ual refreshment. We are pleased that the Senate has passed a Wilderness Preservation Act, S. 174, and we urge the House of Representatives to pass this measure also.

The federation consists of 36 member clubs. Their headquarters are in California, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. The members reside in these and other Western States including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico. They represent a wide cross section of the population. Many are of modest means. They have learned that the wilderness areas offer rich resources for physical and spiritual recreation at low cost. They are people from many communities, with widely varying backgrounds and interests, yet with a common understanding and appreciation of what our parks and wildlands can provide for the camper, the hiker, the fisherman, the hunter, the naturalist, the mountaineer, the photographer, the skier, the trail rider, or anyone else who seeks outdoor activities in a natural setting.

The members of the federation are representative of many other people who are not affiliated with such organizations; their numbers demonstrate that wilderness is for the many-not, as some would have us believe, "for the few, the wealthy, and the hardy."

The federation strongly supports the principle of this wilderness legislation for the following reasons:

We all recognize that wilderness demand is increasing; population is increasing; the wilderness share for each of us is decreasing: The truth of the self-evident proposition is emphasized by the increasing visitation to our national parks, national forest wilderness areas, State parks, and other recreation areas. The wilderness share for each is decreasing not only because there are more people living in our country but also because more of these people are seeking the benefits of these natural resources in their natural state.

The currently available wilderness lands are threatened by impairment or gradual nibbling away: Evidence presented before your subcommittee shows that there are strong pressures to void the very endorsement of the principle of wilderness preservation; to delay its establishment until the commodity interests can "get theirs," to hamper and hinder the expression of the will of the majority of the people who, we believe, want this type of wilderness protection.

Present protection procedures are inadequate: It is true that the Congress has established numerous national parks whose wilderness sections would be included in the areas covered by the proposed law. It is true that the U.S. Forest Service has established various primitive, wild, and wilderness areas within the national forests, much of which would be covered by the proposed law. These forest areas comprise now a splendid body of reserves, and the Forest Service officials are to be highly commended for the establishment and protection of these areas. But this is not enough. The protection of these areas and their very existence are subject to the whim of administrators. They could be disestablished, as they were established, by administrative order. The time has come when protection of these areas in their natural state is so much in the public interest that Congress should formally recognize their worth and provide means for their preservation without impairment.

The Wilderness Act protects mining interests: Mindful of the importance of the mining industry and of the Nation's developing needs

for new elements such as beryllium, niobium, and many others, we believe that the Senate's act, S. 174, adequately protects the potentialities of mineral extraction should the time ever come when the national interest required use of resources in the wilderness areas in addition to the vast resources already available outside the wilderness areas. The act, in fact, permits in all of these areas a multiplicity of uses that are compatible with wilderness preservation.

The present act is the result of careful consideration and study: It is the result of 5 years of careful study, several congressional hearings, and many amendments to meet the reasonable recommendations of administrative agencies, of economic groups that might be affected by the bill, and of responsible civic organizations who have studied these matters. The Wilderness Act as passed by a conclusive 78-to-8 vote in the Senate is the product of intensive and balanced consideration of the many factors and interests involved. It deserves passage without the time-consuming task of beginning all over again and without the serious possibilities of loss of precious areas in the meantime.

Accordingly the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs respect fully urges that the present Wilderness Act, S. 174, be reported favorably for passage by the House.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Are there questions of Mr. Clark?

Thank you again.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. The Chair has been advised that the Honorable William E. Warne, director of natural resources of the State of California, is in the room. We would at least like to have you stand. If you care to make a statement, Mr. Warne, we would be happy to have you

do so.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. WARNE, ADMINISTRATOR, THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. WARNE. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

As administrator of the Resources Agency of California, I appear before you today at the behest of Gov. Edmund G. Brown, to present a statement reflecting the position of this agency and its component organizations.

The Resources Agency of California was established on October 1 of this year by Governor Brown under authority given him by the State legislature. Within this agency, by law and by executive order, are departments, boards, commissions, and committees which are concerned with water, forests, fish and wildlife, mining, oil and gas, soil conservation, boating, parks and recreation, and agriculture.

The Resources Agency of California supports the principles of the Wilderness Act and urges passage of Senate bill 174.

Your committee has or will receive testimony and/or written statements from the board of forestry and the State mining board reflecting reservations of this support. Similarly, the State park commission will submit to you an individual action further supporting this agency endorsement.

Governor Brown himself just last week set the tone for this support of the principles of the Wilderness Act which we are expressing, in a letter to a newspaperman, Dick Hyland. I wish to quote a portion of that letter as it appears in the November 3 issue of the newspaper Western Outdoor News.

Governor Brown stated:

As Governor of California, I am deeply aware of the interests of our multitude of citizens who look upon the beauties of our mountains and streams as resources worthy of our best attention today and preservation for our children and our children's children.

I hope I have been useful in promoting programs in my administration that will safeguard and preserve these things for all time

Governor Brown concluded.

Recognition by the wilderness bill of the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness for the American people of present and future generations is of particular significance in California. As the subcommittee is well aware, California possesses some of the finest wilderness country in the Nation and also sustains some of the heaviest public outdoor recreational activity.

While the wilderness bill will provide reasonable protection for wilderness lands where continued recreational opportunities will be assured, it is most significant to those of us charged with developing and utilizing natural resources of high economic and social value, such as water, minerals, and timber that much of the planning that led to the wording of the bill as it was passed by the Senate, was directed toward protecting and stabilizing the vital industries that depend upon utilization of these resources.

This is as it should be.

To give the committee some perspective as to the effects of the wilderness bill upon California, I would like to put a few figures in the record.

There are approximately 100 million acres of land in California. Adoption of the bill before you would mean that within the next 14 years, 5,778,434 acres, or less than 6 percent of California, might be designated as within the wilderness system. Of this acreage, it is significant that at the present time, between 75 and 80 percent of this land is already permanently withdrawn from resources exploitation with 463,658 acres presently designated as national forest wilderness areas and 4,026,457 acres contained in existing national parks.

The additional lands which would be affected specifically under the wilderness bill would be 1,094,164 acres of national forest primitive areas and 194,155 acres of national wildlife refuge and game areas which are not now permanently withdrawn from resources exploitation.

From these figures then we see that approximately 1.2 percent of California's land areas would be given new status under the wilderness bill for the benefit of all the people.

We believe that there is adequate provision within the bill for congressional review and specific affirmative action necessary before additional lands could be included in the wilderness system.

We are not interested in "locking up" forever water, minerals or timber which someday may be needed in the national interest. We believe, however, that the bill provides suitable means and authority for the various secretaries to employ such actions as land exchanges, or

other methods, to make available such needed resources by excluding them from the wilderness system. In California, for instance, we have about 250,000 acres of merchantable timber which are presently within some of these potential preserved areas that might be considered when the final boundaries are set up for exclusion. We call that to your attention.

Provisions in the bill to allow for the continued investigations of water and mineral development possibilities are also desirable. The President may authorize mining and the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water conservation works, transmission lines, and other facilities determined to be needed in the public interest. Necessary commercial services also may be performed under Presidential authorization. We think these provisions are desirable.

We feel that the bill as it stands provides ample review authority by Congress regarding each specific area to be included as wilderness areas. This safeguard we feel insures that all interests will receive full consideration before any area is incorporated into the wilderness system.

While the basic purpose of the forest, park, and wildlife areas to be included will not change, inclusion in the wilderness system will insure preservation of their wilderness character and will constitute high public purpose by preserving the natural resources and natural habitat of wildlife.

For these reasons the Resources Agency of California supports the principles of S. 174 and urges its adoption by Congress.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you very much, Mr. Warne. [Applause.]

Mrs. PrOST. Are there questions of Mr. Warne?

You have presented a very fine statement, Mr. Warne. We certainly appreciate your taking time from a busy schedule to give the committee members the benefit of the position of the State of California on this proposal.

Mr. WARNE. We are very pleased to see the subcommittee come out here and to hear all of our people and to give our own Congressman, Mr. Johnson, an opportunity to sit with you today and review this question with you. We think it is a very important thing and we in California are privileged to have some very fine areas that are deserving of consideration in this measure.

Mrs. PrOST. Mr. Warne, let me assure you the reason this committee is here today is because of the Honorable Harold Johnson who insisted it was necessary that the committee come and hear the pros and cons of the effect of this legislation on the State of California.

Mr. Johnson is a member of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and of our Subcommittee on Public Lands. Let me assure you that he is making a very fine record and that he is representing the people of the State of California very ably.

Mr. WARNE. I am sure the committee knows Mr. Johnson's district, when he served right here in our own State Capitol and now serving in Washington, includes much of the finest mountain area we have in the whole of the United States, not just in California.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Warne.

Mr. WARNE. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is Mrs. Gennie Schumacher on behalf of herself.

Will Mr. Ralph Nissen of the California Farm Bureau Federation please come forward?

You may proceed, Mrs. Schumacher.

STATEMENT OF MRS. GENNY SCHUMACHER, MONO COUNTY, CALIF.

Mrs. SCHUMACHER. Madam Chairman, my name is Genny Schumacher. I am from Mono County, Mr. Johnson's district, in eastern California. I am the author and editor of outdoor and travel books. I spend 5 months of the year in the mountains in the Sierra Nevadas, much of it in campground, some of it in the wild back country in our national forests and national parks.

One of the questions people ask me constantly is, "Where can we go that is not so crowded?"

The only answer I can give to them is away from the roads and into the wilderness.

Let us look at this in perspective. If I had a large map of the United States and could show all of the lands in the proposed wilderness system, you would see but little islands scattered throughout the Western States. Perhaps your committee has such a map. If not, may I refresh your memories with copies of the maps from the Senate hearing record.

Look at these maps. This is all the wilderness now left in America. Is it really so much as some people have said this morning, compared with the total land of our country? It is about 2 percent.

Do the intelligent, farsighted leaders of our important mining, oil. cattle, and timber industries really believe that their companies or our American economy will suffer if they are restricted from mining, grazing, and lumbering on every single acre of public lands? If they cannot survive and operate at a profit without using the wilderness lands, too, in addition to the 98 percent they already use, are not they and our country in a very bad fix?

Does anybody believe we are in such a fix? Are not most of our problems problems of oversupply and not scarcity?

A couple more figures: With passage of the wilderness bill 94 percent of the public domain would still be open to prospecting and mining, only 6 percent would be restricted. The total commercial forest lands in the United States are 490 million acres, 411⁄2 million acres in Forest Service wilderness-type areas. This is nine-tenths of 1 percent of all of the commercial land in the United States.

Recreation: According to the Senate hearing record, 2 to 3 million people use the wilderness every year. Is this so few? Or are they the many?

Thank you.

(COMMITTEE NOTE.-The following subsequently was received by the committee:)

STATEMENT OF MRS. GENNY SCHUMACHER, AUTHOR AND EDITOR OF TRAVEL ARTICLES AND VACATION GUIDEBOOKS

A lumberman, Mr. Joe Hughes, presented the very best testimony this morning for the need and urgency of the wilderness bill. Questioned by Chairman Pfost, Mr. Hughes stated candidly that of course lumbermen would like to cut trees in