ability of the lands of the United States to produce the basic raw material for the lumber industry.

We have seen the advancements of silvichemical industry in recent years. Already, silvichemical advancements are making possible products such as ceramics, cleaning compounds, insulation, asphalt emulsions, road binders, plastic coating, concrete mixtures, oil well drilling compounds, sulfates, rubber, agricultural chemicals, soil conditioners and other materials. Each scientific advancement in the use of forest products is good for the general economy of the Pacific Northwest. This is especially true because much of the material used was formerly classified as waste material. Our company has been a strong advocate of the complete utilization of the forest product to conserve raw material and provide new jobs to strengthen the economy of the areas in which we operate. Our company policy is directed toward diversification and integration in the use of forest products and allied industries.

Many responsible public officials have recently issued statements minimizing the number of acres involved in the wilderness legislation. It is our contention that 14,664,053 acres is not a small area of land for the initial consideration in wilderness legislation; certainly, over 3,004,000 acres in the State of Idaho is a significant area. This is especially true when 8 billion board feet of merchantable timber is located in this reservation. Enough merchantable timber is involved to run our sawmill located at Emmett, Idaho, for 100 years-exclusive of any growth on the land.

Our corporation has for years been strongly in favor of the principle of multiple use of our public lands. We feel that this is the only way proper management can be attained, and we make every effort to manage our own timberlands on this same basis. Should S. 174 become law in its present form, we feel the wilderness legislation will interfere drastically with this historic management theory on public lands, and the highest use of many areas will not be attained.

Boise Cascade's lands are managed to produce a perpetual yield of timber. Under the basic laws of the States in which we operate, our lands are open to the public for recreation, hunting, fishing, and sightseeing at all times. The lands are leased for grazing and reseeding programs are carried out. Mineral exploration is allowed on the lands. Priceless water resources are preserved to the best of the ability of our highly skilled and scientifically trained foresters. Only in this way do we feel we can protect these resources to provide raw material for future generations.

We do not object to those Federal lands which should be classified as wilderness being so classified; however, we do strongly object to a classification of almost 8 million acres of "primitive" land in the national forests without prior scientific study and research in the area.

If S. 174 is enacted, it is our contention that the State of Idaho will lose immeasurable return in future years from the tourist travel. Certainly the scenic grandeur of the area is unparalleled and should be made available to all citizens of the Nation providing access into the areas other than by trails for hiking and horseback riding. When only this type of access is available, the wilderness area becomes the possession of only the wealthy in time, resources and physical condition. These people alone will see those areas which would be set aside. An orderly development of a system of roads can preserve every beauty now in the area and at the same time accomplish the following:

1. Make access possible for the average citizen.

2. Allow the administrators of the Federal lands to properly manage the areas especially with respect to the control and suppression of forest fires. disease and insect infestation.

3. Availability of access will bring a wealth of tourist dollars to this State. This will be in contrast to almost no revenue coming to Idahoans from visitors to the area because of the inaccessibility of the proposed wilderness area.

I wish to call attention to what I believe is a fundamental right of Congress which will be taken away if S. 174 is enacted in its present form. I feel strongly that Congress should act in an affirmative congressional review under the provisions of S. 174 rather than the so-called negative provisions provided in S. 174. I believe Congress has a fundamental right and duty to take affirmative representative action on any review of the wilderness area, thus providing the assurance that public hearings will be held on a proposed change in boundaries. In this manner the people of the United States themselves speak through their elected representatives setting forth the procedures they want followed, rather

than surrender these prerogatives and responsibilities to a department of the Government. This type of an amendment would certainly not harm S. 174 and would strengthen the hand of Congress in the legislation.

Again may I state that Boise Cascade Corp. does not object to preserving a reasonable amount of wilderness area consistent with the actual needs for such an area.

(1) We do object to the blanketing of almost 8 million acres of unclassified lands to establish a wilderness system.

(2) We object to single use of any public land because we believe this would not be in the best interests of the people of America.

(3) The Northwest would lose immeasurably in years to come by not having this wilderness area penetrated in an intelligent manner for proper harvest of resources including timber, game, forage, and minerals.

(4) We strongly feel Congress should not give up its basic right to legislate by positive affirmative action.

(5) We feel that the multiple-use concept in the administration of public lands-long ago established in the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior-has proved sound in every degree and S. 174 is not consistent with this long-established theory.

[From the Congressional Record, Sept. 13, 1961]

SENATOR THOMAS J. DODD EXPLAINS WHY HE VOTED AGAINST THE WILDERNESS BILL, S. 174

THE WILDERNESS BILL AND CONSERVATION OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed the so-called wilderness bill, which set aside certain parts of federally owned lands as permanent wilderness areas to be preserved entirely in the state of nature. Though this bill has passed the Senate, the House will not take action upon it until next year, and no one can tell at this point what the outcome will be. Therefore, discussion of this measure is very much in order, and I wish to speak briefly about it now. Since I have been a Member of Congress, and long before, I have been greatly interested in the issue of conservation of our natural resources. I have spoken on the floor of the Senate on this question, and have always supported conservationist measures. Some of my friends expressed surprise, therefore, when on last Wednesday, September 6, I voted against the wilderness bill.

Though I support the objective of this bill, I opposed its passage because it delegated to the executive branch a traditional power of the Congress, that of disposing of Federal territory. The Constitution gives to the Congress exclusive power to dispose of territory of the United States. This calls for affirmative action by the Congress on any such proposal, and has been so interpreted by the courts. This may appear to be a small matter, but it is a part of one of the great constitutional questions of our time.

The proponents of the wilderness bill successfully obscured this basic constitutional issue, by providing that Congress could veto future Executive proposals for permanently allocating public lands as wilderness areas. This procedure, if extended to other fields, would reverse the role of Congress from that of writing the laws of this Nation, subject to veto by the President, to that of merely having the veto power over laws written by the President. There is a world of difference between these two approaches, and that difference spells the distintegration of congressional power and of our traditional system of checks and balances.

All who have studied the decline and fall of representative governments, all who have observed the process by which parliaments are transformed from bodies which initiate action and make laws to bodies which subserviently ratify the actions of an all-powerful Executive, will share my apprehension over the fact that the Congress of the United States has traveled some distance down this road.

During the period in which I have served in Congress, I have seen proposals to delegate congressional power to the executive branch recur with increasing frequency. I regret to say that I have sometimes voted for such proposals. Each time this issue is before us, a plausible argument can be made for turning over this or that particular congressional power to the Executive, on the ground that such action will make the program in question more effective, better administered, and more coherently planned. And if one regards each of these proposed

delegations of power as an isolated issue, he is tempted to support these delegations.

Yet, we must ask ourselves what will happen to the status of the Congress if it does not soon turn its face rigidly against any further delegations of legislative power to the executive branch, however small or apparently meaningless. Each of us must answer that question himself, and many will have differing estimates as to what constitutes the danger point.

I believe the danger point has been reached, and I have made a personal decision to resist all future proposals which call for the delegation of one scrap of congressional power or responsibility or prerogative. This issue determined my position on the wilderness bill.

There was offered to the bill an amendment which would have restored the affirmative power of Congress to dispose of the lands in question. If that amendment had been adopted, I would have supported the wilderness bill. Since it was defeated, I voted against the bill.

Much as I wish to support conservation measures, the greatest conservation issue before us is the question of conserving the Constitution of the United States. In the interest of that kind of conservation, I opposed the wilderness bill, in the form in which it passed the Senate. I hope the Members of the House of Representatives will give the most careful attention to this constitutional question and will pass a bill which will preserve both the wilderness areas and the traditional role of the Congress.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further morning business? If there is no further morning business, morning business is closed.

Mrs. ProST. We have received through the mail this evening a letter from Margaret M. Miller, a high school science teacher from Tyee Junior High School, Bellevue, Wash., and, without objection, her statement will be placed in the record at this point, and some 49 letters she says are from 12- and 13-year-old children at Tyee Junior High School at Bellevue, Wash., will be placed in the file. These letters accompanied Mrs. Miller's letter.

Is there objection?

Hearing none, it is so ordered.

(The statement referred to follows:)

Hon. GRACIE PFOST,

Chairman House Public Lands Subcommittee,
Shore Lodge, McCall, Idaho.

TYEE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, Bellevue, Wash., October 27, 1961.

DEAR MRS. PrOST: As a junior high school science teacher, my duties will prevent me from personally testifying at the hearings at McCall. I respectfully request, therefore, that this letter and the attachments thereto be made a part of the printed record.

When I recently learned of the imminence of the hearings on the wilderness bill, two of my six science classes were in subject areas closely concerned with wilderness: biology and geology. I therefore decided to devote 3 days this week to a study of wilderness, its meaning to science and to America's future, and to the legislative processes whereby a bill such as this becomes the law of our land.

Although I am admittedly a partisan of wilderness, I tried to explain fairly to the students the conflict involved here between those segments of our economy which would utilize the wilderness for its resources and those conservation groups which would preserve the wilderness for its less tangible but no less valuable qualities.

I then advised the students that I would transmit to the subcommittee any letters which they cared to write, for or against the proposed legislation. The attached packet of letters is the spontaneous, original, uncorrected result. The spelling in some is admittedly atrocious, and many of the children share the confusion between national forests and national parks, between wilderness areas and campgrounds that is common among more adult members of our citizenry. However, one major thought seems to run through these letters. That is the feeling that we of the older generation are making the decision that will vitally affect this new generation and all generations yet to come. The children, unlike

the less fortunate city kids of the East, are almost all familiar with true wilderness. Some, of course, have experienced only roadside camping, but a surprising number have been on extensive hikes and backpacks, as far from roads and civilization as it is possible to get in Washington State.

These are not the "soft Americans." These are the hope of our countryyoung people who can thrill to the adventure of exploring what little vestiges of wilderness their ancestors have left to them. I urge the subcommittee in its deliberations to so act as to preserve our wilderness for these children and for American children of all time.

Sincerely,

MARGARET M. MILLER.

(The letters referred to will be found in the files of the committee.) Mrs. ProST. Our next witness will be Mr. Walter Stewart of Coeur d'Alene. Is Mr. Stewart here?

Apparently not.

Mr. Otto Myer, of Athol, Idaho. He apparently is not here either. Mr. Archie Yager, Sandpoint, Idaho.

Mr. Yager, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF ARCHIE YAGER, SANDPOINT, IDAHO

Mr. YAGER. Madam Chairman and Congressman Olsen, my name is Archie Yager. I am a resident of Sandpoint, Idaho, and a resident of the State of Idaho for 46 years. I have been very closely associated with tourist promotion in this State and the needs and services required for a tourist industry.

I can see that isolating these larger parcels of land in so-called wilderness areas serves absolutely no purpose either to the economy of of the tourist business or to create the facilities wanted by people securing recreation. The people who are proponents of this type of legislation I feel are enthralled by the romantic stories of the Old West and feel that they can reconstruct for posterity the same conditions.

But let us digress for a moment and analyze whether the modern citizen who has never been subjected to the inconveniences and hardships suffered by these hardy pioneers in conquering the natural wilderness to create a civilization as we now know could withstand these hardships and inconveniences or would, for the sake of recreation.

I have lived in Kootenai County and Bonner County all of my life and the big problems confronting school districts, county governments, and local governments have always been the big percentage of lands owned by the Federal Government, and I can surely feel for the counties who would be involved in such a thing as this wilderness bill proposes, as we do have the right to cut the timber stand, develop the mining claims, and graze these lands with cattle and sheep which under this proposal would completely obliterate any economic advantage to be derived from this type of Government-owned land.

I believe that everyone in the State of Idaho that took the time to read this bill would aggressively oppose any action as it would only benefit, I would estimate in number in the United States, less than 25,000 people annually. If they are going to pack in these designated areas we have only a few people who can afford it, and out of those I doubt there are 25,000 who would willingly, in this day and age, suffer the hardships that are involved in living any length of time in the wilderness area.

When the American people consider their social rights to be guaranteed a living whether working or not, I do not believe that we have any number of American citizens with the hardy spirit of the pioneer who would take advantage of this type of an area, so I can see no particular reason why the State of Idaho or any other State where this type of problem would take effect should be subject to the economic loss of this amount of area simply to satisfy the whims of such a minority group.

It has been mentioned that many millions of people would avail themselves of these areas according to past records, but these past records were based on the number using readily accessible government campsites, picnic areas, and national parks. Therefore, I do not feel that any great number would utilize remote wilderness areas.

In Bonner County, which is nearly a million acres, we have 17,000 people, with most of them, over 10,000, residing in the communities and towns within the county, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres that are wilderness or semiwilderness; and our chamber of commerce has spent thousands of dollars annually advertising both the remote and easily accessible areas.

Let me assure you that all the chambers of commerce in the five northern counties of Idaho that I am familiar with have done the same and the results have surely been determined and show a definite trend that people who are seeking recreation do not avail themselves of the wilderness facilities nearly as readily as they do something easily accessible and where they can have a mixture of metropolitan and isolated living.

Within 45 minutes in almost any direction from the municipality of Sandpoint, Idaho, you can avail yourself of areas whereby human beings will not bother you for weeks at a time. I feel that the local communities that would be encompassed by these designated wilderness areas have been combating problems of Mother Nature about as long as they desire and would rather see their community develop for a better civilization and economic growth rather than to retard and hold in abeyance these lands for another hundred years.

I heartily agree and concur with the conception of maintaining certain small areas for public access to rivers, lakes, and special hunting grounds, but with the improvement of existing facilities created by nature rather than building a fence around these areas and letting nature's efforts deteriorate.

These areas designated in the State of Idaho are also remotely situated from any metropolitan areas, therefore, they could not serve the purpose as recreational areas to people in the congested cities of the West any more than the eastern congested areas.

With these remarks based on observation and experience, I beg of this committee in returning to Washington to lend every effort to defeat the passage of S. 174.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you, Mr. Yager. [Applause.]

Mr. Yager has handed me a letter signed by Mr. A. T. Peterson, president of the Sandpoint Chamber of Commerce, Sandpoint, Idaho, on behalf of Mr. A. M. Nelson, president of the Priest River Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Winston Cook, president of the Bonners Ferry Chamber of Commerce. The letter is on the stationery of the Bonners Ferry Chamber of Commerce.