joy them in their present natural form. This is the objective and purpose of this bill.

Mr. ASPINALL. But you are not here this morning pleading the case for a special group of citizens in the United States. You are here this morning pleading the case for the preservation of the values of the wilderness areas; is that right?

Mr. BALDWIN. Preservation of the values of the wilderness areas; that is right.

Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much.

Mrs. PrOST. Are there further questions?

Mr. SAYLOR. Madam Chairman, I just want to compliment our colleague from California, Mr. Baldwin, who has been one of the outstanding proponents of this type of legislation ever since he has been here in Congress.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Saylor.

Mr. SAYLOR. I welcome you before the committee.
Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you very much, Mr. Baldwin.

Our next witness is the Honorable Henry S. Reuss of Wisconsin. We appreciate having you here this morning, Mr. Reuss.

Mr. REUSS. First, I would like to associate myself with the good presentation just made by Mr. Baldwin, my colleague from California. I believe this wilderness bill, hopefully in somewhat improved form, should be brought before the Congress at this session and I hope it will be passed.

Coming from Wisconsin as I do, I cannot forget the way some of our forefathers gutted the natural resources of my own State, and I would hope that this bill would write it into the legislative charter of the land that there shall be certain areas which are to be preserved. inviolate for wilderness purposes very truly for all the people, because every family in the United States deserves some few areas at least where they can observe our land as it existed when our forefathers first arrived.

I think that this committee, with its splendid experience in natural resources and with the weeks it has spent on this subject, can arrive at a bill which is fair to our important mining and lumbering and grazing interests, and also preserve this interest of all of the people in the wilderness areas.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. REUSS. As one of the original House sponsors of legislation to preserve wilderness areas under the management of Federal agencies, I am naturally pleased that your committee is holding hearings at this time, and I am grateful to you for giving me an opportunity to record my views on the pending bill. I am mindful, too, Madam Chairman, that your subcommittee held hearings on my first wilderness bill, H.R. 906, 85th Congress, and other similar House bills nearly 5 years ago, in June 1957.

The Senate-passed bill, S. 174, now before your committee, though materially different from the bills which I have introduced, would accomplish, nevertheless, the major purpose which I and other House sponsors had in mind: congressional support for maintaining the

wilderness character of selected areas in our national parks, national forests, and national wildlife refuges.

In discussions with my colleagues, I find general agreement that wilderness preservation is essential to our national well-being. In my own State of Wisconsin there is overwhelming support for wilderness preservation. Unfortunately, our forefathers gutted much of the State's resources. All the more reason why we of this generation should preserve parks and wilderness areas in their natural condition for future generations to enjoy.

Some regional and national groups oppose any kind of wilderness legislation. Some lumbermen argue that they should be allowed to cut any "merchantable" timber, wherever it may be, just as some mining interests argue that they must have free access to any spot in the country where they think they may find minerals. With these views I do not agree. I believe that the preservation of wilderness insures values of a kind which need not be sacrificed for the commercial or industrial "quick dollar."

Having in mind these general principles, I suggest to the committee careful review of section 6 (c) of S. 174 insofar as it authorizes motorboating, aircraft, prospecting, mining, and grazing in wilderness areas. Finally, I come to section 11 of S. 174. It is short and explicit. reads:

It

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as superseding, modifying, or otherwise affecting the provisions of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792-825r).

If the wilderness concept means anything, power dams ought not to be constructed in wilderness areas.

Mrs. ProST. Are there questions of the Congressman?

Mr. WESTLAND. Madam Chairman?

Mrs. Prost. The gentleman from Washington.

Mr. WESTLAND. I would like to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, Have you seen any indication that the designated park, wilderness, and primitive areas are not being preserved?

Mr. REUSS. Of course; I see abundant evidence all over the country that our natural areas are being despoiled. I am not talking about those that have been designated.

Mr. WESTLAND. That is not my question. I said, Have you seen any evidence of parks, primitive or wilderness areas, so designated, not being preserved?

Mr. REUSS. In recent years I have been aware of the intrusion of outside interests in some of the wildlife refuge areas, Lake Lacassine in Louisiana, for instance, where the oil interests came in and did a very unlovely job of spoliation.

Mr. WESTLAND. Can you name one where there has not been preservation of present park, wilderness, or primitive areas? Can you name one?

Mr. REUSS. Yes. Lake Lacassine in Louisiana was one.

I believe that situation is happily repaired now.

Mr. WESTLAND. What was that?

Mr. REUSS. That was a natural wildlife refuge.

Mr. WESTLAND. It was not a park, wilderness, or primitive area. Mr. REUSS. But this bill applies to designated areas in wildlife refuges as well as national forests and national parks. This would be one example, then, that I am familiar with. However, I do not

think it would be necessary to prove there has been wholesale spoliation of administratively designated wilderness areas and I am not aware there has been. We simply want to avoid the possibility of this in the future.

Mr. WESTLAND. You could not prove it because it is not so. the contrary is true.

In fact,

Mr. REUSS. As I say, I do not believe it is necessary to prove this because sometimes it is well to lock the stable before the horse is stolen, and I would hope in future years there would not be this invasion of wilderness areas and the best way to prevent it is by writing it firmly into the legislative charter.

Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, as I understand your position, Mr. Reuss, it is to protect the wilderness areas rather than to be here representing a minority group who may have the right to use these areas; is that correct?

Mr. REUSS. Exactly. I think the group that uses these wilderness areas is just about as broad as the 180 million people of the United States. This is a potential place of resort for every family in the United States.

Mr. ASPINALL. It is not a question of places of resort; it is a question of the interest of that 180 million people or any individual who has values connected one way or the other in these areas, that is what you wish to protect? It is not a question of visitation only, but a question of whatever values may be there.

Mr. REUSS. Exactly, and I think that families who do not have the opportunity to visit a wilderness area very frequently, or perhaps not in a generation, still have an interest that our Nation keep a few places where a woodpecker can build a nest or drill a hole in a dead tree.

Mr. ASPINALL. I am not sure your illustration is apt. [Laughter.] I do not know I am in favor of spoliation by a woodpecker or an individual, as far as that is concerned.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Reuss, first I would like to thank you for appearing before the committee. Your record as an outstanding conservationist in Congress is well known by all of the people in this country. I think probably your feelings were expressed by a man who appeared here before this committee several years ago. When somebody asked him whether or not he had ever been to Dinosaur National Park, he said, no, he never had because he never had enough money, but neither had he had enough money to question the integrity of the U.S. Government as to the amount of money they said was in Fort Knox, but he believed he should be entitled, as a citizen of this country, to place the same integrity in the Interior Department as he did in the Treasury Department.

Mr. REUSS. I suppose I could say about many of these wilderness areas what our former colleague, Brooks Hays, said about the old lady who was asked whether she had even seen Halley's comet, and the answer was, "Only from a distance."

Mrs. ProST. Are there further questions of Congressman Reuss? Thank you very much. We appreciate your appearance here this morning.

Mr. REUSS. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness is the Honorable Walt Horan of the State of Washington. It is always a pleasure to welcome our able colleague from the State of Washington to our committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALT HORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. HORAN. Madam Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to appear before you this morning to state my views on this most important bill. I want to commend the members of this committee for their interest in this legislation which so vitally affects millions of American citizens.

I am confident that during the course of these hearings the specific provisions of this legislation will be carefully discussed and considered, and thus I will not elaborate on the various provisions of the bill.

The people of the 11 Western States are greatly concerned with this measure, and their concern is understandable when one considers that over 50 percent of the land area of the 11 Western States and Alaska is in Federal ownership or management.

Years ago, the Northwest section of our country was considered to be a wasteland of rugged mountains, forests, and rampaging rivers. Today, as a result of the proper, controlled management of our forests, this area is one of the most productive regions of our Nation. The economy of the Northwest depends heavily upon the continued wise development of the many resources available in these abundant areas of forest lands.

In 1960 the Congress passed the so-called multiple-use bill which provides that our national forest lands be managed in line with the multiple-use concept, or "best for the greatest number of people" idea. I was one of the original sponsors of this bill because I realized how important it was to insure that all forest resources, lumber, mines, recreation, watersheds, grazing lands and others be managed in a way which would allow their maximum development as well as preservation.

At the present time the lumber and mining economies in the Northwest are in a state of decline. This decline has a direct adverse effect on the economy of the area and the Nation in general. In an effort to strengthen these industries, much is being done here in the Congress. For example, the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee is at this time conducting hearings to determine just what needs to be done to help the depressed lumber industry in the West.

In addition, a bill designed to stabilize the lead-zinc mining industry is pending before your committee. I joined with your distinguished chairman, Representative Aspinall, in sponsoring this bill, which is vitally needed. I feel that the enactment of S. 174 in its present form would greatly hinder these and other attempts to strengthen these industries, so important to the economy of our Nation.

I am not opposed to the preservation of wilderness areas. Actually, I feel that wilderness areas, which have been wisely and properly designated as such, should be maintained. I am in complete accord with the millions of acres presently classified as wilderness areas, and undoubtedly there are other areas which could and should be similarly classified.

I feel the major issue in the wilderness question is not whether we should have wilderness areas, but rather, how much there should

be, how these areas should be established, and how they should be managed.

Statistics show that only 2 percent of our total population utilizes the present wilderness areas. Therefore, I believe that in creating a wilderness area, every consideration should be given to what purposes the particular area is best suited for. Thorough consideration should be given to just what impact the creation of such "closed" wilderness areas would have on the people of adjacent communities. The bill before you, as it is presently written, in my opinion would not allow such proper consideration.

I fear some impact and some danger to some of our local communities which may be founded upon lumbering or mining in the West, particularly, and I know that that has been brought to the attention of this committee many times.

The U.S. Constitution vests the Congress with authority and responsibility to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations relative to federally owned land. The bill before you, as passed by the Senate, does not allow the Congress nor the people it represents any meaningful role in creating wilderness areas, but rather gives this authority to the executive branch. The Congress is allowed only the power to veto, or "negative approval." Therefore, I respect fully urge the committee to amend the legislation to allow the Congress to consider executive proposals which would establish wilderness areas, according to normal legislative processes.

I would like to see this legislation amended so that we can continue the regular procedures in determining what should or should not be wilderness areas, national parks, and that sort of thing. I hate to see the Congress of the United States continually abdicating its right as a legislative body, and, therefore, I think an amendment to this legislation is in order to protect the integrity of the Congress.

Now, if such an amendment were adopted, hearings could be held by the responsible congressional committees, and where possible, in the affected States. Such hearings are usually held when considering the establishment of a national park. Communities adjacent to large forest areas are necessarily dependent upon these areas for their livelihood, and I feel the people deserve to be given their rightful opportunity to express their views on the best possible use of these public lands. An amendment of this type would, I believe, protect this right for the people.

I would also like to recommend a second amendment which would provide that only areas which heretofore have been classified as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe," and unclassified national forest lands presently designated as "primitive" be included in this system. I feel that the national parks and wildlife refuges were properly established for specific purposes, and that present laws and regulations allow such areas to be properly managed and administered by the appropriate Federal agencies.

If two amendments, along the lines I have discussed, are adopted, I feel the bill will provide for a more sound and constructive approach to managing our abundant forest resources.

Now, the next matter I want to bring to your attention-I do trust the committee will give it very serious consideration and the able men in the Park Service and Interior and in the Forest Service-I

77350-62-pt. 4-5