proposed in the letter, and I would ask unanimous consent these amendments be printed at the end of his statement.

Mr. BARING. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See p. 1128.)

Mr. DINGELL. I offered them as part of the statement, Mr. Chairman, so they could be brought before you. I would say to the chairman of the committee the amendments suggested are somewhat. changed in view of the chairman's letter to me.

Mr. ASPINALL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARING. The gentleman from New York?
Mr. WHARTON. No questions.

Mr. BARING. The gentleman from California?
Mr. JOHNSON. No questions.

Mr. BARING. The gentleman from Washington?
Mr. WESTLAND. No questions.

Mr. BARING. The gentleman from Idaho?

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Dingell, these amendments that you have proposed, I have not had a chance to look them over. Are these amendments that you have drafted yourself or some that have been suggested by others than yourself?

Mr. DINGELL. I have discussed these with others. They were amendments which I drafted.

Mr. WHITE. You drafted?

Mr. DINGELL. Legislative counsel drafted under my direction. Mr. WHITE. These are ideas you thought would be perfecting amendments to your particular bill?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. They were not at the suggestion of the Department or someone else?

Mr. DINGELL. I will state categorically to the committee, these amendments were drafted by the House legislative counsel under my direction. I have not discussed these with the Interior Department at all. I have discussed them with some of the members and some of the national conservation organizations which are interested in the wilderness bill.

Mr. WHITE. I see. Might I say to you I appreciate very much your statetment to the chairman of the full committtee that you appreciate the problems that the chairman has and you referred to the remainder of the members of the committee. I appreciate also the problems that you have, Mr. Dingell, and will try to be as cognizant of them as you are of the problems of the rest of the members.

Mr. DINGELL. I am sure the members of this committee are. And I want to make very clear I know the gentleman from Idaho has an abundance of problems with this kind of legislation because I know the people of his area in fairly large numbers have a measure of apprehension and concern and sometimes downright opposition to this bill.

Mr. WHITE. The gentleman has stated the facts very correctly. Mr. DINGELL. But I have noted the gentleman from Idaho very frequently will vote the public interest-as a matter of fact invariably votes the public interest and, may I say, despite the opposition that might arise in his district on that particular vote.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Dingell, with respect to a refuge for wildlife, is hunting a part of the operation of a wildlife refuge?

Mr. DINGELL. Under the law, 40 percent of the area of fish and wildlife refugees are open to hunting. As a matter of fact, the subcommittee of which I am a member reported out a bill which was ultimately enacted into law which authorized hunting on up to 40 percent of refuges.

Mr. WHITE. Does that 40 percent remain as a refuge?

Mr. DINGELL. Oh, yes. That is useful

Mr. WHITE. I think if you look at the definition of refuge, it would hardly qualify as a refuge when you are going in to kill game.

Mr. DINGELL. I would not want to engage in a discussion with my good friend. The fact of the matter is it is so denominated by statute and serves a useful function in the care and feeding of migratory waterfowl or other animals that might happen to exist there. After all, the duck hunters in large part have contributed to the purchase of these refuges, and we have a duty to make available to them an opportunity and a place to shoot. We do it under very carefully controlled conditions, but as I pointed out to my good friend, these are important parts of the refuge. We have to try to manage the refuges so that they are not open to excessive or uncontrolled shooting, or shooting which endangers the wildlife or which endangers the habitat of the particular wildlife to be protected on the refuge. And I for one do not view a use like hunting to be totally inconsistent with refuge purposes. I view it as being something which can be in many cases carried on in refuges and which, because of other interests and other public questions involved, should be and must be made available to the public of this country.

Mr. WHITE. I won't argue the relative merits of providing this. I am just talking to this subject of how it is so designated. Really, to call it a refuge and at the same time permit hunting on it is rather an ambiguous approach to the problem. I don't deny there is this need, but I do not want someone to tell me they are providing a refuge for certain wild species, cloak themselves in the conservation toga and then at the same time go out and kill the same things they say they are attempting to conserve.

Mr. DINGELL. Let me make one thing very plain. I probably have been responsible for more legislation dealing with the protection of fish and wildlife, at least on the Federal refuge system level, than any other Member of Congress at this time. I have had a particular interest in it and a particular committee assignment which has enabled me to do this, but, at the same time, I have to recognize that migratory waterfowl have a harvestable surplus which is available for use to the people of this Nation on an annual basis and within wise regulations for the protection of that resource that we can harvest and we can do so in areas which are denominated as refuges and areas which are denominated as public shooting grounds, and I, for one, do not boggle at the term refuge merely because some shooting may be allowed.

And I would point out to my good friend that any of the bills, any of the wilderness bills pending before the committee at this time, recognize that hunting is a resource and an activity which can be used and engaged in in the wilderness areas in the bills. I, for one, would have a very difficult time justifying my support of this kind of legislation if I could not point out that hunting was available in these

areas, both because of my own philosophical feelings on the matter and because of the attitude of my constituents.

Mr. WHITE. You have opened the door now and I would like to carry it a step further. I would like to ask you whether or not this would be true of any other resources in the area, the harvesting of timber or mineral resources that exist.

Mr. DINGELL. I do not think so, because I think, on the one hand, you can protect the wilderness quality of the area and still have hunting. I question in many instances-in fact, I question in almost any instance that you can do the same thing and have timbering and that you can do the same thing and have mining exploration. I would point out that this bill, the bill of which I am the sponsor, permits these areas to continue to be open for mineral exploration for a period of 10 years. I have accepted that as a reasonable compromise in the interest of the constituents the gentleman happens to represent, and in view of the particular problems my good friend from Idaho and other members of this committee happen to face in this connection.

But fundamentally I would point out you cannot very well have a timbering operation or large scale mining operation and still have wilderness. The two are incompatible.

Mr. WHITE. I do not believe that they are, sir, but rather than carry this on let us develop it with the other witnesses.

Mr. DINGELL. I would point out also to my good friend, as I am sure he is aware, in most of the areas denominated as wilderness areas there is very little in the way of exploitable minerals at this time. There is a limited amount of timber. And I would point out that these bills afford these areas very little in the way of new protection that is not already under law and existing regulations available to the areas in terms of protection of the wilderness values.

Mr. WHITE. I think if the gentleman will take a look at the SelwayBitterroot wilderness area, he will find much timber and a very large potential for minerals.

Mr. DINGELL. I am a little bit familiar with the Selway-Bitterroot and timbering there could be a very dangerous thing. You might find that as the result of timbering you have the topsoil washed away and have a howling desert in there instead of a forest.

Mr. WHITE. I do not think that is true for the forest areas of northern Idaho. I think you are extending something beyond what actually could occur.

Mr. DINGELL. I have great affection for my good friend from Idaho and I do not want to argue with him. We have our differences of opinion, I can see.

Mr. WHITE. That is all.

Mr. BARING. The gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. KYL. I have no questions.

Mr. BARING. Thank you very much, Mr. Dingell, for a very fine

statement.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to the committee.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BARING. The gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ASPINALL. Before you call the next witness, we have a report as of this morning from the Treasury Department in response to a request I have made of the Treasury Department, and I would ask unanimous consent it be placed in the record immediately following the reports which were placed in the record yesterday.

Mr. BARING. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See p. 1075.)

Mr. BARING. Our next witness is Mr. Arthur W. Greeley, Deputy Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

We welcome you before the committee, Mr. Greeley. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR W. GREELEY, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR NATIONAL PARK RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY REYNOLDS FLORANCE

Mr. GREELEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Arthur Greeley and I am a Deputy Chief of the Forest Service. My particular responsibility is national forest resource management. I am very happy to be here today to present this statement on behalf of the Department of Agriculture.

Ever since the Department's report in the 85th Congress on such legislative proposals we have consistently been in favor of and have recommended the enactment of wilderness legislation insofar as it would affect the national forests.

The first wilderness-type area in the national forests was established in 1924. Our policy to establish and maintain wilderness areas has been continuous since then. The majority of the wilderness-type areas in the national forests were designated in the 1930's. There now are 87 such areas in the national forests with an aggregate area of about fourteen and a half million acres.

This hearing this morning is one of a long series of congressional hearings on wilderness legislation. The facts about wilderness-type areas in the national forests, and the reasons we favor wilderness legislation, have been expressed on various occasions. Statistical information on the national forest wilderness system has been supplied to this committee's staff and I believe you have it before you.

None knows better than this committee the widely divergent views that have been expressed on wilderness legislative proposals. The bills now before you fall into different groups or patterns. The Department's report of December 9, 1963, recognizes the sincere efforts that have been made to reach a middleground solution to some of the differences.

We have favored and would still lean toward full protection of wilderness areas. Also we have favored provisions that would have included primitive areas in the wilderness system, with provisions for review and further action on them. However, as stated by our report, we recognize that H.R. 9162 and similar bills would be progressive legislation for goals long sought.

We recommend favorable action by the committee on these bills as they affect the Department provided they are amended as recommended in our report.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement.

Mr. BARING. Thank you very much, Mr. Greeley.
The chairman of the full committee.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Greeley, as you indicated in your statement, we have before us a summary of statistical data of wilderness type areas in the national forests as of today. However, for the record, I wonder if you could furnish us with a summary by State, together with details by States, of each grouping of wilderness, wild, canoe, and primitive areas up to date.

Mr. GREELEY. Yes; we would be happy to do that.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the information be made a part of the record at this place.

Mr. BARING. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The information follows:)

Summary of wilderness-type areas in national forests, as of May 7, 1964

1 The Blue Range primitive area is in Arizona and New Mexico. The Selway-Bitterroot wilderness area is in Idaho and Montana. Acreage is shown in each State but area is shown in "Number of areas" column in State having larger portion of area.