CONTENTS Chenoweth-Hage, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress From the Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State of OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE PROPOSED WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE POLICY PROHIBITING MINING IN AREAS SURROUNDING WORLD HERITAGE SITES House of Representatives, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:23 p.m. In Room 1334, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Cubin [chairman of the subcommittee] Presiding. STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING Mrs. CUBIN. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will come to order. The subcommittee meets today in its oversight capacity to review a draft policy announced at the 23rd annual meeting of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizations Bureau of the World Heritage Committee last year in July. This policy proposes to ban mining in areas around World Heritage sites. I understand that it has been placed on the agenda for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its next meeting in early December in Marrakesh, Morocco. As used in this proposal, the term "mining" describes all forms of mineral, salt, and hydrocarbon extraction. The policy forbids mining in land classified as International Union for the Conservation of Nature-protected area management Categories I through IV, and states that in Categories V through VI exploration, minimal and localized extraction is acceptable only where this is compatible with the objectives of that protected area. I have no idea how to determine in which of these categories any given area is located, nor do I know how one determines how a particular property in the United States is classified under this system. This policy has not been discussed with Congress. I have never heard of the IUCN, nor the World Commission on Protected Areas. Who are these groups and who has a voice in determining the policies they endorse? Congress has the constitutional role, Article 4, section 3, clause 2, in the making of rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States. Congress is accountable to the people. I am concerned about the World Heritage Committee's interference with Congress' exercise of its constitutional responsibilities to govern lands owned by the United States. Ordinary citizens have no choice in making a policy that may well affect them and their communities. The unelected bureaucrats on the World Heritage Committee have no accountability to the American people, the ultimate sovereign authority in our system of government. People who must satisfy the concerns of outsiders before they act are not sovereign. I believe decisions addressed in the mining policy are purely domestic matters and would like to know why this policy is being considered as a part of an international agreement without consulting American citizens or our domestic mineral business industries. At a minimum, adoption of this policy will complicate mineral development in the United States since there are 67 World Heritage sites and biosphere reserves in the United States. At worst, the policy becomes a treaty provision that can be used by those opposed to learning to stop development of U.S. mines located near these sites. I also fear the executive branch will invoke this policy as part of an international agreement in an attempt to administratively achieve an action within the jurisdiction of Congress but without consulting Congress. International commitments must not interfere with the American system of government by denying American citizens participation in the legislative and rulemaking process. A treaty should not be used to change domestic law in a way that has not been approved by Congress. Today's hearing will focus on the role of the United States Government in advocating the ban on mining around World Heritage sites. We are particularly interested in gaining insights in the following areas: (1) the role the U.S. Government played in drafting the mining policy; (2) the reason Congress was not informed of a policy that is clearly within an area of its constitutional responsibility; (3) why American mineral extraction companies were not consulted about the proposed policy; and (4) the reason that the American people were not included in the process of developing a policy that clearly affects them. I am sorry that the State Department declined to participate in this oversight function of the U.S. Congress. On October 8, 1999, my subcommittee faxed a letter to the State Department, officially inviting them to testify at this hearing. Amazingly, 3 days before the October 28 hearing, my staff was called by the State Department and informed that they were unable to provide a witness at this hearing. The reason given was that they had only one employee intimately involved with the hearing topic and he was travelling abroad. I have to point out that the State Department has 25,067 employees of which only one, who has been employed by the State Department less than a year, is the only expert in this area on such a matter of huge importance to the United States. Let me point out that 17 of Wyoming's 22 counties have fewer people than the State Department has employees. Needless to say, I am astonished that given this vast pool of talented employees, only one person had sufficient knowledge to testify about this important issue. I now recognize our ranking member, the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood, for any statement that he might have. [The prepared statement of Mrs. Cubin follows:] STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA CUBIN CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON Oversight Hearing on the "The Proposed World Heritage Committee The Subcommittee meets today in its oversight capacity to review a draft policy announced at the 23rd annual meeting of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (the Bureau) in Paris last July. This policy proposes to ban mining in areas surrounding World Heritage Sites. I understand that it has been placed on the agenda for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its next meeting in early December in Marrakech, Morocco. As used in this proposal, the term "mining" describes all forms of mineral, salt and hydrocarbon extraction. The policy prohibits mining in land classified as International Union for the Conservation of Nature JUCN) Protected Area Management Categories I-IV and states that in Categories V and VI, "exploration and minimal and localized extraction is acceptable only where this is compatible with the objectives of the protected area..." I have no idea how to determine in which of these categories any given area is located. Nor do I know how one determines howw a particular property in the United States is classified under this system. This policy has not been discussed with Congress. I have never heard of the IUCN or the or the World Commission on Protected Areas. Who are these groups and who has a voice In determining the policies they endorse? Congress has the Constitutional role (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2) in the making of rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States. Congress is accountable to the people. I am concerned about the World Heritage Committee's interference with Congress' exercise of its constitutional responsibility to govern lands owned by the United States. Ordinary citizens had no voice in making a policy that may well affect them and their communities. The unelected bureaucrats on the World Heritage Committee have no accountability to the American people, the ultimate sovereign authority in our system of government. A people who must satisfy the concerns of outsiders before they act are not sovereign. I believe decisions addressed in the mining policy are purely domestic matters and would like to know why this policy is being considered as part of an international agreement without consulting American citizens or our domestic mining industry. At a minimum, adoption of this policy will complicate mineral development in the United States since there are 67 World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves in the U.S. At worst, the policy becomes a treaty provision that can be used by those opposed to mining to stop development of U.S. mines located near these sites. I also fear the Executive Branch will invoke this policy as part of an international agreement in an attempt to administratively achieve an action within the jurisdiction of Congress, but without consulting Congress. International commitments must not interfere with the American system of government by denying American citizens participation in the legislative and rule-making process. A treaty should not be used to change domestic law in a way that has not been approved by Congress. Today's hearing will focus on the role of the U.S. Government in advocating the ban on mining around World Heritage Sites. We are particularly interested in gaining insights in the following areas: (1) the role the U.S. Government played in drafting the mining policy, (2) the reason Congress wasn't informed of a policy that is clearly within an area of its Constitutional responsibility, (3) why American mineral extraction companies weren't consulted about the proposed policy, (4) the reason the American people were not included in the process of developing a policy that clearly affects them. I am sorry that the State Department declined to participate in this oversight function of the U.S. Congress. On October 8, 1999 my subcommittee faxed a letter to the State Department officially inviting them to testify at this hearing. Amazingly, three days before the October 28 hearing my staff was called by the State Department and informed that they were unable to provide a witness at this hearing. The reason given was that the only employee intimately involved with the hearing topic was traveling abroad. I might add that this employee has been at State for less than a year. According to the Office of Personnel Management's May 1999 |