[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 125 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7592-H7593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             LANDOWNER IGNORED IN MONTANA LAND TRANSACTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to visit with my 
colleagues about the New World Mine. Some of my colleagues may recall 
that on August 12, 1996, the President announced that he wanted to pay 
$65 million to purchase a mining interest that is close to Yellowstone 
Park.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement, or deal, if you will, was negotiated in 
secret. It was negotiated in the back rooms, in the corridors, in the 
boardrooms of the White House and environmental groups and a mining 
company. Who was left out? Who was not consulted?
  Mr. Speaker, the Governor of Montana was not consulted, and therefore 
the citizens of Montana were not consulted. The Montana congressional 
delegation was left out. Local government officials were never 
consulted. Land management agencies were not consulted. Congress itself 
was left out. But most surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, the owner of the land 
was left out, too.
  Mr. Speaker, the President first proposed that we give $65 million 
worth of public lands in Montana to this out-of-State, out-of-Nation 
mining company, and that caused a great uproar in Montana. Montanans 
feel a great attachment to the land. They hunt on it, they fish on it, 
they camp on it, and they enjoy it immensely for hiking and berry 
picking. Many Montanans, Mr. Speaker, make their living off the land.
  That uproar caused the President to change his mind. Then he proposed 
giving $100 million out of the CRP program, the Conservation Reserve 
Program, to buy out this mine, and that created even a greater outrage. 
Environmentalists and sportsmen and farmers said, ``No, don't do that, 
Mr. President.''
  So then the President asked that we give him a blank check. Mr. 
Speaker, the House said no. The reason that the House said no is 
because the President had decided to ignore two very important parties 
in this transaction. One is the State of Montana and the citizens of 
Montana but, more importantly, the property owner, Margaret Reeb.
  It turns out that Margaret Reeb owns the mineral interest that the 
President had entered into an agreement secretly to buy out. The 
problem is that they never contacted Margaret Reeb, they never 
consulted with Margaret Reeb, and they never entered into any 
agreements with Margaret Reeb. It would be like, Mr. Speaker, having a 
neighbor come to you one day and say, ``I sold my house to some people 
who came along, but the only way they'd buy it is if I sold them yours, 
too, so I sold them your house, too.'' That is how Margaret Reeb feels.
  The secret deal was made behind closed doors, and it cut out the 
public. There were no hearings, there was no authority, there was no 
appropriation. And, Mr. Speaker, the President even cut off the 
National Environmental Policy Act in the process.
  Montana was hurt, too. Four hundred sixty-six jobs, Mr. Speaker, will 
be lost; $45 million in tax revenues to the State of Montana; even Park 
County, MT, lost $1.2 million.
  What should we do? Mr. Speaker, the Denver Post wrote an editorial on 
September 8. It says this:

       The Clinton administration goofed when it ignored a private 
     landowner during negotiations to block a proposed gold mine 
     near Yellowstone National Park. Even a first-year law student 
     would know that to do a land swap, the landowner must be 
     consulted. That the White House didn't do so is 
     inexcusable.

  It goes on to say:

       But as it explores all lawful alternatives, the Clinton 
     administration should avoid acting heavy-handedly. It was 
     Clinton's minions whose omissions left the landowner out of 
     the loop in the first place. It's now their job to fix the 
     problem.

  Mr. Speaker, that obligation is to Margaret Reeb, and that obligation 
is to the people of Montana. I have proposed an alternative to this 
mechanism, and that alternative would save taxpayers tens of millions 
of dollars. It would protect the property rights of Margaret Reeb, and 
it would deal with the concerns of the people of the State of Montana. 
I would urge my colleagues to support me in this effort to propose an 
alternative that is fair and it is responsible, it is fair to the 
parties who are involved, it is fair to Margaret Reeb, and it is fair 
to the State of Montana.

                         Gold Mine Pact Bungled

       The Clinton administration goofed when it ignored a private 
     land owner during negotiations to block a proposed gold mine 
     near Yellowstone National Park.
       The original proposal, involving a land swap, was put 
     together more than a year ago by the White House, an 
     environmental group and a major mining company.
       Crown Butte wanted to develop its New World Gold Mine just 
     3 air miles from Yellowstone. An environmental impact 
     statement was being prepared because the mine needs the 
     approval of federal agencies. Although the mine's supporters 
     claimed the EIS' publication was imminent, the document 
     actually was behind schedule.
       Meantime, the National Park Service vigorously campaigned 
     against the mine on grounds that the operation might harm 
     Yellowstone's ecological balance and potentially disrupt its 
     geological wonders. A rift developed between the Park Service 
     and other federal agencies over whether the EIS would 
     adequately address these concerns.
       The White House intervened and offered Crown Butte the 
     chance to swap the controversial property for another parcel 
     elsewhere. That deal later unraveled, so now the

[[Page H7593]]

     Clinton administration is trying to persuade Congress to 
     approve a cash buyout of the mining claim.
       However, during this lengthy process the Clinton team 
     apparently forgot to ask the private land owner, who had 
     leased her property to the gold mining company, if she would 
     be willing to sell the acreage.
       She insists the land isn't for sale.
       At the very least, the Clinton administration wound up with 
     egg on its face. Even a first-year law student would know 
     that to do a land swap, the land owner must be consulted. 
     That the White House didn't do so is inexcusable.
       This gaffe is unfortunate because it supplies new 
     ammunition to Clinton critics who charge that the president 
     rushed the land swap proposal to win points with 
     environmental groups in the midst of an election campaign.
       The issue now, though, is whether the Clinton team can make 
     amends.
       One possible solution would be to offer the land owner a 
     cut of the cash.
       But as it explores all lawful alternatives, the Clinton 
     administration should avoid acting heavy-handedly. It was 
     Clinton's minions whose omissions left the land owner out of 
     the loop in the fist place. It's now their job to fix the 
     problem.

                          ____________________