posed. And I will have questions of the Secretary later as to the actual scope that is being proposed.

I notice in his opening statement, I believe the number of acres that is discussed is 605,000 acres. There has been a proposal that it be expanded to over a million acres. And Mohave County is willing to express its support for some 400,000 acres, with some conditions.

And I think one of the questions before this Committee is, under what conditions and under what policies do we set aside land and put it under further restriction, and with what input from the public, because as Arizona goes through this process at this very moment, what I am hearing from all levels of government and from all citizens in the community, is not that they are unwilling to allow this type of designation to occur, not that they are opposed to the creation of a monument, not that they are opposed to the creation of further parks or other things which set aside land, they are concerned what will happen as a result of that, concerned about whether the land will become further abused by, for example, designation and, indeed, whether there will be an increase in tourism, an increase in damage to the land. But most of all, what they are concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is the right to have input.

In that regard, they are specifically requesting that, if possible, this monument be considered for legislative creation rather than designation by the Secretary of Interior, and are specifically saying they do not want that to go forward without further public input. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. I would like to make unanimous consent request that the letter from Gail Griffin, State Representative; the letter from the Arizona Cattlemen's Association dated yesterday, and the testimony of Carol S. Anderson, Supervisor, District I, Mohave County Board of Supervisors, all be made a part of the record in this proceeding.

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The attachments to Mr. Shadegg's statement may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. In the interest of time, does any other Member of the Committee have an opening statement? The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Mrs. CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will be brief.

I want to welcome also Secretary Babbitt this morning for what I believe is your first visit with us this year, to this joint oversight hearing of the Subcommittees on Energy and Mineral Resources and National Parks and Public Lands on the Secretarial Powers under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as it relates to the use of the withdrawal authority under Section 204 of this Act by the Clinton Administration. I also want to welcome Mr. Lehmann and Mr. Getches.

While I am mindful of the concerns expressed by my friends in the Majority as to the nature and justifications of various withdrawals by the Secretary, as well as any plans for similar with

drawals in the future, I am nevertheless satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in FLPMA as well as in the necessity to withdraw public lands in order to preserve the public's interest. Several Congresses and the courts have upheld this authority.

I want to thank Secretary Babbitt for his commitment to working with me and the Governor of the Virgin Islands to develop a legislative strategy for addressing some of the economic concerns of my district in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and also to thank him for his advocacy and his administration in protecting a sensitive natural resources around this country and the public lands of significance. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing today, and I look forward to the testimony of our wit

nesses.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Christian-Christensen follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome Secretary Babbitt, for what I believe is his first visit with us this year, to this joint oversight hearing of the Subcommittees on Energy and Mineral Resources & National Parks and Public Lands on the Secretarial Powers under the Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) as it relates to the use of the withdrawal authority, under Sec. 204, of this Act by the Clinton Administration. I also welcome Mr. Lehman and Mr. Getches.

While I am mindful of the concerns expressed by my friends in the Majority as to the nature and justifications of various withdrawals by Secretary Babbitt, as well as any plans for similar withdrawals in the future, I am nevertheless satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in FLPMA, as well as in the necessity to withdraw public lands in order to preserve the public's interest. Several Congresses and the Courts have upheld this authority.

I want to thank Secretary Babbitt for his commitment to working with me and the Governor of the Virgin Islands to develop a legislative strategy for addressing some of the economic concerns of my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands. Secretary Babbitt, responding to my invitation, traveled to the Virgin Islands in January to meet with Governor Turnbull and other local officials including myself and pledged his support, through the formation of a Federal/Virgin Islands Working Group, to the development of specific legislative proposals that will be designed to assist the islands in turning our struggling economy around. I thank him also for his advocacy and administration in protecting our sensitive natural resources and public lands of significance.

I thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, we are honored you could be with us today. We will turn the time to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, UNITED STATES
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I very much appreciate the chance to join you in this discussion. As you suggested, Mr. Chairman, I guess we are not here to talk about history in great detail, but I want to offer a contrasting view of your characterization of the history of land withdrawals because I do not think there is any question that the use of this power by the President under the Antiquities Act and by the Secretary under other withdrawal powers has really redounded to the extraordinary benefit of the American people time and time and time again.

Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, began this process and his monuments, both literal and metaphorical, are all over the Amer

ican West, visited by millions of Americans every year. The Executive power was used to establish Glacier Bay, Muir Woods in California, Solero National Monument in Arizona; Zion National Monument in Utah, to protect some of our finest national forests. It is a splendid, glittering record of protection of resources in the name of the American people.

Now, among the resources that have been protected by the use of withdrawal powers is, of course, the Monument and now National Park, so dear to my own heart, and that is the Grand Canyon in Arizona. That extraordinary place was, in the first instance, reserved in part by a Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, expanded by another Republican President, Herbert Hoover, expanded in the third instance by yet another President, Lyndon Johnson, adding Marble Canyon, a national monument now part of the park. So much for history. I would be happy to discuss and debate anyone, anywhere, at anytime, about the extraordinary history behind these powers that have been delegated by the United States Congress.

In 1974, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act was passed, and since that time there have been two separate and distinct withdrawal powers. One resides in the President under the Antiquities Act of 1906, the other one that brings us here today is my withdrawal power under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Let me very briefly, Mr. Chairman, see if I can suggest both some of the issues and the extraordinary success that continues under this withdrawal power and, in conclusion, suggest that the balance between Congress, the Executive, and the public is working very well, indeed.

First, a word about my initial experience with this statute. It came in 1993 in the Sweet Grass Hills of Montana, when then Congressman Williams invited me to come and have a look, and I felt that I owed an obligation to the people of Montana to do just that. So, I went out there one June day, and I went to Great Falls, and I flew up to Chester, Montana, and then took a tour of the Sweet Grass Hills, and then came back to a public meeting in Chester, Montana, where there were more people at the meeting than the entire population of Chester, Montana, which is the only community of any size within striking distance of the Sweet Grass Hills. What I heard that night was overwhelming public support for withdrawing the Sweet Grass Hills under a temporary segregation order for two years, for exactly the reasons summarized by Congressman Romero-Barceló. The ranchers were all absolutely in favor.

They saw their way of life being destroyed by the possibilities of cyanide in their water system, the disruption of the grazing lands around the Sweet Grass Hills. The Native Americans were there, and the citizens were there. And it was on the basis of that record that I made that withdrawal, which has now been extended into a 20-year withdrawal. It was done in the public interest with the consent of the citizens of Montana. And you are going to hear today, as I read the schedule, from a resident not of Montana, but a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, who is saying that this has interfered with his rights under the Mining Law.

Well, I can tell you that this withdrawal does not interfere with his rights, whatever they may be, because these withdrawals are mandated under FLPMA and by our own internal procedures, to protect valid, existing rights.

So, if it is my job to weigh the interests of the citizens of northern Montana, and Chester, Montana, and western Montana versus a mining claimant from Minneapolis, Minnesota, whose rights are in no way affected, I think the conclusion is quite clear.

With respect to the Grand Canyon, I admit a certain deep interest and passion about this issue because I have spent much of my life in that national park, doing graduate work as a scientist in that national park, roaming it from one end to the other. I have always been struck by the fact that the northwestern quadrant of the Grand Canyon, from the rim back, has absolutely no protection of any kind. It was overlooked because not many people are aware that it is there.

Congress came close to laying over some rim protection in 1975, in the Grand Canyon Expansion Act, but for various reasons it was not done. So, there is a history here but, more importantly, this is the Grand Canyon. And I must tell you that the prospect of cheap leach mining being put onto the very rim of the Grand Canyon is something that I do not believe would ever be in the national interest. And that is the reason that I have raised this issue.

Now, people may say, "Well, that is never going to happen. I know you get excited about these things, Bruce Babbitt, but go out there and look. It is in great shape." Well, those were precisely the arguments that were made to Theodore Roosevelt against establishing the Grand Canyon. Prior to the establishment of the park, preceded by the monument at the south rim, as interest grew, the conmen and speculators showed up.

They were led by an Arizonan, subsequently a United States Senator, a crook of the fist order named Ralph Cameron. He showed up, and for years asserted state mining claims on and in the Grand Canyon, principally on the south rim, for the express purpose of forcing all of the plans of the National Park Service and the Administration. He was finally ruled out by the Supreme Court of the United States, after litigation that consumed 20 years. It is that kind of fraud, and there is no other word for it, it is fraud, pure and simple, that has happened to the Grand Canyon, that led me to the conclusion that it was most appropriate to enter a segregation order.

People say, "Well, why did you enter the order without a public hearing?" Well, I refer you to a former member of the other body, Mr. Cameron. His spiritual descendants would have been staking claims on the north rim of the Grand Canyon within 24 hours after I had announced my interest.

Now, if you think that is an overstatement, let me refer you to Yucca Mountain where prior to the segregation of Yucca Mountain in recent years for the Department of Energy, the speculators and conmen were in there staking claims under this relic called the Mining Law of 1870. The Department of Energy faced reality. They said, "We cannot delay that proceeding for 20 years while we litigate this kind of fraud." So, they bought those fraudulent claims out for $250,000.

Now, don't you see what is happening? We are acquiescing in this kind of chicanery and then rewarding it out of necessity because of the failure of the Mining Law of 1872. Those are the facts.

Now, let me remind you that after the two-year segregation from entry, Í am required, in further exercise of my power, to go through a full NEPA process. The President is not, and that is his law. Talking today about my law, or your law and my law, how is that? My unilateral ability to withdraw without notice is limited to two years.

Now, lastly, let me respond to Congressman Shadegg because I think his remarks deserve a thoughtful response. Of course we should have as much public process as possible. I began that last November with a well publicized trip across the region. It was followed up by hearings conducted by Chairman Hansen in St. George. I conducted a public meeting in Flagstaff last week. There were some 600 people there.

In the course of that hearing, I made a commitment, which I am going to carry out in the next few weeks, to have a meeting on the Arizona Strip, at the Mt. Trumble Schoolhouse, with the permit holders on the Arizona Strip. We have made tentative plans. We have invited the entire Arizona Delegation to take a tour of the area on May 22nd, is the tentative date, and I am ready and willing to continue the public process.

But the fact is that this is a good law, it works well. These two examples, including the Rocky Mountain Front, I think, illustrate the significance of the way this works for the benefit of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Babbitt may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

I will recognize my colleagues for five minutes at a time, for any questions they may have of Secretary Babbitt, of course, starting with Chairwoman Cubin, from Wyoming.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Secretary.

I want to make the point that I do not think anyone wants to prevent either you as a Secretary, or any Secretary, from having the authority to make withdrawals, nor the President, but whether or not-and you made the point that the law has been used well, and that there have been benefits.

I would say that some people might argue that point when it comes to Escalante and the particular lack of public input and consultation with the elected officials from the State of Utah, but whether or not the set-aside is good and proper, in my opinion, is not necessarily the issue because in our society, the end does not justify the means.

Take vigilantism, for example. What one person would consider a good set-aside, a successful one, might considered a failure by somebody else.

So, in view of the words in the Constitution that "Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting property belonging to the United States," that is