[Pages H3398-H3425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 180 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 180

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 833) 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. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Resources. After general debate, the bill shall
be considered for amendment under the five-minute

[[Page H3399]]

rule for a period not to exceed four hours. The bill shall be
considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose
of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by
the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and
shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.

{time} 1030

amendment offered by mr. hastings of washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
House Resolution 180 be amended on page 2, line 2, by striking ``833''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``883''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 2, line 2, strike ``833'' and insert in lieu thereof
``883''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time
as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 180 would grant H.R.
883, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, a modified open
rule, providing 1 hour of general debate to be divided equally between
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources.
The rule provides for a 4-hour limit on the amendment process and
provides that the bill shall be considered as read. Additionally, the
rule makes in order only those amendments preprinted in the
Congressional Record and pro forma amendments for the purpose of
debate. Amendments that are preprinted may be offered only by the
Member who caused them to be printed or his designee, shall be
considered as read, and may be amended.
The rule further allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit,
with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 883 was reported by the Committee on Resources. The
bill would restore the constitutional role of Congress in managing
lands belonging to the United States, preserve the sovereignty of the
United States over its lands, and protect State sovereignty and private
property rights in non-Federal lands adjacent to the Federal lands.
Under Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution, Congress is vested
with the authority to regulate Federal lands. Yet, over the past 25
years, an increasing expansion of our Nation's public lands have been
included in various land use programs with little congressional
oversight or approval. Two notable programs are the United Nations
Biosphere Reserves and the World Heritage Sites, both of which are
under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization or UNESCO.
There are now 47 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and 20 World Heritage
Sites in the United States. By becoming party to these international
land use agreements through executive action, but without congressional
authorization, the United States may be indirectly agreeing to terms to
international treaties which the Senate has refused to ratify.
By consenting to international land use designations, the United
States in effect agrees to impose restrictions on surrounding lands
which, in many cases, include a substantial amount of private property.
Subjecting private property owners to land use restrictions imposed
without their consent, or even the consent of their elected
representatives, is a very serious matter. It is a practice which this
Congress should emphatically reject.
In response to growing concern about this situation, H.R. 883 would
amend the National Historic Preservation Act to require congressional
approval before any nominated property may be included in the World
Heritage list. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to submit
a report to Congress describing what impact inclusion on the World
Heritage list would have on the natural resources associated with these
nominated lands.
The bill would prohibit the Secretary of Interior from nominating a
property for inclusion on the World Heritage list until the Secretary
makes findings that existing commercially viable uses of the nominated
land or land within 10 miles of the nomination would not be adversely
affected by its inclusion.
H.R. 883 would prohibit Federal officials from nominating any land in
the U.S. for designation as a Biosphere Reserve and would terminate all
existing Biosphere Reserves unless, one, the Biosphere Reserve is
specifically authorized in law by a date certain, two, the designated
Biosphere Reserve consists entirely of land owned by the U.S., and,
three, a management plan has been implemented which specifically
provides for the protection of non-Federal property rights and uses.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill would prohibit Federal officials from
designating any land in the United States for a special or restricted
use under any international agreement unless such designation is
specifically approved by law, and would also prohibit including any
State, local, or privately owned land in any such designation, unless
that designation is approved by those affected parties.
The Committee on Rules has reported a modified rule, as requested by
the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) of the Committee on
Resources, in order to provide Members of the House seeking to amend
this legislation with the full and fair opportunity to do so.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule
and the underlying bill, H.R. 883.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for a modified open rule which
makes in order only those amendments preprinted in the Congressional
Record and limits debate of the bill to 4 hours. These restrictions are
wholly unnecessary. Any time one imposes an arbitrary time limit, one
runs the risk of limiting full debate. I oppose the rule in its current
form and note that open rules best protect all Members' rights to fully
represent their constituents.
Moreover, I have significant concerns about the legislation the rule
makes in order. While the bill purports to preserve U.S. sovereignty
over the use of Federal lands, in reality, this measure is unnecessary
and could hinder United States participation in international efforts
to protect and preserve valuable lands throughout the world. Similar
dubious legislation has failed in two previous Congresses, and this
bill will get the same fate.
The World Heritage Convention and the Man and Biosphere Program will
provide the international community with means of recognizing areas
with great natural and cultural significance. These honorific programs
respect each State's sovereignty and have no legal jurisdiction over
countries or communities.
Since 1973, the World Heritage Convention has successfully been
implemented by the United States Department of Interior. The Convention
was, in fact, a United States initiative under then President Richard
Nixon.

[[Page H3400]]

A site may be listed as a World Heritage site only if it contains
cultural or natural resources of universal value, and if the national
government where the site is located nominates and protects the site.
Listing an area as a World Heritage site imposes no change in U.S.
law nor any requirement for future changes in domestic law. It does not
give oversight, management, or regulatory authority over United States
lands to any foreign and national organization.
Nor does the United States Man and Biosphere Program place any U.S.
lands or resources under the control of the United Nations or any
international body. In fact, this is a domestic Federal program. It,
therefore, does not impose any restrictions beyond those already in
place under American law.
For over 20 years, under the auspices of four Republican and two
Democratic Presidents, these programs have functioned with little or no
controversy. The allegations by the proponents of H.R. 883 that these
beneficial programs somehow threaten the United States sovereignty are
pure fantasy.
However we do have a Federal, foreign encroachment on American lands,
and I am referring to the mining and mineral rights that have been
leased to foreign corporations with leases that cost about an average
of $2.50 per acre per year. These leases have been in effect since the
days of Ulysses S. Grant. If we would like to do something to protect
our own lands, and stop cheating our taxpayers. We should change this
disgraceful giveaway.
Our national parks do need attention, but Congress certainly could do
better than this bill, which is designed to remedy an imaginary
problem, the supposed encroachment of foreign domination over our
public resources.
Mr. Speaker, another community woke this morning to the horror of a
school shooting. It is not as bad as Columbine we are told. We hope
that these are not going to be fatal shots. But surely this House can
be better spending this time, rather than spending 4 hours on this one
House nowhere bill, and be working on after-school programs and try to
do something about bringing guns under some control.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as
much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill by the
distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the
Committee on Resources, and the rule that brings this bill to the
floor.
This bill does not prohibit or stop the United States from including
land in an international land reserve. All it says is that there must
first be congressional approval so that the private property rights of
neighboring landowners can be protected.
What this bill is attempting to do is to allow a little more public
input into this process and give the people a tiny bit of say about
actions that can have tremendous impact on their land.
It really boils down to whether we still have a government of, by,
and for the people, or has it become one of, by, and for unelected
bureaucrats and elitists who want to control other people's land.
Jeane Kirkpatrick, our former ambassador to the United Nations, wrote
to the Committee on Resources these words, ``In U.N. organizations,
there is no accountability. U.N. bureaucrats are far removed from the
American voters. What recourse does an American voter have when U.N.
bureaucrats from Cuba or Iraq or Libya, all of which are parties to
this treaty, have made a decision that unjustly damages his or her
property rights that lie near a national park?''
Professor Jeremy Rabkin of the Department of Government of Cornell
University testified in support of this bill, saying, ``The underlying
problem is that international regulatory schemes now reach more deeply
into the internal affairs of sovereign nations and have therefore begun
to threaten internal systems of government,'' adding that ``such
ventures are in some ways as much a threat to the stability of
international law as they are to our own system of government at
home.''
Professor Rabkin said we need this bill, not to slow this dangerous
trend toward taking government further away from the people, but also,
``as a means of reasserting our own constitutional traditions.''
Professor Detlev Vagts of the Harvard Law School said international
involvement in local and private land use decisions, ``pose an import
problem'' in their ``tendency to shift powers and responsibilities from
national and subnational units, with active, reachable legislative
bodies to remote international bureaucracies.''
I realize that some opponents of this bill do not want to debate this
on the merits, so they resort to childish sarcasm and try to make this
bill seem less than serious by making fun of it.
But this bill deserves the support of all those who really believe in
private property and limited government and the freedom that is
protected by those two great traditions on which this Nation was built.
Private property is not only one of the key components of our
prosperity. It is one of the main things that set us apart from the
former Soviet Union and other socialist Nations.
Today almost one-third of our land is owned by the Federal
Government, and another 20 percent is owned by State and local
governments and quasi-governmental units. Governments at all levels are
rapidly taking over additional land. Perhaps even more of a threat to
freedom are the restrictions being placed by government on land still
in private ownership.
We heard testimony from Steven Lindsey whose family has operated a
ranch on Turkey Creek in rural Arizona since the 1860s. He was shocked
to find out one day that a 60-acre private wetland on his property was
now controlled by the international RAMSAR Convention agreement in
addition to all the endangered species and other regulations he was
already under.

{time} 1045

Under Ramsar, Mr. Lindsey said, ``My rights as a private property
owner are threatened and the Ramsar language can be used to violate my
property rights and deprive me of the use of my land.''
He added these words, Mr. Speaker: ``The same government that
promised my great, great grandfather and my great grandfather the land
through the Homestead Act and pursuit of happiness is now the same
government that is helping destroy these dreams.''
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, a serious bill; and people who
truly believe in freedom, rather than big brother repressive
government, should support it enthusiastically.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Frankly, this bill is
not correctable by amendment. I think the proper disposition of it is
to defeat this bill. I think it is, obviously, a great
misunderstanding. I think it reflects a fear that has been translated
into legislative language which is inappropriate and I think the wrong
direction clearly to move, and so I do not know how I could amend it.
In the last session, Mr. Speaker, a lot of concern arose because we
proposed some 60 or 70 different amendments to this bill. It touches on
about 82 areas in the United States that are classified as World
Heritage sites, as Man and the Biosphere program, or as Ramsar sites.
There may be more sites in the United States, but those are the three
principal treaties that deal with natural and cultural resources of
distinction, usually within our parks or in those areas; and Man and
the Biosphere programs which focus on special natural environments,
other types of environments that are used for scientific research; and
the Ramsar sites, which protect wetlands.
There may be other treaties and compacts that are affected, Mr.
Speaker. They have not been spoken of or explored in committee. In
fact, I think most of the committee meetings have been based on a lot
of emotionalism and misconceptions and obviously some distaste for the
United Nations, which happens to be associated loosely with some of the
designations here and recognitions that have taken place.

[[Page H3401]]

Incidentally, when I was looking at the numbers, there are nearly
2,000 sites globally that are recognized under these programs. The
United States has very few sites that we have let in the development of
these treaties and programs; and, of course, to in fact renege on this
presents all sorts of problems to us in terms of our global leadership
in terms of the environment.
But that I think is really at the heart of this that there are those
that cannot attack these parks, these wildernesses directly, so they
choose to wrap themselves in American sovereignty and some displeasure
I guess with the U.N., Mr. Speaker, and it is manifest in this bill
that we have before us today, H.R. 883.
The rule is really unfair because we had talked and while there was
some fear that we might offer 70 amendments, as I said, it is not
correctable, but nevertheless the Committee on Rules gets up and
suggested that it is offering an open rule, that we can offer any
amendments that we want. But then they impose this time limitation on
the bill.
I do not think that any of us have any visions of keeping the
Congress in session all day tonight and late into the hours, especially
a day when many Members would like to travel home to their districts so
they can work and be back together with their families and
constituents, a goal certainly that I share with them. But,
nevertheless, the Committee on Rules arbitrarily sets in place this 4-
hour limit.
Unfortunately, in fact I think, Mr. Speaker, that my amendment is the
only amendment that will be offered and that we will pursue that and
see whether or not the fidelity of this group for American sovereignty
carries through to commercial uses of the property for foreign
countries and entities that might want to mine, they might want to
harvest trees and do other exploitative activities in the land. If
there is any enthusiasm for saving American taxpayers and saving their
resources for America, we will see whether or not we can sell that
particular idea.
But there is no reason for putting a time limit on this bill. I think
it is a reflection, unfortunately, of the circumstances and the state
of affairs that exists in this Congress today, in fact, in terms of
what I say, a lack of trust between us, Mr. Speaker, which I think is
unneeded.
And, therefore, I will oppose this rule. I think it is not an open
rule. It is a rule which has a time limitation, and I think it is
unnecessary and this House should reject the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 178, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 140]

YEAS--240

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--178

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--15

Blagojevich
Brown (CA)
Burton
Doolittle
Dunn
Evans
Foley
Gephardt
Gilman
Kucinich
Napolitano
Ose
Salmon
Towns
Waxman

{time} 1111

Messrs. ROEMER, SPRATT and HILLIARD and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. TANCREDO and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 140 on
H. Res. 180 I was unavoidably detained in an important meeting. Had I
been here I would have voted ``yea.''

[[Page H3402]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). Pursuant to House Resolution
180 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 883.

{time} 1115

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 consideration of the bill
(H.R. 883) 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. Stearns in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

{time} 1115

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 883, the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act, asserts the power of Congress on the
Constitution over the lands belonging to the United States, and this is
all this bill does.
So that everyone understands, the concern here is the Congress and,
therefore, the people. They are left out of the domestic process to
designate World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves.
This bill requires the participation, as the Constitution so states,
that the Member of the Congress and the citizens of this Nation are in
the process.
Many, many Americans from all over, sections of our country, have
called my office, I am sure they have called my colleagues also, to say
they are concerned about the lack of congressional oversight over
UNESCO international land reserves in the U.S. and to express support
for this bill. Within the last 25 years, 83 sites in the United States
have been designated as Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage Sites or
Ramsar Sites, all with virtually no congressional oversight and no
congressional hearings. The public and local governments have not be
consulted.
The World Heritage and Ramsar programs are based on a treaty. H.R.
883 does not end U.S. participation in the World Heritage or Ramsar
Sites. We have domestic laws implementing these programs, and H.R. 883
proposes to change these domestic laws so that Congress must approve
the sites.
The Biosphere Reserve Program is not authorized by even a single U.S.
law or any international treaty. That is wrong. Executive Branch
appointees, whatever their political party, cannot and should not do
things that the law does not authorize, and I ask my colleagues, what
is unreasonable about Congress insisting that no land be designated for
inclusion in these international land use programs without clear and
direct approval of the Congress?
What is unreasonable about having local citizens and public officials
participate in decisions on designated land near their homes for
inclusion in an international preserve?
If the boundaries of a national park are forced to change, even by a
small adjustment, Congress must approve the change. However, a 15.4
million acre South Appalachian Biosphere Reserve encompassing parts of
six States stretching from northeast Alabama to southwest Virginia was
created by unelected bureaucrats, bypassing the Congress, and this is
unconstitutional and it is wrong.
We need to reemphasize the congressional duty to keep international
commitments from abridging traditional constitutional constraints.
Otherwise the boundaries between our owners' lands and others or even
between the government's land and private property are too easily and
often ignored.
H.R. 883 will also prevent attempts by the Executive Branch to use
international land designation to bypass the Congress in making land
decisions and protect our domestic land use decision-making process
from unnecessary international interference.
We are going to hear a lot today from the other side and those that
oppose it about this bill being driven by the fear of black helicopters
and catering to suspicions and conspiracy theories of extremists. We
will also hear a lot about the effectiveness and importance of the
wonderful programs. We are also going to be told that these programs
are honorary and have no effect on the use, management or disposition
of public lands. However, the World Heritage Centre says otherwise. The
director of the World Heritage Centre told the Interior Department in a
letter:
``Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention obligates the State
Party to protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations
World Heritage Sites for which they are responsible. This obligation
extends beyond the boundary of the site and Article 5(A) recommends the
State Parties integrate the protection of sites into comprehensive
planning programmes. Thus, if proposed developments will damage the
integrity of the Yellowstone National Park, the State Party has a
responsibility to act beyond the National Park boundary.''
Going beyond what Congress has set aside, I submit this decision as a
responsibility of Congress, not some U.N. committee of unelected
bureaucrats.
The public and local governments are almost never consulted about
creating World Heritage Sites, the Ramsar Sites and Biosphere Reserves.
Although proponents of these programs always keep saying the
designations are made at the request of local communities, designation
efforts are almost always driven by Federal agencies, usually the
National Park Service. The Committee on Resources has not found one
example where one of these designations was requested by a broad-based
cross-section of either the public or local officials. On the contrary,
these programs usually face strong local opposition. In my State the
Alaska State Legislature passed a resolution supporting H.R. 883, and I
will urge my colleagues to listen to the debate, make their decision,
but remember their constitutional duty, and that is to make us the
designees of lands use.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, when Members are speaking, charts are
permitted to be displayed in the House Chamber and the Committee of the
Whole; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. With the permission of the House, when the question is
raised, that is correct.
Mr. VENTO. And when Members have desisted from speaking, are charts
still permitted to be displayed in the House?
The CHAIRMAN. The charts are taken out of the well at that time.
Mr. VENTO. Are they permitted to be in the other portions of the
House and be displayed at that time?
The CHAIRMAN. They should not be displayed anywhere in the Chamber
unless they are being used in the debate.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is a provision and the
custom of the House is that these matters may be displayed in the
Speaker's Lobby; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. That is permissible, with the Speaker's approval.
Mr. VENTO. I thank the Chairman for his response to me.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. This is not new
legislation. It, I think, has, and it is a case, as I said, where we
have heard this tune before for the last two Congresses, and the House
has passed this after spirited debate, and the fact is that it has gone
to the Senate and not received consideration in the Senate; and I think
the fact is that listening to the discussion of our distinguished
chairman and his debate, and he is very good at debate, but the fact is
that the words here do not match the music in terms of what takes place
with this legislation.
This is a bad bill. This really cuts the head off of these programs
that the

[[Page H3403]]

United States has led in creating on a global basis over the last 25 or
30 years under President Nixon, under other Presidents that have served
since then, both Democrat and Republican, Carter, Reagan, Ford; pardon
me, Ford, and of course Bush and now President Clinton. These programs
have been in existence, and these administrations have supported them
because it is a good program. It permits the United States to provide
global leadership in terms of the preservation and conservation of
special areas such as World Heritage Sites, which are protected because
of their natural or cultural resources, Man and the Biosphere programs
which some 600-and-some sites globally, only about 47 in the United
States incidentally, which are used for scientific research, these
ecosystems where scientists can gain information, and of course,
hopefully, we take that new knowledge and translate it into good public
policy on a global basis.
And finally, of course, areas like wetlands areas like the Ramsar
sites, which there are over 700 sites globally, only about 15 in the
United States, again where we protect and provide areas for protection
of various waterfall and other fauna and flora that happen, obviously
occur in these areas.
Now my colleague and chairman, the distinguished chairman said that
this is unconstitutional. Well, where is the court case? This has been
in existence for 30 years. Where the court case that says that this is
an action taken by one of these past administrations over the last 25
or 30 years, that says this is unconstitutional?
We had a constitutional lawyer, I believe Mr. Rufkin from Yale, that
appeared before us. When he was asked that question, he was not able to
come up with one court case, one decision that had been made that said
that this was unconstitutional.
This is not unconstitutional. These designations are made in the
United States on a voluntary basis, just as they are around the globe.
These are voluntary designations. The Congress has exercised its
responsibility and done it well in most Congresses with regards to land
use questions. In fact, we designated parks, we have designated
wildernesses, we have designated and passed on and permit the agencies
to designate on their own areas of environmental concern, for instance,
in the BLM and many other areas. But the Congress has jealously
guarded, and I would jealously guard, the right of Congress to, in
fact, identify and to designate these various lands for the purposes
that we are entrusted to do so, but the fact is that what we are saying
here is that these areas have already been designated.
Now the big complaint here really revolves around Yellowstone and a
mine that was occurring outside of Yellowstone but in obviously the
watershed of Yellowstone, and the fact of the matter is that area was
designated a Man and the Biosphere area for research, and it was
pointed out that if that mine occurred, that it would adversely affect
the entire hydrology and watershed and other natural factors in that
area. And the fact is that we think and I think that the parks and
other lands have an extra boundary responsibility, that they can go and
talk about activities outside the boundary of the parks, outside the
boundary of a wilderness, outside boundaries. These trans-boundary
issues are very important because we have to come to the realization
that the de facto wilderness creation or park creation, that the areas
that happen at their margin, boundaries, are causing these parks to be
and these special areas that we set aside to be adversely effected.
That is what this is about. We already designated them a park. We
have already designated wilderness. But not being able to attack the
parks and the wilderness and the other conservation areas that we
designated directly, they choose to do it through this particular claim
of American sovereignty and wrap themselves in that particular issue
with, I guess, a strong distaste for the U.N.
Mr. Chairman, this is one thing that the U.N. and UNESCO is doing
right. This is one thing where past Presidents, both Democrats and
Republicans and their administrations, have strongly supported. There
are nearly 2,000 sites that have been designated and recognized by
these international bodies just in these three treaty areas or protocol
agreements that we have here, just in these three, but there may be
others affected by this legislation. In the United States there are
only 82 of those.
Our leadership has done a magnificent job here. Let us keep the
United States in the forefront of it. Let us reject this bill.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 883 is not new legislation. The Congress first
considered this idea in 1996, and then again in 1997. In both
instances, the other body refused to consider this measure on the floor
and the Administration indicated it would veto the measure if passed.
Why? Because they don't have visions of blue helmets dancing through
their heads.
H.R. 883 is misguided because it is aimed at the symbols of a federal
policy when, what the supporters of the legislation really oppose, is
the underlying policy itself. While some of my colleagues and I might
like to see us doing even more, this country has set as a national
policy goal--the long-term preservation of our environmental resources.
The commitment this Nation has made to this preservation/conservation/
restoration policy sometimes demands that certain activities which
threaten these resources be prohibited, and/or tightly limited by us
and no one else. The reality of the circumstance regarding these
voluntary agreements is that no blue helmets will come parachuting
behind national park lines in black helicopters to seize control of
American lands all in the name of preservation or conservation.
Besides, after today we may have made a statement as to a crack missile
defense system to thwart any and all attempts to seize the sovereignty
of our great Nation by those international agents of evil.
Any and all land use the restrictions in place are functions of U.S.
law, not an international treaty or protocol. Our participation in the
World Heritage Convention, the Ramsar Convention and the Man and the
Biosphere program is emblematic of this underlying policy and the
symbolic value and importance the U.S. places on its natural resources,
our natural legacy. The twenty sites we have nominated under the World
Heritage Convention are listed because Congress chose to enact policy
and law to protect them, and establish special land managers to
regulate and enforce such law. To address a specific example that gave
rise to this bill, the problem with the New World Mine was that it was,
in fact, too close to Yellowstone National Park, not that it was too
close to a World Heritage site. If we want to debate the basic
principles of environmental protection, that's fine. But, we should not
waste our time passing legislation that seeks to abolish the programs
which grow out of these basic principles which have evolved over 200
years of American land use ethic. Quite simply, this legislation turns
logic on its head.
Let's be clear--the goal of H.R. 883 is to abandon these programs,
not simply to regulate them. To require an Act of Congress for each and
every parcel of land to be considered, is to effectively stop all
future nominations and designations.
This legislation sends a signal around the world that our nation, the
United States of America, which forged the policy path to institute the
World Heritage Convention, is undercutting the values and benefits of
international recognition for important cultural and environmental
sites. At a time when the United States is thrust into a role as the
dominant power and an essential role as a world leader in so many
areas--why would we voluntarily abdicate perhaps the most important
leadership position we occupy--that of a leader in the effort to make
life on this planet sustainable. This would convey to the hundreds of
nations part of the conservation treaties and protocol agreements, that
domestic political considerations come first. If the U.S. cannot even
permit recognition to be accorded, why should other nations?
Why are we pursuing legislation that is misdirected and misguided and
based solely on gross misinformation? Each agreement covered by this
bill states on its face that it contains no provision that affects, in
any way, the authority or ability of a participating nation to control
the lands within its border. These programs give the UN no more control
over land in this country than the awarding of a gold medal gives the
U.S. Olympic Committee control over an American athlete. To claim that
these international programs somehow infringe on the sovereignty of
this nation is simply factually inaccurate.
Finally, the largest threat to this nation's sovereignty isn't even
addressed. Any foreign company or their subsidiary is still given full
and free access for any and all of America's valuable natural
resources. Each year we watch $1.8 billion worth of gold and silver
stream out of our ports and into the coffers of foreign owned
companies. What's worse, while we debate this phantom legislation,
foreign nations are cashing in big-time, and

[[Page H3404]]

laughing all the way to the bank with our resources. I will introduce
an amendment to correct this situation and bring balance back to the
management of our natural resources.
Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of takings, not of private property,
but of the stripped international recognition and esteem the citizens
of the United States, and the world place on some of America's most
stunning and ecologically important natural resources. Teddy Roosevelt
ushered in a new era of conservation and respect for the natural
heritage of the United States at the beginning of the twentieth
century. How ironic it is that nearly a century later this Nation may
come full circle and, if this legislation passes, denounce the
importance of those very parks and resources on which the heritage of
this nation is based.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 883.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 883, and I
thank the chairman and the committee staff for getting this bill done
in such good form and to the floor so quickly.
I am glad that I am speaking right after the gentleman from Minnesota
because he made the statement that we all know this is about
Yellowstone National Park, and I represent Wyoming which has the most
of Yellowstone National Park, and he said that the U.N. is doing a good
job by these designations, that the reason that Yellowstone was
designated, because a mine was going to be developed north of
Yellowstone that might affect the watershed.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues the rest of the story. For 2
years an environmental impact statement had been going on, and
professional scientists were not able in 2 years time to determine
whether or not that developing that mine would put Yellowstone National
Park in jeopardy.

{time} 1130

They were working toward that, but they still had more work to do
before they professionally could say that was true.
In 3 days' time, the United Nations came in. Three days later they
determined that this indeed was an area in jeopardy, and then it was
designated an area in jeopardy. So if that is what the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento) thinks is a good job, I certainly would have to
disagree with him.
I do agree with him, however, on the fact that what this argument
boils down to are these transboundary issues. As far back as 1818, the
United States Supreme Court ruled in the United States v. Bevins that a
State's right to control property within its borders was an essential
part of its sovereignty, and I think that H.R. 883 is yet another
affirmation of that principle. What was done when this designation was
made around Yellowstone was it virtually built a buffer zone around
Yellowstone.
It is something the administration had been trying to do for a long
time but they could not get it done legislatively, even though it is
clearly legislative responsibility to designate public land use. So
they went around the back door and had the U.N. committee in 3 days
make that designation.
This is a good bill. This is something that Americans have the right,
the Congress has the right and the responsibility to make these
designations, and all we are asking is that these designations be
approved by the Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 883.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in total opposition to this bill because there
is absolutely nothing out there that is broken that needs fixing. This
addresses a problem that does not exist.
Let me say I know something about this issue because I own land that
is designated by this. I own an inholding in the University of
California property in Big Sur, California. We are proud of this
designation. One cannot get a designation unless the landowner, in this
case it would be the Federal Government for National Parks or for
Bureau of Land Management lands, or in our case a private owner, has to
request the nomination. That is the only way it can come is from the
owner of the land to say we would like to participate in the program.
The program is essentially an international way of being able to have
a common database about measurement of environmental factors, so that
we can see whether there are like kind of factors around the world,
there are like kinds of problems or are the problems that are
developing in an area significant to that area.
To go out and say that we should have congressional approval for
these designations is so ludicrous. I mean, why do we not have
congressional approval and oversight for accreditation of universities?
That is not done by Congress, or by any government. Why do we not have
the AAA, the guides that go around and say that one can sleep in these
hotels and motels, we do not have any congressional oversight of that.
We do not have any congressional oversight of TV Guide or the motion
picture movie ratings. We do not have any oversight of the Good
Housekeeping or Consumer Reports Magazine. We do not demand that we
have to look at these things.
Why? They are not a problem where one wants to involve congressional
action in this thing.
To say that we should have Congress telling our local communities and
States that they cannot have their property so designated, I think, is
totally wrong. It is a usurpation of local control.
If the chairman would like to have Alaska properties and have Glacier
National Park and have the Denali National Forest exempted, then he can
do that for the State of Alaska, but for California we have community
local water districts in Marin County; we have private lands in
California; we have State parks in California. All of those requested
to be part of this system because we want to be better informed, we
want to be educated. We are not part of this flat earth society that is
afraid of learning about something.
So this bill would deny our ability to get that nomination because
one would have to go through this incredible congressional process. We
cannot even pass legislation here to keep the country running. How are
we going to make decisions on whether somebody should be able to
voluntarily be placed in an international information system?
This is a ludicrous bill. Please defeat it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr), who just spoke, who is a dear friend of mine,
that the landowner in Yellowstone did not request that participation in
the World Heritage Program. In fact, she opposed it and unfortunately
she was not listened to.
In our hearings in New York, we had people that came to the committee
and said that, yes, the Federal Government was trying to implement
Heritage sites in their districts and they adamantly opposed it. It is
happening right today in Lake Champlain.
So what I am just suggesting is as much as I admire the sincerity of
the gentleman, I would like to have him look at some of the records.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, Thomas Jefferson once said ``When all government,
domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to
Washington as the center of all power, it . . . will become as venal
and oppressive as the government from which we separated.'' The current
system for establishing international land reserves ignores Jefferson's
warning by centralizing the power with the President and taking away
the authority of Congress, the States and the average citizen.
During the last 25 years, our nation's public lands have slowly been
consumed by international land reserves. Most notably 47 United Nations
Biosphere Reserves, 20 World Heritage Sites and 16 Ramsar Sites. These
reserves were created with virtually no congressional oversight, no
hearings, and in the case of biosphere reserves, no legislative
authority. I don't know about you Mr. Chairman, but my ability to
represent my constituents as a voting member of this body is important
to me! We cannot allow this administration to take our vote away. I ask
that you support the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act.

[[Page H3405]]

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, if that is the case then I
would suggest within his authority as chairman of the Committee on
Resources that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) may want to just
limit this then to Federal properties and not to State and local
properties or private properties.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I believe my bill does that. It does limit it
just to Federal properties.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri
(Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R.
883. I do want to say to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr), that I know that there are many places that perhaps are honored
to have these designations bestowed upon them. On the other hand, in my
district, a designation was going to be thrust upon people without any
local input and I think that is what this legislation is trying to
clarify.
I do want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for his
strong leadership on this issue and, in fact, the leadership he shows
on many private property rights issues, and the work that he has done
on behalf of private property owners.
I would also like to extend a similar thanks to the gentlewoman from
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth), who chairs the Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health, who has been a devoted champion of private property
rights. She recently came to my district in southern Missouri to
represent the Committee on Resources and to chair a hearing on the
legislation we are talking about today.
We heard from a lot of local people, farmers, county officials,
ranchers, small businesspeople, property owners, those people who have
the most at stake when international land designation issues arises.
Let me just talk a little bit about what the gentlewoman from Idaho
(Mrs. Chenoweth) and I learned during the recent field hearing in the
Missouri Ozarks, but I am just going to take a second before that to
talk about how I became involved in this issue.
Back in 1996, as I was traveling across my district, in every single
little town in the center of my district, which is part of the Mark
Twain National Forest, in which there is tourism that really promotes
the local economy and some timber sales everywhere, Ellington, Van
Buren, Salem, to name a few, people were concerned about these
designations and particularly about something called the Ozark Man and
the Biosphere program that basically would take 15 Missouri and
Arkansas counties and put them into a biosphere reserve.
Let me say there was no local input involved whatsoever, and that my
folks had to scrape and claw their way to find out anything about this.
They were simply tipped off one day by a friend on the conservation
commission. The amazing thing was, when they went to the agencies, the
Department of Interior, specifically to ask about exactly what was
happening, the Interior Department said, do not worry about this; it
was going to be fine; we have talked to lots of local citizens around
the district.
Well, the fact of the matter is, every single county in my district
that would be impacted by this had absolutely no public solicitation by
the Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife, whomever was involved,
whatsoever. Not one county commissioner was called, not one local
citizens group, and it was not until we had enough cattlemen's
associations, enough farm bureau associations and finally all of the
county commissions writing their own resolutions that this was a bad
idea that the designation was dropped and these 15 counties in Missouri
and Arkansas were saved from having to have a biosphere reserve
designation put on them because, quite frankly, my citizens were afraid
that once the designation happened then the government would find more
and more reasons to seize the contiguous property around, and that
would be their private property.
I think this really shows that we have a broken process and that
experience makes the case for our bill today. All this bill would do
would be to establish an appropriate process for biospheres and
heritage area designations and ensure that local input and
participation of Congress is involved. I do not think that is asking
too much. I think it is very, very reasonable.
I will say, back when the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) and
I were in Missouri, we heard from 12 different panelists, one of whom
was a county commissioner; one was the former chairman of the Missouri
Conservation Commission; several private citizens, but Leon Kreisler,
who was a cattleman, and a landowner in Salem, Missouri, said, and I
quote, ``We feel strongly about property rights not because we share a
common desire to abuse our natural resources but because landowners are
often best suited to ensure productivity for our families and those of
future generations. The Ozarks are a natural wonder and we intend to
keep them that way, but national or international designations are not
the answer.''
Mr. Kreisler makes the point that I would like to reiterate, that our
farmers and our ranchers are among the best conservationists anywhere
because they depend on the land for their livelihood and they know that
if they do not take care of the land then the land is not going to take
care of them.
We had also an owner from a sawmill in Potosi, Missouri. He spent 20
years as an analyst for Price Waterhouse before buying the sawmill.
Needless to say, Carl Barnes, the sawmill owner, talked about the
threats from this coordinated resource management system and the
threats that this would have upon outdoor recreation because they
listed farming and mining as threats to outdoor recreation and our
ecosystem health.
The fact of the matter is we can do it all, and I think that we do it
all responsibly. We simply need to have this program put in place so
that local citizens who live in areas for proposed designations have
input, that is all it is, and that Congress have input, too.
I urge a yes vote on H.R. 883.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), a member of the Committee on
Resources.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague,
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill would undo
some of the most important progress that has been achieved toward
protection of internationally important cultural, historical and
environmental resources.
What would enactment of this bill mean? Well, for starters, it would
mean that the United States has decided to politicize the question of
whether our country will continue to take part in the World Heritage
Convention, the Man and the Biosphere Program, and the so-called Ramsar
Convention regarding wetlands that have particular importance as
waterfowl habitat. That might not be objectionable if our participation
in these international programs involved any trade-offs in terms of our
ability to make decisions about the management of our lands or
resources, but the fact is that nothing in these international
agreements affects the ownership or the management of any lands or
other resources.
Similarly, I could understand the need for this legislation if, as
some of its supporters claim, these international agreements have eaten
away at the power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its
constitutional power to make the laws that govern Federal lands, but
here we are debating a bill that would be an exercise of exactly that
constitutional power, and that constitutional power is fully intact
today, fully intact with regard to each and every acre of Federal
lands, including all the Federal lands that are covered by these
international agreements.
So what is the real point of this bill? As far as I can tell, it is
primarily a means for supporters to take a shot at the United Nations
and particularly UNESCO, and to demonstrate their solidarity with some
who seem to view the U.N. as engaged in a vast multiwing conspiracy to
overthrow our constitutional government. I do not

[[Page H3406]]

think the U.N. is a threat to Congress' authority over Federal lands or
to any other part of the Constitution. I do think this bill, if we take
it seriously, is a threat to America's international leadership in
environmental conservation and in the protection of historical and
cultural resources.

{time} 1145

So I think this bill is bad for our country, and I know it is bad for
my home State of Colorado.
I want to tell my colleagues about the two Biosphere Reserves that we
have, areas that are part of the Man and the Biosphere Program. One is
the Niwot Ridge Research area and the other is Rocky Mountain National
Park. As it now stands, this bill would kick those areas out of the
program unless Congress passes a new law to retain them.
To get a better idea of what that would mean for Niwot Ridge, I
contacted Professor Bowman, the Director of the University of
Colorado's Mountain Research Station, and he explained to me that
having Niwot Ridge in the Biosphere Reserve System, it provided a
framework for international cooperation of many important research
efforts, including working with the Biosphere Reserve in the Czech
Republic to address air pollution problems, which is a matter of great
importance not only to us, but to the Czechs. He told me that the
biosphere program also had been helpful to people at Niwot Ridge as
they worked with the Forest Service to develop a land management plan
that would promote multiple use by minimizing the conflicts that we all
grapple with here over recreation and scientific and other uses, which
is again a matter of great importance to Colorado and all other public
land States.
I also talked to the National Park Service about Rocky Mountain
National Park, which again is included as a biosphere reserve. They
told me that it not only means that there are more research activities
at the park, but that it meant a significant increase in park
visitation, tourism, which not only provides important educational
benefits but is an important part of our economy in Colorado. Kicking
these areas out of the program would be bad for Colorado and something
that I cannot support.
Exempting the Colorado areas from the bill would be an improvement,
but I do not think that alone would make the bill acceptable. We need
to reject this bill, move away from the posturing and begin working on
the real problems that face us on our public lands.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to support this bill,
the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. I really want to thank
the gentleman from Alaska for his efforts in this regard. He has been a
champion of private property rights for many years, I have known him
for 23 years, and I respect him greatly.
I represent the east side of the State of Washington, one-fourth of
the size of our State, and in that portion of the State of Washington
there are wonderful open space lands that people inhabit who are very
protective of their private property rights.
The right to own property is a core principle on which our country
was founded. Over the years, the Federal Government has established
programs like the World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves, without
the approval of Congress, Mr. Chairman, and that overrides the
intentions of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress retains the power to, quote,
``make all needful rules and regulations governing lands belonging to
the United States.'' The lands designated under the World Heritage
Sites and Biosphere Reserves have been so designated without the
approval of Congress.
So this bill restores the intentions of our Founding Fathers by
requiring congressional approval for any nomination of property located
in the United States for inclusion in the World Heritage list. It
prohibits any Federal official from nominating U.S. property for
designation as a biosphere reserve and prohibits any Federal official
from designating any land in the U.S. for a special or restricted use
under any international agreement unless the designation has been
authorized by law.
It simply says Congress is going to be involved in this, these
approvals of the disposition of Federal lands. I think they are common
sense changes here that restore the role of Congress in the process of
changing designation of lands that are Federal lands, and it restores
the intentions of our Founding Fathers, and I hope that my colleagues
will support it.
I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentlewoman
from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) for their engagement and involvement in
this.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act. This bill is unnecessary, it is unjustified. It
addresses a phantom problem. It would seriously damage our country's
continued participation in important international efforts to protect
valuable land around the world. But worst of all, it caters to the
suspicions and the conspiracy theories of extreme organizations and
individuals, and it leads directly to scare tactics such as those used
by the American Policy Center in attempts to alarm American citizens
and frankly, to raise money under false pretenses, and this bill ought
to be opposed and defeated.
I would like to read from a letter from the American Policy Center
which I will include for the Record at the end of my statement. This is
a letter written by the American Policy Center, signed by Tom DeWeese,
the president, urging citizens to send money in to pass this bill, H.R.
883, to ``stop the U.N. land grab of American soil,'' a land grab, Mr.
Chairman, that does not exist; urging citizens and this Congress to
stop the U.N. from designating any more U.S. soil as World Heritage
Sites or Biosphere Reserves. The U.N. does not make those designations,
Mr. Chairman.
It identifies a U.N. land grab of American soil; calls for the
Congress to stop liberals from terminating the United Nations'
influence on 51 million acres of U.S. park land. Mr. Chairman, the U.N.
does not have influence over 51 million acres of United States national
park land. It says that liberals know this bill will lead to the end of
international treaties and agreements that give the U.N. control over
development of American soil. There are no such international treaties
and agreements, nor should there be, nor would this Congress vote for,
nor would any President negotiate such international treaties. It is
just bogus.
The letter talks about radicals like Al Gore and Bruce Babbitt that
enforce treaties in a way that give the U.N. authority over our land
and our private property every day. Gore and Babbitt are not radicals
and they are not doing any such thing. This letter talks about open
warfare in coming weeks to pass this bill. Mr. DeWeese talks about
meeting with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and saying that the
American Policy Center will back him all the way in the battle to pass
this bill.
Of course, then Mr. DeWeese goes to the heart of the matter and asks
for any contribution from $17 to $1,000 to help the American Policy
Center in their efforts.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is not needed. We should oppose it. It is
nothing but scare tactics from the right wing. We should vote ``no.''

American Policy Center,

Herndon, VA.
Dear Friend of APC: I have just come from an emergency
meeting on Capitol Hill, and I have important news for you.
I was meeting with several national leaders to plan a
strategy to pass Congressman Don Young's ``American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act'' (H.R. 883).
As I'm sure you remember, we were successful last year in
passing this bill in the House of Representatives to stop the
UN land grab of American Soil.
But we were stopped cold in the U.S. Senate. We didn't even
get a hearing on the Senate version of the Bill. Because the
Senate did not act, we have to start all over again and pass
it again in the House, while we build strength in the Senate.
We intend to win this time. We intend to pass the Bill in
both Houses of Congress and stop the UN from designating any
more U.S.

[[Page H3407]]

soil as World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves.
We believe Congressman Young has the votes to pass it again
in the House. In fact, he already has 158 co-sponsors, with
more joining each day. He also has the support of new House
Speaker Dennis Hastert.
The problem, again, is in the Senate.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado has again
agreed to introduce the ``American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act in the Senate. The Bill number is S. 510.
But Senator Campbell has only been able to sign on six co-
sponsors. Without more support, S. 510 will again die in the
Senate.
You and I can't let that happen. Not again. You and I need
to storm the Senate. Here's how.
First, I have enclosed a ``Legislative Petition'' to Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott. He will be key in the fight to
build support in the Senate.
Frankly, without his support there can be no floor vote on
S. 510.
That's why it is urgent that you immediately sign and
return your ``Legislative Petition'' to me right away. You
and I must flood Lott's office with petitions to prove S. 510
has strong national support.
So please sign you petition and return it to me
immediately.
But you and I can't stop there.
Senator Campbell needs more co-sponsors for the Bill.
Please call both of your states U.S. Senators and ask them to
co-sponsor S. 510. Simply call the Senate switchboard at 202-
224-3121, and ask for your Senators by name.
Just as important, however is that you contact you
Congressman to make sure he supports Congressman Young's
House version (H.R. 883). We must have a strong show in the
House as well. If not, all of our efforts in the Senate will
be in vain.
So please, call your Congressman at 202-225-3121. Tell him
to support H.R. 883.
It is vital that you do all you can--if we are going to
stop the UN's land grab of American soil. To win, you and I
will have to beat overwhelming odds.
But don't despair. You and I can win this battle.
Remember when the fight to stop the UN land grab started in
the 104th Congress?
Democrats refused to even attend hearings. They laughed and
called Congressman Young's bill the ``black helicopter''
bill. They called it ``preposterous,'' ``absurd'' and
``crazy.'' The very idea that someone was challenging the UN
was laughable to them. They're not laughing now.
The liberals know they must stop the bill. And they know
the Senate is their last chance. Liberals know this bill will
terminate United Nations' influence on 51 million acres of
U.S. national parklands.
Liberals know this bill will gut the extremist United
Nations' environmental agenda and will lead to the end of
international treaties and agreements that give the UN
control over development of American soil.
Liberals know this bill forces them to take a side. Do
liberals support your right to own and control your private
property or not?
The bill exposes the left's property-grabbing agenda. It
weakens to United Nations' influence in the world. That's why
they know they must stop the American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act at all costs.
So, right now, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, the
Nature Conservancy and all of their extremist environmental
buddies are charging up Capitol Hill, swarming over Senate
offices, using all of their power to keep this Bill from
gaining co-sponsors or a floor vote.
They know we can pass this bill. Our position is strong.
The whole purpose of the American Sovereignty Protection
Act is to restore the role of Congress where it should have
been all along--as the administrator with sovereign control
over public lands in the United States.
That authority has been slowly eroded over the years by a
series of environmental treaties and agreements that subject
our public lands to the influences of UN officials and UN-
dictated rules. And with the help of the Clinton
Administration.
Those rules not only tell the United States what it must do
with public lands--but they also affect private property as
well.
Just ask the owner of the gold mine that was located
outside Yellowstone National Park. He was on private land--
his land. Now he's out of business. Why? Because the United
Nations said so.
And these UN treaties, like the Biodiversity Treaty and the
World Heritage Sites are incredibly dangerous when radicals
like Vice President Al Gore and Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt hold power.
They can enforce the treaties in a way that gives the UN
authority over our land and our private property. And they
are doing it every day.
The House of Representatives recognized the danger and
passed Don Young's Bill in the 105th Congress. They know that
the threat is real, and we can pass the Bill in the House
again in the 106th Congress.
But the real battle is now in the Senate.
And I tell you with complete honesty--we will have to fight
like the Dickens to withstand the coming liberal firestorm.
The liberals will use everything in their arsenal to stop
this Bill. And the Senate is not a friendly place for
property owners.
Get ready for open warfare. It's coming. In the next few
weeks.
At our meeting today, I promised Congressman Young that APC
would back him all the way in the battle to pass the American
Land Sovereignty Protection Act. And I meant it. That
includes leading the fight in the Senate.
Your enclosed ``Legislative Petition'' is my first step.
Please. It is urgent that you sign it and return it to me
today. We simply must build pressure on Trent Lott to support
the Bill. That's why it's also important that you begin
making phone calls to your Senators and Congressman to ask
them to co-sponsor and support the bills (H.R. 883 and S.
510).
Over the coming weeks APC will get this message to hundreds
of thousands of Americans to build the pressure.
You and I can pass this bill and cut the power of the UN!
But to do it, I urgently need your financial support. Will
you help me keep up this fight to save America from the UN
land grab?
I've been appearing on radio and television programs and
speaking before audiences across this nation to sound the
alarm on the UN land grab. The response is incredible. When
Americans know the truth--they do the right thing. But they
are not hearing most of this story from anyone but the
American Policy Center. But, through APC's effort, we are
truly awakening a slumbering giant.
Will you help me stay in the fight by sending me your most
generous contribution of at least $17?
Remember, the Sierra Club and their buddies have millions
of dollars in their war chest. I have only you. So if you can
send a larger donation of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, or even
$1,000, I will be able to counter the liberal barrage, word
for word.
You know APC's record and what we can do when our action
alert system is firing on all cylinders. But it takes dollars
to fuel the engine. I need you now. There really is no more
important legislation before the U.S. Congress than the
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act.
The bill truly is the whole ball game for our property
rights. Pass it--and the UN is less of a threat. That's why
the liberals hate it with a passion.
Now is the time. This is the battle. Please help me win it.
Sincerely,
Tom DeWeese,
President.
P.S. You and I will not fight a more important battle in
1999 than this one to pass the American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act. It is crucial that I receive your signed
``Legislative Petition'' right away. Equally important is
your financial support to keep APC in the battle. Without
you, I can do nothing. Please help. Thanks for all you do.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) has 15
minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for
yielding and for his work on this legislation. I do rise in support of
it.
I want to respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania as to what he
indicated about this. I agree that there has been, and there always
will be, overstatements about the dangers of potential actions that are
taken, and in this case the dangers of the Biosphere Program. But the
argument has been made that the United Nation's designation is
important because it provides some international protections for these
worldwide important sites. Well, if it provides some protections, then
there is some implied authority, if not direct authority, that is
yielded to that international body; otherwise, the designation would
have no significance. If it has no significance, then why would anyone
oppose this simple legislation.
I have a habit in this Congress of trying to read legislation, and I
took the time to read this bill that has been offered by the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young), H.R. 883, and it says, ``Any designation as a
Biosphere Reserve under the Man and Biosphere Program of UNESCO shall
not be given any force or effect unless the Biosphere Reserve is
specifically authorized by a law.''
Now, the argument is made, well, why should Congress engage in this
activity? Well, I voted on naming postal buildings; I voted on naming
Federal buildings; we vote on postage stamps. So there is a lot of
designations that we do in this Congress.
I believe that private ownership of property is important. I believe
that our National Heritage Sites, our parks are very important, and I
think that Congress has a role, and when the constituents express a
concern about a particular designation, that it is right and proper in
this democracy for Congress to address it.

[[Page H3408]]

The Ozark Highland Man and Biosphere Plan was advanced in northern
Arkansas and southern Missouri without public input. It was withdrawn
after property owners, timber producers and other residents in the
region learned of and opposed the designation.
I believe the Chairman's bill is reasonable. I believe it is
appropriate. I believe it maintains the balance between executive
action and legislative authority and certainly, when our constituents
have a concern about these types of designations, that it is
appropriate that we have congressional oversight and input into that
process. So I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in vigorous opposition to H.R.
883, which really ought to be titled the American Land Paranoia Act,
because the principal purpose of this act is to sow paranoia among
Americans who ought to take pride in our interest in protecting some of
our national treasures. I will tell my colleagues that this is not a
small matter.
Some may think this is a small matter, we should not worry about it.
I want to tell my colleagues a little story. I was up on the border of
the State of Washington and Canada about three years ago, four years
ago now; in fact it was in what used to be the district of the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). I was talking to a fellow
who was a businessperson, a nice fellow, a pillar of the community. He
lives about 10 miles from the Canadian border. We got in a nice little
discussion at a county fair.
He said, ``Jay, what are you going to do about those tanks the U.N.
has up on those railroad cars just over the Canadian border?'' And I
kind of chuckled. I said, ``Henry, what are you talking about?'' He
said, ``Well, you know, those tanks that the U.N. has across the border
that they are going to use to come in to establish this United Nations
park in the North Cascades.''
I laughed. Then I saw he was serious. He was serious. And the reason
he was serious is that the advocates of things like this bill have
convinced this gentleman and a lot of people in America that somehow
the tanks with the blue helmets and the black helicopters are coming to
take away their livelihood, and that is flat wrong. Flat wrong. This is
no unconstitutional loss.
Mr. Chairman, we sat in the hearings and I was engaged with the
committee on hearings on this. People came forward and they sent to us
this law professor or lawyer, I do not know if he is a professor, and
he argued for 10 minutes passionately about how this violated the
Constitution of America.
Then I asked him a simple question. I said, ``How long has this been
on the books?'' He said, ``Well, since the late 1960s.'' Then I asked
him, ``Well, have you ever gone to court to ask for this to be ruled
unconstitutional, the loss of sovereignty?'' He said, ``Well, no.'' The
reason he has never done it is he knows darn well it is not
unconstitutional.
This is a bunch of flimflam where people are trying to foist these
fears on the American people.
The last point I want to make, the World Heritage Convention that is
under attack here as some kind of socialist plot was introduced under
the administration of Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon came up with this
socialist plot, and it is something that has been effective to try to
get international attention to help us in this country preserve what we
believe are our national treasures.
This is another sad step of my friends across the aisle, frankly,
leaving that tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and even Richard Nixon. We
ought to keep this thing on the books as it is and reject this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I am the newest member of the Committee
on Resources, and I would like to commend my distinguished colleague
from the great State of Alaska (Mr. Young) for his leadership in
introducing this bill.
Under Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution, quote, ``The
Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to
the United States.''

{time} 1200

Mr. Chairman, the Constitution is clear. The United Nations, despite
efforts by its supporters, is not a governing body superior in
authority to this Congress.
I know that comes as a shock to some of my colleagues in this place
and certainly some of the supporters from whom I have heard, who
believe that the United Nations has some superior claim to the
sovereignty of the United States, particularly when it comes to
determining what is the appropriate use of the land within our borders.
It is, however, not, as I say, not a superior authority to this
Congress.
Yet, the U.N. is designating land within our country's borders for
special protection without the consent of the House.
There are 83 U.N. sites in America, Mr. Chairman. In my home State of
Colorado there are five United Nations biosphere reserves. I can tell
the Members, having served in the Colorado State legislature for many
years, those sites were designated without the express consent of the
State of Colorado and without the Congress of the United States.
I have visited many of these areas. I agree they are incredible and
breathtaking. I agree they are a treasure, but they are the property of
the United States, and we must maintain absolute autonomy in our land
management decisions.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill, and urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in opposition to this bill. I would just
point out to my colleagues that the only power with regard to the
disposition or the use of the lands that are within these designations
are inherent in the laws that Congress has passed and delegated to the
Park Service, to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM, the Forest
Service, or other land managers to manage.
In fact, this is a voluntary thing. All of these designations that
are being discussed here, whether it is the Ramsar treaty or the Man
and the Biosphere, which happens to be the program associated with the
UNESCO program, or the World Heritage Convention and the sites that are
identified, only some 15 sites in the United States, are all voluntary.
The laws that govern these sites are the laws of the national and
State governments, and the private property rights and laws are
completely intact. They are not changed by these voluntary
designations. In fact, when making the designations or the recognition
of these sites on a global basis, one of the criteria is in fact that
the laws and rules are in place that will accord the proper use of
these lands. So that is one of the prerequisites.
I would point out that the laws that affected the New World Mine were
those that were being applied through the Park Service and the Forest
Service in the State of Wyoming, in the State of Montana, and the other
States within which Yellowstone lies.
The point is that there is no impact. The impact here, of course, is
one of cooperation and collaboration, building on the laws that we have
and attempting to encourage other Nations to in fact emulate the
stewardship, the conservation, and preservation efforts that we have
made in terms of these important sites, because they are important as a
natural heritage site or cultural site or because they are important
for research or for water fall.
So the only issue here is one where we could say that the Man and the
Biosphere program has not directly been authorized by Congress,
although we have appropriated money for it.
We have many laws today where the authorization has expired or has
not been made, where the Office of Management and Budget, because money
is appropriated, the courts have ruled that in fact it has the force
and effect of in fact Congress authorizing and lawfully permitting that
type of designation, and we have done that for that program, clearly a
case we made to bring up an authorization bill and deal with it in that
manner.

[[Page H3409]]

But that has not been the disposition of the committee. What they
have chosen to do, of course, is because, in my judgment, they cannot
attack the parks, they cannot attack some of the land uses which they
have an issue with directly, they have turned around and wrapped
themselves in this question of sovereignty, which there is no
constitutional case here. There is no court case here that has been
pursued that has been positive that would indicate the statements being
made are accurate.
They are not accurate. They have never been tested in court. I think
they are inaccurate. They can test such issues in court and get answers
back as to whether they are appropriate.
In fact, this has been praised by many. I just picked up a statement
here, a press release by Secretary of Interior Don Hodel, most
recently, of course, who led the Christian Coalition, but before that
he worked in the State of Washington and on Bonneville Power, and was
our Secretary of Interior under then President Ronald Reagan.
This letter was dated October 10, 1986, a press release in which he
stated how enthusiastic and proud the Department was of the Statue of
Liberty which was designated a World Heritage Site. So I think this
just sort of indicates across the board how important this is. This is
why all of the environmental groups and conservation groups oppose this
legislation.
I will offer an amendment in this process, Mr. Chairman, which will
address some real concerns, and that is the commercial use by foreign
entities of U.S. properties for mining, for grazing, for timber
harvesting.
If we are so concerned about the preservation and conservation of
these areas, then maybe we should really be concerned about those what
we call exploitive activities that go on on these lands by foreign
powers, actual activities, rather than these phantom concerns that we
have with tanks and other issues that may be in the minds of our
constituents. But I am sure that my colleagues have made every effort
to dispel these unwarranted fears, and have faced up to the issues of
this misinformation campaign that has existed.
I trust they would do that, Mr. Chairman; that they would face up to
that type of issue and not let that type of misunderstanding and
misinformation spread across the land such fear that would result in
imprudent types of actions by this Congress.
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 like to also recite Mr. Hodel, the past
Secretary of the Interior.
The last paragraph says, ``This legislation Chairman Young is
sponsoring, H.R. 883, will bring welcome relief to property owners
threatened by a United Nations bureaucracy that has grown out of
control.'' I support H.R. 883 thoroughly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this
legislation. I find it very difficult to understand the arguments of
those who oppose it.
What is wrong with Congress being in control? What is wrong with the
people in our districts, if they agree or disagree, having a right to
talk to their Congressman?
Don Hodel also said, ``During the Reagan administration, these
designations were honorary and benign in nature. However, like so many
United Nations programs, this one has fallen subject to inappropriate
mission creep. It has become a proxy for international attempts to
override national sovereignty and control land use.''
Why was America founded by Europeans and Asians? Because they wanted
additional freedom, they wanted control, they wanted to be in charge,
and they certainly do not want people from other countries, and
designating is fine, but having other people to have a say about how
land is used in our parks, in our public lands, makes no sense in this
country.
This is about sovereignty. This is about freedom. This is about
America being in charge of Americans; having relations with other
countries, but they should not have a say in America, and the American
public should have Congress to go back to. That is all we are asking,
for Congress to be the final word.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Idaho.
(Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) for his outstanding leadership on this issue.
I have come to the floor many times during my tenure in Congress to
discuss this very important issue that H.R. 883 addresses, the
constitutional duty that we have as Members of Congress to protect the
sovereignty of our lands in every possible way.
Yet, every time this matter is brought before the House, I hear many
of my colleagues vigorously argue that this has nothing to do with our
constitutional duty to preserve and protect our Nation's sovereignty.
I have also heard arguments today from the floor that we should not
be meddling in these kinds of things. I know as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health we even have to have a bill
to move a boundary on a wilderness area a half a mile. We have to have
a bill to name buildings.
So what would the opposition to this bill have us do, just stay busy
naming buildings and moving boundaries, or protect the sovereignty of
this Nation? That is our first and foremost responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, another thing that I have heard from the opposition to
this bill is that it does not involve private property. I can tell the
Members, it does involve private property when they seized control and
took over the New World Mine, a patented mine. That was in fact private
property.
In fact, the American taxpayer had to pony up $68 million to pay off
the Canadian leasehold interests for their loss in the property. The
woman who owned the property, who had the patent on the mine, still
stands empty-handed. This Congress must deal with that problem, too.
Mr. Chairman, this very simple bill enacts three very basic
requirements. Number one is it requires the Secretary of the Interior
to require the approval of Congress for any nomination of property
located in the United States for inclusion in the World Heritage list.
Number two, the bill would prohibit Federal officials from nominating
any land in the United States as a biosphere reserve unless Congress
ratifies and enacts the Biosphere Reserve Treaty.
Finally, H.R. 883 simply prohibits any Federal official from
designating any land in the United States for a special or restricted
use under any international agreement unless such designation is
specifically approved by law.
I might remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that
while the World Heritage sites have been or the treaty was approved by
the Democrat-led Senate during the Nixon administration, nevertheless,
the biodiversity treaty has never been ratified by the United States
Senate, never. Yet, there is enough land that has been set aside under
designations of these two designations to fill up the entire State of
Colorado.
I think it is time we act. We have a responsibility to the American
people to protect the sovereignty of our land.
Mr. Chairman, these very simple provisions do not represent massive
changes in policy, nor are they born out of paranoia. There is nothing
that says anything about blue helmets or tanks. They are very important
items that ensure our Federal officials properly allocate taxpayer
resources, and that we as a Congress maintain the total governance of
our lands required under Article IV, Section 3, of the United States
Congress.
This section, very succinctly, states that ``The Congress shall have
the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United
States.'' It is very clear. It does not take a rocket scientist to
interpret what the Constitution says, and neither does it take a court
to interpret this provision for us to act. We

[[Page H3410]]

do not need the court decisions for the Congress to act in a
responsible way.
Mr. Chairman, there are some who actually believe that the U.N.
Biosphere and World Heritage designations, which encompass 68 percent
of the land in our national parks, preserves, and monuments, and make
up an area the size of Colorado, are benign and have the mere purpose
of placing a plaque or a label that these areas can use to attract
tourism.
That is utter naivete. However, in the Committee on Resources we have
heard testimony from citizens living in Alaska, Arkansas, Missouri,
Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Wyoming that suggest otherwise.
These individuals testified about how these designations affected their
property value, their economic activity, and most candidly, their
ability to play a role in the designation process. They were left out.
Even the U.N.'s own documentation on these programs describes its
proactive role on land policy. One such publication defining the
purpose of biodiversity reserves call for extensive land policy
initiatives such as ``strategies for biodiversity, conservation and
sustainable use,'' and for action plans provided for under Article VI
of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
I am not going to trade our responsibility to manage our lands under
this constitutional provision for Article VI of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, and I do not think the American people want us to
do that, either.

{time} 1215

Mr. Chairman, to me this type of strategy involves a lot more than
just a harmless plaque. Nevertheless, the question every Member of this
body should be asking themselves today is not whether or not these
designations do in fact intrude on our vested power to govern our
lands, but whether we should even take that chance.
Mr. Chairman, if World Heritage areas or Biodiversity Reserves really
are harmless or benign, it should be Congress that makes that
determination, not our unelected officials. I do not think that Article
IV, section 3 of the Constitution advises that in governing our lands
that we simply opt out of policies that may appear ineffectual. But
instead, it expressly requires that we, the Congress, make all needful
rules and regulations.
I do not think, Mr. Chairman, the danger can be stated any clearer
than it was before the Committee on Resources by the Honorable Jeane J.
Kirkpatrick, highly respected U.N. Ambassador during the Reagan
administration, when she stated, and I quote, ``The World Heritage and
Man and Biosphere committees make decisions affecting the land and
lives of Americans. Some of these decisions are made by representatives
chosen by governments not based in democratic representation, certainly
not the representation of Americans.''
Ms. Kirkpatrick went on to say, ``What recourse does an American
voter have when U.N. bureaucrats from Cuba or Iraq or Libya, all of
which are parties to this treaty, have made a decision that unjustly
damages his or her property rights that lie near a national park?''
Mr. Chairman, the only relevant argument that the Clinton
administration has made against this bill is that it would add
unnecessary bureaucracy to the designation process. I do not believe
that is the case. I think that this would simply clarify and straighten
out a mess that we have found ourselves in in this administration.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out that clearly the gentlewoman from
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) is confused about the Biodiversity Treaty, which
is not a part of this agreement. We are talking about Man and the
Biosphere.
I mean, we would obviously stipulate that the Biodiversity Treaty,
the Rio Treaty, is something that the Senate has to consider. But
apparently we were misplacing our words.
I would suggest that the national protection and international
protection of cultural and national heritage in Article VI, this
particular program points out that, and I will quote from this,
``Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of States of whose territory
the cultural and natural heritage mentioned in Article I and II is
situated, and without prejudice to the property right provided by
national legislation, the State parties to this Convention recognized
that such heritage constitutes a World Heritage for those whose
protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to
cooperate.''
So the issue that we are dealing here with is not whether the
countries are members of this, because we know that there are many
nations who are members of these programs. In fact, with regards to the
World Heritage Convention, 150 nations are members of that; with
regards to Man and the Biosphere, it is 125 Nations; and with regards
to the Ramsar Treaty, there are 92 Nations.
As I had spoken earlier, nearly 2,000 sites, some 1,932 sites that I
have and still growing, I suppose, and in the United States, we have
some 82 of those sites where less than 5 percent of the sites are
located in the United States, and it is based upon the existing land
laws that the Committee on Resources, the administration, that U.S. law
provides, whether through the national government, through the State
governments, the property rights are intact.
No one can raise one case where, for instance, the Statue of Liberty
has been designated a World Heritage site. What have we lost? What has
changed in terms of its administration? Tell me one instance where
something has changed that is due to the designation or the recognition
that is accorded to these 82 sites, not one witness that appeared.
The gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) raised the question that
there was a witness from Minnesota. Well, unfortunately, I am from
Minnesota. We do not have any sites in Minnesota. I would like to have
some sites in Minnesota, and I hope someday that we do. But we do not
have any in Minnesota. But I guess that witness from Minnesota knew
something that I did not.
But the fact is, and this is the sort of, I think, misunderstandings
that this legislation is based on, not one of these sites has been
brought to our attention where there has been any change in the land
management that is due to these cooperative voluntary international
agreements.
While I have tried to portray this as not having a an impact,
obviously our park laws, when I wrote and when our committee writes
legislation on parks or on wilderness or on BLM or other types of land
classifications, I mean what I say when we designate those sites that
they ought to be protected, that there are transboundary issues that
are affected. I meant what I said.
But, unfortunately, I think what is unfolding here is an effort to
try, through this American sovereignty claim, through criticism and
fear of the U.N., to try to turn around and blame the U.N. and these
programs, these international programs. We have everything at stake in
terms of providing this type of leadership on a global basis, in terms
of trying to encourage other nations on a voluntary basis, whether it
be China, whether they be democratic governments or governments which
we think are not democratic, to in fact pursue the preservation, the
conservation of their resources on a voluntary basis. We have had
spectacular success.
This is a place, as I said, if it is a criticism of UNESCO in terms
of Man and the Biosphere, in terms of research, this is an area that is
working. This is one area that we should not be debating or disagreeing
about in terms of research and gaining information and knowledge. That
is the essence of what the Man and the Biosphere program has. It has
nothing to do with the Biodiversity Treaty, as was indicated here, a
misstatement I guess on the part of the proponents of this.
The same is true of these World Heritage sites. They deliver tourism.
Individuals, just like in a park pass, look at these World Heritage
sites, some 506 sites, and they try to go to as many as they can. It
encourages tourism in this Nation. We have but 20 of those sites.
Obviously our parks are a great attraction and globally known and
renowned for the wonderful features that characterize them.
The Ramsar Treaty obviously is one. There may be other treaties that
are affected. These are the three that have stuck out that we have
discussed, but

[[Page H3411]]

almost any other agreements that we come to on a voluntary
international basis are struck down and put back before Congress. I
think we know what the disposition of that is.
Read the bill. I have read this bill and studied it carefully. It
makes an almost insurmountable test in terms of any type of designation
of the Man and the Biosphere programs. It goes 10 miles outside the
boundary of any of these where there would be a Man and the Biosphere
designation and demands that it have absolutely no economic effect.
I would suggest that it would almost be impossible to pass the type
of test that has been put in here. But I think it has been put in here
for good reason; that is, my colleagues want to kill these programs.
They want to cut the head off of the Man and the Biosphere program.
They want to stop the World Heritage Convention. They want to stop the
Ramsar Treaties, which are the basis, really, just the fragile basis of
cooperation that we have on an international basis to provide some
conservation and leadership.
Frankly, in my view, we ought to be doing a lot more on an
international basis, dealing with water quality, dealing with air
quality, dealing with the way that landscapes are treated in terms of
how we treat our forests and, indeed, that biodiversity issue treaty
that was raised by my colleague.
I certainly am a proponent of trying to work on a global basis to
protect these resources and to rationally use them and to, in fact,
provide for some policy path that would be reasonable with regards to
preserving our environment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure. It
is a bad measure. It is misunderstood and unfortunately a bill the
House should not consider at all. I urge defeat of this measure, H.R.
883.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the Biosphere Reserve Program is
operating without any congressional authority at all. Our
constitutional system is designed to make our government responsible to
the people; that is, the American citizens who are the ultimate
sovereign authority in our system, a people who must satisfy the
concerns of outsiders before they are no longer sovereign. That is why
this is called the American Sovereignty Act.
I respectfully request my colleagues to vote for this legislation,
get us back in control under our Constitution. That is our role. That
is our charge. Not to do so is neglecting our responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
Senate,

State of Minnesota,

St. Paul, MN, May 11, 1999.
Hon. Tom Coburn,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Coburn: As Chairman of the Minnesota
Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Environment, I
commend your efforts to defund the Man and Biosphere Program
(MAB). Since one of the major opponents of your efforts is
Congressman Bruce Vento of Minnesota, who represents a
compact urban district with little undeveloped land, I would
like to tell you about the painful experience northern
Minnesota had with the MAB program in the past.
During the mid-1980's the National Park Service proposed a
massive Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve that
included lands in my Senate district which were included
without notifying me or any other local elected officials. In
1984 the state-sponsored Citizen's Committee on Voyageurs
National Park took up this issue after a casual comment from
the then Voyageurs National Park Superintendent Russell Berry
that our area had been nominated as a biosphere reserve. At a
public meeting of that committee on December 1, 1984 in
Minneapolis after the nomination was made, Mr. Berry,
partially explained one reason for the biosphere reserve by
stating ``I'd like to be in as strong a position as possible
to influence activities outside the boundaries that would
adversely affect the Park in the context of things that would
be detrimental to the ecosystem within the Park.''
Because the park is surrounded by thousands of acres of
private property, Mr. Berry intended to use the biosphere as
a means to implement land use controls on private property.
Since my constituents did not want their constitutionally-
guaranteed private property rights further threatened, they
strongly opposed this proposal. Consequently, in 1987 the
Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve nomination was
withdrawn by National Park Service Director William Penn
Mott.
Until the MAB program is authorized by Congress and
statutory protections for private property are guaranteed, I
will support all efforts to defund this program. Without
these protections, unelected federal bureaucrats will again
use biosphere reserves as a means of implementing federal
land use controls on private property.
Since Mr. Vento's district is 300 miles away from the ill-
fated Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve proposal, I
would encourage you to listen to those who represent people
who live and work in the affected area rather than those who
recreate in the area on weekends.
Thanks again for your efforts in defense of local control
and private property.
Sincerely,
Senator Bob Lessard.
____

Chesapeake, VA,

May 18, 1999.
Congressman Richard Pombo,
United States Capitol Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Pombo: Thank you for asking for my comments on the
process of UNESCO designation of World Heritage Sites.
During the Reagan Administration, these designations were
honorary and benign in nature. However, like so many United
Nations programs, this one has fallen subject to
inappropriate mission creep. It has become a proxy for
international attempts to override national sovereignty and
control land use.
The current Administration has submitted a thirteen year
old press release to invoke my name in support of the World
Heritage Site proposals. This is unfortunate political game-
playing and deceptive in that it does not represent my
position. Favorable statements made about an honorary and
benign program more than a decade ago are patently not
applicable to that program as it is now being utilized.
The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, as I
understand it, will require congressional approval of United
Nations World Heritage Site proposals. I believe that this is
a necessary and reasonable safeguard for American citizens
against overreaching, unelected, unaccountable domestic and
international bureaucracies.
This legislation Chairman Young is sponsoring, H.R. 883,
will bring welcome relief to property owners threatened by a
United Nations bureaucracy that has grown out of control.
Sincerely,
Donald Paul Hodel.
____

Stockton, CA,

May 13, 1999.
Hon. Richard Pombo,
Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Pombo: Thank you for contacting me
regarding the House Committee on Resources' March 18 hearing
on the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, H.R. 883.
As you know, before President Ronald Reagan appointed me
Assistant Secretary for Fish, and Wildlife and Parks,
Department of the Interior, I served Governor Ronald Reagan
as the Director of California's Department of Fish and Game.
I am especially proud of the environmental agenda we were
able to implement, and the success we had with programs that
encourage ranchers, farmers and other private landowners to
maintain, develop and enhance wildlife habitat on privately
owned land. Those benefits continue to this day, and they
serve as excellent examples of public benefits that flow from
private land ownership without government intervention or
funding.
Before coming to Washington, D.C. in 1980 to serve
President Reagan, I gave 20 years of volunteer service on the
board of directors of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF),
including two terms as the Foundation's president-elect
(1976-78).
Before my career and commitment to wildlife resources and
the environment, I defended America's freedoms, including the
right to own private property, when serving 4\1/2\ years with
the U.S. Marine Corps during WWII, and another three years
during the Korean Conflict.
At the March 18 hearing of the House Committee on
Resources, I understand that the U.S. Department of the
interior witness entered into the official record a 17-year
old letter I signed while serving the Reagan Administration
as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. I
recently reviewed the letter in question, and you should know
that it merely dealt with the technical issue of creating a
standardized form for recording information on World Heritage
Sites. The letter must not be interpreted as anything other
than that.
The record of the Reagan Administration and the current
Clinton Administration regarding UNESCO's World Heritage, and
Man and the Biosphere programs are starkly different. Under
the Reagan Administration, these designations were indeed
voluntary, non-regulatory, and honorary. This is in sharp
contrast with the current Administration that invited the
World Heritage Committee to Yellowstone National Park to
condemn private property located outside of the Park! The
World Heritage Committee delegation present was comprised
largely of non-elected bureaucrats from Third World
countries. Such an action by the World Heritage

[[Page H3412]]

Committee clearly runs roughshod over America's sovereignty.
H.R. 883 is sorely needed to require Congress to oversee
non-elected bureaucrats, in both the United States and the
United Nations, from threatening our nation's sovereignty and
private property rights of American citizens. Former United
States Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane J.
Kirkpatrick, stated this best in a May 5, 1999, letter she
sent to the House Committee on Resources on this issue. she
wrote, inter alia: ``In U.N. organizations, there is no
accountability. U.N. bureaucrats are far removed from the
American voters. Many of the State Parties in the World
Heritage Treaty are not democracies. Some come from countries
that do not allow the ownership of private property. The
World Heritage, and Man and Biosphere Reserve committees make
decisions affecting the land and lives of Americans. Some of
these decisions are made by representatives chosen by
governments not based on democratic representation, certainly
not the representation of Americans. What recourse does an
American voter have when U.N. bureaucrats from Cuba or Iraq
or Libya (all of which are parties to this Treaty) have made
a decision that unjustly damages his or her property rights
that lie near a national park? When the World Heritage
Committee's meddling has needlessly encumbered a private
United States citizen's land and caused his or her property
values to fall, that citizen's appeals to these committees
(if that is possible) will fall on deaf ears.''
I strongly support H.R. 883 and urge its passage. I believe
H.R. 883 is desperately needed, and I know that it is in the
best interest of our nation and her citizens to require our
elected representatives in the United States Congress to
properly oversee the actions of non-elected bureaucrats
within the United States and the United Nations.
Sincerely,

G. Ray Arnett,

Former Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
____

Clark Ranch,

Paso Robles, CA, 14 May 1999.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Pombo: I greatly appreciate you informing
me about the May 12, 1999 letter from Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Interior Stephen Saunders to House Resources
Committee Chairman Don Young regarding H.R. 883, the American
Land Sovereignty Protection Act.
The Saunders letter cited a letter I signed 15 years ago as
Secretary of the Interior regarding the U.S.'s continued
participation in the World Heritage Convention at a time when
our nation decided to withdraw from the United States
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
My letter is characterized by Mr. Saunders as showing ``a
strong bipartisan consensus that U.S. involvement with the
World Heritage Convention and other international
conservation conventions at issue in H.R. 883 pose absolutely
no threat to U.S. sovereignty.''
That was true fifteen years ago. It is no longer the case
today.
When I was Secretary of Interior for President Ronald
Reagan, World Heritage sites were merely honorary
designations. They did not threaten private property rights
or national sovereignty. They were designed to recognize
outstanding natural and cultural resources in America without
creating new layers of regulation on private landowners and
rural communities.
Unfortunately, this program has been used in some cases by
the current administration to threaten private property
owners and national sovereignty. For example, in its efforts
to stop a proposed mine on private property outside
Yellowstone National Park, the current administration in 1995
invited the World Heritage Committee to the park to evaluate
alleged environmental threats caused by the proposed mine.
This visit by unelected United Nations bureaucrats created a
circus-type atmosphere whereby the World Heritage Committee
made the owners of that private property a pariah in the
international community. Partially as a result of this visit
and a formal declaration later against the proposed mine by
the World Heritage committee, the mine was never developed.
I also understand that some in the current administration
are attempting to use our membership in the World Heritage
Committee to help stop a proposed mine in Australia that is
strongly supported by the duly elected government of that
country. Such an effort against a sovereign nation would have
been unthinkable under the Reagan Administration which
honored the sovereignty of democratically elected
governments.
My review of H.R. 883 shows it merely provides
congressional oversight of the World Heritage Program to
prevent an international agency from threatening private
property rights and national sovereignty as it did in
Yellowstone and is attempting to do in Australia. This
legislation will provide the type of adult supervision from
elected officials that every domestic and international
bureaucracy needs.
I appreciate you alerting me that my 15 year old letter is
regrettably being used for political purposes in Washington,
D.C.
Sincerely,
William P. Clark.
____

Pulp & Paperworkers'

Resource Council.

Dear Representative: The Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource
Council (PPRC) strongly urges you to support H.R. 883, the
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, which soon will be
voted on by the full House. This bill provides for
Congressional oversight of United Nations Biosphere Reserves
and World Heritage Sites in the United States. The biosphere
program is not even authorized by Congress, nor is the
program part of an international treaty.
PPRC is a ``Grassroots'' organization representing more
than 300,000 Pulp and Paper Workers and some 900,000 Wood
Products Industry Workers. Many of our members are unionized
workers and we have members in virtually every state of the
union. We support natural resource policies that allow our
mills to thrive and keep our members and their families
employed in well-paying union jobs.
PPRC is very concerned how America's sovereignty over its
natural resources is increasingly threatened by international
agreements and unelected bureaucrats at international
organizations which often are dominated by Third World
nations that have poor records in protecting their own
natural resources. This was painfully evident when several
PPRC officers participated in the World Commission on
Forestry and Sustainable Development conferences.
United Nations Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site
designations, administered by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), are nominated
through a secretive process that excludes local governments,
union workers, private landowners and other average citizens.
Only high-ranking unelected officials at the State
Department, other federal agencies, UNESCO and national
environmental advocacy groups are involved in this nomination
process.
Our Members, from diverse states such as New York,
Arkansas, Kentucky and Minnesota have fought hard to get a
seat at the table when biosphere reserves were proposed in
their areas. In all cases, officials from federal agencies
ardently worked to keep them out. H.R. 883 would open up this
process by requiring that all existing biosphere reserves in
the United States be authorized by an Act of Congress by 2002
or they would cease to exist. This would empower average
citizens to become involved in these designations.
At House Resource Committee hearings in Tannersville, NY,
Washington, D.C. and Rolla, MO, PPRC testified in strong
support of this legislation. It embodies a basic principle of
open government that citizens and communities have a right to
know about decisions affecting them before they are made.
Again, the Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource Council strongly
supports H.R. 883.
Sincerely,
Don Wesson,
PPRC National Secretary.
____

May 5, 1999.
Hon. Bruce F. Vento,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Vento Thank you for your letters of March 24th and
April 28th regarding my testimony before the House Resources
Committee on the March 18th hearing of the American land
Sovereignty Protection Act, H.R. 883. In my opinion the
important issue here is protection of Americans' rights of
democratic process. I sought to emphasize the dangers I see
in Congress's waiving of its role and responsibilities over
matters which fundamentally affect citizens of the United
States and ceding that role and its associated powers to a
global organization in which affected Americans have no
representation.
As I understand it, the proposed Act does nothing more than
affirm Congressional role in the management of our public
lands, a role mandated to it by the Constitution under
Article IV, Section 3, which states: ``The Congress shall
have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property
belonging to the United States.'' I believe that is a clearly
worded duty which Congress is bound by the Constitution to
uphold.
Your letter raises several questions concerning my
testimony, each of which I have addressed below.
I. Please explain the simultaneous decision to continue our
active participation in the World Heritage Convention and the
U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program [after your support for
the successful U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO], both of which
are coordinated at the international level by UNESCO.
The United States' Permanent Representative to the United
Nations oversees U.S. participation in many United Nations'
programs and organizations, including aspects of U.S.
participation in UNESCO. The World Heritage and Man and the
Biosphere programs, however, were not among them when I held
that job.
As you know, the Department of the Interior has primary
responsibility for the World Heritage and the Biosphere
programs. The Department of the Interior, along with a
federal interagency panel controls all aspects of these
programs. No member of Congress is included on this panel.
Neither was a United States' U.N. Ambassador when I held that
position. The Code of Federal Regulations July 21, 1980
public notice of proposed U.S. World Heritage Nominations or
1981 states U.S. law at the time I was our UN Ambassador:
``In the United States, the Secretary of the Interior is
charged with implementing the provisions of the Convention,
including preparation of U.S. nominations. Recommendations

[[Page H3413]]

on the proposed nominations are made to the Secretary by an
interagency panel including members from the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, the National
Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within
the Department of the Interior; the President's Council on
Environmental Quality; the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and the Department of State.''\1\ (Emphasis
added). I was never included on the panel as the Department
of State Representative. I was never invited to participate
in any decisions concerning these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Proposed U.S. World Heritage Nominations for 1981,
Public Notice,'' 45 FR 48717, July 21, 1980. You will find
the same language in each annual notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I raised the issue of the U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO to
make a point: the UNESCO of the 1980's demonstrates quite
well both an example of an incompetent and corrupt
international organization and the nearly insurmountable
obstacles of trying to reform it and hold it accountable.
During my tenure as U.S. Ambassador, I sought to limit the
proliferation and scope of U.N. based on international
organizations which were accountable to no responsible,
democratically elected government. This discussion serves to
reinforce the point I was trying to make during my testimony,
namely that Congress should take an active role in the
oversight of programs which impact private citizens in this
country.
II. [A]s you know, 7 of the 20 World Heritage Sites in the
United States were listed as such during your tenure as our
Ambassador to the U.N. In your capacity as U.N. Ambassador,
did you oppose these nominations based on the fact that
Congress had not specifically authorized these listings?
At any point in your tenure, did you attempt to have any
existing designations withdrawn on the same basis?
I refer you to my answer above. The Department of the
Interior is charged with implementing the provisions of this
program, not the United States' UN Representative's office. I
had no role and I was not aware of the details of these
programs. Now, however, that this issue has ripened, I
believe it is time to restore Congress' proper role in this
matter.
III. ``Your prepared testimony . . . includes the
statement, `International Committees--whatever the substance
of their decisions--do not represent the American people and
cannot be held accountable by them,' (emphasis added). Is it
accurate to conclude from this statement that you believe
specific Congressional authorization should be required for
U.S. participation in any program which involves an
`international committee?' ''
Obviously, these committees do not represent the American
people. That is not their function. I want to be absolutely
clear on this point. Only our representatives on those
committees represent Americans. Obviously, the Cuban or
Libyan delegates to these committees do not represent the
American people and, in fact, often oppose American
interests, regardless of the issue. Neither do the New
Zealand--to take a country at random--or Brazil. The United
States' Congress, on the other hand, is elected and does, in
fact, represent the American people. U.N. based committees,
unlike Congress, are not accountable to the American people
because they have not been elected by or chosen in any way by
the American people. They do not represent and are not
concerned with U.S. national interests nor the interests of
U.S. citizens.
In this democracy, the citizens grant powers to our elected
leaders through our votes from the local and state levels up
to the Congress and the Presidency. We give them the power to
declare our lands national parks and the right to enact the
laws that restrict our use of our properties. We give our
duly elected leaders the authority to select the judges who
will interpret those laws. Our elected leaders, in turn,
respond to our wishes because, just as we have granted them
power, so may we take it from them in the next election.
Representation and accountability are the foundation of the
freedoms we cherish. Having fought and won elections
yourself, you know this principle well.
In U.N. organizations, there is no accountability. UN
bureaucrats are far removed from the American voters. Many of
the States Parties in the World Heritage Treaty are not
democracies. Some come from countries that do not allow the
ownership of private property. The World Heritage and Man and
the Biosphere committees make decisions affecting the land
and lives of Americans. Some of these decisions are made by
representatives chosen by governments not based on democratic
representation, certainly not on the representation of
Americans. What recourse does an American voter have when UN
bureaucrats from Cuba or Iraq or Libya (all of which are
parties to this Treaty) have made a decision that unjustly
damages his or her property rights that lie near a national
park? When the World Heritage committee's meddling has
needlessly encumbered a private United States citizen's land
and caused his or her property values to fall, that citizen's
appeals to these committees (if that is even possible) will
fall on deaf ears.
As for your question ``Is it accurate to conclude from this
statement that you believe specific Congressional
authorization should be required for U.S. participation in
any program which involves an `international committee?,' ''
my answer is, in any U.N. based committee which makes
decisions that importantly affect American citizens. Speaking
to the issue at hand, which is the requirement of
congressional authorization of World Heritage and Biosphere
site designations, I definitely believe congressional
authorization should be required. Congressional role should
be protected, I believe, should be required, in any process,
any time the Constitution specifically places a duty on
Congress to act. The question presented here is specific. The
Constitution mandates congressional responsibility over
public land management. The World Heritage and Biosphere
programs directly impact the management of public and private
lands in the United States. Congress should be involved.
The Constitution grants and requires Congress' broad
control over the management of the public lands. The
Executive branch, through the Department of the Interior and
in conjunction with the World Heritage and Man and the
Biosphere programs (the ``international committees'' created
by this Convention) should not be allowed to exercise
Congress' constitutional authority.
IV. ``Should Congressional authorization be required for
any international agreements/contracts which allow use of our
national resources and public lands, such as mining or timber
harvesting? If it is the case that your support for requiring
Congressional authorization is limited only to those areas
included in H.R. 883, please explain the specific
characteristics of `international committees' dealing with
conservation which makes them particularly threatening?''
First of all, as you know, any U.N. based agreements or
contracts which allow use of our natural resources and public
lands require various forms of authorization from our elected
officials. In this particular case, the authorization must
come from Congress. The Convention itself requires that
``the inclusion of a property in the World Heritage List
requires the consent of the State governed.'' [Article II,
Section 3] The State in question is the United States and
its consent requires the consent of the people through
their duly elected representatives in accordance with the
Constitution. That means Congress, the body delegated the
authority over land management by the Constitution. The
``American Land Sovereignty Protection Act'' is consistent
with both U.S. and international law.
In the second part of your question, you ask what are the
specific characteristics of ``international committees''
dealing with conservation which makes them particularly
threatening?'' My answer is, those communities which affect
substantial interests of U.S. citizens. If American citizens
have an interest in the conservation of a particular area,
that decision should be made by Congress, the body delegated
responsibility by the Constitution for making these decisions
in full view of the American public. And if each decision
requires consideration of costs and benefits to the property
rights of individual voters affected, so be it. UNESCO
committees are not competent to address the complex private
property and public interest issues presented here. They have
no interest in how their actions affect private U.S.
citizens. I believe Congress should not abdicate its
responsibilities for land management to international groups
whose members have no concern for protecting individual
property rights and American interests.
Sincerely,
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick.

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 883, The American
Land Sovereignty Protection Act. We must preserve and protect our
nation's private property rights for our citizens and for our country.
The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act will require
Congressional approval before nominating U.S. property as U.N. land
designations for inclusion on the World Heritage List. This legislature
will also prohibit U.S. property from being nominated as a Biosphere
Reserve and it will terminate existing Biosphere Reserves if they do
not meet the proper conditions. Under H.R. 883, Congress will be re-
established as the ultimate decision-maker in managing public lands and
maintain sovereign control of U.S. soil, not the United Nations. We
must pass this legislation and halt designations made without
consulting Congress or landowners.
Mr. Chairman, the United Nations has identified 92 sites in 31 states
and the District of Columbia for acquisition. The fact is, property
owners and local governments are routinely shut out of the process and
have little recourse if their land is claimed by the U.N. or other
international agencies. We must put an end to this uncalled-for seizure
of our nation's land and restore control to landowners and local
officials.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 883 and continue
to protect our nation's soil. We must never allow foreign nations or
international organizations to bully American landowners.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. I and 182 of my colleagues
who co-sponsored this bill believe that it is not only common sense,
but also Congress' Constitutional duty, to protect the sovereignty of
America's people and her land.

[[Page H3414]]

As you have heard, UN Land Designations, World Heritage Sites and
Biosphere Reserves, take place without the approval of Congress and
with little or no Congressional oversight; consequently, the citizens
of the United States are excluded from the process. These decisions
infringe upon State sovereignty, individual rights of United States
citizens, and private interests in real property.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the beautiful forests, monuments,
national parks and other lovely places in the U.S. as anyone and am
thrilled that others outside the U.S. see the beauty in them as well.
However, I feel very passionately that if the United Nations decides to
designate the Uwharrie Forest--in the 8th District of North Carolina--
as a World Heritage Site, that the people of my district should have
the opportunity to address how this designation might affect them.
Receiving this designation would mean that United States agrees to
manage the Uwharrie Forest in accordance with an underlying
international agreement which may have implications on private property
outside the forest. At best, a World Heritage Site or Biosphere Reserve
designation gives the international community an open invitation to
interfere in how the Uwharrie, and land surrounding it, are used.
The voters of my district might decide it would be in their best
interest to accept the UN designation. If that were the case, I would
gladly honor the will of my constituents. However, it is their
community, their lands and their livelihoods being affected, they have
the right, and should have the opportunity, to have a say.
The Uwharrie Forest is just one example of a beautiful site in my
district. I know each of you can think of several beautiful places in
your own districts that would be prime for a UN World Heritage Site
designation.
I urge you to give your constituents the chance to be involved in
decisions that affect them, their private property rights and our
sovereignty as a nation. I urge you to vote in favor of the Land
Sovereignty Protection Act.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, when I was sworn into office, I
took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Each of us has taken that
same oath, and I rise to remind us of our oath of office and reflect on
the words of the Constitution. Article IV, section 2 of the U.S.
Constitution states, ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of
and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or
other property belonging to the United States.''
Clearly, the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Congress and only the
U.S. Congress the authority to make all rules and regulations over
Federal lands.
This authority is not given to the President, it is not given to the
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. No one in the State Department
or the Department of the Interior is given this authority. The
Constitution does not give this authority to the United Nations, UNESCO
or any other body. The authority to establish rules and regulations
over Federal lands is reserved to the U.S. Congress and only the U.S.
Congress.
What does H.R. 883, this bill, require the Government to follow? The
U.S. Constitution. The bill requires the specific approval of Congress
before any area within the United States is subject to an international
land use nomination, classification, or designation. Is this so
offensive?
H.R. 883 requires the consent of Congress before the Secretary of the
Interior may nominate any property in the United States for inclusion
in the World Heritage list. I believe this is certainly consistent with
Article IV, section 2.
H.R. 883 specifically prohibits Federal officials from nominating any
land in the United States for designation as a biosphere reserve. Such
designations are left to Congress to determine.
The bill requires the Congress to reconsider for designation as a
biosphere reserve those sites that have already been designated as
biosphere reserves by previous administrations. It restores to Congress
the authority to choose to redesignate or not redesignate these sites.
This is a process that should have been in place all along.
H.R. 883 prohibits Federal officials from designating any land in the
United States for a special or restricted use under any international
agreement unless such designation is specifically approved by law.
I call on all of my colleagues to uphold the U.S. Constitution and
the constitutional authority of this body. A vote for H.R. 883 is a
vote to preserve the authority of this body. A vote against H.R. 883 is
a vote that quite frankly, in my opinion, is inconsistent with Article
IV, section 2, and the oath that we have taken.
``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other
property belonging to the United States.''
Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is critical for the
United States to ensure that our lands are not subject to special
international restrictions without careful consideration of the
implications before a designation is made.
The increasing interdependence of the world's economic stability,
environmental quality, and peace and human development are often
dependent on international cooperation, but this cannot preempt the
United States from meeting our obligations to our own citizens.
This legislation restricts Federal officials from designating lands
under the World Heritage List of the United Nations without the express
consent of Congress.
Furthermore, it amends the National Historic Preservation Act to
restrict United States' lands from being designated as a Biosphere
Reserve.
It gives Congress the necessary authority to approve all land
designations and change any existing designations. These measures are
key elements to ensuring that America remains in full control of
American land.
It is critical for the United States to ensure that our lands are not
subject to special international restrictions without careful
consideration of the implications before a designation is made.
There is no denying that our world is becoming increasingly
interdependent.
Economic stability, environmental quality, and peace and human
development are often depending on international cooperation.
This interdependence, however, cannot preempt the United States from
meeting our obligations to our own citizens.
I cannot support policies that place limitations on our ability to
manage our own affairs.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 883.
This bill asserts that Congress under the U.S. Constitution has the
power over federal lands. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act
would give Congress the authority to review, not attack, existing
Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site designations, in order to
decide if such designations are necessary.
I find it troubling that initiatives such as the United Nations
Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage Sites and Ramsar Sites have been
designated with virtually no Congressional supervision. Also, I find it
disconcerting that all of these designations have had virtually no
input from state and local officials.
Private property rights are a cornerstone to the American heritage.
Our founding Fathers protected the rights of land owners. Many people
in the United States have found that their private property rights are
being restricted because they live in proximity to biosphere reserves.
Restrictive regulations that govern these reserves are the brainchild
of the United Nations, not the United States government.
Land management decisions should be made and reviewed by Congress,
not arbitrarily by bureaucratic officials in the Executive Branch or
international agencies.
What do my colleagues from the other side fear from Congress doing
their job? Why do they fear individuals, local, state and federal
entities being involved in the process? Congress should not relinquish
their duty of maintaining and protecting federal lands. We must ensure
the rights of American private property owners at the federal and
international level. I urge the passage of this important legislation.
Vote yes on H.R. 883.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule for 4 hours and is considered read.
The text of H.R. 883 is as follows:

H.R. 883

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is
vested in the Congress under article IV, section 3, of the
Constitution.
(2) Some Federal land designations made pursuant to
international agreements concern land use policies and
regulations for lands belonging to the United States which
under article IV, section 3, of the Constitution can only be
implemented through laws enacted by the Congress.
(3) Some international land designations, such as those
under the United States Biosphere Reserve Program and the Man
and Biosphere Program of the United Nations Scientific,
Educational, and Cultural Organization, operate under
independent national committees, such as the United States
National Man and Biosphere Committee, which have no
legislative directives or authorization from the Congress.
(4) Actions by the United States in making such
designations may affect the use and

[[Page H3415]]

value of nearby or intermixed non-Federal lands.
(5) The sovereignty of the States is a critical component
of our Federal system of government and a bulwark against the
unwise concentration of power.
(6) Private property rights are essential for the
protection of freedom.
(7) Actions by the United States to designate lands
belonging to the United States pursuant to international
agreements in some cases conflict with congressional
constitutional responsibilities and State sovereign
capabilities.
(8) Actions by the President in applying certain
international agreements to lands owned by the United States
diminishes the authority of the Congress to make rules and
regulations respecting these lands.
(b) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are the following:
(1) To reaffirm the power of the Congress under article IV,
section 3, of the Constitution over international agreements
which concern disposal, management, and use of lands
belonging to the United States.
(2) To protect State powers not reserved to the Federal
Government under the Constitution from Federal actions
designating lands pursuant to international agreements.
(3) To ensure that no United States citizen suffers any
diminishment or loss of individual rights as a result of
Federal actions designating lands pursuant to international
agreements for purposes of imposing restrictions on use of
those lands.
(4) To protect private interests in real property from
diminishment as a result of Federal actions designating lands
pursuant to international agreements.
(5) To provide a process under which the
United States may, when desirable, designate lands pursuant
to international agreements.

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL ROLE IN WORLD HERITAGE
SITE LISTING.

Section 401 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 1980 (Public Law 96-515; 94 Stat. 2987) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a) in the first sentence, by--
(A) striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Subject to
subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), the Secretary''; and
(B) inserting ``(in this section referred to as the
`Convention')'' after ``1973''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(d)(1) The Secretary of the Interior may not nominate any
lands owned by the United States for inclusion on the World
Heritage List pursuant to the Convention, unless--
``(A) the Secretary finds with reasonable basis that
commercially viable uses of the nominated lands, and
commercially viable uses of other lands located within 10
miles of the nominated lands, in existence on the date of the
nomination will not be adversely affected by inclusion of the
lands on the World Heritage List, and publishes that finding;
``(B) the Secretary has submitted to the Congress a report
describing--
``(i) natural resources associated with the lands referred
to in subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) the impacts that inclusion of the nominated lands on
the World Heritage List would have on existing and future
uses of the nominated lands or other lands located within 10
miles of the nominated lands; and
``(C) the nomination is specifically authorized by a law
enacted after the date of enactment of the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act and after the date of publication
of a finding under subparagraph (A) for the nomination.
``(2) The President may submit to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the President of the Senate a proposal
for legislation authorizing such a nomination after
publication of a finding under paragraph (1)(A) for the
nomination.
``(e) The Secretary of the Interior shall object to the
inclusion of any property in the United States on the list of
World Heritage in Danger established under Article 11.4 of
the Convention, unless--
``(1) the Secretary has submitted to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President of the Senate a
report describing--
``(A) the necessity for including that property on the
list;
``(B) the natural resources associated with the property;
and
``(C) the impacts that inclusion of the property on the
list would have on existing and future uses of the property
and other property located within 10 miles of the property
proposed for inclusion; and
``(2) the Secretary is specifically authorized to assent to
the inclusion of the property on the list, by a joint
resolution of the Congress after the date of submittal of the
report required by paragraph (1).
``(f) The Secretary of the Interior shall submit an annual
report on each World Heritage Site within the United States
to the Chairman and Ranking Minority member of the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives and of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, that
contains for the year covered by the report the following
information for the site:
``(1) An accounting of all money expended to manage the
site.
``(2) A summary of Federal full time equivalent hours
related to management of the site.
``(3) A list and explanation of all nongovernmental
organizations that contributed to the management of the site.
``(4) A summary and account of the disposition of
complaints received by the Secretary related to management of
the site.''.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AND TERMINATION OF UNAUTHORIZED UNITED
NATIONS BIOSPHERE RESERVES.

Title IV of the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470a-1 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 403. (a) No Federal official may nominate any lands
in the United States for designation as a Biosphere Reserve
under the Man and Biosphere Program of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
``(b) Any designation on or before the date of enactment of
the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of an area in
the United States as a Biosphere Reserve under the Man and
Biosphere Program of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization shall not have, and
shall not be given, any force or effect, unless the Biosphere
Reserve--
``(1) is specifically authorized by a law enacted after
that date of enactment and before December 31, 2000;
``(2) consists solely of lands that on that date of
enactment are owned by the United States; and
``(3) is subject to a management plan that specifically
ensures that the use of intermixed or adjacent non-Federal
property is not limited or restricted as a result of that
designation.
``(c) The Secretary of State shall submit an annual report
on each Biosphere Reserve within the United States to the
Chairman and Ranking Minority member of the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, that contains
for the year covered by the report the following information
for the reserve:
``(1) An accounting of all money expended to manage the
reserve.
``(2) A summary of Federal full time equivalent hours
related to management of the reserve.
``(3) A list and explanation of all nongovernmental
organizations that contributed to the management of the
reserve.
``(4) A summary and account of the disposition of the
complaints received by the Secretary related to management of
the reserve.''.

SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS IN GENERAL.

Title IV of the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470a-1 et seq.) is further
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 404. (a) No Federal official may nominate, classify,
or designate any lands owned by the United States and located
within the United States for a special or restricted use
under any international agreement unless such nomination,
classification, or designation is specifically authorized by
law. The President may from time to time submit to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of
the Senate proposals for legislation authorizing such a
nomination, classification, or designation.
``(b) A nomination, classification, or designation, under
any international agreement, of lands owned by a State or
local government shall have no force or effect unless the
nomination, classification, or designation is specifically
authorized by a law enacted by the State or local government,
respectively.
``(c) A nomination, classification, or designation, under
any international agreement, of privately owned lands shall
have no force or effect without the written consent of the
owner of the lands.
``(d) This section shall not apply to--
``(1) agreements established under section 16(a) of the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4413);
and
``(2) conventions referred to in section 3(h)(3) of the
Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)).
``(e) 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.''.

SEC. 6. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

Section 401(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470a-1(b)) is amended by
striking ``Committee on Natural Resources'' and inserting
``Committee on Resources''.

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill is in order except those
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose and pro forma amendments for purpose of debate. Amendments
printed in the Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it
to be printed or his designee and shall be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for

[[Page H3416]]

voting on the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Are there any amendments to the bill.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

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

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
On page 9, line 13, strike ``2000'' and insert instead
``2003''.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a technical
amendment which simply extends the time for grandfathering existing
Biosphere Reserves by 3 years to 2003. I ask my colleagues for their
support.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
Perfecting this bill is a very tall task, but the gentleman has made
one modest effort to do so.
As long as the gentleman continues to yield, I point out that I
understand that I will offer just one amendment, as I had indicated to
the gentleman. I was not aware that of course the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall) has an amendment, and I understand the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has an amendment. I was not aware of those
amendments yesterday at the Committee on Rules.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, neither was I.
So the gentleman is true to his word.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I have
no objection to trying to improve this bill. It needs significant
improvement.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 9 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. 9 offered by Mr. Vento:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

``SEC. 7. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL,
MANAGEMENT, AND USE OF LANDS BELONGING TO THE
UNITED STATES.

Title IV of the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470a-1 et seq.) is further
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
Sec. 405.--No Federal official may enter into an agreement
with any international or foreign entity (including any
subsidiary thereof) providing for the disposal, management,
and use of any lands owned by the United States and located
within the United States unless such agreement is
specifically authorized by law. The President may from time
to time submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the President of the Senate proposals for legislation
authorizing such agreements.''.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I guess according the rule we are not going
to read the amendment, but this amendment is an important amendment
that deals with the key component of the pending legislation.
This legislation specifically requires to approve the recognition of
any U.S. lands for conservation purposes as a result of an agreement
with a foreign entity. However, at the same time, the legislation does
not require similar congressional action when U.S.-owned lands are
leased, oftentimes at a loss to American taxpayers, to foreign-owned
countries for such things as drilling, mining under the 1872 mining
law, timber harvesting, or other types of commercial endeavors.
My amendment establishes a parity in that process. My amendment would
suggest that commercial users and development of U.S. lands by foreign
companies and their U.S. subsidiaries may only be established when
specifically authorized by law. My amendment would not prevent such
activities from occurring. It would simply require Congress to approve
such actions.
The Vento amendment in which I am joined by the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Resources in this
amendment is a responsible provision that responds to the abuses which
are now occurring and which neither Congress nor the administration can
legally stop.
Many of my colleagues may recall the public outcry when it was
revealed that the concession facilities at Yosemite National Park were
going to be managed by a Japanese conglomerate, Matsushita. No legal
recourse was available to block that action.
A similar outrage was voiced when the Secretary of Interior was
required under Federal law to lease lands containing more than $10
billion in gold to a subsidiary of a Canadian-owned corporation who
paid less than $10,000 for that particular $10 billion gold mine.
Nothing has been done to prevent a repeat of this type of continued
rip-off. A foreign firm can still operate the concession for the Statue
of Liberty or any other of our national parks. Foreign firms can
continue to exploit American resources while at the same time at the
expense of the American taxpayers.
We now have an opportunity to change that policy. The Vento amendment
will not prevent these activities from moving forward, Mr. Chairman, it
would simply require the Congress to consider the national consequences
and specifically authorize these actions.
If we are going to require Congress to approve actions to recognize
U.S.-owned lands for conservation purposes of all things to save
migrating waterfall, for instance, on a global basis or to recognize
our World Heritage sites, some of our outstanding crown jewels, our
parks, our natural or cultural areas in the parks, or simply for
Congress to approve when we are going to agree with the cooperative
research like under the Man and the Biosphere program, then Congress
should also approve actions by foreign firms or individuals to in fact
use exploitative activities on U.S. lands.
I understand those activities, the U.S. lands, of course, are going
to be used for mining, for timber harvesting, for grazing, water
rights, a variety of other things, but the issue is that, if it is
going to be done by foreign entities, we hand over the ownership, this
has real impact, this particular amendment. Unlike this bill which
simply relies upon the existing laws, the fact is this has real impact
in terms of trying to limit these types of activities.
So I want to add this particular amendment to this for that reason,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the black helicopters are circling over our
lands.
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, the pilots of these helicopters are not wearing the
blue helmets of the United Nations.
Rather, they are wearing the corporate emblems of companies 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 foreign conglomerates, multi-
national mining firms, who swoop down upon our public lands and extract
gold and silver with no rents or royalties paid to the American people.
The UN Charter, in this instance, is not the issue.
It is our very own Mining Law of 1872 which continues, with reckless
disregard to our economy and our environment, to turn over federal
assets to the control of foreign nationals.
And so, I rise in support of the Vento-Rahall-Miller amendment to
this bill, the American Land 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 the legislation.
This is what this amendment is all about.
Our lands, our resources, owned by all Americans, are being claimed
by foreign entities.
The hardrock minerals on 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 an acre.

[[Page H3417]]

Allowed under the Mining Law of 1872? Yes.
Should these practices continue to be condoned in 1999. No. Of course
not.
So the real issue here today is not what the proponents of H.R. 883
make it out to be.
It is not about the UN. 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 our minerals, to multinational
conglomerates for fast food hamburger prices.
Cast a vote for America.
Vote yes on Vento-Rahall-Miller.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly accept the amendment.

{time} 1230

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Vento) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

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

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
Page 9, line 6, after ``in the United States'' insert
``(other than an area within the State of Colorado)''
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment.
It would exempt all the Biosphere Reserves in Colorado from the
provisions of the bill that would end the participation of U.S. sites
in the Man and the Biosphere program unless we pass and the President
signs a new law to continue their participation.
As I noted in general debate, currently there are two of these
reserves in Colorado, the Niwot Ridge Research Area and Rocky Mountain
National Park. They include lands within the Second Congressional
District which I represent.
Mr. Chairman, these areas are not involved in some conspiracy. They
are not part of any sinister foreign plot to undermine our Constitution
or our way of life. On the contrary, they are places where good things
are taking place.
In the Niwot Ridge area, scientists associated with the University of
Colorado are doing important research about air pollution and other
environmental issues in cooperation with scientists from other
countries, such as the Czech Republic. This is important work, work
that needs to continue; and my amendment would allow that to happen
without interruption.
As for Rocky Mountain National Park, all I can say is that this is
one of Colorado's brightest gems, one of the things that makes us proud
to be Coloradans. Rising up from the edge of the Great Plains, it
straddles the Continental Divide and includes snow-capped peaks, high-
altitude tundra, and a diverse array of other land forms and a splendid
diversity of vegetation and wildlife.
As Coloradans, we are glad to share its beauty with the Nation and we
invite the world to experience it. And the world is doing just that, at
least in part, because of its designation as a Biosphere Reserve. The
National Park Service tells me that many visitors say that they learned
of the park because it was included in the Man and the Biosphere
program and that is what made them want to visit it.
As one who believes there is a benefit to every visitor to special
wildlands like Rocky Mountain National Park, I am convinced that that
is reason enough to keep the park in this program. But it is also true
that tourism is a very important part of Colorado's economy, and that
is another reason to keep the park in the program, which my amendment
would do.
Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. Adoption of my amendment will not make
this a good bill. Even if this amendment is adopted, that alone will
not be sufficient for me to be able to support the bill. But this
amendment will protect Colorado from some of the worst consequences of
the bill, and to that extent I think it is very, very important.
Accordingly, I urge adoption of the Udall amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
These Biosphere Reserves were designated without congressional
authorization and without consulting the public or State and local
governments. This amendment invades the responsibility, again, of the
Congress under Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution, making all
laws concerning disposal or regulation of lands belonging to the United
States with Congress.
Under H.R. 883, existing Biosphere Reserves would have until December
31, 2003, to get authorization. They are not automatically
disenfranchised. If the Colorado Biosphere Reserve had the strong local
support claimed by the gentleman that offered the amendment, then there
would be no problem of getting the passage of this legislation in this
Congress.
If I am still chairman of that committee, I will commit to the
gentleman that I will support it if his people want to have it in that
district. If they do not, it would not occur.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment of my good friend and
colleague from Colorado (Mr. Udall). The sites that he identifies that
presently exist in Colorado, the Niwot Ridge Reserve and specifically
also the Rocky Mountain National Park, are being designated sites under
the Heritage Act.
Specifically, the Rocky Mountain National Park, of course, has been
around for a long time and has been the protected environmental jewel
in the crown of Colorado for a long, long time. It is peculiar, to say
the least, that some other kind of designation, some United Nations
designation, would help continue or would help preserve the
environmental uniqueness of this particular property, or anything else
in the State of Colorado, for that matter.
My colleague talks about the many tourists that flock to the State to
see these places, especially Rocky Mountain Park. He is certainly
correct in that; and, of course, they come in droves. In fact, one of
our problems in Colorado is that oftentimes we have far too many people
trying to get into these particular areas and preserves, into Rocky
Mountain National Park; and our problem is trying to deal with the
numbers coming in and the impact that that has on the Rocky Mountain
Park and on many things that we are trying to protect.
When I was in the committee, Mr. Chairman, and we were debating this
bill, it was a very interesting situation that occurred, in that in the
State of Wyoming there was an attempt on the part of some people in the
State of Wyoming to develop some mining adjacent to Yellowstone
National Park, and all the processes were underway. The environmental
impact statements had been ordered and were underway.
We had spent years actually in the process of identifying the
problems and trying to come to a solution as to whether or not it was
appropriate to let this mine go forward. All of a sudden, within I
think it was a short period of time, a week or less, that we were going
to actually get the final go-ahead on this project in Wyoming, the head
of the Park Service stepped in and called upon the United Nations to
come out to this particular area and give it a designation that would,
in fact, prohibit any future development. And when that happened, the
administration intervened and everything stopped.
Now, this is the kind of thing I am concerned about in the State of
Colorado, and this is why I certainly oppose the amendment of the
gentleman that would exempt Colorado from the protection provided by
this particular bill. We need this protection just as much as any other
State in the Nation because the same thing could happen in Colorado.

[[Page H3418]]

We think we know about how to preserve and protect the land that we
have under our control in the State of Colorado and with the Department
of Parks and Recreation. We do not need the United Nations to tell us
how to manage that land. We do not need the imprimatur of the United
Nations on Rocky Mountain Park in order to encourage tourism to
Colorado. We can do it without them.
In fact, oftentimes, as in the case I just stated, this United
Nations designation becomes much more problematic from the standpoint
of the proper regulation of the land within any State, in this case
Colorado.
So I certainly rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from the
Second Congressional District.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, at the risk of getting involved in this Colorado feud,
obviously this does not improve the bill enough, but I think it is a
modest step, and I want to support the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Udall) whenever I get a chance, Mr. Chairman.
The fact is that most of the land designations, I would suggest to my
colleague from Colorado, whether it is Park Service Organic Act or the
Frasier Experimental Station or the others, inherent in them, in these
designations of wilderness, is the concept of doing scientific
research. I mean, that is what the Organic Act has, that is what the
Wilderness Act of 1964 has in it. That is one of the purposes.
And so, insofar as the Man and the Biosphere program that my
colleague was alluding to, and I guess I saw four sites that were
affected by that. My colleague said there were two. The gentleman had
earlier said there were six. I found four. So there are some sites in
Colorado that may not be well understood where they are. But one is the
Frasier Experimental Station, as my colleague probably has noticed.
Another was the Rocky Mountain National Park, a wonderful area.
Now, I suppose the problem of getting people in and out, that that
was such a big problem, I think that is a good problem in terms of
Rocky Mountain. And I hope we can solve some of the transportation
problems that exist around those parks, but I would not suggest that to
solve that we take away the designation of the park, and I am sure my
colleagues from Colorado would not suggest that, either.
In any case, that was the purpose. The purpose of this is, and just
as a way of using this amendment to point out, that most of the laws
that are applicable that are engaged in the agreements we have are
already in place. We already passed judgment on these issues. We did it
once.
Now, some of my colleagues may want to do it again. Some may have
objections. Obviously, we continue to hear about the Ozarks issue, a
large area that was proposed as a biosphere. But in that case, whatever
system was in place, however cumbersome it was, it worked. They did not
designate that particular site.
With regards to Yellowstone, I think it is important to recognize,
and the gentleman from Colorado, our friend and colleague, brought up
the issue of Yellowstone again, as did our colleague from Wyoming (Mrs.
Cubin), that in fact it was designated a World Heritage Site long
throughout the process of the mine evaluation, EIS.
What happened is that the committee decided that if that mine was
going to go in, it became a Heritage Site at risk, endangered type of
site. And of course the committee can make that declaration. It had
absolutely no effect on the decision that was made, other than it might
have persuaded the Park Service or others to pay a little closer
attention.
I mean, we cannot take away free speech in this process. We cannot
take away free thought in terms of what is going to happen. We cannot
do that with legislation here. In fact, we as a Nation enshrine the
concept of free debate and free thought with regard to these issues.
And it is as if this legislation is trying to reach out and prevent
somebody from making a judgment about the U.S. and how we manage our
lands. We cannot do that.
For instance, if somebody is mismanaging lands in other areas, we
obviously are going to speak about it, whether it is Amazonia and/or
other parts of the world, other rain forests. So we are going to speak
out about it.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Minnesota for yielding.
I just wanted to make a couple other comments in response to the
points that my colleague from Colorado made, as well as my colleague
from Minnesota.
It seems, as I hear this debate today, all roads lead to the New
World Mine. We keep coming back to that particular situation. And I
think there is a continued debate about what happened there, and we
ought to continue to figure out ways in the long run to mitigate those
kind of situations when we have a big mining project on the edge of a
national park that is so important to us, the Yellowstone National
Park.
But I am offering my amendment in the spirit of let us not let that
conflict and that situation affect what is going on in Colorado. There
are important research projects occurring at Niwot Ridge and occurring
in Rocky Mountain National Park. I do not see what the problem is that
we are fixing in Colorado. In fact, I think we are creating a problem
by doing this.
So I urge adoption of my amendment. Let us not hurt Colorado and some
of the other States that are involved in these projects, this important
Man and the Biosphere project, because of what happened in one case in
Yellowstone National Park.

{time} 1245

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The time of the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I of course rose in support of the
amendment. But I use this as an indication of what is generally wrong
with the entire thought process and what is going on with this
particular legislation. I do not think it is repairable by this
amendment or others that might be offered. It is a flawed bill. These
discussions and debates ought to be going on in subcommittee rather
than the sort of exaggerated statements that we had. Unfortunately,
they did not. So we are on the floor. I would think that there would be
more important business that could and should be considered by this
Congress on this floor.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I just would conclude with a comment, a
quote actually from Jeane Kirkpatrick that I think encompasses
everything we have tried to establish here on our side about our
concerns with regard to this amendment in particular and to the
concerns of our opponents to this bill in general:

If American citizens have an interest in the conservation
of a particular area, that decision should be made by
Congress, the body designated responsibility by the
Constitution for making these decisions in full view of the
American public. And if each decision requires consideration
of costs and benefit to the property rights of individual
voters affected, so be it. UNESCO committees are not
competent to address the complex private property and public
interest issues presented here.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the quotes from the former U.N.
representative Jeane Kirkpatrick. Seven World Heritage sites were
designated while she was in that role. So apparently, as with Mr.
Hodel, he has now since then, being strongly in support of them in the
1980s when they were in control or in power, now have found reason to
oppose these sites. But I think actions speak louder than words. I
thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

[[Page H3419]]

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sweeney

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

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Sweeney:
Page 9, line 16, after ``management plan'' insert the
following: ``that specifically ensures that the designation
does not affect State or local government revenue, including
revenue for public education programs, and''.

(Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) for affording me the opportunity at rather a late moment to
introduce my amendment. My good friend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Udall) just said that all roads in this bill and this debate and this
discussion seem to lead to the New World Mine. The reason I am happy I
am able to introduce my amendment is because I think it will serve a
number of purposes. But one point that can definitively be made is that
that is not true, that all roads are not leading in this matter to the
New World Mine, that it has impact on the individuals, of people
throughout this Nation and in particular in my district.
We have heard eloquent debate on both sides of the issue, speakers
who have spoken of the need for greater local input and greater input
from individuals, and those who have said or who have perceived that
these issues involve just the use of public lands. That is not true at
all. My amendment expands the existing provisions of H.R. 883 by
requiring the Secretary of Interior as part of the management plan to
also ensure that the biosphere designation does not affect the revenue
of State and local governments, including and probably most importantly
the revenue for public education programs.
Mr. Chairman, as we have heard, the manner in which international
land use agreements have been carried out can tend at times to infringe
on the authority of our local municipalities and individuals. My
amendment would help protect State and local governments from
experiencing a decrease in real property values. As those in many
struggling local townships and counties in upstate New York which I
represent know all too well, depressed property values serve to depress
property tax revenues, the major source for education funding in this
country. Today, there are 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves and 20 World
Heritage Sites and there is not an argument on this side of the aisle
that there is not some legitimacy and need for these agreements. But
many of these international agreements were established without local
input and certainly without congressional input or approval. This is
not government of the people, for the people, by the people, it is
detached internationalism in the eyes of many. Most U.N. designations,
including the ones in my district, encompass privately held lands, not
just public lands.
Most of all, there have been instances where no communication with
local officials and community residents took place about the effects of
designating these lands. These are the people that it affects the most.
These are the people in most instances who have rightful ownership of
the property that is being affected, who define their freedom in fact
by virtue of that ability to own these lands. The current process of
selecting U.N. Biosphere Reserves with no recourse for those local
residents and their elected officials affected must end.
In the 22nd Congressional District of New York, which I represent,
there is now one of the largest U.S. Biosphere Reserves housed in the
Adirondack Mountains. The private landowners and townships in the
Adirondacks had no idea that the Adirondack Park Agency, a quasi-State
agency, quietly approved the U.N. biosphere designation and residents
were helpless to impact on that, to stop it, to comment on it. In fact,
that designated area encompasses 7 million acres of privately held
land. It encompasses territories outside the purview and jurisdiction
of the Adirondack Park Agency. Yet it has become part of that
designated area.
Let me tell my colleagues from experience, the U.N. biosphere is an
unwanted cloud now that hangs over a good part of the Adirondack
region. My congressional district is one with the greatest interest in
seeing that this practice is reined in, that the input and the voice of
the local individual be heard. It is unfair that my constituents are
not included in any discussions that directly affect them and that I as
their representative in Congress have practically no avenue to express
their concerns.
The Secretary of Interior must be required to make the case of U.N.
designation to State and local governments as well as this Congress and
our Federal bureaucracies should be held accountable to this Congress
for any of the effects that international agreements will cause. It is
imperative that we protect the rights of our private property owners
and the legitimate interests of local governments and their citizens.
This bill accomplishes those objectives and my amendment I believe
strengthens it by elevating the interests of State and local
governments and the effects of U.N. designations on their ability to
collect revenue. It is important to the private property owners, it is
important to the citizens of those regions, it is important to public
education in those areas.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and
support this important bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak today in
support of this important legislation, H.R. 883--the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act.
My district in upstate New York has one of the largest U.N. Biosphere
Reserves in the United States, thus I have a direct interest in H.R.
883 and strongly support its passage.
H.R. 883 clearly addresses the concerns many of us have had with the
U.N. Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Sites programs.
As we know, the U.N. Biosphere Reserve program has been operating
with essentially no public or congressional oversight for the past 25
years. And without such oversight often, no one is accountable.
These designations can have a marked impact on the properties in and
around the biosphere region, yet, in most cases, neither local
government nor property owners are ever consulted regarding the
designation or site consideration.
As an example, in my congressional district, the Champlain-Adirondack
Biosphere Reserve was created in 1989 at the request of a quasi-
governmental agency--the Adirondack Park Agency.
This was done without hearings or formal input from local citizens of
the Adirondacks; thus the residents were left feeling helpless and in
the reality had no impact upon it. The result was a very bitter feeling
and rightfully so over an unwanted imposition on private landowners.
Given negative effect on property values, and compounded by the
cavalier attitudes of those handing down designations and the blatant
disregard for local authority, I would submit that with congressional
oversight and public input, many of these U.N. sites would not have
been approved in their current form.
The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act unequivocally states
that no land in this country can be included in international land use
programs without the clear and direct approval of Congress.
H.R. 883 is a first step in the right direction in returning power to
the local citizens as well as the elected Representatives in Congress.
Most importantly, this bill reasserts the constitutional rights of
property owners to make property decisions, within local zoning
authority, without interference from the United Nations whose mandate
does not necessarily include concern for our town halls, school houses,
or individual property owners in any given area.
What recourse do affected landowners have against the United Nations
bureaucracy?
Absolutely none.
This bill changes that. I urge your support.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York spoke of 7,000 acres of
land that apparently falls under a biosphere, some other impact.
Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman will yield, seven million acres.
Mr. VENTO. Seven million acres.
Mr. SWEENEY. In the Adirondack region of New York State that are
privately owned.
Mr. VENTO. I appreciate that and am happy to yield to the gentleman
briefly.

[[Page H3420]]

Did the gentleman have any instance where there was some problem that
arose out of that designation with regards to private property owners?
Mr. SWEENEY. There have been a number of instances where private
property owners in the use of their property, in the valuation of their
property and their ability to develop and cultivate that property have
been infringed upon based upon the designation. I think the gentleman
misses the point, that the most predominant frustration that those
constituents of mine have----
Mr. VENTO. Just reclaiming my time for a minute, we have been through
this with others that have claimed that but we have yet to substantiate
any of those types of claims. So if the gentleman could help
substantiate that, I think it would go a long way towards solving a
problem. Because right now the way the bill stands, I think it is
purporting to solve problems, in my judgment, that do not exist. On the
amendment that the gentleman has, he suggests to insert after
``management plan'' on line 16, and it is amendment No. 4, I believe;
is that correct?
Mr. SWEENEY. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. VENTO. The gentleman says that after ``management plan,'' he
wants to put in language that specifically ensures, and I am quoting
from the gentleman's amendment, ``that specifically ensures that the
designation does not affect State or local government revenue,
including revenue for public education programs, and.''
What if the revenue increases? What if it decreases? According to
this amendment, you would have to demonstrate that you would have a
static situation, that there would be no increase and no decrease in
revenue. That is the effect of the gentleman's amendment. Is the
gentleman aware of the effect of his amendment?
Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman will yield further, that is not the
effect at all. I think the effect is one that is a basic premise of
citizenship, and that is the right of citizens to know the impact that
their government or any other entity might have on their particular
property.
Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, it is not just a question of knowing
this. It is this is one of the requirements. It says that ``any
designation under this law, the Man and Biosphere Program, shall not
have, and shall not be given, any force or effect,'' and then you are
putting down, ``that specifically ensures that the designation does not
affect State or local government revenue, including revenue for public
education programs.''
So it can have no effect, no effect going up, no effect going down.
That is what it says. That would completely vitiate the ability to, and
this is almost an impossible test in this bill in any case.
So I might say, I do not know, this is sort of what I would call
piling on in football. I would have long ago blown the whistle. This is
what the amendment has. I understand that the gentleman may not have
had that intention. But we are not going on the basis of intention. We
are going on what is written in the law.
Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman will yield further, this is not an
issue of remedies, it is an issue of notice. I think it is fundamental
in the proposal that any U.N. Biosphere area be designated, that this
Congress and the individuals and the constituents in that area affected
have the right to know of the effect of that designation.
My amendment simply calls for the providing of that notice. It says
nothing to the effect of imposing any sanction or remedy.
Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman will look at his
amendment again. It says that specifically ensures, the plan has to
ensure that the designation does not affect State or local government
revenue, including revenue for public. So it does not affect it. What
does he mean by does not affect it? He means it goes up or down, does
he not? What happens to revenue?
Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman will yield, it requires the Secretary
of Interior to report back to Congress of the cost effects, the
property tax in particular, effects on any of those affected individual
properties.
Mr. VENTO. What if the values go up as a result of this designation?
Mr. SWEENEY. That should certainly be part of the debate that we have
at that time on any of those designations.
Mr. VENTO. It would be invalidated based on that. I just think it is
an inartfully drawn amendment. As I said, I think the amendment just
represents piling on. For that reason, I do not intend to support it. I
think it is not well drawn, and I wanted to point out the effect of
that. I think the test here in this bill would make it nearly
impossible to have this voluntary scientific cooperation in the
process. I do not know the purpose of this. This amendment obviously is
not drawn well. But unfortunately under the rule that the gentleman
perhaps voted for, I did not, we had to preprint everything in the
Record ahead of time and we are all limited in time here. You do not
really have the right to perfect your amendment or correct these types
of problems, another little issue the gentleman ought to take up with
the Committee on Rules under a so-called open rule.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska to Amendment No. 4 Offered by
Mr. Sweeney

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska to amendment No. 4
offered by Mr. Sweeney: Insert ``adversely'' before
``affect''.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, it is my intent to offer this
amendment, which I have just done, I do think it is germane, to try to
improve the amendment of Mr. Sweeney, which I do believe his amendment
is clear, but the gentleman from Minnesota has raised a question. I
want to make sure that this now is perfectly clear, for adverse effect
only.

{time} 1300

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Sweeney), as amended, will be postponed.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation and in support
of the Vento and the Udall amendments that have been offered and
against the Sweeney amendment that has been offered in the committee
today.
First and foremost, let me say that I think this is a very
unfortunate piece of legislation. It plays into some conspiracy
theories that somehow, when we receive the honor of the designation of
World Heritage area or the Biosphere Reserve Program or were part of
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, that somehow this is land use
planning by the United Nations. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in these designations that changes any
Federal, State, local laws or regulations pertaining to these lands or
changes the manner in which private property owners can use their
lands, but what it does do is it provides an honor for some of the
great natural assets of the United States and some of the great
historical assets of the United States that leads to increased tourism,
improved economics, and recognition of what this Nation has done in
setting aside some of the great national parks and public spaces in the
entire world, and I think we ought to welcome that kind of designation.

[[Page H3421]]

I also want to say that it is very clear when we consider the Vento
amendment that much more harm has been done to public lands and done to
private lands because of the acquisition of these lands by foreign
entities that then come in here and take the resources from those
lands, whether it is mining or whether it is timber or grazing or other
proposals like this, where then we end up spending hundreds of millions
if not billions of taxpayers' dollars cleaning up after these entities,
making up for erosion, making up for the destruction and the
deterioration of those natural assets.
That is why I think that the Vento amendment is very, very important
for its adoption today because we should not just have a willy-nilly
process where people come in, buy these assets, exploit the resource
and then leave it to the American citizens to pick up the cost of their
bad policies, their bad management and mistakes in the use of those
lands and those resources.
So I would hope that Members would vote against this bill on passage,
and I would hope that they would support the Udall and the Vento
amendments, and I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Vento) very much for his managing this bill on the floor today, and his
involvement in this issue over the last several years in trying to put
this argument into perspective and show how foolish it is and how much
it is based upon fallacy and misrepresentation of facts.
Also, I think he said something in the Committee on Rules the other
day that is very important, that success with this legislation is
really about the first step in removing the designations from our great
wilderness areas, from our parks areas, from our national monuments,
because the same people who support this legislation in fact oppose the
designation and the protection and the acquisition of these great lands
for the use of the people of the United States, for all of the people
of the United States. As much as those people support it, we have a
small group of people in the Congress and in this country who insist
that somehow these lands really do not belong in the public domain in
spite of the fact that millions of Americans will pick up their
families, their children, and they will travel across this country to
visit the Statue of Liberty, to visit Liberty Hall, to visit the Grand
Tetons, the Grand Canyon, Bryce, Yosemite and so many other great
monuments and great natural assets in the national park systems of this
country.
There is still a few in this Congress who want to believe that we
should roll back designations. This legislation is the first step in
that process, and this Congress ought to reject that effort.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support in this
battle, and I think we are winning it and we should win it.
Mr. Chairman, the problem in our country is not with the designation
and the parks that are embraced by our people. They are, in fact, among
the most popular and the most strongly supported by the public. The
parks really represent what is right with our country. It is one of the
best ideas we have ever had. And it is not, Mr. Chairman, I might say,
the scientists that are doing research on natural resources that are at
risk. These are not the problems in terms of our public lands and in
our communities, in terms of scientific research that is being done in
these parks or in these areas. That is not a problem, but this bill
purports to solve that problem. It solves the problem of the
designation of our parks, recognition of our parks. It tries to solve
the problem of scientific research, to strip away the ability to do
collaborative research. That is what the essence of these treaties and
agreements exist.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller
of California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. So it is not the scientists that are doing research that
are the problem, and in fact we can on a global basis cooperate and
encourage other nations to work with them and do the type of scientific
research that is necessary. We can study all we want within the United
States, but we have got 1,900 other sites around the world that this
permits us to study in, and other sites that it permits us to recognize
as natural or cultural.
So this is an assault on parks. It is an assault on research. That is
really what it purports. The problems here are the mines, they are the
clear cuts, they are the destruction of rain forests, the burning of
rain forests. They are the uncontrolled types of mining that goes on in
other nations. That is where the problems exist largely, and we ought
to be coming to grips with those: the drift nets in the oceans, the
destruction of the biosphere.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the first efforts, the first timid
efforts of this Nation and of this global community to try to deal even
with the recognition of parks in a honorific way and the research of
scientists, this bill attacks. I think it is a misunderstood bill, I
think it is a bad bill, I think it is bad policy, and I hope the
Congress will reject this, the House will reject this, today.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman,
and let me just say, as my colleagues know, it is with great pride that
the American people point to their national park system, it is with
great pride that the American people know that the Statue of Liberty
stands in New York Harbor and sends a beacon to the world about the
tenets and the values of this Nation, and it is a great pride that
those assets, the Grand Canyon, the Everglades, the Statue of Liberty
and others, when the rest of the world honors, honors the decision that
people in this country made about setting aside those public lands for
public use, and it is a great honor that the millions of Americans
choose to visit those parks each year to enjoy them, to participate in
them, to learn from them. But it is also a task of this Congress and of
the world community to make sure that we learn more about those parks
that we are able to maintain.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we are able to
maintain and protect those parks, and this Congress has a rather
checkered past on that. But if we put it to the American people, they
would vote to spend billions of dollars to maintain and protect the
great parks of this Nation.
It is an honor to this Nation that people come from all over the
world to visit these parks, that nations come to us and send their
representatives here to learn how to do the same thing in Asia and
Africa and Europe, all over. All over the world people want to emulate
what Theodore Roosevelt started and what we have protected on a
bipartisan basis.
Now we have a group of people who decided that they are going to roll
that back, they are going to take away that designation, they are going
to remove this honor from the American people. The pride of this
Nation, the beacon we send to the rest of the world; they now have
decided that they want to remove this honor and start that process of
denigrating these most valuable and cherished public lands in our
Nation. The pride of our Nation as we send out messages to the world
about conservation, about the protection of public lands, about the
values of this country.
This legislation is absolutely looney, it is absolutely looney. It is
based in some unknown conspiracy, unsubstantiated, based upon the fact
that some people believe that day in and day out they see black
helicopters swooping in to protect the national parks of the United
States.
No, Mr. Chairman, that is not how it is done in this country, it will
never be done that way in this country, and this legislation should not
try to validate those kinds of crazy conspiracy theories.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H3422]]

Mr. Chairman, I have just heard one of the greatest presentations of
looney tunes I have ever heard. Very frankly, this is nothing to do
with the parks. We do not invade the parks, we do not invade any of the
other areas. We are trying to reestablish the congressional activity in
designating land and not letting the U.N.
I have to remind people the U.N. organizations are not accountable.
U.N. bureaucrats are far removed from the American voters, and
remember, many of the U.N. delegates that make these decisions do not
believe in privately-held property. Their countries are owned by
dictators or owned by governments that do not have private property,
and when they make decisions, the United States, under our Constitution
affecting private property rights, that is wrong.
All my bill does is have the Congress get back involved in the
designation of lands. If they are so heavily supported, those outside
the parks, then I suggest respectfully they will be easily passed in
this Congress. It does not affect any of the parks or any of the
reference here or any of the Heritage Sites such as the Statue of
Liberty. My bill does not affect that. All we do is put the committee,
this Congress, back into the process of designating the lands.

UNESCO,

Paris, France, March 6, 1995.
Hon. George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish & Wildlife & Parks, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, USA.
Dear Mr. Frampton: I am writing to you with respect to a
letter from a group of North American conservation
organizations, addressed to Dr. Adul Wichiencharoen, Chairman
of the World Heritage Committee, and dated 28 February, 1995.
The World Heritage Committee is the executive body of the
Convention and is elected by its 140 States Parties. I note
that a copy of this letter was sent to your office. The
letter concerns the possible listing of Yellowstone National
Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The World Heritage Committee had been made aware of some of
these concerns in a brief report by the United States
Delegate to the July 1993 meeting of the World Heritage
Bureau.
The fourteen organizations signing this letter are as you
know among the most prestigious and influential in the field
of natural resources conservation. We believe that the
concerns they raise about the threats to Yellowstone must be
carefully examined and addressed.
Included with their letter was a briefing book containing
copies of correspondence from the Governor of Wyoming and
Senator Baucus of Montana, each raises serious questions
about the potential damage to Yellowstone National Park, in
particular from the proposed mining operation. Similar
letters of concern are provided from professional geologists,
geomorphologists and hydrologists who have investigated the
proposed mining operation. This correspondence is sufficient
to raise considerable concern about the long-term
sustainability of the World Heritage values of this World
Heritage site.
From the report it appears that while a draft Environmental
Impact Statement has been prepared, it did not resolve
several major questions and many issues remain under review.
Thus it would appear premature to reach any conclusions at
this time.
With respect to the List of World Heritage in Danger, there
are no specific criteria. The Committee has the authority to
place a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger when it
is of the view that the World Heritage values for which the
site was inscribed are seriously threatened.
The procedure for listing normally involves a monitoring
report by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), in
consultation with the State Party and the management
authority responsible for the site. IUCN reports to the
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee which meets in July
and the Bureau makes a recommendation to the Committee, which
usually meets in December of each year.
While we have taken note that the conservative
organizations have requested that the World Heritage
Secretariat involve itself in the EIS process, we simply are
not staffed to do so. We would, however, be pleased to
address these organizations on any aspects of the operation
of the World Heritage Convention. We could also request IUCN
as our technical advisors, to review the Environmental Impact
Statement. We are confident that as the State Party
responsible for the implementation of the Convention the
essential professional skills are available to you.
It is important to note that Article 1 of the World
Heritage Convention obliges the State Party to protect,
conserve, present and transmit to future generations World
Heritage sites for which they are responsible. This
obligation extends beyond the boundary of the site and
Article 5 (A) recommends that State Parties integrate the
protection of sites into comprehensive planning programmes.
Thus, if proposed developments will damage the integrity of
Yellowstone National Park, the State Party has a
responsibility to act beyond the National Park boundary.
Examples of the need to act beyond park boundaries are
found at the Everglades National Park, Glacier National Park
and Glacier Bay National Park, all World Heritage sites. In
two of the sites the Government of British Columbia acted to
close major mining operations rather than risk possible
damage to downstream World Heritage values in both Canada and
the United States.
Clearly if there are threats to World Heritage values the
State Party has a responsibility to act. If enabling
legislation is not adequate, new legislation should be
considered, as was the case in Australia with respect to the
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage site.
The World Heritage Committee has the authority to act
unilaterally in placing a site on the List of World Heritage
in Danger. However, in the past the Committee has
demonstrated a clear desire to work in consort with the State
Party. In this respect we would appreciate receiving a
comprehensive report on the situation in time for the meeting
of the World Heritage Bureau to be held in Paris in early
July. Such a report would enable the Committee to give
serious consideration to the listing of Yellowstone National
Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger, should such a
decision be warranted, at its nineteenth session to be held
in December 1995.
The United States has an exemplary record in support of and
in accordance with the principles and requirements of the
World Heritage Convention. We look forward to continuing this
cooperation.
Yours sincerely,
Bernd von Droste,
Director, World Heritage Centre.
____

Legislative Resolve No. 13

Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Alaska:
Whereas the United Nations has designated 67 sites in the
United States as ``World Heritage Sites'' or ``Biosphere
Reserves,'' which altogether are about equal in size to the
State of Colorado, the eighth largest state; and
Whereas art. IV, sec. 3, United States Constitution,
provides that the United States Congress shall make all
needed regulations governing lands belonging to the United
States; and
Whereas many of the United Nations' designations include
private property inholdings and contemplate ``buffer zones''
of adjacent land; and
Whereas some international land designations such as those
under the United States Biosphere Reserve Program and the Man
and Biosphere Program of the United Nations Scientific,
Educational, and Culture Organization operate under
independent national committees such as the United States
National Man and Biosphere Committee that have no legislative
directives or authorization from the Congress; and
Whereas these international designations as presently
handled are an open invitation to the international community
to interfere in domestic economies and land use decisions;
and
Whereas local citizens and public officials concerned about
job creation and resource based economies usually have no say
in the designation of land near their homes for inclusion in
an international land use program; and
Whereas former Assistant Secretary of the Interior George
T. Frampton, Jr., and the President used the fact that
Yellowstone National Park had been designated as a ``World
Heritage Site'' as justification for intervening in the
environmental impact statement process and blocking possible
development of an underground mine on private land in Montana
outside of the park; and
Whereas a recent designation of a portion of Kamchatka as a
``World Heritage Site'' was followed immediately by efforts
from environmental groups to block investment insurance for
development projects on Kamchatka that are supported by the
local communities; and
Whereas environmental groups and the national Park Service
have been working to establish an International Park, a World
Heritage Site, and a Marine Biosphere Reserve covering parts
of western Akaska, eastern Russia, and the Bering Sea; and
Whereas as occurred in Montana, such designations could be
used to block development projects on state and private land
in western Alaska; and
Whereas foreign companies and countries could use such
international designations in western Alaska to block
economic development that they perceive as competition; and
Whereas animal rights activists could use such
international designations to generate pressure to harass or
block harvesting of marine mammals by Alaska Natives; and
Whereas such international designations could be used to
harass or block any commercial activity, including pipelines,
railroads, and power transmission lines; and
Whereas the President and the executive branch of the
United States have, by Executive Order and other agreements,
implemented these designations without approval by the
Congress; and
Whereas the United States Department of Interior, in
cooperation with the Federal Interagency Panel for World
Heritage, has identified the Aleutian Island Unit of the
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge,

[[Page H3423]]

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Cape Krusenstern National
Monument, Denali National Park, Gates of the Arctic National
Park, and Katmai National Park as likely to meet the criteria
for future nomination as World Heritage Sites; and
Whereas the Alaska State Legislature objects to the
nomination or designation of any World Heritage Sites or
Biosphere Reserves in Alaska without the specific consent of
the Alaska State Legislature; and
Whereas actions by the President in applying international
agreements to lands owned by the United States may circumvent
the Congress; and
Whereas Congressman Don Young introduced House Resolution
No. 901 in the 105th Congress entitled the ``American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act of 1997'' that required the
explicit approval of the Congress prior to restricting any
use of United States land under international agreements; and
Whereas Congressman Don Young has reintroduced this
legislation in the 106th Congress as House Resolution No.
883, which is entitled the ``American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act'';
Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature supports
House Resolution 883, the ``American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act,'' that reaffirms the constitutional authority
of the Congress as the elected representatives of the people
over the federally owned land of the United States and urges
the swift introduction and passage of such act by the 106th
Congress; and be it
Further resolved that the Alaska State Legislature objects
to the nomination or designation of any sites in Alaska as
World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves without the prior
consent of the Alaska State Legislature.
Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable
Bill Clinton, President of the United States; Honorable Al
Gore, Jr., Vice-President of the United States and President
of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Trent Lott, Majority Leader
of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker
of the U.S. House of Representatives; and to the Honorable
Ted Stevens and the Honorable Frank Murkowski, U.S. Senators,
and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of
the Alaska delegation in Congress.
State of Alaska,

Office of the Governor,

Juneau, May 11, 1999.
Hon. Brian Porter,
Speaker of the House, Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Juneau, AK.
Dear Speaker Porter: I am transmitting the engrossed and
enrolled copies of the following joint resolution, passed by
the Twenty-first Alaska State Legislature, to the Lieutenant
Governor's Office for permanent filing: CS for House Joint
Resolution No. 15(RES) ``Relating to support for the
`American Land Sovereignty Protection Act' in the United
States Congress.'' Legislative Resolve No. 13.
Sincerely,
Tony Knowles,
Governor.
State of Alaska,

Office of the Governor,

Juneau, May 11, 1999.
Hon. Drue Pearce,
President of the Senate, Alaska State Legislature, State
Capitol, Juneau, AK.
Dear President Pearce: I am transmitting the engrossed and
enrolled copies of the following joint resolution, passed by
the Twenty-first Alaska State Legislature, to the Lieutenant
Governor's Office for permanent filing: CS for House Joint
Resolution No. 15(RES) ``Relating to support for the
`American Land Sovereignty Protection Act' in the United
States Congress.'' Legislative Resolve No. 13.
Sincerely,
Tony Knowles,
Governor.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments to the
bill?

Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
Amendment No. 9 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento),
Amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall),
Amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney),
as amended.
Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 9 Offered By Mr. Vento

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Vento) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 262,
noes 158, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 141]

AYES--262

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--158

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Berry
Biggert
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Davis (VA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
King (NY)
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)

[[Page H3424]]

Souder
Stump
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Walden
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--13

Bilbray
Borski
Brown (CA)
Deutsch
Dixon
Foley
Horn
Largent
Moakley
Napolitano
Salmon
Stark
Towns

{time} 1334

Messrs. McCOLLUM, BATEMAN, DREIER, RYUN of Kansas, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr.
TAUZIN and Mr. BLUNT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. QUINN, HEFLEY, BOYD, HILL of Montana, BASS, SUNUNU, LoBIONDO,
WAMP, WELLER, HOBSON, UPTON, CUNNINGHAM, SHIMKUS, STEARNS, CAMP, COBLE
and HUNTER, and Mrs. MORELLA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 141, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 141, the Vento amendment,
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes.''

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Pursuant to House Resolution
180, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be
taken on each additional amendment on which the Chair has postponed
further proceedings.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 231, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 142]

AYES--191

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--231

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Brown (CA)
Dixon
Foley
Graham
Largent
Moakley
Napolitano
Salmon
Stark
Thornberry
Towns

{time} 1344

Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. MORELLA changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sweeney, as Amended

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Sweeney), as amended, on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 407,
noes 15, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 143]

AYES--407

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry

[[Page H3425]]

Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--15

Bilbray
Blumenauer
Castle
Cubin
Filner
Jackson (IL)
Klink
Kucinich
Markey
Meehan
Morella
Schakowsky
Scott
Shays
Thompson (CA)

NOT VOTING--11

Brown (CA)
Cox
Foley
Gonzalez
Granger
Largent
Moakley
Napolitano
Salmon
Stark
Towns

{time} 1352

Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Ms. DeGETTE, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. PICKETT, and Mr.
PASTOR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments, under
the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, Chairman pro tempore of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 883) 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, pursuant to House
Resolution 180, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.

____________________