[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.
____________________