the whole earth*** the organization of spirited people who will fight for the freedom of the wilderness," he also inspired the organization of and became a founder of the Wilderness Society.

To Robert Marshall and to Aldo Leopold we owe much of our present opportunity to see wilderness perpetuated in America.

To the pioneers in establishing sanctuaries for birds and other wildlife we also owe a debt for our present wilderness preservation opportunity.

The legislators who enacted the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 established a basic national wildlife refuge policy. The refuge system was greatly enlarged under the dynamic leadership of J. N. "Ding" Darling and under his effective successor, Ira N. Gabrielson, and the policies of preserving within the refuges the areas of wilderness that they include have been continuously developed by J. Clark Salyer, refuge division head, who served under Darling, Gabrielson, and each of the succeeding heads of the Fish and Wildlife Service and its recent successor, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. To these men and to many other wildlife conservationists we owe not only a debt for the preservation of particular wilderness areas within refuges but also an appreciation for their insistence that an America with an abundant wildlife is the America that should be preserved.

It has been the philosophy of these conservationists that the preservation of wildlife, parks, wilderness, and other unspoiled natural resources is thoroughly consistent with economic and cultural prosperity.

As Harvey Broome, who with Robert Marshall and Aldo Leopold was among the founders of the Wilderness Society, said in 1953 at the dedication of the Gila Wilderness memorial to Aldo Leopold:

Ours is the first great Nation in history to be possessed of both the knowledge and means to bring about within its borders a state of permanent and harmonious coexistence with the land.

Wilderness

Mr. Broome concluded

must be the cornerstone of such a world. For there are the grizzlies, the coyotes, and the deer; there are the lions and the chickadees; there, the forests and the waters, the fish and the insects; there, the humus and the soil, the prarie and marsh grasses, the flora above the earth and the microflora in the earth, all living and existing in balance, in beauty and harmony. There, is the unspoiled remnants of the wild earth, spotted across our continent, man will find the basis of understanding. Then, wilderness will influence civilization, and civilization will cease to alter and destroy wilderness. Then, indeed, will Thoreau's lord of creation walk as a member and not as a fumbling outsider in the community of living things.

Such is the tradition of preservation that American conservationists have established, the tradition that we must maintain as we face the responsibility that is ours, with the opportunity that is ours for preserving the wilderness that we still have, still need, still want very much.

As we go forward in this tradition of preservation, we have a great and compelling need for basic national legislation. We have seen that there are some 55 million acres of still living wilderness in Federal ownership or control, within areas with established purposes that are consistent with wilderness preservation.

This wilderness resource is within 163 separate areas, each of which is a part of a national forest, park, refuge, range, or other reservation where preserving wilderness is a perfectly appropriate present use of the land.

As long as these parks, forests, refuges, and other reservations have been in existence these areas of wilderness have been preserved. If we will to do it, and act effectively, they can be so preserved in perpetuity, and this can be accomplished without sacrificing any existing purpose on any of these lands.

Yet the fact is there are at present no laws of Congress that protect these areas of wilderness as wilderness. We thus have a primary need for such legislation.

In the face of our increasing populations and the growing mechanization of so much of our activity, our only democratic hope for success in preserving ur wilderness resource is in our policy of deliberately setting aside such areas for preservation and then maintaining the integrity of our designation.

We cannot expect the accidents of history to leave our remaining wilderness untouched. We cannot expect the coincidents of other purposes to continue the good fortunes of incidental preservation.

The wilderness that we wish to preserve we must deliberately so designate, and with regard to such areas we must have a specific welldefined purpose.

A basic assumption in our wilderness preservation program is thus the understanding that our civilization is such that no areas will persist unexploited or undeveloped except those that are deliberately set aside and faithfully protected. If they are to be unused for other purposes, we must use them as wilderness.

A parallel assumption in our wilderness preservation program is based on our confidence that our land and water resources are great and varied enough that we can have an adequate system of wilderness areas without sacrificing other advantages.

We are confident that we can get the timber and minerals we need outside our relatively few areas of wilderness to be preserved. The needed sites for dams and reservoirs, the roads and landing fields for our mechanical travel in the great outdoors, places for recreation with the conveniences and facilities we so well contrive-alls these can be located outside our wilderness that we wish to preserve.

In other words, we are confident that without sacrificing our wilderness preservation hopes we can realize all the benefits that we want from a developed country. Wilderness preservation is consistent with our other national purposes.

As Newton B. Drury, a former director of the National Park Service, said of our national parks:

Surely, we are not so poor that we need to destroy them, or so rich that we can afford to lose them.

A basic need thus in our wilderness preservation program is for the designation of areas of wilderness for preservation as wilderness. This we have not yet done in any law of Congress.

Even in the national parks and monuments, the pressures for roads and nonwilderness recreational and tourist developments threaten in many places to destroy the primeval back-country wilderness.

Within the national parks and monuments in general there is at present no act of Congress that would prevent a future Secretary of

the Interior, or park administrator with his approval, from deciding to construct a road, a building, or any other installation that he would deem appropriate for a national park or monument anywhere within the park or monument.

The Yellowstone Act that inaugurated our national parks in 1872 provided for the retention of the wonders there "in their natural condition," and yet that act has, of course, not interfered with the construction of the Yellowstone Park system of roads, the many buildings that are there, and the other developments that have so altered "natural conditions" that the atmosphere in some parts of the park is that of a crowded city.

I do not object to these developments in Yellowstone National Park. I have indeed used them with appreciation. I am merely pointing out that they have been constructed in accordance with the laws under which the park is governed, and there is nothing in that law to prevent such construction elsewhere in the park.

There are other parks-Isle Royale and Everglades, for example— where wilderness preservation is perhaps more specifically a park purpose, but in general in none of them is there a limit to the possible penetration of the primeval back country with developments that would destroy the wilderness as such.

In my opinion if we are to make sure that we still have in the distant future our national park primeval back country still preserved as wilderness, we should declare here in Congress our purpose to do so.

In Mission 66 we are doing our best to provide for the development of adequate facilities and accommodations for the increasingly numerous visitors to the parks. I heartily endorse and support this development program. I yield to no one as a friend of the national parks and the National Park Service. I shall continue to invite every constituent in my district and their fellow Americans everywhere to lose no opportunity to visit their national parks and monuments, and I shall lose no opportunity to help see that these visitors are properly accommodated.

At the same time I sense a need also to strengthen the hands of the National Park Service in its work for the preservation of the primeval back country as wilderness.

I have been impressed with the findings of a scientist who made a study of our wilderness programs as a part of his doctoral study at the University of Michigan. Speaking on October 26, 1954, at the Milwaukee, Wis., convention of the Society of American Foresters, this scientist, Dr. James P. Gilligan, who is now assistant professor of forestry at the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, spoke as follows about existing wilderness preservation prospects in our national park system:

Wilderness conditions, of course, have vanished from developed areas; and the sight, sound, and sometimes smell of these concentration zones disperse so widely that quite large sections cannot be considered natural, let alone wilderness. National parks, too, must often justify their existence to the locality or State in which they are situated principally on economic grounds. As long as the drums throb for more tourist dollars, park administrators will find it hard to accommodate the increasing army of sightseers without extending development. It is highly improbable that a seemingly logical course of restricting visitation to any national park will be put into effect until every possible means of providing accommodations is exhausted. It is a fair question to ask how much of the parks will be developed by then.

Because of congressional measures which ordinarily prevent utilization of wood, water, mineral, or forage resources in areas of the national park system, the National Park Service is the most logical existing agency to preserve extensive wilderness regions. However, it is subject to the unrelenting pressures of mass use, and retreats gradually behind the cold logic that more areas must be developed to care properly for the public to whom the land belongs. It is merely another application of the philosophy that as many people as possible should use these areas, even though finally there is little left of the original landscape. Americans will continue to saturate choice recreation sites opened to motorized entry, and then complain because everyone else is also present.

The real democratic significance of these areas may not be in providing access and accommodations to everyone, but in holding a few undeveloped areas where high-quality recreation benefits can still be obtained by those willing to make the effort. Most endeavors to retain such areas for a relatively small number gradually yield before the demands of an eager traveling public, which has not yet grasped the full significance of our national park system.

The organic National Park Service Act of 1916 offers nearly as much flexibility in managing recreation resources as does the multiple-use principle of the Forest Service. There is nothing in the act directing how much of, or what part of, parks to develop, nor is there any clause in the law or interpretive regulations stipulating the reservation of park units in wilderness condition.

The National Park Service has established some precedence in trying to retain wilderness zones. It is questionable whether the will of the administrator can be sufficiently strong to prevent development in the long run.

We must meet this situation by providing in Congress the basic legislation that these excellent administrators need to insure their success in making our national parks secure as our great reservoirs of wilderness.

The Forest Service administrators of the superlatively valuable wilderness, wild, primitive, and roadless areas in the national forests have not only to contend with recreational pressures that in some instances challenge wilderness preservation. They also must look forward through the years of the future to many local pressures to cut the wilderness forests for timber, dam the wilderness streams for water storage and power, prospect for minerals, and in various ways use the commodities of the national forests.

Wilderness preservation is a national forest purpose that has developed within the U.S. Forest Service itself. A remarkably effective program has now been developed, a program that has meant the designation of 80 areas for protection as wilderness.

Yet these areas have all been set up administratively. A future Secretary of Agriculture could abolish or seriously reduce them.

This excellent Forest Service program needs the endorsement that congressional recognition can bring, and the security of the national forest wildernesses requires it also.

In fact, none of our Federal wilderness has the protection that Congress could give by providing for wilderness preservation as a national policy applied to a definite system of areas.

It is in recognition of this need for legislation that the wilderness bill, after extensive study, has been drafted, reviewed, introduced, clarified, improved, and reintroduced. It is a far-reaching, carefully studied proposal. It will be of longtime lasting importance to the American people. It demands detailed consideration, and I particularly urge the administrators of the lands involved to give it their sympathetic, constructive attention, and I trust that the Smithsonian Institution will realize the educational and scientific importance of the role which it can play.

The preservation of some of our great stretches of wilderness is a fundamental part of our American character.

We are a great people because we have been so successful in developing and using our marvelous natural resources, but, also, we Americans are the people we are largely because we have had the influence of the wilderness on our lives.

We owe much of our health and our spirit of adventure and selfreliance to the nearness of the outdoors and, in great measure, to the way in which, in our youth-and youth lasts long for many of us—we have ventured into the wilderness.

We must, of course, continue our development of resource uses. We must continue to provide outdoor recreation with conveniences for everybody in picnic places and parks of many kinds. But we must also continue to see that some of our land is preserved as nearly as possible untouched by any kind of civilized development.

Our great engineering and development programs should, indeed, be part of an overall national policy that likewise includes the preservation of some of our land as God made it.

It is a pleasure thus to look ahead in a positive program for preserving some of our land in pristine of primitive wilderness.

As our population becomes greater, as industrial and other pressures close around the areas of wilderness still remaining, the necessity becomes keener for moving ahead with a program that will preserve these buffer areas for the human spirit, seeing that they may long endure for the recreational, educational, scientific, and historical uses of the American people.

Madam Chairman, I also ask permission to have included at this point in the record a statement on the wilderness bill which was presented by Senator Clinton P. Anderson on January 6, 1961, when he introduced S. 174, 87th Congress, which, with some amendment, passed the U.S. Senate September 6, 1961.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Saylor. Without objection, Senator Anderson's statement will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT ON THE WILDERNESS BILL BY SENATOR CLINTON P. ANDERSON

Some three dozen years ago a young forest supervisor in New Mexico enlisted me in the cause for wilderness preservation. That was Aldo Leopold, who became one of the eminent conservationists of our generation. As I have said before, I shall never forget how he poured out his heart on the subject of primitive tracts which seemed likely to be destroyed with the development of the auto, the truck, and speedier methods of transportation.

I talked with Aldo Leopold many times about wilderness, where it would be possible to preserve scenic beauty and the natural accompaniments of areas unspoiled by manmade changes, the fish and wildlife which had once owned these areas themselves, the forests and mesas, the canyons and open parks, the whole environment in which we ourselves can often feel most deeply refreshed, inspired in such scenes as those of our own distant beginnings.

THE NEW BILL

I now have the privilege of seeking to advance in a very significant way this cause of wilderness preservation, as I introduce the bill to establish a national wilderness preservation system for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes. This is the wilderness bill.

It is 5 years now since the distinguished and farseeing Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Humphrey] first introduced such a measure to this body. Through two