most strategic and critical minerals. How can a land manager, reading the policy directive of this bill reject a no-surface occupancy oil and gas lease, yet allow a cobalt mine which is associated with potassium minerals, perhaps leaseable, even though there are compelling reasons for the nation's well being, to allow development. Under the planning regulations now in place the mining plan would likely be denied. On September 10, 1981, the General Accounting Office wrote a memorandum to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Mines and Mining which reviewed potash prospecting permits and preference right lease applications affecting the mineral alunite. All domestic resources of alunite are controlled by the Federal government and some will be affected by this bill. This mineral could produce both a fertilizer mineral and a needed domestic supply of aluminum, a strategic mineral. The GAO investigation showed that delays and mismanagement of potash leases were preventing a new domestic strategic mineral resource from being developed.

Potash, along with sodium, should

be eliminated from the list of minerals in Sec. 2(a) of this bill. Furthermore, the bill should aggressively clarify what will be allowed in the way of exploration for strategic and critical minerals. This would require a separate section in this bill including greatly expanded language in the accompanying report. The statutory language should clarify congressional policy to

3.

Federal land managers that this bill does not limit availability of strategic and critical minerals. Unlike oil and gas, where

significant resources exist on non-federal land, the bulk of new deposits of strategic and critical minerals will likely come from Federal lands, many included within the scope of this legislation. To deny environmentally responsible exploration would be folly for the future generations of Americans who will need these mineral resources or other minerals that are either unknown or unwanted

today.

The House report language on H.R. 6542 on page 7 excepts "hardrock" minerals on "acquired lands." The Senate recently passed S. 1964 making the Irish Wilderness in Missouri. Nationally significant lead deposits are known to be in that wilderness and can only be leased under Federal law. These were not excepted in that bill. If it is truly the intent of this bill to except hardrock minerals on acquired lands, why doesn't it appear in Sec. 3 of the statute and clearly say so. Since many other hardrock minerals are leased on acquired lands, this needs to be set out clearly in the legislative language.

On April 5 the President of the United States submitted to Congress the National Materials and Minerals Program plan. That plan had several noble objectives including decreasing America's

minerals vulnerability by taking positive action and seeking to reduce future dependence on potentially unstable foreign sources of minerals. How does S. 2801 reflect this policy? Where does mineral impact statement set out the impacts on future mineral supplies this action will have? Is this Presidential Plan just more political hot air?

Finally, the subject of withdrawal review should be addressed. Neither this Congress nor this Administration knows if 30% or 90% of the public land is effectively already off limits to one mineral or another by all sorts of Federal actions taken to restrict land against mineral use. This is a difference of 225 million acres or 675 million acres. From

a purely management point of view, one would think this should be known before a massive withdrawal of the size contemplated by this bill is passed into law. What competent manager would lock up his assets without knowing what had already been set aside. Should Congress continue this kind of management policy?

For a bill that began as anti-Interiorlegislation in the House, this bill has gained alarming momentum. It is unlikely the

majority of the cosigning senators suspect the impact this

- 5

legislation would have on the ability of our severely depressed domestic exploration to provide future mineral resources for this country's use. A much deeper look into these issues must be made before such congressional policy is set into law. The truly alarming turn of events is that today we are devoting time and priority to locking out mineral exploration from a significant portion of public land, when we should be holding hearings on the desperate state of exploration knowledge being developed in these uncertain times for the well being of our future generations.

Senator WALLOP. Thank you very much. There is a live quorum on the way over on the floor which means a vote will follow shortly.

In the interest of time-I am trying to get everybody to testify-I will reserve questions and submit them to you later, and I appreciate very much your presence here. I will start the last panel and get where we can before that vote occurs.

The next panel is Ms. Marilyn Quinn, executive director, Youth for Energy Independence; Mr. Max Barker of the Triple J Ranch, Augusta, Mont.; Mr. R. J. Smith, environmental consultant, American Land Alliance; Bern Shanks, Governor's office, State of California; Mr. David Alt, professor of geology at the University of Montana.

Ms. Quinn?

STATEMENT OF MARILYN QUINN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, YOUTH FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Ms. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I thank you for your――

Senator WALLOP. Move the mike a little closer.

MS. QUINN. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify and thank you for your perseverance here today.

It is true that young Americans do have concern for the environment, but as regards S. 2801, many of us have an overriding concern with the economic and security implications of foreclosing these wilderness lands, over 30 million acres.

Youth for Energy Independence is a bipartisan coalition of youth leaders, including such leaders as those from the NAACP, Young Democrats, and College Republicans. We would like to go on record that we, the youth community, feel like economic growth is very important in considering a balance between our environmental protection and our utilization of land.

We cannot afford closed permanently land when we have a need for dependable domestic energy resources vital to fostering economic growth. It is particularly clear that young Americans, a virtually closed labor market in the near future, and on the subject of security, the oil glut gives us no reason for complacency. America is the

leader of the free world. Its position has deteriorated as a result of our energy dependence. I wonder how soon this dependence would constitute a national urgent need?

Therefore, we, the Youth for Energy Independence, encourage the protection of the environment, but first we urge that before we foreclose land, we look at the effect on jobs and what uses may be made of the land and material, and we urge a thorough inventory of lands before they are permanently foreclosed.

In its present state, Youth for Energy Independence must oppose S. 2801.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Quinn follows:]