[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 135 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11273-H11280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 3752) 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, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3752

       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 of 1996''.

     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 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 (16 U.S.C. 470a--1) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) in the first sentence, by--
       (A) inserting ``(in this section referred to as the 
     `Convention')'' after ``1973''; and
       (B) inserting ``and subject to subsections (b), (c), (d), 
     (e), and (f)'' before the period at the end;
       (2) in subsection (b) in the first sentence, by inserting 
     ``; subject to subsection (d),'' after ``shall''; and
       (3) adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(d) The Secretary of the Interior shall not nominate any 
     lands owned by the United States for inclusion on the World 
     Heritage List pursuant to the Convention unless such 
     nomination is specifically authorized by a law enacted after 
     the date of enactment of the American Land Sovereignty 
     Protection Act of 1996. The Secretary may from time to time 
     submit to the Speaker of the House and the President of the 
     Senate proposals for legislation authorizing such a 
     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 and the President of the Senate a report describing the 
     necessity for including that property on the list; 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 enacted after the date that report 
     is submitted.
       ``(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 the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, that 
     contains the following information for each 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 contributing 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 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 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--

[[Page H11274]]

       ``(1) is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the 
     date of enactment of the American Land Sovereignty Protection 
     Act of 1996 and before December 31, 1999;
       ``(2) consists solely of lands that on the date of that 
     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 
     the following information for each 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 contributing 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 
     amendment 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 of lands 
     owned by a State or local government, under any international 
     agreement 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 of 
     privately owned lands under any international agreement shall 
     have no force or effect without the written consent of the 
     owner of the lands.
       ``(d) This section shall not apply to--
       ``(1) sites nominated under the Convention on Wetlands of 
     International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat 
     (popularly known as the Ramsar Convention);
       ``(2) agreements established under section 16(a) of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4413); 
     and
       ``(3) 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, 
     or bilateral 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, H.R. 3752, the American Land 
Sovereignty Protection Act of 1996, asserts the power of Congress under 
article IV, section 3 of the United States Constitution over management 
and use of lands belonging to the United States. So that everyone 
understands, the concern here is the U.S. Congress--and therefore, the 
people of the United States--are left out of the domestic process to 
designate ``World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves.'' This will 
require the participation of the U.S. Congress and the citizens of this 
Nation in the process.
  Within the last 25 years, more and more of our Nation's land has 
become subject to international land-use restrictions. A total of 67 
sites in the United States have been designated as ``UN Biosphere 
Reserves or World Heritage Sites.'' These land designations under the 
World Heritage and Biosphere Reserve programs have been created with 
virtually no congressional oversight and no congressional hearings. The 
public and local governments are rarely consulted.
  The World Heritage Site program is based on a treaty. This bill does 
not suggest that the United States shrug off the World Heritage Site 
program. We have a domestic law implementing the program and H.R. 3752 
proposes to change that domestic law so that Congress must approve the 
sites.
  In the case of Biosphere Reserves, the program is not even authorized 
by a single U.S. law or even an international treaty. That is wrong. 
Executive branch appointees--whatever their political party--cannot and 
should not do things that the law does not authorize.
  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 Congress? We need to reemphasize 
the congressional duty to keep international commitments from floating 
free of traditional Constitutional constraints. Otherwise, the 
boundaries between one owner's land and another or even between the 
government's land and private property are too easily ignored.
  H.R. 3752 provides a process under which the United States may when 
desirable designate lands for inclusion under certain international 
agreements. This process will protect: State sovereignty, individual 
rights of United States citizens, and private interests in real 
property. This bill will also prevent attempts by the Executive branch 
to use international land designations to bypass the Congress in making 
land use decisions.
  H.R. 3752 is a good bill which will protect our domestic land use 
decision-making process from unnecessary international interference. I 
look forward to reporting this bill to the House for consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, if World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves have 
strong grassroots support, then why haven't we seen any evidence of 
this?
  I have here a letter from the chairman of the Minnesota Senate 
Environment and Natural Resources Committee, the Honorable Bob Lessard, 
which supports H.R. 3752 lamenting the lack of public input in these 
designations. I request that this letter along with the attached 
letters be entered in the Record.
  At our committee hearing, local elected officials from Eddy County, 
NM; Ulster County, NY; and Lake George, NY testified in support of H.R. 
3752 and also criticized the lack of public process in making these 
international designations.
  Moreover, we also have received letters of support from the coalition 
of Arizona/New Mexico coalition and northern counties land use 
coordinating council in Minnesota.
                                                           Senate,


                                           State of Minnesota,

                                               September 25, 1996.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, House Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for your bill the American Land Sovereignty Act (H.R. 
     3752) which would provide badly needed congressional 
     oversight for areas designated as World Heritage Sites or 
     International Biosphere Reserves in accordance with the 
     United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
     Organization (UNESCO).
       The Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve was proposed 
     for much of northern Minnesota in the mid-1980's. This 
     proposal included Voyagers National Park and the Boundary 
     Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
       Thankfully, the area was withdrawn from consideration 
     because of massive local oppositions. A bipartisan commission 
     created by the Minnesota Legislature concluded, among other 
     things, that the designation would be contrary to the purpose 
     for which Voyageurs National Park was established. It was 
     also found that this designation included provisions for 
     creating buffer zones around federal areas. I understand that 
     former Wilderness Society President George Frampton, who is 
     currently Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife 
     and Parks, proposed creating biosphere reserves around all 
     national parks and wilderness areas where roads would be 
     closed and economic development would be eliminated.
       I also understand that dozens of these areas have been 
     created throughout the United States with virtually no 
     legislative oversight or public input. I consider this an 
     appalling situation that needs to be remedied.
       As Chairman of the Senate Environmental and Natural 
     Resources Committee, I am concerned about the motives and 
     intentions of those who propose increased federal and state 
     land use control under the guise of program administered by 
     the United Nations.

[[Page H11275]]

       In that day and age of open government. I cannot understand 
     how programs like these can continue without congressional 
     oversight and local public input. As a result, I 
     enthusiastically support the American Land Sovereignty Act.

                                          Senator Bob Lessard,

                                      Chairman, Senate Environment
     and Natural Resources Committee.
                                                                    ____

                                                 Northern Counties


                                  Land Use Coordinating Board,

                                   Duluth, MN, September 25, 1996.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, House Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Young: I am writing to support the 
     American Lands Sovereignty Act that would require 
     Congressional approval for areas proposed for designation as 
     Biosphere Reserves.
       My district includes the eastern portion of Voyageurs 
     National Park in Minnesota. In 1985, the National Park 
     Service proposed that the park and adjacent areas be 
     designated as the Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve. 
     Local opposition resulted in the elimination of this proposal 
     in 1987. One of the main concerns was that there was no 
     congressional approval required for these areas, although 
     they clearly have implications for the future of lands and 
     waters both inside and outside boundaries established by 
     Congress. Furthermore, a commission created by the Minnesota 
     legislature concludes that the Biosphere Reserve purpose was 
     contrary to the purposes for which the national park was 
     established.
       As you know, we have had persistent problems in Northern 
     Minnesota with federal land management policies, as evidenced 
     by the results of Congressional Hearings held over the past 
     year. More Congressional oversight of federal land management 
     policies and practices is clearly necessary to restore public 
     trust and confidence in these agencies. The American Land 
     Sovereignty Act will go a long way toward achieving that 
     goal.
           Sincerely,
                                                     ------ ------
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                               September 25, 1996.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, House Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The American Sheep Industry Association 
     (ASI), the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) and 
     the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) representing 4.5 
     million members, wish to express their support for your 
     American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (H.R. 3752). As you 
     are aware, the Department of the Interior presently operates 
     the Man & Biosphere Program on Biosphere Reserves without 
     legislative direction and no authorization from Congress. 
     Furthermore, the 1995 designations of Glacier National Park 
     and the Carlsbad Caverns as World Heritage sites, and the 
     1989 designation of Yellowstone National Park as a Biosphere 
     Reserve were made with no public or Congressional input. Your 
     bill makes available a process in which we can begin to 
     correct these problems.
       The operational guidelines for both World Heritage sites 
     and Biosphere Reserves require the establishment of a buffer 
     zone near or around designated areas. In many areas, the 
     establishment of buffer zones conflicts with the property 
     rights of both the individual and the state. ASI, NCBA and 
     AFBF policies support the language of your bill that compels 
     Congress to consider the implications of international 
     designations on these rights before the designations are 
     made.
       The undersigned organizations stand with you and other 
     members of Congress in support of the American Land 
     Sovereignty Protection Act and thank you for your efforts in 
     support of fairness to land owners.
     American Farm Bureau Federation.
     American Sheep Industry Association.
     National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
                                                                    ____

                                        Environmental Conservation
                                                     Organization,
                              Hollow Rock, TN, September 20, 1996.
     Hon. Don Young, Chairman,
     House Resources Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Young: Thank you for introducing The 
     American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (HR3752). Since 
     Congress bears the Constitutional responsibility for managing 
     federal lands and for protecting the private property rights 
     of individual citizens, the Bill offers welcome relief from 
     the intrusions of the international community. The 20 World 
     Heritage Sites, authorized under the World Heritage Treaty, 
     and the 47 Biosphere Reserves, administered in lock-step with 
     UNESCO's Biosphere Program by the U.S. Man and the Biosphere 
     Program, have imposed land use controls on public and private 
     lands that have not been authorized by Congress. Your Bill, 
     HR3752, will assure that the people affected by such 
     designations will have an opportunity to express their views 
     on such designations--before the designation is imposed.
       We are equally concerned about Presidential, and 
     Administrative declarations that exclude Congress from land 
     management decisions on public lands and restrict and erode 
     property rights on private lands. The President's decision to 
     designate ``Canyons of the Escalante'' in Utah as a National 
     Monument is an excellent example of federal land use control 
     by Presidential decree which excludes Congress, locally 
     elected officials, and the people whose lives are directly 
     affected. The Chenoweth Bill, HR4120, would prevent these 
     unilateral Presidential decrees. These two Bills together, 
     would put Congress back in control of the management of 
     federal lands and give private property owners a measure of 
     protection--as is required by the Constitution.
       The undersigned organizations support both these measures, 
     HR3752 and HR4120. We stand with you and other members of 
     Congress who support these measures, and we will work to see 
     that both become the law of the land.
       Thank you for all of your efforts.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Henry Lamb,

                                         Executive Vice President,
                                  and the following organizations:
         Citizens for Private Property Rights, Sullivan, MO; 
           Western States Coalition, New Harmony, WY; New Mexico 
           Cattle Growers' Association, Albuquerque, NM; Bootheel 
           Heritage Association, Animas, NM; Earthcare Contractors 
           Coalition, Hollow Rock, TN; Texas Wildlife Association, 
           San Antonio, TX; Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage 
           Association, Alpine, TX; Hill Country Heritage 
           Association, Lampasas, TX; Trans Texas Heritage 
           Association, Alpine, TX; Network for Eco-Policy 
           Awareness, Anchorage, AK; National Federal Lands 
           Conference, Bountiful, UT; Oregonians in Action, 
           Tigard, OR; Texas Eagle Forum, Dallas, TX; New Mexico 
           Wool Growers Action Committee, Yeso, NM; Take Back 
           Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR; Multiple Use Association, 
           Shellburne, NH; Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico 
           Counties, Glenwood, NM; Citizens Against Repressive 
           Zoning, Haslett, MI; ACCORD People for the West, 
           Phoenix, AZ.

                              {time}  1403

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, we have passed a number of bipartisan 
bills under this Committee on Resources, which is very ably led by the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] who works very cooperatively with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, is 
a disaster, and this bill should be defeated.
  I have with me a statement from the Office of Management and Budget 
that just came in that the administration would veto this bill. Just as 
well, Mr. Speaker. This bill could be called the Black Helicopters 
Prevention Act. As my colleagues know, at their town meetings somebody 
gets up and says ``There's a bunch of black helicopters coming from the 
United Nations to take over our land.'' This bill plays to the delusion 
of the paranoid people that put out information like that.
  Mr. Speaker, Smokey the Bear is not fitted for a U.N. uniform and a 
blue helmet. World Heritage designation is an honor. Nations fight to 
have sites designated. It does not change, if one is a World Heritage 
site, U.S. laws one iota; management of these sites is completely, 100 
hundred percent, under U.S control.
  Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is, it helps extractive industries 
whose activities, if unchecked, would despoil our national parks and 
other public lands. If there was ever a solution in search of a 
problem, this bill is it.
  This bill exploits the myth spread by anti-U.N. right wing groups 
that the World Heritage Convention, other international environmental 
conventions, and the manned and biosphere programs somehow undermine 
U.S. sovereignty; simply not true. All of these programs are carried 
out in the United States only to the extent consistent with U.S. 
domestic law, and sites can only be nominated for World Heritage or 
biosphere designation by the country in which the site lies. No land or 
resource use restrictions are imposed within these areas beyond those 
imposed under domestic law.
  What this bill would do is unnecessarily restrict American 
participation in successful and prestigious international conservation 
and historic preservation efforts. The World Heritage Convention is not 
a scheme hatched by U.N. bureaucrats for global hegemony.
  We are opposing the United Nations right now because it is mismanaged 
and because it has too much staff, and

[[Page H11276]]

we have said that the Secretary General of the United Nations must be 
replaced because he is not a reformer. But this bill here exceeds the 
paranoia that some have for the United Nations.
  World Heritage designation has been an American initiative modeled 
after our national parks program. It was our idea. We pushed for it in 
the international community, and we were the first country to ratify 
the treaty.
  Opponents of these programs allege that they violate the 
constitutional rights of the States and property owners, but not one 
shred of credible evidence has emerged.
  When we get beyond the flag-waving and Constitution quoting, what we 
find is this legislation is about mining and other corporate interests 
whose activities, often on public lands, would degrade our national 
parks if left unchecked. For example, international concern over a 
proposed coal mine just outside of Yellowstone helped to motivate the 
administration, acting strictly within U.S. law, to negotiate a 
voluntary settlement with a claim holder. We had the industry and the 
administration and the environmentalists negotiating on something that 
should have been resolved that way, rather than as a Heritage site or 
through U.S. legislation. The New World Mine at the Yellowstone would 
have polluted streams within the park, a wild and scenic river in a 
wilderness area.

  In the end, a bipartisan solution was found to this problem.
  Of course these special interests would prefer to operate without the 
harsh glare of publicity and international media attention that World 
Heritage or biosphere reserve status brings with it. But this is 
America, and the supporters of this legislation passed over one of the 
most important amendments on their way to the 5th and 10th. They forgot 
about the first amendment, and that is what this really comes down to.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress has not had a good environmental record. 
There is little time left, but we still have important legislation to 
consider. This legislation is not going anywhere. It should not have 
been under suspension; it should have been under a modified closed rule 
to offer alternatives. The President is never going to sign it into 
law. He has already said he is going to veto it even if we are going to 
take it up.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill, and the gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young] has done a good job as our chairman, but this is not one of 
the pieces of legislation that we should approve. I will ask for a 
recorded vote. This legislation should go down.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                               Washington, DC, September 26, 1996.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the 
     concerned agencies.)
       H.R. 3752--American Land Sovereignty Act of 1996--Young(R) 
     AK and 27 cosponsors.
       If H.R. 3752 were presented to the President, the 
     Department of the Interior would recommend that the bill be 
     vetoed.
       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3752, which would 
     impose unnecessary restrictions on the existing legal and 
     administrative framework that implements U.S. commitments to 
     international environmental cooperative efforts. This bill 
     could significantly reduce U.S. leadership and influence in 
     global conservation and is counter to the U.S. role in global 
     environmental cooperation.
       H.R. 3752 is based upon the faulty premise that the World 
     Heritage Convention, the Biosphere Reserve Program, and other 
     international conservation agreements threaten the United 
     States' sovereignty over its lands. There are several reasons 
     why these agreements do not encroach upon U.S. sovereignty:
       International agreements, such as the World Heritage 
     Convention, and programs, such as the U.S. Man in the 
     Biosphere Program, do not give the United Nations the 
     authority to affect land management decisions within the 
     United States and have in no way been utilized to exclude 
     Congress from land management decisions, nor could they do 
     so.
       The nomination processes for international conservation 
     designations are consultative in a nature and based on 
     demonstrated commitment as the local level.
       International site recognitions do not affect land use 
     decisions by the local governments, tribes, or private 
     property owners, and are subject to applicable domestic laws.
       International site recognitions do not impose restrictions 
     on land use or stop economic growth. To the contrary, World 
     Heritage sites and U.S. Biosphere Reserves have been embraced 
     in many local areas as value-added designations, increasing 
     partnership among Federal, State and local governments and 
     private property owners for mutual benefit and have 
     contributed to an increase in international tourism, which is 
     especially vital to rural economies.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just like to say I hope the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. I 
want the people on record, being recorded they are against the people 
of the United States being involved in land decisions. They do not let 
the executive branch be involved in deciding what type of property 
should be taken off and what private property should be infringed upon. 
I want to have that vote. I want to see who has the guts to vote 
against the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho 
[Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting how the debate deteriorates 
when people do not have the facts at hand, and we are not debating 
about black helicopters and paranoid people and extremists. We are 
debating about this issue, which is, who should control the land mass 
in the United States? Should not the Congress have a say in whether the 
U.N. comes in in certain instances and controls certain areas? That is 
the simple question. There is nothing in here about blue helmets or 
anything like that.
  I stand today in strong support of H.R. 3752, the American Land 
Sovereignty Protection Act of 1996, and I commend the chairman of the 
Committee on Resources, Mr. Young, for introducing and moving this 
bill. It has to be part of the debate, and I hope we can stick to the 
facts.
  H.R. 3752 will establish a simple process of due process, and will 
reestablish the role of Congress where it should be in the first place, 
as the ultimate decision-maker who manages the lands of the United 
States and who should maintain sovereign control of the lands in the 
United States of America.
  There are two types of land designations of international status by 
the United Nations currently taking place with no congressional 
approval. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. There are biosphere reserves 
carried out by the United Nations environmental, sociological and 
cultural organizations, and World Heritage sites which are sponsored by 
the U.N.-backed World Heritage Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 51 million acres in this country has already 
been designated by the U.N., with the agency's consent, without 
congressional consent, as either World Heritage sites or biosphere 
reserves. That is 51 million acres of U.S. soil, an area nearly the 
size if the whole State of Colorado, that the U.N. has taken control of 
without congressional involvement and legitimate public participation.
  A biosphere reserve is a federally zoned and coordinated region 
consisting of three areas or zones that meet certain minimum 
requirements established by the United Nations. The inner or most 
protected area, the core zone, are usually Federal lands, whereas the 
outer zones are not-Federal lands. That is either private property or 
State property.
  Mr. Speaker, currently 10 Federal agencies involved in the biosphere 
reserve are competing for turf with each other. This is occurring 
despite the fact that the United States withdrew their participation 
from UNESCO in 1984 because of gross financial mismanagement, and 
Congress has never, not once, ratified the Biodiversity Treaty which 
calls for these biosphere reserve designations.
  When the Committee on Resources held hearings on this bill, we heard 
testimony from private property owners and local officials all around 
the country who felt that their role in the land management process had 
been significantly diminished by these designations. Many of these 
people did not even know their own property or their city or country's 
property, and State property, and surrounding lands were involved in 
this particular designation until final decisions were made.
  Mr. Speaker, when laws and processes established by the Congress to 
manage our resources are bypassed by the agencies and by the executive, 
not

[[Page H11277]]

only does this create an atmosphere of secrecy and confusion, but it 
violates our very sovereignty. What we are doing in this bill is 
saying, let us open up the process to the light of day, instead of such 
a secretive process as we have seen with the impact of the World 
Heritage site. That includes a large buffer zone surrounding 
Yellowstone Park.
  My colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Richardson stated empirically that 
the particular mine that was shut down because the agencies called the 
U.N. in before they had been able to finish their environmental impact 
statement, my colleague from New Mexico stated that the problem was 
that this mine was going to pollute the rivers and streams. No so, Mr. 
Speaker, because the environmental impact statement had not even been 
completed.
  So this bill should be considered a noncontroversial bill. It simply 
protects the lands for our citizens. Mr. Speaker, it protects, this 
bill simply protects our lands and the citizens by rightfully placing 
Congress in the primary role for determining land use policy where it 
should be.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member from California, Mr. Miller.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this, I think, as was just 
demonstrated in the previous testimony, is why this bill should be 
rejected. The gentlewoman from Idaho talked about the outer zones and 
the inner zones in these Heritage areas. What she did not talk about 
was the twilight zone, where the support for this legislation comes 
from. It comes from those individuals who believe that there is some 
worldwide conspiracy of the U.N. to take over U.S. lands. The 
gentlewoman kept saying that the U.N. controlled 55 million acres, 
would take control of these lands.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleagues do not get a right to just stand up here 
and misrepresent the laws of the United States and what legislation 
does or does not do. The fact of the matter is, long before there was 
ever the U.N., there was the United States Congress that designates 
these lands as national parks or other assets of the public lands of 
the United States. Then, sometimes, we ask for the honor of being 
designated as part of the international heritage provisions.

                              {time}  1445

  What does that do? Very often, in the gentlewoman's State she 
represents, that drives up tourist receipts. People travel from all 
over the world to see these, whether it is the Everglades or whether it 
is Yellowstone, or the other assets within the United States.
  We really have got to separate fantasy, absolute fantasy, by a group 
of people that are trying to find a way to beat up on the U.N. and what 
the laws of this Nation are. That is, we control the management of the 
parks, we control the management of the public lands, we design the 
reviews, we design the management plans. That is how those parks, that 
is how those assets are run, not by some group of people from the U.N. 
in black helicopters who hide in these areas and then spring forth on 
our community. Absolute fantasy, absolutely from the twilight zone.
  The gentlewoman is representing them well when she characterizes this 
legislation as somehow stopping some kind of mythical group of people 
from taking over the national parks and the lands of the United States. 
This ought to be laughed off the floor, but, unfortunately, we will 
have to vote it off the floor.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask only, I would suggest to our friend, the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Miller, all I am asking in this legislation is, 
let the Congress, the House of the people, have some say. I cannot, for 
the life of me, see why anyone would object.
  Members have not heard me attack the U.N. I am very reasonably 
attacking those agencies that actually implement and instigate the 
heritage areas. All I am asking for is for us to play a role.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Cooley].
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3752, the 
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. The United States has a long 
and proud record of preserving areas which we consider of national 
importance. We do this because in a democracy it is what the people ask 
of us and it preserves part of our rich heritage.
  However, the same cannot be said of other countries around the world. 
Former Socialist and Communist countries have endured some of the worst 
environmental damage of all. Why? Because the people of those countries 
were not in charge of their land management. Instead, environmental and 
land use decisions were left to a central bureaucracy that was more 
interested in power and not in the wishes of the people. Fortunately, 
communism and socialism have been discredited around the world, but 
their central principles live on in the United Nations.
  Back in the 1970s, as stated, this body made a mistake. They entered 
into a treaty with the U.N. to establish a body called the United 
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. In this 
treaty we gave the U.N. the ability to designate World Heritage Sites 
in the U.S. without seeking approval of Congress. This was wrong. H.R. 
3752 will correct this mistake by requiring any new designations to be 
cleared by Congress. That is all this bill does.
  Our environmental and land use successes have come from allowing the 
people of the United States to make decisions about our land. This has 
proven a balance between wise use of our natural resources and 
environmental protection. This bill takes the power away from a huge 
world bureaucracy and puts the land use decisions back where they 
belong, in the hands of the people of the United States, and not in the 
U.N.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] an environmental leader.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the name of this bill is the American Land 
Sovereignty Protection Act. Most Americans would be surprised to learn 
that America's sovereignty over its lands is at risk here this 
afternoon and in need of protection. It would have been leading every 
news story in America for the past week, because it is 130 years since 
the end of the Civil War, the last time our national sovereignty was 
directly threatened.
  There does not appear to be any imminent threat of invasion from 
Canada or Mexico. The Russians are having a tough time with the 
Chechnyans. So just where does this threat to America's national 
sovereignty come from? What group of Fifth Columnists stand ready to 
betray us? What band of modern day Benedict Arnolds is threatening 
America?
  According to the bill's sponsor, the answer is very simple: It is 
Bruce Babbitt. That is right. According to the bill, America's national 
sovereignty is threatened by our own Secretary of the Interior and the 
Babbitt brigade serving under him. The danger to our national 
sovereignty comes not from some foreign despot or from some dictator, 
but from the risk that Bruce Babbitt might actually name sites such 
as Yellowstone Park and the Everglades to the U.N. List of World 
Heritage Sites.

  According to this bill, we cannot trust Bruce Babbitt, so we will not 
let him name any site to the World Heritage List without prior 
congressional approval.
  So what are we worried about? Are we afraid that the World Heritage 
List, once it is constructed, will have U.N. Secretary Boutros Boutros-
Ghali in our districts, which is what the Republicans have been handing 
out here on the floor?
  Mr. Speaker, I can understand the threat because I have been 
listening to the Republicans over the last year, because we very well 
might have blue-helmeted U.N. troops sweeping in in black helicopters, 
driving out our poor Smoky the Bear-hatted park rangers in a triumphant 
victory of the new world order of sinister forces. That is their 
version.
  What this whole thing is about is putting the Everglades on a 
national honorary list of the environmentally protected parts of 
America that we are proudest of.
  Let me say this: If in fact we were putting a mining company on the 
U.N.

[[Page H11278]]

list of the best mining companies in the world, we would have this side 
up here cheering. If we were putting the best timber-cutting companies 
in the United States on some world list, to be honored, we would have 
these guys up cheering. But if we want to honor the Everglades, if we 
want to honor Yellowstone Park or the Grand Canyon internationally, oh, 
my God, it is a conspiracy.
  The problem here is that, just like the Presidential Medal of Freedom 
that we give to Americans, just because people receive it does not 
exempt them from the laws of the United States; they still have to live 
under all the laws. If we honor the Everglades by having it recognized 
internationally, it is still under all American laws, not international 
laws.
  The problem that the Republicans have is that they are afraid that 
the world will recognize that the Everglades and Yellowstone Park and 
the Grand Canyon are parts of the world that should not be mined, that 
should not be stripped. That is the one thing they are afraid of, is 
that the whole world will recognize what they have been trying to do 
for the last 2 years. That is what they are afraid of. That is why the 
only environmental vote for the coming generations of Americans is a no 
vote on this preposterous, absurd, last-minute, crazy consumption of 
congressional time.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, someone who would protest so loudly must have something 
to hide.
  All we have tried to do in this legislation is let the people and the 
Congress have a say. That is all we are trying to suggest in this 
legislation. So when one gives a presentation as radical as that was, 
something must be wrong. They must be trying to cover up what can and 
has happened.
  We had a hearing on this, Mr. Speaker. We had a hearing. We had 10 
witnesses all testify in favor of the bill but one. That is this 
administration. We had no participation from the other side. Not one 
showed up to listen to those private citizens, those landholders that 
have been abused by previous administrations and this administration 
because of the biospheres and heritage areas.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, he who protests too loud and tries to 
protect those trying to take away our rights may have something to 
hide.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I should stand up after 
that last performance or not. I was a little confused about ``Boutros 
Boutros Babbitt,'' or was it ``Bruce Ghali,'' or whatever he was 
talking about.
  I just wonder how this country survived the previous 20 years. We had 
those Watergate babies came romping in here, and they took over this 
place. Most of them could not even get jobs in the private sector until 
they came down here. They ran this place for 20 years, almost ran it 
into the ground. Now this kind of legislation is changing that. That is 
why I rise in the strongest possible support of this American Land 
Sovereignty Act of 1996.
  I credit the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young], with having the courage and foresight to bring this bill 
forward. He is truly a defender of American property rights, individual 
property rights in this country.
  This bill sends one overall message, and let me say this loud and 
clear, only Americans in America have sovereignty over U.S. lands. That 
may be a hard concept for some people in the United States to grasp, in 
the United Nations, but that is the law we are laying down here today. 
Frankly, it is rather sad that we even have to do this, but considering 
the willingness of some Federal and State officials in the country to 
rubberstamp U.N. designs for American land use, this bill is absolutely 
imperative.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from a place in New York State consisting of the 
Hudson Valley, the Catskill Mountains, the Adirondack Mountains. They 
snuck this thing into the Adirondack Mountains before we even knew 
about it. They tried to do this in the Catskill Mountains, and we 
caught them. We stopped them dead in their tracks. It is a beautiful 
place we live in, and we want to keep it that way.
  Let me just point this out, Mr. Speaker. Back in 1986, UNESCO, that 
arm of the United Nations that has always been a hotbed of extreme 
leftwing internationalism, decided that our Adirondacks would become a 
U.N. Biosphere Reserve. Now they are trying to enforce it up there. 
Thus, the Adirondackers were subject to the double indignity of having 
their land designated for varying degrees of preservation, not only by 
an unelected international body but one from which the United States 
had withdrawn in 1984. What an outrage, Mr. Speaker. Since when does 
the United Nations or UNESCO have the right to do this? And since when 
does the Department of the Interior have the right to, in turn, declare 
these areas a U.S. Biosphere Reserve without congressional 
authorization?
  Let me tell the Members something. This bill is going to put an end 
to it. The gentleman said President Clinton will veto it. President 
Dole will sign it. That is why I am voting for Dole come November.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, just as a Member of the 
Watergate reform class, I would like to remind the gentleman from New 
York that this was supported by that well-known Watergate figure, 
Richard M. Nixon.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], the former chairman of the Subcommittee on 
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of the Committee on 
Resources.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure. The fact is that 
the Man in the Biosphere and the World Heritage conventions have been 
in place during the term of our last six Presidents, four Republicans 
and two Democrats. This is an issue where the United States had taken 
the lead, with some credit to the American people and the American 
ideas in terms of conservation, in terms of preservation and 
restoration of landscapes, as being one of the best ideas that our 
people have ever had. But it is pretty clear today that that sort of 
notion does not necessarily prevail universally in this Congress. I 
very much regret that. It seems like some of my colleagues, my G.O.P. 
colleagues want to stop the world and get off.
  I think there is apparently a deep need to conjure up problems with 
the positive leadership that the United States is trying to provide and 
has provided on a global basis the past three decades. The fact is that 
all of these sites have been voluntary on the part of the countries 
that have joined, 140 signatures to these conventions on a global basis 
that the United States has led, and 126 countries have participated in 
having these sites within their borders all of a voluntary basis.
  What is the problem in 1996 that we face? I will tell the Members 
what the problem is. It is that the New World Mine outside of 
Yellowstone received global attention, because it would have affected 
Yellowstone Park. The fact is that those that want to defend and want 
to shield from criticism those various interests, from any criticisms 
of the effects on Yellowstone Park because of that new mine, are up 
here today protesting, because that particular type of international 
biosphere recognition actually weighed in and probably had some impact, 
as well it should have some impact. These international designations 
are entirely voluntary and honorific but apparently carry some 
communication and symbolic clout.
  One Member got up here and said that this bill really did not do 
anything with existing sites. That is incorrect. Because under this 
bill, there is a prohibition and actual termination of United Nations 
Biosphere Reserves in this bill. Some 47 different Biosphere Reserves 
that are recognized on a voluntary basis in the U.S. by Republican and 
Democratic administrations over the last 30 years, or 25 years, would 
be terminated under this bill.

[[Page H11279]]

                              {time}  1500

  We would be sending a negative message on a global basis to the 
recognition, antiscience, anticonservation to the voluntary leadership 
that the United States has provided on a global basis with this bill, 
in one stroke, would be stripped away.
  Why are we doing this when it is a voluntary effort? We need, and I 
would suggest that one of the leading issues into the next century is 
going to be the environment on a global basis, in terms of air, water, 
in terms of landscapes, in terms of resources, and we need at least 
this type of voluntary effort that exists in this particular law--not 
this head in the sand action of this measure. We have been successful 
in pursuit of this logical policy under both Republican and Democratic 
administrations, and yet this action of this House shows that it wants 
to put its head in the sand and go back to those thrilling days of 
yesteryear when the robber barons were running amuck over this land in 
terms of what is going on without comment without any role or sense of 
global consciousness. The actions of this Congress, I think, speak 
louder than their words. The buzz words that are going on here within 
measure that are being used in terms of anti-U.N., affecting property 
rights, are to say the least misleading. Where are the court cases? 
Where is the property owner that has been denied anything or suffered a 
loss? Where has it been demonstrated in a court of law or anyplace else 
across this land in a State or in this Nation? We do not have that type 
of information because the events and injury has not happened from this 
program. Most of these designations, the 20 designations for world 
heritage sites, are almost all U.S. national parks. The level of 
recognition accorded by this World Heritage Convention is far less than 
that of a national park. The fact is you are attacking this measure 
because of the park protection. If some of the Members of this body had 
their way, they would strip away the park designation or undercut the 
basic park and wilderness land as has failed this session. But we have 
stood up to that type of pressure and we should stand up today and vote 
``no'' on this silly idea that is being presented to us.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  May again I remind that he who protests too loudly, what is wrong 
with the Congress, the house of the people, having a say? There is 
nothing wrong. I urge the people that are watching this debate to 
consider the people's involvement. There is nothing in this bill that 
repeals any existing heritage sites or biosphere sites. I am suggesting 
respectfully, all I am asking these people to understand, let the 
Congress play a role in making these designations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
legislation. This bill champions the rights of local governments; it 
champions the constitutional role of the United States in making 
federal land policy; and it champions the self-determination and 
absolute sovereignty of the United States within the world community of 
nations.
  Mr. Speaker, the past 25 year has seen an explosion of global 
treaties and programs about which U.S. citizens have had little or no 
say. Among the most troubling of these has been a 1971 United Nations 
agreement to establish so-called ``biosphere reserves'' around the 
world each surrounded by enormous buffer zones encompassing both public 
and private property within which human activity is significantly 
restricted. Quietly, over the last 25 years, without the arrogant 
election-year fanfare that we recently saw in Utah, faceless federal 
bureaucrats have classified a total area larger than the entire state 
of Colorado as biosphere reserves.
  Local communities did not consent to these designations. Neither did 
State governments. Even Congress was not allowed to participate in the 
designation process. All that was required to create these biosphere 
reserves was the urging of an international environmental organization 
and the stroke of a pen from a Federal authority who was not 
accountable to a single U.S. citizen for his actions.

  Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring our communities, our States and the 
United States Congress back into the process of governing our public 
lands. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act will do just that. 
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Los Angeles, CA [Mr. Torres], the distinguished environmental leader.
  (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TORRES. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us really understand here what we are talking about 
when we say biosphere reserve. It is a term denoting an area that has 
been nomiated by the locality and the country in which it is located 
for participation in the worldwide biosphere reserve program under what 
is called the U.S. Man in the Biosphere program. It is a program that 
is administered worldwide, if you will, in cooperation with the United 
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. We have 
heard it batted around here as UNESCO.
  Areas are nominated and recognized on the basis of their significance 
for research and the study of representative biological regions of the 
world. The United States has 47 such reserve regions. It is part of a 
worldwide network of 324 biosphere reserves in 82 countries in the 
globe. Biosphere reserve recognition does not convey any control or its 
jurisdiction over such sites to the United Nations or any other entity. 
The United States and/or State and local communities where biosphere 
reserves are located continue to exercise the same jurisdiction in 
place as before designation. Areas are listed only at the request of 
the country in which they are located, and they can be removed from the 
biosphere reserve list at any time upon the request of the country.

  Mr. Speaker, I know the process. I represented the United States as 
its Ambassador before UNESCO, that organization that we heard here 
labeled as an extremist lift-wing conspiracy. I was there as a U.S. 
representative under instruction from the President of the United 
States, the Department of Interior and the State Department and the 
people of this Nation. There is a process. And simply the process is to 
promote cooperation and communication along a worldwide network of 
areas that would include all the major ecosystems globally.
  This issue, this scare that we are hearing here today about U.N. 
control, the representative from New Mexico citing the scare tactics, 
the conspiracy, the specter of the United Nation, the black 
helicopters, is so much a red herring and just a politically timely 
bill that approaches this House at this time. Already people in the 
parks are calling up their local radio stations, as we hear in some 
cases, because somehow the U.N. has taken over the public parks because 
they saw a plaque that said United Nations Heritage Wilderness Area. 
Can you imagine the scare?
  I think some of my colleagues who propose this bill simply have seen 
the number of efforts by mining and timber interests to exploit public 
lands or lands that are near public facilities that are slowed down or 
even stopped by the fact that facilities are on this World Heritage 
protected list.
  Certainly we have plenty of examples about U.S. gold mining within 1 
mile of Yellowstone National Park and Canadian mining, gold mining at 
Glacier Bay in Alaska or the Florida Everglades. And yes, ladies and 
gentlemen, it was not the U.N. that designated the park in Utah so that 
it would not be a big coal mine and exploit that park; it was the 
President of the United States. And Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali and 
nobody else, UNESCO or nobody else had anything to say to that except 
the President of the United States.
  This is a ludicrous, insidious bill that comes before us that my 
colleague has said is just a simple waster of time. I urge my 
colleagues here today to use common sense. The American people are in 
charge. Our Nation is in charge of our lands. And they should vote no.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Bono].
  (Mr. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H11280]]

  Mr. BONO. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations is a useless waste of 
billions of dollars, and frankly I wish this bill was for the 
abolishment of the United Nations. It is another bureaucracy that does 
not do anything but eat dollars that we could easily control and handle 
much better ourselves.
  People, start understanding what bureaucracies are and what all this 
rhetoric is and what all this bleeding heart is. The further away you 
get from issues, the less control you have of issues. And when you hear 
all this drama, it astounds me that there is so much drama. It is more 
than the industry I came from before. I have never seen performances 
like this, but it is pure drama. It is not a reality. The reality is 
why would you want the United Nations to control anything or be 
involved in anything? Can Congress not, and can the President not 
handle things, and can we not appoint people to do the jobs that are 
necessary to do, at much less the funds?
  I presume you all know how well the United Nations did in Bosnia. I 
hope you all know how well they did. I hope you all know how esteemed 
Boutros Boutros-Ghali is as he cracks his jokes about us. So I find it 
disgusting that bureaucrats continue to inhabit this marvelous building 
and try to install more bureaucracy, and more bureaucracy, and more 
Government, and more dollars. We can handle it. We can handle it fine.
  Biosphere. You like the word? Well, that word allows all these things 
to happen. I hope they have been to other countries lately, because 
other countries have not nearly done what we have as far as taking care 
of our environment. Go over there and start working on that first, then 
come over here and try to get one-tenth the effectiveness that we have 
in environment right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I find any opposition to this disgusting.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, just to summarize, this is a bad bill, the bill has been 
called a Black Helicopters Prevention Act, the Boutros-Ghali/Babbitt 
bill. Whatever it is, this is a bad bill. We should vote it down. World 
heritage designation is not a threat. It is an honor. The United States 
has total control.
  International agreements such as these do not give the United Nations 
any authority. Congress has delegated this authority to our national 
parks. These are professional American men and women that work for the 
Government that do a good job. The bill is going nowhere. This is an 
easy way to pick up an environmental vote for colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle. Let us defeat this bill. It is a bad bill. It is 
searching for a problem. There are a number of other issues we should 
be spending time on as we adjourn.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Pombo].
  (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and I think for the very 
reasons that were just outlined by my colleague. These designations are 
called honorary, something that just bestows an honorary status on 
sites in America and yet they are extremely important. This is ranked 
as an environmental vote. They are extremely important.
  We heard my other colleague say that these are used to stop mining, 
timber, grazing. For the very reasons that you guys have outlined is 
the exact reason why Congress should have oversight over this.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  May I suggest one thing. Let the House participate. Let this Congress 
participate in this process. This is the people's house. Let the people 
have the decision to make. That is crucially important, to continue the 
process. That is all this bill does.
  For those that are afraid of letting this Congress participate, you 
should not be in Congress. It is that simple. What is wrong with us 
being involved? Why should we let the executive branch and the U.N. 
make decisions about my private property rights? I urge the passage of 
this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3752, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________