<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:43911.wais]
AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 901
__________
TANNERSVILLE, NEW YORK, MAY 5, AND WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 10, 1997
__________
Serial No. 105-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-911 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearings held in Tannersville, NY and Washington, DC:
May 5, 1997.................................................. 1
June 10, 1997................................................ 35
Statement of Members:
Cannon, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah.......................................... 4
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 4
Hinchey, Hon. Maurice, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 2
Prepared statement....................................... 7
Radanovich, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, prepared statement of............. 228
Solomon, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 5
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 1
Prepared statement....................................... 2
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 35
Prepared statement....................................... 36
Statement of Witnesses:
Araoz, Gustavo F., Executive Director, United States
Committee of the International Council of Monuments and
Sites, Washington, DC...................................... 88
Prepared statement....................................... 212
Barber, Patti, Northeastern Regional Director, Pulp and
Paperworkers Resource Council.............................. 11
Beaver, Betty Ann, Hot Springs, Arkansas..................... 62
Prepared statement....................................... 182
Chandler, William J., Vice President for Conservation Policy,
National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC 86
Prepared statement....................................... 100
Prepared statement....................................... 203
Chase, Sherret S., Shokan, New York.......................... 24
Childers, Hon. Charles P., Wyoming State Representative,
Cody, Wyoming.............................................. 39
Prepared statement....................................... 128
Prepared statement....................................... 131
Cobb, Thomas, President, Association for the Protection of
the Adirondacks............................................ 9
Cook, Hon. Charles D., New York State Senator, Fortieth
Senatorial District, prepared statement of................. 237
French, Dale, Supervisor, Town of Crown Point, New York...... 8
Galvin, Denis P., Acting Deputy Director of the National Park
Service.................................................... 60
Prepared statement....................................... 168
Harmon, David, Deputy Executive Director, The George Wright
Society, Hancock, Michigan, prepared statement of.......... 231
Howard, David B., Adirondack Blueline Confederation,
Gloversville, New York..................................... 90
Prepared statement....................................... 218
Jeannette, James, Alaska State Representative, North Pole,
Alaska..................................................... 40
Prepared statement....................................... 136
Jordan, Jack, Lexington, New York............................ 26
LaGrasse, Carol, President, Property Rights Foundation of
America, Inc............................................... 22
Lamb, Henry, Executive Vice President, Environmental
Conservation Organization, Hollow Rock, Tennessee.......... 92
Prepared statement....................................... 99
Prepared statement....................................... 222
Lanzetta, Cynthia, Biosphere Study Group, Mid-Ulster League
of Women Voters............................................ 14
Lindsey, Steve, Canelo, Arizona.............................. 59
Prepared statement....................................... 157
O'Donnell, Michael C., on H.R. 901........................... 241
Pomerance, Rafe, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S.
Department of State, Washington, DC........................ 77
Prepared statement....................................... 194
Powers, Sheila, Albany County Farm Bureau.................... 12
Rabkin, Jeremy A., Associate Professor, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York........................................... 63
Prepared statement....................................... 188
Roth, Ronald, Director, Greene County Planning Department.... 26
Train, Russell E., Chairman Emeritus, World Wildlife Fund,
Washington DC, prepared statement of....................... 229
Vogel, John, Land Commissioner, St. Louis County, Minnesota.. 37
Prepared statement....................................... 124
Wesson, Donald, Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource Council,
McGehee, Arkansas.......................................... 83
Prepared statement of.................................... 200
Additional material supplied:
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act--H.R. 901, Briefing
Paper...................................................... 109
Arkansas Constitution of 1874................................ 248
Constitution of the State of Minnesota....................... 250
Text of H.R. 901............................................. 113
AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT
----------
MONDAY, MAY 5, 1997
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Tannersville, NY.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:03 p.m. at
Hunter-Tannersville High School, Tannersville, New York, Hon.
Don Young (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. I want to
thank all these kind people who are here today to hear the
testimony. Under the Committee rules, we will have 5 minutes of
testimony. It is my discretion to try to keep it within the 5
minutes. We do have a plane to catch later on this afternoon,
so we'll try to go with the schedule. We're starting on
schedule.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
The Chairman. We're here today to hear different witnesses,
and I welcome those witnesses. Today we will hear testimony on
the U.S. Man and Biosphere program. Over the last 25 years, an
increasing expanse of our nation's territory has been
incorporated into United Nations Biosphere Reserves. Under
Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, the
Constitution of America, the power to make all needful rules
and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States
is vested in the U.S. Congress, the Congress of the people.
Yet United Nations Biosphere Reserve designations have been
created without the authorization or input of Congress, and
public or local governments are rarely consulted. I have
introduced H.R. 901, ``The American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act,'' which will allow creation of a biosphere reserve only if
it is specifically authorized by Congress.
This should guarantee that local and regional concerns are
considered. H.R. 901 now has almost a hundred and thirty co-
sponsors, including Congressmen Solomon, Paxon and McHugh. I
understand that the Biosphere Reserve program is controversial
in upstate New York. Congressman Solomon invited the Committee
on Resources to come to this district and listen to the
concerns that local residents in New York have about this
program.
This hearing will focus on the following issues: The
process by which biosphere reserves are created; how this
program affects the relationship between Federal, state and
local governments; how creation of a biosphere reserve could
affect use of surrounding lands and impact property rights; the
effectiveness of the U.S. Man and Biosphere program. At this
time, I will yield to the gentleman from New York, who has an
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Don Young follows:]
Statement of Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alaska
I am pleased to welcome our witnesses. Today we will hear testimony
on the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program.
Over the last 25 years, an increasing expanse of our nation's
territory has been incorporated into United Nations Biosphere Reserves.
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 United
Nations Biosphere Reserve designations have been created without the
authorization or input of Congress. The public and local governments
are rarely consulted.
I have introduced a bill, H.R. 901, ``The American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act,'' which will allow creation of a biosphere reserve only
if it is specifically authorized by Congress. This should guarantee
that local and regional concerns are considered. H.R. 901 now has
almost 130 cosponsors including Congressmen Solomon, Paxon and McHugh.
I understand that the biosphere reserve program is controversial in
upstate New York. Congressman Solomon invited the Committee on
Resources to come to his district and listen to the concerns that local
residents York have about this program.
This hearing will focus on the following issues:
(1) the process by which biosphere reserves are created,
(2) how this program affects the relationship between Federal,
state and local governments,
(3) how creation of a biosphere reserve could affect use of
surrounding lands and impact property rights, and
(4) the effectiveness of the U.S. Man and Biosphere program.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE HINCHEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Hinchey. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, and I thank you very
much. First of all, let me say that it is a distinct honor, and
I regard it also as a privilege to have the opportunity to
welcome you here. This is not my district; this district has
the good fortune to be represented by my friend and neighbor,
Jerry Solomon; but my district and my home, in fact, is just a
short distance from here, about 15 miles or so.
And this is an area with which I am very familiar, having
grown up here and spent a long part of my life in these
Catskill Mountains. So, it's a pleasure to have you here, Mr.
Chairman, and you bring with you the prestige of your office,
and we're delighted that you have chosen us to have a hearing
on issues that affect our community. And I am very pleased to
be able to be here with you.
As you know, as I've just stated, I'm a resident of the
Catskill region. My home is just a short distance from here. I
hope that you'll have the opportunity while you're here to see
this part of New York, and to recognize that not all of New
York is paved-over asphalt. Not all of it is traffic
congestion. What we have here are our own forests and wild
lands.
I know that some of my colleagues may honestly think that
we Easterners don't have any wild lands or forests, but you can
see for yourself, this is obviously not the case. It is true
that we have very little Federal land here in New York, and
that our wilderness areas in New York are protected by state
law, and by the State Constitution and not by the Federal
Constitution.
Much of the land within the Catskill Mountains, however,
remains under private ownership, and many private landowners
here have taken the lead in land protection and preservation
and good forest husbandry practices. That's true in the case of
the matter at hand today.
I understand that we're here to discuss the proposal,
which, by the way, was withdrawn almost 2 years ago, to
nominate the Catskill region as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. The
proposal originated right here in the Catskills, with local
residents and landowners. No one from the Federal Government
was involved. No one in Congress was involved.
One of the sponsors of the application was Sherret Chase,
who is, I believe, here with us today as a witness. Mr. Chase
is a resident of the Catskills. He worked with several non-
profit organizations, including the Catskill Center, and the
Mohawk Reserve, in developing the application, and I am pleased
that he will be here and have an opportunity to explain the
process and the ideas behind the application.
That application was, however, as I indicated, withdrawn
almost 2 years ago. And when it was withdrawn, it was done so
in the words of Janet Crenshaw, the Executive Director of the
Catskill Center at the time, and she said it was withdrawn
because of misinformation and misunderstanding, and, quote,
``mixed reaction.''
She noted that the Biosphere had served in other areas as a
vehicle for jobs and money for upgrading water and sewage
systems, for economic development studies, for agricultural
systems, and other worthwhile projects. Although the proposal
originated locally, some opponents were quoted, in fact, at the
time as saying that it would give, quote, ``outsiders,''
unquote, control over the region, and that would impose unnamed
new land use regulations.
However, in all of the background material and documents
submitted on this issue, no one has been able to find any
indication that Biosphere Reserve designation imposes any kind
of land use regulation. It clearly does not give the United
Nations--far from it--any legal authority over an area or any
land use control authority, as some people seem to fear.
Most interestingly, one local citizen was quoted in the
press as saying the Biosphere Reserve program, I quote, ``Is
something we don't know enough about, and we don't want to know
about it.'' I hope that that attitude will not prevail here
today, and that with the current legislation on the Biosphere
Reserve program and the World Heritage program, it is based on
facts, not on fear or innuendo or misinformation.
Specifically, we should ask, does a Biosphere Reserve or
World Heritage designation have any affect on U.S. law or local
land use authority? As you know, we already have extensive
experience in this county with such designations.
I understand that there are four Biosphere Reserves in the
district that you represent, Mr. Chairman, all of them
designated under the administrations of President Reagan and
President Ford. So, we should ask whether such designations
have limited United States sovereignty, or caused any tangible
harm, or whether they have produced benefits, and we have the
experience of those areas to tell us. In this particular
instance--I'm almost finished--I have another concern.
The bill before us today, H.R. 901, would prohibit Federal
officials from nominating sites for Biosphere Reserves. It
would also prohibit nominations of sites for Biosphere Reserves
unless it consisted solely of federally owned lands, and that
requires Congressional approval. In this particular case, this
law would mean that even if an overwhelming majority of
Catskill residents supported such a designation, they could not
obtain it, because the people in control told them they had no
right to seek it.
In short, we have to ask what need there is for such
legislation, and what real affect it would have. And with that,
Mr. Chairman, I look forward, as you do, I'm sure, to very the
informative testimony which will be given. And I'm delighted to
be in this position and to have an opportunity to listen to my
learned and respected colleague, Chairman of the House Rules
Committee, and my neighbor, the Honorable Gerald Solomon.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Maurice Hinchey may be
found at end of hearing.]
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Idaho.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Ms. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the essence of
time, I will submit my statement for the record, and I look
forward to hearing the witnesses and to having a very
interesting and informative hearing here. It is wonderful to be
up here in the Catskills. Mr. Solomon, Mr. Hinchey, it's a
pleasure to join you. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth may be
found at end of hearing.]
The Chairman. Are you ready, Mr. Cannon?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just take a
couple of moments to present the issue as well. I appreciate
being here with the Committee. I am a co-sponsor of this
measure. I'm from Utah, and I had the pleasure of being in
Binghamton a few weeks ago, and met with a woman who was
interested in Utah and what it's like.
And finally, she asked to see a picture, one of the staff
had a picture, and she looked at it and said, ``Where are the
trees?'' And the staffer said, ``There are no trees.'' She
said, ``Who cut them down?'' ``God didn't put them there. He
didn't put enough water to grow trees.'' So, to be here, this
area is just beautiful, and very, very different from the area
that I'm from.
I think we have some beautiful areas out there, and also
lots of it; and unilaterally, without talking to anyone in
Utah, including the elected officials in Utah, the Clinton
Administration nominated 1.7 million acres as a monument, the
designated area as big as Rhode Island and Delaware combined,
and without talking to people.
We're a little sensitive in Utah, of the Federal
Government, and how it affects our lives without--without
feedback. And I think that's the kind of thing we're looking
at, and I'm anxious to see how this process of biosphere
designation is going on, and how it affects locals, what the
role of local residents is in effecting process, and what kind
of constraints you put on the power to make these kinds of
designations. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Now we'll hear from Congressman
Gerald Solomon. As Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to have
you here. I'll recognize you; go ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY SOLOMON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Solomon. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the
other members of the Resources Committee for giving me the
opportunity to speak today at this field hearing for H.R. 901,
the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, that I am
privileged to co-sponsor along with you and the other members
of your Committee. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all just
acknowledge you.
You've been a Member of Congress even longer than I have,
and I've been there for a couple of decades now; and I can't
think of any Member of Congress who has been more helpful to me
in helping me represent the people in the Hudson Valley, all
the way to the Catskills, all the way to the Adirondacks.
You've been a tremendous help, and we hope you're going to stay
on for a number of years to make sure that we continue to have
this kind of representation.
Second, Helen Chenoweth is a relatively new member; she has
come to us from the state of Idaho and she is a dynamic member
of your Committee and Congress, as is Chris Cannon. And
certainly your interests and those of the people I represent
are the same. So, we really do appreciate your coming here.
And, of course, Maurice Hinchey, my good friend and neighbor to
the south, he represents part of the Catskills, and we
appreciate all of his input here today as well.
As the--and incidentally, Mr. Chairman, just for those who
are here today, I'm Chairman of the Rules Committee, I set the
floor debate, and we were ready to postpone all the votes today
so that we could be here. So, we'll try to make up for the
votes on Tuesday. You and I and the rest of us have to catch a
plane back this afternoon, so I understand the limitations that
you have on the hearing today.
Just two things: Let me just say, as a representative of
this beautiful Catskill Mountain area, as well as the
Adirondack Mountains, I have a personal interest in this
legislation and strongly support its passage, because it
addresses the concerns many of us have with the U.N. Biosphere
Reserve and World Heritage Sites programs. Like my good friend,
Maurice Hinchey, I grew up just across the county line in
Albany County and have worked many summers, as a young boy, in
Greene County, and now I live in the Adirondacks.
I've been hunting and fishing in this area all of my life,
and we have to do all we can to preserve this area. As many of
you know, the U.N. Biosphere Reserve program has operated with
little or no public or congressional oversight. Under
agreements with the United Nations, the United States promised
to manage lands under international guidelines, and more often
than not, local governments and property owners are not even
consulted.
And although the U.N. program receives well over $700,000
in Federal funding every year, there has never been
authorization or approval given from Congress, nor has the
issue ever been debated on the floor of Congress. This issue
has never been debated, and that's why I appreciate the fact
that you've introduced this legislation and will be bringing it
to the floor, so that we can have this debate.
Forty-seven Biosphere Reserves were established before the
public began to be aware of just what was happening. One of
these was established in the northern part of the congressional
district which I have the privilege of representing, without me
or local government officials ever knowing about it. And there
are 6 million acres of land involved, and it is private
property in the Adirondacks. The Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere
Reserve was created in 1989 at the request of a quasi-
governmental agency, the Adirondack Park Agency, and the
Governors of New York and Vermont. Without congressional
hearings or any input from any of the local citizens of the
Adirondacks, this area was designated as a U.N. Biosphere
Reserve.
In many cases in this country, I would submit that with
congressional oversight as well as public input, many of these
U.N. sites would not have been designated. In fact, in 1994, as
my good friend Maurice Hinchey mentioned, the Catskill Region
was nominated for designation as a U.N. Biosphere Reserve. When
Federal, state, and local officials and residents expressed
their opposition, believe me, the nomination was withdrawn.
This legislation, 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. Most of all, this bill
protects individual property rights. Executive branch political
appointees cannot now, and they should not, be making property
decisions in the place of individual landowners and local
governments. These Biosphere Reserves are a part of a much
larger pattern of furthering a left-wing agenda, of
accomplishing the goals through unelected bureaucrats, liberal
judges, and international organizations like the United
Nations. We cannot and will not allow that to happen.
Let me just sum up, Mr. Chairman, by saying that this bill
is the first step in the right direction in returning power to
the elected representatives in Congress, as well as to the
local citizens and officials. Most importantly, this bill
reasserts the constitutional rights of property owners to
control their land without interference from some international
organization.
And believe me, Mr. Chairman, the intent of various
factions within the United Nations is obvious. There are even
promises--proposals out there to levy a national tax on the
American taxpayers to pay for these New World ideas, including
land use prohibitions. Having served 2 years as Ambassador/
Delegate myself to the United Nations under Ronald Reagan, to
the United Nations, I can tell you we must always be diligent
and extremely wary of these kinds of proposals.
The last thing we would want to do is for the U.S. Federal
Government, at the request of the United Nations, to usurp some
of the rights of local governments and settle for some kind of
legal zoning. That is really my concern; that's why I really
appreciate you coming here today to listen to the witnesses,
and perhaps on both sides of the issue, but at least so the
public is made aware of just what the ramifications of these
reserves are. And I salute you and thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jerry Solomon follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jerry Solomon, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York
I want to thank my colleagues, Chairman Don Young and the
other members of the Resources Committee, for giving me the
opportunity to speak today at this field hearing for H.R 901,
the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. As the
representative of this beautiful mountain area, I have a
personal interest in this legislation and strongly support its
passage. H.R 901 clearly addresses the concerns many of us have
with the U.N. Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Sites
programs.
As many of you know, the U.N. Biosphere Reserve program has
operated with little or no public or congressional oversight.
Under agreements with the United Nations, the United States
promised to manage lands under international guidelines. Many
times, local government and property owners are not even
consulted!!
Although the administration for this U.N. program receives
well over $700,000 in Federal funding every year, there has
never been authorization or approval given from Congress, nor
has the issue ever been debated on the floor of Congress.
Forty-seven biosphere reserves were established before the
public began to be aware of what was happening. One of these
was established in the northern part of the congressional
district I represent without me or local government officials
ever knowing about it.
The Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve was created in
1989 at the request of a quasi-governmental agency, the
Adirondack Park Agency, and the Governors of New York and
Vermont. Without congressional hearings or real input from any
of the local citizens of the Adirondacks, this area was
designated as a U.N. Biosphere Reserve.
In many cases in this country, I would submit that with
congressional oversight as well as public input many of these
U.N. sites would not have been designated.
In fact in 1994, the Catskill region was nominated for
designation as a U.N. Biosphere Reserve. When local officials
and residents expressed their opposition, the nomination was
defeated.
This legislation, the American Land Sovereignty 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.
Most of all, H.R 901 protects individual property rights.
Executive branch political appointees cannot and should not be
making property decisions in the place of individual
landowners.
These biosphere reserves are a part of a much larger
pattern of furthering the left wing agenda of accomplishing
goals through unelected bureaucrats, liberal judges and
international organizations like the United Nations. We can not
allow that to happen!!
H.R 901 is a first step in the right direction, returning
power to the elected representatives in Congress as well as to
the local citizens and officials. Most importantly, this bill
reasserts the constitutional rights of property owners to
control their land without interference from some international
organization.
The Chairman. Thank you. I do thank you, Mr. Solomon, and
I'm going to ask you, I'd like to have you join us as a
Committee member. Thank you. On the first panel is Mr. Dale
French, Mr. Tom Cobb, Ms. Patti Barber, Ms. Sheila Powers and
Ms. Cindy Lanzetta. You may take your seats respectively,
please.
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Chairman, may I ask, for the record, it
might be interesting for those who are not as familiar with the
process to hear from counsel, perhaps at this moment, how did
the current circumstances of these Biosphere Reserves come
about? What is the process by which they came about?
The Chairman. We're not going to take the witnesses' time
to get into that question. This is not the time to do that.
Mr. Hinchey. It seems as though ``in the dark'' might be a
description of what the current process is.
The Chairman. This bill was created, and it is our
responsibility to go back to the Congress where we will either
say yes or no. Now is not the time; we're here to hear from the
people who do not believe it should be done, or do believe it
should be done; that's what we're here for. Mr. French, you're
up.
STATEMENT OF DALE FRENCH, SUPERVISOR, TOWN OF CROWN POINT, NEW
YORK
Mr. French. Thank you, and good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Dale French and I'm the Supervisor of the
town of Crown Point, Essex County, and I'm here on behalf of
the Board of Supervisors of Essex County, and we unanimously
support this bill, and thank you for being here.
Essex County is, geographically, approximately in the
center of the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve, created
in 1989. It is 10 million acres in size, the fourth largest in
the world, the largest in North America, and the heaviest
populated in the entire world. The process of nominating our
region as a Biosphere Reserve started in 1984 by the famous ad-
hoc U.S. and Canadian panel.
This ad hoc Committee defined the area to make the
Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve, creating this
biosphere, in the process during this 5-year period, no local
officials were notified, nor has local official or business
people or any property owner ever been notified that this
process was going on; absolutely none.
The Chairman. Can you lean closer to the microphone,
please?
Mr. French. In March 1989, the nomination was submitted to
UNESCO and the region was designated as a Biosphere Reserve.
Most of us didn't find out until a year later that we were a
Biosphere Reserve. We didn't know what it meant; but at that
time, there were regulatory pressures added to the Adirondacks
by the state government. Down-staters called it a plan, we
called it pressure.
We then started researching what this meant, to be a
Biosphere Reserve. At the same time, in 1990, was the Lake
Champlain Special Designation Act. It was at about that time,
$25 million, was earmarked to reduce pollution in Lake
Champlain. Then the Adirondacks Reserve was 10 million acres, 7
million in private property and about 3 million in Vermont and
about 7 million in New York State. And there's no Federal
lands.
As we researched these other initiatives, the Northern
Forest Lands Council also came into being in 1990. They said
their council was made to look at the large-scale conversion of
forestland to development. There were processes in both of
these initiatives; there were regulatory structures, regulators
comprised the program. That's how the process goes. They like
to be in place before they designate. Now, the same thing is
going to happen.
I've got a bill that Congress plans; I've included this in
my written testimony. It was a House bill, H.R. 2379. And this
bill passed in 1983 buy a large majority in the House, with the
International Biosphere program given jurisdiction over
Biosphere Reserves in this country.
In 1983, the Biosphere Reserves were primarily public
property, Federal lands. In 1984, the Biosphere Reserve program
took off in earnest, including private lands, extensively,
considerably higher in our region: Seven million acres in
private land, no Federal lands to speak of. I'll read one
excerpt from this bill in 1983. ``It is the sense of the
Congress that with respect to any international park located
within the United States and any adjacent nation which has been
recognized and designated a Biosphere Reserve under the
auspices of the international conservation community, the
responsible park management officials of the United States and
such nation, in conjunction with appropriate legislative and
parliamentary officials, establish means and methods of
ensuring that the integrity of such Biosphere Reserve is
maintained.''
These things can happen. This is at issue. This came from
our own Congress. If that had been enacted, gone through the
Senate, our private lands would, at this time, today, under the
National Park Service, would have been under the United
Nations. I may be wrong on this. Maybe it's just a sign of lack
of communication, and I'm wrong. But we all want to be involved
in this; we all want to be a part of the process.
If this program goes forward, it's a sad time in our
country when we need a bill like this. We also believe that we
don't have the dollars and resources that this program can tie
up across this nation, and the private property rights that
could be subjected at this time to international scrutiny, and
international involvement that is not wanted or needed. Thank
you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Cobb; Thomas Cobb.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS COBB, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE ADIRONDACKS
Mr. Cobb. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank
you for your invitation to appear before you today for the
purpose of presenting the views of the Association for the
Protection of the Adirondacks on H.R. 901, the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act.
My name is Tom Cobb, and I am President of the Association
for the Protection of the Adirondacks. I'm a founder and also
former chairman of the Adirondack Research Center Library,
which is now a part of our organization. Our staff, board
members, advisers and volunteers devote their time to public
outreach, education and research on the natural and cultural
heritage of the Adirondack and Catskill Parks, and including
some 3 million acres of state-owned Forest Preserve lands
protected under the Forever Wild covenant, Article XIV, Section
One, of the State Constitution. The constitu-
tional protection given to the New York State Forest Preserve
is the strongest such law in the United States.
The primary focus of my remarks today is to provide citizen
support for the U.S. Man and Biosphere program, and
particularly to address the merits of the Champlain-Adirondack
Biosphere Reserve established in 1989 as the 45th designated
site in the United States, and the largest Biosphere Reserve in
North America.
This 6,000-square-mile area encompasses the entire
Adirondack Park and the Lake Champlain watershed. The
Adirondack Forest Preserve and four wilderness areas within the
Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont provide the core
areas of the Biosphere Reserve and serve as natural benchmarks
for monitoring the ecological health of the Reserve as well as
human impacts on the environment.
The significance of such global environmental problems as
acid deposition, loss of wetlands and biodiversity, ozone
depletion, climate change, and degradation of lake and river
systems can be monitored through the network of this and some
three hundred Biosphere Reserves worldwide. The Man and
Biosphere program is one of the few programs directed at
promoting both the economic and environmental well-being of a
region.
The Lake Champlain Management Conference, a cooperative
agreement signed in 1988 by Quebec, Vermont and New York, is a
successful offshoot of the larger Biosphere Reserve, and
provides policy justification for Congressional enactment of
the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act in 1990. Over a 5-
year period, this law authorized the expenditure of $25 million
in the Champlain Basin for demonstration projects and a variety
of educational and training programs.
Now, with regard to citizen involvement, the question posed
is what good can come from public forums that offer
opportunities for expression of diverse perspectives from
people interested in dialog and in partnerships within a
designated Biosphere Reserve? The Champlain-Adirondack
Biosphere Reserve has proven to be a good vehicle to find out.
In 1995 and 1996, the Association launched a series of four
forums, ``Adirondack Northern Forest: A Common Stewardship,''
to seek answers to this question.
We received financial support in the amount of $5,000,
provided by the U.S. MAB Directorate, with an additional
$10,000 matching sum received from the New York Caucus of the
Northern Forest Alliance, Camp Fire Conservation Fund, and
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Foundation. The forums
resulted in 23 constructive actions, variously associated with
enhancing citizenship and governance, eco-tourism, forest and
farm-based economies, and landscape ecology.
So, where do we stand?
Where the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks
stands on the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve was
publicly shared with our members, friends and colleagues in
conservation during the 1992 Centennial Year of the Adirondack
Park. The Trustees of the Association adopted the position
that, and I quote: ``This 10 million acre international
Biosphere Reserve in Vermont and New York can play an extremely
important, nonpartisan, nonregulatory role in increasing levels
of trust, fair and open participa-
tion and coordinated action among all levels of government and
the private sector that leads to improved economic and
environmental quality in the region. The organization of the
Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve should be carefully
fostered and enthusiastically supported.''
And our position has not changed since 1992.
It is our view that the provisions of H.R. 901 would impose
unnecessary restrictions on both governmental and
nongovernmental organizations to participate together as
partners in conservation.
The legislation would needlessly impair the ability of the
Champlain-Adirondack and other U.S. Biosphere Reserves to
effectively function and provide the array of educational,
scientific and economic benefits made possible by the Man and
Biosphere program.
The Association therefore strongly opposes H.R. 901.
The Biosphere Reserve title is an honorary designation:
There is no treaty, no United Nations control, no extra layers
of management, and poses no threat to the sovereignty of
American lands.
The designation is simply a symbol of international and
national voluntary cooperation for the study, conservation and
responsible use of our natural resources in sustaining society.
Indeed, the Association sees the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere
Reserve presenting new opportunities, and helping focus
national and international attention on the region in a manner
similar to the 1980 Winter Olympics, where the Adirondack
setting and events of the Olympics were seen by some 600
million people throughout the world. Past generations of New
Yorkers have been faithful trustees.
The Chairman. How much more time are you going to need?
Mr. Cobb. I'm almost finished. Past generations of New
Yorkers have been faithful trustees. They have repeatedly
rejected propositions to demean the Adirondack Park, and have
consistently supported measures to enhance it. And that
concludes my prepared statement. Mr. Chairman, I very much
appreciate the invitation to appear before you today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Ms. Patti Barber.
STATEMENT OF PATTI BARBER, NORTHEASTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PULP
AND PAPERWORKERS RESOURCE COUNCIL
Ms. Barber. Thank you very much for inviting me here today.
My name is Patti Barber; I'm from Ticonderoga, New York. I am
here today representing the Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource
Council, Northeast region.
I have worked in the pulp and paper industry for the past
20 years at International Paper Company. I have also been
active in the United Paperworkers International Union for the
past 20 years, the last 4 years as recording secretary for
Local Number Five.
The Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource Council is a grassroots
organization representing more than 300,000 workers of the
nation's pulp, paper, solid wood products and other natural
resource-based industries. We are dedicated to preserving the
environment while taking into account the economic stability of
the work force and the surrounding community.
The bill, H.R. 901, American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act, is desperately needed for the survival of the pulp and
paper industry and our jobs. This bill is needed to restore
Congress's role in governing Federal lands, to protect our
private property rights. Our country must be governed by our
elected officials according to the Constitution of the United
States, and not by the rule of the United Nations. The United
States is not a third-world country that needs the United
Nations' help to preserve our country's resources.
As American people, we are one of the most educated and the
United States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
I find it hard to believe that we need the United Nations to
decide when and where our land areas are transferred to World
Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves. Just think about the
long-range scenario. If we set aside the Biosphere Reserves and
all of the World Heritage sites in the United States, plus all
the buffer zones within a ten- to 20 mile radius, where would
that put the American working people? Where would the working
people live, their families live and survive? Do we set up a
reservation? Is it fair--is it far-fetched, unreasonable?
I have been reading all I can get my hands on about the
Biosphere Reserves for the past few weeks. Reading about
Yellowstone National Park being a World Heritage site upset me,
but what I have been reading about in our own area, the
Adirondacks, has made me very angry. The Adirondacks have been
cited as a part of the United Nations Biosphere Reserve, and
the fact that very few people in our area are aware of this
happening is totally out of control.
We, the people of the United States of America, cannot let
this happen to our land. The United Nations World Heritage
Sites and Biosphere Reserves must be stopped now. It is
important that these treaties be approved by Congress. The Pulp
and Paperworkers' Resource Council and United Paperworkers
International Union are in support of H.R. 901. If anything is
to be accomplished today, please let it be the approval of this
bill, H.R. 901.
Let's keep our environment, natural resources and people in
the labor and industry working. Thank you for your time.
The Chairman. I know we are all eager to do that,
[applause] and we do appreciate that, and I do compliment you;
but each time you do that, you take up that much more time from
those who are here to testify, and I am going to adjourn this
hearing at 3 o'clock. So please hold your applause down to the
end. I understand your enthusiasm, believe me, I do, but
unfortunately we have to catch an airplane to get back to
Washington, and when you do that you take away from the time we
have to hear you.
Ms. Sheila Powers.
STATEMENT OF SHEILA POWERS, ALBANY COUNTY FARM BUREAU
Ms. Powers. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and
Honorable Members of Congress. My name is Sheila Powers; I am
president of Albany County Farm Bureau, I reside at 250 Larry
Hill Road, Schoharie, New York, where I have lived for about 23
years.
I'm here today with the belief that we are all responsible
for our government, and I believe that those who govern rely on
the governed for feedback and input, as well as accountability.
I'm sixty-five years old and I'm a retired farmer. I am
grateful for the opportunity to testify today, not only to
thank you for the bill and its contents, which we strongly
support, but to urge the rest of the Committee to please
support it and vote for it, in the interest of protecting our
national strength and beliefs.
I must tell you that the farmers that I represent have
expressed grave disapproval and dismay at the lack of respect
shown by the President in signing the Biosphere Diversity
Treaty [Convention on Bilogical Diversity]. We congratulate
Congressman Young and his staff, along with all of the co-
sponsors, for moving along this bill and remaining steadfast
about its protections, regardless of the posturing of
environmentalist and globalist behavior.
It is indeed reassuring for a step which reaffirms the
traditions upon which America was founded. Our American Farm
Bureau Federation grassroots policy about global treaties can
be found in our 1997 manual on page 116, number 128, lines 1
through 22, and I have included that in your copy. I might add
that our ancestors of Albany, Montgomery and Schoharie County
farmers, were Palatines who left middle Europe to escape the
tyranny of the feudal system.
Their lives were entirely controlled by the Palatinate,
unable to own their own property, to pass on to their children
the results of their own labors. They couldn't control their
own lives. So, when Queen Anne offered them the opportunity to
travel across the sea to the New World, they gathered up what
moneys they could and they fled to the New World. They sailed
up the Hudson, they crossed over mountains into the
hinterlands, on foot I might add, and settled in Berne,
Schoharie and Middleburgh, where private property was protected
from intrusion by the government and others.
Our information downloaded from the Man and Biosphere
program suggests that local communities would benefit and that
local and global common interests would be preserved; we are of
the belief that the training promised has not only successfully
already been handed down from father to son, but it has been
the choice of the farmers to invest their time, money and
efforts into producing a food supply which feeds much of the
world.
The scientists, they say, will produce new ways of farming,
on property we would no longer own. We are told this ownership
of land should be removed and replaced by public ownership for
the global common good. We in the Farm Bureau do not think so.
What we do believe is that the American farmers have done a
remarkable job of feeding large portions of the world's
population, carefully stewarding their land, which must last
forever, and all of them do this with their free will and their
desire to achieve excellent results.
Sections two, three, four and five of H.R. 901 will protect
our American sovereignty from diminishment. It will ensure that
U.S. citizens do not suffer the loss of individual rights. It
will protect private interests and real property from
diminishment, and will provide a process which the U.S. may,
when desirable, designate lands for inclusion under certain
international agreements after due process has been observed
and laws enacted by individuals who were elected to perform
that task.
As spokesman for the Albany County Farm Bureau, the
Columbia, Delaware, Fulton, Greene, Montgomery, Schenectady,
Schuyler and Washington County presidents have personally
assured me that they support this position about H.R. 901. This
testimony is not just the opinion of a private citizen, but the
representative voice of 2,832 family farm bureau members and
represents at least nine counties in New York State.
We think the U.N. was right to withhold comment on whether
or not the biodiversity treaty should be ratified, when they
said that this was a sovereign decision for the American
people; it certainly is. Honorable Representatives, Members of
Congress, the people urge you to pass this legislation for the
good of our nation, while we, on our part, will do everything
in our power to urge your fellow Members of Congress to co-
sponsor this legislation, and to pass it when it is presented
for a vote.
If this bill were not to pass, if the president, UNESCO,
Secretary Babbitt and all the rest were to have their own way
with the biosphere regions within the U.S., the way of life in
this country would reverse itself and go right back to the
feudalism which our ancestors left behind. Not only would there
be no property rights, but also we would not be a strong
sovereign nation, able to protect its citizens.
It is time to stand up, accepting authority and
responsibility, and refuse to allow the properties in this
nation to be governed by those outside the U.S. The founding
fathers, who worked very hard at great sacrifice to tailor a
constitution which would fairly stand the sands of time, would
be saddened that we have forgotten their words only a few
hundred years later, and that we are ready to accept tyranny
again through strong outside interests.
Thank you for the opportunity to include our opinions
regarding this legislation, and God bless you.
The Chairman. Thank you. I apologize for the feedback on
the mike. Ms. Cynthia Lanzetta.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA LANZETTA, BIOSPHERE STUDY GROUP, MID-
ULSTER LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
Ms. Lanzetta. My name is Cynthia Lanzetta. Mr. Chairman and
Committee Members, it is a privilege to appear before a group
such as yourselves, to share information to enlighten each
other for the common welfare of our citizens.
I am a representative of the Mid-Ulster League of Women
Voters. Because we are a nonpartisan group, we are often
approached by individuals, organizations and agencies to
conduct studies into issues that affect our locality and
region. In June 1995, Rick Fritschler of the Ulster County
Environmental Management Council requested the League research
the Man and the Biosphere Program.
This was after the Catskill Center for Conservation and
Development had withdrawn an application to designate the
Catskill Re-
gion a Biosphere. We agreed to do a study, and in November 1995
began to meet on a regular basis. In our attempt to educate
ourselves, we read information available from the Man and the
Biosphere Program.
We collected and read newspaper and magazine articles as
well as literature from groups who oppose United Nations
involvement in American affairs. We contacted New York State
Senator Cook, Congressman Maurice Hinchey, Man and the
Biosphere Director Mr. Hubert Hinote, Ulster County Planner
Herbert Heckler and Rick Fritschler, Chairman of the Ulster
County Environmental Council.
We reviewed the Biosphere application and asked Janet
Crenshaw, then director of the Catskill Center, to address our
League members about the process. Based on this body of
information, we put together a questionnaire that we sent to
the nine American Biospheres we identified as somewhat similar
to our own region. We also developed and sent out a series of
questions to our Conservation Advisory Councils in Ulster
County.
C.A.C.'s are appointed by town officials to oversee matters
of environmental concern for their communities. We continue to
gather information, for this is an ongoing study, but we would
like to share these findings with you. The Man and the
Biosphere Program, as administered in the United States, offers
an honorary designation for regions that already meet their
criteria of protected space, unique biodiversity, and a
population interested in finding practical strategies to deal
with the complex and interrelated environmental, land use and
socioeconomic concerns of that region.
There are no regulatory mechanisms associated with this
designation, and the existing Biospheres are overseen by
supporting Federal agencies or state and private institutions,
the same as managed them before the designation. The most cited
benefits include improved research, educational and interagency
networking, which often led to increased funding, and the
ability to work more efficiently. The drawback seems to be the
affiliation with the United Nations and the negative response
that that engenders in a small population--in a small portion
of the population.
We have furnished several attachments, and we urge the
public to pick up copies of the statement that I made that are
on the press table, after the hearing. I hope they will be of
use; and I would like to thank you for your interest in this
matter.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lanzetta may be found at end
of hearing.]
The Chairman. All right. Thank you. At this time, we'll
turn to the delegate from Idaho for questions.
Ms. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lanzetta, you
were involved in this program, then, from the beginning; right?
Ms. Lanzetta. Yes.
Ms. Chenoweth. You know UNESCO stands for United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. I don't know
whether you are aware of that or not. But were you aware that
UNESCO in the mid-'80's was accused of gross financial
mismanagement?
Ms. Lanzetta. Well, I wasn't, no.
Ms. Chenoweth. Would that have made any difference to you?
I think you should have been informed, and if you had been,
would that have made any difference to your personal
involvement and the involvement of the League of Women Voters?
Ms. Lanzetta. I don't think that would have any bearing on
this particular study.
Ms. Chenoweth. In your involvement from the beginning, did
you involve the pulp and paperworkers and the farm bureau?
Because the League of Women Voters has such a long history for
public participation, do you remember working with those other
interest groups?
Ms. Lanzetta. Well, as I outlined the process that we used
for the study, as far as we have an ongoing study, we reviewed
the information and read over the material that is outlined.
And at this point it's an ongoing study, and we're also making
a lot of notes here at this hearing, and there will be other
people that we'll be contacting to learn more about their
views.
Ms. Chenoweth. Thank you. Mr. French, as a town supervisor,
were you ever contacted or asked to comment on the Champlain-
Adirondack Biosphere Reserve before it was officially
designated?
Mr. French. I wasn't supervisor then, but I found out from
the people that were there at the time that there was no
elected officials contacted at all. None at all.
Ms. Chenoweth. No elected officials were contacted. Mr.
Cobb, could you explain that, for the record, why interest
groups such as the pulp and paperworkers and the farm bureau
and the elected officials were not contacted?
Mr. Cobb. To the best of my knowledge, the designation of
that Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve was the result of
years of involvement by citizens of Vermont, as well as New
York State. The application process, as I understand it, has a
strong requirement for local involvement by local government
officials and state agencies, including our Department of
Environmental Conservation, Adirondack Park Agency and those in
Vermont, including its atural Resource Agency. These had a
primary role in this designation process. So, obviously there's
an inconsistency here. To the best of my knowledge, that
groundwork was done.
Ms. Chenoweth. Mr. Cobb, in your position and in the work
that you have done, particularly in this area, are you aware of
the operational guidelines for the implementation of the World
Heritage Convention, and how that impacted this? Are you aware
of those guidelines?
Mr. Cobb. Not really. I'm aware of--I'm generally aware of
the World Heritage Treaty, which was ratified by the U.S.
Senate. But in this context, primarily on the Biosphere Reserve
Program, the World Heritage designation is associated with many
of our national parks. I am also aware of the World Heritage
designation of the Statue of Liberty in New York City, and
Constitution Hall in Philadelphia, I am sure, that we all can
be proud of.
Ms. Chenoweth. Sir, I just need a yes or no. Actually, the
operational guidelines state that in all cases, it has to
maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid
possible embarrassment to those concerned.
The state--pardon me, that's the United States of the
America, should refrain from giving undue publicity, and in
fact recommends restriction pending the decision. Now, knowing
that, would you have continued to work, as you did, and
invested so much, excluding such groups as the pulp and
paperworkers and farm bureau? Because this is exactly----
Mr. Cobb. Yes. Our position favors citizen involvement,
particularly in this forum. Again, I'm aware that this hearing
primarily deals with Biosphere Reserve designation. So, I'm not
that well prepared to talk about World Heritage.
Ms. Chenoweth. Well, I think you're very closely involved.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. From New York.
Mr. Hinchey. I think it's important to note that I think it
was back in 1983, the then Reagan administration, because of
concern over the way in which UNESCO was handling its finances,
and there has been a continual concern among a variety of
Administrations, including this one, with certain aspects of
the financial arrangements within the U.N. It is a concern of
Congress, about the way the U.N. finances are being handled.
As a result of that, frankly, there's a new head of the
United Nations. But back in 1983, there was this concern by the
Reagan administration, specifically with regard to UNESCO. But,
at that time, there was a conscious decision made by the Reagan
administration to continue to participate in the Biosphere
Reserve program.
And, in fact, the Reagan administration made several
nominations to the Biosphere Reserve program during the 8-year
tenure of that administration. I stipulate that, just for the
record, to make it clear that there is no connection whatsoever
between the expressed concerns that some members of the
administration had over U.N. finances and the Biosphere Reserve
itself.
The Biosphere Reserve has had nominations from every
president since Nixon, including Nixon, Reagan and Bush, and
the present administration. Most of the nominations have come
from local governments. The concern is with regard to land
regulations that may be imposed by the Biosphere Reserve. And
let me ask our panel if they have come across any tangible
evidence of land regulations on the part of the Biosphere
Reserve, or in the many Biosphere Reserves that exist in this
country, are there within those Biosphere Reserves any land use
regulations currently in existence? Mr. French, let's start
with you.
Mr. French. As I said in my testimony, we're getting, right
along with the state of Maine, 3.1 million acres on the
Canadian border, by their own state legislature was ear-marked
for local governance. It's private land. Between that Biosphere
Reserve and our Biosphere Reserve, is a Biosphere Reserve in
Quebec.
Mr. Hinchey. Who marked that land for----
Mr. French. The Maine state legislature.
Mr. Hinchey. The Maine state legislature?
Mr. French. Exactly.
Mr. Hinchey. But that has nothing to do with the Biosphere
Reserve.
Mr. French. It soon will.
Mr. Hinchey. It soon will?
Mr. French. It soon will. That's the plan.
Mr. Hinchey. I see.
Mr. Cobb. Really, lands designated by the Biosphere Reserve
designation, are particularly for scientific research and
educational purposes. The point that's made, I think, in terms
of this region in New York State is the fact that we have a
body of law already in place for environmental protection. With
private lands and the State-owned land, the Adirondacks are
guided by a State land master plan and a private land use and
development plan.
So as far as that goes, it's just the state laws, local
planning and involvment of the local government review board,
just as I pointed out in my earlier testimony. There is no
outside regulation by the United Nations whatsoever.
Mr. Hinchey. And you found no indication whatsoever, under
the Biosphere Reserve?
Mr. Cobb. That's correct.
Ms. Barber. I think right now, I'm not really sure. I'd
want to research this.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you.
Ms. Powers. We don't believe that you'll see hard evidence
of land use regulation until the designation, as a matter of
fact, is done. And however, we think that if the treaty were
ratified and the designation was complete, that then you would
be able to see that. And that's based on language directly out
of the Biosphere Reserve Treaty, which the President, after
all, has signed.
That, most certainly, is very, very clear, not only about
its proposed goals of reduction of the population, of not using
fertilizers, agriculture as it stands now is dangerous for
nature. It needs to be put in the mode of--more ecologically
sound. Fertilizers are a good thing, we know. We all know that,
or anyone knows that if you took fertilizers out of the process
of growing food, you would reduce the productivity of the
production of food by at least 50 percent. Now, given the other
suggestions, of reduction of population, Mr. Hinchey.
It sounds possibly it could lead to only half that amount
of food produced. Is there a regulation that says something
like that now? No. You mean, do we think they will follow? Yes.
Do we want the matter done with due process? Absolutely. That's
why we want this bill.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlemen of the next panel
haven't spoken yet. Make it good and short. Ms. Lanzetta, do
you want to add anything?
Ms. Lanzetta. Well, we haven't found that there have been
any additional regulations that aren't already in place for a
designated Biosphere Reserve.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. You can
come around the next time.
Mr. Cannon. Let me take the microphone from my colleague
from New York. I don't think that the concern here of people on
this subject and those in the room is that there have been
abuses of the regulatory scheme.
In fact, that a regulatory scheme has been put in place,
which at some point could be abused. Mr. Cobb, you talked about
four fo-
rums or hearings that were held on the Champlain-Adirondack
Biosphere. Were those before or after the designation?
Mr. Cobb. Those were subsequent, subsequent to the
designation.
Mr. Cannon. As you say subsequent to the biosphere, I'm
reminded of the Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbit, who had a
very hard time making distinctions between before and after. In
Utah, we had 1.7 million acres designated as a national
monument. On September 8, 1996, there was a story in the
Washington Post that suggested the possibility of a monument in
Utah, between September 8th and September 18th--I'm sorry,
September 7th and September 18th, 11 days, there were 13
denials to our Senators and the Utah Governor by people like
Mr. Babbitt himself, that anything was going to happen.
And lo and behold, on the 18th, September 18th, the
President appeared across the border south of us at the Grand
Canyon, and with no Republicans present, with maybe a handful
of Democratic delegates, home delegates in the Western states
having been told, designated 1.7 million acres.
And Mr. Babbitt, in his testimony, he talked about trust,
he talked about fair and open communication, he talked about
the process that's now ongoing with the feds in Utah, to study
these findings in the next 3 years. And during that period of
time, there would be fair and open communication on all levels
of government involved, we're partners in this process, you'll
be happy to know that Utah is a partner in the process of this
monument, and it's all going to be based on scientific and
economic evidence that's going to be accumulated, as to how
this monument should be run.
Let me say to the district, I'm on the soap box here, but I
have a little problem with the way these Biosphere Reserves are
designated. I think it has a lot to do with the philosophy of
the people who are in power, who have the authority to act
unilaterally, as the President does, which allows the President
to designate an unlimited amount of territory as a monument.
We believe, I think, Americans, in an open and fair
process, where we consider things in advance. In eleven days,
there was no consideration of what was going to happen to the
farmers and ranchers in that area, who depended upon that land
for their livelihood. And in addition, many of my environmental
friends are now deeply concerned, because there are about--at
least 350,000 acres that probably should have been designated
as wilderness area in the sense that they should be kept free
of vehicles and people, because they're delicate ecosystems.
Now we find that the environmental extreme groups want
about 1.4 million acres. Now you're going to have hundreds of
thousands of people trampling that whole area, because it's
been advertised in every travelogue in America. And there's
just something wrong on both sides, when you don't have a
process. Just one more question: If a community votes against
being included in the Biosphere Reserve, would your group
support that solution?
Mr. Cobb. Again, we're a citizens' group. Basically, we
establish our own initiatives, our own rules and regulations
and by-laws established by our trustees and our members. And so
we decide by vote in our organization, on the merits of the
program, including weighing of all the pros and cons of those
designations accordingly.
As far as your proposal for a national monument in Utah,
this procedure is by initiative of the President, and we're not
involved in that procedure. We're talking about in this case a
very exhaustive process of local, state involvement, citizen
involvement that works all the way up to the Department of
Interior.
The Chairman. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon.
Mr. Solomon. Mr. Chairman, my good friend Maurice Hinchey
posed a question to the panel. I think the question was, have
there been any new regulations that have been imposed because
of the U.N. Biosphere. And the panelists did not know of
specific regulations that have been imposed, but I can tell you
that, because of the pressure from the representatives and
supporters of the U.N. Biosphere, that great pressure was
brought on the Adirondack Park Agency, which is regional
zoning, state zoning imposed on the people of the Adirondack
Mountains, which resulted in what I believe, and what the
elected representatives of Warren, Washington and Saratoga and
Essex County believe, to be excessively restrictive regulations
on the paper industry, for one, on the tourism industry for
another, and on the general public, as a rule.
Mr. French, you said you did not know of any officials who
were contacted, but I happen to have represented the
Adirondacks since 1978, and I can tell you, to my knowledge,
that none, and I will say this to Mr. Cobb as well, none of the
elected representatives that I know of--and I served as a
member of the town government, town supervisor, as a county
legislator, and as state representative--in the last 30 years,
none of them have been contacted in any way, to my knowledge.
Mr. Cobb, you made mention of a number of grants and
dollars that were spent, and you, I think, insinuated that was
because of the U.N. Biosphere. You mentioned $25 million that
was brought about, and I would just tell you none of that money
came from the United Nations. As a matter of fact, we're not
getting any money from the United Nations, and we don't expect
any, nor do we want any.
And Mrs. Lanzetta, I would just like to say to you, you
mentioned that this was just honorary, and that you had
contacted many people, you know, with your survey. And
certainly I believe that you did. But as I look around the
audience here and I look at people from Hunter Mountain Ski
Area, I look at various representatives, various business
people, and a lot of concerned taxpayers, and I don't know of
any of them here today that you contacted, maybe there are
some, but I would just say as far as we're concerned, it is not
an honorary issue today, it's a mandatory issue tomorrow. And I
mentioned that I served at the U.N. under President Reagan for
2 years back in the early 1980's. And at that time, myself and
a Democrat, Congressman Michel, who served with me at the time,
we were just appalled at what we saw and what we heard about
what the proposals were with the United Nations. And it is
frightening. I'm just talking about the new world order and
what they would like to saddle the people throughout the world
with.
And we just have to remember, I think, at all times, that
this--you know, this is not a Federal Government. You know, we
are a republic of states; look at your Constitution. And when
we formed this republic, we reserved certain rights. We
reserved the right to set speed limits; we reserved the right
to deal with the insurance issues; we reserved many rights. And
one of those was zoning. And there is nothing in the
constitution that allows the Federal Government or some
international organization to use their influence to place
regional zoning on top of local zoning. That should be left up
to the local representatives of the people, like town
supervisors, like some of the folks that I see here in this
room. And that's what we're concerned about. And that's why
this bill is so badly needed, because it simply gives
congressional approval before you do this, and that gives us
the input later on down the road if we want to change that. And
that's what really local home-rule government is all about.
Thank you.
The Chairman. I have one short statement to make and one
question. Mr. Cobb, this concept of expansion, this process is
not a long process; I have four biosphere reserves in my state
that there is absolutely no public awareness, no input, no
direction, no one knew anything, including myself, and I am in
the U.S. Congress. I went back to the record, and found out
that there was a letter submitted telling me that this has been
done. That was my frustration. I just want you to know that.
Now, second, Mr. Cobb, and you, Cindy--Ms. Lanzetta--I want to
know what's wrong with my bill? Why can't you support my bill?
All I'm asking for is an opportunity, that we have some
process, although President Nixon, Reagan was involved, what's
wrong with getting the Congress involved, and the House of the
people? Mr. Cobb; Cindy?
Ms. Lanzetta. Well, I would have to say, as a
representative of the League, that we wouldn't make comment on
it until we've had an opportunity to study it. And being that
we are asked to comment and comment on the study that we did
do, which I have done, if you, you know, would like us to go
through the process of having the League look at this
legislation and comment on it, we can do that. But I just
can't, you know, comment from the League perspective.
The Chairman. That's fine, if you can't do that. I just
don't know why people say this bill is bad when they say a
designation is honorary to begin with. Why can't we, as the
House of the people, have something to say about designation of
land? I mean, that's the thing. I'm serious. Mr. Cobb, your
statement said you were opposed to it, but why are you opposed
to it?
Mr. Cobb. Again, I stand on my statement as I presented it.
And so, I'd just repeat what I've already stated for the
record. I would bring to your attention, though, Mr. Chairman,
I have with me a publication of the U.S. Man and Biosphere
program on Guidellines for Idewntification, Evaluation and
Selection of Biosphere Reserves in the United States. This
document is 38 pages long.
The Chairman. But they don't follow recommendations. I
mean, we have pages and pages of policy, but you have
responsibility to uphold it, but we can't uphold it, we can't
do it unless it's signed into law. You see, we have no
authority over this unless it's a law. This is a treaty signed
by the President, confirmed by the Members of the Senate. And
to me, that is neglecting of the constitutional
responsibilities of this Congress. That's all I'm asking. To
me, this makes me wonder why anybody would oppose this,
including some of my environmental--what's wrong with the
American people talking about our land. That's all I ask.
Ms. Lanzetta. Mr. Young, I, as an individual, would have a
question. In the Catskill Region, using the current process, it
became apparent that the people in this area did not want the
Biosphere in this area at this time, and because of it, the
process came to stop. You know, the application was withdrawn.
Now, why would we, here, want an additional layer of oversight
to tell us what to do or not to do, when we can determine this
on our own?
The Chairman. This is a representative form of government.
Your representative, if he would come to me and say, this is,
in fact, is what we want, that would happen. I believe in a
representative form of government. There are those in Congress
who do not believe so. They believe in the national interest.
If you do not believe in representative government, you would
not elect me again. This is a representative form of
government. This is what this is all about. I'm saying you, not
some state department, but the people. That's all I'm asking.
My time is up. I want to thank the Panel, and we'll have our
next panel up. Ms. Chenoweth will chair until I get back.
[Recess.]
Ms. Chenoweth. [presiding] I just want to state for the
record that the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is
the operating mechanism under which the Biosphere Reserves are
implemented, have never been ratified by the Senate. So with
that, I would like to turn to Ms. Carol LaGrasse, of the
Property Rights Foundation of America, Incorporated.
STATEMENT OF CAROL LAGRASSE, PRESIDENT, PROPERTY RIGHTS
FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, INC.
Ms. LaGrasse. Representative Chenoweth and the other
members of the Committee, thank you for the privilege of
testifying today. I am Carol LaGrasse, the president of the
Property Rights Foundation of America, a Stony Creek, New York-
based organization dedicated to the defense and enhancement of
private property rights as guaranteed in the United State
Constitution.
I am also a retired Stoney Creek town councilman and a
retired civil engineer, having spent some years in the
environmental field. Stony Creek, where I reside, is located in
the Adirondack Mountains within the UNESCO Champlain-Adirondack
Biosphere Reserve. It was precisely in the middle of my 9-year
term of office on the Stony Creek Town Board when the U.N.
designation took place in 1989. Neither the town board nor
anyone else I know, either officials or private citizens, had
heard at the time about the designation.
People got riled up about the Biosphere Reserve designation
when it was announced--unwittingly, I believe--in fine print in
a 1990 set of recommendations to bring about extremely onerous
regulations over the 3 million acres of private land in the
Adirondack region. The Commission on the Adirondacks in the
Twenty-First Century, which was chaired by Peter A.A. Berle,
then president of the National Audubon Society, and directed by
George Davis, a New York environmental planner who cut his
teeth on the original Adirondack Park Agency Law, recommended
strict additional restrictions in the Adirondacks; just one
example, 2,000 acre per house zoning. Mr. Davis has gone on to
be an international planner and he's done planning in Lake
Baikal in Russia.
There he remarked--I should say, back in New York, that he
didn't have the problems there, that people didn't have
conniptions about zoning, because they weren't used to having
private property. At the end, the recommendations by the
Twenty-First Commission were three, the 243rd, 44th and 45th,
that called for a transition zone. And this was straight out of
the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve plan. Ed Hood, who
now is the Adirondack co-chair of the Biosphere Reserve
Committee, at the time said there was no connection, but it was
written in black and white, in words, that that recommendation
of the Biosphere Reserve was going to be fulfilled in the plans
of the Twenty-First Century Commission Report, and the
recommendation of other really outrageous ideas, such as
establishing land bridges, which is a Biosphere Reserve
wildlands term, between the park and Canada and other typical
Biosphere Reserves type of effects.
The Adirondack environmentalists would give speeches and
say that because of the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve,
we needed these new regulations to be passed by the
legislature. Young people came from out-of-state and staged a
protest at Crane Pond Road in the Adirondacks. At the time, I
was writing for the local newspaper, and I asked them why on
earth were they there from all these out-of-state places, and
they said because it is a Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere
Reserve, and is nationally and internationally significant.
So it brought in those pressures for more regulations, I
should say, and it also was part of the framework for a very
formal set of additional regulations. Now, the elements of the
Biosphere Reserve were specifically applied, then, to the
Adirondacks, but the tie between the elements as in numerous
U.N. documents, through the Department of State, was never made
particularly clear.
I only have a minute or two left. But the very zones don't
fit either the state land, which has highways and which, for
instance, where we would have fire protection, that wouldn't be
allowed in the Biosphere Reserve core area, or the private
lands, which have a hundred-odd towns and villages. The type of
agriculture and the type of use of land that is typically
allowed on a biosphere reserve is very inappropriate for the
buffer area in the Adirondacks, where the towns and villages
are located. They speak of hunter-gatherer occupations,
pastoral and nomadic peoples; it's totally inconsistent with
the developed area and the amount of space.
How could such goals come into place without more rules?
It's inconsistent. The claim doesn't jibe with either what
happened; of course, these new rules for the Adirondacks came
in at the same time and in the same document where the
Biosphere Reserve was designated, and new rules would be
required to bring about the depopulation that would result in
such economic strictures. So, it's an impossibility.
In addition, the Department of State did a case study of
the Adirondack-Champlain Biosphere Reserve, and in it they took
pride in the fact that the Lake Champlain Basin Program is
bringing in more, as they call it, Federal ``protections'' over
the watershed of the Adirondacks and Vermont where it feeds
Lake Champlain. And they took pride in the Northern Forest Land
Project, because it would give more protections over the area.
And they said that that Northern Forest Lands Project came
about because of the Adirondack-Champlain Biosphere Reserve
designation. So, that is definitely more regulatory pressures
from a Federal level.
Ms. Chenoweth. One of the more unpleasant jobs that a
chairman has to do is make sure that everyone has equal time.
Ms. LaGrasse. I'm sorry. I have to finish, and I apologize
that I couldn't be less wordy, but thank you for the privilege
of testifying.
Ms. Chenoweth. It's very interesting testimony, and we
would look forward to you submitting it for the record. Thank
you very much.
Next, I'd like to welcome Mr. Chase, from Shokan, New York.
Mr. Chase.
STATEMENT OF SHERRET S. CHASE, SHOKAN, NEW YORKCAROL LAGRASSE,
PRESIDENT, PROPERTY RIGHTS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, INC.
Mr. Chase. My full statement is 8 minutes. If I have as
much time, I would have my whole statement out to you and some
of these--several of these might be available, that I would
otherwise cut out. Do I have 8 minutes?
Ms. Chenoweth. We must hold you to five.
Mr. Chase. All right.
Ms. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Chase. I'm starting now. Chairman Young of Alaska and
Committee members, welcome to the Catskill region of New York
state. Thank you for providing this forum for presentation of
the merits of Biosphere Reserve designation of the Catskill
Region, and thank you for the inflow of U.S. taxpayer dollars
this hearing brings to our depressed economy. My name is
Sherret Spaulding Chase. My home is here in the Catskills.
I support biosphere reserve designation of the Catskill
Region. We of the Catskills are fortunate in having highly
competent resident representation in Congress; namely, Senator
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Representative Maurice Hinchey, and
Sherwood Boehlert. Your staff is misinformed. There are no
significant Federal holdings in the Catskills. The stated
objectives of your bill, the American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act, are to preserve the sovereignty of the United
States over lands owned by the United States, and to preserve
state sovereignty and private property rights in adjacent non-
Federal lands.
Again, your staff is misinformed. There are no significant
Federal holdings in the Catskills. We have no Federal grazing
lands, no Federal timber lands, no Federal mining lands, no
national parks. Further, we are a home-rule region. We do not
look kindly on Federal takings or interference. For local
matters, we prefer to work through our own private and public
organizations. In working with several organizations for
Biosphere Reserve designation for the Catskill Region, I,
myself, had three major thoughts in mind:
First, I am a botanist. Designation would facilitate
obtaining funds for scientific studies of the Catskills;
second, designation would help encourage a more successful,
financially sound tourism industry. Biosphere Reserve
designation would provide a superb advertising tool; and third,
it would personally please me to have the world recognize that
the Catskill Region is, indeed, a special place of man and
nature. Biosphere Reserve designation is merely honorary, a
little like being named man of the year by the Rotary Club.
Being named man or woman of the year is often helpful. It
is an endorsement. Being named a world biosphere area is also
an endorsement. It would be helpful for those of us who live
and work in the Catskills. The Nobel Prize Committee does not
ask permission of Congress to award a Nobel Prize to a U.S.
citizen, thank God; nor should Congress muck around with
biosphere reserve designations. Catskill people, no matter what
our origins, tend to be suspicious, one of another, and
skeptical of the motives even of our own elected officials.
Each valley and town here has its own special history and
loyalties.
Catskill people are suspicious of outsiders, even those
from just across the river to our east and to our north, from
Albany and the Adirondacks. We have reason. We are particularly
skeptical of the motives of powerful and power-hungry outsiders
who come here with their own agendas. First, way back, there
were the grantees, Dutch and then English, with their vast non-
resident ownerships of land with resultant harsh tenancy
farming. This led eventually to the rent wars.
More recently, before Pearl Harbor, there were hate groups
of paramilitary structure exercising themselves here in the
Catskills, nasty bush bullies. Some of the leaders of these
groups received their funding and encouragement from local
fascists, others from European fascists, including the Nazi
government itself. After the war, during the depth of the cold
war, power-seeking individuals from the west, with their
agendas, such as Senator McCarthy and Robert Welch, the
organizer of the John Birch Society, again pandered--with some
initial success--to local ethnic hatreds and to the paranoias
of the gullible.
Two years ago in Kingston, a public biosphere reserve
hearing sponsored by the kindly Republican Ulster County
Legislator, Vincent Dunn of Kerhonkson, was most effectively
disrupted by a large, thuggish group from the Adirondacks who
claimed connections with the Utah militias. I am ashamed that
two of our most powerful local elected officials, State Senator
Charles Cook and Ulster County Majority Leader Philip Sinagra,
did not bring their wisdom and political skills to the
discussion of the merits of biosphere reserve designation of
the Catskill Region.
Ms. Chenoweth. Mr. Chase, we're going to have to ask you to
submit the balance of your testimony for the record.
Mr. Chase. I will do that. If anyone else would like a
copy, I have some extra copies available.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chase may be found at end of
hearing.]
Ms. Chenoweth. Thank you very much. The chair now
recognizes Mr. Ronald Roth, Greene County Planning Department.
Mr. Roth.
STATEMENT OF RONALD ROTH, DIRECTOR, GREENE COUNTY PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
Mr. Roth. Thank you. My name is Ronald Roth, and I'm the
Director of the Greene County Planning Department. I am
testifying before the Committee on Resources today as a
representative of Mr. Frank Stabile, Jr., Chairman of the
Greene County Legislature. Mr. Stabile is the highest ranking
elected official in Greene County. Tannersville is one of the
19 towns and villages located within Greene County.
In 1994, Greene County was included, along with six other
New York State counties, in the Catskill Center for
Conservation and Development's application to designate a
seven-county area of the Catskill Region as a Biosphere
Reserve. Mr. Stabile asked me to let the Committee know that
the Greene County Legislature opposes the Biosphere Reserve
designation. Greene County Resolution 136-95, a copy of which
I've submitted, notes that the applicant, quote, ``Never
discussed the application for Biosphere Reserve designation
with the Greene County Legislature,'' unquote.
Further, the resolution concludes that, quote, ``Such a
dramatic application for Biosphere Reserve designation should
not have taken place without input from the elected
governmental representatives of the citizens of the
Catskills.'' I've also provided a copy of the Greene County--
the Greene County Planning Board's, quote, ``Resolution
Opposing Designation of Catskill Region Biosphere Reserve.''
This resolution admonishes the applicant for filing the
Biosphere Reserve application without consulting with key
Catskill Region stakeholders, and notes that adequate
information on the implications of Biosphere Reserve
designation has not been provided to any said--to the key
Catskill Region stakeholders.
Finally, I've presented a copy of an article in our local
newspaper titled, ``Hunter Joins Prattsville, Durham in
Opposing Biosphere.'' The article relates that three Greene
County towns, Durham, Hunter and Prattsville, all oppose the
Biosphere Reserve designation. Greene County's message to the
Committee is a simple one: Organizations that fail to let the
local people know what they are up to, and organizations that
fail to bring the local people into their decisionmaking
process, can only expect to face the sternest of opposition. I
did it under the green. Thank you for letting me testify today.
Ms. Chenoweth. Thank you very much. The Chair will now
recognize Mr. Jack Jordan. Mr. Jordan.
STATEMENT OF JACK JORDAN, LEXINGTON, NEW YORK
Mr. Jordan. Thank you. My wife's and my involvement in the
property rights movement began in late January 1995, when we
learned about something called the Heritage Trail that was
being put together by the Catskill Center.
First, we found out that no one in the area ever heard of
this. And second, it was being portrayed as a local grassroots
effort with local support. The fact was, the Catskill Center
was trying to revive a House of Representatives Bill, the
American Heritage Areas Partnership Program. In this, Gerald
Solomon had written a letter to Congress in big, capital
letters that said, ``Oppose Another Federal Land Grab; Vote No
on American Heritage Partnership Program.'' Well, at this
meeting, the woman from the Catskill Center bringing the
information about the Heritage thing told everyone there that
Mr. Solomon was in support of this bill and had introduced the
bill.
However, we had received a fax from Mr. Solomon's office, a
copy of this letter, which at that meeting we held up and
showed the people that this was, in fact, a lie. Mr. Solomon
was against it. My wife and I knew that in order to protect our
rights, we had to get active, but what we didn't expect was the
attack that would come against us and others with us, trying to
support our own rights. We learned that the Heritage Trail was
not the only program the Catskill Center was involved in.
During the same time, they had put together an application to
designate this area of the Catskills Biosphere Reserve, without
so much as even talking to the local governments that this
designation would affect. We soon became aware of the tactics
used behind the Biosphere Reserve. They were usually either
unannounced or after the fact. We tried to put information
together against the Biosphere Reserve. One of the local papers
tried to mislead the readers by putting in things trying to
link us with the Oklahoma City bombing, and things such as
that. Later on, this same reporter was to admit privately to my
wife and I that he did this only to sell newspapers.
Using fictitious writers, the same newspaper would put in
articles such as, ``Dangerous waves of bad information being
passed around,'' and calling us right-wing anti-environmental
extremists, about us and those in our group. We believed that
the people had the right to know what the Biosphere Reserve was
about. We contacted a local legislator in the area; he knew
nothing about it. No one could get a copy of the application,
and even the Attorney General's Office was unable to get a
copy. It wasn't until State Senator Cook, a State Assembly
Majority Leader, became involved that we were able to get
portions of this application and more information. At an
unadvertised meeting on the Biosphere Reserve, the first copy
of the application was being shown, only after it had been
submitted to the U.N.
On the very front cover was a list, called the mailing list
for Biosphere. My wife copied down these names in the front of
it. We gave it to our local newspaper who published it the next
day. What we found out was that these names were names of local
elected officials, some of them never even heard of the
Biosphere Reserve, nor had given the right for their names to
be used in support of it. Later, the Catskill Center was to
state that some of the people in the region had misinterpreted
the meaning of list, and this has caused problems for some
individuals on the list.
However, what it did was for anyone at the U.N. reading
this, it made it appear that the local politics was in favor of
the designation. The funny this is, on April 6th, 1995, there
was a hearing in Kingston, New York, on the Biosphere Reserve.
While at this meeting, we passed around a copy of a U.N. draft
document entitled, ``Global Biodiversity Assessment Section
Ten.'' One passage states in it, during the initial stages of
the park and reserve establishment, there may be a transitional
phase where local inhabitants are provided with options for
relocating outside the area.
Yet we were being told that this is nothing more than a
Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. After this meeting, a
three-page letter was sent to local newspapers. In it, it
stated, ``Here in the Catskills, there are hate groups of
paramilitary structure, bush bullies. Some of the leaders of
these groups received their funding and encouragement from
local fascists groups, others from European fascists, including
the Nazi government itself.''
However, because of public awareness, Ulster County voted
it down. After this, and in fact, the Biosphere Reserve and the
Heritage Trail, this application went on. This rhetoric about
the Biosphere Reserve goes on even today. On May 1st, 1997,
another long dead writer came back from the grave to mislead
people. Daniel Shays, who is an insurrectionist from 1787 wrote
in our local newspaper that he had dinner with Congressman
Boehlert the other night. And according to Shays, he's sick and
tired of so many crazies getting control of agendas such, as
the upcoming Congressional-U.N. meeting here in Hunter.
The Catskills is a mighty wonderful place to live. You can
just ask Nellie Bly, who died in 1922, Ned Buntline, who died
in 1886, or Daniel Shays, who died in 1825. Apparently it's so
wonderful that they've come back from the dead to live here. It
is sad that here in America we have to have a bill like this,
but we ask you, please, we're very much for it. Thank you.
The Chairman. I want to thank you. Ms. Chenoweth.
Ms. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm glad you're
back. I do want to state, for the record, Mr. Hinchey had
asked, have there ever been any ramifications with regards to
the change of any status of any private property as a result of
Biosphere Reserve designation; is that correct?
Mr. Hinchey. Not exactly, but that's close enough.
Ms. Chenoweth. Is it close enough that we need to see it?
Mr. Hinchey. Well, I'm anxious to see where you're going
with it.
Ms. Chenoweth. Do you want to restate--it's still my time.
Do you want to restate your question in ten words?
Mr. Hinchey. Well, let me just see where you're going with
this.
Ms. Chenoweth. As I understand it, my colleague asked the
question, if there's been any ramifications on private property
with regards to Biosphere Reserves.
Mr. Hinchey. Have there been any restrictions on private
property; if the Biosphere Reserve has had any impact on the
ability of local governments to regulate land use control and
planning.
Ms. Chenoweth. For the record, I do want to state that in
my area of the country, Yellowstone National Park is a
Biosphere Reserve. There was private property located outside
of Yellowstone National Park called the Crown Butte Mine. A
Canadian company had that mine. They were in the process of
developing an environmental impact statement that our
government required them to do.
The Department of Interior called the U.N. in and that
environmental impact statement was interrupted. They were not
able to complete it, and so, therefore, they were not able to
go ahead and develop their mine. As a result, this company was
$65 million in debt in trying to move through this process.
That was private property. And do you know who promised they'd
pay for it? President Clinton.
And do you know how he promised he was going to pay a
Canadian company $65 million? Yeah, you've got it right. Your
taxpayers' dollars. And do you know what program it was going
to come out of? The C.R.P., Conservation Reserve Program, for
farmers and ranchers to set aside lands for conservation. Now,
that's a pretty dramatic story. And Mr. Hinchey, that is right
on point, and that is exactly what we're worried might happen
here in New York State.
Mr. Hinchey. If you are contending that that is an answer
to my question, and if you are contending that the Biosphere
Reserve had the ability to regulate land use on private land in
and around Yellowstone Park, then your contention is clearly
false, because there has been no ability by the Biosphere
Reserve to regulate land, either in Yellowstone Park or on
private property adjacent to it.
Now, I would challenge you to submit to this Committee the
documentation to support your allegation that the Biosphere
Reserve in any way regulated land use either in Yellowstone or
adjacent to it. I would like to see that documentation.
Ms. Chenoweth. Mr. Hinchey, this is my time and I'm
reclaiming my time. The fact is, in our Committee we heard
testimony on that. I'm not talking about vague concepts. I'm
talking about facts. And yes, I will submit the entire record
for you to review again in this Committee. And I thank you, Mr.
Jordan, and all of you who are good, strong fighters for
private property rights. Just keep it up.
Mr. Cannon. We did have a slight distinction, I think, in
the statements by Mr. Hinchey that Ms. Chenoweth--I think that
Ms. Chenoweth is thinking about more affecting by the property
ramifications, that fact, as opposed to the narrower
regulating. I think, most of us here are concerned about the
broader affect of the Biosphere Reserve.
Now, Mr. Jordan, you said some deep and disturbing things.
First of all, you suggested that the process for the Biosphere
Reserve here was hidden, that means unannounced, or announced
after the fact; that names were given as supporting the
Biosphere Reserve and the people didn't know about it; perhaps
the most serious, that there was a smearing campaign against
you personally.
That is, you were called a right-wing anti-
environmentalist, and that you were somehow linked to the
Oklahoma City bombing?
Mr. Jordan. Oklahoma City bombing, and that we had----
The Chairman. Speak into the microphone. We can't hear you.
Mr. Jordan. That we were somehow connected to the Oklahoma
City bombing, and that we had ties with the Utah militia. My
wife and I have never been to Utah, nor do we know anybody in
Utah.
Mr. Cannon. I am from Utah.
Mr. Jordan. I apologize. I have nothing against Utah. Just,
I was connected to them and their militia. Like I say, we had
no connection. And the funny part is, at this meeting Mr. Chase
is talking about, he said a group from the Adirondacks came
down. He, himself, stood up and asked who was from the
Adirondacks.
There was one gentleman there that was from the
Adirondacks, on my wife's and my invitation. Everyone else at
that meeting was either from Ulster County themselves or from
within the Catskills region. There was no one represented from
the Adirondacks, officially. Just the one man was the only man
that had come down from the Adirondacks. Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chase,
you talked about, in your testimony----
Mr. Chase. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. Let me finish my question--about mysterious
Utah militia connections. Can you describe what those were?
Mr. Chase. Yeah. At that hearing I was informed afterwards
by one of this group that came mostly from the Adirondacks, I
think there were a few Catskill people, three, in that group,
and I was told that they had a dossier on me and they read off,
I thought rather a complimentary list of organizations that I
had belonged to, but they mentioned their connections with a
Utah militia. And then this upset me quite a bit and----
Mr. Cannon. I'm concerned about the reputation of Utah.
Mr. Chase. All right. I just----
Mr. Cannon. Pardon me, sir. We have--I think that it's
pretty clear that there's no link with these radical militia
groups.
Mr. Chase. Well, this was not my information.
Mr. Cannon. Pardon me, sir.
Mr. Chase. This was information that was given to me----
Mr. Cannon. Pardon me, sir. I just want to be very clear
about the issue in your statement. I would like to know who
referred to Utah militia types? Because, again, I don't believe
we have any radical people. We have people who are very
concerned about property rights, but we have never, in Utah,
ever been linked to the more radical militia types. And I would
like to know who it was that said that and what foundation or
what--you had actually referred to that in your testimony
before Congress.
Mr. Chase. That is correct, and by golly, I'll have to say
it was second-hand given to me by people at that Kingston
hearing. Now, the letter that was referred to, I wrote--the
hearing was on April 6th, of 1995. On May--excuse me. I've got
the wrong document here.
Mr. Cannon. While you're looking for that, you said that--
--
Mr. Chase. On May--excuse me. On May 12th, 19--May 12,
after--note, that's a month later, I wrote a letter, and you
can have a copy of that letter.
Mr. Cannon. I would like a copy of that, please. You said
that you had a hearing on May 12th or April 6th. There were
people there from the Adirondacks and the Catskills who said
they had a relationship with the Utah militia?
Mr. Chase. Exactly.
Mr. Cannon. And who are the people?
Mr. Chase. I don't name people.
Mr. Cannon. You don't name names, or you don't know?
Mr. Chase. I don't know their names. They were at the
hearing. You check the list of people who were at that hearing.
Mr. Cannon. They actually claimed they had some
association----
Mr. Chase. They came down to break the hearing up, which
they did rather effectively, and afterwards, a woman came up to
me and said, you know, I have a dossier on you, and she said
she got it from Utah.
Mr. Cannon. She said she was from Utah?
Mr. Chase. No, no, no. She said she got it--her contact,
her information--the dossier on me. I've been trying to find a
dossier on me----
Mr. Cannon. Are you suggesting----
Mr. Chase [continuing]. on the Internet, and I can't find
it.
Mr. Cannon [continuing]. that there are people in Utah that
ever collected a dossier on you?
Mr. Chase. Precisely. That's what I was told. I don't have
any knowledge beyond what I was told.
Audience Member. May I defend myself?
The Chairman. Sit down.
Mr. Chase. That's the woman, right there. That's the woman
right there. This is the woman right there who told me this.
The Chairman. Cool down. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it's a good
opportunity to air these kinds of issues, and try to get at the
real truth of the matter. I think it's been clear, as a result
of both the testimony, the questions and responses to those
questions, that first of all, the Biosphere Reserve is an
honorary designation.
As some people have described it as, it's like registering
your dog. You can show your dog, you can train your dog, or you
can do nothing at all and still have a registered dog. That's
what the Biosphere Reserve is.
The Chairman. Now, I will shut this meeting down right now.
This is a hearing of the Congress. Gentlemen, proceed.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you. So we're discussing here an
honorary designation which has absolutely no force of law
whatsoever. It doesn't require anything. It can't possibly
require anything. There's no force of law. It's merely
honorary. Can't regulate man, can't regulate anything.
It's simply an honorary designation. With regard to the
Yellowstone situation, which was kind of an interesting and
unique situation, you had a Canadian company, I think in that
particular case. In any case, it was a foreign company that
owned a piece of land adjacent to Yellowstone National Park.
Now, the people of this country have come to regard Yellowstone
National Park as a pretty important place, and as they
proceeded with the environmental impact statement, which has to
be honored in the case if you're going to be mining land, or do
something destructive to the environment, you have to lay out
all your plans and programs.
As they proceeded with the environmental impact statement,
it became clear that this particular mining operation, if it
were to go forward, would have a major impact on Yellowstone
National Park, and particularly on the watershed of Yellowstone
National park, and with all the character of a place that's
very, very important to the American people. And so when that
became clear during the process, the comments that were made,
made it clear to the people who owned the mine that it might
not be in their best interest to go forward with this mine, and
so they made an arrangement with the Federal Government for the
exchange of some lands and some payments for that land.
The Chairman. Just a second.
Mr. Hinchey. And this was really initially done by
something called the 1872 Mining Act, which is a provision
whereby mining can take place on lands which were or formerly
were owned by all the people of the country under conditions
that existed shortly after the Civil War--in fact, during the
Grant administration--so they could extract minerals from land
which is now or was formerly publicly owned land and really at
bargain basement prices.
So as all of this proceeded, people became more and more
aware that this was really a bad deal. It was a bad deal
because of the fact that resources were going to be taken from
formerly public land at bargain basement prices, and at the
same time it was going to be ruining, to some degree,
Yellowstone National Park; this arrangement was made. Now that
has nothing to do with the Biosphere Reserve, because this was
not a Biosphere Reserve. It was something else, called a
National Heritage area. It's not a Biosphere Reserve at all.
So, the fact is, that particular example has nothing to do
with the bill that is the subject of this hearing. It has
nothing to do with the concerns that have been expressed by the
people at this hearing. It's an entirely different matter
altogether. But basically, this is really the final point, not
that I wish to agree whole-heartedly with the chairman, there's
an important thing about representative government, and there
are issues upon this Congress, certainly, and it's very
appropriate for Congress to make statements on things.
But Biosphere Reserves are originated locally, for the most
part. By putting the Congress in it, if you wanted to do that,
that would simply say the people in Washington are going to
make decisions with regard to land use, or decisions like this
at the local level. Whether you want to do that or not is the
question, but the fact of the matter is, is that Biosphere
Reserves do not, in any way, restrict anyone's ability with
regard to use of their property.
The Chairman. Your 5 minutes is up. The gentleman from New
York.
Mr. Solomon. Mr. Chairman, we're running out of time, and
let me yield just briefly to the young lady from Idaho.
Ms. Chenoweth. Mr. Solomon, I thank you for yielding.
Again, I just want to say that all of this discussion, all of
these activities have been predicated upon the Convention on
Biological Diversity to which the United States is not a party,
or which the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify. So there is no
legal mechanism in place to be suggesting Biosphere Reserves
here or any place else.
Mr. Solomon. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, before I ask the
question, I just want to thank the members of the panel for
coming. We appreciate it very, very much, because I think it is
enlightening. I'd like to submit for the record the resolution
by the Greene County Board of Supervisors, in which they say
that the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development never
discussed the application for Biosphere Reserve designation
with the Greene County Legislature and those on the Board.
If I might have this appear in the record of the hearing.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Solomon. And Mr. Chairman, one last thing, I wasn't
even aware that the President had said that he would take $65
million out of the Conservation Reserve Program for farmers. We
are being short-changed in New York State right now, because
there is not enough money in that fund. If he wants to give
away taxpayers' money to the Canadian industry, that he do so
out of his White House budget. There's plenty of money there to
spare. Thank you.
And having said that, let me just personally thank
everybody for coming. If you want to see an interesting debate,
I'm the Chairman of the Rules Committee that controls what
legislation reaches the floor. Ladies and gentlemen, this
legislation will reach the floor, and it will be one hell of a
debate. Come and listen.
The Chairman. I, too, would like to thank the panel and the
participants in the program; I would like to thank the staff
and the recorder. It takes a lot to put on one of these
hearings. In closing, I'd have to suggest--I asked the question
of the last panel and I will ask this question to this panel:
What's wrong with my bill? What's wrong with it? Anybody got
any reason why the Congress shouldn't be involved in it?
Mr. Chase. I think it should not be involved. I think it is
a local thing. I think the fact that the executive government
has to be part of the nominating structure that protects the
local industry--I think Congress is simply too unyielding to
deal with a process of this sort and it becomes too political.
The Chairman. Under our Constitution----
Mr. Chase. Too political.
The Chairman. Under our Constitution, Mr. Chase, Congress
can only designate land, and especially, our bill is
nationwide. You said there's only a few thousand acres of
Federal land----
Mr. Chase. This has not changed. This has not changed.
The Chairman. This is our responsibility.
Mr. Chase. This does not change the rules on the land.
The Chairman. Well, I believe it does. I believe that any
outside group, especially with an administration, and I've been
under many, this is my sixth administration, they do not take
public input from the local community.
Mr. Chase. Well, public input was provided----
The Chairman. Not according to----
Mr. Chase [continuing]. in quantity in the Catskills. It
was just that people didn't want to listen.
The Chairman. Well, that is a matter of opinion.
Mr. Chase. No, it is not. It's a matter of record.
The Chairman. Please let me finish my comment.
Mr. Chase. Excuse me. Excuse me. You asked a question. You
asked a question.
The Chairman. I know that in my state, there was no public
input. There was no correspondence. There was nothing by
letter, or state department, or hearing, notifying us until
this occurred. That's my frustration.
I am deeply disturbed that a state department or any branch
of the government can reach an agreement with the U.N. without
consultation of the people concerned.
This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and the
following was submitted for the record:]
HEARING ON H.R. 901, 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, ``AMERICAN
LAND SOVEREIGNTY''
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:06 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC,
Hon. Don Young, Chairman of the Committee presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ALASKA
The Chairman. The meeting will come to order. Today, we are
having a hearing on the American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act, H.R. 901. I want to welcome our witnesses.
My bill gives Congress a role in approving international
land designations, primarily, the United Nations World Heritage
Sites and Biosphere Reserves. H.R. 901 has 153 cosponsors.
We were going to hear from Dr. Jeane Kirkpatrick today, but
she just informed us about an hour ago that she is bedridden
with the flu, and I do offer her my sympathy. Hopefully, at a
later time she will be here.
So that everybody understands, my concern is that the U.S.
Congress and therefore, the people of the United States have
been left out of the domestic process to designate Biosphere
Reserves and World Heritage sites. H.R. 901 makes the Congress
and the people of this country relevant in this process.
The Biosphere Reserve program is not even authorized by a
single U.S. law or even an international treaty. I believe this
is wrong. Executive branch appointees cannot and should not do
things the law does not authorize.
We as the Congress have a responsibility to ensure that the
representatives of the people are engaged in these important
international land designations. As I read the U.S.
Constitution, refer-
ring to article IV, section 3, the power to make all needful
rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United
States is vested in Congress. Yet these international land
designations have been created with virtually no congressional
oversight, no hearings, and no authority. The public and local
governments were rarely consulted.
Until now, no one has lifted an eyebrow to examine how U.S.
domestic implementation of these programs has eaten away at the
power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its
constitutional power to make the laws that govern what goes on
on public land. Today, we again will begin looking at these
issues.
Just so everyone knows, one preservation and one
environment group, the National Trust for Historic Preservation
and Conservation International canceled after accepting an
invitation to testify. Unfortunately, there was not enough lead
time to find replacement witnesses. I regret that, because I
will soon be evaluating with the cosponsors and committee
members whether to move this legislation through the committee.
Very frankly, I have made up my mind that we will move this
legislation with additions recommended by the witnesses we will
hear from.
I am pleased to welcome all our witnesses who will testify
today, and will the first panel please be seated. That consists
of Mr. John Vogel, Land Commissioner of St. Louis County,
Minnesota; the Honorable Charles ``Pat'' Childers, Wyoming
State Representative, Cody, Wyoming, the great State of
Wyoming; and the Honorable Jeannette James, Alaska State
Representative, North Pole, Alaska, the greatest state in all
the union. I had to get that in. That is one prerogative of the
chairman.
Please take your seats.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Don Young follows:]
Statement of Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alaska
Welcome to our witnesses. Today we will hear testimony on
H.R. 901--my bill that gives the Congress a role in approving
international land designations, primarily United Nations World
Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves. H.R. 901 now has 153
cosponsors.
We were going to hear today from Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick,
former Ambassador to the United Nations, who served under
President Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately she is ill today and had
to cancel.
So that everyone understands, my concern is that the United
States Congress--and therefore the people of the United States
have been left out of the domestic process to designate
Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage sites. H.R. 901 makes the
Congress and the people of this country relevant in those
processes.
The Biosphere Reserve program is not even authorized by a
single U.S. law or even an international treaty. That is wrong.
Executive branch appointees cannot and should not do things
that the law does not authorize.
We, as the Congress, have a responsibility to ensure that
the representatives of the people are engaged on these
important international land designations. As I read the U.S.
Constitution, referring to article IV, section 3, the power to
make all needful rules and regulations governing lands
belonging to the United States is vested in Congress. Yet these
international land designations have been created with
virtually no congressional oversight, no hearings, and no
authority. The public and local governments are rarely
consulted.
Until now, no one has lifted an eyebrow to examine how U.S.
domestic implementation of these programs has eaten away at the
power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its
constitutional power to make the laws that govern what goes on
on public land. Today we will begin to look at these issues.
Just so everyone knows, one other preservation and one
environmental group, the National Trust for Historic
Preservation and Conservation International cancelled after
accepting invitations to testify. Unfortunately, there was not
enough lead time to find replacement witnesses. I regret that
because I will soon be evaluating, with the cosponsors and
Committee members, whether to move this legislation from the
Committee.
With that it is time to begin. I am pleased to welcome all
of our witnesses who will testify today. Will the first panel
please be seated.
[Briefing Paper on H.R. 901 may be found at end of
hearing.]
[H.R. 901 may be found at end of hearing.]
The Chairman. Is there any other opening statement before I
proceed? If not, at this time, I will proceed on the order, and
I will inform the witnesses that after this panel, I do have to
go to another meeting, but I expect Helen Chenoweth to take
over the chair, and she will be running the committee after
that time.
The first witnesses will be Mr. John Vogel, Land
Commissioner of St. Louis County, Minnesota.
STATEMENT OF JOHN VOGEL, LAND COMMISSIONER, ST. LOUIS COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
Mr. Vogel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Vogel,
and I am a longtime professional natural resource
administrator. For the last 18 years, I have administered
nearly 1,000,000 acres of trust lands and resources as land
commissioner of St. Louis County, Minnesota.
I am here today on behalf of several counties in
northeastern Minnesota, a region that is clearly rural and not
urban but also not significantly agricultural. Logging, mining,
and recreation tourism are the mainstay of our lives and
economy. We have national forests, including a prominent
wilderness area; a national park; several state forests; and
several million acres of county forests. The majority of
Minnesota's public lands are located in this region.
The matters under consideration here today are matters of
serious concern to many of my associates and people of our
region, having had numerous experiences over the preceding
decades with a plethora of ever-changing programs, regulations,
and dictates which profoundly and often adversely affect our
lands, resources, and lives.
All too often, many of our citizens and local elected
officials have found themselves attempting to react to far-
reaching new laws and regulations, virtually helplessly, after
it was too late to be real participants in considering major
and far-reaching proposals affecting our region, virtually
dozens of ever-changing complex programs ranging from
wilderness to the biosphere.
It seems we have to devote an impossible amount of time and
effort just to get information before it is too late, rather
than have an opportunity to be an informed part of our own
future and to be seriously listened to.
One such situation occurred in 1984 when our state-
sponsored citizens committee on Voyageur National Park was
offhandedly informed by the then-park superintendent, Russell
Berry that Voyageurs, along with the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
in the Superior National Forest and the adjacent Quetico
Provincial Park in Ontario were being proposed for status as
the Northwoods International Biosphere. The whole story of that
proposal is much too long to describe here. I have described
that event in more detail in my written testimony.
It should be sufficient to say that after devoting much
time and effort to that nomination, we became aware by a 1987
letter from the State Department to the then-director of the
National Park Service, William Mott, that the State Department
had withdrawn the application. That letter clearly states that
it was withdrawn because of local opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that was the first time that a
nominated area had been withdrawn. Because of the very
amorphous nature of such designations, and by that, I mean the
unclear boundaries and potential far-reaching and progressive
impacts, it becomes very difficult or impossible to find any
comfort level with the Biosphere Reserve despite good qualities
which might be associated with them, particularly after reading
a statement quoted in 1987 in the Omaha News Herald attributed
to the now former assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and
parks, George Frampton, where he was reported to have stated
there ought to be biosphere reserves around every national park
and wilderness area where roads would be closed, development
limited, and resources returned to their natural condition.
Also, the Voyageur National Park superintendent stated at a
public meeting, and I quote, ``I would like to be in as strong
a position as possible to influence activities outside our
boundaries that would adversely affect the park in the context
of things that would be detrimental to the ecosystem within the
park.'' Based on our experience regarding the lack of oversight
and public involvement, we find that sort of statement very
scary.
Today, I believe it is more important for me to simply
speak in support of H.R. 901, the American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act. We believe that if we are ever truly going to
find solutions to protection of the environment and special
places, we can and will find the best support and best methods
through congressional oversight and consensus-building at the
grass roots level. My counties have made significant formal
commitments and are now undertaking long-term programs to carry
out new and better planning and programs so that we might
achieve the principles contained in the 1969 National
Environmental Policy Act that man and nature can live together
in productive harmony.
Unlike the past process of establishing these international
areas, we believe the process needs to be more open and
certainly more inclusive of the legislative process. People in
our region are not likely to support outcomes which bypass or
ignore our elected officials at all levels of government.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I am here today to urge passage
of H.R. 901, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of the bill.
[The prepared statement of John Vogel may be found at end
of hearing.]
The Chairman. Thank you, John, and I wish your Minnesotan
Congressman was here to hear your testimony, but unfortunately,
he chose not to participate. Usually, he does. He is very good
about that.
The Honorable Pat Childers is up next.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE CHARLES P. CHILDERS, WYOMING STATE
REPRESENTATIVE, CODY, WYOMING
Mr. Childers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. My name is Charles P. ``Pat'' Childers. I am Wyoming
representative for House District 50 in Park county. As an
introduction, this testimony is offered to support passage of
H.R. 901.
My input is a firsthand account of how a World Heritage
Site, Yellowstone National Park, was and is being used to
sabotage public law, the National Environmental Policy Act, or
NEPA, and circumvent an ongoing legal public process for
development of an environmental impact statement or EIS that
was being scrupulously followed to determine the suitability of
the proposed New World Mine located outside the park.
Additionally, the public information presented to establish
the forums for evaluating the reclassification of the park to a
World Heritage Site in danger was a classic example of
minimizing the involvement of interested parties, i.e., the
State of Wyoming, in the process.
As fine and strong a public law as NEPA is, it was no match
for the political leverage that a World Heritage Site carries.
My testimony is an example of an abuse of power. This abuse
came from some within the Clinton Administration, including the
Interior and Park Service; environmental organizations; as well
as an abuse of prestige and public trust by UNESCO's World
Heritage Committee.
All of these groups were drawing on Yellowstone's
designation as the United States' first national park and a
World Heritage Site. The members of this Committee should make
every effort to prevent this from happening again in this
nation.
For background, in 1970, NEPA was passed by Congress and
signed into law. It is a structured, environmental assessment
process, and it is a public process. In 1978, Yellowstone was
designated a World Heritage Site, about 6 years after the U.S.
signed the World Heritage Site Convention of UNESCO.
In 1989, data collection began for the mine near Cooke
City.
In 1990, an attempt to establish the Vision document was
defeated. This document, coordinated by the Park Service and
Forest Service, also proposed a buffer zone around the park
similar to the Heritage issue. It also did not go through the
scrutiny of proper public process as required by law.
In 1993, the EIS for the New World Mine was initiated as
required by NEPA.
On February 28, 1995, 14 environmental groups, opponents of
the mine, sent a letter to the chairman of the U.N. World
Heritage Committee requesting the committee initiate an
investigation to determine if the park should be included on
the List of World Heritage Sites in Danger. The letter listed
the reason for the request as the serious threats presented to
the park and the larger ecosystem by the proposed New World
Mine, and other activities.
It is important to note that those other activities were
not widely publicized in any public notices for the hearing by
the World Heritage Committee. Creation of the buffer zone is
also part of the treaty language.
On June 27, 1995, Assistant Secretary of the Department of
Interior, George Frampton, by way of a letter to the chairman
of the committee, stated that he believed that there was
potential danger to the park and that the committee should be
informed that the property inscribed on the World Heritage list
is in danger. Our own Department of Interior is arriving at its
own conclusion before compliance with NEPA is met.
On September 8, 1995, the World Heritage Committee arrives
at the park with the stage being set by the Department of
Interior and President Clinton. I managed to speak at that
forum and encourage you to question me about this.
My position as a state representative speaks of my respect
for public law and public process. Please remember World
Heritage Sites have significant negative collateral fallout to
the areas around them. They create an unstable economic climate
discouraging free enterprise and subject the surrounding areas
to an inappropriate and unfair sphere of influence.
I encourage you above all that what needs to be protected
are not more World Heritage Sites, but our own congressionally
passed public laws. This is what H.R. 901 will help achieve.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Charles P. Childers may be found
at end of hearing.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Pat. Now, we have Jeannette James,
Alaska state representative from North Pole, Alaska. Jeannette.
STATEMENT OF JEANNETTE JAMES, ALASKA STATE REPRESENTATIVE,
NORTH POLE, ALASKA
Ms. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of H.R.
901. For the record, I am Jeannette James from North Pole,
Alaska, a member of the Alaska State House of Representatives,
and my testimony is on behalf of the Alaska State House
leadership.
This issue is extremely important to my state, and I
request my entire written testimony be entered into the hearing
record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Ms. James. H.R. 901 is a policy issue. We believe Congress
must assert its authority under the Constitution. Considerable
confusion is mounting about the intent and vision of these
international agreements. Overlapping international zoning
impacts without a good public process could stifle any
reasonable economic opportunities available to our fledgling
state.
I feel confident that the testimony you will hear today
will support your efforts to guarantee a legislative process on
these issues. I opened the Washington Post this morning, and
there was a three-page paid advertisement. How do you protect
an earth in the balance; with a balanced approach, was the
answer. The sponsors signed this presentation saying we are
committed to a healthy environment and a healthy economy. Mr.
Chairman and committee members, I am, too, and so should you.
This country was founded on the principles of democracy.
We, the people, know our government. It is us. Our precious
freedom is built on property rights and liberty and both are
threatened by the international agreements that are the subject
of this hearing.
One is the World Heritage Site Convention which was
ratified by Congress, and quite frankly, needs to be reviewed
as to its implementation and the effect on our lands, people,
and resources. We question if Congress had such intent when it
ratified this treaty or is this just a case of good intentions
gone wrong.
The other is the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
International Conference on Biosphere Reserves which is being
implemented by executive order but has not been ratified by the
Senate. Our three-part system of government, legislative,
executive, and judicial, are purposely established for checks
and balance. There are executive powers identified in the
Constitution; however, basically, Congress writes the law and
the executive administers the law. Any blurring of law-making
between these two branches of government is partly by one
usurping power over the other, and partly by one branch giving
power away to the other like a hot potato by specific action or
no action at all. We see it happening every day.
I commend you, Congressman Young, and all the cosigners for
H.R. 901 and your effort to bring back a process representing
the public interest as it relates to property rights.
I am an environmentally concerned person. No one can afford
not to be. However, it costs a lot of money to protect the
environment, and these efforts can only be supported by a
healthy economy. Social unrest as well can only be healed when
each person is able to sustain themselves and their families
with pride and accomplishment.
The underlying need is to create wealth. To create wealth,
we must utilize and enhance our natural resources and this can
only be done with care and consideration, not with fear and
distrust which is the basis of extreme environmentalism.
I want to give the environmental movement credit for
promoting new and modern methods of harvesting, extracting,
manufacturing, and marketing; however, the time has come when
reality must dictate. Continued meddling and intolerant
attitudes must be tempered. Property rights must be protected,
and the American dream must not be destroyed.
The hype and rhetoric used by zealous environmentalists
includes warm and fuzzy statements about good will and sharing
as well as buzz words like culture, lifestyle, and salmon
spawning. These emotional words won't support a paycheck.
Without a paycheck, warm and fuzzy does not exist.
Paychecks are possible when wealth is created, and we ought
to be conservative and respectful of ourselves and the planet,
but understanding that human needs are as much a part of
biodiversity as the air we breathe is absolutely necessary.
Mr. Chairman and Committee members, there is a natural
tendency to resist change, but living in the world, change is
inevitable; to not change is death.
No, thank you, I am not interested in any tyranny, and in
order to orchestrate biodiversity, we must expect tyranny.
Alaska is a young state, not yet 40 years old. Our people
are hardworking, intelligent, talented, and caring. We enjoy a
potpourri of race, religion, and ethnic background. We respect
one another and we love our land. Alaska is like a mother to
us; she teaches us how to live, and no one can understand and
care for her better than we can.
Thanks again for this opportunity to testify. I would be
happy to answer any questions, and I have additional backup
material for the record.
[The prepared statement of Jeannette James may be found at
end of hearing.]
The Chairman. I want to thank the panel and I am going to
have a couple questions, and then open it up for questions to
the rest of the committee.
Jeannette, was the Alaska legislature consulted in any way
by the State Department of the Federal Government when
47,000,000 acres of Biosphere Reserves and the World Heritage
Sites were designated in Alaska?
Ms. James. I know of no contact whatsoever, and the fact is
I only found this out by research.
The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that, because I made the
statement once before in the last hearings that we had in this
room, and they said, well, we sent you a letter. It was copied
to the chairman of the committee that time, copied to me, and I
never saw that letter. That is the only notification I had.
Very, very little, if any, type of public input or consultation
or anything, and one of the things I got interested in,
40,000,000-odd acres of our State are in this biosphere
classification.
Have you seen any advantages with this designation? Has it
helped us out, helped you out? Has it done anything for the
state?
Ms. James. Well, certainly, I haven't found anything that
it has helped out at all, but it sure has caused a lot of harm.
We are having a lot of problems in Glacier Bay right now
with the fishers and the crabbers there, and you may be
familiar with that issue. The people on the Seward Peninsula
have been threatened and are fighting hard to keep out the
international park that is on both sides of the Bering Strait,
and had the Cape Kreusenstern Monument been a biosphere reserve
like they would like it to be, we wouldn't have Red-Dog Mine
now, which is the world's largest zinc mine with 400 employees.
So we have the harm, and it has been felt.
The Chairman. I appreciate that, and again, that is another
thing. I keep hearing from different people that oppose my
legislation that there is really no harm in this, it is just a
designation, it is an advantage. But if Pat is correct, and I
think you bring up some good points, was it New World Mine or
what mine was that now that you said was involved?
Mr. Childers. Pardon me?
The Chairman. Which mine was involved when you said the
World Heritage Committee came over? I want to ask you about
when they came over.
What was the name of the mine again?
Mr. Childers. What was?
The Chairman. The mine that you said that they had been
invited over to the park to see and then they decided it wasn't
appropriate to have any mining activity.
Mr. Childers. The New World Mine.
The Chairman. New World Mine.
Mr. Childers. They did not think it was appropriate to be
mining at that site, but it is a dead site as it is now.
The Chairman. Now, you attended that hearing, Pat?
Mr. Childers. Yes, I did. I testified.
The Chairman. Do you believe that--how many people such as
yourself testified?
Mr. Childers. How many people what?
The Chairman. Such as yourself testified.
Mr. Childers. There were only two like myself allowed to
testify and we had to, let us say, be careful in how we
answered questions to be able to testify.
The Chairman. Now, how many did testify?
Mr. Childers. There were approximately 30 to 40 people.
The Chairman. And those people were made up of?
Mr. Childers. The environmental organizations, the mining
community. The day that I testified, it was technical input. I
was testifying as an engineer in the oil and gas industry and
my companion was testifying as a geographer.
The Chairman. And what you are telling me that actually,
the hearing was held by UNESCO and the EIS process was brought
to a halt at that time by the Secretary of Interior?
Mr. Childers. More or less. It influenced the EIS process.
The Chairman. What did you find, Pat, or your constituents
find the most offensive about the World Heritage Committee's
visit to Yellowstone? What would you say was the most
offensive?
Mr. Childers. It was not a proper public process and the
advertising about them attending and investigating it. They
implied that they were going to just talk about the mine, but
once you got there, you found that they were covering a lot
more than the mine. They covered tourism and other commercial
activities.
The Chairman. John, my time is up, but you mentioned a
state-sponsored commission that investigated a proposed
Biosphere Reserve designation in your area. Was the commission
divided at all regarding this proposed designation?
Mr. Vogel. No, that was a unanimous decision. That is a
state-sponsored commission. The chair is appointed by the
Governor. There are 13 members, and the decision was unanimous.
The Chairman. It was against it?
Mr. Vogel. It was against it.
The Chairman. In your opinion, if this type of
investigation and security that took place in Minnesota had
occurred in other regions of the country relative to this
proposed designation, do you think the outcome would be
similar?
Mr. Vogel. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I certainly do. Our
experience with Minnesota would indicate that there was
virtually no support for it, and there was a tremendous amount
of opposition.
The Chairman. This is why I am bringing this up. I just
mentioned to Jeannette, and a lot of these areas that we are
designating in the United States, there was no public input at
all. There was nobody that really realized it, and what I am
worried about and have been worried about, under our
Constitution, it says only Congress can designate, and this is
done by the executive.
The intent of this bill is very, very minimal. All it says
is that if there is in fact an area that is to be designated,
yes, we still have to have public input, but after that is
done, it has to come back to the Congress and we should have
the right to approve or disapprove it.
Of course, some people object to that, and I think that is
incorrect. My time is out.
Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
calling the hearing. I have to leave for a budget
reconciliation meeting. Both of us have difficulty with that
budget for various reasons, and sometimes, some of the same
reasons.
I want to thank the panel for their testimony, all the
panel, but particularly the two state representatives. I served
10 years in the Michigan House of Representatives and I realize
the importance, the enormity, and sensitivity of your job, and
thank you for your testimony today.
I will leave, but I will try to come back before the end of
the hearing. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like to
join the Chairman in his remarks and also welcome all of you
here to this Committee hearing as well.
Mr. Childers, you were present at that hearing, obviously,
and there were members of the Yellowstone National Park agency
there or the park authority, the superintendent. Can you tell
this committee what your testimony was at that hearing?
Mr. Childers. My testimony was because of my background in
trying to encourage that the United States should be following
the process on the mine which is NEPA, because that is my
recent education, and that is the type of environmental things
that I handle for my company.
Then also from a practical standpoint, since I did tour the
mine site and have some thoughts about what was happening in
the mine--I am a chemical engineer by education. I basically
thought that it was ridiculous in some of the public statements
that were being made about the mine site. I didn't think they
were very accurate at all, and that also, they were
circumventing the process, and I thought it was an insult that
the committee shows up when we have very stringent laws that
are being used to investigate the mine now, and that is NEPA.
Mr. Gibbons. What was the reaction of the Park Service to
your testimony?
Mr. Childers. In particular, the park superintendent, Mike
Findley, got up and gave his summary concerning the program, he
thanked everybody for coming, except he singled out myself and
my companion and basically told us he didn't care what we had
to say.
Mr. Gibbons. So in essence, you felt that your testimony
and your presence was irrelevant to the decision and the
process that they were undertaking at the time?
Mr. Childers. Well, I could hardly see how it was
irrelevant when we were just basically asking that United
States laws should be followed and that from a practical
standpoint, there doesn't appear to be a real problem with the
mine as there is now at the mine site.
Mr. Gibbons. How many sites, and maybe if I could go to the
state of Alaska, Representative James as well--how many acres
did you say Alaska has under this designation?
Ms. James. 40,700,000 acres.
Mr. Gibbons. Near 41,000,000?
Ms. James. Near 41,000,000.
Mr. Gibbons. And Wyoming?
Mr. Childers. In Wyoming, the park is the only one that I
can think of right now. It is strictly the park.
Mr. Gibbons. And how many acres is that?
Mr. Childers. The World Heritage Committee excluded the
buffer zone.
Mr. Gibbons. Do you have an idea of how many acres that
encompasses?
Mr. Childers. I cannot remember offhand.
Mr. Gibbons. I have been told it is about 2,200,000 acres.
Mr. Vogel, in Minnesota, how many acres are covered by this
sort of a designation?
Mr. Vogel. We haven't any at this point because we became
aware of that in 1984 and prevented it.
Mr. Gibbons. To either Representative Childers or
Representative James, has this had a direct effect on any of
your state's management of these areas? Has it required you to
change the course or the direction or the type of management
you would have had over these areas?
Ms. James. Well, I guess that I could respond to that,
especially in the Biosphere Reserves, that it appears to me
that they have made this identification, but I don't think they
have been doing anything about it yet.
Quite frankly, that is a huge, huge job. I don't know how
or where the money would come from to do all the things that
were planned, so I think it is more of a threat now than it is
where they have actually done things.
We have talked to the Park Service, and it was interesting.
In my committee meeting in the Alaska House this year that the
Park Service person did indicate to me that we do have
something to worry about when we have the international
committee coming into our localities and helping change the
voices of the people.
Mr. Gibbons. Is this an unfunded mandate to the state of
Alaska?
Ms. James. Well, it does say that the state parties are
supposed to be the ones that fund it. We certainly don't have
any money to do it, so I don't know who they are talking about
doing it.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Childers, is that your opinion also?
Mr. Childers. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, we are having
more restrictions proposed in the park itself. Since the buffer
zone was excluded, there haven't been any changes in the
National Forest Service.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Dooley.
Mr. Dooley. I guess I would be interested, and I don't have
a great deal of expertise on this issue, but I am struggling a
little bit, and Mr. Childers, when you get to the New World
Mine situa-
tion, what would have happened differently if you didn't have
Yellowstone being declared--I guess it is a World Heritage
Site? What would have happened in the absence of that
differently?
Mr. Childers. Without the Heritage Site being declared in
danger?
Mr. Dooley. Yes.
Mr. Childers. Well, hopefully, there would be more proper
use of the park. As far as the buffer zone, the proposal in the
guidelines for that committee, through that committee, there
would be a lot more restrictions on the use of the National
Forest lands.
Mr. Dooley. Are you assuming then that they actually
influenced the process? You don't think there would have been
domestic interests that would have been advocates for a similar
policy?
I am just trying to separate out and identify what is the
real problem and the real threat that people feel they are
under with the World Heritage Sites and the Man and the
Biosphere international program.
Mr. Childers. Well, the presentation for the committee
being there actually provided additional input outside the
normal process with the environment impact statement for the
mine.
I don't think the data was justified in what they were
presenting, because a lot of the data was not concerning the
mine.
Mr. Dooley. But that would be comments though that anybody
could make. They could make those comments even if this wasn't
part of the World Heritage Site, couldn't they? Any party can
make comments during a NEPA process, can't they?
Mr. Childers. That is correct, but if the Federal
Government took their designation as a World Heritage Site in
Danger, then the Federal Government or the state party as
implied or as stated in the guidelines, the Federal Government
should be responding in providing more restrictions to address
what the World Heritage Committee is proposing, and that is not
public process.
Mr. Dooley. Ms. James, you wanted to make----
Ms. James. Yes, I did. I wanted to respond to that. You
have to understand that you have a World Heritage Site, and
this was private property three miles outside the park. So our
legislative system that we have for an environmental impact
statement should have been all we needed to determine whether
or not that was an environmentally sound application.
The fact that it was a World Heritage Site brought in the
international community to interrupt that whole process, which
is unfair, and then beyond that, what happened and the net
result that there is no settlement at this time, the mine just
gave up because of the overwhelming whatever, and decided to
take some alternative land somewhere else.
Mr. Dooley. I guess I need further clarification. How did
this international group interrupt the process?
Ms. James. Because they came over and put the World
Heritage Site in Danger; therefore, they came and held the
hearings that were held, and had the permission from Frampton
to do it. It was an interruption in the process.
Mr. Dooley. I am still trying to clarify a little bit. I
guess you are assuming then that this information would not
have been provided by any other party, and I guess I would be a
little surprised if these arguments weren't similar--what we
have, I think I read in one of the testimonies that we had 14
environmental organizations that wrote to the World Heritage
Committee or whatever it is asking them to declare this.
Those parties probably were saying the same identical thing
as this international body, so my question is, what new
information? Are you just saying because of it being an
international body, it has more prestige so that it can have
more influence on the outcome?
Ms. James. Have you ever experienced an environmental
impact statement in your area?
Mr. Dooley. Yes, I am a farmer.
Ms. James. Don't you think that is a good process? This is
a different process, and we don't like it.
Mr. Dooley. But it is part of the existing process, isn't
it?
Ms. James. No, it is not. It is not at all part of the
existing process.
Mr. Dooley. So you are saying that this----
Ms. James. I have some information I can provide to you----
Mr. Dooley. What you are saying is that this group is
providing information that is being considered that no other
party would have provided.
Ms. James. I don't think that is the issue, sir. I think it
is their voice that is the issue, and their voice is not our
voice.
Mr. Dooley. So the issue is then having the opportunity for
an international body to participate in the process is the
problem.
Ms. James. You are right.
Mr. Dooley. Thank you.
The Chairman. Go ahead, Pat.
Mr. Childers. Congressman Dooley, I think that the
Congressmen here in the House do recognize that public opinion
can influence a process. Speaking after 30 years in the oil and
gas industry, I will guarantee you that public input can
improperly influence a process.
The Chairman. I would just like to suggest one thing to the
gentleman from California.
The real crux of this matter is that this group was invited
to come over. They spent 3 days. They had 2 days of hearings
and went back and wrote the report in 1 day, if I am correct,
and said that this needs a buffer zone, there is a definite
need for a buffer in this World Heritage Site area.
Then this Administration came down immediately and made an
offer to buy out the New World Mine for $65,000,000--not the
owner, just the mine. If the mine did not accept that, then
they were told on the QT that you will never, ever get a permit
processed, because we will never finish the EIS, which they
never have. Thus, by designation, they used this as an excuse
to have the mine closed.
My concern about this whole thing was they should have
followed the process. If it was in fact environmentally unsound
to have the mine, that would have been stated in the process.
That was not going to happen, because the finding would have
been that it was perfectly all right.
It was used as a crutch, and by the way, $65,000,000 of
taxpayers' dollars, made by this Administration with a
company--with a company, not the owner. The owner is an 89-
year-old woman that does not want to sell her property, yet now
she has property that has no value at all, and that is a taking
because of the threat of the Federal Government.
By designation, we have devalued by use of a foreign
outside influence in the United States. Now, there are people
that disagree with me. If it was the right thing to do, they
should have at least had the decency to come to Congress and
say there is a need for a buffer zone. They didn't do that.
They went through this process, and this is what I am
trying to change, so we have something to do with it.
The gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the chair. Let me just read to you from
the Billings Gazette earlier this year a story entitled park
needs buffer zone, delegation tours gold mine site. ``The
president of the World Heritage Committee said he is inclined
to suggest that the international panel urge the United States
to expand Yellowstone Park and encompass millions of acres of
national forest that surround it. Certainly, the forest areas
around Yellowstone belong to the same ecosystem, said Adul
Wichiencharoen of Thailand,'' I am sure I mispronounced that,
``who heads the World Heritage Committee which operates under
the administrative umbrella of the United Nations. All these
lands must have protection so their integrity is not
threatened.''
Here we have a fellow from Thailand now coming in and
literally instructing the United States on protecting an
ecosystem around Yellowstone Park.
I suggest that that has something to do with this Congress'
authority and the people of the United States' decision, and
yet we find folks from Thailand coming in and now trying to
direct this process.
Is this what you are talking about, Ms. James? Is this the
problem?
Ms. James. That is the problem, sir.
Mr. Tauzin. And the other thing that concerns me is that we
have an Administration that decided to take executive action to
establish land set-asides in one of our states without even
informing or discussing that process with the Governor of that
state.
I am very deeply concerned that this process is just one
more where the Administration can engage an international
organization in making decisions that compel the United States
to keep its faith, keep its honor, and therefore, do something
that we agreed to do by executive action somewhere with an
international agency.
The concern goes deeper than that. I was reading in the
committee analysis of the bill and the issue here that in
regard to the Catskill Mountains area, the Biosphere Reserve
recommended in the Adirondacks, local officials from both of
these regions testified that they have never been consulted
about plans to designate these biospheres.
That seems to be the routine, that these designations
occur, these recommendations occur, executive action occurs,
and local officials never get invited literally to participate.
But even worse than that, the private landowners never have a
chance for a community hearing, a right-to-know process.
The right to know is a very popular environmental theme
that I think has rendered some pretty good effects for America.
The fact that you know what is happening tends to make
everybody behave better.
When the government can do things without the private
landowner and the public having a right to know, a right to a
public discussion, without even Congress in some cases being
invited to participate in the decision, the executive reaches
back for some obsolete language and makes an executive decision
without a community process, then it creates this tension and
this battlefield where we ought to have cooperation and
compromise and good will and conservation agreements dictating
the process.
It seems to me that without this bill, the Administration
is literally setting itself up in these international
agreements to continue what I think is a very bad trend in the
way of America making its decisions in consultation with local
officials and local private property owners as an effect of
conservation and multi-use decisions in regards to lands.
Am I hitting it right? Can you add to this?
Ms. James. If I might, sir, I think that I have heard
testimony in Alaska when I had my joint resolution supporting
this bill from the people around the state, and the question is
why do we need this bill, because technically what is going on
is unconstitutional. Why do we need this bill, but it is
cheaper to put a bill through than it is to take them to court.
I think that you have hit right on the subject.
Mr. Tauzin. Let me make another point. We are going to be
offering some bills very soon that also deal with some of these
issues about communities' right to know and people's right to
know about what is happening to them in some of these areas.
Land ownership doesn't have rights in America. The
Constitution doesn't accord a single civil right to a piece of
land, but it does accord it to citizens. The right to own
private property and to own it in possession without a
government taking of that private property--as the Supreme
Court said in the Dolan case out west, it is a right that is no
less sacred than any of the other rights in the Bill of Rights.
It seems to me when we fail to protect America's civil
rights in regard to some of these issues by turning over power
to international organizations or even to chief executives
without having a process to protect civil rights, that we
ourselves are at fault in allowing the civil rights of citizens
to be degraded in this country.
I want to applaud you for coming to help us hopefully make
some good decisions to protect America's civil rights when it
comes to private property in this country.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. The
gentleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, I
want to point out that I have problems with the Federal
Government coming in and telling me what to do with my land on
Guam, so I am not really amused at the idea of international
organizations participating in that.
I wanted to commend the first panel, but I also wanted to
just for my own understanding of the issue as you see it, ask
you to comment on one point. In the course of your testimony,
there was a great deal of emphasis on the lack of public input
or the lack of appropriate process or perhaps going around
existing Federal legislation so that how you framed it is that
you are really calling for the enforcement of existing Federal
process for this.
Then there was some discussion about the practical effects
or the consequences of these restrictions that may be imposed
by these designations.
If I could just get a brief comment from each of you about
maybe making a distinction, and maybe it is not a good
distinction to make, but if we could distinguish between where
the more serious problem is.
Is the more serious problem the impact of these
restrictions by these designations, or is the more serious
problem the fact of lack of public participation in the process
of making these designations?
Ms. James. If I could begin, sir, I think that the last
part is more the big problem, and that is not identifying these
set-asides, if we call them set-asides, by a public process.
Beyond that, of course, is that it isn't just setting aside
an area. It is the surrounding area that is affected, which is
sometimes private property and state property, and the people
not knowing it.
If you want to look into the rule of establishing things,
it specifically says they don't want public policy in
establishing whether or not these are to be set-asides, and
they only want comments from local people only and if only they
don't affect the committee's decision.
It is a matter of sucking it out and putting it up here on
another plane where a totally different approach is given and a
totally different group of players play.
Mr. Childers. I would have to agree with the statement of
the representative from Alaska that lack of public input and
balanced input--if you are familiar with the NEPA process,
which is a gathering of data and balancing, and economics are
part of that balance.
But if you read through the guidelines for the World
Heritage Committee, there is no balance brought into it. It is
on the side of the environment.
The National Environmental Policy Act, our United States
law, asks for balance. It doesn't say you have to weigh the
environmental issues. It doesn't say you have to weigh the
economic issues. It is simply a balance. It provides the data,
and then the authorized officer makes the decision based on all
that data.
That did not allow data on all sides of the issue.
Mr. Underwood. Mr. Vogel.
Mr. Vogel. Thank you. My impression is very much the same
as the other panelists. However, I work at a level that is
very, very close to the people that are represented in these
areas.
The county commissioners in my region, for example, have
formed a joint powers board where there are ten counties now
serving together on a special board, and I see their constant
frustration with the lack of information available that is
brought to them. Frequently, they have to dig hard to find this
information and react to it.
In the case of the Northwoods Biosphere Reserve that was
proposed in 1984, as a matter of fact nominated in 1984, it was
only quite by accident that it came to light that the
nomination had been made. After some 3 years of investigation
and hard work, the citizens clearly rejected the idea of the
proposal, and fortunately, the State Department withdrew the
nomination at that point.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all, I
want to say that I commend you for this very reasoned,
balanced, and moderate legislation, which if I understand it
correctly simply would give the Congress some voice in these
major land use decisions.
I agree with the gentleman from Louisiana that it is
incredible that we give a man from Thailand more say than our
own Congress or even the local citizens most directly affected.
In light of this and in light of the comments by the
gentleman from Louisiana about the importance of private
property, let me read for the record a portion of a column by
Austin Chase which was in last Friday's Washington Times, and
it says, ``Why do elected representatives continue to
nationalize real estate when as the experience of the former
Soviet Empire demonstrated, public ownership is a recipe for
economic and ecological disaster? Why do greens want more
public land when they know governments have black thumbs? Why
do the media characterize private ownership as reactionary when
it is the principal institution that distinguishes the United
States from say, North Korea?''
Mr. Chase goes on in this column, and he says, ``So long as
the cold war raged, Congress had plenty of excuses to extend
the powers of central government. Now that socialism has
capitulated, politicians embrace a new enemy whose presence
justifies an even greater expansion, the environment.''
We need to realize in this country that environmental
extremists have become the new left, the new socialists, the
new radicals of this day, and there is a real threat in this
country to private property. I think now that the Federal
Government owns 30 percent of the land and state and local and
quasi-governmental agencies own another 20 percent, but what is
even more disturbing is the rate of increase of that ownership
and perhaps just as disturbing, the restrictions that are being
placed on our remaining limited private property.
I think that is something that you are concerned about,
because you have testified you are as concerned about what is
happening to the private landowners near these areas or
adjacent to these areas as you are to these designated areas
themselves. Is that correct?
Mr. Childers. That is correct in Park County where this--I
hate to say it, fiasco took place. Seventy-eight percent of the
land in Park County is Federal land. Only 2 percent is state
land, and then the rest is private.
Most of the living area in Park County is in the drainages
coming away from areas like the park. What happens on public
lands affects the economy in the area and then the influence of
the World Heritage Site in Danger according to what we see in
the guidelines would influence what would happen on private
land.
We are very concerned about that.
Mr. Duncan. We just had a hearing a few weeks ago,
Representative Childers, about the secrecy involved in the Utah
land grab, and from your testimony, I understand your concern
about the secrecy and the lack of input, true input, in the
process of the local citizens.
It seems as though a lot of these people know they would
lose if there was a real airing of the ramifications of these
decisions, so they try to do as much of this in secret as
possible.
I notice Mr. Vogel said in his testimony we find ourselves
having to devote an impossible amount of time and effort just
to get or dig out information before it is too late to react.
Mr. Vogel. That is correct.
Mr. Duncan. Was this being done in secrecy or private? Did
you--I know the Governor of Utah testified on that other
hearing that he found out about this major decision in his
state by reading about it, I think eight or 9 days ahead of
time in the Washington Post.
Mr. Vogel. Well, the proposal was revealed to the citizens
committee on Voyageurs National Park and four of the members of
that committee, including the chairman, are appointed by the
Governor who obviously didn't know that there was a proposal.
Mr. Duncan. My time is about to run out, but let me ask
Representative Childers this.
Did I understand you correctly to say that when you
testified in this very unfair, rigged hearing with the two
witnesses more or less on your side and 38 or 40 on the other
side, did you say the chairman of the committee or somebody
told you that it didn't matter what you said, and you said
something about how you thought you had to be careful in the
way you answered questions?
Mr. Childers. We had to be careful in the way we answered
questions when we tried to be on the panel or the group to be
able to testify before the committee.
If you said that you were for the mine, they said we will
call you back. If you were against the mine, then they were
more receptive to talking to you.
Then as far as the type of testimony that was provided
during the hearing, we were the only ones that provided
testimony that was more of a balanced nature, in my opinion.
Mr. Duncan. We had one of these designations in Tennessee,
and there was no local input there either. This apparently has
been going on all over the whole United States.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to place this column from the
Friday, June 6, Washington Times into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[Column from the Washington Times may be found at end of
hearing.]
The Chairman. I just want to thank the gentleman for his
comments, and I have not brainwashed him. I have not talked to
him about this.
This came from his own feelings. I happen to agree. This
whole concept of landownership and the Federal Government is a
socialist move, and I have not seen any Federal land make any
money yet or support a local community or provide for schools
or even set up an infrastructure, and yet the constant quest
for more land is occurring.
Even during my tenure, without my help, there was about
35,000,000 acres that have been put in restrictive
classification. I think that 837,000,000 acres are owned now by
the Federal Government, and it does not include cities, it does
not include any municipalities, and that is a huge chunk of
land, and yet it has a brown thumb.
Show me where the government has managed the land right.
Show me where they have managed the parks right or even the
Forest Service. The Forest Service is in the worst shape it has
ever been in history, not because of logging, but because they
have stopped managing. We will let God take care of it all and
Mother Nature, and by the way, they are very cruel taskmasters.
I just want to thank the gentleman for his statement. At
this time, if the lady is not too busy down there, Madame
Chairman, would you mind taking over this chair for me?
Mr. Tauzin. Would the gentleman yield before you leave on a
point of personal privilege?
The Chairman. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Tauzin. I just wanted to congratulate the Chairman on
his tabasco tie. When you are hot, you are hot.
The Chairman. The reason he is saying that, under our gift
rules, we can't accept gifts at all, and the gentleman
contributed this to me, and from one member to another member,
you can offer little recognitions. This comes from his
district, so it is tabasco, and I do thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [presiding] The chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I find this
hearing very interesting today.
As I was running for Congress, I had people coming to me
and telling me that we now had to fight the world influence on
how our parks were being managed and the land around them was
being used, and I absolutely did not believe them. I absolutely
thought they were erroneous in their comments.
Since then, I have found out they were not. They were
accurate. That is not well known out in the public.
I come from the most rural part of Pennsylvania, the most
rural district east of the Mississippi, and I find it, I guess,
a little alarming--a lot alarming. In my district, people do
not trust the Federal Government. They do not feel they are
reasonable. They do not feel they have adequate access to
decisions that are being made by administrations and Federal
bureaucracies.
If the general public understood that they now have to
react to and be affected by world organizations on how our
private property is going to be used, I think the potential for
a rebellion is out there. People will not take kindly to that,
and I don't blame them.
I find it interesting that we are at a point in time when
we have a Federal Government who I think has run roughshod over
property rights and people are starting to fight back. States
are starting to fight back, and now, we suddenly realize that
we have world organizations having impact.
As has been shared here today and in each of these
hearings, they avoided any public process or any public input
from those affected, and that is so far to the left of what
America is all about. I thought it was fantasy when I was first
confronted with this issue, but it is not.
I find it also interesting that just a few weeks ago, I
have a company in my district, and this is veering from the
issue a little bit, but it shows you the ever-reaching hand of
the Federal Government.
This company went to a conference, and this is a very good
company, a small company but growing, and found out there was a
form that they should have been filling out and sending to EPA
annually, a simple report of a product they handled. They
immediately went back, called the agency, got the form, filled
it out retroactively since they had been using that product,
were instantly given an $87,000 fine, and up to this date, we
have been unable to help them with that $87,000 fine, when they
reported themselves for not filling out a form.
That is a pretty hard over-reaching Federal Government in
my view, and when you multiply that into the issue that we are
dealing with, I guess I would like to ask the panelists.
I want to thank all of you for coming, but is there any
positive or real need for a world organization having input
when we don't really have state and Federal Government working
as a team?
Can you think of any positive influence that if we can't
get the states and the Federal Government on track, if we let
the world come in and tell us how to run our private land--does
that make any sense at all?
Mr. Vogel. Congressman, no, it makes no sense at all to me.
As a matter of fact, I think it is not well known that many
local units of government in recent years have recognized their
responsibilities to change the ways they do things, to improve
their planning processes, to recognize their responsibility to
the environment, and that is part of the reason that I alluded
to a moment ago about the ten-county joint powers board.
The title of that board is Northern Counties Land Use
Coordinating Board. Their purpose is to do better planning, to
recognize the relationship between a good environment and the
place where people live and thrive and work. We are seeing that
kind of thing occurring all across, at least our region in
northern Minnesota, where folks are taking very seriously, and
local elected officials are taking very seriously their
responsibility to the environment and are improving that
environment significantly.
We see no reason for this kind of intervention that you
describe.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Childers.
Mr. Childers. I see no advantage of them coming to the
United States when some of the people that were on the
committee, such as from Germany, and you hear about the horror
stories in East Germany, environmental horror stories.
It seems to me they ought to be approaching those countries
and working with them. If the countries are not receptive to
improving the environment, then possibly a committee such as
this would come in, but as I mentioned earlier, the United
States has the most stringent environmental laws in the world,
and we are doing our part to improve the environment.
If you have ever been through the environmental impact
statement process, NEPA, you can rest assured that it is a very
strict process. I see no reason.
Ms. James. Just briefly, I can say that we do have some
international organizations for peace, and we have lots of
international organizations that are private organizations
which have different functions, but I see absolutely no use for
any kind of a international organization to manage our land and
our people and our resources that are within our borders.
I think that is the problem that we have here, and we ought
to be sure that we have congressional action before any of
these decisions are made.
Mr. Peterson. I thank you all very much for coming. I
congratulate the chairman who has left for raising this issue.
I am not sure his bill goes far enough, but it is certainly a
step in the right direction.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Childers, you talked about the
public hearing or the hearing that was held in your area that
you testified at. What was the hearing on, what was the purpose
of the hearing?
Mr. Childers. The purpose of the hearing was to determine
if Yellowstone National Park and a buffer zone around the park
which is basically all the national forests that are adjacent
to the park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, should be considered
as a buffer zone.
One of the reasons that, at least, was advertised in the
newspaper was that it was to consider the New World Mine and a
possible buffer zone, but the other activities that were
brought up in the letter from the environmental community to
the World Heritage Committee were not mentioned to the general
public.
Mr. Pombo. And that is the list you have here on tourism,
population, road building, timber harvests? Those were some of
the other issues that were discussed at the hearing?
Mr. Childers. Yes, sir, that is correct. In the letter that
the environmental community sent to the World Heritage
Committee, those problems, so-called problems, were brought up
and testimony was received on that, but it was not widely
advertised in the proposal for the public hearings.
Mr. Pombo. You state in your testimony that the Department
of Interior, I believe it was George Frampton, had sent a
letter encouraging the area be declared a World Heritage Site
in Danger. In danger of what?
Mr. Childers. In danger from the activities from not only
the mine but the other activities. He supported what the
environmental community----
Mr. Pombo. So our government was asking for an
international designation that the site was in danger from
activities, human activities in the area?
Mr. Childers. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Pombo. And was it--I don't know if you can answer this
or not, but is it their opinion that our laws were not
sufficient to protect the site from environmental damage, so
therefore, they were going to an international body?
Mr. Childers. I can't answer how they were feeling. It was
flabbergasting that they were proposing that, at least, on the
mine site before the environmental impact statement was
complete.
Mr. Pombo. It would appear to me that with all of the
environmental laws that we have in this country to protect the
environment, that once we went through the environmental impact
statement and let science determine whether or not there was a
danger that there would be the path that we would take and not
go beyond Congress, not go beyond our laws, but go to an
international body.
I am trying to figure out what they were trying to
accomplish by sending a letter supporting naming the area in
danger.
Mr. Childers. My opinion is that it was simply to influence
the EIS process.
Mr. Pombo. To influence an internal process, to influence
the environmental impact statement?
Mr. Childers. Yes, sir. Part of it, according to the
committee guidelines, if that was accepted and the state party,
the United States, started implementing what the World Heritage
Committee recommended, there would be severe restrictions on
the use of the Forest Service lands bordering the park, and
that would be avoiding the NEPA process as required by law on
what the use of those lands would allow.
Mr. Pombo. So it is your opinion that they were using this
process to influence U.S. law or the United States process, an
internal process; they were using the international designation
to influence our laws, or not necessarily our laws, but the
process.
Mr. Childers. I think it goes further than that,
Congressman. I think it was to actually circumvent the law with
the treaty.
The way I understand the treaty, they would be required to
address what the treaty was between the state party, the United
States, and the United Nations or UNESCO, and if they addressed
that, they would more or less bypass our U.S. laws and place
restrictions on those lands under that treaty rather than going
by the NEPA process where there is a proper evaluation.
Mr. Pombo. There is one more question I wanted to ask you
on that. I know my time is up, but you say in your written
statement that the Park Service was involved with the selection
process of who was going to testify at this particular hearing?
Mr. Childers. You called the Park Service to offer your
testimony, to get permission to come and testify before the
committee. Now, who all was involved in the final selection
process, I am not sure, but it was a Park Service
representative that was asking the questions and taking the
answers.
Mr. Pombo. So if you wanted to testify, you called the Park
Service?
Mr. Childers. The Park Service in Yellowstone, in Mammoth.
That is correct.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. Mr. Doolittle, I
apologize for overlooking you in the transition to the chair.
Mr. Doolittle. That is all right, Madame Chairman. I just
wanted to get a couple questions in before we go to the vote.
Sir, you refer to this as a treaty, and it is my
understanding this is not a treaty. This is merely an executive
agreement which is something less than a treaty.
Is that your understanding?
Mr. Childers. In my understanding, it was a treaty, but if
I am mistaken, I misread the heading of it.
Mr. Doolittle. As I understand it, a treaty must be
ratified by the U.S. Senate, and that, I do not believe, has
occurred in this case.
We are a participant in the Convention on World Heritage,
of which Yellowstone is one.
From my law school days, it seems to me that a treaty is
paramount over the laws of the United States, but less than the
Constitution. I wish we had a constitutional lawyer out here,
because I think we have to get to the bottom of this.
We have a volunteer who says they are on the same level.
You mean an agreement and a treaty or the laws and the treaty?
The problem is that we don't have anybody here who is
officially designated as a witness, but I would submit it goes
right to the heart of the matter.
Where you have one supreme law of the land in conflict with
another supreme law of the land, we need to find out which is
the supreme of the supremes.
This bill by Mr. Young is a very interesting bill to read,
because you will get a lot of feel for it just by reading it.
It appears to me that the executive branch of our government is
actively working with the international bodies to impose its
will upon this land and really circumventing the Congress.
Let me just ask, you three witnesses represent three
different jurisdictions that potentially could bring suit and
try and get it to the Supreme Court to try and challenge these
actions; have you considered taking this action?
Ms. James. If I could respond to that, we discussed that,
but we think maybe this bill works a little faster.
I wanted to make the point that the Biosphere Reserve
issue, which also includes the Yellowstone National Park, is
the real problem that came from this New World Mine site
because of the buffer zones. There are no buffer zones around
World Heritage Sites.
There are buffer zones around Biosphere Reserves. That
agreement has never been ratified. That is a convention that
has never been--and the Senate has refused to ratify it, so we
even have a more serious problem in Yellowstone than the fact
that there is a treaty and whether or not it has the force of
law of our constitution.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me just say that there is a great chance
then to strike and file a suit on it. I think we should support
this bill, but I think you ought to get a suit going----
Ms. James. I agree.
Mr. Doolittle. [continuing] challenging this, and yes, that
is going to take some time, but this--obviously, when you read
this bill or you look at a map and you see things called
Biosphere Re-
serves, you discover that there is a lot of internationalism
that has gone on here that most of us haven't been aware of.
Ms. James. I agree, and I would hope that we can find
enough people that would be interested to do that, because it
is a serious concern.
Mr. Doolittle. It is indeed, and I thank our witnesses for
appearing, and I thank you, Madame Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Doolittle. The chair has
some questions for you, but we have two bells followed by five
bells, which means we have four votes up.
Mr. Doolittle, there is a 15-minute vote, and it will be
followed by three 5-minute votes, so if I can still add
correctly, I think we should recess until quarter to 3, but I
would like this panel to return for my questioning.
[Recess]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The committee will come to order. I just
had a couple of questions that I wanted to ask of Mr. Childers.
Do you know if they ever finished the EIS on the New World
Mine?
Mr. Childers. I have never seen the document. I understand
there is a draft environmental impact statement that has been
printed. It was never distributed.
That would be one thing that I would say that this World
Heritage Committee hearing did, is it stopped the environmental
impact statement. It would be nice to at least know whether
there was a problem or not. It should be released.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Also, Representative Childers, you had
mentioned that you had to be very careful about how you
testified, and if I understood your answer, you had to be
careful about what you said so that you would be asked to
testify.
There were only two of you who testified for private
property rights and against this proposal?
Mr. Childers. Yes, madame. If we said we were for the mine,
I seriously doubt if we would have been asked to testify.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Was the testimony and the hearing open? Was
there public notice? What kind of audience was there?
Mr. Childers. The audience consisted of the news media, a
lot of the environmental community, mining people. I really
thought that it was flabbergasting.
My testimony was on Monday, September 11. I called the
Governor of Wyoming and asked him if he was aware that the
input being received on this program went far beyond the New
World Mine, that it was concerning tourism, et cetera, and he
was not aware that the program was going beyond the mine.
He has since found out that the Department of Environmental
Quality was notified about the program, but it was a vague
reference of what the program was going to cover. The DEQ and
the State of Wyoming were involved somewhat in the process,
because the waters do flow into the State of Wyoming.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Who was the entity that called the hearing?
Mr. Childers. The press release came from the National Park
Service in Yellowstone Park.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Who were the hearing officers? Who did you
testify in front of?
Mr. Childers. A Park Service employee was the moderator for
the hearing.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So there were no hearing officers; there
was a moderator.
Mr. Childers. Other than a moderator, no, madame. The
committee itself receiving input asked the questions and so
forth.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Was there ever an expression from the
National Park Service as to how they felt about open public
opinion or involving the public?
Mr. Childers. The park superintendent, when he was
summarizing, said he was pleased with all the input that he
received from everybody with the exception that he wasn't too
pleased with our input.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Representative Childers.
Representative James, thank you so much for coming so far. Mr.
Vogel, thank you. You have come a long way, too. All of you
have, and I appreciate you very much.
With that, we will call the second panel, and there will be
four on this panel, and because two people have planes to
catch, I would like to call Steve Lindsey and Denis Galvin,
Betty Beaver, and Dr. Jeremy Rabkin.
Denis Galvin is the Acting Deputy Director of the National
Park Service from the U.S. Department of Interior here in
Washington, DC. Mr. Lindsey is from Canelo, Arizona. Betty Ann
Beaver is from Hot Springs, Arkansas, with the Take Back
Arkansas organization; and Dr. Jeremy Rabkin is Associate
Professor, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
I would like to begin the testimony with Mr. Lindsey.
STATEMENT OF STEVE LINDSEY, CANELO, ARIZONA
Mr. Lindsey. Thank you, madame. I do appreciate the chance
to get here, and it is a good thing I took an airplane from
Canelo, because I don't know if there is a road that goes this
far.
I am not really educated. I am not a lobbyist at all. My
name is Steve Lindsey, and I am from Canelo, Arizona. I am a
fifth generation rancher. I don't really have anything
prepared, but I am just going to talk to you from my heart and
what we feel, where we are right now on the land.
Like I said, I really appreciate the chance to come to
Congress and stand here. My family has been in southern Arizona
on that ranch in southern Arizona. They settled there in 1866
or 1867, somewhere in there.
My great-great-grandfather, he homesteaded up there in what
is now Parker Canyon. He was a Parker and my grandma was a
Parker.
My great-grandfather then homesteaded in Canelo, Arizona,
on the Turkey Creek, which is about ten miles from where his
father homesteaded, and then acquired another homestead in
1923. He got that first homestead in 1910. He started running
cattle there in 1910, and we have been running a successful
cattle operation ever since then on that same piece of property
on Turkey Creek, 87 years, five generations on that piece of
property.
That sure speaks a lot for how we have been doing and what
we have been able to accomplish on that property, and we are
still running a good, successful cattle operation.
The ESA, Endangered Species Act, they listed a species that
grows on our property, the Canelo Hills ladies tresses. We are
the Canelo in the Canelo Hills ladies tresses.
They listed that as endangered on January 6, 1997. It went
through after much public outcry and there was absolutely no
scientific data, but they went ahead and did it, and we
accepted that.
Then February 1, 1997, we received word that an extreme
prohibitionist outfit there wanted to list us under the Ramsar
Treaty, and that is why I am here. The Ramsar Treaty is a
little known wetlands treaty signed in 1971 in Ramsar, Iran,
and doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy, but it was aimed at
protecting wetlands worldwide, and I would like to quote here
from this paper.
It says, ``By protecting these Arizona wetlands through the
Ramsar convention, we get international oversight, and that is
exactly what the developers don't want,'' said Kieran Suckling,
Executive Director of the Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity. The coalition also includes the Southwest Forest
Alliance. Suckling contends that wetlands, especially the few
remaining sites in the desert southwest are being
systematically drained or polluted by urban sprawl, mining,
livestock grazing and timber cutting.''
We are the No. 10 on that map that you have in that
testimony, Turkey Creek--Turkey Cienega, they state there. That
is our private property.
As I said, we have been raising cattle there for 87 years.
The Ramsar Convention is not yet covered in H.R. 901, and what
we desire is for that bill, H.R. 901, to now cover that Ramsar
Convention.
We do not believe as a family that we need that
international oversight. We do not need that global oversight
as it states in this paper. We have been doing a good enough
job the past five generations. I am raising the sixth
generation.
If we do get this international oversight, if we do lose
that land, then my children have no inheritance and that really
bothers me.
Again, I thank you for letting me come.
[The prepared statement of Steve Lindsey may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I appreciate you very much, Mr. Lindsey for
being here. Thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Denis Galvin of the Department
of Interior.
STATEMENT OF DENIS P. GALVIN, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Galvin. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I have a prepared
statement that I will submit for the record and simply
summarize the statement.
It is our view that this legislation would impose
inappropriate and unwise restrictions on the ability of Federal
agencies to work cooperatively with states and other levels of
government to achieve the benefits of international recognition
for U.S. conservation and research sites.
We strongly oppose this bill, and if this legislation
passes Congress, we will recommend that the President veto it.
The Administration does not have the authority nor the
intention of ceding sovereignty over U.S. lands to
international organizations, nor have the five previous
Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, which have
participated enthusiastically in the international conservation
agreements targeted by this bill.
H.R. 901 is an attempt to fix alleged problems which do not
exist. It is not a sovereignty issue.
Many of these lands have been preserved by law in the
United States as national parks through acts of Congress. They
include, to name a few, our first national park, Yellowstone;
the complex cave and karst system of Mammoth Cave, and the
Indian cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde.
These international agreements have in no way been utilized
to exclude Congress--in fact, World Heritage has been
authorized by Congress, from land management decisions, nor do
they have the ability to do so. The nomination processes are
generally consultative, and are usually based on demonstrated
initiative and commitment at the local level.
International site recognitions defer land use decisions to
the management entity within the nation, subject to the
domestic laws in place, and they do not add any legal
restrictions on land use. The United Nations does not have any
authority to dictate Federal land management decisions.
International site recognitions do not restrict land use or
stop economic growth. On the contrary, many local areas see
them as value-added designations. They provide opportunities
for increased partnership and mutual benefit.
Earlier, there was considerable discussion about the
listing of Yellowstone Park as a World Heritage Site in Danger.
Listing of a World Heritage Site in Danger has no legal
implications on the domestic management of the site, and as
several of the previous witnesses have pointed out, it was not
just the New World Mine issue that resulted in that
designation. There were also visitor use issues. There were
exotic species issues, and the well publicized brucellosis and
bison issues, and my testimony goes into that in some detail,
Madame Chairwoman.
With respect to the discussion of buffer zones, virtually
all of the designations in both World Heritage sites, which are
authorized by law and then biosphere reserves, which are
authorized under an executive agreement, are confined to the
boundaries of existing protected areas.
For instance, the boundary of the World Heritage Site at
Yellowstone is synonymous with the existing boundary of
Yellowstone National Park.
In one instance in the National Park system, Mammoth Cave,
the boundary of the Man and the Biosphere site is larger than
the boundaries of the park. That was because of local
initiative. Local authority wanted a larger boundary so they
could use it to clean up polluted water.
The Congressional Research Service said in its May 3, 1996,
report on the World Heritage Convention and U.S. National
Parks, the Convention has no rule or authority beyond listing
sites and of-
fering technical advice and assistance. The solicitor of the
Department of Interior wrote on March 20, 1996, ``In our view,
this obligation is discharged entirely within the framework of
the appropriate U.S. and state laws.''
Biosphere Reserves established in connection with UNESCO's
Man and the Biosphere program similarly admit no international
control of U.S. lands.
The Convention on World Heritage, a foreign policy
initiative of the Nixon Administration, has been a cornerstone
of U.S. national and environmental policy for nearly a quarter
of a century. In fact, the United States was the first
signatory in 1972. It has benefited parks and adjacent
communities. The widespread international acceptance of these
designations is a continuous advertisement of America's
prestige and global influence.
Other World Heritage Sites internationally include the Taj
Mahal, the Great Wall of China, the Serengeti Plain, and
Vatican City. Additional information is contained in my
prepared testimony.
Madame Chairwoman, I see that my 5 minutes is up, and I
will be glad to answer any questions the subcommittee has.
[The prepared statement of Denis P. Galvin may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Galvin. The chair recognizes
Mrs. Betty Beaver.
STATEMENT OF BETTY ANN BEAVER, HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS
Mrs. Beaver. Good afternoon. It is an honor to be able to
come and to address you today.
I want to tell you that I have no hidden agenda. I do not
work for anyone. No one paid my way to Washington.
I came because a group of citizens in the State of Arkansas
discovered that they were about to be included in a biosphere
reserve.
In 1989, it appears that people from Federal agencies and
state agencies, without the knowledge of any elected officials
as far as we can determine, decided this would be a good
designation to have. They put together a feasibility study, and
then they put together a draft. This was to be signed September
of last year, in 1996.
On August 20, a little lady went to church and found out
that there was--someone was talking about this, and she
endeavored to go to the Park Service to find out. After a
period of time and a lot of struggle through several intense
days, she received a copy of the feasibility study.
Part of the pages were not there, and this brought her to
be very curious when she found out that some were missing. She
went back and got the rest of the pages and put it together,
and we put together a book. If you have not seen a feasibility
study for a biosphere reserve, there will be a copy in the
Resources Committee office. I could not afford to make you 100
copies of this book. I am sorry about that.
I do have a copy of my testimony that is written that I
hope will be in the record.
I would like to answer a few of the questions about people
knowing about this ahead of time. I have heard an awful lot
today from very knowledgeable people stating that everybody
knows about it, but the 2,500,000 people that would have been
involved in this Ozark Biosphere Reserve, and over 55,000
square miles of land in Missouri and Arkansas and possibly a
corner of Oklahoma and Kansas and Illinois, and it states in
the feasibility study that hopefully it will stretch all the
way to Kentucky and to the sea and touch the land between the
lakes. They just have to hop across the Mississippi to make
that happen.
That is all in this feasibility study. It will be there if
you would like to read it and check the accuracy of my words.
I would like to share with you just a few statements
directly out of this book. On page 53, it states, and this is
concerning the steering committee that was steering this thing
through a sovereign state, ``With concurrence from the steering
committee, the interviewer decided that public meetings would
not be a part of the interview process because such meetings
tend to polarize the views of the public and may capture
negative attention from the press.'' Indeed, I would think that
it would polarize the views when they find out that they are
involved in this without any voice.
Also, it states, ``Interviewees were chosen to target the
kinds of individuals, organizations, businesses, and special
interest groups whose cooperation would be crucial to a
Biosphere Reserve project,'' and it goes on to state in here
that areas of land that might not be as nice as others, and
maybe there won't be such an outcry from the people. In other
words, if you are backward, in a backward part of the country,
possibly they can designate this and fool the people part of
the time.
I appeal to the Congress to take the reigns of government
back firmly in your hand, to do indeed make the laws of this
land. For our 55,000 square miles, and we have heard millions
of acres discussed today, please, please, you decide, because
we can elect you or not. We have no voice in agencies and State
Department people that are appearing in our communities. We
have no voice there. We only have a voice in the people's
House.
Please.
[The prepared statement of Betty Ann Beaver may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mrs. Beaver. The chair now
recognizes Dr. Rabkin.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY A. RABKIN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CORNELL
UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK
Mr. Rabkin. Thank you. I want to talk about the principle
at stake in this, because I think there really is an important
principle. People talk about sovereignty, and some people talk
about it with great passion, and other people's eyes glaze
over.
Let me just give you quickly a hypothetical. Think about it
in this way. Let us say that the President--a Republican
president, a different president--says, ``Moral issues are very
important; therefore, before any American cabinet department
issues any regulations dealing with sexual matters, the family,
abortion, birth control, any of those controversial issues, I
am issuing a directive that they first consult the Pope in Rome
and get his advice.''
People would go berserk. Our friends in the ACLU would
certainly go berserk, and if the President said in response,
``No, no, no, it is just consultation, the Pope has no
authority at all, don't worry, he has no authority, we are
still sovereign''--they would still go berserk, because they
would say, ``This is an outside authority, why is it being
brought in?''
It won't impress the ACLU if thye President says, ``No, no,
we are going to broaden it. It won't just be the Pope; it will
be the Archbishop of Canterbury, a few Ayatollahs in Iran, and
the Chief Rabbi of Israel.'' They will still go berserk. They
will say--rightly, I think--that the American people elect
their government, the government should be accountable to the
American people, and the government should not be bringing in
foreign spiritual authorities.
The only thing that is different about these programs,
essentially, is that instead of religious authorities, we have
150 other governments, and in fact, we do have the Vatican as
was mentioned before, and the Vatican is there with 150 other
governments.
These governments are not talking about moral issues; they
are talking about environmental issues. But essentially, there
is the same objection--which is that we are a sovereign
country. Our government should be accountable to our people and
should not be bringing in foreign authorities and parading them
around as if they have some important say-so about what the
American people do with their own resources in this country.
I really think the principle is serious, and if it had been
about religious authorities rather than international
authorities, people would just expect that it would go to the
Supreme Court and advocacy groups wouldn't say, ``Don't get
excited, calm down.'' Instead they would say, ``Oh, yes, of
course, this is an important principle, let us litigate it.''
This is an important principle and if people are not ready
to litigate it, I think it is fine that Congress asserts the
principle. But let me just quickly mention what I think are
also some practical considerations.
The real problem here is not that these international
authorities are so overbearing. It is actually that they are so
weak and so loose that they are easily manipulated, and I think
that there is a good deal of evidence that--particularly
regarding the World Heritage Committee--is very politicized and
very easily manipulated. What I am concerned about and what I
think the Yellowstone affair illustrates is not that
international authority would be manipulated against the United
States, but that it would be manipulated by the United States,
and then presented to the citizens of the United States as an
independent international ruling.
The government may then say, ``Gosh, this international
authority told us we have to.'' That is essentially what
happened in the Yellowstone affair, and I think there is
evidence that this goes on in a systematic way.
Before I finish, let me cite you two statistics that I
think are very telling. There are 506 sites around the world
listed as World Heritage Sites. Eighty percent of them around
the world are cultural sites. They are historic buildings,
works of art, some man-made monument. Only a minority of the
sites, only 20 percent of them, if you take a global inventory,
are natural areas, scenic areas, like wilderness preserves.
In the United States, it is almost exactly the reverse. The
overwhelming majority of the American sites are scenic areas.
So the United States has a completely different set of
priorities in the international listing, and that is clearly
because we are nominating natural areas such as national parks,
like Yellowstone, and not historic buildings, at least not to
the same extent that other countries do.
Why is that? I think it is pretty clear. That is our
priority, and whose priority is it really? I think the priority
of environmental advocacy groups, such as those involved in the
dispute about mining near Yellowstone Park.
One other figure that is really striking, there are 22
sites listed as being ``in danger.'' Of those 22 sites which
the World Heritage Committee has recognized as being threatened
by some decay or degradation, two of them are in the United
States--virtually 10 percent of them.
If you look at where the other sites are, they are in
really wretchedly poor, miserable countries. They are in
countries that have recently experienced civil war, epidemics,
massive floods, or some other natural disaster. They are in
countries which are basically a kind of ``Who's Who'' of
international charity cases. There is no other Western country,
there is no other First World country, there is no other
developed country which has a site on this list.
How is it possible that the United States is in the same
category as Bulgaria or Benin in terns of taking care of its
World Heritage Sites? I think the only explanation can be that
the United States is eagerly going to this committee saying,
``Put us on the list, put us on the list.''
This is not an impartial international judgment. This is a
committee that is manipulated, and if we have time, I can give
you other evidence indicating that is so.
I think it is very reasonable of Congress to put its foot
down and say we don't want to be involved in this, and
certainly, we don't want to be involved in this without
congressional say-so, case-by-case.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Jeremy A. Rabkin may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Dr. Rabkin. The chair recognizes
the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I have a couple
questions for Mr. Galvin.
I would like you to comment on this New World Mine up in
Montana and the relationship that it has to any of these
international agreements that you may be aware of.
Mr. Galvin. The New World Mine was on--the environmental
impact statement that has been mentioned previously was being
done by the Forest Service because the Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management had to issue the permits to allow the
New World Mine development to go forward. It was not a
development that was going forward at the time.
It was very controversial. One of the earlier witnesses
mentioned the fact that one of the effects of the World
Heritage listing as in danger was on public opinion, and
indeed, I believe that is an accurate observation.
But it was not absent public opinion in the first place pro
and con for the mine. It was a controversial issue.
The reason the environment impact statement was stopped was
because of an agreement between the mine operator and the U.S.
Government that the U.S. Government would buy out their
interest, thus preventing the mine development.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me interrupt you there and ask, was there
any relationship between any of these international agreements
and the decision that the United States made to purchase the
mine?
Mr. Galvin. Only as it affects public opinion, and with
respect to the negotiations, the negotiations actually started
out, to be perfectly accurate, as a land exchange for the
rights contained at the New World Mine. Those negotiations had
started before the World Heritage Committee came to
Yellowstone.
Mr. Schaffer. The answer is--you said there seemed to be a
relationship. I am not clear what it means when you say the
relationship is only as it relates to public opinion.
Can you clarify that?
Mr. Galvin. There was no legal relationship between the
decision on New World Mine and the World Heritage designation,
no sovereignty question.
The ultimate solution for the New World Mine proposed by
the Administration was done entirely within the framework of
U.S. law.
Mr. Schaffer. Mr. Rabkin, you seem to be familiar based on
the report from the staff and I know nothing of it other than
your name is on the cover.
Mr. Rabkin. I wrote it.
Mr. Schaffer. Do you have anything to add to the questions
I just raised about the relationship between these
international agreements and the government's motivation to
purchase this mine?
Mr. Rabkin. This is true of most international agreements
that they don't have direct effect in domestic law.
Nonetheless, we are constantly being told that we have to do
this because we promised in an international agreement, and we
have to do that, because we promised in an international
agreement.
I think it is silly to say that because it doesn't go
directly into U.S. law, an agreement has no meaning. An
agreement is a promise by the United States to live up to
certain standards, although, if you go back and actually look
at the language of this particular treaty, it is rather
ambiguous.
The gist of it does seem to be that we take seriously our
obligation to protect these sites, and that we agree to submit
them to the scrutiny of this international committee. The
implication is that we agree to do what they tell us to do. We
are not absolutely required, but certainly, we have committed
ourselves at least to take very, very seriously what they tell
us to do. You can say, yes, the international committee is just
an appeal to public opinion here, but I wouldn't say just
public opinion.
It is rather important when you present it to the public
that an international authority has required us to do it or
asked us to do it.
Mr. Galvin. Just to set the record straight, the World
Heritage body did not ask us to buy the New World Mine. They
concentrated on water pollution issues, visitation issues.
Mr. Schaffer. Mr. Galvin, let me ask you, you mentioned
with the case of the Mammoth Cave land in Kentucky that--was
this a biosphere reserve?
Mr. Galvin. Yes, that is a biosphere reserve, sir.
Mr. Schaffer. You said it exceeded the park boundaries----
Mr. Galvin. Yes, it does.
Mr. Schaffer. [continuing] but that was with the consent of
the local--somebody, I don't know----
Mr. Galvin. Right, actually, the Barren River area
development district supported the enlargement of the boundary.
I have a letter I can submit for the record here dated August
29, 1996, that supports the notion that--I will just quote from
it. ``We have never been able to do this, that is, get all
these organizations that were involved in cleaning up that
watershed together until we received the Biosphere Reserve
designation.''
Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask you, did that group include the
property owners?
Mr. Galvin. I will read out who it is. Certainly, property
owners were affected by the solutions, because this got into
putting sewer lines in, cleaning up pollution in Mammoth Cave,
but the actual organizations cited in the letter are the
National Park Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the state
Transportation Cabinet, Western Kentucky University Research
Facility, and our area's chief locally elected officials.
Mr. Schaffer. No property owners that you are aware of?
Mr. Galvin. Well, no. They are not mentioned in the letter,
but chief locally elected officials are, and private property
owners were affected in the sense that the water pollution
issues----
Mr. Schaffer. With all due respect, the local elected
officials don't own the land in this case. It is the property
owners that I am most concerned about.
Mr. Galvin. The problem here is a water pollution problem
that required a large scale solution. It did not take anybody's
property.
Mr. Schaffer. But the question is, who owns the land?
Mr. Galvin. Well----
Mr. Schaffer. This could be a fundamental disagreement
between----
Mr. Galvin. Well, there is a lot of different kinds----
Mr. Schaffer. [continuing] Congress and the White House.
Mr. Galvin. [continuing] of ownership there, but private
property, I don't know that private properties were within the
boundaries of the Biosphere Reserve here. It is unusual for it
to be that way, by the way.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. The chair
recognizes Mrs. Smith from Washington.
Mrs. Smith. Thank you, Madame Chair. Mr. Lindsey, I will
first state that I have been ever concerned about the way the
agencies have treated individuals.
In my state there have been several instances where
individuals find out later that they were a part of
consideration and not able to represent themselves in private
property decisions.
With that in mind, I didn't hear and have not read all your
testimony, so this might be redundant. How did you first learn
of the environmental group and how they had filed a petition
against you? Who notified you of this, that you were nominated,
actually?
Mr. Lindsey. Madame, a friend of ours sent us an article
out of the Republic, the Arizona Republic. It is a Phoenix
newspaper, February 1, 1997.
Mrs. Smith. So you weren't officially notified in any way
that your property was going to be nominated as this wetland?
Mr. Lindsey. No, madame, in no way.
Mrs. Smith. Could you tell by that how long that process
had been going on before you found out you were chosen?
Mr. Lindsey. I have no idea, madame. I am sorry, I have no
idea.
Mrs. Smith. I just came across one in my area that they had
been setting up for a long time to decide that there was going
to be a trail head that encompassed these people's property,
and they really didn't just tell them to the end, they didn't
want to, but they had designated and planned for some time to
take their property.
Unfortunately, it didn't give them much of a chance to
fight or even have their voice heard, because they were just
had by the time it was all organized.
That is as a big a concern that there is no due process.
Mr. Galvin, would you be able to comment on that, why he
would read it in the paper that his property was going to be
basically confiscated for wetland, which means he couldn't use
it?
Mr. Galvin. I am just simply unfamiliar--you mean in Mr.
Lindsey's case or in the case you talked about?
Mrs. Smith. Yes, for Mr. Lindsey's case.
Mr. Galvin. I just am not familiar with----
Mrs. Smith. Why he read it in the paper as a----
Mr. Galvin. I would offer that that is obviously very bad
practice. I am not--I just simply am unaware of that case, of
the listing or the designation.
I would be glad to provide something for the record.
Mrs. Smith. I would be very interested in it.
The thing that always troubles me is, when there is an
environmental impact statement, when I do one for property or
we do one in our community, it is done over a period of time
with public hearings. So much of that includes economic impacts
to the community as well.
Was there an economic impact to the ranching? It appears to
me ranching would be a thing of the past if that was
designated. You couldn't really use your property.
Was there any impact statement on that?
Mr. Lindsey. Not that I am aware of, madame. Not that I am
aware of.
Mrs. Smith. So that was not a consideration at all, the
loss of income or the ability to manage your own property?
Mr. Lindsey. No, madame.
Mrs. Smith. Mr. Galvin, now this probably has a legitimate
purpose, but I still haven't figured out why a meeting that you
were holding or was being held on the Florida Everglades was
held in Maine.
Mr. Galvin. Held in?
Mrs. Smith. Held in Maine. Now, this is just a news report,
and I will say to those on my right at the table, news is not
always accurate. Somebody might have written this and it isn't
true, but a news report on the U.S. Man and the Biosphere
program, according to the report, says the program has funded a
grant concerning the restoration of the Florida Everglades.
Now, this is in Florida, and the meeting is called to be at
a resort in Maine. Can you give me some idea of how that has
relevance to anything connected to Florida? Why would you have
an overall meeting on the Florida Everglades in Maine?
Mr. Galvin. Actually, I am not familiar with the meeting,
but let me suggest this, that the U.S. MAB group probably meets
fairly regularly at different locations in the United States.
Since Everglades is a Biosphere Reserve, perhaps one of the
agenda items on their meeting was the Everglades.
Mrs. Smith. So this resort in Maine, maybe it was a more
central location?
Mr. Galvin. Not necessarily. It may have been just one
location of a number that the U.S. MAB group meets at.
Mrs. Smith. So there are national group meetings on the
concern of the Florida Everglades which probably would mean the
folks in Florida didn't have much to do with that meeting?
Mr. Galvin. Well, if there are 47 Biosphere Reserves in the
United States, and if the U.S. map committee meets on a regular
basis, and a subsequent witness may be able to amplify that,
then I would assume that they meet near some Biosphere
Reserves, but far away from others.
Mrs. Smith. That is probably the reason people feel so left
out of it, that they don't feel that they are a part of the
process. That might be part of it.
Mr. Galvin. Well, there are requirements in World Heritage
for public notification, and there are also requirements in Man
and the Biosphere for local support.
Mrs. Smith. It is awfully hard for the folks I know to go
to Florida or Maine, if they are dealing with one on the West
Coast. I guess what I am saying is that that might be the
reason that so many people feel alienated or don't know what is
happening, then when it hits them, they go----
Mr. Galvin. I would agree with you. There should be good,
local communication at the local level regarding these
decisions.
Mrs. Smith. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mrs. Smith. Dr. Rabkin, has
Congress ever conferred power on the Department of Interior to
acquire property under the Biosphere Reserve?
Mr. Rabkin. No.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Has the Biosphere Reserve ever been
ratified? Has that treaty ever been ratified by the Senate?
Mr. Rabkin. It isn't even a treaty. It has not been
ratified by anybody. It is just an international venture in
cooperation.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Is there any umbrella of law that protects
the agency or individuals operating inside the agency in moving
ahead in this procedure?
Mr. Rabkin. No.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Have you ever heard of the Supreme Court
decision, Bivins v. Six Unknown Agents?
Mr. Rabkin. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you think that that may apply here?
Mr. Rabkin. If some official of the Interior Department
went and tried to seize someone's land, yes, the landowner
could sue under Bivins and have a lot of fun and maybe collect
a lot of money.
I would say more power to the landowner who did that, but I
don't--let me just anticipate Mr. Galvin--I don't think the
Interior Department is doing that, going out and seizing
people's land.
I think what people are worried about is that we are
organizing a community of interest groups which is a very
carefully selected community, including some local officials
and perhaps some kinds of landowners and not others, and trying
to orchestrate certain kinds of policies so that you use this
program as a way of either encouraging or steamrolling local
officials into making zoning changes and things like that.
I don't think it is unreasonable for people to say, ``Whoa,
wait, what is going on here? Why are Federal agencies
coordinating local zoning changes, why are they doing this
without any kind of statutory formula, without any involvement
of Congress.'' I think it is reasonable for people to ask
questions like that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Thank you very much. Either Dr.
Rabkin or Mr. Galvin, I would like to ask you, in Yellowstone
National Park, the park itself is considered a World Heritage
Site, right?
Mr. Galvin. That is correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And that treaty was ratified in 1952?
Mr. Galvin. Nineteen seventy three.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Nineteen seventy three. But outside the
boundaries, the park itself and outside the boundaries is
considered a Biosphere Reserve, right?
Mr. Galvin. I believe some of the forest territory is
included in the Biosphere Reserve.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And the New World Mine was outside the
boundaries of the Yellowstone National Park, correct?
Mr. Galvin. That is correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So under the Biosphere Reserve----
Mr. Galvin. It was surrounded by forest.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Under the Biosphere Reserve agreement, the
New World Mine was seized, right?
Mr. Galvin. No, that is not right. The New World Mine was--
the operator came to an agreement with the U.S. Government
about either a land exchange or a purchase which is going
forward.
Mr. Rabkin. Could I just say a word about this?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Mr. Rabkin. What Mr. Galvin said before was technically
correct, that only the park itself is the World Heritage Site.
But what got people upset--and I sympathize with them; I think
it is upsetting--is that the World Heritage Committee came in
and said although the park itself is the site, this mine which
is outside the park--some three miles outside the park--is
going to have an effect on the park, and since it is going to
have an effect on the park, it is under our international
jurisdiction.
No, they don't have jurisdiction to seize it, they don't
have jurisdiction to order anyone to do anything, but they did
claim the authority to come and review it, to come and talk
about it, and then to make a recommendation, which I would say
was more than a recommendation.
It was saying this mine is a danger to Yellowstone. They
took it upon themselves to review what happens outside the
site, and that is what is upsetting to people.
We never said that we were submitting areas outside of
Yellowstone to international supervision. Nonetheless, we had
international supervision of an area outside Yellowstone Park.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Were the operators the individuals who
approached the government about having the government buy the
mine?
Mr. Galvin. I don't believe so. I believe the government
approached them.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yeah. So you do change your testimony from
your last statement?
Mr. Galvin. No, I didn't change my testimony. I believe the
word you used was seized. This is a transaction. They are
getting consideration for the value of their mine. They agreed
to it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me understand this a little better, Mr.
Galvin.
So the government comes in and stops the environmental
impact statement, the process that is a lawful process on the
expansion----
Mr. Galvin. The government----
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] and development----
Mr. Galvin. [continuing] approached the mine owners and
struck a deal with them. Negotiated is the verb I would use.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, is the operator the owner?
Mr. Galvin. There is a question of title to the ground and
title to the mining rights. The government worked with the
people who own the mining rights.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But there was another owner, wasn't there?
Mr. Galvin. There is, I understand, another owner who has
some legitimate title.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And according to a national magazine, she
was not dealt with and does not want to sell her mine.
Mr. Galvin. That is what I have read in the press, not sell
the mine, sell her interest. I believe the company owns the
mineral interests.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But you are not sure?
Mr. Galvin. I can provide that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So if the owner of the mine owned the land
and the mine was patented under her name----
Mr. Galvin. I don't believe that is the case.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Are you positive?
Mr. Galvin. Clearly, the Canadian mine company has a
property interest there. There is no dispute about that.
There is another property interest here that needs to be
dealt with, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So you had indicated there never was
private property seized or taken?
Mr. Galvin. That is right.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And you still maintain it wasn't?
Mr. Galvin. That is right. It is a negotiation and it was
purchased or it is being purchased. It has not been purchased
yet.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How was the mine to be paid for?
Mr. Galvin. How is it to be paid for? In the budget
agreement, I believe there is an agreement that it will be paid
for with land and water conservation funding.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Is it not true that the first agreement
with the operators, not the owner but the operators, was to pay
$65,000,000 to a Canadian company out of the CRP funds that
Congress had designated for CRP, not for mining interest?
Mr. Galvin. I believe the initial agreement was for land
exchange. The current budget agreement calls for land and water
conservation funds to pay for it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Originally, it was to be paid for out of
the CRP funds?
Mr. Galvin. That could be. I am not aware of that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, that is the case. Are you familiar
with the UNESCO policy dealing with Biosphere Reserve called
the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention?
Mr. Galvin. Generally.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you realize that their guidelines state,
``In all cases as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation
process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned,
state parties,'' which means national parties, ``should refrain
from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has
been nominated, inscription pending the final decision of the
committee on 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 this site, but should not prejudice future
decisionmaking by the committee.''
Mr. Galvin, do you know who the committee is? Do you know
what countries are represented on the World Heritage Committee?
Mr. Galvin. I don't know right now, no, but I know that the
United States has chaired the committee.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Did you know that the country of Benin and
Red China and Cuba and Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco are all
part of the committee?
Mr. Galvin. And France, England, Germany, yes. It is indeed
an international committee.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And you still maintain after we have gone
through this exercise of reviewing the process of how the New
World Mine was going through the NEPA process was interrupted
midway; money was to be taken out of an appropriated fund by
the Congress, and you still maintain that nothing that has been
done has ever bypassed congressional authority?
Mr. Galvin. No, I am saying that what has been done is
under existing congressional authority.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And what would that existing authority be?
Mr. Galvin. Section 401 of the National Historic
Preservation Act recognizes and directs, in fact, the Secretary
of Interior to participate in the World Heritage Convention,
and in fact, H.R. 901 amends that act, so it--there is existing
law for World Heritage. It is clear. This act we are
considering amends the National Historic Preservation Act.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me go back again. We are looking at
Yellowstone National Park. The World Heritage area is within
the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park.
Mr. Galvin. That is correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The mine was outside the boundaries and it
is under the Biosphere Reserve agreement, which has never been
ratified by Congress.
Mr. Galvin, do you still maintain that this is not going
outside the authority of Congress?
Mr. Galvin. Yes, I do.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you like to----
Mr. Galvin. I believe all the authorities used in the
purchase of the New World Mine were legal, were appropriate
under existing law, and were authorized by the Congress. Yes, I
do maintain that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Then would you send this Committee a
written legal opinion that your department is willing to stand
on legally?
Mr. Galvin. I would be happy to do that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Will you have it in here in 30 days?
Mr. Galvin. I think I can do that, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Mr. Schaffer, do you have any
other questions for the committee?
Mr. Schaffer. Yes, I do. Again, for Mr. Galvin, there is a
staff briefing that was prepared for the committee regarding
H.R. 901. It says that the Champlain-Adirondacks Biosphere
Reserve is located in upstate New York, and another Biosphere
Reserve encompassing the Catskill Mountains was proposed
recently.
It says local elected officials from both of these regions
testified that they were never consulted about plans to
designate the biospheres.
Are you familiar with that particular proposal and can you
comment----
Mr. Galvin. Generally speaking----
Mr. Schaffer. [continuing] on why they were not----
Mr. Galvin. Champlain-Adirondack is a Biosphere Reserve.
Catskills is not, and because of lack of local support for
Catskills, I believe the nomination was withdrawn, which is the
case with a couple of the other areas that were testified to
earlier.
There is some indication that local support has an
influence on the decision, because at least three areas have
been withdrawn from nomination as a result of local opposition.
Mr. Schaffer. That is encouraging, because the state of
Kentucky just 2 weeks ago passed a resolution that they
forwarded to the Congress asking Members of the Congress of the
United States and I will quote, ``to oppose ratification of the
treaty and the inclusion of any land within the Commonwealth of
Kentucky in any biosphere program of the United Nations.''
Is Kentucky's resolution going to be compelling with the
Department of Interior?
Mr. Galvin. I certainly would think it would be
influential. Yes, absolutely. As I said----
Mr. Schaffer. Just for the comfort level of the people in
Kentucky, in what way do you think this resolution will be
influential?
Mr. Galvin. Well, Kentucky has a Biosphere Reserve right
now which has a lot of local support, Mammoth Cave. I guess a
decision would need to be made about whether that is going to
stand or not.
I don't know of any proposed additional Biosphere Reserves
in the state of Kentucky.
Mr. Schaffer. The state legislature, being the prevailing
authority in Kentucky and having the prevailing opinion,
according to the Constitution, anyway--I still believe it is
relevant, believe it or not. Do you anticipate there will be a
hearing? When would a decision be made on something like this
by the Department of Interior?
Mr. Galvin. I don't anticipate there will be a hearing if
there are no nominations for new Biosphere Reserve sites, but--
--
Mr. Schaffer. I mean with respect to repealing or not
including any land in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in any
biosphere program.
Mr. Galvin. Then we have got a decision to make about
Mammoth Cave that is going to require some local consultation.
Mr. Schaffer. So you do have a decision to make about
Mammoth Cave?
Mr. Galvin. I would say so, because they have got existing
Biosphere Reserve recognition in Kentucky that the local
authorities seem to be pretty happy about.
Mr. Schaffer. Well, the state is not.
Mr. Galvin. Apparently not.
Mr. Schaffer. They are the ones that matter in this case.
In fact, I would submit they are the only ones that matter at
this point.
Do you think the Department of Interior would disagree with
that?
Mr. Galvin. I would say there is a disagreement at the
local level that will have to be dealt with.
Mr. Schaffer. But with respect to the understanding we have
about the role of states, the proper role of states in
relationship to the Federal Government, do you agree that this
is the only opinion that matters in Kentucky presently?
Mr. Galvin. It matters in the sense of new Biosphere
Reserves, yes. Matters in the sense of Mammoth Cave, we will
take the case very seriously under consideration, but there are
local development authorities that support that Biosphere
Reserve, so we would have to get those parties together to see
if in fact they want that designation repealed.
Mr. Schaffer. Is it fair to say that your department's
concern for public opinion values the opinion of the state as
much or less than the local opinions?
Mr. Galvin. As much, certainly. We take state action very
seriously and always do.
Mr. Schaffer. So you view it as equivalent?
Mr. Galvin. I don't think I said that.
Mr. Schaffer. You said as much.
Mr. Galvin. We take it very seriously. I think you have got
to look at the individual cases to see where we would come out
on an individual case.
Mr. Schaffer. Mr. Lindsey, I would like to ask you just
briefly. I was going through your testimony, and this group
that you mentioned, the Southwest Conservation----
Mr. Lindsey. The Southwest Center for Biodiversity.
Mr. Schaffer. Do you know how they are funded? Do you know
where their funding comes from, that organization? They are the
ones who filed for the endangered species designated of--I
can't remember. Is this an animal or plant that lives on your
land?
Mr. Lindsey. It is a plant, sir.
Mr. Schaffer. This is a plant?
Mr. Lindsey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schaffer. They are the ones who filed for the
designation?
Mr. Lindsey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schaffer. Do you know how they are funded?
Mr. Lindsey. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. I just have a
couple more questions. I did want to make a statement also.
The Canadian mining company's interest in the New World
Mine is a lease interest. Now, I know that for a fact, and if
you presume, Mr. Galvin, that it is a lease interest, why is it
then that the government is negotiating with an entity that has
no ownership interest for the sale of the property?
Mr. Galvin. I am sure that the lease interest--excuse me.
The lease interest has a value, and basically, with respect to
mining, the government would buy out whatever the value of that
lease is.
Mrs. Chenoweth. If there is a lease without the value of
the minerals and if that site has been patented, do you think
the lease is worth $65,000,000 to go to the operators in
Canada?
Mr. Galvin. Not if all those conditions exist. Certainly,
if there is not mineral value attached to that lease or the
value to extract the minerals, then the site is of considerably
less value, but the government purchase of any right is subject
to an appraisal.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You mentioned with regard to the Mammoth
Cave that there were some outside interests, development
interests that were nudging this ahead.
Could you indicate for the record who those interests are?
Mr. Galvin. Yes. It is the Barren River Area Development
District.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Barren River----
Mr. Galvin. Area Development District.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And what kind of entity is that?
Mr. Galvin. It is a state-chartered organization that is a
regional organization to deal with regional problems in the
Mammoth Cave area.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Is----
Mr. Galvin. It was chartered by the state legislature.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Did you say it is funded by the state
legislature?
Mr. Galvin. I don't know where they get their funding.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mrs. Beaver, I wanted to call on you just
one more time to see if--I noticed sometimes you had an answer
for the questions that weren't directed to you.
I want to give you a chance to speak.
Mrs. Beaver. I was frustrated about the local people who
are initiating this.
In the Ozark biosphere, the lead people were the park
superintendent at Buffalo National River, and I assume he could
be transferred, so he works for the Park Department, and the
Forest Service people who are transferred regularly in and out
of districts.
True, they are temporarily local, but this gives the
feeling that it is government agencies doing this. This was a
total surprise to the people, if you take the grass roots
people of the state of Arkansas.
It was also a total surprise to the Governor. It was a
surprise to the elected state representatives and the county
officials that were talked to, and it was a surprise to Tim
Hutchinson, then U.S. Representative, and now U.S. Senator,
when he was handed this notice at a church service one morning.
I don't understand the local thing. I guess I have a real
problem. All through this feasibility study, it states in
several places that we should keep this low key, not to arouse
the natives, so to speak, and I think that needs to be brought
out.
That is all I have heard all day long, that the local
people want it. I happen to know the people over by Mammoth
Cave. I got a phone call from a man over there, and he is not
thrilled at all about that, and he is local. Where is his
voice? He is going to have a meter put on his well out in the
country because he is using natural resources. Excuse me?
We have a problem in the local area.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mrs. Beaver. Mr. Lindsey, I
understand that you recently wrote a poem about government
threats to your private property. Would you mind sharing that
with the Committee?
Mr. Lindsey. No, madame. I will give it a try.
This is all about my family. It is about my ranch, and it
is about the ranch that my family has and the ranch that we
have had for years. It is about--I have nine kids, and five
boys, good boys, and what it means to me.
``We were riding on the mountain above the Old Page Place;
smack dab on top of Page Peak overlooking a lot of space; to
the Northeast lay Algerita, and to the south there lay the
Rough, gathering cows in this country is usually pretty tough.
``But today, I wasn't worried, because I knew I had the
best; I had my five boys with me, there was Joshua and Jake and
Nest; and Little Joe and Nathan, they were riding with us, too,
and when it comes to catching wild cows, those boys have caught
a few.
``So I sent Joshua and Jake to the northeast, and the rest,
they all went south; that left me and my cow dog, Sally, and
she's a-foaming at the mouth.
``But I says wait a minute, Sally, I need some time to
think, and I leans across my saddle, and my heart begins to
sink.
``There goes the sixth generation to ranch this old rock
pile; the country life is what they want, they don't want that
city style.
``But it seems some armchair ecologists don't think six
generations is enough, because they got all that college
learning and that book-reading stuff.
``Well, they found an endangered orchid and a water dog and
a floating plant, and next, you know they will find a bug or
some endangered ant.
``They want to take away my ranch and take away my right to
graze, and now an international treaty has been added to this
maze.
``Soon one nation indivisible will be governed by foreign
laws, by countries that can't even run themselves, they got too
many flaws.
``Well, my great-great grandpa, my great-grandpa, my
grandpa and my dad each passed this ranch on to their boys, and
be it good or bad; this ranch is in good enough shape to run
Javelina and lions and deers, things I see most every day and
their extinction isn't near.
``I guess I will just quit worrying; Sally is chomping at
my legs; she wants to catch a cow so bad, she is like a powder
keg.
``Look, them boys caught a cow and got her underneath a
tree; I guess I will just quit worrying and ride on down and
see.''
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Lindsey. Thank you, Mr.
Galvin. Mrs. Beaver and Dr. Rabkin, thank you all for being
here.
The chair recognizes the next panel. We will be hearing
from Mr. Rafe Pomerance, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans
and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S.
Department of State, Washington, DC.
Mr. Pomerance, I thank you for your long wait and your
patience. Between a lot of other committee hearings and votes
and so forth, we have been kind of depleted, but your testimony
is exceedingly important and the record that we are building is
very important.
I would like to offer the next few minutes to you for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF RAFE POMERANCE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Pomerance. Thank you very much, madame. Madame
Chairman, I have testified a number of times before Congress
but never after a poet, so it is a particular pleasure to
appear here this afternoon. Actually, it was useful and
informative to listen to the previous panel, so I was glad to
be here.
Thank you for providing the opportunity for us at the
Department of State to comment on H.R. 901, and I would like to
submit my prepared statement for the record.
I am here today because your bill includes specific
provisions relating to oversight of the World Heritage
Convention and the U.S. Man and the Biosphere program.
The Department of State supports both of these initiatives.
They are components of the Administration, and I might say
previous administrations' international environmental
diplomacy.
Today, as has been building over past decades, environment
issues are an important component of U.S. foreign policy. This
is because previous administrations and this one understand
that investments on behalf of the environment, at home and
abroad, bring significant payoffs to our national economy, our
health, domestic environment, and quality of life.
The World Heritage Convention and the U.S. Man and the
Biosphere program contribute to this overall mission. Both
function well at minimal cost. Aside from aiding in
international environmental diplomacy, they provide economic
benefits to the U.S., especially with regard to tourism. Our
U.S. Man and the Biosphere program provides a valuable
framework for international scientific cooperation.
The World Heritage Convention is a landmark conservation
treaty that helps draw international attention to the unique
natural or cultural significance of sites such as the pyramids,
Serengeti National Park, the Taj Mahal, and our own Grand
Canyon.
The United States was the principal architect of this
convention. At that time, then-President Nixon stated, ``It
would be fitting by 1972 for nations of the world to agree to
the principle that there are certain areas of such unique
worldwide value that they should be treated as part of the
heritage of all mankind and accorded special recognition as a
World Heritage Trust. Such an arrangement would impose no
limitations on the sovereignty of those nations which choose to
participate, but would extend special international recognition
to the areas which qualify.''
The World Heritage Convention, with its 148 signatory
countries, has very broad participation and provides a
mechanism for U.S. leadership and influence with many of its
international partners.
Man and the Biosphere was established by resolution of the
16th Conference of UNESCO in 1970 as a program of scientific
research, education and training to promote the better
understanding of the interaction of the earth's human and
natural systems.
When the U.S. left UNESCO in 1984, the Reagan
Administration continued to provide funds to allow for a wholly
independent U.S. Man and the Biosphere program. The Department
of State oversees a small administrative secretariat to
coordinate the U.S. Man and Biosphere program with the
collaboration and support of 15 Federal agencies.
U.S. MAB program promotes the development of scientific
information-sharing among MAB sites for biosphere reserves
around the world. U.S. MAB's various software innovations have
been adopted in North America, Europe, and Latin America,
making U.S. MAB a leader in efficient data exchange among
protected areas.
U.S. MAB coordinates the network of U.S. Biosphere
Reserves, which are entirely independent of U.N. oversight.
Biosphere Reserve is not a land-use designation. I think this
is an important difference, but instead, is a recognition to
protected areas or a series of protected areas that conduct
exemplary programs in conservation, science, and management of
natural resources.
A typical reserve is coincident with a national park or
national forest. Nominations for U.S. Biosphere Reserves are
prepared by locally established committees which coordinate the
initial planning for the nomination effort, including letters
of concurrence from local and state government representatives.
The U.S. Biosphere Reserve program is voluntary and focuses
on generating, sharing, and disseminating reliable scientific
information collected from the reserve network.
As with World Heritage and Ramsar wetland sites, the MAB
sites in the U.S. are managed under the relevant Federal and/or
state laws and regulation. MAB also supports a range of
projects that further U.S. interests including, for example, a
project that fostered an agreement between Arizona and the
adjacent Mexican state of Sonora to promote cooperation among
Biosphere Reserves of the region. This cooperative decree was
recently signed by the Governor of Arizona and his counterpart
from Sonora.
I shouldn't be more than two more minutes. I notice the red
light is on. Is that all right?
Mrs. Chenoweth. You may continue.
Mr. Pomerance. It is clear, however, that MAB is often
misunderstood. We are committed to both clarifying the
program's operations and ensuring appropriate congressional
notification and consultation during the nomination process.
We believe that recently submitted H.R. 1801, supported by
Congressmen Brown and Miller, addresses these issues and
provides a good legislative base for improved functioning of
U.S. MAB.
For its part, H.R. 901 appears to be based on the mistaken
belief that World Heritage Convention and U.S. MAB seriously
impact U.S. sovereignty and private land rights and ignore
local decisionmaking in the process.
Instead, looking back historically, we can see that these
initiatives have worked well and with ample local involvement.
U.S. participation and leadership in the World Heritage
Convention, and identification of U.S. Biosphere Reserves
encourages other nations to similarly cherish and care for such
significant sites in their country.
In conclusion, the Department of State strongly opposes
H.R. 901 and believes that H.R. 1801 resolves many of the
issues that have been addressed.
This concludes my statement, Madame Chairman, and I would
be happy to answer any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Rafe Pomerance may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, sir. Could you advise me what
H.R. 1801 is? I haven't seen that.
Mr. Pomerance. It is a piece of legislation that has been
recently introduced. I think we may have a copy that we could
give to the committee.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I just asked the counsel, and they hadn't
seen it.
Mr. Pomerance. I think it has been recently introduced.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And is it the Administration's legislation?
Mr. Pomerance. No, I think it was introduced by Congressman
Brown and joined by Congressman Miller.
Mrs. Chenoweth. From California?
Mr. Pomerance. Both of them are from California, I think,
George Brown.
Mrs. Chenoweth. There are two Millers, too. You mentioned
in your testimony, sir, that when the U.S. left UNESCO in 1984,
why did the U.S. leave UNESCO?
Mr. Pomerance. Well, I was not involved in the decision,
but I think we had problems with the management and decisions
that were being made at UNESCO, and therefore, we left. When we
did, we decided that some of their programs had value, and we
continued to maintain those.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now, didn't the Reagan Administration pull
out of UNESCO because----
Mr. Pomerance. Yes, and also stayed in MAB.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] of gross financial
mismanagement?
Mr. Pomerance. That may have been the reason.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, I think it was. You talked about the
MAB program moving ahead in spite of the fact that the Reagan
Administration pulled out of it, that there was----
Mr. Pomerance. No, I think they pulled out of UNESCO, not
out of MAB.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Pulled out of UNESCO.
Mr. Pomerance. Right.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Then you tied UNESCO with MAB in your
testimony here on page 3.
Mr. Pomerance. I think what I meant to say is that MAB was
generated or originated at a UNESCO meeting and was a program
of UNESCO at the time and still is.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I think your statement says there will be
continued cooperation between U.S. MAB and the UNESCO MAB
program.
Mr. Pomerance. Right. I think we do that still, even though
we are not in the overall UNESCO organization.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Under the U.S. Man and the Biosphere
program, you talked about the collaboration and support of 15
Federal agencies.
Mr. Pomerance. Right.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Since this is an agreement that has never
been authorized by Congress, never been ratified as a treaty,
where is the authority for 15 agencies to engage in this?
Mr. Pomerance. Well, I think the reference is focused on
the MAB research effort which funds a variety of research on
the relationship between natural areas and their conservation
and human activity, and these agencies have research
components, and they put up or they contribute a small,
relatively--really a very small amount of money to conduct
research mainly on Biosphere Reserves.
Their authority stems from their ability, which is a
function of all the natural resource agencies to continue to do
research.
The MAB program was established under a directive of the
Office of Management and Budget, I think in the late 1970's,
and is a program that we operate like many interactions with
other countries or international institutions under the
executive branch of the government.
Mrs. Chenoweth. If the New World Mine was taken over by an
entity, and of course, as you well know, we have newspaper
reports that it was not indeed just the Park Service, with the
initiation under Interior of bringing in UNESCO; of course,
that mine's process under NEPA was interrupted.
What authority is there to interrupt the process and what
authority is there to expend $65,000,000 and give the money to
a foreign country?
Mr. Pomerance. Well, I shouldn't comment on a matter that
is before the Department of Interior. The State Department
doesn't get involved in U.S. land use decisions certainly of
that sort, and let me just say that--I can tell you this, that
the World Heritage Convention has nothing to do with the
regulatory decisions of the U.S. Government through the
Department of Interior, the Forest Service.
Those decisions are made on the basis of U.S. law.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, but just to make sure, Mr. Pomerance
that we are not going off in a direction I did not aim my
question, the New World Mine process was interrupted under the
Man and Biosphere reserve agreement.
Mr. Pomerance. No, I don't think that is possible.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me go back over this then.
Mr. Pomerance. OK.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Yellowstone National Park is under the
World Heritage Site, right?
Mr. Pomerance. The Yellowstone National Park is a World
Heritage Site. It is not under it; it is a site.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And the New World Mine was outside of the
boundaries of Yellowstone, right?
Mr. Pomerance. As best as I know. I think so.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The World Heritage Site and its authority
did not extend to the New World Mine. What authority did
extend?
Mr. Pomerance. I don't think that the World Heritage has
any authority to manage Yellowstone National Park or any areas
or sites.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But I didn't ask that. What I did ask was
what authority is there to extend an activity into the New
World Mine?
Mr. Pomerance. Well, under U.S. law?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Under U.S. law or even international law.
Mr. Pomerance. Well, under international law, I don't think
there is any authority to regulate that mine. Under U.S. law, I
assume that the Department of Interior, in order to do the
negotiation that the previous witness testified, has the
authority to do that. If they didn't have the authority, they
couldn't negotiate an agreement, and they couldn't pay off
those who have the lease.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In your capacity in the State Department,
are you familiar with the Seville Strategy for Biosphere
Reserves?
Mr. Pomerance. I think that was a meeting of Biosphere
Reserve managers to discuss issues of Biosphere Reserves. I am
not familiar with it in detail, no.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It has been stated for the record here that
it was never the intent of the government or anyone to really
deal outside of certain boundaries or impact private property,
but under this Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, it does
say promote Biosphere Reserves as a means of implementing the
goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and, of
course, we haven't ratified that.
It further says, ``establish, strengthen, or extend
Biosphere Reserves as necessary, giving special attention to
fragmented habitats, threatened ecosystems, and fragile and
vulnerable environments both natural and cultural.''
It further says, ``Encourage the establishment of trans-
boundary Biosphere Reserves as a means of dealing with the
conservation of organisms, ecosystems, and genetic resources
across national boundaries.''
Do you still maintain that this is all very lawful and that
Congress indeed has been notified of all of these activities?
Mr. Pomerance. Any action taken by a U.S. land agency on
the ground to implement or do anything would have to come under
the laws that the Congress has authorized that were under their
authority.
That document sounds like it was a document agreed to by a
committee that makes suggestions for national governments,
Biosphere Reserve managers to consider as part of their
efforts.
There is nothing mandatory about that. It is at the
discretion of national governments or local governments.
The other thing I would say is that you are correct. The
United States has not ratified the Convention on Biological
Diversity; therefore, no actions that we take in this country
would be--as a result of such ratification.
President Clinton did sign the Biodiversity Convention. The
Administration supports it. We have sent ratification
legislation to the Senate, but it has not been agreed to.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So then let me just wind up my questions by
asking you under what authority was the action taken on the New
World Mine?
Mr. Pomerance. Which action are you referring to? The
purchase of the lease?
Mrs. Chenoweth. The purchase of the lease and the
interruption of the NEPA process.
Mr. Pomerance. I actually--let me just say that I think--I
would love to answer the question, but it would be an
impression of mine, because I am not at the Department of
Interior, so I don't actually literally know. I would just be
guessing.
I will just assume that whatever--if they did act, they had
the authority to do so, and I would just be guessing under the
authority and what I know about Federal law, but I think that
is a question that they should really answer as our partners in
the Federal Government.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Pomerance, would you mind having your
attorneys from the State Department write a legal opinion for
the committee as to the authority under which this action was
taken on the New World Mine?
Mr. Pomerance. I will certainly do my best to respond to
that. I will consult with our legal department and we will get
you an answer on that issue.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would you mind having the opinion in within
30 days?
Mr. Pomerance. Right. Let me just say that the issue of--I
don't mean to be difficult about this, but that is really not
an area of--I believe your question is not in the area of State
Department expertise but has to do with the management of U.S.
Federal lands and private lands nearby which is nothing--the
State Department has nothing to do with it.
I will ask our legal department to do their best. I just
don't want to promise something that we don't know anything
about.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In your capacity on international
environmental and scientific affairs, it is within that
capacity that I am asking for the opinion.
Mr. Pomerance. I appreciate that. I will do my best.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pomerance. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
This matter involves domestic legal authorities
administered by the Department of the Interior. The Department
of the Interior, therefore, is in the best position to provide
the requested information and analysis. The Department of the
Interior is preparing a legal opinion on the matter. The
Department of State is coordinating with the Department of the
Interior as appropriate.
In this regard, the Department of State notes that,
although Yellowstone National Park has been designated since
1978 as a World Heritage site pursuant to nomination by the
United States of Yellowstone as a site of outstanding universal
value, such designation does not include land outside of the
national park area and does not alter state or private property
rights over any land in the United States. such as the New
World Mine in Crown Butte, Montana. Article 6 of the Convention
for the World Cultural and National Heritage expressly provides
for full respect of the sovereignty of the Nation on whose
territory the heritage site is located and provides that the
Convention is ``without prejudice to property rights provided
by national legislation.''
Yellowstone National Park had also been recognized as a
biosphere reserve. This recognition applies solely to the
national park area and does not cover any non-park property.
Recognition of the Park as a biosphere reserve has no legal
bearing on the New World Mine matter.
Mrs. Chenoweth. With that, we will call the next panel. We
look forward to hearing from Mr. Donald Wesson, Pulp and
Paperworkers' Resource Council, from McGehee, Arkansas; Mr.
William Chandler, Vice President for Conservation Policy,
National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, D.C.;
Mr. Gustavo Araoz, Executive Director , United States Committee
of the International Council of Monuments and Sites,
Washington, DC; Mr. David B. Howard, Adirondack Blueline
Confederation, Gloversville, New York; and Mr. Henry Lamb,
Executive Vice President, Environmental Conservation
Organization, Hollow Rock, Tennessee.
We will begin the testimony with Mr. Donald Wesson.
STATEMENT OF DONALD WESSON, PULP AND PAPERWORKERS' RESOURCE
COUNCIL, McGEHEE, ARKANSAS
Mr. Wesson. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Good afternoon. My
name is Don Wesson. I am the Vice President of United
Paperworkers' International Union, Local 1533, located in
McGehee, Arkansas.
I serve as the Southern Pine Regional Director of the Pulp
and Paperworkers' Resource Council. I am currently employed by
the Potlatch Corporation Pulp and Paper Mill located in
McGehee, Arkansas, as an industrial maintenance mechanic.
I am a constituent of the fourth congressional district in
the state of Arkansas.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman
Young for inviting me to attend and testify before this
hearing. I am very pleased with the fact that an electrician
from a paper mill located in southeast Arkansas would be
allowed to testify before you today on such an important issue.
I am here today for several reasons. I am a third-
generation paperworker who is very concerned about not only
losing my job but also my industry. I am one of over 300,000
pulp and paperworkers, and some 900,000 wood products workers
throughout this country. We are growing deeply concerned over
how our natural resources become locked up or given away in
Biosphere Reserves.
Due to various other government regulations which Congress
does have control over, we have lost about 100,000 jobs in our
industry in the past 6 years. Now, we are being faced with a
new problem, and we want to know where is it all going to stop.
I became aware of the American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act due to several different meetings that I have attended
during the past year. I have seen maps and read stories written
by Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First. I have read the
book entitled the Rewilding of America. I have even read Vice
President Al Gore's book entitled Earth in the Balance. All of
these, I always attributed to someone's fantasy or dream world
and just shrugged them off.
Last September, my eyes were opened through a different
arena. I went to Winnipeg, Canada, and testified before the
World Commission of Forestry and Sustainable Development. I
went there to represent labor, because our voice is seldom
heard in this type of arena.
We are not an established NGO and cannot obtain this status
due to certain governmental regulations, so therefore, we are
not part of the equation.
During this meeting, there were four representatives from
the PPRC who testified. We did make our input known. During
this meeting in Canada, my eyes became opened.
There were many discussions concerning the United Nations
controlling the world's forests and the paying of stumpage fees
to the United Nations. There were also many maps and graphs
either on display or shown by overhead projector relating to
this.
There were maps showing the United States, Canada, and
Mexico being all one country divided into biosphere regions. On
thinking back to Dave Foreman's book entitled Rewilding of
America, this seemed to hit home.
Then came the final blow that really put the icing on the
cake. I returned to my home in Arkansas only to find that they
were trying to turn 50,000 square miles of mostly private land
in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri into a United
Nations Ozark Man and the Biosphere Reserve.
Due to the fine work of grass roots such as Take Back
Arkansas, this hopefully has been stopped, at least until
Congress can do something about it, and that is why I am
standing before you today.
It has been brought to my attention that two major
designations of international status by the United Nations
currently take place with no need of congressional approval or
any public input, that being Biosphere Reserves and World
Heritage Sites.
Over 68 percent of the land currently in our national
parks, preserves, and monuments are designated as United
Nations World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves, or both.
Biosphere Reserves are part of the U.S. Man and the
Biosphere program, which operates in conjunction with the
worldwide UNESCO reserve program, operating under the Statutory
Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
This U.S. MAB program operates without any legislative
direction and has no authorization from Congress.
A Biosphere Reserve is federally zoned and coordinated
region consisting of three areas or zones that meet certain
minimum requirements established by the United Nations. The
inner or most protected zone, or the core zone, is usually
Federal land where the outer two zones contain mostly
individually owned private property. This is a direct violation
of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The United States currently has 47 Biosphere Reserves which
contain a total area larger than the size of the state of
Colorado, our eighth largest state. When the two zones outside
the core zone are included, millions of additional acres
potentially lie within these Biosphere Reserves.
That is why it is very disturbing to me and the workers in
our industry as well as millions of other people. The natural
resources that keep America working, keep the food on our
tables, and a roof over our heads could all be taken away from
us by the stroke of a pen from the President or any of his
Administration.
Congress, the people who we elected to take care of us,
cannot do anything about this until H.R. 901 is passed. It is
hard for me to understand why anyone would be willing to give
any of our precious American soil to the United Nations or
anyone else, for that matter.
This country was founded by honest, God-fearing, hard-
working men and women who plowed the fields, cut the timber,
raised the cattle, and worked the mines that developed this
nation under God into the greatest nation in the world.
Now, our leaders are wanting to stop the farmers, stop the
timber harvest, shut the mines down, do away with our grazing
rights and give our precious land to the United Nations, land
that our forefathers and some of us have fought many battles
over, land that many people have lost their lives trying to
protect, land where if properly managed could sustain this
nation for many, many generations to come.
We have enough problems in this nation concerning land
rights. We do not need to get Third World countries involved.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Sir, we are limited to a 5-minute
testimony, so I will give you a little time to wrap it up.
Mr. Wesson. I am on my last page.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right.
Mr. Wesson. I am here this afternoon to ask all of our
congressional delegates, including all of those who are not
present, especially the friends of labor--I want you to ask
yourself where is it going to end?
I was raised in a small town in Louisiana and grew up in a
yellow dog Democrat society. My father would turn over in his
grave if he knew I was trying to help a Republican get a bill
passed.
By the same token, however, my father fought in World War
II, was a union leader for 26 years, and an honest, God-
fearing, hardworking man. He would really understand why I am
trying to get this bill passed. It would be very hard for him
to understand why this bill is even needed.
We have already seen the coal mine closed in Utah, the gold
mine near Yellowstone Park be shut down. We have witnessed
millions of acres of timberland be locked up.
We see this also happening to the Land Between the Lakes of
Tennessee and Kentucky, the Southern Appalachian MAB, the
Everglades, Big Thicket in Texas, just to name a few, and all
of this just in the past few years if not months that have been
designated or locked up.
In closing, I would like to ask for complete bipartisan
support of H.R. 901, the American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act. Keep in mind, I do not represent the industry, but I
represent the workers who work in those mills. I also represent
the veterans and the honest hardworking men and women who
helped shape this nation into the greatest nation on earth
under God.
If there ever was a time for all of you elected officials
to get together and vote on a bill that would save our American
sovereignty, the time is now. If you care anything about your
country, there is absolutely no reason not to vote for this
bill.
If all you want to do is give away our precious land, then
please resign from your office, move away from this great land,
because I don't believe you truly represent the people who
elected you in the first place.
If a yellow dog Democrat such as myself has the nerve to
stand up before you with a Republican for something he believes
in, then why can't you have the nerve to vote for this bill?
It is time for us to put parties to the side and vote the
way our hearts tell us. Remember, the American people and this
great country is what we will lose if you vote the wrong way.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Wesson. The chair recognizes
Mr. Chandler for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. CHANDLER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
CONSERVATION POLICY, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION
ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Chandler. Thank you, Madame Chairman. My name is
William J. Chandler, and I am vice president for Conservation
Policy with the National Parks and Conservation Association, a
nonprofit, citizens organization of about 500,000 members. I am
pleased to present our views on H.R. 901 today.
NPCA opposes enactment of H.R. 901 because we believe it
would straitjacket U.S. implementation of the World Heritage
Convention and other international treaties, and voluntary
programs designed to conserve our natural and cultural
heritage.
We do not agree with the bill's underlying assumptions that
international conservation and preservation programs or the MAB
program are violating U.S. or state sovereignty, lowering
property values, or restricting the use of private property
anywhere in the United States. There is simply no credible
evidence that I have heard today or seen that those results
have occurred.
First, let me talk about the World Heritage Convention, if
I might. There are 20 World Heritage Sites in the United
States, including 17 areas within the national park system.
This is a convention, Madame Chairman, ratified by the U.S.
Senate, which the last time I checked was a Member of Congress,
was one of the two bodies of Congress.
To say that the convention has no authority, I think is an
error. This convention does have congressional authority. It
was approved by your colleagues in the Senate.
In hearings held last year on H.R. 3752, the predecessor
bill to the current one, concerns were expressed that adding a
site to the list somehow threatens local economies, private
property, and individual freedom. I challenge the opponents of
the program today to produce credible evidence that those
consequences have occurred. I know of no documented case where
the designation of any World Heritage Site in the United States
has led to those consequence.
Fears also were expressed that restrictive buffer zones
would be created around listed sites. Again, Madame Chairman, I
know of no instance in the United States where that has
occurred.
There does appear to be some need to get out the word
publicly about these areas and sites, and NPCA supports public
involvement in the nomination process and would support
reasonable means to engage the public in their consideration.
We believe it would be a mistake to alter the U.S. nomination
process as specified under H.R. 901.
Let me move on to the Biosphere Reserves. This is a program
that is voluntary and that involves partnerships between
Federal, state, and local agencies. You asked, Madame Chairman,
about what authority this program has. I have attached to my
testimony a paper entitled misinformation about the MAB
program. In that paper, prepared by the executive director of
the U.S. director of MAB, is an answer to that question. There
are a number of general authorities under which Federal
agencies can do cooperative things with each other, with other
Federal agencies, and to support programs that they think
reinforce their legally constituted authorities.
There is, however, as has been noted today, no specific
legislative authority for MAB.
What happens when a biosphere gets designated? We have
heard in the past and today about several efforts around the
country where Biosphere Reserve designation processes were
terminated because local citizenry came in and said they didn't
want them. Well, that is the way it works. If the local
citizens don't want it and the local government authorities
don't support it, then the MAB committee, according to the
regulations I have read, are not going to be approving any
Biosphere Reserves in those areas.
But there are a lot of good things happening, Madame
Chairman, around the country in MAB areas, and we haven't heard
from anybody today from places like the Southern Appalachian
Biosphere Reserve designated in 1988 or the Mammoth Cave
Biosphere Reserve.
Both of those efforts have local governments, academia,
industry, landowners working together to conserve their natural
resources, their cultural heritage, and to implement programs
voluntarily that they all agree are necessary for their own
socioeconomic development.
I would urge this committee to go to the field again and
visit some of these sites, and listen to some of the programs
that are working. I think that if you do that, you will
conclude that the Biosphere Reserve program is playing a
constructive role in the conservation and management of our
nationally significant resources, state and local environments,
and local economies. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of William J. Chandler may be found
at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chandler. Mr. Araoz.
STATEMENT OF GUSTAVO F. ARAOZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED
STATES COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MONUMENTS AND
SITES, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Araoz. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and I would like to
thank the committee for inviting me to testify here.
My name is Gustavo Araoz. I am the executive director of
US/ICOMOS, the United States Committee of the International
Council on Monuments and Sites, a nongovernmental, nonprofit,
U.S. membership organization, and also the U.S. component of
ICOMOS, the world's only nongovernmental organization of
professionals who work together to preserve and protect
historic properties and buildings and archaeological sites.
Because of this expertise, my testimony is limited to those
aspects of the bill that concern the World Heritage Convention.
The World Heritage Convention is a benign convention. It
presents none of the threats or limitations that the proposed
bill will allegedly dispel.
Insofar as the convention is concerned, H.R. 901 appears to
solve no problems but will create many new ones.
In contravention of our obligations under the Convention,
the bill diminishes the effectiveness of the current
professional process of identification and nomination of U.S.
sites for the World Heritage List as well as its reporting
mechanisms.
By requiring complex, nonprofessional approval for
endangered U.S. sites to be placed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger, the bill diminishes the capability of the
United States to manage professionally the threats that
endanger our nation's World Heritage Sites.
Most far reaching of all, H.R. 901 seeks to weaken the
overall protection of our cultural sites by requiring
elaboration of what is in substance an unrestricted economic
impact statement for an area of ten miles around the site
boundaries prior to its nomination to the World Heritage List.
The proven universal and enduring value of these most important
sites are made subservient to more immediate and transient
economic concerns that often benefit only a few.
Existing procedures for implementing the Convention in the
United States already limit our participation. Such
limitations, for example, prevented the enthusiastic city and
citizens of Savannah, Georgia, from achieving the listing of
their extraordinary city on the World Heritage List 2 years
ago.
Contrary to the claim of Mr. Young that World Heritage
Sites are proliferating in the United States, the U.S. roster
of World Heritage Sites remains small and has little growth,
especially in view of our vast territory and our cultural and
natural riches.
To illustrate, there are 20 World Heritage Sites in the
United States. Mexico, with one-eighth of our territory, has 16
sites. France has 22; Spain has 23; Great Britain, 16; Germany,
19. Even India, renowned for the zealous protection of its
internal affairs has 21 sites.
As guaranteed by articles 4 and 6, the World Heritage
Convention does not threaten the sovereignty of any of its
ratifying nations. The Convention only obligates participating
countries to apply existing legislation to protect its cultural
and natural sites.
In this sense, we Americans are fortunate that over the
past century, our leaders in Congress have enacted a great
corpus of law that reflects the unwavering popular support for
our natural and cultural heritage.
Our preservation laws and institutions are examples admired
and emulated by many other nations in the world, but more
relevant to our topic here today, those Federal, state, and
local laws and institutions not only provide the protection
required for inclusion in the World Heritage List, they exceed
it.
Any and all development limitations imposed on a U.S. World
Heritage Site derive exclusively from existing Federal, state,
or local legislation and not from any internationally imposed
standards under the Convention. All U.S. World Heritage Sites
are protected because and through their listing in our National
Register of Historic Places, their designation as National
Historic Landmarks, and from other Federal, state, and local
designations.
Limiting our World Heritage Sites, even withdrawing from
the Convention, if you will, will have absolutely no effect in
diminishing their protection which is solely the obligation of
existing Federal, state, and local law, but it will limit the
many practical benefits available to all World Heritage Sites,
such as enhancement of foreign tourism, which helps our
country's balance of trade, and fostering financial support
from the private sector who seeks to associate their name with
the prestige of World Heritage designation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Gustavo F. Araoz may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, sir. At this time, I must ask
that we recess the committee temporarily. I think I will be
gone for about 20 minutes. They have called for two more votes,
one 15-minute vote and one 5-minute vote.
I am very sorry that the House floor is not cooperating
with us today, and that you are having to wait, but I will be
back just as quickly as I can. Thank you.[Recess]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The committee will come to order. I thank
the panel again for your patience. I know this isn't what you
had planned on doing at this hour. It isn't what I had planned
on doing either. I am missing a speech and two receptions, but
this is very important, so I just share this enduring race that
we have here.
With that, I would like to call on our next witness, Mr.
David Howard from the Adirondack Blueline Confederation in
Gloversville, New York. Mr. Howard.
STATEMENT OF DAVID B. HOWARD, ADIRONDACK BLUELINE
CONFEDERATION, GLOVERSVILLE, NEW YORK
Mr. Howard. Madame Chairman, I would like to thank this
committee for the opportunity to comment in support of H.R.
901.
My name is David Howard. I am here as a member of the
Adirondack Blueline Confederation of Bleecker, New York, a
small grass roots property rights organization, and as a
director of Liberty Matters, a national grass roots educational
and communication organization.
Having been immersed in the issue of property rights
protection for the last 7 years, it has become increasingly
evident to me that the original constitutional guarantees
pertaining to the ownership and enjoyment of property are no
longer sufficient.
We have noted the destruction of local control first
through county regional arrangements such as the Adirondack
Park Agency, which has progressed to a proposed interstate
regional authority, the Northern Forest Lands Project, and now
to the ultimate in unelected and unresponsive planning
bureaucracies, the United Nations.
The primary goal of these programs seems to be the
replacement of any kind of elected authority with appointed
ones. They include but are not limited to Biosphere Reserves
and World Heritage areas.
The most revealing part of these programs is the process
through which they are created and implemented. At each state
of the delocalization of authority, the method of operation is
one of stealth. Notice of public meetings, when there are any,
are advertised primarily within the environmental organizations
whose assignment it has been to implement these programs,
coupled with some small, innocuous note in the newspaper with
phone calls to only ``sympathetic'' local officials.
We have found that quite often, the designations are made
by unelected bureaucrats within the state and county
governments. This pattern, I believe, has become quite clear in
prior testimony.
One of the common threads binding all of these programs
seems to be the inclusion of everyone in the process except the
people most impacted, the individual landowners. It should be
noted here that the individual's right to own and hold property
for his or her personal benefit is the cornerstone of a free
society and has provided the foundation upon which this great
nation has become the envy of the world.
As these undercover international designation projects
proceed, they are discovered from time to time by concerned
landowners and exposed. The operations then shift to the denial
phase.
The most generally used press barrage will include
statements touting ``what an honor it is to have our region
internationally recognized for its uniqueness,'' coupled with
statements that indicate that the designation doesn't signify
anything, and that there are no enforcement mechanisms
provided.
Questions that must be asked and answered are, if the
designation means nothing but a feel-good recognition, why are
these operations not completely open to the community for
discussion and referendum; why is there so much grant money
allocated to push these designations; why are these
designations not presented to the full elected body of the
local legislative jurisdiction for debate and consideration;
why are these commissions and management plan architects not
elected by the people of the affected area; and finally, why is
an international body even considered when it comes to the
management decisions of lands within the borders of the United
States.
As you ponder these questions, it may be instructive to
understand how the United Nations and its myriad of agencies
regard the concept of private property. The following is
excerpted from the United Nations Conference on Human
Settlements, otherwise known as Habitat 1.
``Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by
individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of
the market. Private landownership is also a principal
instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and
therefore contributes to social injustice. If unchecked, it may
become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of
development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore
indispensable.''
Add to the mix the statement of the former president of the
Audubon Society, Peter Berle, an organization that is an active
supporter of Biosphere Reserves in the Adirondack region
through the Adirondack Council, when he stated, ``We reject the
concept of private property.''
If this were not bad enough, the executive branch seems to
believe that we Americans can't handle our own affairs and must
surrender our independence in this and all other matters. This
paradigm shift seemed to be outlined by the President's
response to a reporter in a March 7, 1997, press conference
when he seemed to question whether we should even by a
sovereign country, stating, ``How can we be an independent
sovereign nation leading the world in a world that is
increasingly interdependent?''
Given that this country is by definition still a
constitutional republic, and that government is instituted to
protect the rights and property of its citizens, these
proposals, plans, and programs of international intervention in
the internal affairs of this country are not only
reprehensible, they are by classical definition treasonous.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of David B. Howard may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Howard, for that
testimony.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Henry Lamb, Executive Vice
President, Environmental Conservation Organization, Hollow
Rock, Tennessee.
Mr. Lamb.
STATEMENT OF HENRY LAMB, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION, HOLLOW ROCK, TENNESSEE
Mr. Lamb. Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity to
be here today speaking in support of H.R. 901. I think it is a
vital piece of legislation that will provide three extremely
important functions.
It will allow Congress to take back its constitutional
authority to manage Federal lands, and it will provide
landowners recourse to elected officials when their private
property rights are infringed by U.N. designations. It will
allow Congress rather than an agency of the United Nations to
determine the appropriate use of American land and resources.
Now, we have been told repeatedly and here today that
United Nations designation of land as Biosphere Reserves or
World Heritage Sites has no real authority. It is a benign,
honorary designation.
I want to take some exception to that, because according to
the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, which you referred
to earlier, each and every Biosphere Reserve must meet a
minimal set of criteria and must adhere to a minimal set of
conditions before being admitted to the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves.
Now, these criteria and conditions are established by
UNESCO, or the international community, not the Congress of the
United States. We feel that it is absolutely imperative that
the Congress review the land management policies established in
the United Nations community, because quite frankly, there are
concerns that are not expressed by the opponents to this bill.
While the opponents of this bill say that there is no
authority, the United Nations sees the Biosphere Reserves, for
example, as the primary means for implementing the Convention
on Biological Diversity.
Mr. Peter Bridgewater appeared before the Conference of the
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and said we
have 328 Biosphere Reserves that will be very useful in
implementing the articles of the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
The land management scheme expressed in the Seville
Strategy for Biosphere Reserves is precisely the same land
management scheme presented in the last 300 pages of the Global
Biodiversity Assessment, which is an 1140-page publication of
the United Nations Environment program that was prepared
especially for the people who are involved with the
implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Because the Biosphere Reserve designation requires
adherence to these criteria and conditions, all of the 47
Biosphere Reserves in this country are being managed to
implement the provisions of the Convention on Biological
Diversity which has not been ratified by the Senate of the
United States.
I call your attention to some of the land management
concerns expressed in the Global Biodiversity Assessment that I
think Congress needs to be aware of.
The United Nations believes, for example, that we should
accept biodiversity as a legal subject and supply it with
adequate rights. This could clarify the principle that
biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use. It
would therefore become necessary to justify any interference
with biodiversity and to provide proof that human interests
justify damage caused to biodiversity.
Now, America has prospered in the belief and in the
practice that biodiversity should be controlled by its owner
without interference by government unless the owner's use is
demonstrably infringing upon the property rights of another
person.
The idea of having to justify the use of private property
to any government, especially to the United Nations, is an idea
that has absolutely no place in America.
The Congress of the United States is the only authority
high enough to stop the intrusion of land management practices
that are formulated by the international community, being
implemented by ``voluntary agreement by the Administration''
infringing on private property rights of people surrounding the
area and buffer zones that are designated by a variety of U.N.
designations, particularly the Biosphere Reserve.
Therefore, the organizations that I represent urge this
Congress to not only pass this bill but to do so with a
majority sufficient to override the threatened Presidential
veto. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Henry Lamb may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Lamb, thank you very much. In your
testimony, what you are saying is there may not be laws, there
may not be policies that adhere to the Biosphere Reserve
agreement, but there are conditions that are laid down. Does
that have the same force and effect of enforcing policy?
Mr. Lamb. The Seville Strategy clearly says that these
criteria and conditions must be met and adhered to before
Biosphere Reserves can be admitted to the World Network of
Biosphere Reserves.
It is pretty clear, reading the Seville Strategy, that this
strategy includes very extensive land management practices and
principles.
True, the United Nations organization has no authority to
enforce those rules, but by voluntary agrement, the
Administration is implementing through existing statutes and
regulations the provisions of not only the Seville Strategy but
of the Convention on Biological Diversity without ratification
of the Senate or without congressional oversight or
involvement.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Mr. Howard, I have here attached
to your testimony a letter to a Dr. Gregg, written by an Edward
Hood. To your knowledge, Dr. William Gregg, the recipient of
this letter, and Edward Hood, the author of this letter, do
they receive their salary from the Federal Government?
Mr. Howard. They do not. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Hood
is an employee of the Adirondack Park Agency; Mr. Gregg, I
believe at the time this letter was written was indeed an
employee of the Department of Interior.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How big is the Biosphere Reserve program in
the Adirondacks?
Mr. Howard. It is approximately 10,000,000 acres. It takes
in part of the state of New York as well as part of the state
of Vermont. It is known as the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere
Reserve, and it is Lake Champlain that is basically the center
of it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Has it had any impact on private ownership,
private property?
Mr. Howard. It has had a chilling effect in terms of the
way the Adirondack Park Agency manages private land within the
park. The Adirondack Park Agency basically is the zoning agency
for the 103 towns within the boundary of the state park.
A lot of the policy that is being brought down by and
enforced by the Adirondack Park Agency is taking into
consideration those wishes of the Biosphere Reserve program,
and they openly state that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How does that impact the purchase of
property or the selling of one's property?
Mr. Howard. The property values have been extremely
depressed. It is incredibly difficult to find funding for
either businesses and in some cases homes because of the
oppressive way in which these regulations are administered.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I have heard it testified to this afternoon
that there has been absolutely no impact with regard to the
Biosphere Reserve agreement on private property.
Mr. Howard. I believe that to be false. It is rather hard
to quantify it, but I can tell you as a resident of the
Adirondack Park and someone who has been there for 15 years,
that the property that falls within this biosphere designation
is severely impacted. Its value has plummeted, and the ability
of people to start businesses and make a living--the economy of
the entire area is basically just falling apart.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chandler, your testimony states that
H.R. 901 would straitjacket U.S. implementation of Biosphere
Reserves and World Heritage Sites.
Would you please explain in detail how this is so?
Mr. Chandler. I will. Thank you for the question.
Let me start with the Biosphere Reserve program first. This
is nothing more than a tool for voluntary cooperation among
consenting agencies, academics, governmental units to do a
better job of managing their environment, and for the Congress
to step in and say you cannot do that, you cannot voluntarily
get together as state and local agencies, as Federal agencies,
and try to conserve your resources and try to build a
sustainable economy, I think someone looking at that situation
could argue very strongly that that is interfering in these
folks' daily lives, which seems to be a major concern of this
committee, and it should be so.
The gentleman brought up the Barren River Area Development
District in Kentucky. That is a local unit of government, Ms.
Chairman, which has been duly constituted at the local level,
and all they are doing is trying to do a better job of managing
their natural resources, protecting their environment, and
trying to be consistent with the goals of the national park in
the area so that Mammoth Cave doesn't get polluted by runoff
waters that leak into the cave or that go down into the cave.
Nobody's property has been affected, and nobody's property
has been taken away, and if somebody doesn't like what these
local units of government are doing, they can certainly step
forward and unelect these people, but this has been a very
successful program.
I have been there. I have seen the area. I have attached to
my testimony a description of what is going on down there, the
successes they have achieved, and I think that this committee
ought to hear from these folks to see what a successful program
does and how they seem to be happy with their program.
As to the World Heritage Site, just briefly, let me say
again, I know of no specific evidence that has been presented
today or that I have ever seen that says the fact that 17
national parks also have been called World Heritage Sites has
diminished the value of any private property outside the park.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now, the Adirondacks' 10,000,000 acres is
not a World Heritage Site, is it?
Mr. Chandler. No. I am not as familiar with that particular
example as I am with some of the others. It is my understanding
today that this is a biosphere planning area.
Again, it has got to be implemented by somebody under
local, state, and Federal laws, and the fact that they are a
Biosphere Reserve has got nothing to do with the U.N. telling
them what to do. It is simply their planning device to try to
figure out how to build a sustainable economy and manage their
lives better there.
As to the question about the local economy being in a
tailspin, I would have to ask the gentleman what other factors,
other than the Biosphere Reserve designation, might be
contributing to the area's poor economic showing.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chandler. I will ask the
questions.
Mr. Chandler. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Araoz, your organization's worldwide
web site states that, ``The sponsors of H.R. 901 have enlisted
the strong endorsement of tremendously powerful economic and
commercial interests whose sole aim is financial gain through
the unrestricted exploitation of the land.''
Would you please tell the committee which of today's
witnesses represent those powerful economic and commercial
interests?
Mr. Araoz. At the time, I did not know the list of
witnesses. However, based on the testimony last year, the
interests that are represented here are basically commercial
interests.
We have not seen anybody speaking for the true American
values which are the value of our heritage and the value of our
country's natural sites, and also the value of this country as
it will be deeded over to the next generation of Americans.
The mining industries, the logging industries, these are
indeed justifiable concerns and concerns that affect us all
because we all have to survive. We all have to feed our
children and we all have to pay for a roof over our head.
But the fact is that our basic values are so broad and so
broadly accepted that in order to bring the people who support
our National Park system, for instance, we would have the
entire--per-
haps not the entire, but most of the population of this country
here. These values are so broadly shared that nobody feels that
it is in their specific interest to come here and testify.
The people that we have here testifying, or most of the
people I would say, and many of the people who support this
bill, from my understanding, are the ones who have an economic
interest, a selfish economic interest, I might add, which is
valid, because that is indeed what is guaranteed by our
Constitution.
But at the same time, our personal gain has got to be
measured by the public good and it has to be weighed against
it, and that is what I would have meant.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you own your own home?
Mr. Araoz. Yes, I do, madame.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So you are a private property owner?
Mr. Araoz. Yes, I am, and I have in fact in the back of my
land, I abut a National Park, and in order to respect the
National Park, there has been--I have been told, I haven't
actually checked, but we have been told that we are not to cut
trees, and I agreed with the restriction that I am not to cut
trees in the rear part of my property because it would affect
the landscape value that is for public enjoyment.
I gladly yield the specific right that I would have to cut
down the trees in my back yard for the public good, for the
enjoyment of the public good which cannot be measured in
dollars, because this is the recreation aspect that actually
enriches us and enables us to become human beings and to think
better and to understand a little better the greatness of this
country.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So by your answer, we have pretty well
eliminated private property owners, homeowners, from that
special interest?
Mr. Araoz. Well, I would point out----
Mrs. Chenoweth. I think I just need a yes or no.
Mr. Araoz. Could you repeat the question then?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes. By your answer before, we have pretty
well eliminated private property homeowners from the list of
special interests, right, that you were referring to before?
Mr. Araoz. I would have to think about that. I am not ready
to say a yes or a no, because I believe that I am not
understanding very clearly where we are going with this or
where you are coming from or what the intent of the question
is.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So that pretty well leaves loggers and
miners as the special interests?
Mr. Araoz. The special interests are broad and many. I
mean, they can be the tourism industry, they can be people who
live off the land, they can be people who exploit the
visitation to the sites.
The interests are many, and obviously, people who are bound
to scream the loudest are the ones whose toes are stepped on
the hardest.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Howard.
Mr. Howard. I would like to respond to this. I guess I am
here because of personal greed.
For the last 5 years of my life, I have fought for property
rights in local and national organizations, have started
national organizations, and have funded it out of my own
pocket, a small inheritance I got from my mother, and the fact
that my wife refused to let me stop and went back to work.
If that is personal greed, so be it, and I would like to
ask the gentleman sitting next to me who just made those
statements, do you consider these people who exploit the land
who are so horrible, they happen to be the people who feed you
and house you, and with that, I will end my statement.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Mr. Lamb.
Mr. Araoz. Was that a question?
Mrs. Chenoweth. I will ask the questions.
Mr. Lamb. I just want to clarify that the Environmental
Conservation Organization and Sovereignty, International are
certainly not among the rich and famous and powerful
organizations that support this bill.
The 700 and more grass roots organizations that the
Environmental Conservation Organization represents has a great
deal of difficulty just keeping the lights on and their
organization operating.
The values that we want to pass on to our children include
not only the trees and the environment and biodiversity, but
those values of individual freedom and private property rights
and free markets, and above all, national sovereignty.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Mr. Wesson, could you briefly
tell us about the Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource Council,
please?
Mr. Wesson. Yes, madame. We got started four or 5 years ago
in the Pacific Northwest due to the endangered species and the
spotted owl. We have lost over 100,000 jobs in the last 6 years
due to government regulations.
We do not represent the industry. When you have an industry
lobbyist come up here, he is not speaking for me, but at the
same time, if we don't show up, the environmental extremists
say they are speaking for me, and that is not true.
The environmental extremist wants to put me out of a job.
If I am here for personal greed also, I don't even have a
family anymore. I spend three-fourths of my time working on
these issues so I can keep working, and I would like some of
that personal greed, really.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Wesson, has the Pulp and Paperworkers'
Resource Council adopted a formal position on H.R. 901?
Mr. Wesson. Yes, madame, we have.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And what is that?
Mr. Wesson. We are endorsing it wholeheartedly, because we
feel like it is an avenue for at least Congress to have control
before our private land is locked up in United Nations reserves
or any other Biosphere Reserve.
We are endorsing H.R. 901, and that is labor endorsing a
Republican bill. Keep that in mind.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I don't think your dad would really mind
that. Mine wouldn't either.
You have all waited so very long, and I want to make sure
that you have had ample opportunity to speak to the record.
Is there anyone else who would like to add anything? Mr.
Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. First, thank you for allowing me to testify
today. Second, I would like to go back to an issue raised by a
number of the members of this committee, and that is that it
appears that not the best job is being done to publicly explain
what these programs are about, what they mean, and what effects
they really have.
I can certainly understand that people would show up here
today and be concerned that their property values or rights
might somehow in some way be impacted by these designations. To
the best of my knowledge, they are not, but these folks deserve
to know that, and as I pointed out in my testimony, we believe
a much better job needs to be done in explaining what a
Biosphere Reserve is, what it does and doesn't do, and I would
point out--and the same thing with the World Heritage
nominations and designations.
I would point out that the process, Ms. Chairman, does seem
to be working in that when people get angry or unhappy about
these things, they don't happen, but we do have 47 of these
that have been established, so I don't know how much mail you
are getting from all these other areas where these sites exist
and these reserves exist, but to my knowledge, they seem to be
working very well, and I would call the committee's attention
to look at those as well.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chandler, and we will. My
concern still remains that the Biosphere Reserves do not have
any legal underpinnings, and so we will pursue this, and I do
want you to know that the record will remain open for 10 days,
and any of you who would like to supplement your testimony or
add to the record are certainly welcome to do that.
Again, I want to thank you all for your patience. I want to
thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony. Thank you very
much, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3911.153