Date: 1999-08-02
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman. the World Heritage Conventibn is an international treaty conceived and spearheaded by the United States during the Nixon administration under which countries voluntarily identify culturally and environmentally significant areas within their own borders and promise to continue to protect them. The program is totally voluntary. The land must be protected in order to be nominated. It is not protected after it is nominated. The only power that the World Heritage Committee has is if the country who nominated the site goes back on its promise to protect that area. the committee can drop the site from the list. The Man and the Biosphere program identifies protected areas where scientists can study entire ecosystems and then sets up a framework where those scientists can share their information internationally. The framework documents which control the Man and the Biosphere program and the World Heritage Convention both contain language making clear that they in no way alter the ownership or control of these lands. Since we were the first signatory of the World Heritage Convention in 1973. 152 other nations have followed suit. This convention was not only a promise to live up to our own standards for protecting these sites. it was an invitation to other countries around the world to follow suit. These two programs have established the United States as a world leader in environmental protection and scientific study and the sharing of that information. Killing these programs will not hurt these sites in the U.S. They are already protected and will remain so. Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks will still be national parks if we withdraw from the World Heritage Convention. The Everglades will still be protected if we stop our scientific study under the Man and the Biosphere program. But this action will send a signal around the world that we no longer value the kind of environmental protection and scientific study that we as a Nation pioneered and asked the world community to join. We have seen this amendment a number of times in the last several years and the House has rejected this amendment each and every time because in fact a majority of the House understands the nature of the scientific study. the importance of designating these sites as World Heritage areas. and they also understand that this is a voluntary program. The fact that the process takes place in Belgium or in Paris or somewhere else. this is an international body. This is an international body. So that should not be foreign to the Members of Congress and that is one of the reasons why it is in this legislation. This is an international organization to foster the protection of these huge. huge world class environmental assets. The size of these assets is immaterial. Some of them are there because nations decided that these landscapes. these huge areas should be protected as we did with the Everglades. as we did with Grand Canyon. as we did with Yellowstone. That is the purpose of this program. The international scientific study is there so scientists in one country can help other scientists learn about the kind of protections. about the kinds of programs that work to protect these environmental assets. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong. strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment is a latenight. backdoor attempt to kill two programs that critics of those programs have been unable to kill in the light of day. Legislation to abolish the Man and the Biosphere and World Heritage Programs failed in 1996 and 1997 and looks like it may fail again this year. So we are here tonight to short circuit the process with a little amendment buried in a huge appropriations bill. The World Heritage Convention is an international treaty. conceived and spearheaded by the United States during the Nixon administration. under which countries voluntarily identify culturally and environmentally significant areas within their own borders and promise to continue protecting them. 1. The program is totally voluntary. 2. The land must already be protected in order to be nominated. it is not protected after its nominated. 3. The only power the World Heritage Committee has is. if the country who nominated the site goes back on its promise to protect that area. the Committee can drop the site from the list. The Man and the Biosphere program identifies protected areas where scientists can study entire ecosystems and then set up a framework where those scientists can share their information internationally. The framework documents which control the Man and the Biosphere program and the World Heritage Convention both contain lan.guage making clear that they in no way alter the ownership or control of these lands. So if these programs are so innocuous. whats the big deal if we abandon them? Well. since the United States was the first signatory of the World Heritage Convention in 1973. 152 other nations have followed suit. This convention was not only a promise to live up to our own standards for protecting these sites. it was an invitation to other countries around the world to follow suit. These two programs have established the United States as a world leader in environmental protection and scientific study. Killing these programs wont hurt these sites in the United States. They are already protected and will remain so. Yellowstone and Glacier National Park will still be national parks if we withdraw from the World Heritage Convention and the Everglades will still protected if we stop our scientific study of that area under the MAB program. But. this action will send a signal around the world that we no longer value the kind of environmental protection and scientific study that we pioneered. We would be relinquishing our role as a world leader in the protection and preservation of culturally and environmentally important areas. Why at a time when the Nation is justifiably proud of its role as a world leader in so many areas. would we want to abdicate our role as a world leader in perhaps the most important fight of all. the fight to protect and preserve this planet for generations to come? This amendment is an attempt to short circuit the will of the Congress and it would send a terrible signal to the rest of the world. Oppose the Tancredo amendment