69–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–142

AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT

MAY 13, 1999.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 883]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred 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 nonFederal lands surrounding those public lands and acquired lands,

having considered the same, report favorably thereon without

amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

H.R. 883 will restore the Constitutional role of Congress in managing lands belonging to the United States, preserve the sovereignty of the United States over these lands, and protect State

sovereignty and private property rights in non-federal lands adjacent to federal lands.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (H.R. 883) asserts the Constitutional power of Congress over management and

use of lands belonging to the United States. Under Article IV, section 3 of the United States Constitution, the power to make all

needful rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the

United States is vested in Congress. Yet over the last 25 years, an
2

increasing expanse of our nation’s public lands have been included

in various international land use programs, most notably United

Nations Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, with virtually no Congressional oversight or approval. The international

agreement covering World Heritage Sites, for example, largely

leaves Congress out of the nomination process.

United Nations World Heritage Sites, Ramsar Sites and Biosphere Reserves are under the jurisdiction of the United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

World Heritage Sites and Ramsar Sites are recognized by UNESCO

under ‘‘The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage’’ (World Heritage Convention) and ‘‘The

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as

Waterfowl Habitat’’ (Ramsar Convention), respectively. Biosphere

Reserves are part of the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program which

operates in conjunction with a worldwide program under UNESCO.

The U.S. Man and Biosphere Program is not authorized by Congress and has no legislative direction. Over 68 percent of the land

in our national parks, preserves and monuments have been designated as United Nations World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves or both. Biosphere Reserves alone cover an area about the

size of Colorado, our eighth largest state. There are now 47

UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, 20 World Heritage Sites and 16

Ramsar Sites in the United States.

In becoming a party to these international land use agreements

through Executive Branch action, the United States may be indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which the United States is not

a party or which the United States Senate has refused to ratify.

For example, The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves recommends that participating countries ‘‘integrate biosphere reserves

in strategies for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, in

plans for protected areas, and in the national biodiversity strategies and action plans provided for in Article 6 of the Convention

on Biological Diversity.’’ Furthermore, the Strategic Plan for the

U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program published in 1994 by the U.S.

State Department states that a goal of the U.S. Biosphere Reserve

Program is to ‘‘create a national network of biosphere reserves that

represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and

fulfills the internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.’’

Also disturbing is that designation of Biospheres and World Heritage Sites rarely involve consulting the public and local governments. At the five hearings held on the American Land Sovereignty

Protection Act since the 104th Congress, state and local elected officials as well as grassroots citizen activists from Alaska, Arkansas,

Missouri, Minnesota, New Mexico and New York testified that no

one consulted with the public or local governments when international land designations were made in their states. The domestic

designation process for World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves is so controversial that the Alaska, Colorado and Montana

state legislatures have passed resolutions in support of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. In addition, the Kentucky

State Senate recently passed a resolution opposing creation of any
3

biosphere reserves within Kentucky and supporting the concepts

embodied in this legislation.

In fact, UNESCO policy apparently discourages an open nomination process for World Heritage Sites. The Operational Guidelines

for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention state:

In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those

concerned, State [national] parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been

nominated * * * pending the final decision of the Committee of the nomination in question. Participation of the local

people in the nomination process is essential to make them

feel a shared responsibility with the State party in the

maintenance of the site, but should not prejudice future

decision-making by the committee.

By allowing these international land use designations, the

United States promises to protect designated areas and regulate

surrounding lands if necessary to protect the designated site. Honoring these international agreements could force the federal government to prohibit or limit some uses of private lands inside or

outside the designated reserve unless our country wants to break

a pledge to other nations. At a minimum, this puts U.S. land policy-makers in an awkward position.

Federal regulatory actions could cause a significant adverse impact on the value of private property and on the local and regional

economy. The involvement of the World Heritage Committee

(WHC) in the National Environmental Policy Act review process for

the New World Mine Project near Yellowstone National Park, a

World Heritage Site, exemplifies this problem. The New World

mine project is outside of the boundary of Yellowstone National

Park and is not included in the World Heritage Site. In fact, nearly

all of the proposed minesite is located on private property, and U.S.

law (16 U.S.C. 470a–1(c)) prohibits including any non-federal property within a U.S. World Heritage Site without the consent of the

owner.

The fact that the proposed project was not a part of the Yellowstone World Heritage Site did not prevent the WHC from holding

a ‘‘hearing’’ on the project. Creation of a buffer zone, possibly ten

times as large as the Park, was suggested by at least one member

of the WHC. However, by excluding the federal lands on which a

small part of the New World Mine Project lies from an adjoining

wilderness area, Congress had already determined not to create

such a buffer zone and to make these lands available for multiple

uses, including mining.

It is clear from this example, that at best, World Heritage Site

and Biosphere Reserve designations give the international community an open invitation to interfere in U.S. domestic land use decisions. More seriously, these international agreements potentially

have several significant adverse effects on the American system of

government. Domestic land use policy-making authority is further

centralized at the federal/Executive Branch level, and the role that

ordinary citizens have in the making of this policy through their

elected representatives is diminished. The Executive Branch may
4

also invoke these international agreements in an attempt to administratively achieve an action within the jurisdiction of Congress,

but without consulting Congress. The current framework for implementing the World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve programs

has eaten away at the power and sovereignty of the Congress to

exercise its constitutional power to make the laws that govern

U.S.-owned land.

Perhaps the most serious problem with international agreements, such as the World Heritage Convention, is that the international bodies which administer them do not represent the American people and cannot be held accountable by them. In a May 5,

1999, letter to Congressman Bruce Vento, former U.N. Ambassador

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick says it best:

In U.N. organizations, there is no accountability. U.N.

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 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?

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 883 was introduced on March 1, 1999, by Congressman Don

Young (R–AK) along with 125 original cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources.

On March 18, 1999, the Committee held a legislative hearing in

Washington, D.C., on H.R. 883. A total of 13 witnesses testified.

Ten witnesses, including the Hon. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Ambassador to the U.N. during President Reagan’s administration, testified. Ambassador Kirkpatrick said that Congress should not cede

its Constitutional powers and responsibilities to a global organization in which affected Americans have no representation. Dr. Jeremy Rabkin, a professor in the Department of Government at Cornell University, discussed the Constitutional problems with international agreements such as the Convention Concerning Protection

of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Other witnesses

which testified in support of H.R. 883 include a former mining executive associated with the New World Project, an Arizona rancher,

a representative from the Concerned Women for America, and a

representative from a labor organization. Witnesses for the Department of State and the Department of the Interior testified against

H.R. 883. A representative from a historical preservation group

also spoke against the bill.

On May 1, 1999, the Committee held a field legislative hearing

in Rolla, Missouri, on H.R. 883. Twelve witnesses testified includ-
5

ing a county commissioner, representatives from several state and

local property rights groups, representatives from labor and business trade associations and concerned citizens. All of the witnesses

testified in favor of H.R. 883. Three environmental groups were invited to testify at this hearing, but they declined the invitations.

Many of the witnesses at the Rolla hearing spoke first-hand

about their recent experience with the Biosphere Reserve nomination process associated with the ill-fated Ozark Highlands Man and

Biosphere proposal. All of the witnesses said that neither the public at large nor local governments had any meaningful input into

the development of this proposal. In fact, most people in southern

Missouri were unaware that such a proposal was even being developed.

On May 5, 1999, the Full Resources Committee met to consider

H.R. 883. The bill was ordered favorably reported without amendment to the House of Representatives by a bipartisan roll call vote

of 26–14, as follows:
6
7

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

This section states that the Act may be cited as the ‘‘American

Land Sovereignty Protection Act’’.

Section 2. Findings and purpose

Section 2 makes eight findings which basically state that: (1) the

constitutional power to make rules and regulations governing lands

belonging to the United States lies with Congress; (2) actions in

creating lands with international designations may affect the use

and value of nearby or intermixed non-federal lands; and (3) actions by the President in applying international designations to

lands owned by the United States may conflict with Congressional

Constitutional responsibilities.

This section further states that the purpose of H.R. 883 is to assert the power of Congress over the management and use of lands

belonging to the United States, to protect State powers not reserved to the federal government, and to ensure that no United

States citizen suffers any diminishment or loss of individual rights

or private property rights as a result of federal actions designating

lands pursuant to international agreements.

Section 3. Clarification of congressional role in World Heritage Site

listing

Section 3 amends the National Historic Preservation Act to compel the Secretary of Interior to require the legislative consent of

Congress to any nomination of a property located in the United

States for inclusion on the World Heritage List pursuant to the

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and

Natural Heritage. The Secretary may not nominate a property

until the Secretary makes a finding that existing commercially viable uses of the nominated land or land within ten miles of the nomination will not be adversely affected by inclusion on the World

Heritage List, and must submit a report to Congress describing the

impacts that inclusion on the World Heritage List would have on

the natural resources associated with these lands. The Secretary is

also required to obtain Congressional approval before assenting to

the designation of any United States site on the World Heritage

List as a Site in Danger under the World Heritage Convention. The

Secretary must submit an annual report to Congress providing

specified information on each World Heritage site within the

United States.

Section 4. Prohibition and termination of unauthorized United Nations Biosphere Reserves

Section 4 amends the National Historic Preservation Act to prohibit federal officials from nominating any land in the United

States for designation as a Biosphere Reserve. Existing United

States Biosphere Reserves are terminated unless: (1) the Biosphere

Reserve is specifically authorized in subsequently enacted law by

December 31, 2000; (2) the designated Biosphere Reserve entirely

consists of lands owned by the United States; and (3) a management plan for the Biosphere Reserve has been implemented which
8

specifically provides for the protection of non-federal property

rights and uses. The Secretary of State is to submit an annual report to Congress providing specified information on each Biosphere

Reserve in the United States.

Section 5. International agreements in general

Section 5 amends the National Historic Preservation Act to 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.

‘‘International agreement’’ means any treaty, compact, executive

agreement, convention, or bilateral agreement between 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. The amendments made by this section do not apply to agreements established

under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and conventions referred to in section 3(h)(3) of the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978.

Lands owned by State or local governments may not be included

within the boundaries of any area designated for a special or restricted use under any international agreement unless the designation is approved by a law enacted by the State or local government,

respectively.

No privately owned lands may be included within the boundaries

of any area designated for a special or restricted use under any

international agreement unless the owner of the property concurs

with such action in writing.

Section 6. Clerical amendment

This section updates a reference to the Committee on Resources

in the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI of

the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 2(b)(1) of

rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee

on Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected

in the body of this report.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution

of the United States grant Congress the authority to enact H.R.

883.

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XI

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill pre-
9

pared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not

contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.

3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 3(c)(4)

of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee has received no report of oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform on this

bill.

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the

Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, May 7, 1999.

Hon. DON YOUNG, Chairman, Committee on Resources,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed costs estimate for H.R. 883, the American Land

Sovereignty Protection Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 883—American Land Sovereignty Protection Act

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 883 would have no significant

impact on the federal budget. The bill would not affect direct

spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not

apply. H.R. 883 contains no private-sector or intergovernmental

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and

would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

H.R. 883 would prohibit any federal official from nominating or

designating any federal land for a special or restricted use under

any international agreement unless specifically authorized by law,

with certain exceptions. Moreover, the bill would make ineffective

the designation of any area in the United States under such agreements unless the designation is specifically authorized either by

written permission from the landowner (for private property), or by

state or local law (for property owned by such governments). Designations of federal land would be ineffective as well, unless authorized by federal legislation enacted after enactment of H.R. 883

but before December 31, 2000. These provisions would affect designations of land under programs such as the World Heritage List

and the Man and Biosphere Program of the United Nations. H.R.
10

883 would require the Secretaries of State and the Interior to submit annual reports to the Congress on each site designated under

these programs. In addition, before nominating any federal property for the World Heritage List, the Secretary of the Interior

would have to report to the Congress on the area’s natural resources and the effects that the listing would have on existing or

future uses of the site or other lands within a 10-mile range.

CBO estimates that the Department of State and the Department of the Interior (DOI) would incur minor expenses to collect

information (such as budget and staffing data by site) and to submit annual reports to the Congress. DOI also might incur some

costs (for data gathering and reporting) if it chooses to nominate

any sites for the World Heritage List, but we do not expect these

to be significant. The bill would have no impact on other federal

agencies.

The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

H.R. 883 contains no unfunded mandates.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE IV OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION

ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1980

TITLE IV—INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND WORLD

HERITAGE CONVENTION

SEC. 401. (a) øThe Secretary¿ Subject to subsections (b), (c), (d),

and (e), the Secretary of the Interior shall direct and coordinate

United States participation in the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, approved by

the Senate on October 26, 1973 (in this section referred to as the

‘‘Convention’’), in cooperation with the Secretary of State, the

Smithsonian Institution, and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation. Whenever possible, expenditures incurred in carrying

out activities in cooperation with other nations and international

organizations shall be paid for in such excess currency of the country or area where the expense is incurred as may be available to

the United States.

(b) The Secretary of the Interior shall periodically nominate properties he determines are of international significance to the World

Heritage Committee on behalf of the United States. No property

may be so nominated unless it has previously been determined to

be of national significance. Each such nomination shall include evidence of such legal protections as may be necessary to ensure preservation of the property and its environment (including restrictive
11

covenants, easements, or other forms of protection). Before making

any such nomination, the Secretary shall notify the øCommittee on

Natural Resources¿ Committee on Resources of the United States

House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate.

* * * * * * *

(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:
12

(1) An accounting of all money expended to manage the site.

(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. 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. 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.
13

(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.
(14)

DISSENTING VIEWS

H.R. 883 is unnecessary legislation which seeks to address a

phantom problem of concern only to extremist, anti-environmental

groups. Similar dubious legislation has failed in two previous Congresses, and H.R. 883 deserves the same fate.

H.R. 883 will require congressional authorization for any further

participation in several voluntary international conservation programs. While we support responsible congressional oversight regarding these programs, this measure is an attempt to micro-manage and, in practical effect, preclude further U.S. participation in

important conservation programs.

The World Heritage Convention—proposed by the United States

under the Nixon Administration—is an international agreement

which encourages signatory countries to voluntarily nominate culturally or historically significant sites within their borders for inclusion on the list of World Heritage Sites. To be eligible for listing,

the sites must already be protected under the laws of the host

country and nothing in the Convention alters the ownership or use

of these lands. Sites are nominated because they are already being

protected, not the other way around.

The Man and the Biosphere Program is a voluntary, cooperative

program organized by the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO), the goal of which is to identify areas

where entire ecosystems might be studied and then compared with

similar ecosystems located in other countries. As with the World

Heritage Convention, the Man and the Biosphere Program imposes

no new land use restrictions and does not alter the ownership status of the land in any way.

In addition to effectively ending U.S. participation in these two

specific programs, H.R. 883 would require Congressional authorization before any U.S. lands could be nominated for ‘‘special or restricted’’ use under any ‘‘international agreement,’’ the primary

purpose of which is to conserve, preserve, or protect the ‘‘terrestrial

or marine environment, flora or fauna.’’ As a result, the congressional approval mandate would also apply to a third agreement,

the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially

as Waterfowl Habitat (known as the Ramsar Convention), and

present a barrier to any future agreement.

Rather than subjugating Americans to United Nations hegemony, these programs have worked for decades to establish the

United States as a world leader in efforts to identify, protect and

preserve important environmental and historical sites around the

globe. This legislation will effectively withdraw the United States

from these programs and send a signal around the world that we

no longer value such conservation efforts.

U.S. participation in these programs was a promise to other nations that we would continue our efforts to protect important sites
15

within our own borders and an invitation for them to follow our example. H.R. 883 breaks that important promise and revokes that

invitation. What’s worse, this legislation takes these steps in an effort to capitalize on misguided xenophobia on behalf of interests

which seek to weaken U.S. efforts to conserve public lands and resources.

GEORGE MILLER. NICK RAHALL. BRUCE VENTO. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. FRANK PALLONE. ADAM SMITH. JAY INSLEE.

(17)

A P P E N D I X

MAY 5, 1999.

Hon. BRUCE F. VENTO, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 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’ 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 Nomi-
18

1 ‘‘Proposed U.S. Work Heritage Nominations for 1981, Public Notice,’’ 45 FR 48717, July 21,

1980. You will find the same language in each annual notice.

nations for 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 of 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.

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 of 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’ U.N. 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.
19

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). It is 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 by 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. U.N. 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 made 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 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 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
20

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 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 committees 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
21

groups whose members have no concern for protecting individual

property rights and American interests.

Sincerely,

JEANE J. KIRKPATRICK.

Æ