American Policy Center » 2004 » June
- APC's Recent Senate Testimony on the National Heritage Partnership Act
- Yet the U.S. Government Continues UN Propaganda Programs
- Radical Environmentalism Losing Support
- UN Popularity Sinking
- The Speech They Wouldn’t Let Me Finish
- UN Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens US Sovereignty
-
- “Contrary to some claims, the Law of the Sea Treaty provides no decision-making role for the United Nations. The words ‘United Nations’ appear in the title of the Convention only because that is where negotiations physically took place.”
- “…The Convention affirms unchallenged American rights to our ocean resources.”
- “…Every major American ocean industry supports the Convention…”
- “…The Convention does not levy taxes or require any technology transfers.”
- “…some claims have tried to portray President Reagan as being against the treaty. In fact, in 1983 he proclaimed that the United States would abide by all provisions of the Convention except those dealing with deep-seabed mining in the open ocean…”
Testimony of Peyton Knight Submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks
Concerning the National Heritage Partnership Act
(S. 2543) and its impact on property rights,
private lands, and local communities.
June 24, 2004
Chairman Thomas and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit the following testimony on the behalf of property rights advocates across the country who are concerned with the impact of National Heritage Areas (NHAs), and the “National Heritage Partnership Act” (S. 2543) in particular, on land use, private property rights and local communities.
National Heritage Areas undoubtedly lead to restrictive federal zoning and land use planning. Funding and technical assistance for Heritage Areas is administered through the National Park Service (NPS), a federal agency with a long history of hostility toward private landowners. The recipient of these funds and NPS direction is a management entity, which typically consists of strictly ideological special interest groups and local government officials. This public/private juggernaut then imposes its narrow vision of land use planning on unsuspecting landowners within a Heritage Area’s boundaries. The result is a top-down approach to local zoning, with little or no involvement from the local citizenry.
Heritage Areas are not innocuous designations bestowed upon local communities simply for the purpose of national recognition. Rather, they are land use mandates foisted upon property owners in the name of preservation. Quite simply: Heritage Areas have boundaries, and those boundaries have consequences for property owners unfortunate enough to reside within them. Incredibly, proponents of Heritage Areas argue that despite their mission of “preservation,” Heritage Areas do not influence zoning or land use planning. Yet by definition this is precisely what they do.
According to S. 2543, a NHA is an area that has “an assemblage of natural, historic, cultural, educational, scenic, or recreational resources” that are “nationally significant to the heritage of the United States.” The legislation goes on to dictate that a NHA “provides outstanding opportunities to conserve natural, historical, cultural, or scenic features.” As for the absurdly arbitrary term “national significance,” it is defined in the bill as “possession of unique natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic, or recreational resources of exceptional value or quality.”
This sweeping definition ensures that every single square inch of land in the United States can arguably qualify as a National Heritage Area—and therefore be eligible for millions of taxpayer dollars, federal protection, federal oversight, and federal land use restrictions. No wonder when the first incarnation of S. 2543 (the “American Heritage Areas Partnership Program”) first surfaced ten years ago, the late Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY) strongly warned his colleagues against the scheme. In a letter dated September 19, 1994, Soloman wrote:
I urge you to defend property rights and strongly oppose the American Heritage Area Participation Program … The environmentalists advocating this bill have FEDERAL LAND USE CONTROL as their primary objective.
The bill wastes tax dollars that could be more appropriately spent on maintaining our national parks … Property rights defenders have legitimate concerns about the provision in the bill requiring localities to obtain approval by the Secretary of Interior or land use plans…
WHY SPEND $35 MILLION ON NON-FEDERAL HERITAGE AREAS WHEN OUR NATIONAL PARKS DESPERATELY NEED FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR?
Again, I ask you to defend property rights and oppose this bill.
(The emphasis is Rep. Soloman’s—not mine.)
Little has changed in the ten years since Gerald Solomon warned his congressional colleagues about the foolishness and danger of a National Heritage Areas program. The advocates of NHA program still have federal land use control as their primary objective. The bill still wastes tax dollars that would be better spent on a Park Service maintenance backlog that now numbers in the billions of dollars. And the Secretary of Interior still has the ultimate say over the management and land use plans that govern a National Heritage Area, as is stated in section 5(b) of S. 2543. Again, a National Heritage Areas program is nothing less than federal land use policy.
Also on September 19, 1994, Rep. Bob Smith (R-OR) penned a letter to fellow Congressman Richard Pombo, warning him about the inherent dangers of a National Heritage Area program:
Dear Richard,
On Tuesday, the House will consider legislation that I consider to be the most significant threat to private property rights I have seen during my twelve years in Congress.
This legislation … will threaten private property by authorizing a broad new program of federal land use controls, extending from coast to coast. There are nearly 100 Heritage Areas currently under consideration and it’s likely that your constituents will be impacted by these incredible restrictions on private property.
This program is based on the existing Columbia Gorge Scenic Area in Oregon and Washington. The management plan for the Gorge regulates nearly every detail of private property use, including the color landowners can paint their homes and the species of trees they can plant in their own yard. Your constituents, like mine, will be outraged at this gross abuse of government over-regulation if this bill is enacted. Believe me, you do not want to be part of a town hall meeting after masses of your constituents learn the federal government has the final say over what they can do on their own property.
Two NHAs that recently passed the House Resources Committee illustrate this federal encroachment on local land use policy. Both the National Aviation and the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area Acts specifically direct the management entity to “encourage local governments to adopt land use policies consistent with the management of the Heritage Area and the goals of the Management Plan.” This can be construed as nothing less than a top-down, federal zoning mandate.
In the Oil Region National Heritage Area Act, section 5(b)5 calls for creating an “inventory of the resources contained in the Heritage Area, including a list of any property in the Heritage Area that is related to the themes of the Heritage Area and that should be preserved, restored, managed, developed, or maintained because of its natural, cultural, historic, recreational, or scenic significance.” Thus, landowners are subject to the whimsical interpretations of the preservation-driven management entity. Should their property be deemed “significant” in any way to the Heritage Area, you can bet that its use will be strictly curtailed. Again, this is a federal zoning mandate.
S. 2543 is no different than these examples above, as it too calls for the creation of an “inventory” of property to be set aside for “resource protection” (read: land use restrictions and lost property rights).
The National Heritage Partnership Act establishes a program whereby federal funds are dangled as a carrot in front of local authorities, environmental organizations, and preservation societies, while the stick of federal zoning and land use mandates are firmly applied. For example, when the Augusta Canal National Heritage Area in Georgia was in its developmental stages in 1994, NPS Associate Director of Planning and Development Denis P. Galvin refused to accept the management plan put forth by the planning committee until they succumbed to the Park Service’s vision of zoning and land use. Specifically, the Park Service testified that the Augusta Heritage Area needed to submit “evidence of commitment to modify zoning regulations, and evidence of commitment to create a State Park.” Of course, S. 2543 provides the same opportunity for the Park Service to make heavy-handed dictates.
Property rights and limited government advocates are also concerned that National Heritage Areas will effectively become a feeder program for a ravenous national parks program. These fears are well founded.
The Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area in southwestern Pennsylvania states boldly on its website:
Rivers of Steel is spearheading a drive to create a national park on 38 acres of original mill site…Bills have been introduced before the U.S. Congress to make this urban national park a reality.
Thus, here is an example of a National Heritage Area, funded and guided by the National Park Service, taking the initiative in lobbying Congress for land acquisition authority and the creation of yet another national park. It hardly appears that Heritage Areas and National Parks are strictly dichotomous.
Given the adverse impacts that Heritage Areas can have on property owners, it is absolutely appalling that S. 2543 does not provide for landowner notification prior to an NHA designation. It is morally imperative that each and every property owner within the boundaries of a proposed National Heritage Area be notified on an individual basis (i.e. a simple, one-page letter sent via U.S. Postal Service), and given the opportunity to opt-in to the designation. This is far more than a common courtesy to landowners. It is the only way to truly gauge whether or not the local population is supportive of the designation. Advocates of S. 2543 claim that local support is a prerequisite for the creation of a National Heritage Area. However, they refuse to document this so-called support, and when commonsense mechanisms to gauge support are suggested, they stonewall them at every turn. In reality, input from the local citizenry is shunned by NHA proponents as they prefer to steamroll these designations into existence and spring them on unsuspecting landowners.
In conclusion, the National Heritage Partnership Act is a worse idea now than it was ten years ago. Experience shows that it will not only become a funding albatross, as more and more special interest groups and local governments gather around the federal trough, but also a program that quashes property rights and local economies through restrictive federal zoning practices. The real beneficiaries of a National Heritage Areas program are conservation groups, preservation societies, land trusts and the National Park Service—essentially, organizations that are in constant pursuit of federal dollars, land acquisition, and restrictions on property rights.
The National Heritage Partnership Act represents federal policy making at its worst. Should it become law, S. 2543 will quickly build a legacy of wasted tax dollars, lost property rights, and local communities swallowed by federal land use restrictions.
June 21, 2004
By Tom DeWeese
Even as Americans express plunging support for the United Nations, U.S. government-run schools keep up the assault on American ideals and culture. United Nations Day is the fastest growing celebration in schools across the country.
The United Nations has passed a resolution requiring all member states (that’s us) to acknowledge October 24th as “UN Day,” to make known “to the people of the world the aims and achievements of the United Nations and to gain their support for the work of the United Nations.”
According to The American Sentinel, UN observance has taken on absurd propagandizing about the “virtues” of the UN. For example in the Miami-Dade county public school system, students are strongly encouraged to experience “on line” propaganda tours of the UN Headquarters. They develop a “time line” listing of the events that led to the creation of the UN. The program includes a permanent posting of the document in a prominent place in the classroom.
Model UN conferences, UN curriculum supplied by UNESCO and requiring students to create UN brochures advertising the importance of “upholding human rights around the world” are all part of the overall indoctrination program.
Public school paid for with your tax dollars to indoctrinate your children. Get the picture? Arguing with principals or teachers won’t stop this. Take a long hard look; a deep breath; and then do what you know is right. Get your kids out of government schools.
By Tom DeWeese
June 18, 2004
In another sign that Americans are slowly regaining their senses, a new Gallup Poll shows that the environment is no longer the top concern among Americans. In fact the issue has sunk to number ten, with affordable health care the number one national concern.
Only four years ago, during the height of the global warming scare, the environment was the number one concern. But apparently Americans are beginning to see through the Chicken Little scare mongering perpetrated by power-hungry elitists who are using the environment as an excuse to enforce their Sustainabilist agenda on the nation.
One can only swallow the scare tactics for a while before it gets noticed that nothing is really happening. Four years ago the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy were able to convince a lot of people that the temperature was rising and the Polar Ice Cap was melting. Today, there is absolutely no sign of man-made Global Warming and people are turning their attention to real problems.
As their banshee-like screams continue to wail, perhaps in another four years Americans will come to realize even more that environmentalists arethe greatest plague ever perpetrated on the community of man. Someday in the near future the entire Sustainable Development scam will be exposed and Constitutional rule will once again be the law of the land. The public stocks of old would be appropriate punishment for their witch hunts. But ignoring them completely would be the greatest comeuppance.
Americans are beginning to figure it out – they just need a little more time and a little more information.
June 17, 2004
By Tom DeWeese
The United Nations continues to lose support in the United States. According to a Gallup Poll taken in February, UN popularity plunged around last year because of its refusal to use force against Iraq. As a result, in January of 2003, UN support fell from 50% to 37%. The newest poll shows that UN support has fallen another point during the year to 36%.
Oil-for-Food scandals; a Human Rights Commission controlled by terrorist thugs; a criminal court that ignores the bad guys; and an agenda that demands global taxes, armies and mindless control of the earth’s land and wealth, all run by arrogant, non-elected bureaucrats: Yep, the American people have noticed.
June 2, 2004
By Tom DeWeese
I was invited to San Francisco to address a gathering of about 20 financial officers (CFO’s) for some well-known Fortune 500 companies. I was asked to talk about the political climate that has an impact on their businesses in this election year.
I knew right away what I had to tell them. I would talk to them about the one issue that affected every business decision they make every day – yet is an issue that isn’t even discussed in the political campaign – Sustainable Development.
My hosts knew of my positions, having admitted to visiting the American Policy Center’s web site prior to extending their invitation. The site very openly displays my articles and several past speeches dealing with a variety of subjects, especially Sustainable Development. In fact, the only comment after their perusal was to ask that I also address the issue of personal privacy and the threat of the Patriot Act as it dealt with business. I agreed.
I was told that I would be given one hour to speak, possibly taking questions at the end. In fact, they assured that if I were to go over my allotted time, “that would be OK.” Later, that was changed to “perhaps forty five minutes with time for questions. In either case, it was understood that I was to make a “presentation.” It’s important that I mention this because of what happened later.
The day arrived and I was ushered into a small room occupied by the twenty or so CFO’s. The man in charged was the supervisor of the one who had invited me. A podium was placed in the front of the room and he introduced me as “an expert on political issues.”
I began by saying, “I’m going to talk to you today about what I believe to be the long term issue affecting perhaps the very existence of your businesses.” I said, that it’s “not a Republican or a Democrat issue. It’s not liberal or conservative. It’s purely bi-partisan.”
“If your job calls for dealing with government on any level,” I said, “perhaps you’ve also noticed that there are more layers and more players to deal with.” I suggested to them, “you may have found layers of non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy. You may have attended such meetings and encountered powerful new voices coming from members of private organizations, now empowered with making and enforcing policy.”
I went on to explain the origins of these special councils and the involvement of non-governmental groups like the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club. I explained that a transformation in government is taking place in America through a new policy called Sustainable Development and that such policy affected everything including our personal lives, farming, schools, and literally every decision now made by every single business in the nation.
I told them of the origins of Sustainable Development through international treaties like the UN’s Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Treaty. In fact, I handed them packets containing some of the original documents that I was discussing.
It was so vitally important, I believed, that these businessmen in their high positions, understand the origins of battles they face every day. After all, I had been asked to discuss with them the political climate that effected their businesses. This was it. What could be more important?
However, fifteen minutes into my scheduled one hour address, the leader of the group, the man who had introduced me as an expert suddenly blurted out, “can’t we just have a friendly discussion on the issues concerning the election?” This man was apparently a “facilitator” trained in specific tactics to control what is said in a gathering, and he obviously didn’t like what I was saying. I was convinced of his training as the event played out.
I tried to explain that I was telling his gathering exactly what he had asked me to do. That no issue effected their businesses more than Sustainable Development. I explained that I was giving the information in a formal presentation because it was wide ranging and an “informal discussion” as he was now suggesting I conduct, would not allow me to give them all of the information necessary to understand the issue. Keep in mind I was invited to give a formal presentation, only now he was changing the rules after I was fifteen minutes into my presentation.
I asked him if I might continue. He said, “we’re going to take a ten minute break and discuss it.” He then escorted me out, not into the hallway, but completely out of the building and into a parking lot. There it was obvious that he wasn’t going to let me continue because I wouldn’t back down on my insistence to speak about Sustainable Development. After all, he had introduced me as an expert. Now he wanted to tell me what to say and how to say it. I said no.
It is a standard tactic by trained facilitators to make their target look like the aggressor. His actions were classic, first changing the rules by interrupting my presentation and suggesting that I just have a conversation with the folks, then to get me completely out of the building under the guise of having a discussion. They’ve been trained to smile as they twist the knife.
At first he wasn’t even going to let me return to the room to gather my belongings until I asked, “you’re not going to let me back in the room?” He relented and I went back to the meeting room to retrieve my notes and reading glasses from the podium. As I stood there I looked at the gathering. All of them remained in their seats where we had left them, sitting quietly.
Not one raised his voice to question why I wasn’t being allowed to continue. These leaders of industry just sat there as a trained facilitator controlled the information they were allowed to hear. It’s how things are done today, from private conferences to government meetings. A few decide for the rest.
As I turned to leave the room, however, I noticed two or three leafing through the materials I had managed to pass out before the talk. Perhaps a seed of truth would get passed the facilitator’s control. Perhaps one would go to my web site or check into the information I had distributed and start them on a journey to understanding the monster called Sustainable Development. If so, that made it a good day.
To read the speech they wouldn’t let me finish, click here.
June 2, 2004
By Tom DeWeese
Those driving the battle to entangle the United States in the United Nations’ Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) are fighting back, determined to paint any opponent as a radical who is out of touch with the way the world really works.
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) and his allies are mad because they had hoped to sneak LOST through the Senate before anyone noticed. Opponents to the Treaty foiled that trick and blasted it to the nation. Americans rose up in protest and now the Law of the Sea Treaty is stuck. Lugar seemed genuinely shocked by the strength of the anti-treaty protests. Now it appears LOST is being held up without a scheduled vote by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN).
So Lugar and the pro-LOST forces have taken off the gloves, fighting back by increasing lobbying efforts, invoking the list of powerful government offices and departments which testified in favor of the treaty. These include the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, Justice, and the EPA. Lugar insists that the Bush “Administration even helped write the resolution of advice and consent accompanying the treaty.”
In addition, Lugar insists that:
Those are pretty powerful arguments in favor of ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, if true. The fact is not one of these statements by Sen. Lugar is true.
Amazingly, sources close to President Bush reported just days after Sen. Lugar started the drive for ratification in the President’s name that the President said he knew nothing about it. Others have reported that President Bush is actually opposed to ratification. So who in the Administration is pushing the Law of the Sea Treaty that President Ronald Reagan not only refused to sign, but actually fired the U.S. State Department staff that had negotiated it?
Some have speculated that Vice President Dick Cheney is the driving force behind the sudden move to ratify a treaty that should have been dead twenty years ago. The real force behind the renewed efforts for ratification appears to be John Turner, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
Turner comes from the world of radical environmentalism, having served as the CEO of the Conservation Fund and on the boards of the Land Trust Alliance, the National Wildlife Refuge Association, the Trumpeter Swan Society and several more “green” groups. These groups stand to gain massive power over the oceans through ratification of LOST. That’s why they have been the main forces in demanding its passage.
Moreover, Turner is a close buddy of Dick Cheney, so his efforts for the treaty have been interpreted as being official White House policy. If Turner wins this round, his next attack will be for ratification of the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty that the Senate refused to consider ten years ago.
Does the Law of the Sea Treaty give the UN decision-making power over the world’s oceans? Of course it does. It is a common trick used by those who seek to implement UN policy to mention only the particular document in question as if it lived in a vacuum. In fact, most of the UN treaties and programs are designed to couple and piggyback on other such programs, creating an all-encompassing web of control.
The Law of the Sea Treaty is closely integrated with the Convention on Climate Change, the World Heritage Treaty, the Convention on Desertification Treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances and its Montreal Protocol, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, and several more that can be traced back directly to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Six departments of our federal government (including the Department of State) and 44 U.S. environmental organizations are members of the IUCN. The IUCN uses the United Nations as the conduit to funnel the treaties to member countries for ratification.
As such, the United Nations becomes the monitor for enforcement and implementation of the treaties. For Sen. Lugar to imply that the UN is not even part of the process is beyond disingenuous; it’s downright deceitful.
That’s not Sen. Lugar’s first attempt to mislead and deceive on the issue of LOST. His Foreign Relation’s Committee hearings would not allow a single negative word to be spoken against the treaty. Those testifying were carefully chosen to paint an urgent need for LOST.
Sen. Lugar claims that LOST “affirms unchallenged American rights to our ocean resources.” This Lugar falsehood completely ignores Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the treaty which says, “The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law.” In addition, LOST’s most powerful creation, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) will be the entity to enforce that section.
According to testimony submitted to the House International Relations Committee by Dr. Peter Leitner, the Center for Naval Analysis believes that the International Seabed Authority may one day be able to “take on a variety of low-intensity policing functions in support of international agreements.” In other words, the Seabed Authority could become an ocean police force answerable to the United Nations.
The ISA has the power to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, to control ocean exploration, issue permits and create regulations, and settle disputes in its own court. Private companies seeking to drill oil or mine ocean floors must first obtain a permit from the Seabed Authority. The Seabed Authority will be a regulatory agency, police force and court system all in one.
If the permit is granted and production begins, the Seabed Authority then charges a royalty fee or tax. Those royalties are then evenly distributed to all participating nations. Land-locked nations with no interest in the oceans will now profit from the efforts of private companies. Such a taxing system is now seen as a model for the creation of a global taxing system. Sen. Lugar tell outright lies when he says the treaty levies no taxes.
Sen. Lugar says that “every major American ocean industry supports the Convention.” That is blatantly false. However, those who are in support do so because they believe that by being part of the process they will get a leg up on the competition. They believe in the system of “pull” rather than in free market competition. Pull is a system of powerful, non-elected bureaucrats who pull the strings, set the prices, dictate the playing field and control the market. It’s how things are done when there is no freedom of choice. Businesses that have signed on to LOST are either lazy or scared.
Even worse, the Seabed Authority doesn’t just have the power to issue or deny permits and collect royalties. It also has the power to directly compete with private companies in the mining and drilling of the ocean floor through an entity called the “Enterprise.” In this way, royalties paid to member nations would be much higher because they wouldn’t have to share any profits with private companies.
Now, a reasonable person may conclude that an agency that has the power to issue permits to private companies or compete on its own for higher profits would likely chose the latter. Of course it would! And that’s the point.
Imagine what such a system would do to the world economy? Imagine what will happen to oil prices and mineral prices needed to sustain our nation? Imagine such power in the hands of small, corrupt, jealous nations as would make up the seabed authority and you can understand why the Law of the Seas Treaty is a trap for the United States.
The mantra put forth by Sen. Lugar and the other proponents of LOST is that we need to ratify it in order to get “a seat at the table” so we can make decisions as to who serves on the International Seabed Authority, but the United States would have only one vote out of abut 140. China, Cuba, and Barbados will have an equal vote. A block of small, third world nations that see LOST as an opportunity to “make America pay” can form a cartel to control policy.
One final point must be made. There is little understanding on Capitol Hill as to just how powerful and all encompassing the Law of the Sea Treaty can be. During hearings by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman James Inhofe asked former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, “What about the air over the sea?” Does LOST have jurisdiction there? Her answer: not only the air but also the space could become subject to UN authority under this treaty.
And there’s still more. Most opponents of LOST truthfully argue that it will give the UN control over all of the world’s oceans that includes 70% of the earth’s surface. The situation may be even worse than that.
The tangle of international agreements to be policed by the Law of the Sea Treaty leads one to be wary of a new report by the United States Commission on Ocean Policy which calls for new federal regulations to affect oceans and coasts. The Commission’s report calls for an “eco-system management approach that goes far beyond the political boundaries like state lines” to strengthen the link between coastal and watershed management. Such language is straight out of the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty.
The report is concerned with protecting estuaries where oceanic species breed. Estuaries are fed by rivers. American rivers are lined with cities. Under the excuse of protecting the oceans, will the policing powers of LOST allow it to sail right up into the rivers of America, giving the UN inland control as well?
The Law of the Sea Treaty doesn’t provide anything to the United States that we don’t already have. It blatantly takes away our rights to free movement and private enterprise, and endangers our national sovereignty and independence. We don’t need this treaty. If we allow it to pass we will regret it.
There is only one way to stop this madness. Keep the United States from ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty and ignore its authority. Do that and there won’t be any “table” to sit at.
