And very soon the city of Seattle is going to build another dam up on Thunder Creek. They are going to flood that Thunder Creek Basin, and by the actual report of the Forest Service, as I have been told, and others, there is approximately 1,700-some million feet of timber of the finest stand of forest growth today anywhere lying up in that Thunder Creek and Granite Creek area. Now, some of that timber will go under this water. We want that timber out for the purpose of making jobs for our people in Skagit and Whatcom Counties. We want it out for the economy of our State and for the jobs that will come from the manufacture of raw products. We want that timber out for more reasons than that.

We want the north cross-State highway to open up this northern territory. We know we aren't going to build that north cross-State highway by State funds at the present time for a long time, because the resource is not there. We feel sure that that highway will eventually be built by forest funds from the sale of forest timber. And we know if that road is put through we can block off that timber through the Forest Service and realize a sale that will primarily pay for that cross-State highway.

There are many things to think about when you bottle up a section of land such as that; you are doing more harm than good. I have heard talk of conservation around this table today. Let me ask you: You people have been up in that territory. How many of you have packed through there, seen those stands of timber rotting and no place to get to them in case of fire or to fight the beetle and bug infestation? Some of the finest timber there is.

Talking again about conservation, how many of you realize that Douglas-firs are not the trees that really propagate? There has to be a clean cut, fire, or a clearing before they will come back in satis-: factorily. But you do have your other scrub timber come in. If we are going to have those kinds of timber, we have to log those timbers properly by selective logging and then reforest those same areas there to bring back the growth, and that is what can be done in this territory. I only speak for a small segment of our country, and the State of Washington, that will be taken in this wilderness area, but I speak for one of the finest stands of timber that is going to waste in the whole Northwest or in the United States, for that matter.

It has been a pleasure to be here. I hope the few words I have had to say will be of some benefit toward the formation of suitable legislation to protect us in this Northwest.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Senator Sapp. We appreciate the statement and you may file an additional statement if you so dsire. Irving Clark, Jr.

STATEMENT OF IRVING CLARK, JR.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared statement but would like to file one later, if I may.

Senator JACKSON. You may do so.

Mr. CLARK. May I say it is nice to see both of our Senators here at home once in a while, too.

Senator JACKSON. We'd like to be here more often.

Mr. CLARK. I thought I would make some comments on points which opponents to S. 1123 have made, and which I was fairly sure before I came here they would make, because they are a current which runs through this type of controversy and have for a number of years.

First let me say that I am not a rich New York philanthropist and have no inherited wealth. I was born here in Seattle; I am a lawyer and real estate broker and manage a small, not Government-financed telephone company in Alaska. That's about as independent as you can get, isn't it?

Bert Cole, for whom I campaigned, and several others, for instance, have talked here in terms of a conflict with the Forest Service that we conservationists are fighting the Forest Service. I would like to say, first, that like most conservationists I have always admired the job the Forest Service does. The enabling legislation of 1899 set up the Service, and it was to preserve a supply of timber for the use of the people of the United States. Its primary purpose is to develop sawtimber. In view of that it has done a wonderful job with recreation and conservation, which are, from its point of view by statute, sidelines. And I hate to see this kind of debate and create a conflict as though there were one between conservationists and the Forest Service.

Second point I would like to talk about is this phrase "locked up" that we always hear. The opponents of this and other measures have talked about our locking up resources. As you gentlemen well know, there is no area added to Federal holdings that is not now presently Federal holdings. It is perfectly true that U-1 and U-2 Forest Service regulations do a good job of providing some protection for wilderness areas, but they are subject to change by the Secretary of Agriculture. A statute such as this one would give some protection and perpetuity, and that is what we are looking for.

Thirdly, we talk about accessibility, that most people can't get into these remote wilderness areas. Well, now, I have had a stiff leg since I was 4 years old. I am not a mountaineer, or obviously much of a packer, but I can get into many of these wilderness areas in an hour's or a half hour's walk. In fact, if you will trade that handsome cane, Senator Magnuson, for a pair of crutches, with the cast on your foot you could go out from the road's end near these areas for half an hour on crutches at the height of the tourist season and be in an area where the chances are you wouldn't see another human being. There are all kinds of accessibility under your present national park concept.

Senator MAGNUSON. That's the best offer I've had for a long time. Mr. CLARK. I hope you don't still have the cast this summer. Accessibility is not a problem, and most people like myself, with my handicap, can get into these areas we are trying to preserve.

Fourth point I want to make, in terms of misconception of the size of these areas as it relates to how much wilderness area do we have. We have more of the United States under pavement than we do in the entire National Park Service. Another example, the Province of British Columbia, its provincial and dominion parks in the provinces, has more area in parks than the entire National Park Service of the United States.

Finally, I would like to make a point about protection. A number of speakers, Mr. Jackson, the last speaker, Mr. Cole, have talked about bugs and decay and rot and fire. One of the first literal observers of this part of the world was a very hardheaded man named George Vancouver, who arrived here in a boat in 1792. He died with a considerable reputation as an explorer when he was only 39 years old. He had been at sea 2 or 3 years. He was off Bainbridge Island in May of 1792 and he had time to write in his judgment of the beauties of the forests of Puget Sound. Now, I would like to know who, if the Douglas-fir doesn't naturally reproduce itself, who during the 10,000 years that forest had been standing almost untouched or unblighted by fire or decay, who had been clear cutting and who had been reseeding, who had been making the fire lanes?

The first white loggers to hit this country observed that the timber was perfect, had grown down to the water's edge all over western Washington. There were no large areas destroyed by fire or by bugs. The forest will take care of itself if the white man will let it, and with the population increase that Mr. Kreager, who I thought made an excellent statement on my behalf, pointed out to the committee that we are going to have in the next hundred years in this country, we need more wilderness area, or at least to preserve what we have now. Thank you.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Irving, for your fine statement.

Mr. Robert Smith, of Los Angeles, attorney for the Western Oil & Gas Association. I understand you must leave, too.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. SMITH, REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC LANDS COMMITTEE, WESTERN OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION

Mr. SMITH. Yes. My name is Robert A. Smith; I am a member of the public lands committee, Western Oil & Gas Association, and I am appearing today on behalf of the association, which represents. over 80 percent of the oil production, refining, and marketing in the six Western States of California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.

Regarding the particular impact of wilderness legislation on our industry, I refer you to the remarks of Robert T. Patton, of Western Oil & Gas Association, made to this committee at its meeting in San Francisco, Calif., on November 10, 1958. There will be others that will talk to this committee at your meeting on April 2 in Phoenix, Ariz.

Today I wish to express the overwhelming majority opinion of the thousands of citizens comprising our western oil industry regarding the underlying philosophy of this proposed legislation, to which these citizens vigorously object.

Firstly, S. 1123 is prohibitive in nature. Within the memory of most of us, a well-meaning but poorly informed Congress, at the instigation of a small but well-organized special-interest pressure group, passed certain legislation from which developed a chaotic era known as the prohibition era. S. 1123 was likewise generated by a well-organized special-interest pressure group and its philosophy is likewise prohibitive. In wilderness areas it specifically prohibits permanent or tem

39871-59——6

porary roads of any kind; prohibits the use of automobiles and trucks; prohibits any type of motorized equipment; prohibits motorboats; prohibits the landing of aircraft; prohibits the mechanical transport or delivery of persons or supplies; prohibits all structures or installation excepting those necessary for the Federal administration of the area as wilderness; prohibits commercial activity of any kind; prohibits the use of wilderness areas by the overwhelming majority of our citizens, that is, our very young children, our middle-aged and senior folks by prohibiting access except by a means beyond their physical capabilities-excepting, of course, this 12-hour's jaunt from the end of the road. And this, mind you, at a time when they have the leisure and the money to fully enjoy these areas. To these groups of "American people of present and future generations" it does not provide, it prohibits, "the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness." Secondly, S. 1123 abrogates our fundamental philosophy of equity, justice, and fairplay. It is inconceivable in the democratic system and processes as we now know them that one's adversary in a controversial matter be allowed to sit as judge and jury to determine its disposition. And yet, in creating the National Wilderness Preservation Council, section 4 (a) provides

the citizen members shall be persons known to be informed regarding, and interested in preservation of, wilderness.

This constitutes a "built in" wilderness lobby subsidized by the Federal Government to the tune of $100,000 annually.

Thirdly, we contend that more than adequate amounts of Federal wilderness presently exist in the 11 Western States. Statistics show that over 80 percent of this Nation's wilderness lies in the Western States and Alaska. This existing wilderness was utilized by less than 1 million visitors, while our State parks in the same area, totaling only 738,000 acres, were utilized by more than 74 million citizens. If the citizens of the West only knew the overwhelming inequity between the Eastern and Western States in the contributions of land and income required of the West under the "single purpose use" provisions of S. 1123, their cries of protest would be heard all the way to the Halls of Congress.

Fourthly, S. 1123 disregards its economic consequences. I'll skip over part of this because it has been adequately covered heretofore. I would like to say that in these Western States this legislation would affect the employment of over 623,000 citizens employed in natural resources industries with an annual payroll of over $3,290 million. As for Alaska, statehood was sought by thousands of Alaskans as a means of pushing back the wilderness. How can we deny them their rightful economic growth by perpetuating wilderness through legislation?

In conclusion, I respectfully suggest that this committee remember that the State legislatures of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona, with California pending, have memorialized their strong opposition to S. 1123. We contend that the creation of additional wilderness areas is economically unsound and socially inequitable because its benefits accrue to but a small segment of our citizens. Failure to consider these economic and social principles are the most frequent causes for the mistakes and failures of legislation,

and a law, formulated regardless of these principles which it ignores, is more likely to prove bad than good in its consequences.

On behalf of the Western Oil & Gas Association, I thank Senator Jackson and the other Senators for the time they have accorded me. Senator JACKSON. There is an exception in here on mining by presidential approval. I assume that does not include drilling for oil.

Mr. SMITH. That would include drilling for oil.

Senator JACKSON. It would include it?

Mr. SMITH. Well, mining, since the enactment of the Mineral Leasing Act in 1920, mining has taken on a different tone, but we would rather assume that that would include oil and gas exploration. However, we feel that it is much easier to pass a law than it is to amend or retract a law, and in order to get a Presidential proclamation, we feel that instead of encouraging exploration, as Senator Seaton has just said, in putting on compulsory curbs on importation and on the other hand encouraging such a bill, that you cannot encourage oil and gas exploration by merely a presidential edict.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Smith. The next witness, Mr. James F. Henriot, assistant city attorney, city of Tacoma. The Chair is trying to accommodate the people who have urgent situations; that is why they are out of order.

STATEMENT OF JAMES F. HENRIOT, TACOMA, WASH.

Mr. HENRIOT. Senator Jackson, my name is James F. Henriot. I am an attorney from Tacoma, Wash. I am appearing at this meeting today as a private citizen and not in any official capacity. I am not a representative of any conservation organization, outdoor group, commercial association, or chamber of commerce, but rather a private citizen deeply concerned with the wilderness problem and preservation of wilderness areas.

I shall not give to your committee any facts or figures, quotes or statistics, but rather submit my own opinions, many of which I assure you are concurred in by my friends, business and professional associates.

I am a native of Washington State, wherein there abounds considerable wilderness area. I am honest to say that it was not until recent years that I began to appreciate the meaning and beauty of wilderness and to become aware of the necessity of wilderness preservation. A 3-year period as a graduate student in the eastern United States, during which I visited a majority of the States of our Union, followed by travel in Canada and, more recently, travel in 14 European countries, have enlarged my appreciation of the natural resources and beauty of our Pacific Northwest and of the necessity to preserve the wilderness of this and other areas.

I have been fortunate to visit many of the wilderness areas in this State which will be affected by S. 1123. My personal impressions of such areas have been first a thankfulness for their creation, which comes from an appreciation of their beauty and, second, a desire to preserve such areas so that they may be enjoyed by others.

Every year the population of the United States is increasing and, in addition, there is more leisure time for our people. Use and enjoyment of the outdoors is one of the best ways to occupy that leisure