1957 TO THE YEAR 2000 Projections of consumption of natural resources, gross national product, and population to the year 2000 again show mineral consumption scoring higher than any other natural resource. Resources in America's future shows the estimated consumption increase trend from 1957 to the year 2000 at: 0.1 percent annually per capita for agricultural products; 0.9 percent for forest products; and 1.2 percent for minerals. The population increase is estimated at 1.6 percent annually. Gross national product is estimated to be slightly more than doubled by 1980, and again slightly more than doubled between 1980 and 2000. On the basis of the above estimated rates of increase, population in the year 2000 will be 1.92 times that of 1957. Total mineral consumption will be 2.92 times that of 1957; timber product consumption 2.83 times; agricultural product consumption 2.01 times, and all natural resource consumption 2.39 times. The gross national product will be 4.8 times that of 1957. The estimated per capita consumption increases from 1957 to the year 2000 are 1.52 times for minerals, 1.47 times for timber products, and 1.04 times for agricultural products. The gross national product output is predicted to increase 2.46 times per capita. In 1857, the mineral resources consumed were but 5 percent of the total consumption of natural resources. In 1957, mineral resource consumption was 34.7 percent of total natural resource consumption, and it is estimated that mineral consumption will be 42.4 percent of the total in the year 2000. Tables are attached which show the basic statistical data with the calculated per capita and total consumption trend factors for both the periods cited; i.e., 1870 to 1957 and 1957 to the year 2000. Those tables are Table I.-Annual consumption of natural resources in the United States. Table II.-Annual per capita consumption of natural resources in the United States. Table III.-Annual per capita consumption of each natural resource category as percent of total. There are several very pertinent conclusions to be reached from these data. 1. The consumption of minerals in the economy of the United States from 1870 to 1957 increased much more rapidly than did the consumption of any other natural resource a situation rather obviously explained by the fact that in this period industrial activity literally changed from "horse and buggy" to "space age" character. The minerals and metals supplied the major portion of the structural material and the power-generating fuels required for the rapidly expanding industrial installations. The proliferating volume and variety of industrial products consumed known mineral resources in ever-growing quantities. Technological advances and inventions which accompanied this growth brought into use many new minerals and a multiplicity of alloys. 2. Increases in the manufacturing index and the gross national product were more closely paralleled by demand for mineral resources than by the demand for any other natural resource group. 3. The projections of the demand for natural resources, the gross national product, and the population growth in the period 1957 to the year 2000 suggest that mineral consumption, both as to total volume and per capita, will continue to grow more rapidly than population, but less than gross national product. Mineral consumption increases will be greater than for any other natural resource category. SUMMARY Demand for mineral fuels, metals, and nonmetallic industrial minerals in the United States grew 9.6 times faster than the population in the period 1870 to 1957. This period might be characterized as one in which the United States progressed from industrial infancy to industrial maturity; one in which we attained world leadership in industrial know-how and productivity and in which the citizens of the United States were provided with the highest standard of living ever enjoyed by man. The "mineral demand explosion," accompanying the past century's economic growth and standard of living improvement, has been overlooked in preoccupation with the "population explosion." The trend of increasing industrialization and improved standards of living on a worldwide basis, with the accompanying raw material demands, will obviously intensify the competition for mineral raw materials. The logical conclusion is that in order to insure reasonable opportunity under free enterprise to find and develop the minerals required to meet the future needs of the United States, we must: (1) Preserve the right of access to the lands where the needed mineral resources can and must be found; and (3) maintain an economic climate 1 All data in 1870-1957 period from "Trends in Natural Resource Commodities," projections 1957-2000 2 Increase to year 2000 at 3.8 percent per year. TABLE II.—Annual per capital consumption of natural resources in the United STATEMENT OF JOHN I. TAYLOR, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the subject of wilderness legislation has long been before the Congress. It has been argued and debated on many fronts. Hearing after hearing has been held in an attempt to determine the will of the people and what such legislation should contain. Many bills have been drawn and many variations have been promulgated in the Congress. We of the American Farm Bureau Federation have long had a vital interest in such legislation. For many years our policy opposed any legislation on this subject. In December 1961, our policy was changed to support certain principles of wilderness legislation. This change was not unanimous by any means, but it has gained strength. Today we find almost universal support among our people that such legislation as contained in H.R. 9070 and H.R. 9162 and similar bills is necessary and desirable, principally for the following reason: The Congress, under article IV, section 3, of the Constitution, is charged with the responsibility "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States * We believe the Congress should reassume responsibility in this field as well as in many other fields where delegations of authority have been heretofore granted. We have already strayed too far down the "primrose path" of Executive edict. We have granted too many authorities to "administrators of the law." We are to a point, in our opinion, that unless this trend is reversed our whole system of representative government, of division of duties and obligations— executive, legislative, and judicial—is in serious jeopardy. We believe the essential principles are now established and it is time to pass legislation designed to deal effectively with this problem. We feel there is enough unanimity of agreement among most of the people and especially among the members of this subcommittee and the full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to accomplish this purpose. We believe that the provisions of the H.R. 9070 series and the H.R. 9162 series are so nearly alike that we will be happy to accept and support either. We prefer the H.R. 9162 series as being a little more liberal in some respects, but we also find the H.R. 9070 series acceptable in many of its provisions. Indeed, these two series are identical in many respects. The point is that we are not willing to further procrastinate and quibble over minor points in this group of bills at the risk of losing an important piece of legislation. It needs to be passed to prevent further designations of wilderness areas by Executive order. Perhaps minor adjustments yet need to be made. If so, we urge you to make them speedily. We cannot support S. 4 and like bills for the reason stated above. They grant the power to designate wilderness areas by Executive order subject to the veto by the Congress. This is not good enough. They further bring in many areas not yet surveyed as wilderness and which are supposed to be removed after a survey is made. This is not proper either. These surveys should be made before being incorporated and then added, if they conform to wilderness character, only by positive act of Congress. We have only one fear-that in a conference with the Senate, on the bill you finally agree upon and S. 4, you would yield to the Senate conferees on the principles of S. 4. We strongly urge you, therefore, to agree on a bill; present a united front in such a conference; maintain your position; and insist upon it in any conference report. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views. PHILADELPHIA CONSERVATIONISTS, INC., Hon. WALTER S. BARING, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Public Lands, On behalf of our more than 800 members I respectfully urge that a strong wilderness bill be reported favorably by your committee to the full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Our organization and hundreds of others and many thousands of citizens have expressed their desire for a wilderness bill at many hearings over the past 7 years. There is no need to repeat their reasons, they are all well known to Congress. We respectfully suggest that it is the duty of the House committees to bring this bill to the floor so that our Represenatives may have a change to vote upon this most important conservation legislation. We request that our telegram be made a part of the printed record. ALLSTON JENKINS, President. FIELD & STREAM, Nampa, Idaho, April 26, 1964. Representative WALTER S. BARING, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BARING: May I respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the record of the hearing on wilderness bills scheduled to begin April 27. We still feel that the best wilderness bill-and the bill we should have-is S. 4, as passed by the Senate. However, we would rather have the Dingell bill than none at all. But if the Dingell bill finally is chosen, it should be amended on two points: First, present primitive areas should be included in the wilderness system without requiring individual congressional action on each one. Second, unrestricted mining should not be permitted in the wilderness areas. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Chairman WALTER BARING, TED TRUEBLOOD, IDAHO WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION, House Interior Subcommittee on Public Lands, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BARING: Reviewing testimony as presented in recent hearings on wilderness legislation, we do ask the privilege of submitting additional information for consideration by your committee. We feel legislation being considered which would designate wilderness areas is still of such a character that it should embody most careful safeguards prior to passage of any proposed law. For that reason, we believe it deserves continuing thorough review to obtain such wording. We question whether there is any need for additional legislative authority to establish wilderness areas as present Federal land agencies now have full power to decide multiple-use principles based upon their thorough on-the-ground review. If legislation such as H.R. 9162 is to be considered, we feel section 3 (d) (1) (C) should contain language which would specifically insure independent views as well as land management agencies as to their appraisal as to type of development or use any area should be accorded. We question use of the word "system" as we fear it could easily be the basis for establishment of a new Federal administration bureau with costs running into millions of dollars. There is ample ability in established Federal land agencies to cope with any proven need. From proponents' testimony, it appears a great many are still extreme in their request. A more modified proposal should be recognized and accepted by proponents in their demands for establishing wilderness areas. Re wilderness bill hearings, CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE, RAY LINCOLN, President. BOISE, IDAHO, April 24, 1964. HOUSE INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BARING: I would like to present this statement on behalf of the Idaho Wilderness Users Committee and myself and request that these remarks become part of the record of the hearing. We were unable to attend any of the Western field hearings held in January. S. 4, as passed by the Senate last summer, to us represents the best in wilderness legislation and would, of course, be our first choice for House passage. |