Nations. I do not have that fear. I think there are times when we need
international cooperation for research purposes.
That is primarily what we are talking about here. There is some
concern about persons from other countries participating in American
research, or research having to do with American locales, but I want to
point out that Americans participate in international research of a
biospheric nature throughout the world. This is fair play.
I certainly support the amendment of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller], and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I again rise in opposition to this amendment. This
amendment is a backdoor way of authorizing existing Biosphere Reserves.
The Heritage areas were recognized in the bill because it is under
treaty, but there is no treaty on the biospheres, none. Let us make
that perfectly clear. I have a 3-year grandfather clause. We can come
back and talk about each one of these. If everybody loves them like
they do, it will work.
By the way, I have no fear of outside world government at all. I
believe in America. But I suggest respectfully I do also believe, and I
think each one of the Members were sworn to uphold the Constitution.
The Constitution says that Congress, this Congress, the Members and I,
are the only ones who can designate lands.
So why is the fear, why do Members want to give this away to somebody
else? I have never understood that, and this whole argument. What is
wrong with this Congress acting, and by the way, the areas that have
been designated can still be, under State participation, under the
individual participation, can still have the same type of study and
research.
I keep hearing this research charade. The research can go on. There
is nothing that stops the research, nothing at all. All we are asking
in this legislation is that this Congress fulfill its responsibility of
designating lands. If in fact UNESCO or somebody wants to designate it,
let them come to Congress. That is all I will ask.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member yielding
time to me.
I just wanted to ask the chairman to yield. Because his point is that
under the World Heritage Convention, that the 20 sites that are in
existence remain in existence that are designated, and he is correct
about that. The Ramsar sites that are in existence, the 15, remain in
effect. There is nothing that I said or intimated that they were not,
and they are under treaty.
But I think that, in my judgment, the World Heritage sites, we will
not have another World Heritage site in the United States based on this
legislation, because it makes it impossible, based on the type of
requirements that are in the legislation under that supposition.
In any case, looking, because we are talking about the Man and
Biosphere program, that protocol right now, that agreement, of which
120-some nations are involved, the fact is this says you give 2 or 3
years of time, but then in terms of requirements, it says it consists
solely of lands as of that date that are enacted that are owned by the
United States.
So therefore, to be into that biosphere, to be part of that, you
could not be a State land, you could not be a private land, you could
not be anything. So in essence, saying you are going to give us an
opportunity to go back and designate those is not entirely accurate, in
my judgment, because this will take it apart. There is no way under the
precepts of this bill that it can be put back together again. So once
we break that apart, it cannot be put back together.
Earlier today it was suggested that some Members did not agree with
some of the statements that were being made over here, and at that time
they

[[Page H8565]]

would not yield, because I was wondering which statements. It reminds
me of the adage that was once espoused by President Truman, that said
that you do not have to really give them a lot of grief. He said, you
just have to tell the truth, and they will think that they have a lot
of grief.
Because I do not want to be accused of something else, the issue is I
have been trying to strive for a common understanding. Everyone is
entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own
facts with regard to this. That is what this bill does. This is the
literal reading of this bill.
If the gentleman disagrees with that, I would be happy to yield what
time I have so I can engage in a realistic debate with regard to this
issue.

{time} 2130

No offers?
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment.
It is ironic we are here debating and we find that this side of the
aisle is out here trying to protect local property rights, local
control. This bill wipes it out.
The bill that is before us wipes out what four Republican
administrations and two Democratic administrations have been carrying
on. It wipes out the ability for America to participate with 146 other
nations. It wipes out the exchange of information among scientists on a
common international one page.
Mr. Chairman, it wipes out the process that allowed the nomination
from local governments, from State governments, from nonprofits, and
from private land use. It wipes it out, Mr. Chairman, because it says
that on page 9, ``Any designation shall not be given any force or
effect unless it consists solely of lands that of the date of enactment
are owned by the United States.''
So all of those programs that have been involved in this for so many
years are wiped out. It wipes out, and I think this is something that
has not been looked at, it wipes out the fact that a lot of
international tourists come to the United States. And according to the
Visitor's Service Survey conducted in the Everglades, 44 percent of the
international visitors say they came to that because it was such a
designated site. They knew about it because of their host countries.
That is why the National Tourist Association of Kentucky has written in
opposition to this bill, because this bill wipes out essentially a
tourist attraction.
The Man and Biosphere program is a key program that helps train our
Peace Corps volunteers. When we go overseas to try and develop an
environmental program for the countries that the Peace Corps volunteers
are serving in so that everybody can be on the same scientific page,
they are trained by our Biosphere programs here in the United States
before they go overseas. This wipes that out. This wipes out the
ability for America to participate, and that, I think, is why this bill
is so fundamentally wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment that at
least makes it prospective and not retrospective. Do not tread on
property rights.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Let us understand something here. It has been suggested that somehow
we were giving away the Constitution of the United States if we did not
vote for this bill. But this bill leaves in place the World Heritage
Areas that were designated by the United Nations, that were nominated
by the United States, accepted by the United Nations pursuant to their
criteria, and the treaty, the international treaty we have on Heritage
areas. So this bill leaves those in place.
But, Mr. Chairman, the Biosphere areas that were designated by the
U.S. Government, that were nominated by local communities, and are
recognized, not designated, not accepted by them, recognized by the
international program, that we nominated and we control them, those are
wiped out.
But those of my colleagues on the other side who are so upset about
one world government and the United Nations and so upset about
international conspiracy, they leave in place the designation that is
made by the United Nations.
So what is the problem here? This is wiping out the other treaty. I
do not get it. There is some inconsistency here, folks. So it is now
the treaty power that prevents proponents of this bill from acting to
protect the sovereignty and their citizens? I see. OK. So now we have
it clear.
Mr. Speaker, these areas that were nominated by local governments or
organizations and agencies, and were designated by the various
administrations starting from President Nixon to today, those are a
threat to the United States, but the United Nations designated and
accepted areas and the United Nations criteria are not? Something is
very wrong here.
What is wrong here is that we are overriding with this legislation,
we are overriding the local designation.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] got up and talked about how
people in his district raised cain about one of these areas and it did
not happen. Is the gentleman suggesting that the people in Florida and
Texas and California and Montana and Idaho were snookered? Were they
snookered in 1986, 1976, 1996? Were they snookered? I don't think so.
The point is this: That is the process.
Somebody else got up here and said that in Minnesota back in 1983
somebody proposed one of these and the people turned it down. It sounds
to me like the process is working, folks. But now they want to wipe out
those local decisions. Forty-seven areas said they thought it was OK;
they want to wipe them out.
Mr. Chairman, I can understand my colleagues on the other side
saying, ``Hey, you do not like that process; you want to go through
this one, and if in the future you want one of these, you have got to
come to Congress.'' That is fine. But why would you wipe out all of
these other areas?
Their contention is that the people in San Francisco or Los Angeles
or Santa Barbara were snookered, even though they were interested in
doing this and participating and they asked to participate. Kind of an
interesting theory. Kind of an interesting theory.
Mr. Chairman, it should not happen. It should not happen. I would
urge Members to support this amendment when we vote tomorrow to restore
these areas that are currently in place and protect these very, very,
very valuable assets of the United States of America.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind everybody, the treaty for
the Heritage Areas was ratified by the Senate and voted on by the
House, but not the Biospheres. That is why we had to leave the
Heritage. If I had my way, they would be out too. Let us be very up
front about this. The Biosphere is, again, a designation by the U.N.,
by UNESCO, without any local input.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs.
Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Farr] said that the Tourist Association of Kentucky supports the
Biosphere Reserve Program. However, on May 29, 1997, the Kentucky State
Senate, by a voice vote, approved Senate Resolution 35 which reads:

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is
unalterably opposed to the inclusion of any land within the
borders of the Commonwealth within the purview of the
Biosphere Treaty or any biodiversity program without the
express consent of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth
of Kentucky, as provided by the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of Kentucky.
Furthermore, the General Assembly urges the Members of the
Congress of the United States, and especially the Kentucky
delegation to the Congress of the United States, to oppose
ratification of this treaty and the inclusion of any land
within the Commonwealth of Kentucky in any Biosphere program
of the United Nations.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Brady].
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, when we do something wrong, we go back and
make it right. That is what the crux of this bill does, and that is
what this amendment prevents.

[[Page H8566]]

Mr. Chairman, in Texas we have two Biosphere Reserves that total over
three-quarters of a million acres in our State, a significant amount.
Under this amendment, we as a Congress are prevented from going back to
the communities that include those Biospheres and are adjacent to them.
We are prevented from going back to those school districts, those
county commissions, and the State legislature, and allowing them to ask
the questions that they were not allowed to ask the first time: How
does this affect our community and what does this allow us to do? What
does it prevent us from doing? How will it affect our tourism? How will
it affect our property tax values? How will it affect everything that
we have been building in our community and our State?
This amendment prevents those very common sense and basic questions
from being asked. And those Biosphere Reserves that have value in
support will pass all those tests, and those that do not will at last
have a local standard applied to them that we desperately need.
I know some believe the United Nations knows what is best for our
communities, but I have a great deal of faith that local communities
and counties and school boards and State legislatures, if given an
opportunity to ask those questions and have them answered, will come up
with the right decision. I have faith in them. This amendment prevents
us, prevents them, from having a say. We all deserve to have a say in
our property rights.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Pursuant to the previous order of the House, it is now in order to
consider the amendment regarding specific Biosphere Reserves.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I will not offer the
amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
Peterson of Pennsylvania] having assumed the chair, Mr. Sununu,
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that the Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 901) to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over public
lands and acquired lands owned by the United States, and to preserve
State sovereignty and private property rights in non-Federal lands
surrounding those public lands and acquired lands, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________