Now, we still, by choice and by necessity, put more faith in the U.S. Congress, in our elected officials, than we do in several appointed officials; that is what the bill provides for. I can't think of anything else that needs amplification except I am glad that we have people who maintain our democratic processes, and you certainly show, perhaps you don't show it, impatience that an ordinary person would show sitting and listening to this monotonous repetition. Senator GOLDWATER. Mr. Moses Campbell, Jr., president of Phi Beta Sigma.

STATEMENT OF MOSES CAMPBELL, JR., PRESIDENT, PHI BETA SIGMA

Mr. CAMPBELL. Hon. Senator Goldwater and fellow Americans. I, too, am in accord with the basic precepts of legislation of 1123.

First, because I don't believe this bill destroys any vested or property rights. I don't feel this bill is bureaucratic, nor does it embody socialistic tenets, and besides, I think most of us have failed to realize certain demographic factors that must be considered.

As to vested rights, I don't think it would be fair to deprive cattlegrowers of their rights. The bill nowhere states that if grazing lands are taken away from cattlemen, that is, if they own the grazing land, they are not going to be justly paid. I think they should be paid.

Secondly, there has been much talk about too much authority from the Federal Government. I have heard the Honorable Senator say there has been too much bureaucratic or demagogue rule which the State of Arizona is not in accord with.

Now, first, you know yourself, if our National Government were to deprive the cottongrowers of certain moneys which they pay for cotton, what would happen to that industry in this State? Not only in this State, but look at the surplus foods the Government has to buy. Yet, each of us who is a citizen has an interest in that because that is our money.

Secondly, there has been much talk about socialistic tenets which might come from this bill, but look at what has happened between California and Arizona in the water situation.

We have permitted the States to try to solve their own problems, and when I was in law school, they hadn't solved it then and they haven't solved it now, so therefore, you leave no alternative.

And, thirdly, is the demographic factor. Just last Sunday the University of Arizona at Tempe gave a TV program in which they discussed this matter. It has to do with the mushrooming of population, and I feel that the theory behind this bill is that unless our Government takes some steps to protect certain areas, then it will be too late later. This is the most propitious moment to do this. Therefore, I think it is necessary that our Government establish some type of legislation to protect these various areas, and lastly, I would like to say I realize this is not a model piece of legislation because few pieces are, but I think this is the very best that has come so far. Thank you very much.

Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much for coming today.
Mr. Lester Oliver, White Mountain Apache Tribe.

STATEMENT OF LESTER OLIVER, REPRESENTING THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE

Mr. OLIVER. Senator Goldwater, and fellow Americans, I am representing the White Mountain Apache Tribe. The White Mountain Apache Tribe is not unalterably opposed to the establishment of a wilderness system for the people of the United States, but we feel that all tribes of Indians that will be affected by this bill should sit down with representatives of the Secretary of the Interior and negotiate the establishment of a wilderness area based on the multiple-use principle of resources management.

Section 2(d) of S. 4028 states that the

Secretary of the Interior may designate as appropriate for inclusion after consultation with the several tribes or bands through the tribal council or other duly constituted authorities.

We believe and feel very strongly that it should be changed to read: Secretary of the Interior may designate as appropriate for inclusion wilderness areas on Indian lands after consultation with and the free consent of the several tribes or bands through the tribal council or other duly elected tribal authorities. I understand this S. 1123 provides for this.

Our committee represents the Fort Apache Indian Reservation located in the east-central part of Arizona in Navajo, Apache, and Gila Counties. We represent the White Mountain Apaches and our ancestors have lived in this region for many centuries. Our reservation is approximately 75 miles long from east to west, and about 45 miles wide from north to south in the extremes, and contains 1,664,872 acres. The White Mountain Apache Tribe is primarily interested in appearing before this committee because our reservation contains two roadless areas established by Bureau of Indian Affairs Order No. 486, dated December 23, 1937.

(1) Mount Thomas roadless area, approximately 109,670 acres. (2) Black River roadless area, approximately 68,480 acres.

These two roadless areas on our reservation have an estimated 897 million board feet of commercial timber of which an estimated 562 million board feet is available for cutting on a planned basis. Commercial timber is located on elevations of 6,000 to 10,000 feet. Spruce is found at the higher elevations below which is a belt of aspen and fir. At still lower elevations, mixed with the above-mentioned species, is ponderosa pine which occupies about 70 percent of our forested areas. About 40 million board feet of timber is cut annually according to a forest management plan. The value of the timber sold represents 90 percent of our tribal income. S. 4028, if passed in its present form, will freeze all the existing roadless areas and this would be entirely unfair to the White Mountain Apache Tribe because, as stated above, nearly all of our tribal income now emanates from the harvesting of timber on a sustained yield basis. On September 6, 1956, the Washington office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs stated that "logging operations, inclusive of road construction, may proceed in roadless areas" and, under our present plans, we expect to begin harvesting commercial timber in the roadless areas on our reservation. I would like to repeat that we wish to manage our resources on the basis of the multiple-use principle of resources management for the benefit of the greatest number of people.

Senator Goldwater, at this time, I would like to make this comment. I was very much interested in what Ashcroft of Mesa said who made the statement that nature and the Indians had taken care of our forests, and as I said, I told the members of the committee at the Albuquerque hearing that perhaps one possible solution to this problem is, as the old saying goes, give it back to the Indians.

On behalf of the Apache Tribe, I would like

Senator GOLDWATER. Lester, I have heard it said the Indians wouldn't take it back.

Mr. OLIVER. No; that is Manhattan Island. [Laughter.]

Mr. STONG. That provision of the bill now says that the Secretary of the Interior may designate as appropriate for inclusion upon the recommendation or with the consent of the tribes, bands, or groups concerned, acting through their tribal councils or other duly constituted authorities. Such designation shall not change title to the land or any beneficial interest therein, and shall not modify or otherwise affect the Indians' rights to the land. The Secretary of the Interior shall make any addition, modification, or elimination recommended by any tribal council or other duly constituted authority of any tribe, band, or group with regard to any area of its tribal land.

Is that language satisfactory?

Mr. OLIVER. It sounds more like it. As I said, I did not know of this bill until today, and I understand it is in there.

Mr. STONG. One other matter. It is my understanding that the roadless areas which are included in the wilderness are the Forest Service roadless areas, and that no Indian roadless area would be included unless the tribe recommended it or gave its consent. The reference to roadless areas did not refer to Indian roadless areas, but only to Forest Service roadless areas, and if that is correct, I assume you would not object to that provision?

Mr. OLIVER. No; we don't.

Mr. STONG. So long as the Indian roadless areas are not included? Mr. OLIVER. That's right.

Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you, and I might say that we hear a lot about the state of the Indians. Under the leadership of Mr. Oliver and other leaders like him in this State, our Indians are making great progress. In fact, those of you who are interested in the wilderness and primitive areas, I would suggest that you might try to get into Lake Hollworth when it opens, which I understand is Memorial Day. That is one of the most beautiful lakes man made, and it will be one of the best sporting areas, I mean fishing, and it has been done entirely by these Indians, and I, as an Arizonian, am proud

of them.

Have we overlooked anybody that might want to be heard?

Mr. HELD. Senator Goldwater, I have no prepared statement, but I would like to simply stand up and be counted.

Senator GOLDWATER. Give your name and address to the reporter.

STATEMENT OF WELDON F. HEALD, TUSCON, ARIZ.

Mr. HEALD. I am Weldon F. Heald, of Tuscon, Ariz., and I am a writer, and Elliott Barker didn't mention that he was a writer, but many of us have read his books on wilderness, and all I wanted to say is I do belong to many associations, but I am just speaking as an indi

vidual who has been in the West 35 years; and I think that I have been in at least half the remote corners of all the 11 Western States, and little by little I have seen what is known as human erosion, which you all have seen. You have seen bits of our forests go. You have seen our hillsides bulldozed. You have seen our lakes drained and our marshes and it doesn't seem to me as I have been over these vast 11 States, and occasionally stopped off at Las Vegas where the human can have what is known as fun. I don't think us oldtimers are asking for very much, and I am not going to talk about my children's children because I have none but I hope that when my hair is even whiter, and even more bowed, I hope that I may go to some of the places and find that they are unspoiled as God made them. My motto has been "For America," God bless America-and let's save some of it.

STATEMENT OF JACK ROGERS, YUMA, ARIZ.

Mr. ROGERS. I am Jack Rogers, Yuma, Ariz. I am not making this statement as a cattleman; I am making this as an individual; as a man that lives here in the city. I am making it first as an American citizen. When war was declared, I joined the Marine Corps. I wasn't drafted. I went in there for 4 years. I spent 32 months overseas. I stopped three Jap bullets and every time they X-ray me they find more shrapnel, and I might indicate I have slept out in the forest, too. I have slept out there quite a bit and I have slept out in dugouts on Midway Island. I have slept out in dugouts on Okinawa, and I slept out in all those places.

Sure, I like it; I want some place for my kids, too, but another thing, I am paying pretty darn high taxes right now. Can we afford this? This is a question I am asking you wilderness people. We've got bureaus, we've got everything else; can we afford all this? We've got social security and all; can we afford this? We've got a war to pay for. Look how high our taxes are right now. Can we afford it and right now, right now what is it that you will get that you can't get right now? Has anyone objected to you camping in the forest? Has anyone objected to you riding the trails? Of course, there are a few that go out and ride the trails and never come back; some have. I know of a man that is lying right up here just a few years back; they went out in the wilderness and couldn't get back and one of them died right close to the ranch. He didn't know it. Well, that was wilderness, and it is still wilderness, but can we afford it; that is one of the things.

Can't we slack up a little bit, and another thing, you say conserve it as God made it.

Well, let's look at that point right there. There is one of the points, conserve it as God made it. Did God put the junipers on it so damn thick that all of the topsoil washes away? All of it washing away and when God made it, when God put it there, we had springs to feed the wildlife. Now, what would happen if it wasn't for the rancher that goes in there and develops those springs?

Now, these are questions that I am asking you. Would we hire more money and raise our taxes again to pay for that? How about the rancher that spends his own money to go into a forest and dig ponds, plant seed, destroy junipers, things that are ruining our country, and now, another thing that came up in this deal right here was overproduction.

east of the Mississippi River, in the East, Midwest and in many cases, the South, you'll see the damnable results.

Yes, they were given access; yes, they were sustained by the land and resources they were free to use; yes, their incomes did in part support the general economy and yes, gentlemen, the long-term effect was and is deplorable.

Those same, one-time wildernesses felt the brunt of an onslaught of intemperate, gluttonous, malusage that sapped, depleted, and destroyed mineral resources-take your pick of the array-left stumplittered plains where there had been rich forests, left kal-ee-chie and clay where there had been rich topsoil-left dry gullies and potholes where there had been water-left silent, lifeless vistas where there had been abundant game. And who feels the sharpest pain in this type of use of the so-called multiple-use theory-not any single corporation; not any group of private businessmen; not even the members of America's conservation and sporting organizations, but several million individual private citizens who don't own a business, who don't hold stock, who don't belong to conservation or sportsmen's organizations and who now don't have but the vaguest of an opportunity to even broach the very idea of getting their share of multiple use of one-time wilderness areas that are now depleted or divided into real estate.

And yet that same individual citizen with next to no lobbying power represents the bulk of persons and interests who should have been considered in past history, and should now be considered most seriously in the matter of this proposed and sadly overdue wilderness bill.

And gentlemen, it should be noted that these same millions are the major investors in the multimillion dollar business of selling outdoor equipment and hunting licenses, and who when they buy them in the East are lucky to find an uncongested vestige of forest and blessed if they find any game there.

If you doubt me, gentlemen, I'll remind you that the Ford Motor Co. road show for station wagon and outdoor living isn't even scheduled for a multiple score of Eastern metropolises. Why? Because Ford Motor Co. has looked east and does see that even if the people had the equipment they'd have next to no place or purpose to use it in contrast to the present-day West.

The same Ford Motor Co. road show is currently encamped at Park Central here in Phoenix-I know because I've seen it and I've used films of it on my news shows that road show is here, gentlemen, because the company has looked west and knows the individual noncommercial, nonmember citizen does have a place and purpose for making use of such equipment here in the West. Gentlemen, I beseech you on their behalf, to leave it that way; to pass this bill.

Legislatively preserve a wilderness today and have protective legislation that can at a future date when it is imperative, be altered, amended, or for that matter repealed so that Mr. Nobody, Mr. Average Citizen, Mr. Average Outdoorsman of the future will have a chance here in the West to get his share of true multiple use a use his contemporary Eastern counterpart has been too greatly denied. Thank you, gentlemen.