State of Oregon. We are appreciative of the opportunity to present our views on S. 174. We further want to commend Chairman Gracie Pfost and her committee for scheduling this series of hearings in the Western States. We recognize that the recommendation of this subcommittee resulting from these hearings will have a great deal to do with the final action that is taken on this bill in the next session of Congress. We are encouraged by the fact that this committee is taking a new look at this bill, which proposes to create a so-called national wilderness preservation system. In expressing our opposition to S. 174, we want to make it clear that we are not opposed to the creation of a wilderness system per se. To our knowledge there is no one who is opposed to preserving some of our national lands in a wilderness state. But the debate has been, as Senator Anderson said on the floor of the Senate on August 24, over how it is to be done and how much wilderness there should be. There are still the two basic issues. Our objection to S. 174 is to how these wilderness areas are to be created and to the number of acres that are included in the wilderness system. We are opposed to this measure or any other measure which follows the dangerous tendency to delegate congressional powers to the Executive. We insist that any change made in the boundaries of wilderness areas require a positive act of Congress rather than the negative procedure that is provided in section 3 (f) of S. 174. The Oregon Farm Bureau Federation is in favor of the inclusion into a wilderness preservation system of the some 6.8 million acres which have heretofore been classified by administrative action as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe." These areas were carefully studied before they were placed in this classification. We are opposed to the inclusion of the so-called primitive area in the wilderness system until such time as the areas have been studied and their highest and best use has been determined. We fail to understand why the primitive areas are treated differently than the lands in the wildlife refuges or the national parks. We do not know how many acres are needed in a wilderness system and apparently no one else does, but it would appear to be a relative matter that can only be determined after competing uses for the land have been carefully evaluated. It is difficult to understand the urgency that the proponents have attached to this bill. We know of nothing that places these lands in jeopardy of losing their wilderness character. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission will report to Congress in 1962. Congress will then be in a position to determine how closely S. 174 conforms with the recreation needs found by this committee. Our organization urges this committee to recommend two major amendments to S. 174: (1) That positive congressional action be required before any land shall be included in the wilderness preservation system. (2) That no Federal lands be included in the system beyond 6.8 million acres which are now classified as wild, wilderness, or canoe. With these changes, S. 174 would generally be acceptable to the members of our organization. Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is Senator Harry Nock, of Valley County, and also Mr. Robert H. Remaklus, secretary, Chamber of Commerce, Valley County. STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY NOCK, A STATE SENATOR OF IDAHO, VALLEY COUNTY, IDAHO Mr. Nock. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am Harry Nock of Cascade, Idaho. I am senator from Valley County in the Idaho State Legislature, a position I have held for the past several years. I am opposed to the passage of S. 174 for a number of reasons. I am fearful that the inclusion of the primitive areas in the system will lock them up. I resent the forceful acquisition of private holdings within wilderness area boundaries. I feel that the bill restricts prospecting and even recreational use to an unwarranted extent and for other reasons too numerous to mention. Proponents of the bill inform me in each case that I mention, however, that the passage of the bill will not change the present situation. They state that the primitive areas are already managed as wilderness so there will be no loss to Idaho's economy through passage of the bill. Private holding can even now be acquired by purchase inside the national forest boundary. Mining and recreational restrictions are presently in effect. If this is true, there would seem to be no need for S. 174. [Applause.] As I have long been an opponent of unnecessary legislation, both State and Federal, I must oppose S. 174 on the ground that it is in that category. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. Prost. I am sorry. You have been a wonderful audience, but in order to expedite the proceedings, demonstrations should not be made during the statement. Thank you. Mr. Nock. Just one further comment. Our State legislature has been appropriating something like a quarter of a million dollars every 2 years to encourage the economic development of Idaho. To me it looks like we are asking industry to come to Idaho, but they cannot use our natural resources. I would like to make one more statement about the bill. On page 15 it tells you that we can do all of these things we have been doing providing that it does not interfere with the concept of the wilderness theory. It sets up the Secretary of the Interior as judge and jury of what is compatible. On page 17, line 9, it is reversed. This is the compatibility part on page 17. The other one says you can do these things subject to the restrictions and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior. So it looks like it gives the Secretary of the Interior the right to change the ground rules before we get into the game. Thank you, Madam Chairman. [Applause.] STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. REMAKLUS, SECRETARY, CHAMBER OF Mr. REMAKLUS. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, and ladies and gentlemen, I live in Cascade, Idaho, and I am here representing the Cascade Chamber of Commerce. And I also wish to say a word or two in my own behalf in opposition to S. 174. There are 943 people that live in Cascade, Idaho, and I think we are about as close to the grassroots as we can get. I have lived in Valley County since 1929 or 1930, and I am a lawyer. It has been my privilege and honor to serve the county as prosecuting attorney for three terms. It has also been my opportunity and privilege and honor to have served the State legislature as secretary of the senate, and during the last session I was chief clerk and parliamentarian of the house. I only make these statements to show that I have had personal, firsthand experience with government in Idaho on all levels. Incidentally, I represent all of the little towns in Valley County, and I think that we are certainly affected by this bill. The resolution that I have to present will be placed in the record. I will not read the resolution at this point other than to point out that it is the unanimous opinion of the Cascade Chamber of Commerce that we are getting the cart before the horse. We are locking up an area before we evaluate it. We are not coming here to say we are not going to do something, but we will ask the Congress to evaluate it first and then see what should be done rather than pass massive legislation and then later seek to classify and take it out. I think the question was raised here about whether or not it was someone's opinion that this would take land out of taxation that is now being taxed. I do not think it does, but the things you put on the land can be taxed, the wealth that the land produces can be taxed, and anytime we go into a program like this we are affecting the economy of Valley County. And already Valley County, between Federal, State, and municipal ownership, is in excess of 80 percent in public hands. We feel very strongly about this and we feel very much affected by it. For that reason we most seriously urge you, Madam Chairman and the committee, that these lands be evaluated prior to the adoption of this bill. Thank you very much. Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Remaklus. [Applause.] Without objection, the resolution of the Cascade Chamber of Commerce will be placed in the record at this point. Hearing none, it is so ordered. (The document referred to follows:) A RESOLUTION FOR PRESENTATION TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING OF THE INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT MCCALL, IDAHO, OCTOBER 30, 1961 Whereas the economy of Valley County and practically all of the State of Idaho has been and still is based largely upon the effective use of the natural resources of its extensive public land areas; and Whereas the quantity of these land areas available in Idaho for productive use is in danger of being substantially and permanently reduced by the wilderness bill (S. 174) which has been passed by the Senate and is now pending before the House of Representatives in Congress; and Whereas, which extensive and permanent withdrawals of valuable public lands for nonproductive uses exclusively will handicap the future economic growth of the State and county and deprive the State and county governments of important sources of tax revenue: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Cascade oppose enactment of this legislation as a violation of the multiple-use concept which has been declared to be the official policy of Congress in the administration of Federal lands; and be it further Resolved, That this organization declare its full support of such multiple-use principle and its opposition to any extensive withdrawals of public lands before the resources of such areas have been thoroughly evaluated. The secretary is hereby authorized and directed to appear and present this resolution to the public hearing on the wilderness bill (S. 174) which has been scheduled at McCall on October 30-31 by the Public Lands Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. ROBERT H. REMAKLUS, Secretary, Cascade Chamber of Commerce. 77350-62-pt. 1 Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness is Mr. Robert Helding, of Libby, Mont. You may proceed, Mr. Helding. STATEMENT OF ROBERT N. HELDING, LIBBY, MONT. Mr. HELDING. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I, Robert Helding, am a member of the Montana Forest Practices Committee, Western Pine Association, a lumber trade association with some 50 member mills in Montana. There are approximately 9,700 persons directly employed in Montana logging and lumbering operations. Our committee concurs in the Inland Empire MultipleUse Committee's report on S. 174 submitted at this hearing. I submit herewith a brief statement of our committee's position on the wilderness bill (S. 174) as passed by the Senate on September 6, 1961. Our association does not believe there is a need for S. 174 for the following reasons: (1) This bill errs in principle. It is not wise use of our natural resources. (2) S. 174 is unnecessary legislation. The Multiple-Use Act of 1960 authorizes wilderness as a valid use. (3) S. 174 does not give Congress positive control of wilderness area inclusions. (4) S. 174 would restrict employment and community growth. Resources-dependent communities surrounding excessive wilderness areas would find the raw materials for grazing, mining, timber harvesting, and access recreation locked up. This is a sacrifice of the livelihood and recreation for many to provide pleasure for a few. (5) Vast areas of wilderness forests cannot be adequately protected from fire, insects, or disease. This would constitute a constant threat to surrounding forests that are being managed under the "multiple use" principle. (6) S. 174 would set aside vast acreages suitable for multiple use without a resources inventory or evaluation. I wish to stimulate your thinking on but one strategic, renewable resource involved and that is timber. If wood were put at the service of man, it could eliminate want and win the peace. Utilization of the full resources of the forest would constitute a major, bloodless, beneficent world revolution states Dr. Egon Glesinger, head of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. All of us are aware of wood as a construction material, as a fuel, and as a source of wood fiber for paper. But how many of us see a tree as a factory, producing not only construction materials, fuel, and wood fiber for paper, but also chemicals for drugs, plastics, food, fabrics, and fertilizers, to name a few. This thinking led Dr. Glesinger to state: We are going to use more wood, in an ever-increasing variety of forms and applications, because we have recently made a substantial breakthrough into a limitless frontier that lies beyond the question, What is wood? We have not yet got the answers. Lifetimes of work remain to be done. But even a brief review of what we know already will be enough to establish the fact that wood is the most nearly universal of all raw materials. The forests will become the raw material for further integration of our forest products plants and major new industries through wood chemistry. This is our new frontier, and it is close at hand. Hitler, during World War II, was well on his way to being completely selfsufficient in all his nations needs through the means of wood chemistry. If it were not for the other European nations banding together to agree not to furnish any more wood to Hitler, the fate of Europe could well have been decided differently than it was. Our Nation is losing every year thousands of acres of commercial forests lands to highways, power and gas transmission lines, reservoir sites, and growing suburban areas. This is the result of the progressive growth of our Nation. It places an increasing burden on the remaining forest lands to meet our growing needs. As a State, and as a Nation, we can ill afford to set aside vast areas of commercial forest lands suitable for multiple use, which is needed to stimulate our Nation's growth and provide us a livelihood. Let us not bury our resources and appoint a custodian; rather let us manage them for the good of us all. Our Nation's military strength is based on our economy. A strong forest economy is essential to our Nation's safety and future well-being. Thank you. [Applause.] Mrs. ProST. Thank you, Mr. Helding. Our next witness is the Honorable Arthur R. Roberts, chairman of the village board of trustees of McCall, Idaho. While Mayor Roberts is coming to the stand, we want to express our appreciation to him for securing this hall for our use and making the many, many arrangements for us. We appreciate it very much, Mavor Roberts. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. STATEMENT OF ARTHUR M. ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN, VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MCCALL, IDAHO Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I have been chairman of the village board for 13 years. I have been a resident of Idaho for most of my life and a resident of Valley County for the past 18 years. I have taken a very great interest in wilderness legislation during the past 5 years, but this is the first time I have gotten a hearing close enough so I could attend and represent myself at the hearing. I have a statement here, three or four pages, which I have written and which represents my views. At the outset I wish to make it plain that I agree that wilderness use is a legitimate use in wild land management. My opposition is to S. 174 and to the size of the wilderness set-asides in Idaho and in the West. With the passage of the Multiple-Use Act in the summer of 1960, the Forest Service recognized wilderness use as one of the uses to which the land under their jurisdiction could be put, although, for many years, since the early 1930's, wilderness designation has been possible under Forest Service regulations. Roadlessness and wilderness use, if not designated, is also possible under national park regulation. These are congressional powers which have been delegated to the administering agencies, the Forest |