(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HENRY KRAL, EVERETT, Wash.

I'm Henry Kral and a mill worker from Everett, Wash. I'm not here to represent any firm or group. I'm speaking for myself as a citizen in support of the wilderness bill, and know these to be the views of many of the people of Everett. I found it necessary to take time off from my job to come here to testify, but feel that this issue is too important to us and our children and future generations to be swayed by that. I stand to gain nothing financially by this bill but there are things in this world that are worth far more than money. I will be very happy indeed and more than amply repaid in seeing these areas which are rightfully ours, retained in their present state for us and future generations. It has been said that these wilderness areas are only for the privileged few, those that are neither rich or muscular athletes. I'm not complaining about my financial status, but it is certainly not above that of the average workingman. As to my physical abilities, a couple of weeks ago I was asked to help unload some flour at the mill. We were on that job, for about 2 hours and my back was sore for 3 days after that so I guess I can't claim to be very brawny.

Just the same I enjoy nothing more than getting out into these wilderness areas with a moderate pack, at a leisurely pace. Many times with no set goal to achieve by a certain time, stopping here and there to get a closer look at some supposed lowly fungus on a rotting log, then some forest giant, and later a lunch in either the quiet of the forest or by some rushing stream. Later in the day may come the supreme thrill of a breathtaking view as one reaches the top of a ridge, or a view of the sea through the forest. I can only mention the evening campfire, as I can barely touch a very few of the highlights of the unspoiled wilderness. In the first place, there isn't near enough time to do justice to these thrilling experiences, to say nothing of the impossibility of putting these experiences into words. Some mercenary commercial interests that can see nothing but board feet in a tree or kilowatts in a stream, pounds of copper per ton of rock, might say this is just dreamer's hogwash. All I've got to say is that I've seen both the less energetic studious type of person and the big tough brawny muscular ones so taken up by these surroundings as to be unable to even speak.

I feel that these rapidly vanishing wildernesses are necessary for the physical and mental well-being of a great many Americans, everyday citizens from all walks of life. Not just crackpots or professional nature lovers. This I think is borne out by the rising incidence of mental disorders which in my opinion ties in directly with the decline in our wilderness. It used to be when one needed peace of mind one merely wandered out of the back door across the fields into the timber. Sure, grandpa probably said, "We need some meat for the table," but I have a feeling that many times, though he wouldn't have admitted it, probably even to himself, he really had something on his mind he had to think through.

If one were to make a snap judgment as to the supply of timber or the needs of the other industries which are seeking to exploit these areas, one might think by the uproar raised by some members of these industries that there is a critical shortage of these resources. Recently I looked into the matter more thoroughly, and one finds that these products are rather competing in a glutted market and that in their effort to undersell each other and still come out with a large profit, some would sacrifice anything in order to get their raw material at a lower cost, even if it means great waste and disregard for the future, such as claims that we can't afford to restock by planting where needed, areas already cut over and unproductive. In support of these facts I would like to point to stumpage prices of $20 per thousand or less in national forests, price supports being needed on beef, and the closing down or curtaling of production of existing mines, because of low prices. Also the well-known fact that timber is now growing faster than it is being cut. Some say second growth won't make plywood, yet it is already being used for this.

Therefore, I say we would be destroying far greater resources for much lesser ones, if we failed to give these wilderness areas the protection of this wilderness bill.

I would also like to add that I feel any roads into these areas would destroy these wilderness and scenic resources rather than making them more accessible. Mr. KRAL. First I want to thank Senator Jackson and the entire committee for this opportunity of testifying; and I am Henry Kral

and I am a millworker in a plywood mill in Everett, and I am not here to represent any firm or group. I am speaking for myself as a citizen in support of the wilderness bill, S. 1123.

Senator JACKSON. Which plywood mill?

Mr. KRAL. Everett Plywood.

Senator JACKSON. Are you a shareowner?

Mr. KRAL. No; I am not a shareowner, but I know quite a few of them there that have the same opinion. I know some of them were going to write.

I found it necessary to take time off from my job to come here to testify, but I feel that this issue is too important to us and our children and future generations to be swayed by that. I stand to gain nothing financially by this bill, but there are things in this world that are worth far more than money. I will be very happy indeed and more than amply repaid in seeing these areas which are rightfully ours retained in their present state for us and future generations.

I feel that these rapidly vanishing wilderness areas are necessary for the physical and mental well-being of a great many Americans, everyday citizens from all walks of life, not just crackpots or professional nature lovers. This I think is borne out by the rising incidence of mental disorders which in my opinion ties in directly with the decline in our wilderness. It used to be when one needed peace of mind one merely wandered out the backdoor across the fields into the timber. Sure, grandpa probably said, "We need some meat for the table," but I have a feeling that many times, though he wouldn't have admitted it probably even to himself, he really had something on his mind he had to think through.

From what I can gather from the testimony of the opponents of this bill, they don't mind if there are wilderness areas set aside, but they don't want them set aside just yet; they want it put off. In the meantime they don't want a status quo either. Why not? Because they want this time to grab these areas off for themselves and cut them clean and strip them of all they can make a fast buck on. That is why I think we need this bill now, before it is too late. Many of these lumbermen, miners, etc., still would follow the destructive policies they have used.

At this point I would like to call the attention of the committee to the fact that any lumberman coming out in favor of S. 1123 is sticking his neck out a mile. There are, I think, any number of pressures that could be applied to him and make it tough for him in general. This alone could discourage many who would otherwise testify in favor of it. I would like to compliment the few lumbermen who have had the guts to testify in favor of this bill in the face of this situation.

I would also like to say that these claims of too much Federally owned land in this State are wholly wrong, as the major portion of this land is actually the only thing that saved these industries.

If one were to make a snap judgment as to the supply of timber or the needs of the other industries which are seeking to exploit these areas, one might think by the uproar raised by some members of these industries that there is a critical shortage of these resources. Recently I looked into the matter more thoroughly and one finds that these products are rather competing in a glutted market and that in

their effort to undersell each other and still come out with a large profit, some would sacrifice anything in order to get their raw material at a lower cost, even if it means great waste and disregard for the future, such as claims that we can't afford to restock by planting where needed, areas already cut over and unproductive. In support of these facts, I would like to point to stumpage prices of $20 per thousand, or less in national forests; price supports being needed on beef and the closing down or curtailing of production of existing mines because of low prices. Also the well-known fact that timber is now growing faster than it is being cut. Some say second growth won't make plywood, yet it is already being used for this.

Therefore I say we would be destroying far greater resources for much lesser ones if we failed to give these wilderness areas the protection of this wilderness bill.

I would also like to add that I feel any roads into these areas would destroy these wilderness and scenic resources rather than making them more accessible.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Kral, and thank you for presenting the statement in behalf of your wife, too.

Mr. KRAL. Thank you. And I have seen second growth being used right now in the plywood mill.

Senator JACKSON. Well, how old second growth?

Mr. KRAL. I don't know what the age of it would be.

Senator JACKSON. There is some second-growth fir. Are you talking about fir?

Mr. KRAL. Fir, yes.

Senator JACKSON. I suppose small cores, but it would be pretty old timber. Some second growth in Snohomish County, of course, is over 60 years old.

Mr. KRAL. I know that the younger growth they use for core.
Senator JACKSON. Over 70 years old, pardon me.

Mr. KRAL. The younger growth they are using for core, or where it is not too closely grown. When it grows closer together they have used it for face.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. KRAL. Thank you, Senator Jackson, and the committee.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Don Follett, representing the Seattle Chamber of Commerce.

STATEMENT OF DON M. FOLLETT, REPRESENTING THE SEATTLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. FOLLETT. Thank you, Senator Jackson, Senator Magnuson. My name is Don M. Follett; I am vice president and general manager, Seattle Chamber of Commerce, which organization I represent today. I am also speaking as president of the Western States Council, an organization composed of chambers of commerce in the 13 Western States, which concerns itself primarily with the development of the natural resources of the West. Since the views of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce and the Western States Council are as one on the subject of this hearing, I should like the record to show that this statement fairly defines the position of each of these organizations. The statement I am about to submit differs but slightly from my statement before the hearing conducted by the Senate committee in

Bend, Oreg., on November 7, 1958. Examination of S. 1123 reveals that it contains essentially the same undesirable provisions as were contained in S. 4028, and we should like the record to show that our attitude toward those provisions remains unchanged. We should also like to request of the committee that in the event the legislation which is the subject of this hearing should be amended or modified, we be given an opportunity to submit additional testimony pertinent to such amendments or modifications.

Section 4 (a) of the proposed act makes provision for the establishment of such a Council by specifying that the three citizen members of the National Wilderness Preservation Council "shall be persons known to be informed regarding, and interested in the preservation of, wilderness." No knowledge of the many other varied uses of Federal lands, or of the economic importance of the natural resources on such lands, is required. Should this proposed legislation be enacted into law, it is certain that advocates of other special use of such lands will clamor for establishment of similar councils to promote their interests, using Federal tax funds for such purposes. The chaos that would result with each of these councils empowered to make independent recommendations to the Congress can easily be imagined. Inclusion of such groups within the framework of the Federal Government is to us completely unjustified.

We have no quarrel with those who believe sincerely in the need for preservation of certain areas in the primitive state for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. We share that belief. But we point out that existing regulations are so definitive as to remove any doubt as to the determination of the legislative and administrative branches of our Government to establish and maintain sufficient wilderness and wild areas to guarantee the availability of this type of recreational facility for all time.

Under present law, the Secretary of Agriculture, upon recommendation of the Chief of the Forest Service may designate tracts of not less than 100,000 acres as wilderness areas. In addition, the Chief of the Forest Service may designate tracts of less than 100,000 acres, but not less than 5,000 acres, as wild areas, to be administered in the same manner as wilderness areas, with the same restrictions upon their use.

It has been estimated that probably not more than one-tenth of 1 percent of our population is dedicated or hardy enough to take advantage of this type of recreation. Yet the proposed act contemplates establishment of approximately 50 million acres of wilderness area, about 90 percent of which would be in the Western States, with no limit on future additions to, or expansion of, those acreages, except whatever limits might be imposed by Congress. And, in the proposed legislation, even congressional authority is limited by provision that proposed additions shall automatically take effect upon the expiration of the first period of 120 calendar days of continuous session of Congress following the date on which the proposal is submitted, if during this period Congress does not pass a concurrent resolution in opposition. Thus, Congress need not express approval; it need only to fail to express disapproval, and an arbitrary bureaucratic decision, which might affect billions of dollars' worth of national assets, and the economies of communities, or of States, or of regions, becomes final.

Congress has established an Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission and has charged it with the responsibility for surveying

our outdoor recreational resources and opportunities, including wilderness areas. By 1961 this Commission is to report to Congress on its estimate of what our requirements will be in the future. Certainly this report should indicate whether or not any additional legislation in this highly controversial field is truly in the best interests of the Nation's economy. Pending completion of the Commission's report, the Western States Council and the Seattle Chamber of Commerce join in urging that neither the proposed legislation, S. 1123, nor any similar legislation, receive the approval of Congress.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Follett. We appreciate your

statement.

(A statement filed by the witness follows:)

STATEMENT OF DON M. FOLLETT, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE SEATTLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND PRESIDENT OF THE WESTERN STATES COUNCIL

My name is Don M. Follett. I am vice president and general manager of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, which organization I represent today. I am also speaking as president of the Western States Council, an organization composed of chambers of commerce in the 13 Western States, which concerns itself primarily with the development of the natural resources of the West. Since the views of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce and the Western States Council are as one of the subject of this hearing, I should like the record to show that this statement fairly defines the position of each of these organizations.

The statement I am about to submit differs but slightly from my statement before the hearing conducted by this Senate committee in Bend, Oreg., on November 7, 1958. Examination of S. 1123 reveals that it contains essentially the same undesirable provisions as were contained in S. 4028, and we should like the record to show that our attitude toward those provisions remains unchanged. We should also like to request of the committee that in the event the legislation which is the subject of this hearing should be amended or modified, we be given an opportunity to submit additional testimony pertinent to such amendments or modifications.

We are strongly opposed to the passage of the proposed National Wilderness Preservation Act, or any other legislation which would establish a Wilderness Preservation Council or any other council or board for the purpose of advocating or promoting any program of management of federally owned or controlled area which favors any special interest group or groups.

Section 4(a) of the proposed act makes provision for the establishment of such a Council by specifying that the three citizen members of the National Wilderness Preservation Council "shall be persons known to be informed regarding, and interested in the preservation of, wilderness." No knowledge of the many other varied uses of Federal lands, or the economic importance of the natural resources on such lands, is required. Should this proposed legislation be enacted into law, it is certain that advocates of other special use of such lands will clamor for establishment of similar councils to promote their interests, using Federal tax funds for such purposes. The chaos that would result with each of these councils empowered to make independent recommendations to the Congress can easily be imagined. Inclusion of such groups within the framework of the Federal Government is to us completely unjustified. Existing private and quasi-public organizations, formed for the purpose of furthering or protecting their own interests in the use and management of Federal lands, have clearly demonstrated their ability to make their voices heard and their influnce felt in the legislatures of our States and in the committee rooms of the Congress. This hearing today is evidence of that ability. It serves to demonstrate the capabiliy of the Congress and its willingness--to seek and to obtain the counsel and opinion of the people of this country on issues that affect them, without establishing still more special Federal agencies to complicate an already overdeveloped administrative complex.

Even though the Federal lands are the property of all of the people of the United States, the citizens of the 13 Western States have by far the greatest interest in determining that these lands are dedicated to the multiple-use concept