Mr. GRAY. Well, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many in the industry and of others outside of the industry, I would say yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARING. So you spend $40 million on a project of that kind in locking up our total source of these precious and strategic minerals. The gentleman from California?

Mr. JOHNSON. No questions.

Mr. BARING. The gentleman from Pennsylvania?

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Gray, here on page 3 you say:

"The requirement for affirmative action by Congress upon any and all lands which might be recommended as wilderness areas and for appropriate hearings in the areas involved has consistently been advocated by the mining and other industries of the West."

You do not mean to tell us that that is not required in S. 4, do you? Mr. GRAY. Yes, I do, Mr. Congressman.

In Senate bill 4 the recommendation would come down from the President to the legislature, to the Congress, making recommendations that certain areas would be added to or subtracted from the wilderness areas or new areas would be created, and unless there was a resolution adopted by one of the two Houses opposing it the recommendation would become law.

Mr. SAYLOR. Now, Mr. Gray, you and every other person who has been battling this wilderness legislation for years have been trying to get that across, and that is not true.

Now, that act as passed by the Senate specifically mentions every one of the areas that is going to be included and Congress, by passing it or taking the action of passing S. 4, takes in all of the provisions. And then they allow the Secretary of Agriculture to review some of those areas that he now has under review. There is nothing in that bill that authorizes the President to include anything else in this that is not already included in the bill.

Mr. GRAY. Well, I am sorry to differ with you, Mr. Congressman, and with all due respect to you, sir, and your position, but I do.

As I read the bill, if there are to be any additions or subtractions made to the original system set up and the original area created as a wilderness area it comes by recommendation of the President which becomes effective unless it is rejected by a resolution of one of the two Houses.

Mr. SAYLOR. Yes, but the thing that you are missing, Mr. Gray, is that the areas on which the President has a chance to recommend are already included in the bill.

Now, this has been a bugaboo that a lot of people have held up and tried to use. Now, just to show you that some of us have not been taken in by it, that is why I changed and put in 9070, calling for what somebody says is positive action but, in the meantime, no Secretary of Interior, no Secretary of Agriculture or no President of the United States, can include anything that Congress has not included in the original bill.

Mr. GRAY. That is one thing that makes your bill highly commendable over S. 4, in my opinion.

Mr. SAYLOR. Well, in my humble judgment it was not much of an improvement and it was not much of a concession, but if it makes you fellows feel any better, why, we are perfectly willing to do it.

Mr. GRAY. Well, I will be frank with you, Mr. Congressman: I think that by your bill and by 9162, both of them recognize that the two Houses, the Senate and the House who are, under the Constitution, created as the caretakers of our public lands, have assumed again the responsibility of dedicating what land should be used for what purpose by a specific act of Congress other than by relying upon a resolution, refusing or negating recommendations made by the executive branch.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Gray, this now gets down to a matter of form. Your organization has not complained since the first Secretary of Agriculture set aside the first wilderness area.

I have yet to find a witness coming before this committee in this session or in any other session who has complained about the action of the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Interior for the classifications that they have made.

Then when some of us decide to set aside by statute a wilderness area we have thrown up before us the spector of Congress only having had the right to veto. If Congress had not said in the original bill language specifying the areas you might have had some grounds, but we specified the areas.

So, therefore, I cannot agree with your statement that Congress only has the right of veto because Congress placed the limitations upon which the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior could make any recommendations to the President.

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Congressman, may I reply, please?

Mr. SAYLOR. Go right ahead, sir.

Mr. GRAY. The reason that there has been no hue and cry from the mining industry as to the creation of the wilderness areas, the wild areas and the primitive areas, is the fact that the mining laws are still applicable in all of those areas notwithstanding any act of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture creating those acts.

So we had a perfect right to enter, prospect, and mine, and search for materials and minerals.

But when you create a wilderness area under a legislative enactment, such as is suggested under Senate bill 4, you then prohibit the entry within those areas of the searcher for minerals and that is why we are objecting to S. 4.

Mr. SAYLOR. All right. Now, but, you see now, you come downMr. GRAY. This is the reason

Mr. SAYLOR (Continuing). To an entirely different basis.

Mr. GRAY. What?

Mr. SAYLOR. Now you come down to an entirely different basis. Now, in this your industry may have some justification.

But, you know, it amuses me to hear the industry come forward and cry about what is happening to them. You would think that Uncle Sam was out cutting off their very lifeblood.

The distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mrs. Neuberger, on last July 10 placed in the Congressional Record, on pages 11,680 and 11,681, the estimated number of mining claims filed in the national forest lands and wilderness, wild, and primitive areas since September 6, 1961.

An evaluation was included as to whether or not they were valid for mineral purposes.

In the wilderness areas, according to this list, there are 327 claims filed for 13 minerals, and it is estimated that 76 of the claims would be valid.

In the wild areas 23 claims were filed for 5 minerals and 8 claims may be valid, and in the primitive areas 187 claims for 10 minerals were filed and 84 may be valid.

In other words, of 537 claims, for 16 minerals, 108 of them may be valid and it is unknown whether 369 of them have any value at all.

So that this great mining industry in this country, which has been talking about shutting up and locking up all of this great property in the wilderness system has not been very active when they have had the right to go in.

They have not gone in. They have not prospected. They have not made this the great bonanza that you would like to have us believe it will be.

And there may be a number of good and legitimate reasons for not doing it, but they have not gone into a lot of the other sections which are open, which are not wilderness areas and which are not primitive areas and which are not wild areas, and there are still a lot of other areas where they could have gone into and they have not gone into those either.

Now, the next question I have to ask you has to do with regard to the statement that appears on page 7:

We believe that any legislation which created a single use of public domain would be contrary to this policy and would retard the development of important areas in the West.

And that is with regard to your former statement which says that Congress has enacted public laws which have encouraged the greatest possible use of public lands. Now, you certainly would not want to leave the impression with this committee that our national parks and monuments are anything but single use of public domain, would you?

Mr. GRAY. Yes, I would, because there are some that by the law are not made single use of. For example, the Death Valley National Monument is one. I think there is one in Oregon called the Crater Lake, if I am not mistaken as to the name, and I think perhaps there are one or two others, Mr. Congressman, that provide for the effectiveness of the mining laws within those areas.

Now, certain other areas which have been set aside as parks and monuments do not contain that provision, that is quite true. But I think when you look at the acreage involved it will be found that there is a very small acreage that is brought up.

It is nothing like the acreage which is to be withdrawn and set aside in the wilderness system by any one of these proposed bills.

Mr. SAYLOR. Be a little careful, Mr. Gray, and remember, we have a great park in Alaska. We have the great park in Montana, and we have them in Wyoming and Colorado.

The total acreage involved in the national parks and monuments as of the time which we held our hearings in 1962 was 46,599,653 acres which I think you will find is about three times the size of all the areas in our national forests and wilderness, wild and primitive areas. And if we include the areas in the national park system, the areas in the national wildlife and refuge system then you get a little better than 61 million acres.

Now, we had specific reference in the hearings held 2 years ago, when the Secretary of the Interior appeared and was asked for his specific comments, to the preservation of mineral rights in Mount McKinley National Park, Death Valley National Park, and Glacier National Monument, all of which have specific legislative authority for continued applicability of the mining laws.

Now, the Secretary of Interior gave us a full explanation. It is part of the record.

Are you familiar with the problems in Death Valley with the mining claims down there, sir?

Is part of your practice down in that national park?

Mr. GRAY. Not all of them, Mr. Congressman, but I happened to spend many years of my youthful period of life down there in the Death Valley area, and I know something about the area.

Mr. SAYLOR. Well, apparently the conflicts between the mining claims and the Park Service have created such an impasse that it is impossible to develop either one.

Mr. GRAY. Well, that might be true, I do not know. I am not cognizant of it.

But, certainly, there is a lack of ingenuity. When that vast area called the Death Valley National Park, which extends from the western boundary of the State of Nevada-and some of it in Nevadato the valley over the Panamint Range into the Panamint Valley— it isn't large enough for the operation of mining and also the park people.

This, I can speak of, Mr. Congressman, from my own personal knowledge, and this is getting personal. My father and I operated some mining claims in the old Camp Skidoo. After the park was created-we observed the park's regulations and the park people recognized our rights to mine what had been discovered and what we were working for.

And over a period of some 7 or 8 years we had no trouble and no difficulty. I can speak of that from my own personal knowledge, Mr. Congressman. Those claims have long since reverted back to public domain.

If my father and I came out maybe a few dollars ahead we had a great deal.

Mr. SAYLOR. Unfortunately Mr. Gray is not used to this situation but for most people working mines it is the exception that makes any money.

Mr. GRAY. No, but it is that exception that keeps the light of life in many a man's eyes, sir. It is the right of privilege, the opportunity to expend yourself, your physical abilities, and even spend yourself unto death, if you can find a few dollars. It is the individual drive.

And I think I think, really, if you would open up-forget the wilderness areas entirely but spend as much time in stimulating individual interest and drive, such as in protection, and we would be a bigger and a greater Nation.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Gray, I am not sure that you are not still a prospector at heart rather than an attorney.

Mr. GRAY. Well, you may not be far from wrong, sir.

Mr. SAYLOR. Having found that it might be a little more remunerative to be an attorney than

Mr. GRAY. Well, when my father got into a lawsuit involving this same Skidoo property my mother and my dad were eating bacon and beans and keeping lawyers alive, and I decided to be a lawyer, sir. Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Gray.

Mr. BARING. We appreciate your testimony, Howard.

Mr. GRAY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BARING. Our next witness is Mr. Kenneth B. Pomeroy, chief forester for the American Forestry Association.

We are very glad to have you here, Mr. Pomeroy, and you may proceed with your statement if you wish.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH B. POMEROY, CHIEF FORESTER, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, this is very kind of you to take me this afternoon, and I appreciate it very much.

Mr. BARING. You may proceed, Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, the American Forestry Association believes that H.R. 9162, dated November 19, 1963, comes closer to meeting its views on the wilderness aspects of multiple use and the provisions of the association's conservation program for American forestry than any other proposal that has been submitted to the Congress. We would endorse the substance of H.R. 9162 if certain changes are made.

1. The title might better read "A bill to establish national wilderness preservation for the permanent good of the whole people."

As I have listened to the testimony it appears to me that I may have misinterpreted the bill insofar as what it says, but it doesn't change our feeling about it.

2. The last sentence under section 3 (b) (lines 12 to 13 on page 5) should be amended. As now written, a primitive area might be frozen in that status indefinitely if Congress did not act on a recommendation of the executive branch.

We believe there should be a time limit placed on the period for consideration by Congress and, if no action is taken, the recommendation of the executive branch should take effect.

Now, if I might explain that just a little bit, as we understand it, there are two points of view. One would maintain the primitive areas indefinitely and the other would cause them to revert to regular multiple-use status.

What we have tried to do is take a center position here based on the recommendations of the Executive.

Another suggestion we would like to offer pertains to section 5(c) on page 15, which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase private tracts within wilderness boundaries. We suggest that the exchange provisions of section 5(8), for State-owned land, be extended also to private land.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. BARING. Mr. Saylor.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Pomeroy, I am afraid that the second recommendation that you have in your statement applies rather to the bill that I introduced, 9070, rather than the bill that you referred to.

Mr. POMEROY. I gathered that from the testimony here.