by one, or maybe two by two, whichever way it is. I cannot see that the executive department as such is restricted in its authority over these lands by going through the other system such as was proposed in

the House version of this bill.

Now, can you tell me in what way the authority of the executive department is restricted by that type of attitude?

Secretary UDALL. Well, the whole issue revolved around whether these areas go in and are subject to review, and this is basically what Secretary Freeman did in Selway-Bitterroot. This has been a matter of dispute for some years. He took some out and he put some in.

Now, under the Senate bill, as I understand it, the primitive areas would go in and they would be reviewed, and the type of order Secretary Freeman then determined upon finally, as a matter of policy from a management standpoint, would be submitted to this committee and the committee could change it if it wanted to do so.

If we go at it the other way we are starting out by excluding these most important areas, and we are saying that they will only be brought in

Senator DOMINICK. Just a second

Secretary UDALL. To the system by an act of Congress.

Senator DOMINICK. But they also were left in the same condition that they are left in now, subject to review.

Secretary UDALL. No, one way they are in the wilderness system and in the other way they are out.

This is the difference, as I see it.

Senator DOMINICK. What would be the effect, in your opinion, on water development in the West if these areas were immediately brought into the wilderness system where action could not be taken until a review and a portion of them might be eliminated from the wilderness system?

How far back would that set us in water development, do you feel? Secretary UDALL. I do not think it would set us back at all. I think it would be impossible to set back water development in terms of watersheds.

In other words, as far as watershed conditions are concerned, I think it is a plus. I think they have been identified, or I am sure they have, in these last hearings. There are only a few really major sites in these wilderness areas.

Most of the wilderness country in the West is the high country. It is inaccessible country. These are the types of areas that you are not going to build a major dam in, in the first place. They are up near the headwaters, so there is not much runoff there, in the second place.

And I think that the number of major damsites that are available, none of them are being talked about now. They are off in the future. And it may be that nuclear power and other things will cause us to decide ultimately not to build some of these.

There is a single damsite that I know of or that my Department is considering or has in the planning stage today, that will be affected. by the wilderness bill.

That is a broad statement, and I am just shooting from the hip, but I think I can back it up.

Senator DOMINICK. Now, water development is not only damsites as such. It involves conduits. It involves access roads. It involves some construction.

I was thinking, for example, of the Frying Pan-Arkansas. Will any of the portions of the areas that are considered to be wilderness in here have to be eliminated because of the Frying PanArkansas?

Secretary UDALL. I am sure, Senator, that the answer is "No," because this is typical of the problem that we are describing. This very high country.

If this was in a wilderness area, I think we would have had something in the legislation that would permit the type of use contemplated. But where these special circumstances exist, and these will be rare occasions, I think this is where we would have the exercise of this Presidential authority to say, "Well, here is a case where there should be an exception." I am not such a purist myself to think that we are not going to have or that the situations will not arise where we have to cause the overriding of other interests and have exceptions.

Senator DOMINICK. That, then, in effect, gives the President the right of taking or refusing to take action under this bill to override the will of Congress on other bills on water development?

Secretary UDALL. Well, I cannot see that it would have that effect, Senator.

It would seem to me, as is usually the case, your major water projects are developed by the Bureau of Reclamation, by the Corps of Engineers, the administration and the President, through the Bureau of the Budget, and the usual process is to take a position on these projects, and either they are for it or they are against it.

And ultimately, when these special circumstances come up, you would find some special provision in the bill saying that wilderness values would have to be sacrificed because of other overriding values. I think there are situations, and I want to make this plain, where the need for water is going to be so great in some areas of this country in the future that there will have to be some exceptions made.

And I think the supporters of wilderness realize that there will be these unusual situations which will arise.

Senator DOMINICK. That would still involve the discretion of the President, would it not?

Secretary UDALL. Yes.

Senator DOMINICK. So this, at least theoretically, would give the President the right to veto the reclamation project in the interest of wilderness?

Secretary UDALL. Well, he has the right to veto on about 10 other grounds now, most of them being economic.

But I cannot see that this would have the effect of inhibiting water development. And as far as the present situation is concerned, I just do not see that this would have an adverse impact, and I want to state my position very strongly on that.

Senator DOMINICK. Now, one more question, Mr. Secretary.

Under the House bill, as it was reported from the committee last year, there was a title I pertaining to general management of public lands as opposed to the wilderness system.

Now, what was the position of the department of title I of that bill?

Secretary UDALL. Well, we filed our official report on the House bill and our official position, I am sure, would be the same as it was stated at that time.

With regard to some aspects of title I, with regard to our need for better laws governing the public lands, it is our feeling, and we have recommendations up and will have more, that we do need new laws. We do need additional laws. The thing that we objected to most about title I was that it would emasculate the power of the President under the Antiquities Act.

These were two of the main objections.

Senator DOMINICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Now, there is a statement from Senator Gale McGee which the Chair will put in the record at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. GALE MCGEE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity of appearing here to speak on this legislation. I would begin by saying that I am in favor of the wilderness bill. Coming from a State that is second to none in rugged, beautiful scenery and which provides respite to many citizens, and incidentally profit to her own from that scenery, I am anxious that the advance of civilization not be permitted to overrun all the original wilderness. All of our history is not in books, and I would hope that we would leave for our children and grandchildren some small portion of this Nation as it was before Columbus landed. There are many people in my State who fear that this legislation would reduce the proper exploitation of Wyoming's great supply of mineral, timber, and grazing resources. Unfortunately, arguments on this bill often generate more heat than light with the result that the bill's opponents are castigtaing ideas the bill does not propose.

I would like to point out that this bill would not restrict grazing in the wilderness system, but would in fact provide for revegetation of overgrazed and eroded area. Nor would timbermen lose their rights to harvest timber. In Wyoming the wilderness areas are already protected by national forest regulations. The State had in 1960 more than 70 million board feet of timber designated as commercial which has not been harvested.

In mineral production there is not one producing mine located in a wilderness area in Wyoming and of the 20,600 claims in the national forests of our State only 600 are in wilderness-type areas. I would further mention that if a valuable mineral deposit were found in a wilderness area the President would have the right to remove that area from wilderness designation. And for the oilmen concerned with this legislation, I would point out that the late Senator Robert Kerr, who was the most powerful spokesman for the oil-producing States in the Senate and who himself was an oilman, was wholeheartedly in favor of this legislation.

There are many more things that could be said about this bill. However, I think that its main strength is that it will create a flexible system of wilderness administration. There is nothing rigid or final about what land will be included in or out of the bill. The Congress will have the veto power over any changes proposed by the administration and the wilderness could only be enlarged by affirmative congressional action.

This is an age of rockets that will carry us to the moon, of satellites beaming television across oceans, and of chrome and concrete, but mankind has not changed there is still something in us that is relaxed, refreshed, and rejuvenated by close contact with nature. In our rush toward the future we must take care that we do not entirely eliminate the past. This bill would preserve a segment of the Nation's rich natural heritage, almost as God made it. I believe it will also help preserve our appreciation of our heritage and the history of men who created a great nation from a wilderness.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few statistics to my statement which bear out the need for protection of our wilderness areas and illustrate the use the public makes of them.

The Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming contains an area known as the Cloud Peak Primitive Area. In the 1961 season 5,500 persons visited that area. In 1962 the number increased to 6,600. And the average visit was for 2.4 days, for a total of 16,000 man-days of recreation use.

At the Shoshone National Forest the beauties of nature attracted 1.7 million visitors. A great many were area residents, but a very large number were people who camped out. Forest Service logs show a total of 184,700 campers for the season of 1962.

These figures demonstrate that the public is indeed interested in using our wilderness recreation areas.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Hubert Humphrey has submitted a statement by Mr. Sigurd F. Olson of Minnesota.

Without objection, it will go in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF SIGURD F. OLSON, ELY, MINN.

My name is Sigurd F. Olson, my home in Ely, Minn., in the Superior National Forest which has within its borders the famous Boundary Waters Canoe Area administered as a wilderness by the U.S. Forest Service. I represent the Izaak Walton League of America, one of the largest conservation groups in the Nation, as well as the Wilderness Society in which I serve as a membor of the council. I also speak for myself and for those who have read my books and listened to my lectures on wilderness and who feel as strongly about it as I do myself.

Last year proponents of wilderness preservation were greatly encouraged by the splendid support of the Senate in passing S. 74 with a vote of 78 to 8. That action convinced everyone that the people of the United States understood what was at stake and were overwhelmingly in favor of a Wilderness Preservation System as outlined in that bill. The fact that the House version of the same bill was not reported out of committee and not voted on by that body, did not change the situation. I was confident then, that had the wilderness bill been reported out and come up for a vote, it too would have passed with a big majority. I am just as confident today that if Congress has the opportunity to vote on this measure, it will pass both Houses.

The American people want their wilderness protected as witness the continuing favorable articles and editorials all over the Nation. The long effort to establish a Wilderness Preservation System has made people aware that without its protection, they might lose a precious heritage, one that is becoming increasingly valuable as time goes on.

With our population growth, our industrial and urban expansion, the increased use of all natural resources, it is evident that unless the remaining wilderness we have is given statutory protection, the day may come when there will be no wild, undeveloped country. Should that happen, Americans will have lost something of their character and dignity as a people, some of the sense of freedom and challenge bred into them during pioneer days. I believe that Americans are not yet ready for a completely urban existence removed from all the influences which molded them as a people. Though most of us now live within the confines of great metropolitan complexes, within us all is a powerful need for the out of doors that has not been changed. Being able to satisfy that need periodically is a spiritual necessity now and for generations to come it will be even more so. Wilderness provides that opportunity.

We of this generation have no right to deprive those who come after us the privilege of wilderness experience. The choice is ours for never again will our people be faced with the decision. If we fail now to give protection to what wilderness remains or to establish new areas to meet the growing need, then we have not recognized our responsibility to the future. This is our last opportunity. If we fail to act, then wilderness as we have known it is doomed.

There are those who say, why a Wilderness Preservation System when we have Government agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service whose work is to take care of the land entrusted to them? These agencies, they say are doing a fine job; cannot we trust them to continue? Why are we so concerned?

The answer to those questions is simple. While we have great admiration for the agencies which have established wilderness regions and so far have protected them, we know they are held only by administrative decrees and regulations which could be changed by the stroke of a pen. Pressures upon all such areas will become so great in the years to come, it may be impossible for any governmental agency, no matter how fine its record to date or how dedicated its staff, to resist the demands for industrial utilization.

Without a wilderness preservation system, in which agencies are given a ́congressional mandate to protect it, I am convinced it will be impossible to hold the line for the simple reason that intangible values cannot be weighed or measured by conventional standards. You can put a price tag on board feet of timber, electric power, minerals, or fossil fuels, but you cannot make graphs, compilations of statistics of esthetic, spiritual, or recreational values. While these have much to do with human happiness and richness of living and while existence without them is barren and colorless, it is difficult to substantiate their worth even though we realize that we as Americans will lose some of our character if all evidence of the old frontier is gone.

There is so little wild country left, not more than 2 percent of our total land mass. Surely, we can afford to save this much of the original America for the rejuvenation of the people when urban living makes them long for the open spaces. I urge this committee to report out S. 4 and to make it as strong and effective a wilderness bill as is possible. Someone said long ago, "Life is a gift of nature, but a beautiful life is a gift of wisdom." I cannot imagine a beautiful life in America without open space, natural beauty, and wilderness, but will take wisdom and courage to make this possible and vision to pass the gift on to those to come.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Allott will have a statement to make at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON ALLOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Senator ALLOTT. By coincidence, the hearings this morning on S. 4 occur 2 years to the day since the last time when this committee turned its consideration to wilderness legislation. On February 27, 1961, the bill being considered was S. 174-today it is S. 4. During this interval, and in the 3 years preceding that, I have been classified by some as the "loyal opposition" to wilderness. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have never opposed wilderness legislation and do not now oppose it.

There is, however, an old saying that one can overdo a good thing. This is no less applicable to wilderness than to anything else. It must be remembered that there are potentially 65 million acres of public lands at stake in this legislation, and that world "public" needs to be underscored. With present projections indicating that less than 2 percent of the public will engage in and enjoy a "wilderness" experience, reason dictates that the forum be commensurate with the need. The size of an acre destined to be used and enjoyed by so small a segment of the American people must be carved out with care and appreciation for the objective to be reached. We do not need a span the size of the Golden Gate Bridge to cross the C. & O. Canal.

We are a nation composed of manifold interests. The principle of multiple use, where applied, is a recognition of this fact. A genuine effort prevails to accommodate these recognized needs and, in my judgment, the principle should be made to apply on most of the public domain. Exceptions are to be expected. At the present time, the Forest Service has classified 6,285,816 acres as wilderness. I am perfectly willing to see these lands remain in such a classification.

What has caused me the greatest concern with S. 174 of the 87th Congress is the duality in treatment applicable to lands destined for inclusion in the wilderness system. This treatment is repeated in S. 4, the current bill. Primitive areas, areas in the national parks, wildlife refuges, and game ranges become the subject of Presidential recommendation as to continued inclusion within the wilderness system