Mr. ASPINALL. This committee of young men, practically all of them very young, the chairman of the full committee alone would be the only one denied the right to use the wilderness.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. BARING. Would the witness care to say how he would figure how fire protection could take place if no trails or no roads were there?

Mr. BALDWIN. There is a provision in the bill that provides that administrative agencies, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, can take such steps as they deem necessary in the field of fire protection.

Mr. ASPINALL. If my colleague will yield, but you are aware of the fact that there are those who favor this bill who say that if lightning should happen to hit a tree and start a forest fire, there should be nothing done to protect those values because Mother Nature has seen fit to visit upon this area such a tragedy. You are aware of the fact there

are those?

Mr. BALDWIN. I am aware of that, but I do not agree with that philosophy. I agree with the provision of the bill that says the administrative agencies shall be authorized to take such steps as they deem necessary in the way of fire protection.

Mr. ASPINALL. Let me ask you this: Do you think it is more important to save a tree than it is to take water to a city, to see to it that the children and the citizens of that city have the right to the use of the water that is available?

Mr. BALDWIN. I think, Mr. Chairman, it depends upon the relative merits of the two proposals in each individual case. There is a provision in the bill that enables the administrative agencies to make surveys with regard to water resources. It does not bar that. But I think each individual case has to be considered on its own respective merits.

Mr. ASPINALL. You see, what you are telling me is that in your thinking in case of a fire it is all right to go ahead and put a road up there that would scar the side of a mountain in order to put out the fire if that is necessary, but you do not think it is feasible to go ahead and put a road up there which might scar the area for 3 or 4 years in order to get some reservoir impoundment.

Mr. BALDWIN. I do not think I said that, Mr. Chairman. I said I agree with the provisions in the bill which say that the administrative agencies would have the right to make surveys on use for water resources, but I believe decisions in each individual case have to be made on the basis of the merits of that particular case.

Mr. ASPINALL. All right, who is going to make the decision under the Constitution-the administrative agency or the Congress?

Mr. BALDWIN. I think that the Congress would have to under the bill I am recommending.

Mr. ASPINALL. You and I are in complete agreement all right; and with this little exchange we have clarified the situation.

Mr. BARING. The gentleman from California.

Mr. BURTON of California. No questions.

Mr. BARING. Thank you very much, Mr. Baldwin for your testi

mony.

We will now hear from Mr. Bennett of Florida.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As one of the early introducers of legislation in this field, I deeply appreciate this opportunity to testify in behalf of proposals to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System, and my bills are H.R. 295 and 9165.

My objective in introducing H.R. 295 and 9165 was to see that the future young people of our Nation have a chance to see attractive, open, an unspoiled land; a chance they will hardly have if Congress does not act quickly.

open

One of my most cherished memories is that of enjoying the Florida wilderness as it existed those 25 or 30 years ago. This is fast disappearing with every new month, and the same is happening, even if at not so rapid a pace, all over the country.

While there is present administrative protection for the lands involved in these bills, administrators change, and their ideas on 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 the population grows. With enactment of one of these bills, the policy of the Congress, representing all of the people, will have been set down for all future executive departments.

As you know, the Government owns millions of acres of land that would be appropriate for the purposes of this legislation, and it seems logical to me that first consideration should be given to these lands.

I sincerely believe the need for enactment of wilderness legislation is immediate, and I want to highly commend the committee for their already very extensive and painstaking work on this proposed legislation. While I am hopeful that the committee will report my bill, H.R. 9165, I am confident that in any case the final bill will be a fair and adequate one.

It is my pleasure to add my support.

Thank you.

Mr. BARING. Thank you very much, Mr. Bennett.
Next we shall hear from Mr. Lindsay.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN V. LINDSAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I appear here today in support of Mr. Saylor's wilderness bill, H.R. 9070, and the several bills now pending in your committee. I also call the committee's attention to my own bill, H.R. 7877, introduced last August, which is a companion bill to Mr. Saylor's.

These objectives are quite simple, yet they are long overdue of attainment. This is the eighth year that the friends of conservation have attempted to move a wilderness bill through Congress. As I said last August in presenting my own bill, "The time has come to save wilderness areas, not temporarily by administrative decision, but permanently by law. Our remaining wilderness is an impermanent asset requiring immediate protection."

Since that statement 8 months have gone by. Once again it is time to act. In fact, the longer we wait the less wilderness we will have left to protect. In the 2-year period after the wilderness bill was first passed by the Senate in 1961, more than 500 mining claims were filed on lands that were to be covered by the bill. That was nearly a year ago. Today the number of claims must be much greater.

The bills introduced by Mr. Saylor, myself, and other Members of the House of Representatives have two central provisions. First, they pinpoint responsibility for the preservation of wilderness areas in the Congress, where, by the Constitution, the responsibility must lie. The preservation of our wilderness areas must be governed by law, not by the discretionary powers of administrators who often are subject to extraordinary pressures.

Thus, a key advantage of the Saylor and Lindsay bills is that they establish by affirmative congressional action a national policy for wilderness preservation. The bill would make it

the policy of the Congress of the United States to secure for the American people of the present and future generations benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.

The bill also would establish a program by means of which such a wilderness preservation policy can be realized. This is through the establishment of a National Wilderness Preservation System consisiting of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas." This replaces the status quo in which we have had executive action without specific guidelines for handling wilderness

areas.

Secondly, the Saylor and Lindsay bills adapt the wilderness program to existing land uses. The program will be applied to areas that can continue to serve their present purposes while still being preserved as wilderness. The bill makes allowance for economic and commercial needs that may be in conflict with wilderness preservation by providing for special consideration of these needs.

It has been stated that there should be a review of all primitive areas before they are declared wilderness. But this bill provides for review. The bill states that wilderness, wild, and canoe areas shall be protected immediately. These are definite categories; they are known, mapped, and surveyed as such. Then the bill says that primitive areas also will be protected but orders a 5-year review of primitive areas. After such review, the President may submit to Congress specific recommendations. The recommendations would become effective only if approved by Congress.

This is not a radical measure; it is a highly moderate one. Less than 2 percent of the Nation's land and water area will be affected-less than 15 million national forest acres out of a total of 186 million acres.

Consideration of this legislation requires recognition of a basic characteristics of wilderness; each year it erodes. Each year there is less of it. Once gone, it cannot be brought back. In time, the opportunity to save the wilderness evaporates. It is therefore important that we have a wilderness bill this session of Congress.

Some may object that the only wilderness I represent is Central Park in Manhattan. But the sparseness of wilderness in my district makes the need for it all the greater. That need is common to all Americans, in many respects most importantly to city people.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge enactment of wilderness legislation.

Mr. BARING. Thank you, Mr. Lindsay, for your statement.

We will now hear from the Honorable Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior.

We are glad to have you with us this morning, Mr. Secretary.

STATEMENT OF STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Secretary UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very pleased to appear before your committee in support of wilderness legislation. This is a subject in which I am greatly concerned, as I firmly believe in the wilderness concept. In my judgment, wilderness is a vital consideration that will be even more important to those who follow us.

I am informed that the recent field hearings held by your committee were highly successful, for which I commend the committee. Such hearings will no doubt establish a sound basis for effective consideration of this important legislation.

My statement will be short because I believe that most of the arguments for or against wilderness already have been made to this committee. I wish, however, to set forth as clearly as possible how I feel about the whole matter of wilderness preservation, as well as to make certain salient points.

First, I would like to emphasize that, in my judgment, we are at the crossroads in preserving that part of our Nation's heritage represented by our wilderness, scenic, and outdoor recreation resources. These are not only irreplaceable once they are lost; they are essential to our way of life and the future of our country.

Our Nation is still comparatively young, but we have developed very rapidly from a commercial and industrial standpoint, and our population is expanding very rapidly. This is fine, but it emphasizes the expanding need for wilderness preservation. We need counterbalances to the development phase of our economy. We should, I believe, provide a hedge against the future wilderness needs of our people. I believe that every American in his own way cherishes wild lands. This is an inherent part of our being, in my opinion, for which an outlet is needed.

Even as vast areas of our Nation were at one time denuded of trees— before the full impact and realization of the effects of such action could be comprehended-we are now in a comparable period where much of our present wilderness is disappearing thousands and thousands of acres are falling under the hand of the developer, the highway builder, and other similar usage each year. I hope, therefore, that this committee, in which I have great confidence, will agree with me that we should act now.

Wilderness legislation has always been of keen interest to the Department of the Interior because we are directly concerned not only with resource management but also because we administer many areas of the national park system and the national wildlife refuge system that would appear to qualify for wilderness status. In fact, the provisions of the pending bills call for a review of the areas of the national

park system and the national wildlife refuge system for this purpose. I am in thorough agreement as to the desirability of examining these areas under our jurisdiction that may qualify for wilderness

status.

A further consideration heightens our interest in this legislation. As you know, we have expanded our general horizon to encompass the whole field of outdoor recreation. Wilderness areas, properly conceived and administered, will become of increasing value to the Nation from the standpoint of providing outdoor recreation. This, however, is only one phase of the benefits from such areas. They provide, for example, watershed protection, a basis for scientific studies, fish and wildlife protection, and other benefits.

Because of the various bills before you, and because of the many facets to the problem of wilderness preservation, I recognize that your committee has many choices and that the decisions will not be too easy. There are, however, certain basic principles or considerations that occur to me which I will leave with this committee. I hope these views will be of assistance to you in your deliberations.

One of the bills referred to your committee is S. 4. The record will show that we submitted a favorable report on that bill to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on February 21, 1963. That bill is now before your committee; and, notwithstanding subsequent developments, it is a bill of considerable merit that in my judgment warrants a careful evaluation by your committee.

The subsequent developments, to which I have referred, are represented by H.R. 9162 and identical bills, also awaiting consideration by your committee. We submitted a report to you on December 12, 1963, on this group of bills. At that time, we expressed the view that H.R. 9162 represented an equitable solution to the various wilderness questions that theretofore have been unresolved. We believe this bill still offers a suitable basis upon which to proceed, recognizing that amendments we have suggested, and other amendments of the committee, will probably be desirable.

I think a lot of us can see daylight now with regard to getting the compromise that will get a wilderness bill, those who were puzzled and troubled before.

There are certain additional points that I wish to make. One of the questions that will arise in your deliberations relates to the treatment of "primitive" areas in national forests. S. 4 would include initially such areas within the wilderness system, but would require their subsequent review as to whether or not they should be retained in that system.

On the other hand, H.R. 9162 would not include such areas within the wilderness system initially but would permit their review over a 10-year period and (this is an important point) if not included in the wilderness system within the 10-year period by an express act of Congress, they would not only be a part of the wilderness system, but they also would lose their identity as "primitive" areas, thereby reverting to forest status.

In my judgment this legislation should include the primitive areas in the system initially with subsequently review, as does S. 4, or it should require definite congressional decision as to whether or not a particular primitive area should attain "wilderness" status. The