it does not do, and I have thought, for the edification of some people at this hearing who criticized the bill, they ought to know what the bill does not do.

Mr. STANFORD. I see. May I see it?
The bill does not do these things:

1. It does not deal in territory of States but in territory more strictly belonging to all U.S. citizens, and the people of the United States have allowed to do a great deal of the harvesting of that resource. Wilderness is now and will be, under the bill, parts of your unspoiled U.S. real estate.

2. Wilderness will not include territory which is not already a part of national refugees, national forests, or national parks and canoe lands. Only one-third has anything to do with national parks. All the rests is already in national parks.

3. Wilderness does not "lock up" land anywhere near the amount that our opponents have been leading people to believe. It may very well actually reduce the present operating wilderness areas to a great extent. It may actually be less of a lockout than the present situation. It has a key for everything it locks up. I thing we are actually using scare tactics when we say it actually locks up anything.

4. The wilderness does not set up any new bureau. It simply gives the National Forest Service, National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service a firm law under which certain territories will be maintained with wilderness status.

5. Wilderness will not stop hunting or fishing. No agencies of hunting and fishing are in any new way affected. Most hunting and fishing agencies and groups are completely in favor of the bill. In fact, all agencies I know of having to do with hunting and fishing are in favor of it.

6. Wilderness will not stop measures for fighting fires, insects, or disease. In fact, the National Forest Service people have come out in favor of it and if they are in favor of it with their wonderful record of fighting forest fires, I think they are worth listening to. Does that help any?

Mr. OLSEN. This is fine. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness is Mr. Robert P. Dwyer, of Kellogg, Idaho.

You may proceed, Mr. Dwyer.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. DWYER, WALLACE, IDAHO

Mr. DWYER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, members of the Public Lands Subcommittee of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, my name is Robert P. Dwyer, I reside at 160 King Street, Wallace, Idaho, and am a lawyer engaged in the general practice of law in Shoshone County, Idaho. I appear before you to voice objections to enactment of S. 174, especially in its present form.

As many of you know, I was recently employed in Washington, D.C., as a member of the staff of the Senate Interior and Insular Committee and for the present year prior to my resignation, effective October 7, 1961, I was the mineral consultant of that committee.

In the performance of my duties I did, of course, become acquainted with the terms of this bill and certain of its predecessors. From the outset I have had reservations concerning the necessity of passage of this type of legislation and whether the bill is really good for the United States. My opinion is that it is not.

As you committee members are aware, a great deal of emotion has developed among those of the public who have some knowledge of the proposed legislation.

Proponents speak of conservation and retention of the irreplaceable bounty of wilderness for future generations so that the latter, too, may enjoy it. Opponents maintain that the philosophy of this bill is not true conservation but is rather nonproductive single-purpose use for a limited number, who are financially and physically capable of going into wilderness areas.

Disregarding these types of statements, I wish to comment on certain features of the legislation now before you.

Item 1: The members of this committee, of course, need not be reminded that article IV, section 3, clause 2, of the Constitution provides that:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States: and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The bill, however, by the language of section 3 (f) would have Congress abdicate to the executive branch of Government its authority and responsibility above stated. This is so because unless either House of Congress approves a resolution declaring itself opposed to a recommendation, such recommendation becomes effective automatically upon adjournment of the first complete session of Congress following receipt of the President's recommendation.

To me this is a radical departure from the ordinary method of enactment of legislation by positive action by both Houses of Congress. By approving the proposed method contained in the bill, it is believed the legislative branch or our Government would find itself in the unusual and unorthodox position of enacting law by failing to do something, that is, failure of either House to approve the required resolution of disapproval. This is enactment of law by veto and is certainly a startling precedent.

I might add in this regard also, Madam Chairman, that so far as establishment of our national parks is concerned, that is done by positive approval of both Houses. I see no reason for a departure from that method so far as creating a wilderness area is concerned.

Item 2: The bill is inconsistent and lacks clarity for in section 3(b) (2) beginning with line 22 at the bottom of page 5, it is stated and I quote:

(2) The purposes of this act are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to but not in interference with the purposes for which national forests are established as set forth in the act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11), and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960, Public Law 86-571 (74 Stat. 215).

May I emphasize the words "declared to be within and supplemental but not in interference with." Now let us learn what some of the purposes specified in the above-cited acts are. Permit me to mention a few.

Act of June 4, 1897: Among the purposes for which national forests are established and the activity permitted therein, so far as mining is concerned are

1. Settlers within national forests, miners, residents and prospectors for minerals may use timber and firewood, fences, buildings, mining, prospecting and other domestic purposes as required by such persons.

2. The regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture governing administration of the forest shall not prohibit any person from entering upon such national forest for all proper and lawful purposes including that of prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources thereof. Such persons must comply with the rules and regulations covering such national forests.

3. All waters within the boundaries of the national forests may be used for domestic, mining, milling or irrigation purposes under the laws of the State wherein such national forests are situated or under the laws of the United States and the rules and regulations established thereunder.

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960: 1. In the statement of policy the law provides that nothing therein shall be construed so as to affect the use or administration of the mineral resources of national forest lands.

Turning now to section 6(b) of the bill at the bottom of page 13 we find, however, a prohibition of certain uses including operation generally of a commercial enterprise, use of motor vehicles and the construction of roads. It is submitted that the prohibitions nullify the asserted compatibility aspect of the provisions earlier cited with the terms of this bill.

Item 3: Section 6(c) (8) purports to assure continuation of the right to prospect and obtain information about mineral resources provided such activity is conducted in a manner which is not incompatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment.

Because the information can only be acquired in a fashion which does not affect the status of wilderness, the proviso, as a practical manner, is meaningless. It permits only visual observation which in no sense of the word is prospecting.

Incidentally, should one come upon a mineral outcrop, what would he do with it? Locate a lode mining claim, apply for a lease or permit to exploit his discovery? I do not know, as there is nothing in the bill at all which permits acquisition of a private possessory right to any mineral that might be found. This being true, who would even bother to look?

Min

Item 4: Alaska and Minnesota receive preferred treatment over the other States which contain areas within their borders which would be included in the wilderness system should S. 174 become law. nesota is favored because of the language on page 15, beginning at line 20 with the word "without," which phrase reads, "without unnecessary restrictions including timber." Thus timber operations, at least, are assured.

Alaska also is treated differently, since it is the only State in the Union having more than 90 percent of its total area owned by the Federal Government on January 1, 1961, and thus is entitled to a Presidential Land Use Commission established to consider the best

use and protection of the publicly owned areas. The right to such a Commission is thus denied other States.

Although the present bill is an improvement over prior ones considered by the Senate Interior Committee, it is suggested that the bill, if favorably reported, be amended to eliminate inconsistencies and to assure that activity now authorized may continue in the future. Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Dwyer. [Applause.]

Our next witnesses are Mr. Nick Speropulos and Mr. Kenneth Steck.

Are these gentlemen here?

(No response.)

Mrs. PrOST. Evidently they are not here.

Our next witness is Mr. Joe Webster, Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, representing the members of the Idaho Cattlemen's Association.

Are the witnesses planning to come together?

Mr. WEBSTER. We are appearing singly.

STATEMENT OF JOE WEBSTER, MEMBER OF IDAHO CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, HORSESHOE BEND, IDAHO

Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, my name is J. A. Webster, of Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, and I have been running cattle in Bear Valley, Idaho, for the past 25 years.

I run these cattle in an association known as the Garden Valley Cattlemen's Association with 3 other cattlemen, 4 of us altogether, and we run approximately 500 head of cattle on this summer range. As far as I know there have been cattle run in the Bear Valley area for the past 50 years and our association, the Garden Valley Cattlemen's Association, has been running cattle in Bear Valley since about

1925.

This area, Bear Valley, is adjacent to the present primitive area, and that area, I understand, which will come under the proposed wilder

ness area.

I am opposed to the creation of a wilderness area because I can see no reason for making a change. Under the present system, supervised by the Forest Service, the primitive area has been kept unchanged practically since Idaho was a territory. Very few, if any people, get into the area because of the expense of transportation either by plane or horse or by personal physical effort and I fail to see just how a change in the laws or administration is going to help the situation.

It would appear to me this new proposed wilderness law would ultimately just be setting up another Government bureau with more taxes for us taxpayers to carry. I think instead of drawing more tourists to the area the new proposed law, S. 174, would tend to discourage out-of-State sportsmen and recreationists from coming in because of modern concept of using motor equipment to make their trip easier.

My main objection to S. 174 is the fact that it does not guarantee the permittees in the area the fact that they will not be forced out of the area. If I am forced to give up my permit, and I am sure this would hold true with other cattlemen adjacent to primitive areas

or proposed wilderness areas, my ranch would lose its value as a base of operations and would become almost worthless.

This, in addition to the fact that I and a lot of other cattlemen would lose their entire livelihood.

It is true the present bill states that grazing, mining, and other commercial businesses will not be molested, but it does not guarantee they will not be put out of business in the future.

If stockmen are put off of these ranges it will mean thousands of dollars in losses to the local counties involved from taxes which I do not think can be made up by tourist dollars.

I wish to thank the committee for allowing me to testify at the McCall hearing. [Applause.]

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

Our next witness will be Mr. W. Clay Sutton, of Midvale, Idaho. You may proceed, Mr. Sutton.

STATEMENT OF W. CLAY SUTTON, MEMBER OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, MIDVALE, IDAHO

Mr. SUTTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I am W. Clay Sutton of Midvale, Washington County, Idaho, and also have had the honor of representing my county at the past four sessions of the State Legislature of Idaho at Boise.

As I understand it this hearing is being held for the purpose of getting grassroots thinking upon S. 174 both by the opponents as well as the exponents of the bill.

As I am a farmer and cattlegrower and have been for the past 49 years I feel amply qualified to express my opinion upon the merits of this bill.

Frankly, I am very much opposed to this bill or any other for that matter which will turn over a large portion of my State to have and use for little else than a playground as it seems to me to be the principal purpose of this bill.

According to the proponents of this bill, it is accordingly declared to be the policy of the Congress of the United States to secure for the people of the United States of the present and future generations the benefits of enduring resources of wilderness.

For this purpose there is hereby established a national wilderness preservation system to be composed of federally owned areas in the United States and its possessions to be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness.

A wilderness is described and recognized as such as an area where a man is only an occasional visitor on a terrain which remains in its raw unimproved state, unmarred by roads or any improvements whatever.

Then follows a number of confusing regulations which allows for some changes in certain conditions but which would be hard to bring about due to the fact that the public would be dealing with officials mostly back in Washington and no common individual would be able to reach them also.