[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2029-E2031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         H.R. 901, THE AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 8, 1997

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, presently there is no formal 
international agreement defining a biosphere reserve--no treaty, no 
convention, no compact, no protocol--not one. Nor is there any domestic 
legislation authorizing and implementing the biosphere reserve 
program--none whatsoever. A biosphere reserve is an ambiguous concept 
in the field of international relations and lacks any legal definition 
in U.S. law.
  Forty-seven biosphere reserves have been created in the United States 
with virtually no congressional oversight, no hearings, and no 
legislative authority. Congress is not notified when a biosphere 
reserve nomination is under consideration--nor is there any requirement 
to do so.
  At a hearing held in March 1995 by the Subcommittee on Interior 
Appropriations, Congressman Nethercutt asked witnesses from the 
National Park Service, ``Are there any more biosphere reserves to be 
designated at this time that you know of?'' Mr. Kennedy, then Director 
of the Park Service replied, ``No sir.''
  Yet, we now know that: Plans were well underway to designate the 
Ozark Highlands Biosphere Reserve and that the National Park Service 
was a prime force behind this effort.
  The National Park Service applied for a grant in late 1994 or early 
1995 from the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program--approved the following 
May--for ``Elevation of Isle Royale Biosphere Reserve to Fully 
Functional Status.'' According to the grant description, the project 
would develop a Lake Superior protected areas directory, and this would 
be the first U.S. step toward designation of additional protected areas 
and community partnerships in the Lake Superior binational region. In 
other words, this grant was for a study to expand the Isle Royale 
Biosphere Reserve.
  Expansion of the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve to include 11 
counties in West Virginia was--and still is--under consideration.
  The current system for implementing these programs has eaten away at 
the power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its 
constitutional power to make the laws that govern lands belonging to 
the United States.
  The public and local governments are never consulted about creating 
biosphere reserves. On October 7, 1997, during debate on H.R. 901, 
``The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act,'' opponents kept saying 
that biosphere reserves were designated at the request of local 
communities. They seem to believe that if they keep repeating the 
mantra that ``biosphere reserves are created at the request of local 
communities'' often enough, then somehow it will prove to be true. The 
Committee on Resources has now held three hearings on this issue and 
has yet to find one example where a biosphere reserve designation was 
requested by a broad-based cross-section of either the public or local 
officials. On the contrary, the committee has found that biosphere 
reserve designation efforts are almost always driven by Federal 
agencies and often face strong local opposition whether in New York, 
Arkansas, New Mexico, or Alaska.
  Once again, biosphere reserves are designated with little or no input 
from the public or local government. They are very unpopular. In the 
few cases where the local citizenry has become aware of a pending 
biosphere reserve designation, the designation has been strongly 
opposed. Proposed biosphere reserve nominations for the Catskill 
Mountains in New York, the Ozark Mountains in Arkansas and Missouri, 
and for Voyageurs National Park and Boundary Waters Wilderness in 
Minnesota were defeated by an aroused local citizenry. The Alaska and 
Colorado State Legislatures have passed resolutions supporting H.R. 
901, and the Kentucky senate passed a resolution opposing the biosphere 
reserve program, particularly in Kentucky. I would like to include 
these resolutions in the Record.
  I also wish to include in the Record a recent column, entitled 
``Protected Global Soil?,'' which appeared recently in the Washington 
Times. I urge my colleagues to read the resolutions and this important 
commentary.

        A Resolution--in the Legislature of the State of Alaska

       Relating to supporting the ``American Land Sovereignty 
     Protection Act.''
       Be it resolved by the legislature of the State of Alaska:
       Whereas, the United Nations has designated 67 sites in the 
     United States as ``World Heritage Sites'' or ``Biosphere 
     Reserves,'' which altogether are about equal in size to the 
     State of Colorado, the eighth largest state; and
       Whereas, art. IV, sec. 3, United States Constitution, 
     provides that the United States Congress shall make all 
     needed regulations governing lands belonging to the United 
     States; and
       Whereas, many of the United Nations' designations include 
     private property inholdings and contemplate ``buffer zones'' 
     of adjacent land; and

[[Page E2030]]

       Whereas, some international land designations such as those 
     under the United States Biosphere Reserve Program and the Man 
     and Biosphere Program of the United Nations Scientific, 
     Educational, and Culture Organization operate under 
     independent national committees such as the United States 
     National Man and Biosphere Committee that have no legislative 
     directives or authorization from the Congress, and
       Whereas, these international designations as presently 
     handled are an open invitation to the international community 
     to interfere in domestic economies and land use decisions; 
     and
       Whereas, local citizens and public officials concerned 
     about job creation and resource based economies usually have 
     no say in the designation of land near their homes for 
     inclusion in an international land use program; and
       Whereas, former Assistant Secretary of the Interior George 
     T. Frampton, Jr., and the President used the fact that 
     Yellowstone National Park had been designated as a ``World 
     Heritage Site'' as justification for intervening in the 
     environmental impact statement process and blocking possible 
     development of an underground mine on private land in Montana 
     outside of the park; and
       Whereas, a recent designation of a portion of Kamchatka as 
     a ``World Heritage Site'' was followed immediately by efforts 
     from environmental groups to block investment insurance for 
     development projects on Kamchatka that are supported by the 
     local communities; and
       Whereas, environmental groups and the National Park Service 
     have been working to establish an International Park, a World 
     Heritage Site, and a marine Biosphere Reserve covering parts 
     of western Alaska, eastern Russia, and the Bering Sea; and
       Whereas, as occurred in Montana, such designations could be 
     used to block development projects on state and private land 
     in western Alaska; and
       Whereas, foreign companies and countries could use such 
     international designations in western Alaska to block 
     economic development that they perceive as competition; and
       Whereas, animal rights activists could use such 
     international designations to generate pressure to harass or 
     block harvesting of marine mammals by Alaska Natives; and
       Whereas, such international designations could be used to 
     harass or block any commercial activity, including pipelines, 
     railroads, and power transmission lines; and
       Whereas, the President and the executive branch of the 
     United States have, by Executive Order and other agreements, 
     implemented these designations without approval by the 
     Congress, and
       Whereas, actions by the President in applying international 
     agreements to lands owned by the United States may circumvent 
     the Congress; and
       Whereas, Congressman Don Young introduced House Resolution 
     No. 901 in the 105th Congress entitled the ``American Lands 
     Sovereignty Protection Act of 1997'' that required the 
     explicit approval of the Congress prior to restricting any 
     use of United States land under international agreements; be 
     it
       Resolved, that the Alaska State Legislature supports the 
     ``American Lands Sovereignty Protection Act'' that reaffirms 
     the constitutional authority of the Congress as the elected 
     representatives of the people over the federally owned land 
     of the United States.


     
                                                                    ____
                Memorial 0111--House of Representatives

       Under clause 4 of Rule XXII, a memorial of the following 
     title was presented, as follows:
       By the Speaker: A memorial of the General Assembly of the 
     State of Colorado, relative to House Joint Resolution 97-1032 
     showing that the State of Colorado supports the legislation, 
     which reaffirms the Constitutional Authority of Congress as 
     the elected representatives of the people, and urges the 
     ``American Land Sovereignty Protection Act'' be introduced 
     and passed by both the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate, as soon as possible during the 105th Congressional 
     session.
       Referred to the Committee on Resources. June 3, 1997.

                House Joint Resolution 97-1032--Colorado

By representatives Entz, Arrington, Epps, Pankey, Paschall, and Young; 
     also senators Duke, Arnold, Congrove, Mutzebaugh, and Powers.

       Whereas, The United Nations has designated sixty-seven 
     sites in the United States as ``World Heritage Sites'' or 
     ``Biosphere Reserves'', which altogether are about equal in 
     size to the State of Colorado, the eighth largest state; and
       Whereas, Section 3 of Article IV of the United States 
     Constitution provides that the United States Congress shall 
     make all needed rules and regulations governing lands 
     belonging to the United States; and
       Whereas, Many of the United Nations designations include 
     private property inholdings and contemplate ``buffer zones'' 
     of adjacent land; and
       Whereas, Some international land designations, such as 
     those under the United States Biosphere Reserve Program and 
     the Man and Biosphere Program of the United Nations 
     Scientific, Educational, and 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 Congress; and
       Whereas, These international designations, as presently 
     handled, are an open invitation to the international 
     community to interfere in domestic land use decisions; and
       Whereas, Local citizens and public officials usually have 
     no say in the designation of land near their homes for 
     inclusion in an international land use program; and
       Whereas, The President and Executive Branch of the United 
     States have, by Executive Order and other agreements, and 
     implemented these designations without the approval of 
     Congress; and
       Whereas, Actions by the President in applying international 
     agreements to lands owned by the United States may circumvent 
     Congress; and
       Whereas, In the 105th Congress, Congressman Don Young 
     introduced HR-901, entitled the ``American Land Sovereignty 
     Act'', to protect American public and private lands from 
     jurisdictional encroachments by certain United Nations 
     programs, and such resolution has been referred to the 
     Resource Committee with 77 cosponsors; now, therefore,
       Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the 
     Sixty-first General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the 
     Senate concurring herein:
       That the State of Colorado supports this legislation, which 
     reaffirms the Constitutional Authority of Congress as the 
     elected representatives of the people, and urges the 
     ``American Land Sovereignty Protection Act'' be introduced 
     and passed by both the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate as soon as possible during the 105th Congressional 
     session.
       Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Resolution be 
     sent to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives of the United States Congress and to 
     each member of the Congressional delegation from Colorado.
     Charles E. Berry,
       Speaker of the House of Representatives.
     Tom Norton,
       President of the Senate.
     Judith Rodrigue,
       Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives.
     Joan M. Albi,
       Secretary of the Senate.


       
                                                                    ____
   In Senate--1997 Extraordinary Session, Senate Resolution No. 35, 
                         Thursday, May 29, 1997

       Sponsors: Senators Moore, Bailey, Blevins, Borders, 
     Freeman, Kelly, McGaha, Metcalf, Nunnelley, Philpot, 
     Robinson, Roeding, Julie Rose, Sanders, Seum, Stivers, Tori, 
     Westwood, D. Williams, and G. Williams introduced the 
     following resolution which was ordered to be printed.
       Introduced and adopted (voice vote) May 29, 1997.
       A resolution opposing the Biosphere Reserves designation of 
     the Man and the Biosphere Program and urging that the 
     proposed Biodiversity Treaty not be ratified by the United 
     States.
       Whereas, the United Nations has promoted a Biosphere 
     Program throughout the world; and
       Whereas, the Biosphere Program threatens to place millions 
     of acres of land under the control of United Nations via 
     agreements and/or executive orders; and
       Whereas, the United Nations Cultural, Educational, and 
     Scientific Organization (UNESCO) has created a worldwide 
     system of 328 Biosphere Reserves in 82 nations; and
       Whereas, 47 United Nations-designated Biosphere Reserves 
     are within the sovereign borders of the United States, and 
     two United Nations-designated Biosphere Reserves are within 
     the Commonwealth of Kentucky; and
       Whereas, neither the legislature of the Commonwealth of 
     Kentucky nor the Congress of the United States has 
     considered, debated, or approved such designations; and
       Whereas, such designations require strict land use 
     management procedures as are set forth in the 1994 Strategic 
     Plan for the United States man and the Biosphere Program, as 
     published by the United States State Department, and further 
     described in the Global Biodiversity Assessment, published by 
     the United Nations Environment Program, expressly for the 
     Conferences of the Parties to the Convention on Biological 
     Diversity; and
       Whereas, Biosphere Reserves are, by definition, designed to 
     continually expand each of the three zones: core protected 
     zone, buffer zone, and zone of cooperation; and
       Whereas, Biosphere Reserves are expected to be the nucleus 
     of the system of protected areas required by Article 8 of the 
     Convention on Biological Diversity as expressed in the 
     minutes of the first meeting of the Conference of the 
     Parties; and
       Whereas, no land owner within reach or potential reach of 
     the Biosphere Reserves has input or recourse to land use 
     management policies of UNESCO or the Conference of the 
     Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity; and
       Whereas, no body of elected officials, whether local, 
     state, or federal, has input, recourse, or veto power over 
     such land use management policies that may be prescribed by 
     either UNESCO or the Conference of the Parties to the 
     Convention on Biological Diversity; and
       Whereas, even though the Convention on Biological Diversity 
     has not been ratified by the United States Senate, the very 
     presence of United Nations Biosphere Reserves on

[[Page E2031]]

     American soil demonstrates the compliance with an 
     international treaty that has not been ratified; and
       Whereas, the use of land in biosphere areas for ordinary 
     commercial or agriculture purposes may be severely restricted 
     or eliminated; and
       Whereas, the Mammoth Cave area and the Land Between the 
     Lakes area have already been designated as Biosphere 
     Reserves; and
       Whereas, none of the current areas included within the 
     Biosphere Program in Kentucky have been included at the 
     request of or with the consent of the General Assembly of the 
     Commonwealth of Kentucky; and
       Whereas, the General Assembly does not believe that a 
     request from the National Park Service or a tourist and 
     convention service should be adequate to subject land in 
     Kentucky to the control of the United Nations or any other 
     foreign parties; and
       Whereas, the areas encompassed by these reserves included 
     not only public, but private, lands; and
       Whereas, the placing of environmental or other restrictions 
     upon the use of private lands has been held by a number of 
     recent United States Supreme Court decisions to constitute a 
     taking of the land for public purposes; and
       Whereas, the proposed Biodiversity Treaty, if ratified by 
     the United States, would ultimately lead to the reality that 
     Kentuckians could not use their private and public lands in 
     the manner to which they have been accustomed; and
       Whereas, there are no proposals either to purchase the 
     private lands by the United States or the United Nations; and
       Whereas, the restrictions contemplated together with the 
     outside control of the land encompassed by a Biosphere 
     Reserve constitutes an unlawful taking of that land in 
     violation of the Constitution of the United States, to wit:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, before any state lands can 
     be purchased, the consent of the state legislature and not 
     the state executive branch, must be obtained.
       Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, we note that, ``[N]othing 
     in this Constitution shall be construed as to Prejudice any 
     Claims of the United States, or of any particular state.''
       Article IV, Section 4, we note that, ``The United States 
     shall guarantee to every State in this union a Republican 
     Form of Government.''
       Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States, ``nor 
     [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
     without due process of law, nor shall private property be 
     taken for public use, without just compensation''; and
       Whereas, the virtual ceding of these lands to the United 
     Nations leaves the residents who own the land, local 
     governments, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky without any 
     legitimate form for redress of grievances for input into any 
     decision-making process relating to the Biosphere Reserve; 
     and
       Whereas, under Article VI of the Constitution of the United 
     States, this treaty would be given equal footing with the 
     Constitution of the United States, thus effectively 
     precluding any legal means of redress; and
       Whereas, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of 
     Kentucky does not wish to have portions of its land area 
     controlled by foreign minions over which it has no control 
     and who are not subject to its laws;
       Now, Therefore; Be it
       Resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the 
     Commonwealth of Kentucky:
       Section 1. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of 
     Kentucky is unalterably opposed to the inclusion of any land 
     within the borders of the Commonwealth within the purview of 
     the Biodiversity Treaty or any biodiversity program without 
     the express consent of the General Assembly of the 
     Commonwealth of Kentucky, as provided by the Constitution of 
     the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky.
       Section 2. The General Assembly urges the members of the 
     Congress of the United States, and especially the Kentucky 
     delegation to the Congress of the United States, to oppose 
     ratification of this treaty and the inclusion of any land 
     within the Commonwealth of Kentucky in any biosphere program 
     of the United Nations.
       Section 3. The Clerk of the Senate is hereby directed to 
     transmit copies of this Resolution to the Honorable Bill 
     Clinton, President, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, 
     D.C. 20500; the Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, 2201 ``C'' 
     Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20520; the Honorable Wendell 
     H. Ford, 173A Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, 
     D.C. 20510; the Honorable Mitch McConnell, 361A Russell 
     Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510; the Honorable 
     Ed Whitfield, 236 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, 
     D.C. 20515; the Honorable Ron Lewis, 412 Cannon House Office 
     Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; the Honorable Anne Northup, 
     1004 Longworth Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; the 
     Honorable Jim Bunning, 2437 Rayburn House Office Building, 
     Washington, D.C. 20515; the Honorable Harold Rogers, 2468 
     Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; and the 
     Honorable Scotty Baesler, 113 Cannon House Office Building, 
     Washington, D.C. 20515.


     
                                                                    ____
               [From the Washington Times, Oct. 12, 1997]

                         Protected Global Soil?

                    (By David Rothbard/Craig Rucker)

       Whether it be the Grand Canyon, Statue of Liberty, or Taj 
     Mahal, there are many places of natural and cultural interest 
     on the Earth. Of this, there can be no doubt. The question of 
     how to preserve these treasures, however, is very much open 
     to debate.
       The United Nations, through its Man and the Biosphere (MAB) 
     and World Heritage Sites (WHS) programs, believes 
     international cooperation--or a collectivist approach--is the 
     best solution. But among a growing number of skeptics, these 
     programs are not only unnecessary, but may actually be a way 
     for Green utopians and international bureaucrats to chip away 
     at national sovereignty and shut down any important natural 
     resource developments they may oppose. And despite House 
     passage last Wednesday of the American Land Sovereignty Act 
     proposed by Rep. Don Young, Alaska Republican, this is not a 
     controversy that's likely to be put to rest any time soon.
       The first major concern surrounding these global patches of 
     protected soil is the issue of sovereignty. The United 
     Nations, in its publications and official statements, strains 
     its vocal cords trying to tell the world that national 
     sovereignty is not at risk. But while this may be true on 
     paper, many observers see the process as the proverbial 
     camel's nose under the tent by which the U.N. can get sites 
     established now and worry about expanding the scope of its 
     authority later.
       And even in establishing these sites, there is serious 
     question about the openness of the process, since over the 
     last decade the story of biospheres and WHS's, at least in 
     the United States, is not one of local involvement and input 
     from elected representatives, but rather, secrecy, deception, 
     and political maneuvering of agencies within the executive 
     branch of our own government.
       When hearings were recently held on Capitol Hill concerning 
     the bill introduced by Mr. Young, witness after witness came 
     forth to testify to this very fact. From Arkansas, citizens 
     like Betty Beaver lambasted efforts to establish 55,000 
     square miles of the Ozark Highlands as a biosphere reserve, 
     claiming it was all done ``under cover of darkness'' and 
     pointing to actual MAB documents stating that citizens ``were 
     not to be introduced to the MAB by name'' and that ``there 
     should be no press conference or large public meetings 
     because they encourage polarized views before the story can 
     be told in an objective, nonthreatening manner.''
       And in perhaps the most infamous of these controversies to 
     date, involving Yellowstone National Park, witnesses spoke 
     about how without precedent, Green bigwigs within our own 
     Interior department invited U.N. bureaucrats to come out and 
     ``inspect'' Yellowstone at taxpayer expense, urged them to 
     declare the park a WHS ``in danger,'' and thus effectively 
     put the kibosh on a proposed gold mine that was to be sited 
     three miles outside the area.
       As seen at Yellowstone, the other major concern swirling 
     around this global debate is the way biospheres and WHSs are 
     being used by environmental extremists as a convenient way to 
     attack what raises their blood pressure most--namely, 
     industrial and economic development.
       The situation playing out in Kamchatka, Russia, where the 
     collapse of the old Soviet system has left many of the area's 
     residents hungry and unemployed, is one such example. Here, 
     the prospect of major gold and mineral mining in the region 
     was met with understandable enthusiasm.
       But environmentalists, led by the Environmental Defense 
     Fund and the Sierra Club, opposed any development of the 
     region from the get-go, and pushed the U.N. to establish a 
     WHS around the volcanoes of Kamchatka. Over the pleas of the 
     people, they did this in December of 1996, seriously 
     jeopardizing the project's future and prompting one Russian 
     official to say, ``the attitude of the pro-environmentalists 
     shows criminal disrespect for human life. . . .Our children 
     have to starve and freeze. . .[while] environmentalists 
     resort to falsification of facts and distortion of 
     information.''
       In the Bering Strait off Alaska, efforts are under way to 
     establish the Bering Land WHS, which would not only threaten 
     nearly one-quarter of all U.S. coal reserves, but also the 
     world's largest zinc mine. Near the Taj Mahal in India, some 
     292 industrial plants may have to shut down for allegedly 
     harming that WHS. And in Australia, the push is on to create 
     the Lake Eyre Basin WHS that would severely restrict grazing 
     and threaten property values over an astounding 35 percent of 
     the entire nation.
       So are biospheres and WHS's really something to fret about? 
     Well it's true that no national sovereignty has yet been 
     officially abridged, but environmentalists are already able 
     to exert undue influence simply through the public-relations 
     angle of this whole business. And it's not that much of a 
     stretch of the imagination to see how the Greens could very 
     soon argue on behalf of more sharptoothed international 
     regulations, like they successfully did on ozone depletion 
     and are currently attempting on global warming.
       Clearly, this is one issue on which the American people, 
     and the people of the whole world for that matter, ought to 
     keep a keen eye.



     

                          ____________________