tures of the bill, those objections have now been taken into account in this legislation.

I think we now have in S. 174 a reasonable measure on which reasonable men can find ground to compromise and to enact legislation. I want to say that it seems to me that this legislation sponsored by the chairman of this committee represents a high concept of conservation statesmanship and the administration certainly hopes that the Congress will move quickly and will move expeditiously to enact this legislation.

I would say, too, to the chairman of the committee, that there is urgency with regard to the enactment of this legislation. I think that one of the essential things that it does is to preserve a status quo and I think that preservation is a wise move, but further delay can only open up additional problems which will make the enactment of legislation even more difficult, so I can make my statement very brief, and I apologize to the committee for not having a written statement.

I have been extremely busy and I only decided Saturday to come down, and therefore I am making this brief oral statement to you this morning to commend the chairman of the committee and his associates, colleagues, and cosponsors of this legislation for making this the first order of business. We think this is wise procedure. We commend the chairman of the committee for this action.

We urge the enactment with perhaps the clarifying amendments that we have recommended and perhaps other clarifying amendments the committee may deem necessary to this type of legislation. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dworshak?

Senator DwORSHAK. A few questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, you say you are in substantial accord with this bill currently before our committee, but that you favor some perfecting amendments. Can you give us some details on that?

Secretary UDALL. The perfecting amendments, Senator, are those outlined in the Department's report. These are largely of a clarifiying nature and largely intending to make the various sections, for instance, harmonize one with the other.

We felt, for instance, a 15-year period instead of the 10 was proper for Secretary of the Interior. There are no basic changes. These are merely clarifying, Senator.

Senator DwORSHAK. Mr. Secretary, on January 13 when you appeared before this committee following your appointment as Secretary of the Interior you replied to a question which I asked you:

Senator, I think that the multiple-use concept is a wise one and that we should apply it wherever practical.

Then after some other comments, you said:

I hope that we can be wise enough to apply the multiple-use concept wherever possible, and also to have some type of wilderness systems.

You think that it is entirely possible to preserve the concept of multiple use of our public domain and still pass legislation which would virtually lock up these natural resources so far as the utilization of them is concerned.

Secretary UDALL. Senator, I don't find anything inconsistent between my type of belief in multiple use and this type of legislation. I think properly conceived the multiple-use doctrine does not mean

that. No. 1, we don't have a reserve. I regard this, among other things, as a land reserve that we are setting aside and, on the other hand, there are certain areas where we must have a concentration of a particular type of use, or nonuse, or activity. In this legislation, for example, in terms of hunting and fishing, and those uses which are so vital and important, we have multiple use in the main and, therefore, I regard this within my concept of multiple use as wise legislation.

Senator DwORSHAK. Under this new legislative proposal roads would be prohibited. Then obviously we could have little mining because no one could justify from a financial standpoint exploring minerals of any kind because if deposits were discovered, how would you get the minerals out when there are no roads? Of course, under the primitive system that we have now, and in Idaho we have approximately 3 million acres in the primitive areas, there is very little logging or lumbering. That probably can be justified to a large extent, although I understand there may be 7 or 8 billion board feet of timber some of which is overripe and should be processed and logged.

I also understand there is very limited grazing, but you do feel that under this proposal with roads being prohibited, meaning that these areas will be almost inaccessible except to people who can fly in if they can find landing strips, or make horseback trips into the areas, we do to a satisfactory degree maintain and encourage the multiple-use concept?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, I have indicated the hunting and fishing aspect of it. Grazing certainly is taken into account in this legislation and should be continued wherever feasible, but, of course roads and wilderness just don't go together too well, and it does seem to me that necessarily if you are going to have roads you are not going to have wilderness.

Senator DwORSHAK. How many people penetrate into these areas and enjoy these recreational facilities without roads?

Secretary UDALL. Well, I think that there are some of our resources that we are going to have to enjoy by people simply being strong minded enough and strong legged enough that they will walk in and see them.

As I regard it, most of the areas that we call wilderness or are designated as wilderness are really very inaccessible areas and it is very difficult to build roads in most of these areas. At least this is true in my part of the country.

Senator DwORSHAK. So you think that we can still serve the multiple-use concept under this proposal?

Secretary UDALL. We all, I am sure, have our own conception. We talk as though multiple use were some well-defined area or concept; it is one and the same. Well, it isn't. We all have our differing interpretations but, as I see it and as I think the President does, this fits into sound multiple use, yes.

Senator DwORSHAK. Just one other point. You mentioned that there is an element of urgency and that the committee ought to proceed as rapidly as possible in the consideration of this bill. Of course you are aware of the fact that about 3 years ago legislation was adopted, and I am sure that it met with your approval while you were in the House, setting up the Outdoor Recreation Resources

Review Commission, which has already a budget of about $2 million. Hearings have been held in various sections of the country. Contracts have been negotiated with colleges and many other groups qualified to undertake studies of various aspects of our recreation. Originally this Commission was to report in September and now has requested that it be permitted to report on January 31, 1962, I think.

Under that situation do you still think that we have an element of urgency to take action before we have available all the data and the information on technical aspects of recreation throughout our country? Would it not be better to have this information available?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, as I see it and I think it is significant that one of the most active members of the ORRRC is the chairman of this committee and the sponsor of this bill-there is nothing inconsistent with the ORRRC doing its mission and with legislation being enacted. We do not subscribe in our Department to the point of view that all conservation activity should cease until the ORRRC reports, and I don't think the ORRRC people themselves intend ultimately in their report to say this legislation should be enacted or that should not, and I think that the wisest thing we can do is go on down the road and, where we are ready to act, to act.

The ORRRC is very important and they are going to lay, I hope, guidelines down that will be good for the next 20 or 30 years, but I don't think they intend to get into some specific recommendations nor do they intend to say, for example, what type of wilderness bill the Congress should pass.

I am not sure they will recommend some kind of bill if we haven't acted by next January, but I don't think it would be wise to stop all conservation legislation until the Commission reports.

Senator DwORSHAK. Of course, I want the record to show that the chairman of this committee, Senator Anderson, has been very active as a member of this review Commission, has attended most of the hearings not only in Washington, but outside of the city, and I am sure that he will greatly influence the final report which will be submitted to the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask permission at this time to insert in the record House Joint Memorial No. 6 which was adopted by the Idaho Legislature recently. The resolving clause is as follows:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives, State of Idaho, the Senate concurring, That we are most respectfully opposed to the dedication of additional lands as primitive or wilderness areas in the State of Idaho and respectfully request that all primitive and wilderness areas in the State of Idaho be reviewed and studied with the view of eliminating all lands which have a higher or greater multiple use potential than that of single use dedication as primitive or wilderness * * *.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the resolution will be included. (The document referred to follows:)

IDAHO HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 6

A JOINT MEMORIAL

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress Assembled:

We, your memorialists, the Legislature of the State of Idaho, respectfully represent that:

Whereas the economy of the State of Idaho is based upon its agriculture, lumber, mining, sheep and cattle industries, and the use of its waters for irrigation and hydroelectric power; and

Whereas approximately two-thirds of the land area of the State of Idaho is federally owned and contains approximately 3 million acres set aside for primitive and wilderness areas; and

Whereas these designations are restrictive to full utilization and deny to the natural resources industries of the State of Idaho the right to wisely develop the natural resources contained in these large primitive and wilderness areas of the State and further deny ready access to these areas to millions of American citizens, all to the detriment of said industries and to the people of the State of Idaho; and

Whereas one of the great potential industries of the State of Idaho is its tourist trade and wildlife attractions: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, State of Idaho (the Senate concurring), That we are most respectfully opposed to the dedication of additionl lands as primitive or wilderness areas in the State of Idaho and respectfully request that all primitive and wilderness areas in the State of Idaho be reviewed and studied with the view of eliminating all lands which have a higher or greater multiple use potential than that of single use dedication as primitive or wilderness; and be it further

Resolved, That we oppose Federal enactment of future wilderness legislation embodying the principle of locked-up areas for single purpose use which would deny to the natural resources industries the right to wisely develop such natural resources and would also be to the detriment of said industries and to the people of the State of Idaho; and be it further

Resolved, That the present agencies administering all Federal lands do so with the view of developing the full multiple use of the lands to further the general welfare and the economy of the State of Idaho; be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of state of the State of Idaho be authorized and he is hereby directed to immediately forward certified copies of this memorial to the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America, the Secretary of Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and to the Senators and Representatives in Congress from this State; be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of state of the State of Idaho be authorized and he is hereby directed to immediately forward certified copies of this memorial to the speaker of the house and to the president of the senate of the following States: Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota, and that these States are hereby urged to take similar action in their respective legislative bodies.

The CHAIRMAN. I only want to say to you, Mr. Secretary, that the Senator from Idaho is also a very fine member of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. I was the author of the original legislation under which this Commission was set up and I certainly would not be trying to introduce legislation now if I thought it was going to conflict with the purpose of the Commission. Definition of wilderness is a rather difficult question. We have argued about it a great deal. I am very hopeful that the final reports of the Commission will be very much worth while. I think the Commission will show the need of wilderness areas, and I think they will show the need of development along seashores so that people will be able to use the outdoors a whole lot more than they are now doing.

I for one hope that nothing we do will interfere with the work of the other commission.

I know how well you know my area. I notice that the Black Range and the Gila wilderness cover 300,000 acres or more in this bill. On the edge of the Gila wilderness is the little mining town of Mogollon, but that is an abandoned mining area. There was prospecting all through the Black Range for a great many years, and I believe that most of the prospecting that needs to be done is now being done, but under one of the sections of the bill

The President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting (including exploration for oil and gas), mining (including the production of oil or gas), and the establishment and maintenance of resources,

and so forth, when he thinks it in the best interests of the country.

I would hope that he didn't get into the Gila wilderness, because I would be somewhat antagonistic to that proposal if he were to do it, but you do recognize, do you not, that these areas can be invaded if it is in the best interests of the country?

Secretary UDALL. We certainly do. The legislation contemplates it, and I can foresee national emergenices in situations which may mean that we will want to tap some of these resources. I don't think we are locking anything up in an irrevocable way. That point should be

stressed also.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gruening.

Senator GRUENING. I have a telegram here from Governor Egan of Alaska which he asked be inserted in the record. Shall I present it to you?

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to make a request and I will do it now. I have here a folder full of messages, telegrams, letters, resolutions, and so forth, all of which I would like to have appear as an appendix to this hearing record.

Senator GRUENING. Then I will hold that.

The CHAIRMAN. We will include the message from the Governor of Alaska with the other communications.

Do you have any questions?

Senator GRUENING. No.

The CHAIRMAN. If not, Senator Moss may have.

Senator Moss. I think not at this time, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hickey.

Senator HICKEY. I wonder if you have House Joint Memorial 7 from Wyoming in there.

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir; we do not and without objection it will be made a part of the record at this point if the Senator desires to present it.

Senator HICKEY. I would like to have made part of the record House Joint Memorial 7 enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming and signed by the appropriate authorities. I think this was enacted January 21.

(The document referred to follows:)

WYOMING HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL

A joint memorial memorializing the Congress of the United States concerning wilderness legislation and opposing the creation or extension of wilderness areas within the State of Wyoming

Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming: Whereas bills have been introduced in the last two sessions of the U.S. Congress to establish a national wilderness preservation system; and

Whereas these bill would create wilderness areas in Wyoming; and Whereas the creation of such wilderness areas would interfere with the development of the State's water resources, and would jeopardize the multiple-use concept of the areas for the projection of water, forage, timber, minerals and recreational opportunities, which multiple-use concept policy has been in effect for over 50 years, and has shaped the economy of the West; and

Whereas the welfare and interest of the citizens of Wyoming demand that there shall not be any further extension of wilderness areas in Wyoming: Now, therefore, be it