[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.
____________________