[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 23 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E340-E341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      INTRODUCTION OF THE AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 27, 1997

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and 66 other 
Members of the House, I am introducing the American Land Sovereignty 
Protection Act today. This legislation will require the specific 
approval of Congress before any area within the United States is 
subject to an international land use nomination, classification, or 
designation. International land reserves such as world heritage sites, 
biosphere reserves, and some other international land use designations 
can affect the use and market value of non-Federal lands adjacent to or 
intermixed with Federal lands. Legislation is needed to require the 
specific approval of Congress before any area within the United States 
is made part of an international land reserve. The rights of non-
Federal landowners need to be protected if these international land 
designations are made.
  This legislation: First, asserts the power of Congress under article 
IV, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution over management and use of lands 
belonging to the United States; second, protects State sovereignty from 
diminishment as a result of Federal actions creating international land 
reserves; third, ensures that no U.S. citizen suffers any diminishment 
or loss of individual rights as a result of Federal actions creating 
United Nations land reserves; fourth, protects private interests in 
real property from diminishment as a result of Federal actions 
designating land reserves; and fifth, provides a process under which 
the United States may when desirable designate lands for inclusion in 
reserves under certain international agreements.
  I introduced this legislation in the last Congress as H.R. 3752, 
which simply required congressional approval of United Nations land 
designations in the United States. In a rollcall H.R. 3752 failed--by a 
246-to-178 vote--to receive the two-thirds majority necessary to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill. I am amazed that a single Member 
of Congress would oppose legislation requiring congressional oversight 
of international land designations within the borders of the United 
States.
  What is unreasonable about Congress insisting that no land be 
designated for inclusion in international land reserves without the 
clear and direct approval of Congress? What is unreasonable about 
having local citizens and public officials participate in decisions on 
designating land near their homes for inclusion in an international 
reserve?
  Many, many Americans from all sections of our country have called my 
office to say that they are concerned about the lack of congressional 
oversight over UNESCO international land designations in the United 
States and to express their support for this bill. They are surprised 
by the expanse of our Nation's territory which is subject to various 
special international restrictions, most of which have evolved over the 
last 25 years. The most extensive international land use designations 
are UNESCO biosphere reserve programs and world heritage sites. These 
international land reserves have largely been created with minimal, if 
any, congressional input or oversight or public input.
  The Committee on Resources held a hearing on the American Land 
Sovereignty Protection Act in the 104th Congress. Seven witnesses 
including three local elected officials and a Member of Congress 
testified in support of this legislation. The former Representative and 
now Senator from Arkansas, the Honorable Tim Hutchinson, a cosponsor of 
H.R. 3752, outlined the problems associated with a proposed ``Ozark 
Highland Man and Biosphere Plan'' which was advanced without public 
input and has apparently been subsequently withdrawn after strong 
public opposition developed following discovery of the proposal; local 
elected officials from New York and New Mexico confirmed that there is 
little or no input by the public or elected officials into United 
Nations land designations. A Cornell University professor of government 
testified that ``if the bill is seen by some as symbolic, it is still a 
useful symbol. It is not at all inappropriate at this time to 
reemphasize the congressional duty to keep international commitments 
from floating free of traditional constitutional restraints.''
  In becoming a party to these international land use designations 
through executive branch action, the United States may be indirectly 
agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Convention of 
Biodiversity, to which the United States is not a party or which the 
U.S. Senate has refused to ratify. For example, the Seville Strategy 
for Biosphere Reserves, adopted in late 1995, recommends that 
participating countries ``integrate biosphere reserves in strategies 
for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, in plans for 
protected areas, and in the national biodiversity strategies and action 
plans provided for in article 6 of the Convention on Biodiversity.'' 
Furthermore, the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program 
published in 1994 by the U.S. State Department states that a goal of 
the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program is to ``create a national network of 
biosphere reserves that represents the biogeographical diversity of the 
United States and fulfills the internationally established roles and 
functions of biosphere reserves.''
  Also disturbing is that designation of biosphere reserves and world 
heritage sites rarely involve consulting the public and local 
governments. In fact, UNESCO policy apparently discourages an open 
nomination process for biosphere reserves. The Operational Guidelines 
for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention state:

       In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the 
     evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to 
     those concerned, State [national] parties should refrain from 
     giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been 
     nominated for inscription pending the final decision of the 
     [World Heritage] Committee on the nomination in question. 
     Participation of the local people in the nomination process 
     is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with 
     the State party in the maintenance of the site, but should 
     not prejudice future decision-making by the Committee.

  By allowing these international land use designations, the United 
States promises to protect designated areas and regulate surrounding 
lands if necessary to protect the designated reserve. Honoring these 
agreements could force the Federal Government to prohibit or limit some 
uses of private lands outside the international reserve unless our 
country wants to break a pledge to other nations. At a minimum, this 
puts U.S. land policymakers in an awkward position. These Federal 
regulatory actions could cause a significant adverse impact on the 
value of private property and on local and regional economies.
  At best, world heritage site and biosphere reserve designations give 
the international community an open invitation to interfere in domestic 
land use decisions. More seriously,

[[Page E341]]

the underlying international land use agreements potentially have 
several significant adverse effects on the American system of 
government. The policymaking authority is farther centralized at the 
Federal/executive branch level, and the role that the ordinary citizen 
has in the making of this policy through their elected representatives 
is diminished. The executive branch may also invoke these agreements in 
an attempt to administratively achieve an action within the 
jurisdiction of Congress, but without consulting Congress.
  The legislation introduced today will compel the Congress to consider 
the implications of an international land designation and protect the 
rights vested in non-Federal property before a designation is made.

                          ____________________