Page images
PDF
EPUB

consideration. We would also point out that the report of the Department of the Interior contains a discussion of objectives which may lead the committee to consider further amendment of the legislation. In addition, the Bureau recommends specific changes in the bill, as follows:

Section 2 (f) of the bill provides that any addition to, modification of, or elimination from any wilderness area proposed by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, or other official must be reported to the Congress. The proposal would then take effect at the end of 120 days of continuous session of Congress following the date on which the report is received by Congress, but only if during this period there has not been passed by Congress a concurrent resolution opposing the proposal. In requiring officials of the executive branch, other than the President, to make proposals directly to the Congress, and in providing for disapprovals of these proposed executive actions by the Congress in a manner not subject to review by the President, the provisions of this section would appear to raise serious constitutional questions. We recommend that it be revised to remove any such questions.

The requirement that proposed changes in a wilderness area not take effect before 120 days of continuous session of Congress would be extremely burdensome to administer and would make heavy demands upon the time of both the agencies concerned and the Congress. This procedure could result in delays in each project of more than a year. Adequate notice and opportunity for the Congress to enact legislation concerning alterations in the wilderness system could be provided by amending section 2 (f) to provide for reporting with map and description to Congress at the same time that the 90-day public notice is given for the proposed additions or eliminations of a wilderness area.

Subsection 2 (d) provides for the wilderness system to include such areas of tribal land on Indian reservations as the Secretary of the Interior decides, after consultation with the Indians concerned. It also provides for additions and eliminations by the Secretary on recommendation of the tribe. Since equitable ownership of Indian tribal lands held in trust rests with the Indians and not with the United States, and since other nonfederally owned lands are not proposed to be included within the wilderness system, the Bureau recommends the complete exclusion of Indian tribal lands from the proposed wilderness system. Sincerely yours,

ROGER W. JONES, Assistant Director.

The CHAIRMAN. We have here this morning a group of 20 advanced members of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. They are here attending a special educational training conference on conservation sponsored by the Girl Scouts of America. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior are giving the participants an intensive 2-week training course on conservation. The group is here this morning under the supervision of Mr. Jack Culbreth, of the Sports Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau of the Interior Department. They have come here to see, firsthand, how conservation legislation is handled in Congress.

I extend a most cordial welcome to the group on behalf of the committee and the individual members thereof. These boys and girls actually have more at stake in our decision on this wilderness bill than any of us on the committee, for we are determining if some of our great virgin land areas are to be set aside and protected for their enjoyment, long after we elders have hung up our packs and rolls. The group, as I say, is extended a cordial welcome here this morning.

We hope that each of you will get real benefit from the intensive course of training you are undergoing at this time.

Senator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, have you finished your statement?

The CHAIRMAN. I have finished the statement welcoming this group of Boy and Girl Scouts. I have another short statement to make. This hearing is on Senate bill 4028, the revised wilderness bill. On June 19-20, 1957, hearings were held on Senate bill 1176, the original

wilderness bill. The measure was warmly supported by conservationists and their organizations. The executive departments, while not opposing the idea of designated wilderness areas, raised objection to some features of the bill. There was opposition from groups concerned about setting aside considerable areas in which commercial resources might not be developed readily.

At that time, opposition was expressed to field hearings on the

measure.

After the 1957 hearings, the proponents of establishment of a national wilderness system set about revising the bill. Instead of resisting all criticism, they held a series of conferences with those who had constructive suggestions. The measure was revised to meet all the objections possible. Recently, Senator Hubert Humphrey, of Minnesota, introduced the new measure, Senate bill 4028, as a substitute for Senate bill 1176.

The new bill, together with an analysis of the changes from the original, was sent to the committee members about 3 weeks ago. If there is any criticism of the sponsors, it is that they too readily agreed to requested changes. One such change requires the Secretary of the Interior only to consult with Indians before Indian lands are included in the wilderness system instead of obtaining Indians' consent. This, in my opinion, is unwise. I shall offer an amendment to restore the requirement of the consent by the Indians.

Typical of changes which have been made is the revision that grazing and the use of aircraft and motorboats in the national-forest areas may be continued where those uses are well established. The American Farm Bureau Federation has called attention to the fact that there is a provision for lands other than park, forest, and game lands to be included in the system, and they should have the same reservation in regard to established uses. An amendment has been prepared accordingly and I am advised by the sponsors that they will accept it. The hearings today have been called primarily to determine if the revised bill, Senate bill 4028, meets criticisms made at the hearings in June 1957, and what opposition remains. In order to expedite the hearings, I have requested the proponents of the bill to confine themselves to explanations of the changes which have been made. The affirmative case for creation of a wilderness system was very ably and convincingly presented last year, and is contained in the printed hearings on Senate bill 1176. Similarly, I am hopeful that those who are critical of Senate bill 1176 will deal with the changes that have been made and give us their reappraisal of the proposal in consideration of the revisions rather than repeat testimony taken a year ago. The proposal to establish a wilderness system was first made more than 10 years ago. It has been discussed throughout the past decade. There appears to be a general agreement that the United States should preserve outstanding wilderness areas in their virgin state for the enjoyment of our citizens. There have been differences in mechanics, areas, and the administrative pattern to be established.

The proponents of Senate bill 4028 have attempted to meet every possible criticism to their bill. Changes are still being made. I shall propose 1 or 2, as I have indicated. I am, personally, very hopeful, however, that our committee will take affirmative action on the measure this year.

Although the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has been created and will unquestionably deal with wilderness-area requirements in its 1961 report, there is need now to reserve lands for the purpose. We can remove lands from the wilderness system later on, if they are in excess of need, but virgin wilderness cannot be made out of cutover forest areas.

Unless there is objection, there will be included in the record of these hearings a considerable number of communications both for and against the measure. To conserve time, the staff has listed and very briefly described their content for the committee members. Most of these communications put in the record are from representatives of groups. There are also in the committee files several hundred letters and telegrams from individual citizens urging enactment of the wilderness bill or opposing it. They are much too numerous to put in the

record.

These individual letters run more than 20 to 1 in favor of the bill. We also have a large group of statements, telegrams, and letters which have arrived here this morning. As soon as they are checked over by the committee staff, they will be put into the record at the conclusion of the hearing.

(See appendix beginning on p. 152.)

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennett is with us this morning. He wishes to make a statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALLACE F. BENNETT, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Senator BENNETT. I would appreciate 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. You may have it.

Senator BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, for several important reasons, we in Utah have a keen interest in S. 4028, which would establish a national wilderness preservation system. The first is that we are anxious to develop the public domain for recreational use because of the salutary effect this would have on the national well-being. Nearly three-quarters of Utah is federally owned, so that any policy affecting the use of a public domain instantly occupies our interest because of its potential impact on the economy of our State. To us in the West, creation of wilderness areas is but one of the many desirable uses to which Federal lands could be put. Among these are conservation of water, soil, vegetation, fowl, and game animals, together with such uses as grazing, mining, hunting, boating, fishing, and other forms of recreation. When preeminence is given to one use over another in any given area or areas, there is always danger that many other worthwhile uses may suffer from neglect.

To us, our forests and other public lands are not only a source of esthetic enjoyment, but they will probably be our livelihood and our very future in the years to come. Our comembers of this great Union of States in the East, South, and North, will recall that they have been able to freely put their lands to use, and that freedom generated the remarkable progress and economic strength in those areas. It is well to recall that the whole Nation was once a wilderness, and, if all the area west of the Thirteen Original States had been circumscribed with the debilitating and limiting provisions of S. 4028, we would never have been the great Nation that we are today.

There is no reason to assume that the West has no future. On the contrary, its still undeveloped potential probably surpasses that of the older economies of the East.

Great care should therefore be exercised in establishing permanent policies regulating the use of our public domain. In recognition of the care required, Congress just this year enacted legislation establishing a National Outdoor Recreation Resources Commission to make a thorough review of recreational needs and policies.

Four Members of the Senate and four from the House have already been named to the Commission under Public Law 85-470, which was signed by the President on June 28 of this year. The Commission must present its recommendations to Congress not later than September 1, 1961.

To push forward with S. 4028 prior to receiving the report of the Commission would not only contravene the express policy adopted by Congress only this session, but it would also be unwise, in my opinion, to proceed, with such haste, to consider a bill having such widespread ramifications. The Commission can give this and other proposals the deliberations they require. I would like to suggest, too, that, before Congress takes any action on any wilderness bill, I hope that hearings will be held in Utah and other Western States to afford the many interested people and groups there the opportunity to testify on the bill and give this committee the benefit of their views.

There are so many who wish to testify that a field hearing or a number of them would be fully justified, particularly in view of the considerable cost of the travel of private citizens to Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I have to attend at least part of the session of the Judiciary Committee, which is holding a session this morning. I would appreciate it very much if I could make a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. You may.

STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR V. WATKINS, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Senator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that the scheduling of hearings on this legislation so late in the session does not mean that an effort will be made to force the bill to the floor.

This bill affects directly and, by all odds, most heavily the 11 publicland States of the West. These are the States where an average of 50 percent of the land surface is still owned by the Federal Government, many years since statehood. In the State of Nevada, the percentage of Federal ownership stands at 85 percent. In my own State, 70 percent of the land surface is federally owned.

In the States where much of the pressure for this legislation is coming from, Federal ownership of land is almost negligible. These States control their lands and their resources and, sometimes, exhibit little concern for the crown colonies in the West. Sometimes it seems that our neighbors in the East and South would like to hamstring economic development in the West, leaving this vast area as a playground, and an undisturbed national playground, in which they can find surcease from strains and stresses from their cities, factories,

and skyscrapers. Paradoxically, the West also is where the great bulk of our already reserved wilderness is located. Many States of the East and South have eliminated their wilderness and lost public access to their lakes and to their seashore. Now they become concerned about wilderness preservation, not in their own backyard where the need is apparent and urgent, but way out West where the buffaloes roam and the deer and the antelope play. While it may come as a surprise to some of the wilderness-loving city slickers of the East that we in the West love the wilderness, too. I say this in all good spirit. Out our way millions of acres are already quite adequately preserved and reserved in the wilderness state, and probably always will be, because nature has made it that way.

And we hope not only to do something to protect that primitive acreage already set aside, but also to help our neighbors in the East and in the South to gain and preserve some of their lost wilderness back home.

May I interpolate here that I have flown over a great part of the United States, and I have been greatly impressed with the vast amount of acreage in the East, in the Midwest, and in the South which is not already occupied for some proper, useful purpose. A lot of areas in the East and in the South can be put into wilderness reserves. It may take a little cash to do it. It may take some contributions on the part of the people of those States to make good on that kind of a program. But I think it can be done.

To that end, I should like to make a few observations to this committee, reserving the privilege to supplement these remarks with additional observations during the further consideration of this legislation.

First, I emphatically urge that this committee refrain from reporting out a bill so widespread in its impact upon the 11 Western States until this committee has obtained the views of the governors of those States and conducted public hearings in the area affected.

In fact, I feel that if the sponsors of this legislation had contacted the States directly affected first, they would be much further along the legislative road today. I don't know about the other members of this committee, but I have not had an opportunity to adequately circularize my area with copies of this latest revision of the proposed wilderness bill.

From previous expressions, I would presume that my Governor and the State legislature remain opposed to this new bill in spite of the few concessions made. A letter has been received on S. 4028 from the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, whose committees have been studying this legislation since it was first proposed.

I hereby request permission to have this letter from the chamber of commerce printed in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. The CHAIRMAN. It may be printed in the record.

Senator WATKINS. Secondly, in view of the fact that this legislation proposes granting a new status to possibly 13 million acres of national forest land, I strongly urge that this bill be considered jointly by this committee and the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, which has considered national forest legislation since that program started.

I don't know that the members of this committee are all aware of the opposition to proposed wilderness legislation by the Department

« PreviousContinue »