PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior, State.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 6, 2001
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act - Amends the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from nominating any Federal lands for inclusion on the World Heritage List unless: (1) commercially viable uses of nominated lands and lands within ten miles will not be adversely affected; (2) the Secretary has reported to Congress on the lands' natural resources and the impact of inclusion on existing and future uses of such lands; and (3) such nomination is specifically authorized by law.Requires the Secretary to object to the inclusion of any property in the United States on the list of World Heritage in Danger unless the Secretary: (1) has reported to Congress on the necessity for such inclusion, the associated natural resources, and the impact of inclusion on existing and future uses of such property; and (2) is specifically authorized to assent to the inclusion by a joint resolution of Congress.Prohibits any Federal official from nominating any lands in the United States for designation as a Biosphere Reserve. Nullifies any such designation before enactment of this Act unless the Biosphere Reserve: (1) is specifically authorized by a law enacted after enactment of this Act and before December 31, 2003; (2) consists solely of federally owned lands; and (3) is subject to a management plan that ensures that the use of intermixed or adjacent non-Federal property is not limited or restricted as a result of that designation.Prohibits any Federal official from nominating, classifying, or designating any Federal land for a special or restricted use under any international conservation agreement unless specifically authorized by law. Provides that any such nomination, classification, or designation of private or State or local lands shall have no force or effect without the owner's consent or specific authorization by State or local law, respectively.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior, State.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.883 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.883 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.883 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.883 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.