[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7052-S7053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

         FEDERAL MINERAL WITHDRAWAL IN THE COOKE CITY, MT AREA

 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the 
attention of the Senate two thoughts. No. 1, which is the inconsistency 
with which the present administration deals with land use policy 
decisions. No. 2, the concept of balance in dealing with land use 
policy.
  Earlier this month the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest 
Service announced that they propose to withdraw from mineral entry 
approximately 19,100 acres in the area surrounding Cooke City, MT. This 
follows a pledge made by the President to disallow mineral entry into 
this area for a period of 2 years.
  This is an area that is surrounded by lands which already protect the 
land in question. Congress has previously acted to create a National 
Park and a Wilderness area to protect the fragile lands in this area. 
Now the Secretary of the Interior wants to put more land in Montana out 
of reach for the people of Montana.
  In the statement that the Secretary included with the proposal, he 
has stated in numerous locations that it is the policy of Federal 
agencies to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development 
of stable domestic mining. The document also discusses that there will 
not be any effect on valid existing claims, referring to the New World 
Mine site presently under study by the Federal land management agencies 
and the States of Montana and Wyoming.
  The purpose of this proposal is exactly the opposite. Before the 
States can finish their purposed action on mining in this area, the 
Federal Government steps in to say that they know what is best for 
everybody. They state that they will consult with local communities on 
the process. Yet when it comes to the final process they give little or 
no credit to the words and thoughts of the people that will be most 
directly impacted by their actions.
  All this is stated very clearly in a letter written by Mr. David 
Rovig of Montana. His letter sets forth a precise description of the 
inconsistencies in the proposal put forth by Secretary Babbitt.
  Mr. President, I ask that the letter by Mr. Rovig be printed in the 
Record following my statement.
  In recent years our Government has fallen prey to the actions of 
special interest groups that seek to exempt others of the future they 
are so privileged to have lived. If we are to increase the stability of 
our country and to develop our future we need to open our minds and 
eyes to balance, and not close the door on development. We need to be 
prepared to use our resources to protect the land. These are the aims 
that the Government needs to seek. It is the goal of the State of 
Montana to find sound science in the development of the resources my 
State has been so blessed with.
  Work is being done in Montana to protect the future and the land. 
What Montana seeks is work and jobs to move into the future.
  The letter follows:


                                         Rovig Minerals, Inc.,

                                      Billings, MT, June 21, 1996.
     Senator Conrad Burns,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Conrad: I am writing this letter on behalf of the 
     Montana Mining Association in my position as President.
       I was recently made aware of a Bureau of Land Management 
     and Forest Service action (see attachments) whereby they 
     propose to withdraw from mineral entry approximately 19,100 
     acres in the Cooke City area. This administrative action is 
     purportedly being undertaken at the request or direction of 
     Secretary Bruce Babbitt of the Department of the Interior. It 
     follows on the heels of President Clinton's promise, catering 
     to the environmental community, that this area would be 
     suspended from mineral entry for a period of two years. I 
     think you know the history of this hoax--the President flew 
     over the area at 10,000 feet and then determined in a secret 
     meeting with multiple environmental groups that he would save 
     the area from the nasty miners.
       The continued effort now being foisted on us by the Bureau 
     of Land Management and the Forest Service is a very expensive 
     attempt to appease environmental groups with taxpayer money 
     while in reality accomplishing nothing. Cooke City sits in 
     the middle of a multi-million acre area of previously 
     withdrawn wilderness and national parks. The 19,000 or 20,000 
     acres represented is one of the very few areas in this 
     gigantic enclave where any degree of free enterprise can be 
     pursued. The Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, 
     the Secretary and the environmental community keep trying to 
     portray the Cooke City area as a forgotten or overlooked part 
     of their personal preserve. The reality is that the New World 
     Mining district was specifically excluded when Yellowstone 
     Park was formed by virtue of the fact that it was an active 
     mining district. Furthermore, in the 1970's when the 
     Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area was formed, it was again 
     specifically excluded by virtue of its intense mineral 
     potential. That mineral potential still exists today as 
     demonstrated by the reserves recently drilled out by Crown 
     Butte Mines, Inc.
       In the government support information, the following 
     statement was made, ``The withdrawal has been proposed by the 
     Secretary of the Interior to maintain, to the extent 
     practical, resource values in the area and on adjacent lands 
     in Yellowstone National Park and the Absaroka-Beartooth 
     Wilderness Area.'' It is obvious from this statement that the 
     Secretary has redefined resource values to exclude mineral 
     resources. Yet in the accompanying information sheet dated 
     June 1996, we see the following paragraph: ``Under the Mining 
     and Mineral Policy Act, it is the policy of all Federal 
     agencies to foster and encourage private enterprise in the 
     development of economically sound and stable domestic 
     mining, minerals, metal and mineral reclamation 
     industries; and the orderly and economic development of 
     domestic mineral resources, reserves, and reclamation of 
     metals and minerals to help assure satisfaction of 
     industrial, security and environmental needs.''
       There are many other inconsistencies in the government's 
     position such as the statement: ``The withdrawal would not 
     affect those lands in the area for which there are valid 
     existing rights of mineral entry or any other associated 
     rights, such as access to private land or existing mineral 
     claims.''
       This is inconsistent since the very concept of mineral 
     entry allows for the staking of mill site claims to help 
     develop a mining claim. Under Babbit's proposal new mill site 
     claims would not be allowed thus denying owners of valid 
     existing mineral rights, their other associated rights. The 
     information sheet makes the absurd statement that: ``The New 
     World Mine proposal, being analyzed by the Gallatin National 
     Forest, is not considered as a `connected action' to the 
     withdrawal proposal and will not be considered in the 
     analysis. The New World Mine proposal applies to an area for 
     which there were valid rights established prior to the 
     proposed withdrawal.''
       Anyone who has followed the proposed development of the New 
     World Mine knows very well that the withdrawal issue would 
     never have arisen were it not for Clinton's secret meeting 
     with the environmentalists. Of course, the New World Mine 
     proposal should be considered a connected action, and the 
     very fact that its multi-volume Environmental Impact 
     Statement has been written to cover the very heart of the 
     proposed withdrawal demands that it be considered as a 
     connected action, thus proving the district's mineral 
     viability.
       Even if you accept the position that this proposed activity 
     will not affect existing mining activities and claims, then 
     you must seriously question why the government wants to take 
     this very expensive multi-year action to withdraw the 
     surrounding ground. Another major consideration is the 
     concept of administrative withdrawals on our ever dwindling 
     mineral resource locales. The prospector and the wildcatter 
     cannot find their minerals where no minerals exist. We must 
     be allowed to look in those places where geologic conditions 
     allow for the presence of commercial minerals. Already 
     thousands of acres of highly prospective mineral locations 
     have been lost to the bureaucratic procedures that simply do 
     not recognize the incredible importance of minerals to this 
     country's past, present and future. There are no great 
     nations that do not have near self-sufficiency for their 
     mineral needs.
       I hope that through the budget process, or some of the 
     other magic that goes on in Washington, you can stop this 
     wasteful and unnecessary proposal but, if not, I plead for 
     you to work with us to ensure that a degree of logic and 
     common sense is incorporated in the procedure. This would 
     include review of the studies by the United States Bureau of 
     Mines, the United States Geological Survey and various states 
     agencies. It must also consider how small this area is when 
     compared to the vast wilderness and park system

[[Page S7053]]

     that surrounds it. It is clear to me that if Babbitt's 
     mineral withdrawal succeeds there will be subsequent steps to 
     pick away at the area until it ultimately would be consumed 
     by the wilderness system.
       As a matter of standing policy, the Montana Mining 
     Association is opposed to administrative withdrawals of any 
     lands from mineral entry. In this instance, the egregious 
     violation of the intent of the withdrawal procedure for the 
     sole purpose of mollifying preservationist interests 
     solidifies our resolve. We firmly believe that the continual 
     hijacking of established procedures to achieve political ends 
     must stop. Please help us help ourselves and the country to 
     thwart this effort.
           Very truly yours.
     David B. Rovig.

                          ____________________