[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H7717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         MONTANA MINING DISPUTE

  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, I rise this evening to tell a story to my 
colleagues about a place called Cooke City, MT. Cooke City, MT, is an 
isolated community in south central Montana. It is located about 3 
miles northeast of Yellowstone Park. It is surrounded by a historical 
mining district where there has been active mining for well over 100 
years. It also happens to be the home of a place called the New World 
Mine.
  Some of my colleagues might recognize the name the New World Mine. On 
October 12, 1996, a little over a year ago, President Clinton announced 
that he had entered into an agreement with a foreign mining company and 
an environmental community to stop the process of proceeding with the 
development of a new gold mine at the site of the New World Mine. He 
did so based upon concerns that had been raised by members of the 
environmental community that mining at that site might pose some risk 
to Yellowstone Park. However, in the process of interrupting the 
process of the mine, the President also interrupted the environmental 
impact statement that would have given us for certain an understanding 
of what the real risks would have been. So in secret the President, a 
foreign mining company and an environmental community agreed to give 
away 65 million dollars' worth of public land in Montana in exchange 
for this mine.
  Mr. Speaker, that created outrage in Montana. Sportsmens' groups and 
environmentalists expressed outrage because Montanans feel great 
attachment to the public land. They hunt, they fish, they hike, they 
pick berries, they camp. Mr. Speaker, many of them actually make their 
living on public lands.
  Sensing that outrage, the President changed his mind, and he decided 
instead of 65 million dollars' worth of public land, he would take $100 
million out of the Conservation Reserve Program from Montana and give 
that to this mining company instead. That created outrage, Mr. Speaker. 
Farmers, environmentalists and sportsmen, all of whom believe greatly 
in the Conservation Reserve Program, expressed their outrage.
  So then the President said no, he wanted $65 million from the 
Congress. And Congress said, whoa, wait a minute.
  There are three big problems, Mr. Speaker, with the President's plan. 
First, the White House forgot about Montana. The General Accounting 
Office just issued a report that said that Montana is going to lose 466 
jobs, $45 million in revenues. In fact, local Park County will lose 
$1.2 million in revenues in the first 5 years.
  The second problem is that we have discovered the mine was not an 
asset, but rather a liability. There are serious water quality problems 
arising out of previous mining activities, and the President has 
proposed that the taxpayers assume those liabilities.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the really big problem with this deal was that we 
found out that the mining company did not own the ore. There is a lady 
by the name of Margaret Reeb, who lives in Livingston, MT, whose mother 
was the first woman in the Cooke City mining camp, who over the years 
has acquired those mining claims, and she owns the ore. The problem was 
she was not consulted, she was not asked, she never signed. Margaret 
owns the asset.
  Mr. Speaker, when the White House was asked about this, what will 
happen if Margaret Reeb does not want to sell her ore, which she said 
she does not, the White House said, ``Well, there's more than one way 
to skin a cat.'' Mr. Speaker, we do not call it cat skinning in 
Montana, we call it claim jumping. It is wrong in Washington, and it is 
wrong in Montana.
  Now the President has said that if we do not give him a blank check 
in the Interior appropriations bill, he is going to veto the Interior 
appropriations bill. What do we do? Some people say we should just walk 
away from this deal. Others say that we should just give the President 
the $65 million and forget about it.
  I think both of those options are wrong. I think that we have an 
obligation, Mr. Speaker, to pay a mining company for what its real 
interest and the real value of its assets are. I think we have an 
obligation, Mr. Speaker, to protect Margaret Reeb and her private 
property rights. I think we have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to make 
whole the State of Montana by replacing the minerals that will be 
withdrawn with other minerals that might be developed. And so I have 
offered a fair proposal, a proposal that will protect those property 
rights, that will reimburse the State of Montana, and will help that 
local community that is isolated and needs those jobs and that economic 
impact.
  I would hope that my colleagues will help me in trying to convince 
the President that there is a fairer plan than stealing Margaret Reeb's 
property rights. There is a fairer plan than denying Montana the jobs 
and the economic opportunities.

                          ____________________