There is particular appropriateness, even though it is just coincidence, that these hearings are taking place almost on the anniversary of the centennial of Henry Thoreau's death.

"We need the tonic of wilderness," said Thoreau

We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life-pasturing freely where we never wander.

That we are providing for all men in this bill, a Walden Pond on a nationwide scale-what a monument to the providence of our generation.

There has been some vigorous opposition to this bill, and to the others to the same purpose which have preceded this one, but it would appear that scarcely any of this comes from the individual citizens who hope to enjoy the wilderness, now and in years to come, or their representatives.

Certain groups whose commercial interests are in grazing, mining, petroleum, and timber are opposing S. 174. With all due respect to them, it seems to me that their objections are not well founded.

The bill, as it has been amended, should meet all of their objections. No grazing in areas in the national forests is reduced or terminated where the grazing of livestock was well established prior to enactment. Under the bill, the President may authorize prospecting and mining in wilderness areas when he determines it will better serve the interests of the Nation and the people than will its denial.

The bill prohibits any commercial enterprise in the wilderness system, except for the continuation of grazing in some areas and mining as authorized above.

The Nation can have a wilderness system and an abundance of timber next year, and for many, many years ahead, with prudent management. There is no timber harvest today from the lands being considered for inclusion in the wilderness system under S. 174.

Wilderness system areas are not about to be "locked up" and the key thrown away.

Lands devoted to wilderness provide benefits beyond those identified as wilderness and are actually multiple-use lands.

They provide watershed protection and clear, pure water for users below them.

They provide game, which, if it could be produced at all, would cost tens of millions of dollars to maintain, propagate and produce in artificial facilities. Some species cannot exist at all except in wilderness.

Areas of the wilderness system will continue to supply forage for domestic livestock.

Recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use values are there for all of us under S. 174.

Some people may say these values are intangible, and unmeasurable, yet their worth to the Nation and to mankind is becoming more and more apparent, and can be estimated as the Nation attempts to reacquire title to lands necessary for outdoor recreation areas facilities, or for wetlands essential for fish and game, or to build museums in which evidences of natural history may be preserved.

If we act promptly by the adoption of S. 174, we can preserve, without cost for the present and future generations, truly priceless

areas.

If we do not, how shall we justify our neglect to future generations? The people of Connecticut's neighbor, New York, took a bold step almost three-quarters of a century ago, when they wrote into their constitution an article directing the preservation of the Adirondack Preserve, an action which really was a trailblazer for what is proposed now in this bill, and which set aside nearly 2,500,000 acres against commercial exploitation. The people of that State many times have refused to permit invasion or release of that preserve or any of its parts.

This bill gives to Congress veto power over any changes at any time, in the wilderness areas. Changes which are proposed by the President may be blocked by majority vote in either the House of Representatives or the Senate.

It is apparent that we are in the fortunate position of being able to provide for the preservation of a reasonably constituted National Wilderness Preservation System without sacrifice.

I believe that the proposals as contained in S. 174 certainly are in the public interest.

With your permission, Madam Chairman, I would like to file a copy of a letter which I have received from my district urging support of this legislation.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you very much, Congressman. We are most happy to have your contribution.

Without objection, the letter submitted by Congressman SeelyBrown will be placed in the file with the other letters and handled under the procedure provided by the unanimous-consent request approved yesterday.

Are there any questions of Mr. Seely-Brown?

Thank you again.

Mr. SEELY-BROWN. Thank you very much.

Mrs. ProST. Our next witness is the Honorable Charles E. Bennett of Florida, who is author of H.R. 299. We are happy to have you with us, Mr. Bennett.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman:

I appreciate having this opportunity to testify in favor of S. 174 as well as my bill, H.R. 299, to establish for future generations a National Wilderness Preservation System. More people are beginning to realize that we must act now to prepare for the exploding future population with all the increased industrial activity and larger urban areas that they bring.

One of my most cherished memories is that of enjoying the open Florida wilderness of 25 or 30 years ago. This is fast disappearing every new month. As we know, the same is happening, even if at not so fast a pace, all over the country.

While there is present administrative protection for the lands involved in these bills, administrators change, and their ideas or the

composition and values of wilderness differ, particularly where wilderness uses are secondary to other uses.

In addition, we are all aware of the tremendous pressures from various quarters to which administrators are subject. These pressures can only increase as they confront population growth. With enactment of one of these bills, the policy of Congress, representing all of the people, will have been set down for all future executive departments.

Mr. Chairman, there are several differences not of a major nature between my bill, H.R. 299, and the bill as recently passed by the Senate. In addition, S. 174 sets up a Land Use Commission for the State of Alaska. I am in agreement with that change and the other minor changes made.

S. 174 would generally give greater congressional review power in the years after the bill is enacted. The heads of the executive departments involved would have to report their findings to the President who must present them to Congress for review. The length of time given the departments varies in the two bills and I do not feel the differences in this field are important. I am glad to support S. 174, however, or, as a matter of fact, any proper wilderness legislation along these lines which has a chance of passage.

I sincerely believe that the hour is already late, and I want to highly commend the committee for their already very extensive and painstaking work on this proposed legislation. I feel that the extensive background gained in these and other hearings in different sections of the country together with the committee's close knowledge of the need, will insure an adequate as well as a fair final bill. It is a pleasure to add my support.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you, Congressman Bennett.

Mr. BENNETT. I would like to say one other thing informally as I conclude, and that is that my own representation in Congress has been an indication of what is happening in the country, particularly in my own State.

When I came to Congress 14 years ago I represented 16 counties. A good deal of this area was relatively wilderness area. Now I represent only one county-the State of Florida has grown so phenomenally in this period of time. Beautiful hammock lands, a great deal of wildlife, and many of the beauties of nature have been utterly wiped out for all times. If it had not been for this committee and the leadership of some people in this committee, the Key deer in Florida would be extinct today, and this committee, with foresight, preserved these small species of deer in the State of Florida.

There are other things which are becoming increasingly hard to protect, because it is very hard to have a filling station across the street from a wildlife preserve. These animals are not used to it. They do not know how to adjust to it. If we do not watch out, we are going to have a country where our children and grandchildren will not have not only the beauties, but the understanding of God and nature and humankind in the way we have had the opportunity of understanding it.

I do hope your committee can come forth with this legislation. I realize there is some opposition to it. There is always opposition to

things which disturb the pattern a little bit. But the bill, ultimately, when all of the dust settles, is not going to hurt anybody and will be of great benefit.

I congratulate the committee for the thorough work they have given to this and hope you can come forth with something that will pass the House.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you very much, Mr. Bennett. We appreciate your testimony.

Are there questions?

The gentleman from Pennsylvania?

Mr. SAYLOR. Madam Chairman, I just want to congratulate my colleague from Florida, first, for introducing a piece of legislation on this important subject, and for coming before the committee and giving us the benefit of his views.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Saylor.

Mrs. ProST. The gentleman from Colorado?

Mr. ASPINALL. I was not going to say anything, Madam Chairman, but I wish to commend my colleague, and to have him remember it is his district that is being overpopulated. I do not believe he wants to keep mine entirely unpopulated.

Mr. BENNETT. There is a point there and I can see this. I believe a reasonable adjustment must be made in this, and if you keep areas from growing entirely, this is a bad thing. But in the State of Florida I feel there is not likely to be very much wilderness land here, but I hope the State will have some effort made-and they are making such an effort, as a matter of fact, largely from the inspiration of this committee. Efforts are being made on a smaller scale to preserve wilderness areas in the State of Florida in State lands in order that there may be an attractiveness in the area.

Believe me, I think if the State of Florida fills up to be a strip city, as it now seems destined to be, from the St. Marys River to the Keys of Florida, I do not know why anybody would want to go to Florida except for the temperature, because all of the beauty of it will be destroyed, and you can get macadam streets anywhere, you know, and you can get air conditioning almost anywhere.

Mr. ASPINALL. I can assure my friend that after 60 years in my district I will not be going to Florida to live, as far as that is concerned. Mr. BENNETT. Well, I think you do have a beautiful area. I have visited it many times. I am glad it is there, and I am glad we in America can visit different areas. I congratulate you on the beauty and the wonder and the glory of your district, and I hope it will always be that way.

I do not think a wilderness bill necessarily involves keeping an area from growing. I think it does involve additional problems in this field, but I think actually it might enhance growth if properly handled.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you again.

Our next witness is Mr. David Brower, executive director of the Sierra Club.

STATEMENT OF DAVID BROWER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

THE SIERRA CLUB, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. BROWER. Madam Chairman, I am David Brower, of San Francisco. I am executive director of the Sierra Club and have come along with Bruce M. Kilgore, our editor, to represent the views of the 19,000 members of our 70-year-old organization.

Late yesterday afternoon a group of proponents saw the burden confronting the committee and the problem involved in hearing all of the witnesses. We were mindful of the request of the chairman of the full committee that all organizations, groups, and individuals, with a similar interest and position designate their one spokesman to speak for the group or groups concerned. We had no chance before this hearing to designate a spokesman this way.

Last evening, after yesterday's testimony, we felt that the conservation case had been made and wish to submit our statements for the record as if they had been read, and a number of us are available now for questions if the members of the committee wish to ask them.

We are sure the opponents are anxious to testify, and we are also sure you would not wish to continue this hearing beyond the time you have already scheduled for all witnesses.

Accordingly, Madam Chairman, I submit for the record several statements here of scheduled witnesses, and ask approval to submit

others.

Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, I object to this proposal. The reason I object, Dave, is because I was told last week by a proponent of this legislation that this committee had made up its mind already as to what we were going to do. I took umbrage at that, because this committee writes a record, and if you do not believe it, or any of your friends do not believe it, you go back through the record of the last several years and you will find that we do not write up legislation until we have had the hearings analyzed, and that our legislation pretty much depends upon our interpretation of those hearings.

Now we are in no particular hurry to get this through and to deny to the people the right to be questioned. If they want to submit their statements individually, and in order, like we have asked them to do, or, if they have had to go home, and they cannot be here, then that is something else. But to have an omnibus request at this time, I object. Mr. BROWER. The request, Mr. Aspinall, is something that we put together last night. Most of these people

Mr. ASPINALL. You did not speak to the chairman of the full committee

Mrs. PrOST. Nor to me.

Mr. ASPINALL. Nor to the chairman of the subcommittee. Let us keep this thing in order. We are running the committee and we will take care of the procedures. If you want to get your statement in here, that will be perfectly all right and we will question you.

Mr. BROWER. Very well.

Mr. SAYLOR. Madam Chairman, the request has been objected to, of course, but I ask to be recognized to merely say that the request was that the statements of the people who are proponents of this legislation whose names appear here as witnesses be presented, and that they are here for questioning. There is no attempt whatsoever in the

d