U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

66–727 u WASHINGTON : 1999

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE PROPOSED WORLD

HERITAGE COMMITTEE POLICY PROHIBITING

MINING IN AREAS SURROUNDING WORLD HERITAGE SITES

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND MINERAL RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 28, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC.

Serial No. 106–80

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming, CHAIRMAN

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

JAY INSLEE, Washington

BILL CONDIT, Professional Staff

MIKE HENRY, Professional Staff

DEBORAH LANZONE, Professional Staff
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held October 28, 1999 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Chenoweth-Hage, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress From the

State of Idaho ................................................................................................ 7

Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Wyoming ........................................................................................................ 1

Prepared Statment of ................................................................................ 3

Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from the Territory

of Guam ......................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statment of ................................................................................ 6

Statement of Witnesses:

Barry, Honorable Don, Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior ........................................ 45

Prepared Statement of .............................................................................. 48

Lawson, General Richard L., President, National Mining Association ........ 56

Prepared Statment of ................................................................................ 58

Phillips, Adrian, Chair, World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN),

Evesham, United Kingdom .......................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement of .............................................................................. 11

Wallop, Honorable Malcolm, Chairman, Frontiers of Freedom Institute .... 51

Prepared Statment of ................................................................................ 53

Additional Material Supplied:

Agenda: .............................................................................................................. 81

Briefing Paper: .................................................................................................. 82

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE PROPOSED

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE POLICY

PROHIBITING MINING IN AREAS SURROUNDING WORLD HERITAGE SITES

House of Representatives,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND MINERAL RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

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.
2

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.
3

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

ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES

Oversight Hearing on the ‘‘The Proposed World Heritage Committee

PolicyProhibiting Mining in Areas Surrounding World Heritage Sites’’

October 28, 1999

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
4

statistics, the State Department has 25,067 employees of which 8,940 are located

in the United States. Let me point out that 17 of Wyoming’s 22 counties have less

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.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am pleased to

welcome our esteemed witnesses to the subcommittee today to discuss the draft World Heritage Committee policy regarding mining

in areas surrounding World Heritage sites.

First, let me note, for the record, that the subject document this

hearing was called to address has been inaccurately described as

a ‘‘proposed policy banning mining’’ in areas surrounding World

Heritage sites. The draft policy which we will discuss today is a

planning document that sets out guidelines and recommendations

toward mining in adjacent and protected areas such as national

parks. It does not propose a ban on mining around national parks

and other protected areas.

This draft document evolved out of the United States participation in the World Heritage Convention which was established to

recognize natural and cultural sites of outstanding value around

the world. Since last year, a small and informal group of this organization has met periodically to discuss ways to reconcile environment and development needs and to provide guidance on World

Heritage sites whose integrity may be threatened by potential mining projects. The ‘‘draft policy on mining and protected areas’’ document that we are here to discuss is the result of these discussions.

The World Conservation Union draft policy provides a global

framework statement that recognizes that clear rules are easier to

understand and defend than ones which depend on too much interpretation. As the draft policy notes, while they have provided clear

guidance in the draft statement, they leave it to individual countries to consider whether adaptations are needed in local circumstances, and indeed, countries may decide to ignore any recommendations at all.

Their draft policy defines their position towards mining and associated activities in and adjacent to protected areas. It does not and

indeed cannot ban mining in areas surrounding World Heritage

sites. Any action that the United States might choose to take as

a result of this draft mining policy would be taken at our initiative,

locally, within the country and within our constitutional processes

and under our own system of jurisprudence.

In conclusion, while I welcome the opportunity to review the

World Heritage Convention’s thoughts on how mining affects our

national parks and other protected areas, it is clear that any policy

this organization may adopt will not supplant or replace our own

laws.

As the National Academy of Sciences recently noted in its report

on the adequacy of Federal surface management regulations, mining inevitably affects other resources in the areas in which it occurs. The consequences of this activity can to some extent be miti-
5

gated through a balanced and reasonable approach that includes

planning, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, and

an appreciation of the potentially competing interests of the environment, production of metal and minerals for the society, and employment. The draft policy before us today seems to be consistent

with this sound approach and should be seen as reassuring rather

than alarming.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.

I would like to add as well, Madam Chairwoman, I do associate

myself with the remarks regarding the State Department’s lack of

participation in this hearing.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
6
7

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

I would like to welcome Representative Helen Chenoweth-Hage

of Idaho, chairman of our committee’s Forest and Forest Health

Subcommittee and ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to

participate in our hearing today. Moreover, because she recently attended a World Heritage Committee meeting in Paris, I understand

that she would like to make an opening statement regarding her

participation at the Paris meeting.

Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. I thank the chairman for allowing me

the privilege to participate in today’s meeting.

During my tenure in Congress, I have been very involved in the

development of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act

which requires strong congressional oversight of the United Nations designations such as biosphere reserves and the World Heritage sites. Right now we don’t have that kind of oversight.

Congress’ concern on this issue largely arose from the ClintonGore administration’s using the Yellowstone National Park’s World

Heritage site status as a political weapon to stop gold mining on

private property outside the park. American taxpayers paid an astounding $64 million to a Canadian leasehold mining company to

stop this mine.

Because of my interest and learning more about using World

Heritage site designations as a political tool, I attended the World

Heritage Committee’s meeting at UNESCO’s headquarters in Paris

last July. That meeting was entirely devoted to the attempt by

international and environmental groups to stop construction of a

uranium mine in Australia adjacent to the Kakadu National Park.

It defied the imagination how mining opponents, after exhausting

all of their administrative and legal remedies in Australia, were

given standing before the World Heritage Committee to make their

case to stop the mine.

Several days before I arrived at the Paris meeting, UNESCO’s

World Heritage Committee briefly discussed the World Commission

on Protected Area’s position paper on mining and associated activities in relation to protected areas. After spending the last several

weeks devoted to stopping the Clinton-Gore plan to stop development and access to 40 million acres of American’s national forests,

I am astounded that an organization of unelected international academics and bureaucrats has drafted a document setting guidelines

for mining on private and public lands in the United States.

Madam Chairman, I hope today’s hearing helps answer some of

the questions that you have expressed, such as what has been the

role of the United States Government in drafting this mining policy; and in addition to that, what American mining companies,

large and small, have been consulted about this mining policy. And

further, how much money does the United States Government

transfer to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature,

IUCN, which oversees the World Commission on Protected Areas,

and finally what assurance can Assistant Secretary Barry give us

in the subcommittee that the Pittman-Robertson Federal aid to
8

wildlife slush funds have not been used for foreign travel or other

expenses associated with this mining policy statement.

Miners in Idaho are already overwhelmed by the Clinton-Gore

administration’s strong antimining policies and all of the meetings

and public comment periods associated with them. How can this

Congress subject them now to the whim of a World Heritage Committee that is dominated by unelected people from outside the

United States?

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for allowing me to sit in on this

hearing.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. I will now introduce the witnesses for

today’s hearing.

Our first witness will testify by way of video conference from the

United Kingdom. I would like to welcome Mr. Adrian Phillips,

Chair of the World Commission on Protected Areas of the IUCN.

Our second witness is the Honorable Don Barry, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the U.S.

Department of the Interior; followed by the Honorable Malcolm

Wallop, chairman of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute; and General Richard L. Lawson, Chairman of the National Mining Association.

Let me remind the witnesses that they must limit their oral

statements to 5 minutes, but that their entire statements will appear in the record. We will allow the entire panel to testify before

questioning the witnesses.

Also, let me mention that these hearings are now broadcast live

over the Internet. And there are on an off switches on the microphones for your use in controlling the privacy of your conversations.

STATEMENTS OF ADRIAN PHILLIPS, CHAIR, WORLD COMMISSION ON PROTECTED AREAS (IUCN), EVESHAM, UNITED

KINGDOM; HONORABLE DON BARRY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF INTERIOR FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; HONORABLE MALCOLM WALLOP, CHAIRMAN, FRONTIERS OF FREEDOM INSTITUTE; AND GENERAL RICHARD L. LAWSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION

Mrs. CUBIN. The Chair now recognizes Adrian Phillips.

STATEMENT OF ADRIAN PHILLIPS

Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I want to begin by saying that only a very small part of your

opening statements and those of your two colleagues, were audible

here, so I am afraid that we only picked up a little of what you

said.

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in your hearing on

mining, protected areas and the world heritage convention. The

topic is timely and often controversial, It would be good if more

light can be thrown on the facts.

Let me introduce myself first. I am a geographer and regional

planner by background. I have worked at the National and Inter-
9

national level in the environmental field since the early 1960’s. For

11 years I headed up a U.K. Government agency on the countryside. Among my current jobs in the U.K. is advice to one of the

largest aggregate (i.e. hard rock) companies in Europe.

Since 1994, I have been the elected, volunteer (i.e. unpaid) chair

of the World Commission on Protected Areas of IUCN, about which

I will say more in a moment. It is in that capacity and as a member of IUCN’s council that I appear today.

I want at the outset to say how appropriate it is that this hearing should be undertaken by a Congressional Committee from the

United States. Why so?

Well, the U.S. is where the idea of National Parks began. It was

such a good idea that it travelled around the world.

Then it was with vision and President Nixon’s enthusiastic support that the World Heritage Convention was launched in 1972.

IUCN itself came into being with the help of distinguished Americans, notably Hal Coolidge, a member of the Coolidge family. Within IUCN, Coolidge was a passionate advocate of the idea of National Parks and set up what is now the World Commission on Protected Areas which I chair.

More recently, under President Reagan, the United States initiated the process of joining IUCN. This process was completed in

1990 under President Bush.

The United States’ contribution to National parks, the World

Heritage and IUCN is held in high regard around the world even

if we find some areas where we disagree today. I hope you will recognize and support the leadership role that the U.S. has played in

these fields over the years.

You have our written testimony. I may well need to refer to it

in answering specific questions. But rather than repeat it now, I

want to stress just three points:

First: The alphabet soup: What are IUCN and WCPA?

IUCN—The World Conservation Union, is a truly unique body.

It brings together governments and non-governmental organizations in a union or partnership to tackle the big issues of conservation and sustainable development. No other organization does that.

IUCN’s members currently number 933. There are 76 state (i.e.

country) members (of which the U.S.A. is one) and 111 Government

agencies. The rest are National and International NGO’s. They

meet every few years in a global World Conservation Congress.

This is the highest policy-making body for the union. The next such

meeting will be in Amman, Jordan in a year’s time.

IUCN is also unique because it includes expert networks, or commissions, in its structure, there are six of these. One of them is the

World Commission on Protected Areas, or WCPA for short.

Thus WCPA is part of IUCN, but with a distinct identity. It is

a volunteer network of individual protected area experts from

around the world. We have a number of leading North American

experts among our members. A key task for us is to advise on how

to plan and manage protected areas.

And so, secondly, our position statement. You have no doubt read

this. It contains no surprises. It is in fact based on common-sense

and good practice.
10

‘‘Common-sense’’ because if an area has been ‘‘protected’’ for nature in natural law as a National Park, nature reserve or so on,

you would be surprised if large scale mining were allowed within

it.

And ‘‘good practice’’ because what we recommend is in fact what

many countries already do.

The statement is an opinion and advice from a network of experts, many of whom have experience in dealing with mining issues

in respect of protected areas. It gives a clear message about the importance of such areas and their protection. It also recognizes the

value of cooperation between protected area agencies and the mining industry.

Thirdly, the title of this hearing seems to be based on a misconception. It is ‘‘the proposed world Heritage Committee policy

prohibiting mining in areas surrounding world heritage sites’’.

Well, to the best of our knowledge, no such policy has been proposed moreover, the invitation letter to the hearing says that this

alleged policy has been developed by IUCN. IUCN has never developed such a policy and the WCPA position statement of mining activities in relation to protected areas could not possibly be construed in this way.

To conclude, WCPA is a global volunteer network. We are committed to IUCN’s values: respecting science and technical quality;

providing informed advice, encouraging dialogue; and seeking to

link protection with finding sustainable livelihood for local people.

That concludes my statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:]
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you for your testimony. The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Don Barry, Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DONALD J. BARRY

Mr. BARRY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to thank

the committee for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the

Department of the Interior’s views regarding the proposed policy to

prohibit mining in areas surrounding World Heritage sites. At the

outset of this discussion it is important to clarify exactly what is

at issue today and what is not.

First, I note that the invitation the Department received to testify references, quote, ‘‘the proposed World Heritage Committee policy prohibiting mining in areas surrounding World Heritage sites,’’

end of quote, which is an understandable, but incorrect characterization of the document that you invited us here today to discuss.

The document entitled, quote, ‘‘a position statement on mining and

associated activities in relation to protected areas,’’ end of quote, a

copy of which is attached to my testimony, has been drafted by one

of the six subgroups or commissions of the IUCN.

This statement does not propose an all-out ban on mining in

parks or protected areas. Moreover, this statement has not been

formally proposed for adoption by the World Heritage Committee;

there is no indication that it will be proposed for adoption. It was

provided to the World Heritage Committee as an information document only.

Furthermore, even if such a statement of policy were adopted by

the World Heritage Committee, it would not bind the United States

in any way. The World Heritage Convention explicitly recognizes

the sovereignty of parties’ oversights in their territories on the

World Heritage list.

Actions taken in the United States to protect World Heritage

sites are taken pursuant to our own domestic laws. Further background on the mining position statement and on the United States

participation of the World Heritage Convention was offered in the

interests of putting concerns surrounding this document to rest.

The World Heritage Committee was established under the 1972

Heritage Convention to place natural and cultural sites of outstanding universal value on the World Heritage list. The committee

also identifies sites for inclusion on the list of World Heritage in

danger. The United States has had a longstanding and leading role

in all aspects of the World Heritage Convention. To begin with, the

idea of negotiating the convention was an environmental initiative

of the Nixon administration. Following the ratification of the convention by the United States Senate in 1973 with a 95 to 0 vote,

the United States has been active in the work of the World Heritage Committee. The first meeting of the convention, for example,

took place in Washington, D.C. In 1978.

The World Heritage list currently includes 20 of America’s most

outstanding natural wonders and cultural sites and are recognized

as of world importance: Mesa Verde, Grand Canyon, the Hawaii

volcanoes national parks, and the Statue of Liberty are some of the

United States sites on the World Heritage lists. These United
46

States World Heritage sites are beloved by the American public;

they also attract tourists from all over the world.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN,

also known as the World Conservation Union, is an international

organization comprised of governmental entities and nongovernmental organizations. Established in 1948, it is one of the world’s

oldest international conservation organizations. IUCN is a union of

government agencies and nongovernmental organizations who work

with scientists and experts to protect nature in cultural areas. The

State Department, NOAA, EPA, USAID, the National Park Service

are some of the U.S. Government agency members.

In addition to bringing together the governments and nongovernment organizations, IUCN has set up international networks of volunteer experts grouped together and six global commissions that

perform specialized work. The World Commission on Protected

Areas is one of these commissions. It is concerned with parks and

nature reserves generally, and drafted the document on mining

that we are discussing at this hearing today.

The World Heritage Convention designated IUCN as an official

advisor on natural site issues. The World Heritage Bureau, a subcommittee of the World Heritage Committee, was informed in December of 1998 that a position statement on mining and associated

activities was being prepared by the World Commission on Protected Areas under the auspices of IUCN. The bureau requested

that the document be made available for information purposes at

the bureau’s July 1999 meeting. To the best of our knowledge, it

would be nothing more than an information document for the full

committee meeting in December.

I would like to emphasize again that the statement is not being

proposed for adoption by the committee as a policy to be applied

to World Heritage sites. Insofar as the content of the mining statement is concerned, it defines positions towards mining and associated activities in and adjacent to protected areas.

The statement recommends that mining be considered an incompatible activity within national parks and equivalent reserves that

are managed mainly for science, wilderness protection, ecosystem

protection or the protection of some specific natural features or species. In protected areas managed for mixed uses, the statement

suggests that mining could be permitted under controlled circumstances and conditions. Regarding mining outside parks, it concerns itself only with the indirect impacts that mining may have

on parks.

In summary, the Department receives advice all the time from

many quarters on how to manage and operate national parks and

wildlife areas in the United States. These suggestions are considered, but they do not control us nor do they dictate in any way

United States park policy.

We protect parks because they are America’s national treasures,

and it is our responsibility under United States domestic law, not

because IUCN documents or World Commission on Protected Areas

documents suggest that we should. We are sworn to protect the

parks, and the American people and your constituents expect us to

do so.
47

In conclusion, let me emphasize that there would be no occasion

for the United States to either endorse or adopt this mining policy

statement inasmuch as such informational policies by organizations

like the World Commission on Protected Areas, or IUCN, or the

World Heritage Committee do not supersede U.S. law under any

circumstance.

That concludes my statement. Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barry follows:]
48
49
50
51

Mrs. CUBIN. The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Malcolm

Wallop, chairman of Frontiers of Freedom

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE MALCOLM WALLOP

Senator WALLOP. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you

for holding the hearing.

I am here as a representative of my group called the Frontiers

of Freedom, which has been a strong supporter of Chairman Don

Young’s American Lands Sovereignty Protection Act since it was

first introduced in the 104th Congress, and we are grateful for your

strong support. We are pleased that it has once again passed the

House, and it is now awaiting action in the Senate; but it is crucial

that this important legislation be passed and enacted into law as

soon as possible.

The latest actions of the IUCN and the proposed action of the

World Heritage Committee are troubling validation for supporters

of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. Nearly 3 years

ago Frontiers of Freedom was invited to testify at a hearing of an

earlier version of this legislation, and testifying on the same panel

on behalf of the United Nations was Nina Sibal, the Director of the

New York and Washington offices of UNESCO. Director Sibal testified that, quote, ‘‘The United Nations and its specialized agencies,

such as UNESCO, have absolutely no jurisdiction over the territories designated as biosphere reserves or World Heritage sites

which remain totally under national jurisdiction.’’

Madam Chairman, you would agree that this is a good and clear

statement and would be reassuring if it were only true in practice.

But in fact the World Heritage Committee, while protesting that it

in no way threatens to infringe on national sovereignty, does just

that. The intervention of the World Heritage Committee over the

New World Mine and mentionied by Representative Chenoweth

north of Yellowstone Park, one of the original 12 World Heritage

sites, is the best known example in this country. And one of the

great effects of that was to stop a mining company which was engaged in reclamation of former mining waste, and disposal was

stopped in that. So not only did the park receive no protection, it

in fact exacerbated the problems that already existed at that site.

There is an expanding list of others.

On December 1, as mentioned again by Representative

Chenoweth-Hage, the Jabiluka uranium mine constituted a threat

to Australia’s Kakadu National Park, despite an official finding of

the Australian Government that it did not constitute a threat. The

Australian Government made this finding after an exhaustive environmental review process over many years as prescribed by their

own environmental laws. The World Heritage Committee made its

finding after a brief visit, such as the one visited upon us, by a special investigation team from outside the country; and they generated a huge amount of hysteria, called by my friend, Assistant

Secretary Barry, ‘‘dialogue by environmental pressure groups.’’ The

World Heritage Committee and the UN may not yet have the

power to enforce any findings, but it is clearly an attempt to assert

authority over management of Kakadu National Park.

In December, in Morocco, the committee will consider the recommendations to ban mining near World Heritage sites. This is
52

outrageous on three counts. First, it is a blatant attempt to establish management jurisdiction over buffer areas or zones around the

sites. The intention to assert buffer zones has been repeatedly and

expressly denied by UN officials.

Secondly, the World Heritage Committee has no authority and

should have no role. Those decisions should be left, as you mentioned, to the elected representatives of the United States.

Third, the behavior of our own administration is equally outrageous. Secretary Barry was saying that everything would be followed by U.S. laws, but we have come to find that U.S. laws can

be superseded by executive orders, and we are worried that executive orders would do just this.

It appears that the administration thinks little of our Nation’s

tradition of conducting the people’s business in the open, and in a

way to involve the very people and businesses most impacted by

these proposed policies. How else can they explain their attempt to

use the U.N. to slip this proposed policy by the American public

without involving the people’s representatives and the people in the

industry that have the most at stake? The result would be a disaster for American sovereignty, for private property rights, Federal

land management, and environmental protection and to the industries affected.

Surely such a policy should not be pursued in secret nor should

such authority be ceded to international bureaucrats. It is for Congress to decide such policies and not the Clinton Administration.

Another issue is the fact that this policy, whether it has any authority or not, will be another weapon in the arsenal of environmental pressure groups to stop economic development all around

the world. Just as in the case of the New World Mine, north of Yellowstone, pressure groups will use this policy to have World Heritage sites declared as in peril and will use the publicity to whip up

public opinion against proposed oil, gas, and mining activity.

Madam Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I would be

happy to answer any questions that you or the committee may

have.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Senator Wallop.

[The prepared statement of Senator Wallop follows:]
53
54
55
56

Mrs. CUBIN. The Chair now recognizes General Richard Lawson,

the President of the National Mining Association.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. LAWSON

Mr. LAWSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am Richard

Lawson, the President of the National Mining Association, and our

association represents those enterprises that deliver to public use

most of the metals, minerals and coal that are required to uphold

and strengthen America in daily life. This hearing is a public service of the first order, the first open and public discussion of an

international proposal of national and global importance.

The governing apparatus of the World Heritage Convention of

the United Nations appears poised to initiate a no-mining policy.

Yet, until now, it scarcely could have moved forward with less notice had stealth and stratagem been their principal implementing

strategy. The United States and other signatories will be pressured

intensely to use this policy vigorously in the guise of expanding

control over already-designated areas. Indeed, some recent mine-related interpretations of policy at the Department of the Interior, including the new policy directive on millsites, seems to have this nomining policy already in mind. Yet the scope, intent and origins of

this policy have yet to be offered for public examination. They have

not been explained or justified as representative democracy requires, not so much as even mentioned by the participating agencies in the U.S. Government to the mining industry.

The U.S. contains a major portion of the world’s minable resources, a major share of the world’s natural sites with the Heritage designation, and a major number of the areas categorized for

protection in the world, well over 18 Heritage sites in all. U.N. Documents list about 426,000 square miles of the United States as so

protected. Just for your information, that is equal to Germany and

the United Kingdom and Japan and throwing in Bosnia and Croatia just to make an idea of the amount of area that we are talking

about.

The United States mining industry is a major producer and

major participant in world markets for most of the material resources and energy needed to uphold modern life. It is the world’s

most efficient and the world’s most technologically adept at environmental protection and remediation. Such a policy would affect

present and future output of our mining industry. Yet the industry

has neither been advised nor consulted, not by the convention or

the governing committee, not by the committee bureau of the affiliate from which the policy comes, the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature, not by the U.S. Department of State and

not by the U.S. Department of the Interior as part of the U.S. participation in the convention or its like participation in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the IUCN.

Indeed, IUCN policy excludes from membership and participation

any that it finds not in accord with its beliefs and objectives. Members include such organizations as the World Resources Institute,

the National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the World

Wildlife Fund, but no mining organization.
57

It is true that the World Heritage Convention cannot require

compliance. It is equally true that these organizations are likely to

wage campaigns of pressure and possibly litigation to make nomining a formal policy. That would be wielded as a weapon whenever and wherever a mine is proposed. The danger is that a nomining policy quickly will be made to function as the following:

As a de facto obligation of the United States of America;

As a policy, even though it has not been authorized by any act

of the Congress;

As a sanctioned regulatory practice, even though imposed in defiance of the Administrative Procedures Act;

As the regulatory equivalent of a law even though there can be

no proper judicial review or appeal as provided for by the Constitution; and

Finally, it will certainly be used and abused in the campaigns of

intimidation to nullify and override proper decisions of representative governments—local, State, and Federal.

The ultimate results of a no-mining policy may well include:

The removal of vast resources from public use and benefit, a

crude form of rationing;

Higher prices than necessary for energy goods and services;

The distortion of world markets for energy and material resources;

Strains on national and global economic security; and

Increased demands for the commitment of U.S. national security

forces to keep world affairs stable.

In sum, the World Heritage Committee’s no-mining policy is an

instrument of manipulation, mischief and maladministration. I

urge you to do all in your power to ensure it falls back into the

mists of vagueness and obscurity from which it arose.

It shows cause for the enactment of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act in the 106th Congress; and it suggests that

Congress could constructively inquire into the functions and relationships of the organizations and groups involved.

Written testimony that I have attached goes into further detail.

Thank you for your attention and this opportunity.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, General Lawson.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawson follows:]
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

Mrs. CUBIN. I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. Can

you hear better now, Mr. Phillips?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes, I can hear better now.

Mrs. CUBIN. I do thank all of the witnesses for their testimony

and the members for their attention. The Chair will now recognize

members for questions of the panel, and I will begin by asking

Chairman Chenoweth to begin.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am directing my questions to Mr. Phillips.

I am sure that you are aware of a document entitled, Metals

from the Forest, which is published jointly by IUCN and the World

Wildlife Fund. This publication was issued in January of 1999. Mr.

Phillips, it appears to have a very strong bias against mineral protection by making some very outrageous claims. Let me read to you

some of those claims in part of the article entitled ‘‘Social Impacts’’;

that section is found on page 24.

One of the statements that they make is, ‘‘Large-scale mines displace local communities.’’ I find that astonishing. This statement

and the rest of this fails to mention communities that are being

created throughout the world where mining companies are building

housing and schools and other facilities to actually improve people’s

lives.

Another statement that is made in this document states, ‘‘State

or private armies are sometimes used to secure mines.’’ now, the

document cites the Grasberg-Ertsberg mine in Indonesia as an example, but armies in Indonesia have done many heinous acts in

East Timor and have no relationship whatsoever with mining.

This is obviously an outrageous example intended to promote an

antimining agenda, sir.

Furthermore, this article states, ‘‘Life expectancies of people living near mining sites can be substantially reduced,’’ end quote. Let

me assure you that life expectancies can be reduced by living near

a high-crime area like within 1 mile of this hearing room. Needless

to say, this is another bizarre statement in this document.

And they state that mineral wealth can actually depress social

conditions in developing countries. Is this not why the Congressional Black Caucus earlier this year urged the International Monetary Fund not to depress world gold prices and devastate black

mine workers in South Africa by conducting large gold sales?

And finally, sir, in this article it ends by saying, ‘‘In fact, the superior resources base of a mineral economy has been more of a

curse than a blessing.’’ .

Now, these are shocking statements. Let me ask you, did IUCN

have a peer review process before this publication went out?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Well, thank you for drawing my attention to that,

and obviously I am aware of the document. I have a copy here. I

would like to make two points by way of reply.

The first is to completely refute the idea that IUCN has, as you

put it, an antimining agenda. That is wholly wrong. We recognize

that mining companies make a very significant contribution to national economies and indeed to the development of society as a

whole. It would be our wish to have more contact with mining companies. I would like to come back to this issue in a moment when
71

I address some of the specific points that you just made about the

publication.

The publication is, I think, a well-documented and well-researched effort to establish some of the problems associated with

mining. We have received one letter which has pointed out some

apparent errors, a very constructive letter from Freeport which relates to the mining in Irian Jaya, Indonesia. If there are other

shortcomings in the text, we would be very pleased to receive information about these and comment on them, but I want to come back

to the first point.

The view of IUCN towards the mining industry is that there are

important environmental responsibilities that they should take on,

and many of the best companies do. But we would like to get into

a much more constructive dialogue with the mining industry. There

is fortunately a possibility of that being developed at the global

level through a current initiative of the major mining companies

under the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. I

would like it to be known, and put on record, that IUCN would like

to participate with the major mining companies in that discussion.

I believe that is a constructive way forward.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Will there be a peer review process before documents such as this are issued in the future? And what

would the peer review process consist of?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Well, as I said, I think that we now need to move

into a process of dialogue with the mining companies and work on

this issue together. I have got here beside me a number of examples where IUCN has worked with different sectors of industry

and, in fact, produced guidance that has the support of both the

IUCN network and the mining sectors concerned. (I am using the

word ‘‘mining’’ in the broader context).

I think peer review for publications on mining and the environment can best be done by bringing together the conservation world

and the mining or developmental world. That is a healthy approach, and an appropriate desire for publications issued by IUCN.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Professor.

I am now looking at your statement that you have submitted to

this committee where you state that this document in question before the committee is not a policy statement, but rather a position

paper—I don’t feel very sanguine about that because of what happened to us in the New World Mine—but that these positions are

arrived at through recommendations through the governmental

and nongovernmental members of the World Conservation Congress, and the statement comes in the form of an opinion. It does

not purport to be a negotiated text, but they do take care to try

to consider the views of the mining industry and to encourage dialogue.

I also note in your testimony that the protected area management categories are referred to back here on page 7, and that there

is also a quote here from the 1999 Paris meeting where the bureau

took note of the position paper that came out of the 1998 Kyoto

meeting. And the final sentence that is quoted here indicates that

mining companies don’t seem to fall into any one of the six categories that are under consideration for management.
72

So, in essence, Professor, it appears you have, through this statement, defined mining out of the argument by definition. And so

this does not assure us very much of, first of all, our own sovereign

ability to control our resources; and secondly, that mining is considered a category for management.

Let me read to you what your statement says. It says, ‘‘Finally,

it has to be noted that mining is not considered to be compatible

with any of the Categories I through IV and, for V and VI, only

under certain conditions. IUCN is prepared to continue consultations on this issue including with the mining industry and its

International Council on Metals and the Environment.’’

I yield back the balance of my time which I see I don’t have any

left.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CUBIN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. There are two

ostensible issues that have been raised in concern of the activities

of the World Heritage Council and the IUCN. One pertains to, as

outlined by our colleague from Idaho, that there is an existing

antimining bias in the nature of your work, Professor Phillips. The

other is the concern that somehow or other the work that you engage in erodes national sovereignty and infringes upon the rights

of independent states to somehow manage their own resources.

I am interested in your reaction to the characterization of your

efforts regarding that perhaps you have a kind of stealth agenda,

not in terms of an antimining bias, but simply in terms of how do

you—what is the nature of your work? Do you have something else

in mind as you proceed?

If indeed you adopt these guidelines at the World Heritage Committee—which I understand are not your guidelines; they are being

proposed to you and you are to address them sometime next month.

If you adopt these, what do you foresee in terms of the interaction

in the nature of your work that would conceivably alter the capacity of independent states to manage their resources?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you very much. I think it is important, first,

to make it clear that this position statement comes from a body of

experts in protected areas. It is not IUCN policy. If that requires

further explanation, I would be very pleased to provide it.

It is a position adopted by experts and offered as advice, in a

sense, to anybody in the protected areas world who wishes to listen. It clearly doesn’t have the power to override or even affect sovereignty. Governments, state governments and others are entirely

free, obviously, to determine what happens in their national parks

and other protected areas according to national laws, and they are

accountable to their national populations for that purpose.

I think the most useful contribution that this position statement

can make is to illuminate the discussions that will take place within countries it would help, for example, many developing countries

to decide whether or not to grant mining licenses and where priority should be given to conservation. So it is a technical contribution to an ongoing debate.

I don’t see, as I said, anything in this which by any stretch of

the imagination could be said to affect, let alone erode, sovereignty—not in the way in which it is written nor given the origin
73

of the organization responsible for it. Because as I said, the World

Commission on Protected Areas is a network of experts operating

in this field. We have no powers, none whatsoever, to instruct other

people. That is a totally unreal representation of this work.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Professor, wouldn’t you concede that by—since

you are a world body of experts, wouldn’t you concede that by making sweeping statements or perhaps making recommendations or

adopting recommendations that you are, in effect, interposing your

considerable influence in what are normally conceived of as internal debate?

Mr. PHILLIPS. No, I don’t think so. I don’t think that I would accept it as being sweeping. I would say that most of this, as I said

in my introductory oral statement, is really no more than what

many countries do in any case. So it is just a statement of good

practice.

Governments all around the world are on the receiving end of a

great deal of advice from different sources; there are other sources,

and some of that advice will be contrary. It doesn’t override sovereignty, it is just a piece of information that governments and others could make use of when they have to make decisions on land

use planning and protected areas in the future and so forth.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I certainly thank you for your participation

today and your comments have been very illuminating.

I just wanted to ask Senator Wallop and perhaps General

Lawson just a quick question on how you see this issue, because

the issue of national sovereignty is, I think—I appreciate the concern about mining, but I want to stick to the issue of whether this

in some way erodes—since both of your testimonies make reference

to that—it erodes or inhibits our capacity to manage our own resources.

Is it the position of either of you that any kind of participation

in international agencies or activities of this kind is undesirable,

and we should withhold from that; or are you just upset with the

fact that they seem to be going in a given direction?

Senator WALLOP. That is sort of a magnificent generalization of

the position that we think any kind of participation would be out

of acceptable—.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Is there some redeeming value to our participation in World Heritage?

Senator WALLOP. Not generally, as General Lawson would tell

you. There has been no dialogue with the mining industry. In fact,

they refused to allow them in. There have been no dialogues with

the administration, with any level of it, in any participation.

I think you mentioned that the State Department, they wouldn’t

even come to talk to your committee. Neither would the Environmental Protection Agency, neither would Interior, before going off

and making these recommendations. Professor Phillips says they

don’t have any intention of influencing national policy; clearly they

do. They did in Australia, they did in Wyoming with the Noranda

mine. And it was used by the Clinton administration’s Department

of the Interior to generate and whip up a public furor and to eliminate all chances of dialogue.

A stereo is not dialogue; it requires a couple of people to talk before you do that. There is not one group of people shouting, and
74

that is what it was used to do. The President, taking his manly vacations, in Wyoming in those years managed to take a little trip

up there; and then we invited Canadians, Norwegians, and some

other people, French, to come and tell us that we did not know how

to take care of our own property and that we were threatening a

World Heritage site. So the fact of it is, our experience tells us that

they do have the intention of and are very effective at influencing

national policy.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. General Lawson.

Mr. LAWSON. I think one of the aspects that concerns us about

the issue was, first of all, the reference to the mining industry. And

the representative has indicated that he has no experts on his

group that are experts in mining, that they are only experts about

the so-called Heritage areas. Then how could he suggest, for example, as Congressman Chenoweth points out, that mining is not appropriate in I, II, III and IV, and only marginally appropriate in

V and VI?

The minerals of this globe are not uniformly distributed. They

happen where they happen. This not only talks about mining; it

talks about the association, the exploration, all aspects of the industry. This kind of action is used not just where a mining activity

would occur, but it wants to preclude any examination at all. As

I cited, this is not an insignificant amount of the U.S. land. It is

a very large amount of area, 462 million acres.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank you. And I thank the indulgence of the

Chair.

Just a brief comment. I wanted to point out that in the categories

as I understand them that Categories I through IV include wilderness areas and national parks; we don’t allow mining in any of

them.

But the concern that I want to—because the term ‘‘hysteria’’ has

been used. To the extent that I understand how sometimes statements are used by various advocacy groups and the statement by

the World Heritage Committee, I am sure, could carry a great

weight and sometimes could be used in a way that may appear to

elicit an overly emotional response.

I think when we start dealing with issues of national sovereignty, I think we run into the same kind of problem. I think

characterizing some of these things as infringements on national

sovereignty, I think goes beyond the pale also in terms of the debate about what we are confronting within terms of the actions of

the World Heritage Council.

Senator WALLOP. If I may, yes, language does tend to run upstream from reality in some of this, but we are operating from experience.

We have in this country a well-tested procedure for determining

threat or danger of environmental or otherwise when undertaking

major national issues. It is called an Environmental Impact Statement. This administration was unwilling to wait for that result;

they got a hold of the foreign inspector—I don’t know what they

call them, but they were—they were the ones that brought them

down.

So testifying from experience, maybe not in every instance, I am

perfectly willing to concede that in every instance they don’t seek
75

to influence national policy. But when they do, they are very effective at it because they do whip up hysteria and they do stop dialogue; and they did in this instance stop the procedure that has

been set down in law to determine threat.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I think my point is, even in the short time that

I have been associated with this subcommittee, I have received numerous messages about the activities of the World Heritage Committee which I would consider hysterical in terms of the fact that

they are some way infringing upon our capacity to do regular business. That is what I am saying. So I think the use of the term

‘‘hysteria’’ or the introduction of it into the debate could cut both

ways.

Of course, we are free to ignore whatever the World Heritage

Committee says or whatever they point out. So I just wanted to,

in a sense, balance the books on that.

I also wanted to congratulate Mike there for his work on this

televideo conditions. We heard that trans-Atlantic sneeze very

clearly.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate your

leadership on this issue and the fact that you have taken the time

to bring a hearing together on this very troubling issue. I want to

follow on some of the comments of my colleague from Guam, Mr.

Underwood, with the sovereignty issue.

It seems only too clear that if we cede part of the power of the

United States Government over its own internal affairs, its own internal property to an agency outside of the United States without

the concurrence of the Congress, then we have yet conceded power

of the United States Government. When you concede power of the

government, you then concede the rights of people under the Constitution of the United States to those properties as well.

I am concerned that we now have an agency with a concurrence

of this government that may very well, without notice, without

right of recourse, be able to have or give a direction and influence

property in the United States.

I would like to turn, if I could, to Mr. Barry and ask him, what

role did the Department of the Interior have or play in inviting or

bringing the World Heritage people—I presume it is the World

Heritage Committee—to the New World project? What role did you

play?

Mr. BARRY. I was not the Assistant Secretary at the time, and

I had no personal involvement in the New World Mine situation.

But it is my recollection that George Frampton, my predecessor,

did indicate that it would be worthwhile to have some experts come

from the World Heritage Center to take a look at the situation at

New Mine.

Mr. GIBBONS. So your testimony is that the Department of the

Interior invited the World Heritage Committee and its experts on

mining to view—come to the New World project; is that correct?

Mr. BARRY. That is correct.

Mr. GIBBONS. Now, you testified in paragraph 4, the last sentence of your testimony that you wrote here today, that actions

taken in the United States to protect World Heritage sites are
76

taken pursuant to our own domestic laws. According to our U.S. domestic law—and may I cite to you 16 USC 470(A)(1)(c), ‘‘No nonFederal property may be nominated by the Secretary of Interior to

the World Heritage Committee for inclusion on the World Heritage

list unless the owner of the property concurs in writing to such

nomination.’’

Now, since the Interior Department invited the World Heritage

Committee to that property, how do you balance that invitation

with the laws that say that U.S. property is protected according to

our own domestic laws, when in fact it ended up being a World

Heritage nomination and excluded from further operations?

Mr. BARRY. The reference is to Yellowstone, not to the New

World Mine site. It was Yellowstone that was the World Heritage

site. Most of the sites that we have on the World Heritage list are

national parks. There are only about three or four examples that

are not national park units and they were all put on the list with

the concurrence of the owners. Monticello, Jefferson’s home, is an

example.

Mr. GIBBONS. Was the New World project put on the list with the

concurrence with the owners?

Mr. BARRY. No, it’s not on the list.

Mr. GIBBONS. Did those experts go to the New World project?

Mr. BARRY. It was Yellowstone—.

Mr. GIBBONS. Did they go to the New World project?

Mr. BARRY. They took a look at it, as I understood, but I wasn’t

there at the time.

Mr. GIBBONS. The point was just made by staff that they were

using a designation on private property outside of the park, so it

was an extension of what you have been testifying in strong support of here today, that they used on private property ultimately.

Let me ask another question. This IUCN mining statement that

you say is just a statement. Will the United States and this administration oppose any adoption, any proposal of adoption, of that

statement if it is proposed in the World Heritage Committee?

Mr. BARRY. We will have no opportunity one way or the other to

vote for it or against it because the United States is not a member

of the bureau, will not be a member of the committee. We are just

going in as observer status for this particular meeting, so we will

have no opportunity to express our views about it one way or the

other.

I have to also let you know that we are not under any impression

that this document is going to be brought up by any vote by anybody.

Mr. GIBBONS. Will this administration use its influence knowing

the disastrous effect it is having on the United States to oppose

any adoption of this statement?

Mr. BARRY. I would have to disagree with your characterization

of the effect of this document or the effect of the World Heritage

Convention on World Heritage sites in this country. I should point

out that it was a Republican-controlled Congress that gave us $64

million to buy the New World Mine. If this was such a disaster in

the making, why did the Republican-controlled Congress give us

the money to buy that out?
77

Mr. GIBBONS. That is like saying once the horse is out of the

barn we are going to close the door and stop everything from happening that is disastrous. What we were doing was saving the lawsuit and the contract and the agreement that these people had invested in that property before this designation came along.

I yield back the balance of my time to the chairman.

Mrs. CUBIN. I tell you, this stuff gets out of hand. Thank you for

your question, Mr. Gibbons.

I would like to start my questioning with Adrian Phillips. Was

the mining position endorsed by the IUCN Council?

Mr. PHILLIPS. No, it was not. It was welcomed by the Council.

I could read you the text from the council minutes. Would you like

me to do that or—.

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, I don’t know exactly—I don’t understand your

terminology, so I guess, yes, go ahead and read it.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I will quote from the minutes first so that we can

be quite clear what the official record is:

‘‘The Council welcomes the World Commission on Protected

Area’s position statement on mining and associated activities in relation to protected areas as an important contribution to IUCN’s

work in protected areas and partnership with the private sector.’’

That is from the minutes of the Council of the IUCN meeting in

April of this year.

Mrs. CUBIN. I don’t think that that actually is what I intended.

I must not have made myself clear in the question.

I have a document in front of me that says ‘‘The WCPA Position

Statement on Mining and Associated Activities in Relation to Protected Areas,’’ and it says, ‘‘endorsed by the IUCN Council on 27

April 1999.’’.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Which document is that, Madam Chairwoman?

Mrs. CUBIN. It is one that was passed out in Paris. The document

is WHC–99/conference.201/INF.14.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes. I know the document and what it states is incorrect. When I learned about this, I informed the World Heritage

Center and I said, this is a misrepresentation of the status of the

position statement. And the document that goes to the participants

in the World Heritage Committee meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco

will make clear the status of this document, and will correct that

mistake in the cover note.

Mrs. CUBIN. I would like to go back to the statements that were

in the document that Mrs. Chenoweth referred to. She asked you

if you agreed with these or if this was the position of the IUCN,

if it remains a position. I didn’t understand your answers, so if you

could just respond to these, I will just cover them.

‘‘Large-scale mines displace local communities.’’ The point that I

am getting at is while I think the statements made in that document appear to have a very strong bias against mineral production

because these, what I consider to be outrageous claims were made

especially when there is no mention whatsoever of the good that

mining provides to the people of the world. I think leaving that out

terribly distorts the whole picture. You do agree with this statement, ‘‘large scale mines displace local communities’’? You do or

you don’t?
78

Mr. PHILLIPS. Well, I am sure there are one or two cases where

that is correct. But I would have expected that in this document

and I believe there is a reference to it there should also be a proper

recognition of the positive role that mining and minerals can play

in the economy and the lives of people.

But the document also quite rightly points out there are problems, too, environmental and social problems. It is not a particularly dramatic thing to identify those. They are pretty well-known

and often referred to. To my mind, the most constructive way forward now would be to focus on these problems through a proper

dialogue between the mining industry and the principal conservation organizations, as I suggested earlier.

Mrs. CUBIN. So at this point in time do you or do you not think

that that statement is relevant and reflects reality?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Well—.

Mrs. CUBIN. Yes or no would be better.

Mr. PHILLIPS. You are taking one line out of context.

Mrs. CUBIN. No, I am not. It says after that—pardon me? I am

going to be taking these others, I am not taking them out of context. These are statements that are made.

The next one is ‘‘State or private armies are sometimes used to

secure mines.’’ Do you think that is fair, accurate and not misleading?

Mr. PHILLIPS. I think it is misleading if one identifies a particular issue without providing justification for it. The particular

reference goes on to quote a number of examples of mines which

have led to some displacement of people. And that seems to me to

be a perfectly fair thing to put in the social impacts.

I also think that it would be helpful to put in some of the positive

things that mining contributes, and I am well aware that the livelihoods of many people depend upon an effective mining industry.

But to deny there are problems seems to me to be unreal.

Mrs. CUBIN. Are you familiar with the term ‘‘multiple use’’ and

what it means in the United States?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Sorry?

Mrs. CUBIN. Are you familiar with the term ‘‘multiple use’’ and

what it means in the United States?

Mr. PHILLIPS. I am familiar with the term. Please proceed, and

I will see if I understand its application in the United States.

Mrs. CUBIN. ‘‘multiple use’’ means the public lands can be used

for multiple purposes and that that is the policy by which our public lands are used; we don’t think that you necessarily need to

eliminate one use or another.

I am going to ask Mr. Barry this next question if can I find it.

In Wyoming—just a second. I just scribbled all over it. Thank you.

In Wyoming there are Category III locations which your—there

are—two that I am going to speak specifically, of which your policy

says that mining should be prohibited by law or other effective

means; and these areas include Como Bluff near the town of Medicine Bow and Lance Creek fossil area near the town of Lusk. As

I am—you know, both of these areas have checkerboard ownership

patterns with significant amounts of private property.
79

In the United States, the Constitution provides strong protections for private property rights. Why does your policy recommend

prohibiting mining on private property lands in my State?

Mr. BARRY. First of all, it is not my policy. The U.S. Government

has nothing to do with that statement.

Mrs. CUBIN. I’m sorry?

Mr. BARRY. The U.S. Government has had nothing to do with the

preparation of that statement that the subject of this hearing is all

about. So it is certainly not our policy.

Mrs. CUBIN. The United States gives $1.5 million to IUCN. I

would think that —.

Mr. BARRY. We have had nothing to do with the drafting of that

policy. Not a single Federal employee was involved with the drafting of that policy. It has not been reviewed by us and it has not

been endorsed by us. I think it is inappropriate to refer to it as our

policy.

Mrs. CUBIN. So you disagree with it?

Mr. BARRY. I am saying that our policy on mining within units

of the national park system are directly covered by statutes that

this Congress has enacted. The Mining in the Parks Act, the National Parks System Organic Act, and the Redwoods amendment in

1978 are just three examples. That is what controls mining in the

parks and within units of the national park system, like a national

monument, but not this statement that we have in front of us

today.

Mrs. CUBIN. I would like to turn my questioning to Senator Wallop.

You were a member of the United States Senate during a period

when many international organizations, such as UNESCO, were

vehemently promoting policies that excoriated the United States

and democratic traditions like capitalism and the free press. In

fact, the United States pulled out of UNESCO during the mid1980s partially because of these excesses. Having heard the quotes

from the document that is before us, does this remind you of the

very attitude that caused the United States to withdraw from

UNESCO in the first place?

Senator WALLOP. Madam Chairman, it is the mirror image. Notwithstanding Professor Phillip’s attempts at explanation of it, the

quotes which Representative Chenoweth and you have cited are all

isolated from any other accommodation to the benefits of mining.

And I would point out, in their definitions, mining includes oil and

gas exploration and other kinds of mineral exploitation.

So the answer is, yes. Here they come. ‘‘large-scale mines displace local communities.’’ there is nothing about large-scale mines

providing jobs nor, I might remind Professor Phillips that we

wouldn’t have him in front of us if it were not for mining. Neither

the television sets nor the computers nor the glass screens or anything else that bring him in front of us would be possible without

mining. These are typical of the kinds of inflammatory statements

that characterized UNESCO during the 1980s and caused the

United States to withdraw.

Mrs. CUBIN. I want to go back to Mr. Barry and your adamant

belief that this policy will have no effect on decisions that are made

by your department.
80

You just told me you totally disavow almost any connection with

them. So I want to—I am going to make this statement and ask

you to respond to it if you want to.

When we look back at the New World Mine, I guess then that

you would say that it was entirely coincidental that the labeling of

Yellowstone Park as a World Heritage site in danger preceded the

President’s negotiation to buy out the New World Mine project, a

promise which was made by the executive branch before coming to

Congress to seek the dollars to do so.

You would say that that is all coincidental, and it had absolutely

no effect on the result of what happened to people who owned private property that were not allowed to develop that?

Mr. BARRY. First of all, I would have to say that the fact that

it was a World Heritage site in danger had nothing to do with our

desire to prevent a potentially significant adverse impact on Yellowstone National Park. I should point out that one of your own

State’s Senators, Craig Thomas, supported the acquisition of the

New World Mine. I am sure he didn’t do it because he was worried

about its impact in the World Heritage—.

Mrs. CUBIN. I did not oppose it. The only thing that I opposed

in the whole process was the way the administration went around

the block and came in the back door to get their policy done. I

frankly wasn’t really excited about that mine being developed up

there either. But I feel that it is my job to protect the processes

which protect the freedoms of the people of the United States of

America and my State of Wyoming. And when the administration

manipulates the information to, as Senator Wallop said, create

hysteria and have attitudes based not on fact—I mean, we had scientists working on that EIS for years and then the committee came

in and in 3 days determined what other scientists, American scientists, including some of your colleagues, couldn’t get done in

years. They got it done in 3 days and they were certain about it.

That judgment is what caused the buy-out of that mine. I am not

opposed to that. I am opposed to the sneaky, underhanded way the

administration got their agenda fulfilled.

Mr. BARRY. Let me just correct one thing for the record or add

one thing for the record.

The people that came to visit the site on behalf of the World Heritage Convention did so with the acceptance of—the invitation of

the company that owned the property. They did not trespass on the

property. The company allowed them to come on the property to

take a look at the site.

Mrs. CUBIN. I don’t think that anyone implied that they trespassed.

Mr. BARRY. No, but I just wanted to correct the record that the

company itself was willing to let them come to the site and to view

the site.

Mrs. CUBIN. But the Department of the Interior invited them.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. If the chairman would yield, I don’t believe that the company invited them in. I think they were willing

to let them in on the property. But they did not invite them in unless we see documentation otherwise.
81

Mr. BARRY. I didn’t mean to create the impression that they invited them in. What I did say was that they allowed them on the

property.

Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. But you did say that, sir. You need to

say what you mean and mean what you say.

Mrs. CUBIN. So does your boss and so do I.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony and

their time in answering the questions. I thank the members of the

subcommittee. If they have any additional questions for the witnesses, we would ask you to respond to these questions in writing,

and the record will be held open for these responses.

If there is no further business, the chairman again thanks the

members of the subcommittee and our witnesses. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Energy & Mineral

Resources, 1334 Longworth H.O.B., 2:00 p.m.

Thursday, October 28, 1999

Agenda

Oversight hearing on: ‘‘The Proposed World Heritage Committee Policy Prohibiting

Mining in Areas Surrounding World Heritage Sites.’’

WITNESSES

Adrian Phillips, Chair [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE]World Commission on Protected Areas (RJCN), Evesham, United Kingdom

Honorable Don Barry, Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks U.S. Department of the Interior

Honorable Malcolm Wallop, Chairman Frontiers of Freedom Institute

General Richard L. Lawson, President National Mining Association
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95