[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H7355-H7356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 273 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2670.

                              {time}  1810


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2670) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) had been postponed.
  Pursuant to the order of the House today, no amendment shall be in 
order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking 
member and the following amendments which may be offered only by the 
Member designated, shall be considered read, if printed, shall not be 
subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question and 
shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by a 
proponent and an opponent:
  An amendment by Mr. Kucinich numbered 1;
  An amendment by Mr. Campbell numbered 5;
  An amendment by Mr. Crowley numbered 7;
  An amendment by Mr. Tauzin and Mr. Dingell regarding FCC regulations;
  An amendment by Mr. Wynn increasing EEOC, with decrease in State 
Department;
  An amendment by Mr. Hayworth regarding U.N. World Heritage Sites;
  An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding hate crimes;
  An amendment by Mr. Davis of Illinois regarding law enforcement 
grants; and
  An amendment by Mr. Dingell regarding criminal records history 
upgrade.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayworth

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hayworth:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any activity in support of adding or maintaining 
     any World Heritage Site in the United States on the List of 
     World Heritage in Danger as maintained under the Convention 
     Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural 
     Heritage.

  Mr. HAYWORTH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a simple purpose. It prohibits 
spending any money on any activity in support of adding or maintaining 
any World Heritage site in the United States on the list of world 
heritage in danger. It is based on the provision in the American Land 
Sovereignty Protection Act, H.R. 883 which passed in this House on May 
20 of this year by voice vote.
  The World Heritage Committee influences activities that occur around 
World Heritage Sites by putting such sites on what is entitled the 
``List of World Heritage in Danger.'' As many of my colleagues know, 
Mr. Chairman, the World Heritage Committee has been attempting to 
extend the reach of the convention concerning the protection of the 
world's cultural and natural heritage beyond a world heritage site in 
an effort to influence activities around the site. Unfortunately, the 
World Heritage Committee has interfered several times in ongoing 
internal economic development permitting processes of sovereign 
nations, including a project on private land in the United States.
  The World Heritage Committee, with the approval of the executive 
branch, has ignored Federal law and infringed on constitutionally 
protected private property rights by disrupting the National 
Environmental Policy Act process for a project located on private land. 
Under the World Heritage Convention, the World Heritage Committee 
monitors activities in and around a site in danger, and the country in 
which the site in danger is located is obligated to aid the committee 
in this monitoring.

                              {time}  1815

  A site remains on the list of World Heritage sites in danger until 
the host country agrees to implement the committee's recommendations 
concerning land use around the site, which generates international 
pressure on the country to follow the World Heritage committee's 
recommendations. Policies implemented in accordance with 
recommendations of the World Heritage committee can limit the use of 
privately owned property, thereby reducing its value.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, will help stop international 
organizations from interfering in United States land use decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, if one supports American sovereignty, I urge them to 
support this amendment. If one supports the constitutionally granted 
right of Congress to affect Federal land policy, I urge them to support 
this amendment. If one supports the American Land Sovereignty Act, I 
urge them to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote yes on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. SERRANO. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I 
ask unanimous consent to yield that time to the gentleman from 
Minnesota

[[Page H7356]]

(Mr. Vento) and have him control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. One of 
the historians wrote about our Nation and about some of the American 
spirit, one of the things that they observed was our parks, and they 
pointed out that our parks and conservation of our landscape is one of 
the best ideas that Americans ever had.
  Back in the 1960s, then President Nixon was successful in leading 
globally in terms of establishing the World Heritage Convention Treaty. 
Since we first signed that treaty, we have 152 different nations that 
have signed the treaty and have identified over 500 World Heritage 
sites. These are some parks in our country, only about 20 sites are 
recognized in our country as being World Heritage sites, but in other 
countries, almost 500 sites are recognized in those countries, the 
other 151 countries.
  It is a way we can obviously lead in terms of demonstrating voluntary 
conservation. Every one of these sites, first of all, before it can be 
included and designated or recognized on this list, must be already 
protected. The land is already protected before it is included in this 
treaty provision.
  Secondly, the requirement is completely voluntary. If the country 
does not want it listed, it does not become listed, so we have to 
nominate these particular sites.
  So my point is that this amendment would pull the rug out from under 
the U.S. leadership on an international basis for voluntary 
conservation of park-like sites in our country.
  One of the recommendations, if in fact the country does not proceed 
in terms of protecting the sites that they have agreed to protect, that 
they had protected before they nominated them for listing, is that they 
can be delisted. In some cases where there is degradation that goes on 
to a park or cultural site, they will obviously recognize that as a 
site at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to state that the statement made by 
the author of this amendment is just not based on fact. There is no 
problem with the World Heritage Convention. It is essentially an 
international agreement where the host country, in this case the United 
States, has to say that we will participate and we will protect those 
lands before we even bring them to you to be on the list.
  I rise as cochair of the Congressional Tourism Caucus. We have places 
like Yellowstone, places that are already protected under the National 
Park System. We have to do that as a country. The World Heritage 
Commission cannot do it. They have no authority over how to regulate 
land. That is uniquely an American and State and local government 
process.
  But if you are very proud of a piece of land that you protected, as 
we have been in California in protecting a lot of parks and have 
nominated our State parks, and even some county water districts have 
nominated their lands to be part, they want this designation, because 
it is a prestigious designation. It is like the Good Housekeeping Seal 
of Approval. It is essentially saying that this area is recognized as a 
special spot on the Earth for wildlife preservation and for the program 
to manage the land well.
  This is all done by the host country, not by any international 
organization. It is a convention where all with like kinds of land can 
come together and say if you do these things in your host country, then 
you can be on this list.
  So the gentleman who has offered this amendment, in saying that this 
has ability to affect private lands, is totally wrong, unless that 
landowner, as we have in Big Sur, California, had nominated their 
private lands to be protected. Then it can be protected, if it meets 
the criteria. But to come along unilaterally and designate it is 
totally false.
  I ask for a rejection of this amendment in strong terms.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment, at best, could be 
described as a misunderstanding. But the fact is for us, after being 
emulated by 151 nations, to pull the rug out from under this program 
which is conserving and preserving many other areas simply on a 
voluntary basis, I think is a wrong decision to make here tonight. I 
think that the parks and cultural sites are one of the things that our 
Nation is most proud about.
  I would say that in the future, our Nation needs to lead on an 
international basis, and if we cannot do it on a voluntary basis, one 
wonders where we can do it. If there is something wrong with what is 
happening in the Everglades and that area is at risk or something in 
the Yellowstone, the fact of the matter is it is up to us to try to 
correct that. If other nations are calling our attention to it, as we 
do in their Nation when there are problems, I think it is entirely 
appropriate.
  There is no effect on private lands that comes from the World 
Heritage Convention. It may come from the generic laws with regard to 
parks or public lands, but it does not flow from that. I think in that 
case we do it in a very democratic manner.
  I urge Members to reject this bad amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the comments from my 
friend from Minnesota and my other friend from California. I heard some 
sort of analogy that this designation equated with the Good 
Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not simply some sort of travel guide, something 
to be desired, for what it does is establish a framework by which, in 
essence, another body, an international body, exerts control and 
influence on property decisions of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, the question is not about parks, for we all stand in 
favor of our National Parks and Heritage Sites that this Congress 
articulates, that this Congress commemorates, but there should be no 
misunderstanding that in some way, shape, or fashion we would cede any 
of that authority, which rests constitutionally, which rests 
traditionally with this body in this legislative branch, with the 
Congress of the United States.
  To allow the opportunity, as my friend from Minnesota mentioned, 
economic development outside of Yellowstone National Park and 
reasonable proximity, to have these types of actions by an 
international body to, in essence, condemn economic activity, I believe 
is wrong. The Congress of the United States and landowners who are 
American citizens should make those decisions.
  Accordingly, if you want to stand for sovereignty and the primacy of 
American law, so there is no misunderstanding, so there is no 
usurpation of that authority by any international body, I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) 
will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________