American Land Sovereignty Protection Act
Donald Edwin Young
[Report to the 106th Congress, U.S. House of
Representatives, May 1999]
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 non-Federal 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 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
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 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 mine site 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 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?
AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT
Committee Oversight Finding 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 [this section not reproduced] 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. 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.