[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10276-10304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 180 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 180

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 833) 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. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Resources. After general debate, the bill shall 
     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a 
     period not to exceed four hours. The bill shall be considered 
     as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
     those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and 
     except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each 
     amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who 
     caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be 
     considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded

[[Page 10277]]

     vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the 
     minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question 
     that follows another electronic vote without intervening 
     business, provided that the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 
     minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1030


            amendment offered by mr. hastings of washington

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
House Resolution 180 be amended on page 2, line 2, by striking ``833'' 
and inserting in lieu thereof ``883''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 2, strike ``833'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``883''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time 
as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 180 would grant H.R. 883, the American Land 
Sovereignty Protection Act, a modified open rule, providing 1 hour of 
general debate to be divided equally between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Resources.
  The rule provides for a 4-hour limit on the amendment process and 
provides that the bill shall be considered as read. Additionally, the 
rule makes in order only those amendments preprinted in the 
Congressional Record and pro forma amendments for the purpose of 
debate. Amendments that are preprinted may be offered only by the 
Member who caused them to be printed or his designee, shall be 
considered as read, and may be amended.
  The rule further allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting 
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 883 was reported by the Committee on Resources. The 
bill would restore the constitutional role of Congress in managing 
lands belonging to the United States, preserve the sovereignty of the 
United States over its lands, and protect State sovereignty and private 
property rights in non-Federal lands adjacent to the Federal lands.
  Under Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution, Congress is vested 
with the authority to regulate Federal lands. Yet, over the past 25 
years, an increasing expansion of our Nation's public lands have been 
included in various land use programs with little congressional 
oversight or approval. Two notable programs are the United Nations 
Biosphere Reserves and the World Heritage Sites, both of which are 
under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Educational, Scientific 
and Cultural Organization or UNESCO.
  There are now 47 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and 20 World Heritage 
Sites in the United States. By becoming party to these international 
land use agreements through executive action, but without congressional 
authorization, the United States may be indirectly agreeing to terms to 
international treaties which the Senate has refused to ratify.
  By consenting to international land use designations, the United 
States in effect agrees to impose restrictions on surrounding lands 
which, in many cases, include a substantial amount of private property. 
Subjecting private property owners to land use restrictions imposed 
without their consent, or even the consent of their elected 
representatives, is a very serious matter. It is a practice which this 
Congress should emphatically reject.
  In response to growing concern about this situation, H.R. 883 would 
amend the National Historic Preservation Act to require congressional 
approval before any nominated property may be included in the World 
Heritage list. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to submit 
a report to Congress describing what impact inclusion on the World 
Heritage list would have on the natural resources associated with these 
nominated lands.
  The bill would prohibit the Secretary of Interior from nominating a 
property for inclusion on the World Heritage list until the Secretary 
makes findings that existing commercially viable uses of the nominated 
land or land within 10 miles of the nomination would not be adversely 
affected by its inclusion.
  H.R. 883 would prohibit Federal officials from nominating any land in 
the U.S. for designation as a Biosphere Reserve and would terminate all 
existing Biosphere Reserves unless, one, the Biosphere Reserve is 
specifically authorized in law by a date certain, two, the designated 
Biosphere Reserve consists entirely of land owned by the U.S., and, 
three, a management plan has been implemented which specifically 
provides for the protection of non-Federal property rights and uses.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill would prohibit Federal officials from 
designating any land in the United States for a special or restricted 
use under any international agreement unless such designation is 
specifically approved by law, and would also prohibit including any 
State, local, or privately owned land in any such designation, unless 
that designation is approved by those affected parties.
  The Committee on Rules has reported a modified rule, as requested by 
the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) of the Committee on 
Resources, in order to provide Members of the House seeking to amend 
this legislation with the full and fair opportunity to do so.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule 
and the underlying bill, H.R. 883.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for a modified open rule which 
makes in order only those amendments preprinted in the Congressional 
Record and limits debate of the bill to 4 hours. These restrictions are 
wholly unnecessary. Any time one imposes an arbitrary time limit, one 
runs the risk of limiting full debate. I oppose the rule in its current 
form and note that open rules best protect all Members' rights to fully 
represent their constituents.
  Moreover, I have significant concerns about the legislation the rule 
makes in order. While the bill purports to preserve U.S. sovereignty 
over the use of Federal lands, in reality, this measure is unnecessary 
and could hinder United States participation in international efforts 
to protect and preserve valuable lands throughout the world. Similar 
dubious legislation has failed in two previous Congresses, and this 
bill will get the same fate.
  The World Heritage Convention and the Man and Biosphere Program will 
provide the international community with means of recognizing areas 
with great natural and cultural significance. These honorific programs 
respect each State's sovereignty and have no legal jurisdiction over 
countries or communities.
  Since 1973, the World Heritage Convention has successfully been 
implemented by the United States Department of Interior. The Convention 
was, in fact, a United States initiative under then President Richard 
Nixon.
  A site may be listed as a World Heritage site only if it contains 
cultural or natural resources of universal value, and if the national 
government where the site is located nominates and protects the site.
  Listing an area as a World Heritage site imposes no change in U.S. 
law nor

[[Page 10278]]

any requirement for future changes in domestic law. It does not give 
oversight, management, or regulatory authority over United States lands 
to any foreign and national organization.
  Nor does the United States Man and Biosphere Program place any U.S. 
lands or resources under the control of the United Nations or any 
international body. In fact, this is a domestic Federal program. It, 
therefore, does not impose any restrictions beyond those already in 
place under American law.
  For over 20 years, under the auspices of four Republican and two 
Democratic Presidents, these programs have functioned with little or no 
controversy. The allegations by the proponents of H.R. 883 that these 
beneficial programs somehow threaten the United States sovereignty are 
pure fantasy.
  However we do have a Federal, foreign encroachment on American lands, 
and I am referring to the mining and mineral rights that have been 
leased to foreign corporations with leases that cost about an average 
of $2.50 per acre per year. These leases have been in effect since the 
days of Ulysses S. Grant. If we would like to do something to protect 
our own lands, and stop cheating our taxpayers. We should change this 
disgraceful giveaway.
  Our national parks do need attention, but Congress certainly could do 
better than this bill, which is designed to remedy an imaginary 
problem, the supposed encroachment of foreign domination over our 
public resources.
  Mr. Speaker, another community woke this morning to the horror of a 
school shooting. It is not as bad as Columbine we are told. We hope 
that these are not going to be fatal shots. But surely this House can 
be better spending this time, rather than spending 4 hours on this one 
House nowhere bill, and be working on after-school programs and try to 
do something about bringing guns under some control.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as 
much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill by the 
distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the 
Committee on Resources, and the rule that brings this bill to the 
floor.
  This bill does not prohibit or stop the United States from including 
land in an international land reserve. All it says is that there must 
first be congressional approval so that the private property rights of 
neighboring landowners can be protected.
  What this bill is attempting to do is to allow a little more public 
input into this process and give the people a tiny bit of say about 
actions that can have tremendous impact on their land.
  It really boils down to whether we still have a government of, by, 
and for the people, or has it become one of, by, and for unelected 
bureaucrats and elitists who want to control other people's land.
  Jeane Kirkpatrick, our former ambassador to the United Nations, wrote 
to the Committee on Resources these words, ``In U.N. organizations, 
there is no accountability. U.N. bureaucrats are far removed from the 
American voters. What recourse does an American voter have when U.N. 
bureaucrats from Cuba or Iraq or Libya, all of which are parties to 
this treaty, have made a decision that unjustly damages his or her 
property rights that lie near a national park?''
  Professor Jeremy Rabkin of the Department of Government of Cornell 
University testified in support of this bill, saying, ``The underlying 
problem is that international regulatory schemes now reach more deeply 
into the internal affairs of sovereign nations and have therefore begun 
to threaten internal systems of government,'' adding that ``such 
ventures are in some ways as much a threat to the stability of 
international law as they are to our own system of government at 
home.''
  Professor Rabkin said we need this bill, not to slow this dangerous 
trend toward taking government further away from the people, but also, 
``as a means of reasserting our own constitutional traditions.''
  Professor Detlev Vagts of the Harvard Law School said international 
involvement in local and private land use decisions, ``pose an import 
problem'' in their ``tendency to shift powers and responsibilities from 
national and subnational units, with active, reachable legislative 
bodies to remote international bureaucracies.''
  I realize that some opponents of this bill do not want to debate this 
on the merits, so they resort to childish sarcasm and try to make this 
bill seem less than serious by making fun of it.
  But this bill deserves the support of all those who really believe in 
private property and limited government and the freedom that is 
protected by those two great traditions on which this Nation was built.
  Private property is not only one of the key components of our 
prosperity. It is one of the main things that set us apart from the 
former Soviet Union and other socialist Nations.
  Today almost one-third of our land is owned by the Federal 
Government, and another 20 percent is owned by State and local 
governments and quasi-governmental units. Governments at all levels are 
rapidly taking over additional land. Perhaps even more of a threat to 
freedom are the restrictions being placed by government on land still 
in private ownership.
  We heard testimony from Steven Lindsey whose family has operated a 
ranch on Turkey Creek in rural Arizona since the 1860s. He was shocked 
to find out one day that a 60-acre private wetland on his property was 
now controlled by the international RAMSAR Convention agreement in 
addition to all the endangered species and other regulations he was 
already under.

                              {time}  1045

  Under Ramsar, Mr. Lindsey said, ``My rights as a private property 
owner are threatened and the Ramsar language can be used to violate my 
property rights and deprive me of the use of my land.''
  He added these words, Mr. Speaker: ``The same government that 
promised my great, great grandfather and my great grandfather the land 
through the Homestead Act and pursuit of happiness is now the same 
government that is helping destroy these dreams.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, a serious bill; and people who 
truly believe in freedom, rather than big brother repressive 
government, should support it enthusiastically.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Frankly, this bill is 
not correctable by amendment. I think the proper disposition of it is 
to defeat this bill. I think it is, obviously, a great 
misunderstanding. I think it reflects a fear that has been translated 
into legislative language which is inappropriate and I think the wrong 
direction clearly to move, and so I do not know how I could amend it.
  In the last session, Mr. Speaker, a lot of concern arose because we 
proposed some 60 or 70 different amendments to this bill. It touches on 
about 82 areas in the United States that are classified as World 
Heritage sites, as Man and the Biosphere program, or as Ramsar sites. 
There may be more sites in the United States, but those are the three 
principal treaties that deal with natural and cultural resources of 
distinction, usually within our parks or in those areas; and Man and 
the Biosphere programs which focus on special natural environments, 
other types of environments that are used for scientific research; and 
the Ramsar sites, which protect wetlands.
  There may be other treaties and compacts that are affected, Mr. 
Speaker. They have not been spoken of or explored in committee. In 
fact, I think most of the committee meetings have been based on a lot 
of emotionalism and misconceptions and obviously some distaste for the 
United Nations, which happens to be associated loosely with some of the 
designations here and recognitions that have taken place.
  Incidentally, when I was looking at the numbers, there are nearly 
2,000

[[Page 10279]]

sites globally that are recognized under these programs. The United 
States has very few sites that we have let in the development of these 
treaties and programs; and, of course, to in fact renege on this 
presents all sorts of problems to us in terms of our global leadership 
in terms of the environment.
  But that I think is really at the heart of this that there are those 
that cannot attack these parks, these wildernesses directly, so they 
choose to wrap themselves in American sovereignty and some displeasure 
I guess with the U.N., Mr. Speaker, and it is manifest in this bill 
that we have before us today, H.R. 883.
  The rule is really unfair because we had talked and while there was 
some fear that we might offer 70 amendments, as I said, it is not 
correctable, but nevertheless the Committee on Rules gets up and 
suggested that it is offering an open rule, that we can offer any 
amendments that we want. But then they impose this time limitation on 
the bill.
  I do not think that any of us have any visions of keeping the 
Congress in session all day tonight and late into the hours, especially 
a day when many Members would like to travel home to their districts so 
they can work and be back together with their families and 
constituents, a goal certainly that I share with them. But, 
nevertheless, the Committee on Rules arbitrarily sets in place this 4-
hour limit.
  Unfortunately, in fact I think, Mr. Speaker, that my amendment is the 
only amendment that will be offered and that we will pursue that and 
see whether or not the fidelity of this group for American sovereignty 
carries through to commercial uses of the property for foreign 
countries and entities that might want to mine, they might want to 
harvest trees and do other exploitative activities in the land. If 
there is any enthusiasm for saving American taxpayers and saving their 
resources for America, we will see whether or not we can sell that 
particular idea.
  But there is no reason for putting a time limit on this bill. I think 
it is a reflection, unfortunately, of the circumstances and the state 
of affairs that exists in this Congress today, in fact, in terms of 
what I say, a lack of trust between us, Mr. Speaker, which I think is 
unneeded.
  And, therefore, I will oppose this rule. I think it is not an open 
rule. It is a rule which has a time limitation, and I think it is 
unnecessary and this House should reject the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the 
resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 178, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 140]

                               YEAS--240

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--178

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Blagojevich
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     Evans
     Foley
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Kucinich
     Napolitano
     Ose
     Salmon
     Towns
     Waxman

                              {time}  1111

  Messrs. ROEMER, SPRATT and HILLIARD and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TANCREDO and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:

[[Page 10280]]


  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 140 on 
H. Res. 180 I was unavoidably detained in an important meeting. Had I 
been here I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). Pursuant to House Resolution 
180 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 883.

                              {time}  1115


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 883) 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, with Mr. Stearns in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 883, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, 
asserts the power of Congress on the Constitution over the lands 
belonging to the United States, and this is all this bill does.
  So that everyone understands, the concern here is the Congress and, 
therefore, the people. They are left out of the domestic process to 
designate World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves.
  This bill requires the participation, as the Constitution so states, 
that the Member of the Congress and the citizens of this Nation are in 
the process.
  Many, many Americans from all over, sections of our country, have 
called my office, I am sure they have called my colleagues also, to say 
they are concerned about the lack of congressional oversight over 
UNESCO international land reserves in the U.S. and to express support 
for this bill. Within the last 25 years, 83 sites in the United States 
have been designated as Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage Sites or 
Ramsar Sites, all with virtually no congressional oversight and no 
congressional hearings. The public and local governments have not be 
consulted.
  The World Heritage and Ramsar programs are based on a treaty. H.R. 
883 does not end U.S. participation in the World Heritage or Ramsar 
Sites. We have domestic laws implementing these programs, and H.R. 883 
proposes to change these domestic laws so that Congress must approve 
the sites.
  The Biosphere Reserve Program is not authorized by even a single U.S. 
law or any international treaty. That is wrong. Executive Branch 
appointees, whatever their political party, cannot and should not do 
things that the law does not authorize, and I ask my colleagues, 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 the Congress?
  What is unreasonable about having local citizens and public officials 
participate in decisions on designated land near their homes for 
inclusion in an international preserve?
  If the boundaries of a national park are forced to change, even by a 
small adjustment, Congress must approve the change. However, a 15.4 
million acre South Appalachian Biosphere Reserve encompassing parts of 
six States stretching from northeast Alabama to southwest Virginia was 
created by unelected bureaucrats, bypassing the Congress, and this is 
unconstitutional and it is wrong.
  We need to reemphasize the congressional duty to keep international 
commitments from abridging traditional constitutional constraints. 
Otherwise the boundaries between our owners' lands and others or even 
between the government's land and private property are too easily and 
often ignored.
  H.R. 883 will also prevent attempts by the Executive Branch to use 
international land designation to bypass the Congress in making land 
decisions and protect our domestic land use decision-making process 
from unnecessary international interference.
  We are going to hear a lot today from the other side and those that 
oppose it about this bill being driven by the fear of black helicopters 
and catering to suspicions and conspiracy theories of extremists. We 
will also hear a lot about the effectiveness and importance of the 
wonderful programs. We are also going to be told that these programs 
are honorary and have no effect on the use, management or disposition 
of public lands. However, the World Heritage Centre says otherwise. The 
director of the World Heritage Centre told the Interior Department in a 
letter:
  ``Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention obligates the State 
Party to protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations 
World Heritage Sites for which they are responsible. This obligation 
extends beyond the boundary of the site and Article 5(A) recommends the 
State Parties integrate the protection of sites into comprehensive 
planning programmes. Thus, if proposed developments will damage the 
integrity of the Yellowstone National Park, the State Party has a 
responsibility to act beyond the National Park boundary.''
  Going beyond what Congress has set aside, I submit this decision as a 
responsibility of Congress, not some U.N. committee of unelected 
bureaucrats.
  The public and local governments are almost never consulted about 
creating World Heritage Sites, the Ramsar Sites and Biosphere Reserves. 
Although proponents of these programs always keep saying the 
designations are made at the request of local communities, designation 
efforts are almost always driven by Federal agencies, usually the 
National Park Service. The Committee on Resources has not found one 
example where one of these designations was requested by a broad-based 
cross-section of either the public or local officials. On the contrary, 
these programs usually face strong local opposition. In my State the 
Alaska State Legislature passed a resolution supporting H.R. 883, and I 
will urge my colleagues to listen to the debate, make their decision, 
but remember their constitutional duty, and that is to make us the 
designees of lands use.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, when Members are speaking, charts are 
permitted to be displayed in the House Chamber and the Committee of the 
Whole; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. With the permission of the House, when the question is 
raised, that is correct.
  Mr. VENTO. And when Members have desisted from speaking, are charts 
still permitted to be displayed in the House?
  The CHAIRMAN. The charts are taken out of the well at that time.
  Mr. VENTO. Are they permitted to be in the other portions of the 
House and be displayed at that time?
  The CHAIRMAN. They should not be displayed anywhere in the Chamber 
unless they are being used in the debate.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is a provision and the 
custom of the House is that these matters may be displayed in the 
Speaker's Lobby; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is permissible, with the Speaker's approval.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the Chairman for his response to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. This is not new 
legislation. It, I think, has, and it is a case, as I said, where we 
have heard this tune before for the last two Congresses, and the House 
has passed this after spirited debate, and the fact is that it has gone 
to

[[Page 10281]]

the Senate and not received consideration in the Senate; and I think 
the fact is that listening to the discussion of our distinguished 
chairman and his debate, and he is very good at debate, but the fact is 
that the words here do not match the music in terms of what takes place 
with this legislation.
  This is a bad bill. This really cuts the head off of these programs 
that the United States has led in creating on a global basis over the 
last 25 or 30 years under President Nixon, under other Presidents that 
have served since then, both Democrat and Republican, Carter, Reagan, 
Ford; pardon me, Ford, and of course Bush and now President Clinton. 
These programs have been in existence, and these administrations have 
supported them because it is a good program. It permits the United 
States to provide global leadership in terms of the preservation and 
conservation of special areas such as World Heritage Sites, which are 
protected because of their natural or cultural resources, Man and the 
Biosphere programs which some 600-and-some sites globally, only about 
47 in the United States incidentally, which are used for scientific 
research, these ecosystems where scientists can gain information, and 
of course, hopefully, we take that new knowledge and translate it into 
good public policy on a global basis.
  And finally, of course, areas like wetlands areas like the Ramsar 
sites, of which there are over 700 sites globally, only about 15 in the 
United States, again where we protect and provide areas for protection 
of various waterfall and other fauna and flora that happen, obviously 
occur in these areas.
  Now my colleague and chairman, the distinguished chairman said that 
this is unconstitutional. Well, where is the court case? This has been 
in existence for 30 years. Where is the court case that says that this 
is an action taken by one of these past administrations over the last 
25 or 30 years, that says this is unconstitutional?
  We had a constitutional lawyer, I believe Mr. Rufkin from Yale, who 
appeared before us. When he was asked that question, he was not able to 
come up with one court case, one decision that had been made that said 
that this was unconstitutional.
  This is not unconstitutional. These designations are made in the 
United States on a voluntary basis, just as they are around the globe. 
These are voluntary designations. The Congress has exercised its 
responsibility and done it well in most Congresses with regards to land 
use questions. In fact, we designated parks, we have designated 
wildernesses, we have designated and passed on and permit the agencies 
to designate on their own areas of environmental concern, for instance, 
in the BLM and many other areas. But the Congress has jealously 
guarded, and I would jealously guard, the right of Congress to, in 
fact, identify and to designate these various lands for the purposes 
that we are entrusted to do so, but the fact is that what we are saying 
here is that these areas have already been designated.
  Now the big complaint here really revolves around Yellowstone and a 
mine that was occurring outside of Yellowstone but in obviously the 
watershed of Yellowstone, and the fact of the matter is that area was 
designated a Man and the Biosphere area for research, and it was 
pointed out that if that mine occurred, that it would adversely affect 
the entire hydrology and watershed and other natural factors in that 
area. And the fact is that we think and I think that the parks and 
other lands have an extra boundary responsibility, that they can go and 
talk about activities outside the boundary of the parks, outside the 
boundary of a wilderness, outside boundaries. These trans-boundary 
issues are very important because we have to come to the realization 
that the de facto wilderness creation or park creation, that the areas 
that happen at their margin, boundaries, are causing these parks to be 
and these special areas that we set aside to be adversely effected.
  That is what this is about. We already designated them a park. We 
have already designated wilderness. But not being able to attack the 
parks and the wilderness and the other conservation areas that we 
designated directly, they choose to do it through this particular claim 
of American sovereignty and wrap themselves in that particular issue 
with, I guess, a strong distaste for the U.N.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one thing that the U.N. and UNESCO is doing 
right. This is one thing where past Presidents, both Democrats and 
Republicans and their administrations, have strongly supported. There 
are nearly 2,000 sites that have been designated and recognized by 
these international bodies just in these three treaty areas or protocol 
agreements that we have here, just in these three, but there may be 
others affected by this legislation. In the United States there are 
only 82 of those.
  Our leadership has done a magnificent job here. Let us keep the 
United States in the forefront of it. Let us reject this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 883 is not new legislation. The Congress first 
considered this idea in 1996, and then again in 1997. In both 
instances, the other body refused to consider this measure on the floor 
and the Administration indicated it would veto the measure if passed. 
Why? Because they don't have visions of blue helmets dancing through 
their heads.
  H.R. 883 is misguided because it is aimed at the symbols of a federal 
policy when, what the supporters of the legislation really oppose, is 
the underlying policy itself. While some of my colleagues and I might 
like to see us doing even more, this country has set as a national 
policy goal--the long-term preservation of our environmental resources. 
The commitment this Nation has made to this preservation/conservation/
restoration policy sometimes demands that certain activities which 
threaten these resources be prohibited, and/or tightly limited by us 
and no one else. The reality of the circumstance regarding these 
voluntary agreements is that no blue helmets will come parachuting 
behind national park lines in black helicopters to seize control of 
American lands all in the name of preservation or conservation. 
Besides, after today we may have made a statement as to a crack missile 
defense system to thwart any and all attempts to seize the sovereignty 
of our great Nation by those international agents of evil.
  Any and all land use the restrictions in place are functions of U.S. 
law, not an international treaty or protocol. Our participation in the 
World Heritage Convention, the Ramsar Convention and the Man and the 
Biosphere program is emblematic of this underlying policy and the 
symbolic value and importance the U.S. places on its natural resources, 
our natural legacy. The twenty sites we have nominated under the World 
Heritage Convention are listed because Congress chose to enact policy 
and law to protect them, and establish special land managers to 
regulate and enforce such law. To address a specific example that gave 
rise to this bill, the problem with the New World Mine was that it was, 
in fact, too close to Yellowstone National Park, not that it was too 
close to a World Heritage site. If we want to debate the basic 
principles of environmental protection, that's fine. But, we should not 
waste our time passing legislation that seeks to abolish the programs 
which grow out of these basic principles which have evolved over 200 
years of American land use ethic. Quite simply, this legislation turns 
logic on its head.
  Let's be clear--the goal of H.R. 883 is to abandon these programs, 
not simply to regulate them. To require an Act of Congress for each and 
every parcel of land to be considered, is to effectively stop all 
future nominations and designations.
  This legislation sends a signal around the world that our nation, the 
United States of America, which forged the policy path to institute the 
World Heritage Convention, is undercutting the values and benefits of 
international recognition for important cultural and environmental 
sites. At a time when the United States is thrust into a role as the 
dominant power and an essential role as a world leader in so many 
areas--why would we voluntarily abdicate perhaps the most important 
leadership position we occupy--that of a leader in the effort to make 
life on this planet sustainable. This would convey to the hundreds of 
nations part of the conservation treaties and protocol agreements, that 
domestic political considerations come first. If the U.S. cannot even 
permit recognition to be accorded, why should other nations?
  Why are we pursuing legislation that is misdirected and misguided and 
based solely on gross misinformation? Each agreement covered by this 
bill states on its face that it contains no provision that affects, in 
any way, the

[[Page 10282]]

authority or ability of a participating nation to control the lands 
within its border. These programs give the UN no more control over land 
in this country than the awarding of a gold medal gives the U.S. 
Olympic Committee control over an American athlete. To claim that these 
international programs somehow infringe on the sovereignty of this 
nation is simply factually inaccurate.
  Finally, the largest threat to this nation's sovereignty is not even 
addressed. Any foreign company or their subsidiary is still given full 
and free access for any and all of America's valuable natural 
resources. Each year we watch $1.8 billion worth of gold and silver 
stream out of our ports and into the coffers of foreign owned 
companies. What's worse, while we debate this phantom legislation, 
foreign nations are cashing in big-time, and laughing all the way to 
the bank with our resources. I will introduce an amendment to correct 
this situation and bring balance back to the management of our natural 
resources.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of takings, not of private property, 
but of the stripped international recognition and esteem the citizens 
of the United States, and the world place on some of America's most 
stunning and ecologically important natural resources. Teddy Roosevelt 
ushered in a new era of conservation and respect for the natural 
heritage of the United States at the beginning of the twentieth 
century. How ironic it is that nearly a century later this Nation may 
come full circle and, if this legislation passes, denounce the 
importance of those very parks and resources on which the heritage of 
this nation is based.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 883.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 883, and I 
thank the chairman and the committee staff for getting this bill done 
in such good form and to the floor so quickly.
  I am glad that I am speaking right after the gentleman from Minnesota 
because he made the statement that we all know this is about 
Yellowstone National Park, and I represent Wyoming which has the most 
of Yellowstone National Park, and he said that the U.N. is doing a good 
job by these designations, that the reason that Yellowstone was 
designated, because a mine was going to be developed north of 
Yellowstone that might affect the watershed.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues the rest of the story. For 2 
years an environmental impact statement had been going on, and 
professional scientists were not able in 2 years time to determine 
whether or not that developing that mine would put Yellowstone National 
Park in jeopardy.

                              {time}  1130

  They were working toward that, but they still had more work to do 
before they professionally could say that was true.
  In 3 days' time, the United Nations came in. Three days later they 
determined that this indeed was an area in jeopardy, and then it was 
designated an area in jeopardy. So if that is what the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento) thinks is a good job, I certainly would have to 
disagree with him.
  I do agree with him, however, on the fact that what this argument 
boils down to are these transboundary issues. As far back as 1818, the 
United States Supreme Court ruled in the United States v. Bevins that a 
State's right to control property within its borders was an essential 
part of its sovereignty, and I think that H.R. 883 is yet another 
affirmation of that principle. What was done when this designation was 
made around Yellowstone was it virtually built a buffer zone around 
Yellowstone.
  It is something the administration had been trying to do for a long 
time but they could not get it done legislatively, even though it is 
clearly legislative responsibility to designate public land use. So 
they went around the back door and had the U.N. committee in 3 days 
make that designation.
  This is a good bill. This is something that Americans have the right, 
the Congress has the right and the responsibility to make these 
designations, and all we are asking is that these designations be 
approved by the Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 883.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in total opposition to this bill because there 
is absolutely nothing out there that is broken that needs fixing. This 
addresses a problem that does not exist.
  Let me say I know something about this issue because I own land that 
is designated by this. I own an inholding in the University of 
California property in Big Sur, California. We are proud of this 
designation. One cannot get a designation unless the landowner, in this 
case it would be the Federal Government for National Parks or for 
Bureau of Land Management lands, or in our case a private owner, has to 
request the nomination. That is the only way it can come is from the 
owner of the land to say we would like to participate in the program.
  The program is essentially an international way of being able to have 
a common database about measurement of environmental factors, so that 
we can see whether there are like kind of factors around the world, 
there are like kinds of problems or are the problems that are 
developing in an area significant to that area.
  To go out and say that we should have congressional approval for 
these designations is so ludicrous. I mean, why do we not have 
congressional approval and oversight for accreditation of universities? 
That is not done by Congress, or by any government. Why do we not have 
the AAA, the guides that go around and say that one can sleep in these 
hotels and motels, we do not have any congressional oversight of that. 
We do not have any congressional oversight of TV Guide or the motion 
picture movie ratings. We do not have any oversight of the Good 
Housekeeping or Consumer Reports Magazine. We do not demand that we 
have to look at these things.
  Why? They are not a problem where one wants to involve congressional 
action in this thing.
  To say that we should have Congress telling our local communities and 
States that they cannot have their property so designated, I think, is 
totally wrong. It is a usurpation of local control.
  If the chairman would like to have Alaska properties and have Glacier 
National Park and have the Denali National Forest exempted, then he can 
do that for the State of Alaska, but for California we have community 
local water districts in Marin County; we have private lands in 
California; we have State parks in California. All of those requested 
to be part of this system because we want to be better informed, we 
want to be educated. We are not part of this flat earth society that is 
afraid of learning about something.
  So this bill would deny our ability to get that nomination because 
one would have to go through this incredible congressional process. We 
cannot even pass legislation here to keep the country running. How are 
we going to make decisions on whether somebody should be able to 
voluntarily be placed in an international information system?
  This is a ludicrous bill. Please defeat it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), who just spoke, who is a dear friend of mine, 
that the landowner in Yellowstone did not request that participation in 
the World Heritage Program. In fact, she opposed it and unfortunately 
she was not listened to.
  In our hearings in New York, we had people that came to the committee 
and said that, yes, the Federal Government was trying to implement 
Heritage sites in their districts and they adamantly opposed it. It is 
happening right today in Lake Champlain.
  So what I am just suggesting is as much as I admire the sincerity of 
the gentleman, I would like to have him look at some of the records.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this 
legislation.

[[Page 10283]]

  Mr. Chairman, Thomas Jefferson once said ``When all government, 
domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to 
Washington as the center of all power, it . . . will become as venal 
and oppressive as the government from which we separated.'' The current 
system for establishing international land reserves ignores Jefferson's 
warning by centralizing the power with the President and taking away 
the authority of Congress, the States and the average citizen.
  During the last 25 years, our nation's public lands have slowly been 
consumed by international land reserves. Most notably 47 United Nations 
Biosphere Reserves, 20 World Heritage Sites and 16 Ramsar Sites. These 
reserves were created with virtually no congressional oversight, no 
hearings, and in the case of biosphere reserves, no legislative 
authority. I don't know about you Mr. Chairman, but my ability to 
represent my constituents as a voting member of this body is important 
to me! We cannot allow this administration to take our vote away. I ask 
that you support the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, if that is the case then I 
would suggest within his authority as chairman of the Committee on 
Resources that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) may want to just 
limit this then to Federal properties and not to State and local 
properties or private properties.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I believe my bill does that. It does limit it 
just to Federal properties.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 
883. I do want to say to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr), that I know that there are many places that perhaps are honored 
to have these designations bestowed upon them. On the other hand, in my 
district, a designation was going to be thrust upon people without any 
local input and I think that is what this legislation is trying to 
clarify.
  I do want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for his 
strong leadership on this issue and, in fact, the leadership he shows 
on many private property rights issues, and the work that he has done 
on behalf of private property owners.
  I would also like to extend a similar thanks to the gentlewoman from 
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth), who chairs the Subcommittee on Forests and 
Forest Health, who has been a devoted champion of private property 
rights. She recently came to my district in southern Missouri to 
represent the Committee on Resources and to chair a hearing on the 
legislation we are talking about today.
  We heard from a lot of local people, farmers, county officials, 
ranchers, small businesspeople, property owners, those people who have 
the most at stake when international land designation issues arises.
  Let me just talk a little bit about what the gentlewoman from Idaho 
(Mrs. Chenoweth) and I learned during the recent field hearing in the 
Missouri Ozarks, but I am just going to take a second before that to 
talk about how I became involved in this issue.
  Back in 1996, as I was traveling across my district, in every single 
little town in the center of my district, which is part of the Mark 
Twain National Forest, in which there is tourism that really promotes 
the local economy and some timber sales everywhere, Ellington, Van 
Buren, Salem, to name a few, people were concerned about these 
designations and particularly about something called the Ozark Man and 
the Biosphere program that basically would take 15 Missouri and 
Arkansas counties and put them into a biosphere reserve.
  Let me say there was no local input involved whatsoever, and that my 
folks had to scrape and claw their way to find out anything about this. 
They were simply tipped off one day by a friend on the conservation 
commission. The amazing thing was, when they went to the agencies, the 
Department of Interior, specifically to ask about exactly what was 
happening, the Interior Department said, do not worry about this; it 
was going to be fine; we have talked to lots of local citizens around 
the district.
  Well, the fact of the matter is, every single county in my district 
that would be impacted by this had absolutely no public solicitation by 
the Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife, whomever was involved, 
whatsoever. Not one county commissioner was called, not one local 
citizens group, and it was not until we had enough cattlemen's 
associations, enough farm bureau associations and finally all of the 
county commissions writing their own resolutions that this was a bad 
idea that the designation was dropped and these 15 counties in Missouri 
and Arkansas were saved from having to have a biosphere reserve 
designation put on them because, quite frankly, my citizens were afraid 
that once the designation happened then the government would find more 
and more reasons to seize the contiguous property around, and that 
would be their private property.
  I think this really shows that we have a broken process and that 
experience makes the case for our bill today. All this bill would do 
would be to establish an appropriate process for biospheres and 
heritage area designations and ensure that local input and 
participation of Congress is involved. I do not think that is asking 
too much. I think it is very, very reasonable.
  I will say, back when the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) and 
I were in Missouri, we heard from 12 different panelists, one of whom 
was a county commissioner; one was the former chairman of the Missouri 
Conservation Commission; several private citizens, but Leon Kreisler, 
who was a cattleman, and a landowner in Salem, Missouri, said, and I 
quote, ``We feel strongly about property rights not because we share a 
common desire to abuse our natural resources but because landowners are 
often best suited to ensure productivity for our families and those of 
future generations. The Ozarks are a natural wonder and we intend to 
keep them that way, but national or international designations are not 
the answer.''
  Mr. Kreisler makes the point that I would like to reiterate, that our 
farmers and our ranchers are among the best conservationists anywhere 
because they depend on the land for their livelihood and they know that 
if they do not take care of the land then the land is not going to take 
care of them.
  We had also an owner from a sawmill in Potosi, Missouri. He spent 20 
years as an analyst for Price Waterhouse before buying the sawmill.
  Needless to say, Carl Barnes, the sawmill owner, talked about the 
threats from this coordinated resource management system and the 
threats that this would have upon outdoor recreation because they 
listed farming and mining as threats to outdoor recreation and our 
ecosystem health.
  The fact of the matter is we can do it all, and I think that we do it 
all responsibly. We simply need to have this program put in place so 
that local citizens who live in areas for proposed designations have 
input, that is all it is, and that Congress have input, too.
  I urge a yes vote on H.R. 883.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), a member of the Committee on 
Resources.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill would undo 
some of the most important progress that has been achieved toward 
protection of internationally important cultural, historical and 
environmental resources.
  What would enactment of this bill mean? Well, for starters, it would 
mean that the United States has decided to politicize the question of 
whether our country will continue to take part in the World Heritage 
Convention, the Man and the Biosphere Program, and the so-called Ramsar 
Convention regarding wetlands that have particular

[[Page 10284]]

importance as waterfowl habitat. That might not be objectionable if our 
participation in these international programs involved any trade-offs 
in terms of our ability to make decisions about the management of our 
lands or resources, but the fact is that nothing in these international 
agreements affects the ownership or the management of any lands or 
other resources.
  Similarly, I could understand the need for this legislation if, as 
some of its supporters claim, these international agreements have eaten 
away at the power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its 
constitutional power to make the laws that govern Federal lands, but 
here we are debating a bill that would be an exercise of exactly that 
constitutional power, and that constitutional power is fully intact 
today, fully intact with regard to each and every acre of Federal 
lands, including all the Federal lands that are covered by these 
international agreements.
  So what is the real point of this bill? As far as I can tell, it is 
primarily a means for supporters to take a shot at the United Nations 
and particularly UNESCO, and to demonstrate their solidarity with some 
who seem to view the U.N. as engaged in a vast multiwing conspiracy to 
overthrow our constitutional government. I do not think the U.N. is a 
threat to Congress' authority over Federal lands or to any other part 
of the Constitution. I do think this bill, if we take it seriously, is 
a threat to America's international leadership in environmental 
conservation and in the protection of historical and cultural 
resources.

                              {time}  1145

  So I think this bill is bad for our country, and I know it is bad for 
my home State of Colorado.
  I want to tell my colleagues about the two Biosphere Reserves that we 
have, areas that are part of the Man and the Biosphere Program. One is 
the Niwot Ridge Research area and the other is Rocky Mountain National 
Park. As it now stands, this bill would kick those areas out of the 
program unless Congress passes a new law to retain them.
  To get a better idea of what that would mean for Niwot Ridge, I 
contacted Professor Bowman, the Director of the University of 
Colorado's Mountain Research Station, and he explained to me that 
having Niwot Ridge in the Biosphere Reserve System, it provided a 
framework for international cooperation of many important research 
efforts, including working with the Biosphere Reserve in the Czech 
Republic to address air pollution problems, which is a matter of great 
importance not only to us, but to the Czechs. He told me that the 
biosphere program also had been helpful to people at Niwot Ridge as 
they worked with the Forest Service to develop a land management plan 
that would promote multiple use by minimizing the conflicts that we all 
grapple with here over recreation and scientific and other uses, which 
is again a matter of great importance to Colorado and all other public 
land States.
  I also talked to the National Park Service about Rocky Mountain 
National Park, which again is included as a biosphere reserve. They 
told me that it not only means that there are more research activities 
at the park, but that it meant a significant increase in park 
visitation, tourism, which not only provides important educational 
benefits but is an important part of our economy in Colorado. Kicking 
these areas out of the program would be bad for Colorado and something 
that I cannot support.
  Exempting the Colorado areas from the bill would be an improvement, 
but I do not think that alone would make the bill acceptable. We need 
to reject this bill, move away from the posturing and begin working on 
the real problems that face us on our public lands.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to support this bill, 
the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. I really want to thank 
the gentleman from Alaska for his efforts in this regard. He has been a 
champion of private property rights for many years, I have known him 
for 23 years, and I respect him greatly.
  I represent the east side of the State of Washington, one-fourth of 
the size of our State, and in that portion of the State of Washington 
there are wonderful open space lands that people inhabit who are very 
protective of their private property rights.
  The right to own property is a core principle on which our country 
was founded. Over the years, the Federal Government has established 
programs like the World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves, without 
the approval of Congress, Mr. Chairman, and that overrides the 
intentions of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers.
  Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress retains the power to, quote, 
``make all needful rules and regulations governing lands belonging to 
the United States.'' The lands designated under the World Heritage 
Sites and Biosphere Reserves have been so designated without the 
approval of Congress.
  So this bill restores the intentions of our Founding Fathers by 
requiring congressional approval for any nomination of property located 
in the United States for inclusion in the World Heritage list. It 
prohibits any Federal official from nominating U.S. property for 
designation as a biosphere reserve and prohibits any Federal official 
from designating any land in the U.S. for a special or restricted use 
under any international agreement unless the designation has been 
authorized by law.
  It simply says Congress is going to be involved in this, these 
approvals of the disposition of Federal lands. I think they are common 
sense changes here that restore the role of Congress in the process of 
changing designation of lands that are Federal lands, and it restores 
the intentions of our Founding Fathers, and I hope that my colleagues 
will support it.
  I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentlewoman 
from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) for their engagement and involvement in 
this.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the American Land Sovereignty 
Protection Act. This bill is unnecessary, it is unjustified. It 
addresses a phantom problem. It would seriously damage our country's 
continued participation in important international efforts to protect 
valuable land around the world. But worst of all, it caters to the 
suspicions and the conspiracy theories of extreme organizations and 
individuals, and it leads directly to scare tactics such as those used 
by the American Policy Center in attempts to alarm American citizens 
and frankly, to raise money under false pretenses, and this bill ought 
to be opposed and defeated.
  I would like to read from a letter from the American Policy Center 
which I will include for the Record at the end of my statement. This is 
a letter written by the American Policy Center, signed by Tom DeWeese, 
the president, urging citizens to send money in to pass this bill, H.R. 
883, to ``stop the U.N. land grab of American soil,'' a land grab, Mr. 
Chairman, that does not exist; urging citizens and this Congress to 
stop the U.N. from designating any more U.S. soil as World Heritage 
Sites or Biosphere Reserves. The U.N. does not make those designations, 
Mr. Chairman.
  It identifies a U.N. land grab of American soil; calls for the 
Congress to stop liberals from terminating the United Nations' 
influence on 51 million acres of U.S. park land. Mr. Chairman, the U.N. 
does not have influence over 51 million acres of United States national 
park land. It says that liberals know this bill will lead to the end of 
international treaties and agreements that give the U.N. control over 
development of American soil. There are no such international treaties 
and agreements, nor should there be, nor would this Congress vote for, 
nor would any President negotiate such international treaties. It is 
just bogus.

[[Page 10285]]

  The letter talks about radicals like Al Gore and Bruce Babbitt that 
enforce treaties in a way that give the U.N. authority over our land 
and our private property every day. Gore and Babbitt are not radicals 
and they are not doing any such thing. This letter talks about open 
warfare in coming weeks to pass this bill. Mr. DeWeese talks about 
meeting with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and saying that the 
American Policy Center will back him all the way in the battle to pass 
this bill.
  Of course, then Mr. DeWeese goes to the heart of the matter and asks 
for any contribution from $17 to $1,000 to help the American Policy 
Center in their efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not needed. We should oppose it. It is 
nothing but scare tactics from the right wing. We should vote ``no.''

                                       American Policy Center,

                                                      Herndon, VA.
       Dear Friend of APC: I have just come from an emergency 
     meeting on Capitol Hill, and I have important news for you.
       I was meeting with several national leaders to plan a 
     strategy to pass Congressman Don Young's ``American Land 
     Sovereignty Protection Act'' (H.R. 883).
       As I'm sure you remember, we were successful last year in 
     passing this bill in the House of Representatives to stop the 
     UN land grab of American Soil.
       But we were stopped cold in the U.S. Senate. We didn't even 
     get a hearing on the Senate version of the Bill. Because the 
     Senate did not act, we have to start all over again and pass 
     it again in the House, while we build strength in the Senate.
       We intend to win this time. We intend to pass the Bill in 
     both Houses of Congress and stop the UN from designating any 
     more U.S. soil as World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves.
       We believe Congressman Young has the votes to pass it again 
     in the House. In fact, he already has 158 co-sponsors, with 
     more joining each day. He also has the support of new House 
     Speaker Dennis Hastert.
       The problem, again, is in the Senate.
       Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado has again 
     agreed to introduce the ``American Land Sovereignty 
     Protection Act in the Senate. The Bill number is S. 510.
       But Senator Campbell has only been able to sign on six co-
     sponsors. Without more support, S. 510 will again die in the 
     Senate.
       You and I can't let that happen. Not again. You and I need 
     to storm the Senate. Here's how.
       First, I have enclosed a ``Legislative Petition'' to Senate 
     Majority Leader Trent Lott. He will be key in the fight to 
     build support in the Senate.
       Frankly, without his support there can be no floor vote on 
     S. 510.
       That's why it is urgent that you immediately sign and 
     return your ``Legislative Petition'' to me right away. You 
     and I must flood Lott's office with petitions to prove S. 510 
     has strong national support.
       So please sign you petition and return it to me 
     immediately.
       But you and I can't stop there.
       Senator Campbell needs more co-sponsors for the Bill. 
     Please call both of your states U.S. Senators and ask them to 
     co-sponsor S. 510. Simply call the Senate switchboard at 202-
     224-3121, and ask for your Senators by name.
       Just as important, however is that you contact you 
     Congressman to make sure he supports Congressman Young's 
     House version (H.R. 883). We must have a strong show in the 
     House as well. If not, all of our efforts in the Senate will 
     be in vain.
       So please, call your Congressman at 202-225-3121. Tell him 
     to support H.R. 883.
       It is vital that you do all you can--if we are going to 
     stop the UN's land grab of American soil. To win, you and I 
     will have to beat overwhelming odds.
       But don't despair. You and I can win this battle.
       Remember when the fight to stop the UN land grab started in 
     the 104th Congress?
       Democrats refused to even attend hearings. They laughed and 
     called Congressman Young's bill the ``black helicopter'' 
     bill. They called it ``preposterous,'' ``absurd'' and 
     ``crazy.'' The very idea that someone was challenging the UN 
     was laughable to them. They're not laughing now.
       The liberals know they must stop the bill. And they know 
     the Senate is their last chance. Liberals know this bill will 
     terminate United Nations' influence on 51 million acres of 
     U.S. national parklands.
       Liberals know this bill will gut the extremist United 
     Nations' environmental agenda and will lead to the end of 
     international treaties and agreements that give the UN 
     control over development of American soil.
       Liberals know this bill forces them to take a side. Do 
     liberals support your right to own and control your private 
     property or not?
       The bill exposes the left's property-grabbing agenda. It 
     weakens to United Nations' influence in the world. That's why 
     they know they must stop the American Land Sovereignty 
     Protection Act at all costs.
       So, right now, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, the 
     Nature Conservancy and all of their extremist environmental 
     buddies are charging up Capitol Hill, swarming over Senate 
     offices, using all of their power to keep this Bill from 
     gaining co-sponsors or a floor vote.
       They know we can pass this bill. Our position is strong.
       The whole purpose of the American Sovereignty Protection 
     Act is to restore the role of Congress where it should have 
     been all along--as the administrator with sovereign control 
     over public lands in the United States.
       That authority has been slowly eroded over the years by a 
     series of environmental treaties and agreements that subject 
     our public lands to the influences of UN officials and UN-
     dictated rules. And with the help of the Clinton 
     Administration.
       Those rules not only tell the United States what it must do 
     with public lands--but they also affect private property as 
     well.
       Just ask the owner of the gold mine that was located 
     outside Yellowstone National Park. He was on private land--
     his land. Now he's out of business. Why? Because the United 
     Nations said so.
       And these UN treaties, like the Biodiversity Treaty and the 
     World Heritage Sites are incredibly dangerous when radicals 
     like Vice President Al Gore and Interior Secretary Bruce 
     Babbitt hold power.
       They can enforce the treaties in a way that gives the UN 
     authority over our land and our private property. And they 
     are doing it every day.
       The House of Representatives recognized the danger and 
     passed Don Young's Bill in the 105th Congress. They know that 
     the threat is real, and we can pass the Bill in the House 
     again in the 106th Congress.
       But the real battle is now in the Senate.
       And I tell you with complete honesty--we will have to fight 
     like the Dickens to withstand the coming liberal firestorm. 
     The liberals will use everything in their arsenal to stop 
     this Bill. And the Senate is not a friendly place for 
     property owners.
       Get ready for open warfare. It's coming. In the next few 
     weeks.
       At our meeting today, I promised Congressman Young that APC 
     would back him all the way in the battle to pass the American 
     Land Sovereignty Protection Act. And I meant it. That 
     includes leading the fight in the Senate.
       Your enclosed ``Legislative Petition'' is my first step. 
     Please. It is urgent that you sign it and return it to me 
     today. We simply must build pressure on Trent Lott to support 
     the Bill. That's why it's also important that you begin 
     making phone calls to your Senators and Congressman to ask 
     them to co-sponsor and support the bills (H.R. 883 and S. 
     510).
       Over the coming weeks APC will get this message to hundreds 
     of thousands of Americans to build the pressure.
       You and I can pass this bill and cut the power of the UN!
       But to do it, I urgently need your financial support. Will 
     you help me keep up this fight to save America from the UN 
     land grab?
       I've been appearing on radio and television programs and 
     speaking before audiences across this nation to sound the 
     alarm on the UN land grab. The response is incredible. When 
     Americans know the truth--they do the right thing. But they 
     are not hearing most of this story from anyone but the 
     American Policy Center. But, through APC's effort, we are 
     truly awakening a slumbering giant.
       Will you help me stay in the fight by sending me your most 
     generous contribution of at least $17?
       Remember, the Sierra Club and their buddies have millions 
     of dollars in their war chest. I have only you. So if you can 
     send a larger donation of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, or even 
     $1,000, I will be able to counter the liberal barrage, word 
     for word.
       You know APC's record and what we can do when our action 
     alert system is firing on all cylinders. But it takes dollars 
     to fuel the engine. I need you now. There really is no more 
     important legislation before the U.S. Congress than the 
     American Land Sovereignty Protection Act.
       The bill truly is the whole ball game for our property 
     rights. Pass it--and the UN is less of a threat. That's why 
     the liberals hate it with a passion.
       Now is the time. This is the battle. Please help me win it.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Tom DeWeese,
                                                        President.
       P.S. You and I will not fight a more important battle in 
     1999 than this one to pass the American Land Sovereignty 
     Protection Act. It is crucial that I receive your signed 
     ``Legislative Petition'' right away. Equally important is 
     your financial support to keep APC in the battle. Without 
     you, I can do nothing. Please help. Thanks for all you do.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) has 15 
minutes remaining.

[[Page 10286]]


  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for 
yielding and for his work on this legislation. I do rise in support of 
it.
  I want to respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania as to what he 
indicated about this. I agree that there has been, and there always 
will be, overstatements about the dangers of potential actions that are 
taken, and in this case the dangers of the Biosphere Program. But the 
argument has been made that the United Nation's designation is 
important because it provides some international protections for these 
worldwide important sites. Well, if it provides some protections, then 
there is some implied authority, if not direct authority, that is 
yielded to that international body; otherwise, the designation would 
have no significance. If it has no significance, then why would anyone 
oppose this simple legislation.
  I have a habit in this Congress of trying to read legislation, and I 
took the time to read this bill that has been offered by the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), H.R. 883, and it says, ``Any designation as a 
Biosphere Reserve under the Man and Biosphere Program of UNESCO shall 
not be given any force or effect unless the Biosphere Reserve is 
specifically authorized by a law.''
  Now, the argument is made, well, why should Congress engage in this 
activity? Well, I voted on naming postal buildings; I voted on naming 
Federal buildings; we vote on postage stamps. So there is a lot of 
designations that we do in this Congress.
  I believe that private ownership of property is important. I believe 
that our National Heritage Sites, our parks are very important, and I 
think that Congress has a role, and when the constituents express a 
concern about a particular designation, that it is right and proper in 
this democracy for Congress to address it.
  The Ozark Highland Man and Biosphere Plan was advanced in northern 
Arkansas and southern Missouri without public input. It was withdrawn 
after property owners, timber producers and other residents in the 
region learned of and opposed the designation.
  I believe the Chairman's bill is reasonable. I believe it is 
appropriate. I believe it maintains the balance between executive 
action and legislative authority and certainly, when our constituents 
have a concern about these types of designations, that it is 
appropriate that we have congressional oversight and input into that 
process. So I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in vigorous opposition to H.R. 
883, which really ought to be titled the American Land Paranoia Act, 
because the principal purpose of this act is to sow paranoia among 
Americans who ought to take pride in our interest in protecting some of 
our national treasures. I will tell my colleagues that this is not a 
small matter.
  Some may think this is a small matter, we should not worry about it. 
I want to tell my colleagues a little story. I was up on the border of 
the State of Washington and Canada about three years ago, four years 
ago now; in fact it was in what used to be the district of the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). I was talking to a fellow 
who was a businessperson, a nice fellow, a pillar of the community. He 
lives about 10 miles from the Canadian border. We got in a nice little 
discussion at a county fair.
  He said, ``Jay, what are you going to do about those tanks the U.N. 
has up on those railroad cars just over the Canadian border?'' And I 
kind of chuckled. I said, ``Henry, what are you talking about?'' He 
said, ``Well, you know, those tanks that the U.N. has across the border 
that they are going to use to come in to establish this United Nations 
park in the North Cascades.''
  I laughed. Then I saw he was serious. He was serious. And the reason 
he was serious is that the advocates of things like this bill have 
convinced this gentleman and a lot of people in America that somehow 
the tanks with the blue helmets and the black helicopters are coming to 
take away their livelihood, and that is flat wrong. Flat wrong. This is 
no unconstitutional loss.
  Mr. Chairman, we sat in the hearings and I was engaged with the 
committee on hearings on this. People came forward and they sent to us 
this law professor or lawyer, I do not know if he is a professor, and 
he argued for 10 minutes passionately about how this violated the 
Constitution of America.
  Then I asked him a simple question. I said, ``How long has this been 
on the books?'' He said, ``Well, since the late 1960s.'' Then I asked 
him, ``Well, have you ever gone to court to ask for this to be ruled 
unconstitutional, the loss of sovereignty?'' He said, ``Well, no.'' The 
reason he has never done it is he knows darn well it is not 
unconstitutional.
  This is a bunch of flimflam where people are trying to foist these 
fears on the American people.
  The last point I want to make, the World Heritage Convention that is 
under attack here as some kind of socialist plot was introduced under 
the administration of Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon came up with this 
socialist plot, and it is something that has been effective to try to 
get international attention to help us in this country preserve what we 
believe are our national treasures.
  This is another sad step of my friends across the aisle, frankly, 
leaving that tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and even Richard Nixon. We 
ought to keep this thing on the books as it is and reject this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I am the newest member of the Committee 
on Resources, and I would like to commend my distinguished colleague 
from the great State of Alaska (Mr. Young) for his leadership in 
introducing this bill.
  Under Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution, quote, ``The 
Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules 
and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to 
the United States.''

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Chairman, the Constitution is clear. The United Nations, despite 
efforts by its supporters, is not a governing body superior in 
authority to this Congress.
  I know that comes as a shock to some of my colleagues in this place 
and certainly some of the supporters from whom I have heard, who 
believe that the United Nations has some superior claim to the 
sovereignty of the United States, particularly when it comes to 
determining what is the appropriate use of the land within our borders. 
It is, however, not, as I say, not a superior authority to this 
Congress.
  Yet, the U.N. is designating land within our country's borders for 
special protection without the consent of the House.
  There are 83 U.N. sites in America, Mr. Chairman. In my home State of 
Colorado there are five United Nations biosphere reserves. I can tell 
the Members, having served in the Colorado State legislature for many 
years, those sites were designated without the express consent of the 
State of Colorado and without the Congress of the United States.
  I have visited many of these areas. I agree they are incredible and 
breathtaking. I agree they are a treasure, but they are the property of 
the United States, and we must maintain absolute autonomy in our land 
management decisions.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill, and urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in opposition to this bill. I would just 
point out to my colleagues that the only power with regard to the 
disposition or the use of the lands that are within these designations 
are inherent in the laws

[[Page 10287]]

that Congress has passed and delegated to the Park Service, to the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, the BLM, the Forest Service, or other land 
managers to manage.
  In fact, this is a voluntary thing. All of these designations that 
are being discussed here, whether it is the Ramsar treaty or the Man 
and the Biosphere, which happens to be the program associated with the 
UNESCO program, or the World Heritage Convention and the sites that are 
identified, only some 15 sites in the United States, are all voluntary.
  The laws that govern these sites are the laws of the national and 
State governments, and the private property rights and laws are 
completely intact. They are not changed by these voluntary 
designations. In fact, when making the designations or the recognition 
of these sites on a global basis, one of the criteria is in fact that 
the laws and rules are in place that will accord the proper use of 
these lands. So that is one of the prerequisites.
  I would point out that the laws that affected the New World Mine were 
those that were being applied through the Park Service and the Forest 
Service in the State of Wyoming, in the State of Montana, and the other 
States within which Yellowstone lies.
  The point is that there is no impact. The impact here, of course, is 
one of cooperation and collaboration, building on the laws that we have 
and attempting to encourage other Nations to in fact emulate the 
stewardship, the conservation, and preservation efforts that we have 
made in terms of these important sites, because they are important as a 
natural heritage site or cultural site or because they are important 
for research or for water fall.
  So the only issue here is one where we could say that the Man and the 
Biosphere program has not directly been authorized by Congress, 
although we have appropriated money for it.
  We have many laws today where the authorization has expired or has 
not been made, where the Office of Management and Budget, because money 
is appropriated, the courts have ruled that in fact it has the force 
and effect of in fact Congress authorizing and lawfully permitting that 
type of designation, and we have done that for that program, clearly a 
case we made to bring up an authorization bill and deal with it in that 
manner.
  But that has not been the disposition of the committee. What they 
have chosen to do, of course, is because, in my judgment, they cannot 
attack the parks, they cannot attack some of the land uses which they 
have an issue with directly, they have turned around and wrapped 
themselves in this question of sovereignty, which there is no 
constitutional case here. There is no court case here that has been 
pursued that has been positive that would indicate the statements being 
made are accurate.
  They are not accurate. They have never been tested in court. I think 
they are inaccurate. They can test such issues in court and get answers 
back as to whether they are appropriate.
  In fact, this has been praised by many. I just picked up a statement 
here, a press release by Secretary of Interior Don Hodel, most 
recently, of course, who led the Christian Coalition, but before that 
he worked in the State of Washington and on Bonneville Power, and was 
our Secretary of Interior under then President Ronald Reagan.
  This letter was dated October 10, 1986, a press release in which he 
stated how enthusiastic and proud the Department was of the Statue of 
Liberty which was designated a World Heritage Site. So I think this 
just sort of indicates across the board how important this is. This is 
why all of the environmental groups and conservation groups oppose this 
legislation.
  I will offer an amendment in this process, Mr. Chairman, which will 
address some real concerns, and that is the commercial use by foreign 
entities of U.S. properties for mining, for grazing, for timber 
harvesting.
  If we are so concerned about the preservation and conservation of 
these areas, then maybe we should really be concerned about those what 
we call exploitive activities that go on on these lands by foreign 
powers, actual activities, rather than these phantom concerns that we 
have with tanks and other issues that may be in the minds of our 
constituents. But I am sure that my colleagues have made every effort 
to dispel these unwarranted fears, and have faced up to the issues of 
this misinformation campaign that has existed.
  I trust they would do that, Mr. Chairman; that they would face up to 
that type of issue and not let that type of misunderstanding and 
misinformation spread across the land such fear that would result in 
imprudent types of actions by this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to also recite Mr. Hodel, the past 
Secretary of the Interior.
  The last paragraph says, ``This legislation Chairman Young is 
sponsoring, H.R. 883, will bring welcome relief to property owners 
threatened by a United Nations bureaucracy that has grown out of 
control.'' I support H.R. 883 thoroughly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this 
legislation. I find it very difficult to understand the arguments of 
those who oppose it.
  What is wrong with Congress being in control? What is wrong with the 
people in our districts, if they agree or disagree, having a right to 
talk to their Congressman?
  Don Hodel also said, ``During the Reagan administration, these 
designations were honorary and benign in nature. However, like so many 
United Nations programs, this one has fallen subject to inappropriate 
mission creep. It has become a proxy for international attempts to 
override national sovereignty and control land use.''
  Why was America founded by Europeans and Asians? Because they wanted 
additional freedom, they wanted control, they wanted to be in charge, 
and they certainly do not want people from other countries, and 
designating is fine, but having other people to have a say about how 
land is used in our parks, in our public lands, makes no sense in this 
country.
  This is about sovereignty. This is about freedom. This is about 
America being in charge of Americans; having relations with other 
countries, but they should not have a say in America, and the American 
public should have Congress to go back to. That is all we are asking, 
for Congress to be the final word.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) for his outstanding leadership on this issue.
  I have come to the floor many times during my tenure in Congress to 
discuss this very important issue that H.R. 883 addresses, the 
constitutional duty that we have as Members of Congress to protect the 
sovereignty of our lands in every possible way.
  Yet, every time this matter is brought before the House, I hear many 
of my colleagues vigorously argue that this has nothing to do with our 
constitutional duty to preserve and protect our Nation's sovereignty.
  I have also heard arguments today from the floor that we should not 
be meddling in these kinds of things. I know as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health we even have to have a bill 
to move a boundary on a wilderness area a half a mile. We have to have 
a bill to name buildings.
  So what would the opposition to this bill have us do, just stay busy 
naming buildings and moving boundaries, or protect the sovereignty of 
this Nation? That is our first and foremost responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, another thing that I have heard from the opposition to 
this bill is that it does not involve private property. I can tell the 
Members, it

[[Page 10288]]

does involve private property when they seized control and took over 
the New World Mine, a patented mine. That was in fact private property.
  In fact, the American taxpayer had to pony up $68 million to pay off 
the Canadian leasehold interests for their loss in the property. The 
woman who owned the property, who had the patent on the mine, still 
stands empty-handed. This Congress must deal with that problem, too.
  Mr. Chairman, this very simple bill enacts three very basic 
requirements. Number one is it requires the Secretary of the Interior 
to require the approval of Congress for any nomination of property 
located in the United States for inclusion in the World Heritage list.
  Number two, the bill would prohibit Federal officials from nominating 
any land in the United States as a biosphere reserve unless Congress 
ratifies and enacts the Biosphere Reserve Treaty.
  Finally, H.R. 883 simply prohibits any Federal official from 
designating any land in the United States for a special or restricted 
use under any international agreement unless such designation is 
specifically approved by law.
  I might remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
while the World Heritage sites have been or the treaty was approved by 
the Democrat-led Senate during the Nixon administration, nevertheless, 
the biodiversity treaty has never been ratified by the United States 
Senate, never. Yet, there is enough land that has been set aside under 
designations of these two designations to fill up the entire State of 
Colorado.
  I think it is time we act. We have a responsibility to the American 
people to protect the sovereignty of our land.
  Mr. Chairman, these very simple provisions do not represent massive 
changes in policy, nor are they born out of paranoia. There is nothing 
that says anything about blue helmets or tanks. They are very important 
items that ensure our Federal officials properly allocate taxpayer 
resources, and that we as a Congress maintain the total governance of 
our lands required under Article IV, Section 3, of the United States 
Congress.
  This section, very succinctly, states that ``The Congress shall have 
the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations 
respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United 
States.'' It is very clear. It does not take a rocket scientist to 
interpret what the Constitution says, and neither does it take a court 
to interpret this provision for us to act. We do not need the court 
decisions for the Congress to act in a responsible way.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some who actually believe that the U.N. 
Biosphere and World Heritage designations, which encompass 68 percent 
of the land in our national parks, preserves, and monuments, and make 
up an area the size of Colorado, are benign and have the mere purpose 
of placing a plaque or a label that these areas can use to attract 
tourism.
  That is utter naivete. However, in the Committee on Resources we have 
heard testimony from citizens living in Alaska, Arkansas, Missouri, 
Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Wyoming that suggest otherwise. 
These individuals testified about how these designations affected their 
property value, their economic activity, and most candidly, their 
ability to play a role in the designation process. They were left out.
  Even the U.N.'s own documentation on these programs describes its 
proactive role on land policy. One such publication defining the 
purpose of biodiversity reserves call for extensive land policy 
initiatives such as ``strategies for biodiversity, conservation and 
sustainable use,'' and for action plans provided for under Article VI 
of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
  I am not going to trade our responsibility to manage our lands under 
this constitutional provision for Article VI of the Convention on 
Biological Diversity, and I do not think the American people want us to 
do that, either.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Chairman, to me this type of strategy involves a lot more than 
just a harmless plaque. Nevertheless, the question every Member of this 
body should be asking themselves today is not whether or not these 
designations do in fact intrude on our vested power to govern our 
lands, but whether we should even take that chance.
  Mr. Chairman, if World Heritage areas or Biodiversity Reserves really 
are harmless or benign, it should be Congress that makes that 
determination, not our unelected officials. I do not think that Article 
IV, section 3 of the Constitution advises that in governing our lands 
that we simply opt out of policies that may appear ineffectual. But 
instead, it expressly requires that we, the Congress, make all needful 
rules and regulations.
  I do not think, Mr. Chairman, the danger can be stated any clearer 
than it was before the Committee on Resources by the Honorable Jeane J. 
Kirkpatrick, highly respected U.N. Ambassador during the Reagan 
administration, when she stated, and I quote, ``The World Heritage and 
Man and Biosphere committees make decisions affecting the land and 
lives of Americans. Some of these decisions are made by representatives 
chosen by governments not based in democratic representation, certainly 
not the representation of Americans.''
  Ms. Kirkpatrick went on to say, ``What recourse does an American 
voter have when U.N. bureaucrats from Cuba or Iraq or Libya, all of 
which are parties to this treaty, have made a decision that unjustly 
damages his or her property rights that lie near a national park?''
  Mr. Chairman, the only relevant argument that the Clinton 
administration has made against this bill is that it would add 
unnecessary bureaucracy to the designation process. I do not believe 
that is the case. I think that this would simply clarify and straighten 
out a mess that we have found ourselves in in this administration.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that clearly the gentlewoman from 
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) is confused about the Biodiversity Treaty, which 
is not a part of this agreement. We are talking about Man and the 
Biosphere.
  I mean, we would obviously stipulate that the Biodiversity Treaty, 
the Rio Treaty, is something that the Senate has to consider. But 
apparently we were misplacing our words.
  I would suggest that the national protection and international 
protection of cultural and national heritage in Article VI, this 
particular program points out that, and I will quote from this, 
``Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of States of whose territory 
the cultural and natural heritage mentioned in Article I and II is 
situated, and without prejudice to the property right provided by 
national legislation, the State parties to this Convention recognized 
that such heritage constitutes a World Heritage for those whose 
protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to 
cooperate.''
  So the issue that we are dealing here with is not whether the 
countries are members of this, because we know that there are many 
nations who are members of these programs. In fact, with regards to the 
World Heritage Convention, 150 nations are members of that; with 
regards to Man and the Biosphere, it is 125 Nations; and with regards 
to the Ramsar Treaty, there are 92 Nations.
  As I had spoken earlier, nearly 2,000 sites, some 1,932 sites that I 
have and still growing, I suppose, and in the United States, we have 
some 82 of those sites where less than 5 percent of the sites are 
located in the United States, and it is based upon the existing land 
laws that the Committee on Resources, the administration, that U.S. law 
provides, whether through the national government, through the State 
governments, the property rights are intact.
  No one can raise one case where, for instance, the Statue of Liberty 
has been designated a World Heritage site. What have we lost? What has 
changed in terms of its administration? Tell me one instance where 
something has

[[Page 10289]]

changed that is due to the designation or the recognition that is 
accorded to these 82 sites, not one witness that appeared.
  The gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) raised the question that 
there was a witness from Minnesota. Well, unfortunately, I am from 
Minnesota. We do not have any sites in Minnesota. I would like to have 
some sites in Minnesota, and I hope someday that we do. But we do not 
have any in Minnesota. But I guess that witness from Minnesota knew 
something that I did not.
  But the fact is, and this is the sort of, I think, misunderstandings 
that this legislation is based on, not one of these sites has been 
brought to our attention where there has been any change in the land 
management that is due to these cooperative voluntary international 
agreements.
  While I have tried to portray this as not having a an impact, 
obviously our park laws, when I wrote and when our committee writes 
legislation on parks or on wilderness or on BLM or other types of land 
classifications, I mean what I say when we designate those sites that 
they ought to be protected, that there are transboundary issues that 
are affected. I meant what I said.
  But, unfortunately, I think what is unfolding here is an effort to 
try, through this American sovereignty claim, through criticism and 
fear of the U.N., to try to turn around and blame the U.N. and these 
programs, these international programs. We have everything at stake in 
terms of providing this type of leadership on a global basis, in terms 
of trying to encourage other nations on a voluntary basis, whether it 
be China, whether they be democratic governments or governments which 
we think are not democratic, to in fact pursue the preservation, the 
conservation of their resources on a voluntary basis. We have had 
spectacular success.
  This is a place, as I said, if it is a criticism of UNESCO in terms 
of Man and the Biosphere, in terms of research, this is an area that is 
working. This is one area that we should not be debating or disagreeing 
about in terms of research and gaining information and knowledge. That 
is the essence of what the Man and the Biosphere program has. It has 
nothing to do with the Biodiversity Treaty, as was indicated here, a 
misstatement I guess on the part of the proponents of this.
  The same is true of these World Heritage sites. They deliver tourism. 
Individuals, just like in a park pass, look at these World Heritage 
sites, some 506 sites, and they try to go to as many as they can. It 
encourages tourism in this Nation. We have but 20 of those sites. 
Obviously our parks are a great attraction and globally known and 
renowned for the wonderful features that characterize them.
  The Ramsar Treaty obviously is one. There may be other treaties that 
are affected. These are the three that have stuck out that we have 
discussed, but almost any other agreements that we come to on a 
voluntary international basis are struck down and put back before 
Congress. I think we know what the disposition of that is.
  Read the bill. I have read this bill and studied it carefully. It 
makes an almost insurmountable test in terms of any type of designation 
of the Man and the Biosphere programs. It goes 10 miles outside the 
boundary of any of these where there would be a Man and the Biosphere 
designation and demands that it have absolutely no economic effect.
  I would suggest that it would almost be impossible to pass the type 
of test that has been put in here. But I think it has been put in here 
for good reason; that is, my colleagues want to kill these programs. 
They want to cut the head off of the Man and the Biosphere program. 
They want to stop the World Heritage Convention. They want to stop the 
Ramsar Treaties, which are the basis, really, just the fragile basis of 
cooperation that we have on an international basis to provide some 
conservation and leadership.
  Frankly, in my view, we ought to be doing a lot more on an 
international basis, dealing with water quality, dealing with air 
quality, dealing with the way that landscapes are treated in terms of 
how we treat our forests and, indeed, that biodiversity issue treaty 
that was raised by my colleague.
  I certainly am a proponent of trying to work on a global basis to 
protect these resources and to rationally use them and to, in fact, 
provide for some policy path that would be reasonable with regards to 
preserving our environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure. It 
is a bad measure. It is misunderstood and unfortunately a bill the 
House should not consider at all. I urge defeat of this measure, H.R. 
883.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the Biosphere Reserve Program is 
operating without any congressional authority at all. Our 
constitutional system is designed to make our government responsible to 
the people; that is, the American citizens who are the ultimate 
sovereign authority in our system, a people who must satisfy the 
concerns of outsiders before they are no longer sovereign. That is why 
this is called the American Sovereignty Act.
  I respectfully request my colleagues to vote for this legislation, 
get us back in control under our Constitution. That is our role. That 
is our charge. Not to do so is neglecting our responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
                                                           Senate,


                                           State of Minnesota,

                                       St. Paul, MN, May 11, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Coburn,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Coburn: As Chairman of the Minnesota 
     Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Environment, I 
     commend your efforts to defund the Man and Biosphere Program 
     (MAB). Since one of the major opponents of your efforts is 
     Congressman Bruce Vento of Minnesota, who represents a 
     compact urban district with little undeveloped land, I would 
     like to tell you about the painful experience northern 
     Minnesota had with the MAB program in the past.
       During the mid-1980's the National Park Service proposed a 
     massive Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve that 
     included lands in my Senate district which were included 
     without notifying me or any other local elected officials. In 
     1984 the state-sponsored Citizen's Committee on Voyageurs 
     National Park took up this issue after a casual comment from 
     the then Voyageurs National Park Superintendent Russell Berry 
     that our area had been nominated as a biosphere reserve. At a 
     public meeting of that committee on December 1, 1984 in 
     Minneapolis after the nomination was made, Mr. Berry, 
     partially explained one reason for the biosphere reserve by 
     stating ``I'd like to be in as strong a position as possible 
     to influence activities outside the boundaries that would 
     adversely affect the Park in the context of things that would 
     be detrimental to the ecosystem within the Park.''
       Because the park is surrounded by thousands of acres of 
     private property, Mr. Berry intended to use the biosphere as 
     a means to implement land use controls on private property. 
     Since my constituents did not want their constitutionally-
     guaranteed private property rights further threatened, they 
     strongly opposed this proposal. Consequently, in 1987 the 
     Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve nomination was 
     withdrawn by National Park Service Director William Penn 
     Mott.
       Until the MAB program is authorized by Congress and 
     statutory protections for private property are guaranteed, I 
     will support all efforts to defund this program. Without 
     these protections, unelected federal bureaucrats will again 
     use biosphere reserves as a means of implementing federal 
     land use controls on private property.
       Since Mr. Vento's district is 300 miles away from the ill-
     fated Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve proposal, I 
     would encourage you to listen to those who represent people 
     who live and work in the affected area rather than those who 
     recreate in the area on weekends.
       Thanks again for your efforts in defense of local control 
     and private property.
           Sincerely,
     Senator Bob Lessard.
                                  ____



                                               Chesapeake, VA,

                                                     May 18, 1999.
     Congressman Richard Pombo,
     United States Capitol Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Pombo: Thank you for asking for my comments on the 
     process of UNESCO designation of World Heritage Sites.
       During the Reagan Administration, these designations were 
     honorary and benign in

[[Page 10290]]

     nature. However, like so many United Nations programs, this 
     one has fallen subject to inappropriate mission creep. It has 
     become a proxy for international attempts to override 
     national sovereignty and control land use.
       The current Administration has submitted a thirteen year 
     old press release to invoke my name in support of the World 
     Heritage Site proposals. This is unfortunate political game-
     playing and deceptive in that it does not represent my 
     position. Favorable statements made about an honorary and 
     benign program more than a decade ago are patently not 
     applicable to that program as it is now being utilized.
       The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, as I 
     understand it, will require congressional approval of United 
     Nations World Heritage Site proposals. I believe that this is 
     a necessary and reasonable safeguard for American citizens 
     against overreaching, unelected, unaccountable domestic and 
     international bureaucracies.
       This legislation Chairman Young is sponsoring, H.R. 883, 
     will bring welcome relief to property owners threatened by a 
     United Nations bureaucracy that has grown out of control.
           Sincerely,
     Donald Paul Hodel.
                                  ____



                                                 Stockton, CA,

                                                     May 13, 1999.
     Hon. Richard Pombo,
     Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Pombo: Thank you for contacting me 
     regarding the House Committee on Resources' March 18 hearing 
     on the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, H.R. 883.
       As you know, before President Ronald Reagan appointed me 
     Assistant Secretary for Fish, and Wildlife and Parks, 
     Department of the Interior, I served Governor Ronald Reagan 
     as the Director of California's Department of Fish and Game. 
     I am especially proud of the environmental agenda we were 
     able to implement, and the success we had with programs that 
     encourage ranchers, farmers and other private landowners to 
     maintain, develop and enhance wildlife habitat on privately 
     owned land. Those benefits continue to this day, and they 
     serve as excellent examples of public benefits that flow from 
     private land ownership without government intervention or 
     funding.
       Before coming to Washington, D.C. in 1980 to serve 
     President Reagan, I gave 20 years of volunteer service on the 
     board of directors of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), 
     including two terms as the Foundation's president-elect 
     (1976-78).
       Before my career and commitment to wildlife resources and 
     the environment, I defended America's freedoms, including the 
     right to own private property, when serving 4\1/2\ years with 
     the U.S. Marine Corps during WWII, and another three years 
     during the Korean Conflict.
       At the March 18 hearing of the House Committee on 
     Resources, I understand that the U.S. Department of the 
     interior witness entered into the official record a 17-year 
     old letter I signed while serving the Reagan Administration 
     as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. I 
     recently reviewed the letter in question, and you should know 
     that it merely dealt with the technical issue of creating a 
     standardized form for recording information on World Heritage 
     Sites. The letter must not be interpreted as anything other 
     than that.
       The record of the Reagan Administration and the current 
     Clinton Administration regarding UNESCO's World Heritage, and 
     Man and the Biosphere programs are starkly different. Under 
     the Reagan Administration, these designations were indeed 
     voluntary, non-regulatory, and honorary. This is in sharp 
     contrast with the current Administration that invited the 
     World Heritage Committee to Yellowstone National Park to 
     condemn private property located outside of the Park! The 
     World Heritage Committee delegation present was comprised 
     largely of non-elected bureaucrats from Third World 
     countries. Such an action by the World Heritage Committee 
     clearly runs roughshod over America's sovereignty.
       H.R. 883 is sorely needed to require Congress to oversee 
     non-elected bureaucrats, in both the United States and the 
     United Nations, from threatening our nation's sovereignty and 
     private property rights of American citizens. Former United 
     States Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane J. 
     Kirkpatrick, stated this best in a May 5, 1999, letter she 
     sent to the House Committee on Resources on this issue. she 
     wrote, inter alia: ``In U.N. organizations, there is no 
     accountability. U.N. bureaucrats are far removed from the 
     American voters. Many of the State Parties in the World 
     Heritage Treaty are not democracies. Some come from countries 
     that do not allow the ownership of private property. The 
     World Heritage, and Man and Biosphere Reserve committees make 
     decisions affecting the land and lives of Americans. Some of 
     these decisions are made by representatives chosen by 
     governments not based on democratic representation, certainly 
     not the representation of Americans. What recourse does an 
     American voter have when U.N. bureaucrats from Cuba or Iraq 
     or Libya (all of which are parties to this Treaty) have made 
     a decision that unjustly damages his or her property rights 
     that lie near a national park? When the World Heritage 
     Committee's meddling has needlessly encumbered a private 
     United States citizen's land and caused his or her property 
     values to fall, that citizen's appeals to these committees 
     (if that is possible) will fall on deaf ears.''
       I strongly support H.R. 883 and urge its passage. I believe 
     H.R. 883 is desperately needed, and I know that it is in the 
     best interest of our nation and her citizens to require our 
     elected representatives in the United States Congress to 
     properly oversee the actions of non-elected bureaucrats 
     within the United States and the United Nations.
           Sincerely,

                                                G. Ray Arnett,

                                        Former Assistant Secretary
     for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
                                  ____



                                                  Clark Ranch,

                                     Paso Robles, CA, 14 May 1999.
     Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
     Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Pombo: I greatly appreciate you informing 
     me about the May 12, 1999 letter from Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary of the Interior Stephen Saunders to House Resources 
     Committee Chairman Don Young regarding H.R. 883, the American 
     Land Sovereignty Protection Act.
       The Saunders letter cited a letter I signed 15 years ago as 
     Secretary of the Interior regarding the U.S.'s continued 
     participation in the World Heritage Convention at a time when 
     our nation decided to withdraw from the United States 
     Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 
     My letter is characterized by Mr. Saunders as showing ``a 
     strong bipartisan consensus that U.S. involvement with the 
     World Heritage Convention and other international 
     conservation conventions at issue in H.R. 883 pose absolutely 
     no threat to U.S. sovereignty.''
       That was true fifteen years ago. It is no longer the case 
     today.
       When I was Secretary of Interior for President Ronald 
     Reagan, World Heritage sites were merely honorary 
     designations. They did not threaten private property rights 
     or national sovereignty. They were designed to recognize 
     outstanding natural and cultural resources in America without 
     creating new layers of regulation on private landowners and 
     rural communities.
       Unfortunately, this program has been used in some cases by 
     the current administration to threaten private property 
     owners and national sovereignty. For example, in its efforts 
     to stop a proposed mine on private property outside 
     Yellowstone National Park, the current administration in 1995 
     invited the World Heritage Committee to the park to evaluate 
     alleged environmental threats caused by the proposed mine. 
     This visit by unelected United Nations bureaucrats created a 
     circus-type atmosphere whereby the World Heritage Committee 
     made the owners of that private property a pariah in the 
     international community. Partially as a result of this visit 
     and a formal declaration later against the proposed mine by 
     the World Heritage committee, the mine was never developed.
       I also understand that some in the current administration 
     are attempting to use our membership in the World Heritage 
     Committee to help stop a proposed mine in Australia that is 
     strongly supported by the duly elected government of that 
     country. Such an effort against a sovereign nation would have 
     been unthinkable under the Reagan Administration which 
     honored the sovereignty of democratically elected 
     governments.
       My review of H.R. 883 shows it merely provides 
     congressional oversight of the World Heritage Program to 
     prevent an international agency from threatening private 
     property rights and national sovereignty as it did in 
     Yellowstone and is attempting to do in Australia. This 
     legislation will provide the type of adult supervision from 
     elected officials that every domestic and international 
     bureaucracy needs.
       I appreciate you alerting me that my 15 year old letter is 
     regrettably being used for political purposes in Washington, 
     D.C.
           Sincerely,
     William P. Clark.
                                  ____

                                              Pulp & Paperworkers'


                                             Resource Council.

       Dear Representative: The Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource 
     Council (PPRC) strongly urges you to support H.R. 883, the 
     American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, which soon will be 
     voted on by the full House. This bill provides for 
     Congressional oversight of United Nations Biosphere Reserves 
     and World Heritage Sites in the United States. The biosphere 
     program is not even authorized by Congress, nor is the 
     program part of an international treaty.
       PPRC is a ``Grassroots'' organization representing more 
     than 300,000 Pulp and Paper Workers and some 900,000 Wood 
     Products Industry Workers. Many of our members are unionized 
     workers and we have members in virtually every state of the 
     union. We support natural resource policies that allow our 
     mills to thrive and keep our members and their families 
     employed in well-paying union jobs.
       PPRC is very concerned how America's sovereignty over its 
     natural resources is increasingly threatened by international

[[Page 10291]]

     agreements and unelected bureaucrats at international 
     organizations which often are dominated by Third World 
     nations that have poor records in protecting their own 
     natural resources. This was painfully evident when several 
     PPRC officers participated in the World Commission on 
     Forestry and Sustainable Development conferences.
       United Nations Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site 
     designations, administered by the United Nations Educational, 
     Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), are nominated 
     through a secretive process that excludes local governments, 
     union workers, private landowners and other average citizens. 
     Only high-ranking unelected officials at the State 
     Department, other federal agencies, UNESCO and national 
     environmental advocacy groups are involved in this nomination 
     process.
       Our Members, from diverse states such as New York, 
     Arkansas, Kentucky and Minnesota have fought hard to get a 
     seat at the table when biosphere reserves were proposed in 
     their areas. In all cases, officials from federal agencies 
     ardently worked to keep them out. H.R. 883 would open up this 
     process by requiring that all existing biosphere reserves in 
     the United States be authorized by an Act of Congress by 2002 
     or they would cease to exist. This would empower average 
     citizens to become involved in these designations.
       At House Resource Committee hearings in Tannersville, NY, 
     Washington, D.C. and Rolla, MO, PPRC testified in strong 
     support of this legislation. It embodies a basic principle of 
     open government that citizens and communities have a right to 
     know about decisions affecting them before they are made.
       Again, the Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource Council strongly 
     supports H.R. 883.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Don Wesson,
     PPRC National Secretary.
                                  ____

                                                      May 5, 1999.
     Hon. Bruce F. Vento,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Vento Thank you for your letters of March 24th and 
     April 28th regarding my testimony before the House Resources 
     Committee on the March 18th hearing of the American land 
     Sovereignty Protection Act, H.R. 883. In my opinion the 
     important issue here is protection of Americans' rights of 
     democratic process. I sought to emphasize the dangers I see 
     in Congress's waiving of its role and responsibilities over 
     matters which fundamentally affect citizens of the United 
     States and ceding that role and its associated powers to a 
     global organization in which affected Americans have no 
     representation.
       As I understand it, the proposed Act does nothing more than 
     affirm Congressional role in the management of our public 
     lands, a role mandated to it by the Constitution under 
     Article IV, Section 3, which states: ``The Congress shall 
     have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and 
     Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property 
     belonging to the United States.'' I believe that is a clearly 
     worded duty which Congress is bound by the Constitution to 
     uphold.
       Your letter raises several questions concerning my 
     testimony, each of which I have addressed below.
       I. Please explain the simultaneous decision to continue our 
     active participation in the World Heritage Convention and the 
     U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program [after your support for 
     the successful U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO], both of which 
     are coordinated at the international level by UNESCO.
       The United States' Permanent Representative to the United 
     Nations oversees U.S. participation in many United Nations' 
     programs and organizations, including aspects of U.S. 
     participation in UNESCO. The World Heritage and Man and the 
     Biosphere programs, however, were not among them when I held 
     that job.
       As you know, the Department of the Interior has primary 
     responsibility for the World Heritage and the Biosphere 
     programs. The Department of the Interior, along with a 
     federal interagency panel controls all aspects of these 
     programs. No member of Congress is included on this panel. 
     Neither was a United States' U.N. Ambassador when I held that 
     position. The Code of Federal Regulations July 21, 1980 
     public notice of proposed U.S. World Heritage Nominations or 
     1981 states U.S. law at the time I was our UN Ambassador: 
     ``In the United States, the Secretary of the Interior is 
     charged with implementing the provisions of the Convention, 
     including preparation of U.S. nominations. Recommendations on 
     the proposed nominations are made to the Secretary by an 
     interagency panel including members from the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the 
     Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, the National 
     Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 
     the Department of the Interior; the President's Council on 
     Environmental Quality; the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation, and the Department of State.''\1\ (Emphasis 
     added). I was never included on the panel as the Department 
     of State Representative. I was never invited to participate 
     in any decisions concerning these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ ``Proposed U.S. World Heritage Nominations for 1981, 
     Public Notice,'' 45 FR 48717, July 21, 1980. You will find 
     the same language in each annual notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       I raised the issue of the U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO to 
     make a point: the UNESCO of the 1980's demonstrates quite 
     well both an example of an incompetent and corrupt 
     international organization and the nearly insurmountable 
     obstacles of trying to reform it and hold it accountable. 
     During my tenure as U.S. Ambassador, I sought to limit the 
     proliferation and scope of U.N. based on international 
     organizations which were accountable to no responsible, 
     democratically elected government. This discussion serves to 
     reinforce the point I was trying to make during my testimony, 
     namely that Congress should take an active role in the 
     oversight of programs which impact private citizens in this 
     country.
       II. [A]s you know, 7 of the 20 World Heritage Sites in the 
     United States were listed as such during your tenure as our 
     Ambassador to the U.N. In your capacity as U.N. Ambassador, 
     did you oppose these nominations based on the fact that 
     Congress had not specifically authorized these listings? At 
     any point in your tenure, did you attempt to have any 
     existing designations withdrawn on the same basis?
       I refer you to my answer above. The Department of the 
     Interior is charged with implementing the provisions of this 
     program, not the United States' UN Representative's office. I 
     had no role and I was not aware of the details of these 
     programs. Now, however, that this issue has ripened, I 
     believe it is time to restore Congress' proper role in this 
     matter.
       III. ``Your prepared testimony . . . includes the 
     statement, `International Committees--whatever the substance 
     of their decisions--do not represent the American people and 
     cannot be held accountable by them,' (emphasis added). Is it 
     accurate to conclude from this statement that you believe 
     specific Congressional authorization should be required for 
     U.S. participation in any program which involves an 
     `international committee?' ''
       Obviously, these committees do not represent the American 
     people. That is not their function. I want to be absolutely 
     clear on this point. Only our representatives on those 
     committees represent Americans. Obviously, the Cuban or 
     Libyan delegates to these committees do not represent the 
     American people and, in fact, often oppose American 
     interests, regardless of the issue. Neither do the New 
     Zealand--to take a country at random--or Brazil. The United 
     States' Congress, on the other hand, is elected and does, in 
     fact, represent the American people. U.N. based committees, 
     unlike Congress, are not accountable to the American people 
     because they have not been elected by or chosen in any way by 
     the American people. They do not represent and are not 
     concerned with U.S. national interests nor the interests of 
     U.S. citizens.
       In this democracy, the citizens grant powers to our elected 
     leaders through our votes from the local and state levels up 
     to the Congress and the Presidency. We give them the power to 
     declare our lands national parks and the right to enact the 
     laws that restrict our use of our properties. We give our 
     duly elected leaders the authority to select the judges who 
     will interpret those laws. Our elected leaders, in turn, 
     respond to our wishes because, just as we have granted them 
     power, so may we take it from them in the next election. 
     Representation and accountability are the foundation of the 
     freedoms we cherish. Having fought and won elections 
     yourself, you know this principle well.
       In U.N. organizations, there is no accountability. UN 
     bureaucrats are far removed from the American voters. Many of 
     the States Parties in the World Heritage Treaty are not 
     democracies. Some come from countries that do not allow the 
     ownership of private property. The World Heritage and Man and 
     the Biosphere committees make decisions affecting the land 
     and lives of Americans. Some of these decisions are made by 
     representatives chosen by governments not based on democratic 
     representation, certainly not on the representation of 
     Americans. What recourse does an American voter have when UN 
     bureaucrats from Cuba or Iraq or Libya (all of which are 
     parties to this Treaty) have made a decision that unjustly 
     damages his or her property rights that lie near a national 
     park? When the World Heritage committee's meddling has 
     needlessly encumbered a private United States citizen's land 
     and caused his or her property values to fall, that citizen's 
     appeals to these committees (if that is even possible) will 
     fall on deaf ears.
       As for your question ``Is it accurate to conclude from this 
     statement that you believe specific Congressional 
     authorization should be required for U.S. participation in 
     any program which involves an `international committee?,' '' 
     my answer is, in any U.N. based committee which makes 
     decisions that importantly affect American citizens. Speaking 
     to the issue at hand, which is the requirement of 
     congressional authorization of World Heritage and Biosphere 
     site designations, I definitely believe congressional 
     authorization should be required. Congressional role should 
     be protected, I believe, should be required, in any process, 
     any time the Constitution specifically places a duty on 
     Congress to act. The question presented here is

[[Page 10292]]

     specific. The Constitution mandates congressional 
     responsibility over public land management. The World 
     Heritage and Biosphere programs directly impact the 
     management of public and private lands in the United States. 
     Congress should be involved.
       The Constitution grants and requires Congress' broad 
     control over the management of the public lands. The 
     Executive branch, through the Department of the Interior and 
     in conjunction with the World Heritage and Man and the 
     Biosphere programs (the ``international committees'' created 
     by this Convention) should not be allowed to exercise 
     Congress' constitutional authority.
       IV. ``Should Congressional authorization be required for 
     any international agreements/contracts which allow use of our 
     national resources and public lands, such as mining or timber 
     harvesting? If it is the case that your support for requiring 
     Congressional authorization is limited only to those areas 
     included in H.R. 883, please explain the specific 
     characteristics of `international committees' dealing with 
     conservation which makes them particularly threatening?''
       First of all, as you know, any U.N. based agreements or 
     contracts which allow use of our natural resources and public 
     lands require various forms of authorization from our elected 
     officials. In this particular case, the authorization must 
     come from Congress. The Convention itself requires that ``the 
     inclusion of a property in the World Heritage List requires 
     the consent of the State governed.'' [Article II, Section 3] 
     The State in question is the United States and its consent 
     requires the consent of the people through their duly elected 
     representatives in accordance with the Constitution. That 
     means Congress, the body delegated the authority over land 
     management by the Constitution. The ``American Land 
     Sovereignty Protection Act'' is consistent with both U.S. and 
     international law.
       In the second part of your question, you ask what are the 
     specific characteristics of ``international committees'' 
     dealing with conservation which makes them particularly 
     threatening?'' My answer is, those communities which affect 
     substantial interests of U.S. citizens. If American citizens 
     have an interest in the conservation of a particular area, 
     that decision should be made by Congress, the body delegated 
     responsibility by the Constitution for making these decisions 
     in full view of the American public. And if each decision 
     requires consideration of costs and benefits to the property 
     rights of individual voters affected, so be it. UNESCO 
     committees are not competent to address the complex private 
     property and public interest issues presented here. They have 
     no interest in how their actions affect private U.S. 
     citizens. I believe Congress should not abdicate its 
     responsibilities for land management to international groups 
     whose members have no concern for protecting individual 
     property rights and American interests.
           Sincerely,
                                             Jeane J. Kirkpatrick.

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 883, The American 
Land Sovereignty Protection Act. We must preserve and protect our 
nation's private property rights for our citizens and for our country.
  The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act will require 
Congressional approval before nominating U.S. property as U.N. land 
designations for inclusion on the World Heritage List. This legislature 
will also prohibit U.S. property from being nominated as a Biosphere 
Reserve and it will terminate existing Biosphere Reserves if they do 
not meet the proper conditions. Under H.R. 883, Congress will be re-
established as the ultimate decision-maker in managing public lands and 
maintain sovereign control of U.S. soil, not the United Nations. We 
must pass this legislation and halt designations made without 
consulting Congress or landowners.
  Mr. Chairman, the United Nations has identified 92 sites in 31 states 
and the District of Columbia for acquisition. The fact is, property 
owners and local governments are routinely shut out of the process and 
have little recourse if their land is claimed by the U.N. or other 
international agencies. We must put an end to this uncalled-for seizure 
of our nation's land and restore control to landowners and local 
officials.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 883 and continue 
to protect our nation's soil. We must never allow foreign nations or 
international organizations to bully American landowners.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. I and 182 of my colleagues 
who co-sponsored this bill believe that it is not only common sense, 
but also Congress' Constitutional duty, to protect the sovereignty of 
America's people and her land.
  As you have heard, UN Land Designations, World Heritage Sites and 
Biosphere Reserves, take place without the approval of Congress and 
with little or no Congressional oversight; consequently, the citizens 
of the United States are excluded from the process. These decisions 
infringe upon State sovereignty, individual rights of United States 
citizens, and private interests in real property.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the beautiful forests, monuments, 
national parks and other lovely places in the U.S. as anyone and am 
thrilled that others outside the U.S. see the beauty in them as well. 
However, I feel very passionately that if the United Nations decides to 
designate the Uwharrie Forest--in the 8th District of North Carolina--
as a World Heritage Site, that the people of my district should have 
the opportunity to address how this designation might affect them. 
Receiving this designation would mean that United States agrees to 
manage the Uwharrie Forest in accordance with an underlying 
international agreement which may have implications on private property 
outside the forest. At best, a World Heritage Site or Biosphere Reserve 
designation gives the international community an open invitation to 
interfere in how the Uwharrie, and land surrounding it, are used.
  The voters of my district might decide it would be in their best 
interest to accept the UN designation. If that were the case, I would 
gladly honor the will of my constituents. However, it is their 
community, their lands and their livelihoods being affected, they have 
the right, and should have the opportunity, to have a say.
  The Uwharrie Forest is just one example of a beautiful site in my 
district. I know each of you can think of several beautiful places in 
your own districts that would be prime for a UN World Heritage Site 
designation.
  I urge you to give your constituents the chance to be involved in 
decisions that affect them, their private property rights and our 
sovereignty as a nation. I urge you to vote in favor of the Land 
Sovereignty Protection Act.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, when I was sworn into office, I 
took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Each of us has taken that 
same oath, and I rise to remind us of our oath of office and reflect on 
the words of the Constitution. Article IV, section 2 of the U.S. 
Constitution states, ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of 
and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or 
other property belonging to the United States.''
  Clearly, the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Congress and only the 
U.S. Congress the authority to make all rules and regulations over 
Federal lands.
  This authority is not given to the President, it is not given to the 
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. No one in the State Department 
or the Department of the Interior is given this authority. The 
Constitution does not give this authority to the United Nations, UNESCO 
or any other body. The authority to establish rules and regulations 
over Federal lands is reserved to the U.S. Congress and only the U.S. 
Congress.
  What does H.R. 883, this bill, require the Government to follow? The 
U.S. Constitution. The bill requires the specific approval of Congress 
before any area within the United States is subject to an international 
land use nomination, classification, or designation. Is this so 
offensive?
  H.R. 883 requires the consent of Congress before the Secretary of the 
Interior may nominate any property in the United States for inclusion 
in the World Heritage list. I believe this is certainly consistent with 
Article IV, section 2.
  H.R. 883 specifically prohibits Federal officials from nominating any 
land in the United States for designation as a biosphere reserve. Such 
designations are left to Congress to determine.
  The bill requires the Congress to reconsider for designation as a 
biosphere reserve those sites that have already been designated as 
biosphere reserves by previous administrations. It restores to Congress 
the authority to choose to redesignate or not redesignate these sites. 
This is a process that should have been in place all along.
  H.R. 883 prohibits Federal officials from designating any land in the 
United States for a special or restricted use under any international 
agreement unless such designation is specifically approved by law.
  I call on all of my colleagues to uphold the U.S. Constitution and 
the constitutional authority of this body. A vote for H.R. 883 is a 
vote to preserve the authority of this body. A vote against H.R. 883 is 
a vote that quite frankly, in my opinion, is inconsistent with Article 
IV, section 2, and the oath that we have taken.
  ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all 
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other 
property belonging to the United States.''
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is critical for the 
United States to ensure that our lands are not subject to special 
international restrictions without careful consideration of the 
implications before a designation is made.

[[Page 10293]]

  The increasing interdependence of the world's economic stability, 
environmental quality, and peace and human development are often 
dependent on international cooperation, but this cannot preempt the 
United States from meeting our obligations to our own citizens.
  This legislation restricts Federal officials from designating lands 
under the World Heritage List of the United Nations without the express 
consent of Congress.
  Furthermore, it amends the National Historic Preservation Act to 
restrict United States' lands from being designated as a Biosphere 
Reserve.
  It gives Congress the necessary authority to approve all land 
designations and change any existing designations. These measures are 
key elements to ensuring that America remains in full control of 
American land.
  It is critical for the United States to ensure that our lands are not 
subject to special international restrictions without careful 
consideration of the implications before a designation is made.
  There is no denying that our world is becoming increasingly 
interdependent.
  Economic stability, environmental quality, and peace and human 
development are often depending on international cooperation.
  This interdependence, however, cannot preempt the United States from 
meeting our obligations to our own citizens.
  I cannot support policies that place limitations on our ability to 
manage our own affairs.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 883.
  This bill asserts that Congress under the U.S. Constitution has the 
power over federal lands. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act 
would give Congress the authority to review, not attack, existing 
Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site designations, in order to 
decide if such designations are necessary.
  I find it troubling that initiatives such as the United Nations 
Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage Sites and Ramsar Sites have been 
designated with virtually no Congressional supervision. Also, I find it 
disconcerting that all of these designations have had virtually no 
input from state and local officials.
  Private property rights are a cornerstone to the American heritage. 
Our founding Fathers protected the rights of land owners. Many people 
in the United States have found that their private property rights are 
being restricted because they live in proximity to biosphere reserves. 
Restrictive regulations that govern these reserves are the brainchild 
of the United Nations, not the United States government.
  Land management decisions should be made and reviewed by Congress, 
not arbitrarily by bureaucratic officials in the Executive Branch or 
international agencies.
  What do my colleagues from the other side fear from Congress doing 
their job? Why do they fear individuals, local, state and federal 
entities being involved in the process? Congress should not relinquish 
their duty of maintaining and protecting federal lands. We must ensure 
the rights of American private property owners at the federal and 
international level. I urge the passage of this important legislation. 
Vote yes on H.R. 883.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule for 4 hours and is considered read.
  The text of H.R. 883 is as follows:

                                H.R. 883

       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''.

     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 (Public Law 96-515; 94 Stat. 2987) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) in the first sentence, by--
       (A) striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Subject to 
     subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), the Secretary''; and
       (B) inserting ``(in this section referred to as the 
     `Convention')'' after ``1973''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(d)(1) The Secretary of the Interior may not nominate any 
     lands owned by the United States for inclusion on the World 
     Heritage List pursuant to the Convention, unless--
       ``(A) the Secretary finds with reasonable basis that 
     commercially viable uses of the nominated lands, and 
     commercially viable uses of other lands located within 10 
     miles of the nominated lands, in existence on the date of the 
     nomination will not be adversely affected by inclusion of the 
     lands on the World Heritage List, and publishes that finding;
       ``(B) the Secretary has submitted to the Congress a report 
     describing--
       ``(i) natural resources associated with the lands referred 
     to in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) the impacts that inclusion of the nominated lands on 
     the World Heritage List would have on existing and future 
     uses of the nominated lands or other lands located within 10 
     miles of the nominated lands; and
       ``(C) the nomination is specifically authorized by a law 
     enacted after the date of enactment of the American Land 
     Sovereignty Protection Act and after the date of publication 
     of a finding under subparagraph (A) for the nomination.
       ``(2) The President may submit to the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives and the President of the Senate a proposal 
     for legislation authorizing such a nomination after 
     publication of a finding under paragraph (1)(A) for the 
     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 of Representatives and the President of the Senate a 
     report describing--
       ``(A) the necessity for including that property on the 
     list;
       ``(B) the natural resources associated with the property; 
     and
       ``(C) the impacts that inclusion of the property on the 
     list would have on existing and future uses of the property 
     and other property located within 10 miles of the property 
     proposed for inclusion; 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 after the date of submittal of the 
     report required by paragraph (1).
       ``(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 of the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, that 
     contains for the year covered by the report the following 
     information for the site:
       ``(1) An accounting of all money expended to manage the 
     site.

[[Page 10294]]

       ``(2) A summary of Federal full time equivalent hours 
     related to management of the site.
       ``(3) A list and explanation of all nongovernmental 
     organizations that contributed 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 UNAUTHORIZED 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 on or before the date of enactment of 
     the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act 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--
       ``(1) is specifically authorized by a law enacted after 
     that date of enactment and before December 31, 2000;
       ``(2) consists solely of lands that on that date of 
     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 
     for the year covered by the report the following information 
     for the 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 that contributed 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 
     amended 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, under 
     any international agreement, of lands owned by a State or 
     local government 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, under 
     any international agreement, of privately owned lands shall 
     have no force or effect without the written consent of the 
     owner of the lands.
       ``(d) This section shall not apply to--
       ``(1) agreements established under section 16(a) of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4413); 
     and
       ``(2) 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, 
     bilateral agreement, or multilateral 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 CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill is in order except those 
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
purpose and pro forma amendments for purpose of debate. Amendments 
printed in the Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it 
to be printed or his designee and shall be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill.


            Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
       On page 9, line 13, strike ``2000'' and insert instead 
     ``2003''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a technical 
amendment which simply extends the time for grandfathering existing 
Biosphere Reserves by 3 years to 2003. I ask my colleagues for their 
support.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment. 
Perfecting this bill is a very tall task, but the gentleman has made 
one modest effort to do so.
  As long as the gentleman continues to yield, I point out that I 
understand that I will offer just one amendment, as I had indicated to 
the gentleman. I was not aware that of course the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall) has an amendment, and I understand the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has an amendment. I was not aware of those 
amendments yesterday at the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, neither was I. 
So the gentleman is true to his word.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I have 
no objection to trying to improve this bill. It needs significant 
improvement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Vento:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     ``SEC. 7. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL, 
                   MANAGEMENT, AND USE OF LANDS BELONGING TO THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       Title IV of the National Historic Preservation Act 
     Amendments of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470a-1 et seq.) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:
       Sec. 405.--No Federal official may enter into an agreement 
     with any international or foreign entity (including any 
     subsidiary thereof) providing for the disposal, management, 
     and use of any lands owned by the United States and located 
     within the United States unless such agreement 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 agreements.''.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I guess according the rule we are not going 
to read the amendment, but this amendment is an important amendment 
that deals with the key component of the pending legislation.
  This legislation specifically requires to approve the recognition of 
any U.S. lands for conservation purposes as a result of an agreement 
with a foreign entity. However, at the same time, the legislation does 
not require similar congressional action when U.S.-owned lands are 
leased, oftentimes at a loss to American taxpayers, to foreign-owned 
countries for such things as drilling, mining under the 1872 mining 
law, timber harvesting, or other types of commercial endeavors.
  My amendment establishes a parity in that process. My amendment would 
suggest that commercial users and development of U.S. lands by foreign

[[Page 10295]]

companies and their U.S. subsidiaries may only be established when 
specifically authorized by law. My amendment would not prevent such 
activities from occurring. It would simply require Congress to approve 
such actions.
  The Vento amendment in which I am joined by the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Resources in this 
amendment is a responsible provision that responds to the abuses which 
are now occurring and which neither Congress nor the administration can 
legally stop.
  Many of my colleagues may recall the public outcry when it was 
revealed that the concession facilities at Yosemite National Park were 
going to be managed by a Japanese conglomerate, Matsushita. No legal 
recourse was available to block that action.
  A similar outrage was voiced when the Secretary of Interior was 
required under Federal law to lease lands containing more than $10 
billion in gold to a subsidiary of a Canadian-owned corporation who 
paid less than $10,000 for that particular $10 billion gold mine.
  Nothing has been done to prevent a repeat of this type of continued 
rip-off. A foreign firm can still operate the concession for the Statue 
of Liberty or any other of our national parks. Foreign firms can 
continue to exploit American resources while at the same time at the 
expense of the American taxpayers.
  We now have an opportunity to change that policy. The Vento amendment 
will not prevent these activities from moving forward, Mr. Chairman, it 
would simply require the Congress to consider the national consequences 
and specifically authorize these actions.
  If we are going to require Congress to approve actions to recognize 
U.S.-owned lands for conservation purposes of all things to save 
migrating waterfall, for instance, on a global basis or to recognize 
our World Heritage sites, some of our outstanding crown jewels, our 
parks, our natural or cultural areas in the parks, or simply for 
Congress to approve when we are going to agree with the cooperative 
research like under the Man and the Biosphere program, then Congress 
should also approve actions by foreign firms or individuals to in fact 
use exploitative activities on U.S. lands.
  I understand those activities, the U.S. lands, of course, are going 
to be used for mining, for timber harvesting, for grazing, water 
rights, a variety of other things, but the issue is that, if it is 
going to be done by foreign entities, we hand over the ownership, this 
has real impact, this particular amendment. Unlike this bill which 
simply relies upon the existing laws, the fact is this has real impact 
in terms of trying to limit these types of activities.
  So I want to add this particular amendment to this for that reason, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the black helicopters are circling over our 
lands.
  And the agents of foreign powers are indeed locking up our public 
lands, intent upon not only controlling them, but ultimately, America's 
very natural resource heritage.
  But to be sure, the pilots of these helicopters are not wearing the 
blue helmets of the United Nations.
  Rather, they are wearing the corporate emblems of companies based in 
South Africa, Australia, Luxembourg and Canada.
  These foreign agents are not from the United Nations. Their weapons 
are not world heritage sites or international biospheres.
  Indeed, the true threat comes from foreign conglomerates, multi-
national mining firms, who swoop down upon our public lands and extract 
gold and silver with no rents or royalties paid to the American people.
  The UN Charter, in this instance, is not the issue.
  It is our very own Mining Law of 1872 which continues, with reckless 
disregard to our economy and our environment, to turn over federal 
assets to the control of foreign nationals.
  And so, I rise in support of the Vento-Rahall-Miller amendment to 
this bill, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act.
  For if we are to protect the sovereignty of our American lands from 
foreign powers, then we must include commercial developments undertaken 
by foreign powers in the legislation.
  This is what this amendment is all about.
  Our lands, our resources, owned by all Americans, are being claimed 
by foreign entities.
  The hardrock minerals on these lands are being mined with no return 
to the public.
  And these lands are being privatized by foreign entities for a mere 
pittance--$2.50 an acre.
  Allowed under the Mining Law of 1872? Yes.
  Should these practices continue to be condoned in 1999. No. Of course 
not.
  So the real issue here today is not what the proponents of H.R. 883 
make it out to be.
  It is not about the UN. It is not about black helicopters descending 
upon an unsuspecting populace.
  It is, in these times of budgetary constraint, about the 
relinquishment of our lands, and our minerals, to multinational 
conglomerates for fast food hamburger prices.
  Cast a vote for America.
  Vote yes on Vento-Rahall-Miller.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly accept the amendment.

                              {time}  1230

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Vento) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
       Page 9, line 6, after ``in the United States'' insert 
     ``(other than an area within the State of Colorado)''
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. 
It would exempt all the Biosphere Reserves in Colorado from the 
provisions of the bill that would end the participation of U.S. sites 
in the Man and the Biosphere program unless we pass and the President 
signs a new law to continue their participation.
  As I noted in general debate, currently there are two of these 
reserves in Colorado, the Niwot Ridge Research Area and Rocky Mountain 
National Park. They include lands within the Second Congressional 
District which I represent.
  Mr. Chairman, these areas are not involved in some conspiracy. They 
are not part of any sinister foreign plot to undermine our Constitution 
or our way of life. On the contrary, they are places where good things 
are taking place.
  In the Niwot Ridge area, scientists associated with the University of 
Colorado are doing important research about air pollution and other 
environmental issues in cooperation with scientists from other 
countries, such as the Czech Republic. This is important work, work 
that needs to continue; and my amendment would allow that to happen 
without interruption.
  As for Rocky Mountain National Park, all I can say is that this is 
one of Colorado's brightest gems, one of the things that makes us proud 
to be Coloradans. Rising up from the edge of the Great Plains, it 
straddles the Continental Divide and includes snow-capped peaks, high-
altitude tundra, and a diverse array of other land forms and a splendid 
diversity of vegetation and wildlife.
  As Coloradans, we are glad to share its beauty with the Nation and we 
invite the world to experience it. And the world is doing just that, at 
least in part, because of its designation as a Biosphere Reserve. The 
National Park Service tells me that many visitors say that they learned 
of the park because it was included in the Man and the Biosphere 
program and that is what made them want to visit it.

[[Page 10296]]

  As one who believes there is a benefit to every visitor to special 
wildlands like Rocky Mountain National Park, I am convinced that that 
is reason enough to keep the park in this program. But it is also true 
that tourism is a very important part of Colorado's economy, and that 
is another reason to keep the park in the program, which my amendment 
would do.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. Adoption of my amendment will not make 
this a good bill. Even if this amendment is adopted, that alone will 
not be sufficient for me to be able to support the bill. But this 
amendment will protect Colorado from some of the worst consequences of 
the bill, and to that extent I think it is very, very important.
  Accordingly, I urge adoption of the Udall amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  These Biosphere Reserves were designated without congressional 
authorization and without consulting the public or State and local 
governments. This amendment invades the responsibility, again, of the 
Congress under Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution, making all 
laws concerning disposal or regulation of lands belonging to the United 
States with Congress.
  Under H.R. 883, existing Biosphere Reserves would have until December 
31, 2003, to get authorization. They are not automatically 
disenfranchised. If the Colorado Biosphere Reserve had the strong local 
support claimed by the gentleman that offered the amendment, then there 
would be no problem of getting the passage of this legislation in this 
Congress.
  If I am still chairman of that committee, I will commit to the 
gentleman that I will support it if his people want to have it in that 
district. If they do not, it would not occur.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment of my good friend and 
colleague from Colorado (Mr. Udall). The sites that he identifies that 
presently exist in Colorado, the Niwot Ridge Reserve and specifically 
also the Rocky Mountain National Park, are being designated sites under 
the Heritage Act.
  Specifically, the Rocky Mountain National Park, of course, has been 
around for a long time and has been the protected environmental jewel 
in the crown of Colorado for a long, long time. It is peculiar, to say 
the least, that some other kind of designation, some United Nations 
designation, would help continue or would help preserve the 
environmental uniqueness of this particular property, or anything else 
in the State of Colorado, for that matter.
  My colleague talks about the many tourists that flock to the State to 
see these places, especially Rocky Mountain Park. He is certainly 
correct in that; and, of course, they come in droves. In fact, one of 
our problems in Colorado is that oftentimes we have far too many people 
trying to get into these particular areas and preserves, into Rocky 
Mountain National Park; and our problem is trying to deal with the 
numbers coming in and the impact that that has on the Rocky Mountain 
Park and on many things that we are trying to protect.
  When I was in the committee, Mr. Chairman, and we were debating this 
bill, it was a very interesting situation that occurred, in that in the 
State of Wyoming there was an attempt on the part of some people in the 
State of Wyoming to develop some mining adjacent to Yellowstone 
National Park, and all the processes were underway. The environmental 
impact statements had been ordered and were underway.
  We had spent years actually in the process of identifying the 
problems and trying to come to a solution as to whether or not it was 
appropriate to let this mine go forward. All of a sudden, within I 
think it was a short period of time, a week or less, that we were going 
to actually get the final go-ahead on this project in Wyoming, the head 
of the Park Service stepped in and called upon the United Nations to 
come out to this particular area and give it a designation that would, 
in fact, prohibit any future development. And when that happened, the 
administration intervened and everything stopped.
  Now, this is the kind of thing I am concerned about in the State of 
Colorado, and this is why I certainly oppose the amendment of the 
gentleman that would exempt Colorado from the protection provided by 
this particular bill. We need this protection just as much as any other 
State in the Nation because the same thing could happen in Colorado.
  We think we know about how to preserve and protect the land that we 
have under our control in the State of Colorado and with the Department 
of Parks and Recreation. We do not need the United Nations to tell us 
how to manage that land. We do not need the imprimatur of the United 
Nations on Rocky Mountain Park in order to encourage tourism to 
Colorado. We can do it without them.
  In fact, oftentimes, as in the case I just stated, this United 
Nations designation becomes much more problematic from the standpoint 
of the proper regulation of the land within any State, in this case 
Colorado.
  So I certainly rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from the 
Second Congressional District.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, at the risk of getting involved in this Colorado feud, 
obviously this does not improve the bill enough, but I think it is a 
modest step, and I want to support the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall) whenever I get a chance, Mr. Chairman.
  The fact is that most of the land designations, I would suggest to my 
colleague from Colorado, whether it is Park Service Organic Act or the 
Frasier Experimental Station or the others, inherent in them, in these 
designations of wilderness, is the concept of doing scientific 
research. I mean, that is what the Organic Act has, that is what the 
Wilderness Act of 1964 has in it. That is one of the purposes.
  And so, insofar as the Man and the Biosphere program that my 
colleague was alluding to, and I guess I saw four sites that were 
affected by that. My colleague said there were two. The gentleman had 
earlier said there were six. I found four. So there are some sites in 
Colorado that may not be well understood where they are. But one is the 
Frasier Experimental Station, as my colleague probably has noticed. 
Another was the Rocky Mountain National Park, a wonderful area.
  Now, I suppose the problem of getting people in and out, that that 
was such a big problem, I think that is a good problem in terms of 
Rocky Mountain. And I hope we can solve some of the transportation 
problems that exist around those parks, but I would not suggest that to 
solve that we take away the designation of the park, and I am sure my 
colleagues from Colorado would not suggest that, either.
  In any case, that was the purpose. The purpose of this is, and just 
as a way of using this amendment to point out, that most of the laws 
that are applicable that are engaged in the agreements we have are 
already in place. We already passed judgment on these issues. We did it 
once.
  Now, some of my colleagues may want to do it again. Some may have 
objections. Obviously, we continue to hear about the Ozarks issue, a 
large area that was proposed as a biosphere. But in that case, whatever 
system was in place, however cumbersome it was, it worked. They did not 
designate that particular site.
  With regards to Yellowstone, I think it is important to recognize, 
and the gentleman from Colorado, our friend and colleague, brought up 
the issue of Yellowstone again, as did our colleague from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Cubin), that in fact it was designated a World Heritage Site long 
throughout the process of the mine evaluation, EIS.
  What happened is that the committee decided that if that mine was 
going to go in, it became a Heritage Site at risk, endangered type of 
site. And of course the committee can make that declaration. It had 
absolutely no effect on the decision that was made, other than it might 
have persuaded the Park Service or others to pay a little closer 
attention.

[[Page 10297]]

  I mean, we cannot take away free speech in this process. We cannot 
take away free thought in terms of what is going to happen. We cannot 
do that with legislation here. In fact, we as a Nation enshrine the 
concept of free debate and free thought with regard to these issues. 
And it is as if this legislation is trying to reach out and prevent 
somebody from making a judgment about the U.S. and how we manage our 
lands. We cannot do that.
  For instance, if somebody is mismanaging lands in other areas, we 
obviously are going to speak about it, whether it is Amazonia and/or 
other parts of the world, other rain forests. So we are going to speak 
out about it.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for yielding.
  I just wanted to make a couple other comments in response to the 
points that my colleague from Colorado made, as well as my colleague 
from Minnesota.
  It seems, as I hear this debate today, all roads lead to the New 
World Mine. We keep coming back to that particular situation. And I 
think there is a continued debate about what happened there, and we 
ought to continue to figure out ways in the long run to mitigate those 
kind of situations when we have a big mining project on the edge of a 
national park that is so important to us, the Yellowstone National 
Park.
  But I am offering my amendment in the spirit of let us not let that 
conflict and that situation affect what is going on in Colorado. There 
are important research projects occurring at Niwot Ridge and occurring 
in Rocky Mountain National Park. I do not see what the problem is that 
we are fixing in Colorado. In fact, I think we are creating a problem 
by doing this.
  So I urge adoption of my amendment. Let us not hurt Colorado and some 
of the other States that are involved in these projects, this important 
Man and the Biosphere project, because of what happened in one case in 
Yellowstone National Park.

                              {time}  1245

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The time of the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I of course rose in support of the 
amendment. But I use this as an indication of what is generally wrong 
with the entire thought process and what is going on with this 
particular legislation. I do not think it is repairable by this 
amendment or others that might be offered. It is a flawed bill. These 
discussions and debates ought to be going on in subcommittee rather 
than the sort of exaggerated statements that we had. Unfortunately, 
they did not. So we are on the floor. I would think that there would be 
more important business that could and should be considered by this 
Congress on this floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I just would conclude with a comment, a 
quote actually from Jeane Kirkpatrick that I think encompasses 
everything we have tried to establish here on our side about our 
concerns with regard to this amendment in particular and to the 
concerns of our opponents to this bill in general:

       If American citizens have an interest in the conservation 
     of a particular area, that decision should be made by 
     Congress, the body designated responsibility by the 
     Constitution for making these decisions in full view of the 
     American public. And if each decision requires consideration 
     of costs and benefit to the property rights of individual 
     voters affected, so be it. UNESCO committees are not 
     competent to address the complex private property and public 
     interest issues presented here.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the quotes from the former U.N. 
representative Jeane Kirkpatrick. Seven World Heritage sites were 
designated while she was in that role. So apparently, as with Mr. 
Hodel, he has now since then, being strongly in support of them in the 
1980s when they were in control or in power, now have found reason to 
oppose these sites. But I think actions speak louder than words. I 
thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sweeney

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Sweeney:
       Page 9, line 16, after ``management plan'' insert the 
     following: ``that specifically ensures that the designation 
     does not affect State or local government revenue, including 
     revenue for public education programs, and''.

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) for affording me the opportunity at rather a late moment to 
introduce my amendment. My good friend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall) just said that all roads in this bill and this debate and this 
discussion seem to lead to the New World Mine. The reason I am happy I 
am able to introduce my amendment is because I think it will serve a 
number of purposes. But one point that can definitively be made is that 
that is not true, that all roads are not leading in this matter to the 
New World Mine, that it has impact on the individuals, of people 
throughout this Nation and in particular in my district.
  We have heard eloquent debate on both sides of the issue, speakers 
who have spoken of the need for greater local input and greater input 
from individuals, and those who have said or who have perceived that 
these issues involve just the use of public lands. That is not true at 
all. My amendment expands the existing provisions of H.R. 883 by 
requiring the Secretary of Interior as part of the management plan to 
also ensure that the biosphere designation does not affect the revenue 
of State and local governments, including and probably most importantly 
the revenue for public education programs.
  Mr. Chairman, as we have heard, the manner in which international 
land use agreements have been carried out can tend at times to infringe 
on the authority of our local municipalities and individuals. My 
amendment would help protect State and local governments from 
experiencing a decrease in real property values. As those in many 
struggling local townships and counties in upstate New York which I 
represent know all too well, depressed property values serve to depress 
property tax revenues, the major source for education funding in this 
country. Today, there are 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves and 20 World 
Heritage Sites and there is not an argument on this side of the aisle 
that there is not some legitimacy and need for these agreements. But 
many of these international agreements were established without local 
input and certainly without congressional input or approval. This is 
not government of the people, for the people, by the people, it is 
detached internationalism in the eyes of many. Most U.N. designations, 
including the ones in my district, encompass privately held lands, not 
just public lands.
  Most of all, there have been instances where no communication with 
local officials and community residents took place about the effects of 
designating

[[Page 10298]]

these lands. These are the people that it affects the most. These are 
the people in most instances who have rightful ownership of the 
property that is being affected, who define their freedom in fact by 
virtue of that ability to own these lands. The current process of 
selecting U.N. Biosphere Reserves with no recourse for those local 
residents and their elected officials affected must end.
  In the 22nd Congressional District of New York, which I represent, 
there is now one of the largest U.S. Biosphere Reserves housed in the 
Adirondack Mountains. The private landowners and townships in the 
Adirondacks had no idea that the Adirondack Park Agency, a quasi-State 
agency, quietly approved the U.N. biosphere designation and residents 
were helpless to impact on that, to stop it, to comment on it. In fact, 
that designated area encompasses 7 million acres of privately held 
land. It encompasses territories outside the purview and jurisdiction 
of the Adirondack Park Agency. Yet it has become part of that 
designated area.
  Let me tell my colleagues from experience, the U.N. biosphere is an 
unwanted cloud now that hangs over a good part of the Adirondack 
region. My congressional district is one with the greatest interest in 
seeing that this practice is reined in, that the input and the voice of 
the local individual be heard. It is unfair that my constituents are 
not included in any discussions that directly affect them and that I as 
their representative in Congress have practically no avenue to express 
their concerns.
  The Secretary of Interior must be required to make the case of U.N. 
designation to State and local governments as well as this Congress and 
our Federal bureaucracies should be held accountable to this Congress 
for any of the effects that international agreements will cause. It is 
imperative that we protect the rights of our private property owners 
and the legitimate interests of local governments and their citizens. 
This bill accomplishes those objectives and my amendment I believe 
strengthens it by elevating the interests of State and local 
governments and the effects of U.N. designations on their ability to 
collect revenue. It is important to the private property owners, it is 
important to the citizens of those regions, it is important to public 
education in those areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and 
support this important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak today in 
support of this important legislation, H.R. 883--the American Land 
Sovereignty Protection Act.
  My district in upstate New York has one of the largest U.N. Biosphere 
Reserves in the United States, thus I have a direct interest in H.R. 
883 and strongly support its passage.
  H.R. 883 clearly addresses the concerns many of us have had with the 
U.N. Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Sites programs.
  As we know, the U.N. Biosphere Reserve program has been operating 
with essentially no public or congressional oversight for the past 25 
years. And without such oversight often, no one is accountable.
  These designations can have a marked impact on the properties in and 
around the biosphere region, yet, in most cases, neither local 
government nor property owners are ever consulted regarding the 
designation or site consideration.
  As an example, in my congressional district, the Champlain-Adirondack 
Biosphere Reserve was created in 1989 at the request of a quasi-
governmental agency--the Adirondack Park Agency.
  This was done without hearings or formal input from local citizens of 
the Adirondacks; thus the residents were left feeling helpless and in 
the reality had no impact upon it. The result was a very bitter feeling 
and rightfully so over an unwanted imposition on private landowners.
  Given negative effect on property values, and compounded by the 
cavalier attitudes of those handing down designations and the blatant 
disregard for local authority, I would submit that with congressional 
oversight and public input, many of these U.N. sites would not have 
been approved in their current form.
  The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act unequivocally states 
that no land in this country can be included in international land use 
programs without the clear and direct approval of Congress.
  H.R. 883 is a first step in the right direction in returning power to 
the local citizens as well as the elected Representatives in Congress.
  Most importantly, this bill reasserts the constitutional rights of 
property owners to make property decisions, within local zoning 
authority, without interference from the United Nations whose mandate 
does not necessarily include concern for our town halls, school houses, 
or individual property owners in any given area.
  What recourse do affected landowners have against the United Nations 
bureaucracy?
  Absolutely none.
  This bill changes that. I urge your support.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York spoke of 7,000 acres of 
land that apparently falls under a biosphere, some other impact.
  Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman will yield, seven million acres.
  Mr. VENTO. Seven million acres.
  Mr. SWEENEY. In the Adirondack region of New York State that are 
privately owned.
  Mr. VENTO. I appreciate that and am happy to yield to the gentleman 
briefly.
  Did the gentleman have any instance where there was some problem that 
arose out of that designation with regards to private property owners?
  Mr. SWEENEY. There have been a number of instances where private 
property owners in the use of their property, in the valuation of their 
property and their ability to develop and cultivate that property have 
been infringed upon based upon the designation. I think the gentleman 
misses the point, that the most predominant frustration that those 
constituents of mine have----
  Mr. VENTO. Just reclaiming my time for a minute, we have been through 
this with others that have claimed that but we have yet to substantiate 
any of those types of claims. So if the gentleman could help 
substantiate that, I think it would go a long way towards solving a 
problem. Because right now the way the bill stands, I think it is 
purporting to solve problems, in my judgment, that do not exist. On the 
amendment that the gentleman has, he suggests to insert after 
``management plan'' on line 16, and it is amendment No. 4, I believe; 
is that correct?
  Mr. SWEENEY. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VENTO. The gentleman says that after ``management plan,'' he 
wants to put in language that specifically ensures, and I am quoting 
from the gentleman's amendment, ``that specifically ensures that the 
designation does not affect State or local government revenue, 
including revenue for public education programs, and.''
  What if the revenue increases? What if it decreases? According to 
this amendment, you would have to demonstrate that you would have a 
static situation, that there would be no increase and no decrease in 
revenue. That is the effect of the gentleman's amendment. Is the 
gentleman aware of the effect of his amendment?
  Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman will yield further, that is not the 
effect at all. I think the effect is one that is a basic premise of 
citizenship, and that is the right of citizens to know the impact that 
their government or any other entity might have on their particular 
property.
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, it is not just a question of knowing 
this. It is this is one of the requirements. It says that ``any 
designation under this law, the Man and Biosphere Program, shall not 
have, and shall not be given, any force or effect,'' and then you are 
putting down, ``that specifically ensures that the designation does not 
affect State or local government revenue, including revenue for public 
education programs.''
  So it can have no effect, no effect going up, no effect going down. 
That is what it says. That would completely vitiate the ability to, and 
this is almost an impossible test in this bill in any case.
  So I might say, I do not know, this is sort of what I would call 
piling on in football. I would have long ago blown

[[Page 10299]]

the whistle. This is what the amendment has. I understand that the 
gentleman may not have had that intention. But we are not going on the 
basis of intention. We are going on what is written in the law.
  Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman will yield further, this is not an 
issue of remedies, it is an issue of notice. I think it is fundamental 
in the proposal that any U.N. Biosphere area be designated, that this 
Congress and the individuals and the constituents in that area affected 
have the right to know of the effect of that designation.
  My amendment simply calls for the providing of that notice. It says 
nothing to the effect of imposing any sanction or remedy.
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman will look at his 
amendment again. It says that specifically ensures, the plan has to 
ensure that the designation does not affect State or local government 
revenue, including revenue for public. So it does not affect it. What 
does he mean by does not affect it? He means it goes up or down, does 
he not? What happens to revenue?
  Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman will yield, it requires the Secretary 
of Interior to report back to Congress of the cost effects, the 
property tax in particular, effects on any of those affected individual 
properties.
  Mr. VENTO. What if the values go up as a result of this designation?
  Mr. SWEENEY. That should certainly be part of the debate that we have 
at that time on any of those designations.
  Mr. VENTO. It would be invalidated based on that. I just think it is 
an inartfully drawn amendment. As I said, I think the amendment just 
represents piling on. For that reason, I do not intend to support it. I 
think it is not well drawn, and I wanted to point out the effect of 
that. I think the test here in this bill would make it nearly 
impossible to have this voluntary scientific cooperation in the 
process. I do not know the purpose of this. This amendment obviously is 
not drawn well. But unfortunately under the rule that the gentleman 
perhaps voted for, I did not, we had to preprint everything in the 
Record ahead of time and we are all limited in time here. You do not 
really have the right to perfect your amendment or correct these types 
of problems, another little issue the gentleman ought to take up with 
the Committee on Rules under a so-called open rule.


Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska to Amendment No. 4 Offered by 
                              Mr. Sweeney

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska to amendment No. 4 
     offered by Mr. Sweeney: Insert ``adversely'' before 
     ``affect''.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, it is my intent to offer this 
amendment, which I have just done, I do think it is germane, to try to 
improve the amendment of Mr. Sweeney, which I do believe his amendment 
is clear, but the gentleman from Minnesota has raised a question. I 
want to make sure that this now is perfectly clear, for adverse effect 
only.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Sweeney), as amended, will be postponed.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation and in support 
of the Vento and the Udall amendments that have been offered and 
against the Sweeney amendment that has been offered in the committee 
today.
  First and foremost, let me say that I think this is a very 
unfortunate piece of legislation. It plays into some conspiracy 
theories that somehow, when we receive the honor of the designation of 
World Heritage area or the Biosphere Reserve Program or were part of 
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, that somehow this is land use 
planning by the United Nations. Nothing could be further from the 
truth.
  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in these designations that changes any 
Federal, State, local laws or regulations pertaining to these lands or 
changes the manner in which private property owners can use their 
lands, but what it does do is it provides an honor for some of the 
great natural assets of the United States and some of the great 
historical assets of the United States that leads to increased tourism, 
improved economics, and recognition of what this Nation has done in 
setting aside some of the great national parks and public spaces in the 
entire world, and I think we ought to welcome that kind of designation.
  I also want to say that it is very clear when we consider the Vento 
amendment that much more harm has been done to public lands and done to 
private lands because of the acquisition of these lands by foreign 
entities that then come in here and take the resources from those 
lands, whether it is mining or whether it is timber or grazing or other 
proposals like this, where then we end up spending hundreds of millions 
if not billions of taxpayers' dollars cleaning up after these entities, 
making up for erosion, making up for the destruction and the 
deterioration of those natural assets.
  That is why I think that the Vento amendment is very, very important 
for its adoption today because we should not just have a willy-nilly 
process where people come in, buy these assets, exploit the resource 
and then leave it to the American citizens to pick up the cost of their 
bad policies, their bad management and mistakes in the use of those 
lands and those resources.
  So I would hope that Members would vote against this bill on passage, 
and I would hope that they would support the Udall and the Vento 
amendments, and I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Vento) very much for his managing this bill on the floor today, and his 
involvement in this issue over the last several years in trying to put 
this argument into perspective and show how foolish it is and how much 
it is based upon fallacy and misrepresentation of facts.
  Also, I think he said something in the Committee on Rules the other 
day that is very important, that success with this legislation is 
really about the first step in removing the designations from our great 
wilderness areas, from our parks areas, from our national monuments, 
because the same people who support this legislation in fact oppose the 
designation and the protection and the acquisition of these great lands 
for the use of the people of the United States, for all of the people 
of the United States. As much as those people support it, we have a 
small group of people in the Congress and in this country who insist 
that somehow these lands really do not belong in the public domain in 
spite of the fact that millions of Americans will pick up their 
families, their children, and they will travel across this country to 
visit the Statue of Liberty, to visit Liberty Hall, to visit the Grand 
Tetons, the Grand Canyon, Bryce, Yosemite and so many other great 
monuments and great natural assets in the national park systems of this 
country.
  There is still a few in this Congress who want to believe that we 
should roll

[[Page 10300]]

back designations. This legislation is the first step in that process, 
and this Congress ought to reject that effort.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support in this 
battle, and I think we are winning it and we should win it.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem in our country is not with the designation 
and the parks that are embraced by our people. They are, in fact, among 
the most popular and the most strongly supported by the public. The 
parks really represent what is right with our country. It is one of the 
best ideas we have ever had. And it is not, Mr. Chairman, I might say, 
the scientists that are doing research on natural resources that are at 
risk. These are not the problems in terms of our public lands and in 
our communities, in terms of scientific research that is being done in 
these parks or in these areas. That is not a problem, but this bill 
purports to solve that problem. It solves the problem of the 
designation of our parks, recognition of our parks. It tries to solve 
the problem of scientific research, to strip away the ability to do 
collaborative research. That is what the essence of these treaties and 
agreements exist.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller 
of California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. So it is not the scientists that are doing research that 
are the problem, and in fact we can on a global basis cooperate and 
encourage other nations to work with them and do the type of scientific 
research that is necessary. We can study all we want within the United 
States, but we have got 1,900 other sites around the world that this 
permits us to study in, and other sites that it permits us to recognize 
as natural or cultural.
  So this is an assault on parks. It is an assault on research. That is 
really what it purports. The problems here are the mines, they are the 
clear cuts, they are the destruction of rain forests, the burning of 
rain forests. They are the uncontrolled types of mining that goes on in 
other nations. That is where the problems exist largely, and we ought 
to be coming to grips with those: the drift nets in the oceans, the 
destruction of the biosphere.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the first efforts, the first timid 
efforts of this Nation and of this global community to try to deal even 
with the recognition of parks in a honorific way and the research of 
scientists, this bill attacks. I think it is a misunderstood bill, I 
think it is a bad bill, I think it is bad policy, and I hope the 
Congress will reject this, the House will reject this, today.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, 
and let me just say, as my colleagues know, it is with great pride that 
the American people point to their national park system, it is with 
great pride that the American people know that the Statue of Liberty 
stands in New York Harbor and sends a beacon to the world about the 
tenets and the values of this Nation, and it is a great pride that 
those assets, the Grand Canyon, the Everglades, the Statue of Liberty 
and others, when the rest of the world honors, honors the decision that 
people in this country made about setting aside those public lands for 
public use, and it is a great honor that the millions of Americans 
choose to visit those parks each year to enjoy them, to participate in 
them, to learn from them. But it is also a task of this Congress and of 
the world community to make sure that we learn more about those parks 
that we are able to maintain.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we are able to 
maintain and protect those parks, and this Congress has a rather 
checkered past on that. But if we put it to the American people, they 
would vote to spend billions of dollars to maintain and protect the 
great parks of this Nation.
  It is an honor to this Nation that people come from all over the 
world to visit these parks, that nations come to us and send their 
representatives here to learn how to do the same thing in Asia and 
Africa and Europe, all over. All over the world people want to emulate 
what Theodore Roosevelt started and what we have protected on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Now we have a group of people who decided that they are going to roll 
that back, they are going to take away that designation, they are going 
to remove this honor from the American people. The pride of this 
Nation, the beacon we send to the rest of the world; they now have 
decided that they want to remove this honor and start that process of 
denigrating these most valuable and cherished public lands in our 
Nation. The pride of our Nation as we send out messages to the world 
about conservation, about the protection of public lands, about the 
values of this country.
  This legislation is absolutely looney, it is absolutely looney. It is 
based in some unknown conspiracy, unsubstantiated, based upon the fact 
that some people believe that day in and day out they see black 
helicopters swooping in to protect the national parks of the United 
States.
  No, Mr. Chairman, that is not how it is done in this country, it will 
never be done that way in this country, and this legislation should not 
try to validate those kinds of crazy conspiracy theories.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have just heard one of the greatest presentations of 
looney tunes I have ever heard. Very frankly, this is nothing to do 
with the parks. We do not invade the parks, we do not invade any of the 
other areas. We are trying to reestablish the congressional activity in 
designating land and not letting the U.N.
  I have to remind people the U.N. organizations are not accountable. 
U.N. bureaucrats are far removed from the American voters, and 
remember, many of the U.N. delegates that make these decisions do not 
believe in privately-held property. Their countries are owned by 
dictators or owned by governments that do not have private property, 
and when they make decisions, the United States, under our Constitution 
affecting private property rights, that is wrong.
  All my bill does is have the Congress get back involved in the 
designation of lands. If they are so heavily supported, those outside 
the parks, then I suggest respectfully they will be easily passed in 
this Congress. It does not affect any of the parks or any of the 
reference here or any of the Heritage Sites such as the Statue of 
Liberty. My bill does not affect that. All we do is put the committee, 
this Congress, back into the process of designating the lands.


                                                       UNESCO,

                                     Paris, France, March 6, 1995.
     Hon. George T. Frampton, Jr.,
     Assistant Secretary for Fish & Wildlife & Parks, U.S. 
         Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, 
         Washington, DC, USA.
       Dear Mr. Frampton: I am writing to you with respect to a 
     letter from a group of North American conservation 
     organizations, addressed to Dr. Adul Wichiencharoen, Chairman 
     of the World Heritage Committee, and dated 28 February, 1995. 
     The World Heritage Committee is the executive body of the 
     Convention and is elected by its 140 States Parties. I note 
     that a copy of this letter was sent to your office. The 
     letter concerns the possible listing of Yellowstone National 
     Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
       The World Heritage Committee had been made aware of some of 
     these concerns in a brief report by the United States 
     Delegate to the July 1993 meeting of the World Heritage 
     Bureau.
       The fourteen organizations signing this letter are as you 
     know among the most prestigious and influential in the field 
     of natural resources conservation. We believe that the

[[Page 10301]]

     concerns they raise about the threats to Yellowstone must be 
     carefully examined and addressed.
       Included with their letter was a briefing book containing 
     copies of correspondence from the Governor of Wyoming and 
     Senator Baucus of Montana, each raises serious questions 
     about the potential damage to Yellowstone National Park, in 
     particular from the proposed mining operation. Similar 
     letters of concern are provided from professional geologists, 
     geomorphologists and hydrologists who have investigated the 
     proposed mining operation. This correspondence is sufficient 
     to raise considerable concern about the long-term 
     sustainability of the World Heritage values of this World 
     Heritage site.
       From the report it appears that while a draft Environmental 
     Impact Statement has been prepared, it did not resolve 
     several major questions and many issues remain under review. 
     Thus it would appear premature to reach any conclusions at 
     this time.
       With respect to the List of World Heritage in Danger, there 
     are no specific criteria. The Committee has the authority to 
     place a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger when it 
     is of the view that the World Heritage values for which the 
     site was inscribed are seriously threatened.
       The procedure for listing normally involves a monitoring 
     report by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), in 
     consultation with the State Party and the management 
     authority responsible for the site. IUCN reports to the 
     Bureau of the World Heritage Committee which meets in July 
     and the Bureau makes a recommendation to the Committee, which 
     usually meets in December of each year.
       While we have taken note that the conservative 
     organizations have requested that the World Heritage 
     Secretariat involve itself in the EIS process, we simply are 
     not staffed to do so. We would, however, be pleased to 
     address these organizations on any aspects of the operation 
     of the World Heritage Convention. We could also request IUCN 
     as our technical advisors, to review the Environmental Impact 
     Statement. We are confident that as the State Party 
     responsible for the implementation of the Convention the 
     essential professional skills are available to you.
       It is important to note that Article 1 of the World 
     Heritage Convention obliges the State Party to protect, 
     conserve, present and transmit to future generations World 
     Heritage sites for which they are responsible. This 
     obligation extends beyond the boundary of the site and 
     Article 5 (A) recommends that State Parties integrate the 
     protection of sites into comprehensive planning programmes. 
     Thus, if proposed developments will damage the integrity of 
     Yellowstone National Park, the State Party has a 
     responsibility to act beyond the National Park boundary.
       Examples of the need to act beyond park boundaries are 
     found at the Everglades National Park, Glacier National Park 
     and Glacier Bay National Park, all World Heritage sites. In 
     two of the sites the Government of British Columbia acted to 
     close major mining operations rather than risk possible 
     damage to downstream World Heritage values in both Canada and 
     the United States.
       Clearly if there are threats to World Heritage values the 
     State Party has a responsibility to act. If enabling 
     legislation is not adequate, new legislation should be 
     considered, as was the case in Australia with respect to the 
     Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage site.
       The World Heritage Committee has the authority to act 
     unilaterally in placing a site on the List of World Heritage 
     in Danger. However, in the past the Committee has 
     demonstrated a clear desire to work in consort with the State 
     Party. In this respect we would appreciate receiving a 
     comprehensive report on the situation in time for the meeting 
     of the World Heritage Bureau to be held in Paris in early 
     July. Such a report would enable the Committee to give 
     serious consideration to the listing of Yellowstone National 
     Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger, should such a 
     decision be warranted, at its nineteenth session to be held 
     in December 1995.
       The United States has an exemplary record in support of and 
     in accordance with the principles and requirements of the 
     World Heritage Convention. We look forward to continuing this 
     cooperation.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                 Bernd von Droste,
     Director, World Heritage Centre.
                                  ____


                       Legislative Resolve No. 13

       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
       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 Akaska, 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 the United States Department of Interior, in 
     cooperation with the Federal Interagency Panel for World 
     Heritage, has identified the Aleutian Island Unit of the 
     Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Denali 
     National Park, Gates of the Arctic National Park, and Katmai 
     National Park as likely to meet the criteria for future 
     nomination as World Heritage Sites; and
       Whereas the Alaska State Legislature objects to the 
     nomination or designation of any World Heritage Sites or 
     Biosphere Reserves in Alaska without the specific consent of 
     the Alaska State Legislature; 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 Land 
     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; and
       Whereas Congressman Don Young has reintroduced this 
     legislation in the 106th Congress as House Resolution No. 
     883, which is entitled the ``American Land Sovereignty 
     Protection Act'';
       Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature supports 
     House Resolution 883, the ``American Land 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 and urges 
     the swift introduction and passage of such act by the 106th 
     Congress; and be it
       Further resolved that the Alaska State Legislature objects 
     to the nomination or designation of any sites in Alaska as 
     World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves without the prior 
     consent of the Alaska State Legislature.
       Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable 
     Bill Clinton, President of the United States; Honorable Al 
     Gore, Jr., Vice-President of the United States and President 
     of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Trent Lott, Majority Leader 
     of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker 
     of the U.S. House of Representatives; and to the Honorable 
     Ted Stevens and the Honorable Frank Murkowski, U.S. Senators, 
     and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of 
     the Alaska delegation in Congress.

[[Page 10302]]

                                                  State of Alaska,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                             Juneau, May 11, 1999.
     Hon. Brian Porter,
     Speaker of the House, Alaska State Legislature
     State Capitol, Juneau, AK.
       Dear Speaker Porter: I am transmitting the engrossed and 
     enrolled copies of the following joint resolution, passed by 
     the Twenty-first Alaska State Legislature, to the Lieutenant 
     Governor's Office for permanent filing: CS for House Joint 
     Resolution No. 15(RES) ``Relating to support for the 
     `American Land Sovereignty Protection Act' in the United 
     States Congress.'' Legislative Resolve No. 13.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Tony Knowles,
                                                         Governor.
                                                  State of Alaska,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                             Juneau, May 11, 1999.
     Hon. Drue Pearce,
     President of the Senate, Alaska State Legislature, State 
         Capitol, Juneau, AK.
       Dear President Pearce: I am transmitting the engrossed and 
     enrolled copies of the following joint resolution, passed by 
     the Twenty-first Alaska State Legislature, to the Lieutenant 
     Governor's Office for permanent filing: CS for House Joint 
     Resolution No. 15(RES) ``Relating to support for the 
     `American Land Sovereignty Protection Act' in the United 
     States Congress.'' Legislative Resolve No. 13.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Tony Knowles,
                                                         Governor.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments to the 
bill?


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 9 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), 
Amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), 
Amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), 
as amended.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 180, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered By Mr. Vento

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Vento) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 262, 
noes 158, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               AYES--262

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--158

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Walden
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bilbray
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Foley
     Horn
     Largent
     Moakley
     Napolitano
     Salmon
     Stark
     Towns

                              {time}  1334

  Messrs. McCOLLUM, BATEMAN, DREIER, RYUN of Kansas, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. 
TAUZIN and Mr. BLUNT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. QUINN, HEFLEY, BOYD, HILL of Montana, BASS, SUNUNU, LoBIONDO, 
WAMP, WELLER, HOBSON, UPTON, CUNNINGHAM, SHIMKUS, STEARNS, CAMP, COBLE 
and HUNTER, and Mrs. MORELLA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 141, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 141, the Vento amendment, 
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Pursuant to House Resolution 
180, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the

[[Page 10303]]

period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken 
on each additional amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 231, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 142]

                               AYES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--231

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brown (CA)
     Dixon
     Foley
     Graham
     Largent
     Moakley
     Napolitano
     Salmon
     Stark
     Thornberry
     Towns

                              {time}  1344

  Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. MORELLA changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sweeney, as Amended

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Sweeney), as amended, on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 407, 
noes 15, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               AYES--407

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley

[[Page 10304]]


     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--15

     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Castle
     Cubin
     Filner
     Jackson (IL)
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Markey
     Meehan
     Morella
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shays
     Thompson (CA)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brown (CA)
     Cox
     Foley
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Largent
     Moakley
     Napolitano
     Salmon
     Stark
     Towns

                              {time}  1352

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Ms. DeGETTE, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. PICKETT, and Mr. 
PASTOR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments, under 
the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, Chairman pro tempore of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 883) 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 180, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________