S-799-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Sponsored by John Cornyn (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of State, in coordination with multiple federal agencies, to develop a comprehensive multi-year "Legal Gold and Mining Partnership Strategy" to combat illicit gold mining in the Western Hemisphere. It would direct the U.S. government to build a public-private partnership with Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and other democratically elected governments to promote responsible gold sourcing and supply chain transparency. The bill would also authorize up to $10 million from existing State Department funds for fiscal years 2025–2026 to implement the strategy, and require classified intelligence briefings and financial investigations targeting illicit gold networks, particularly those linked to the Maduro regime in Venezuela.
Who benefits
Artisanal and small-scale miners (ASM) in Latin America who could gain access to formalization pathways, financing, and technical assistance. Indigenous communities in mining regions who suffer displacement and human rights abuses under illicit mining operations. U.S. and international companies seeking certified, responsibly sourced gold. Environmental advocates and communities affected by mercury contamination, deforestation, and water pollution from illegal mining. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies that would gain a coordinated interagency framework. Journalists investigating illicit mining who would receive support under the strategy. Governments in Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru that have existing bilateral agreements with the U.S. on this issue.
Who is hurt
Transnational criminal organizations, drug trafficking groups, and armed groups (e.g., ELN, El Tren de Aragua) that profit from illicit gold networks. The Maduro regime in Venezuela, which the bill specifically targets with financial investigations and sanctions pressure. The Ortega-Murillo government in Nicaragua, which would face expanded punitive measures. Foreign commodity traders and shell companies linked to illicit gold supply chains who could lose access to U.S. markets and financial systems. U.S. taxpayers who would bear the cost of the $10 million authorization. State Department and USAID staff who would carry implementation burdens. Informal-sector ASM miners who may face increased regulatory pressure during the transition to formalization.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that illicit gold mining is a major and underaddressed driver of transnational crime, with over 70% of gold mined in countries like Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru coming from illicit sources, according to the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. They contend that by formalizing ASM miners, disrupting criminal financing, and building responsible supply chains, the bill addresses root causes of instability, human trafficking, and environmental destruction simultaneously. Supporters also argue the bill is fiscally modest — $10 million over two years — while leveraging existing bilateral agreements with Colombia and Peru and aligning with established frameworks like the OECD Due Diligence Guidance and the Swiss Better Gold Initiative.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates an extensive multi-agency strategy with broad mandates but limited enforcement mechanisms, risking a costly bureaucratic exercise with little measurable impact on deeply entrenched criminal networks. They contend that formalizing ASM miners in countries with weak rule of law is extremely difficult in practice — prior U.S. foreign assistance programs targeting illicit mining in Latin America have shown mixed results — and that $10 million is insufficient to achieve the bill's sweeping objectives across an entire hemisphere. Critics may also argue that singling out specific foreign governments, such as Venezuela and Nicaragua, by name could complicate broader diplomatic efforts in the region.