They are talking about these primitive areas being blanketed into wilderness by this bill. These primitive areas have been established at least 20 years and some of them nearly 30 years and nothing has happened to bring them either into the wilderness system or put them back into the regular forest.

I think any bill which will act as a catalyst and make them decide that will be a good thing.

I have been a little surprised, I have to say, that the Chamber of Commerce takes the position it is better to let that matter rest in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture, whoever he may be, than in the results of studies which will be reviewed by the President and his group and then reviewed by the Congress.

But I recognize that in the Finance Committee we have not taken the recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States for a long while and maybe you do lose your respect for the Congress of the United States.

Mr. CHAMP. We have a policy, Mr. Chairman, that would permit us to support a congressional review and study of all public lands. So we are not partial to the administrative approach.

The position that we take on this bill is based upon the majority vote of our membership and it does not quarrel with the intent of the bill. It simply takes the position that we don't need legislation at this time to set aside wilderness, that we are adequately covered, that the wilderness that we have is protected and is being reasonably well administered.

The CHAIRMAN. You made a statement in the beginning about the wilderness not being in danger, our wilderness areas are now being preserved and protected, they will not be lost; the wilderness areas included in S. 174 are not in danger. Now, I hope you are sure of that? Mr. CHAMP. We feel that way.

The CHAIRMAN. But I am not. For instance, the Gila wilderness was one of the very first ones that was established. It was a very large wilderness; still is.

In 1952 there was a hearing called at Silver City, N. Mex., to discuss the Forest Service plans for making some modification of the boundaries of the Gila wilderness.

The courthouse was filled with cattlemen who naturally felt they had a right to claim some of that excellent grazing land.

The Forest Service was inclined-I do not wish to say that improperly because I hope I am one of the staunchest supporters and admirers of the Forest Service-was trying to yield a bit on the boundaries of the Gila wilderness.

I think I was the only person in public life who had a word to say about the preservation of the system. The only reason I was, was because the founder of it, Aldo Leopold, had given me a story on it when I was a newspaper reporter 30 years before.

Miss Harlean James was there representing the few wilderness enthusiasts. There were a small handful of others. There were four or five of us. We stayed together for mutual protection. But the whole room was constantly packed against us. Everybody was demanding this be changed.

Now, it did not get changed. It got modified a little, a little access was given to some people who had some summer cottages, a little help

in getting up to the Hot Springs and so forth was made available. I thought a fairly reasonable result.

The Forest Service went a little farther than I would have liked, but probably not farther than reason would have dictated.

But the area was in danger. If only a few had stayed home, they would have carved up the Gila wilderness in fine fashion.

I think that fight goes on all the time. I would like to see it resolved.

I had the problem of trying to deal with the wilderness when I was in the Department of Agriculture. It is not a pleasant thing. I would like to see it where a Secretary of Agriculture leans back and says, "You want to change this? Well, we will consider it. We will make a recommendation, the President will review it. He will bring in his crowd and we will take it down to Congress. You have three times to present your story."

As it is now, the Secretary can do it with a scratch of the pen, and nobody can say a word. Very sincerely, I have felt that the changing of these primitive areas that have been just lying there as primitive areas since 1930 or 1940 without being taken into the wilderness area, and without being turned back into forest, was a bad thing.

I would like to see this matter resolved. I think this bill will help to do it. It may be that the period is too long. Fifteen years may be too long.

But I want to tell you that I found out when I was in the Department of Agriculture the average time for answering mail was too long. I found letters that had been there 6 months. I also found there were a great many letters that answer themselves if you do not answer them. You wait for the crisis to pass away. Fifteen years may be too long, but I am sure my friends of the Forest Service will not mind my saying it, this is hard ground to plow. When they get ready to make a decision, in comes somebody who would like to round out his range and they spend a long time arguing.

I do not think 15 years is too much. I would love to have it done in 5 years or so. The Forest Service would also. But they are practical people. Maybe we should wait for some other organization to take action.

If Congress takes that position, I think they will find very little in the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission that will give guidance on this particular problem.

I hope they will give us some guidance on the future for wilderness areas because I hope it will give some stimulation to the shorelands area bill; we might then be able to make a little bit of an extension to the State park in Indiana that covers some dunes, make a little Federal area of dunes which we could have had many years ago for virtually nothing.

I talked to a man who used to be the principal owner of the Indiana Dunes area that they are trying to make into a park or monument area. He told me that he would have been very glad to have made some sort of arrangement at a low price to make that into a Federal park.

Now, it has a steel mill building on it. A harbor is being built and that very fine area is gone forever. A portion of it yet remains. I hope that the study of recreational problems will result in sharpening our desires to preserve lands that may be used for the purpose.

I would think it would be very important to the East. The western areas are going to be ample for the people of the West, but they are going to be needing additional recreational areas in the East.

The State of New York, as you know far better than I, undoubtedly, has taken a very progressive point of view. Robert Moses is advocating a bill under which the State will pay a part and the community will pay a part and the Federal Government may pay a part of acquiring additional park areas in various portions throughout the Eastern United States.

I hope the recreation studies will demonstrate a need for that sort of bill. It may not.

But I hope when it comes the chamber of commerce will be lenient toward it, at least.

Mr. SMITH. The chamber feels that most of the areas that are needed for local recreational purpose should be fulfilled by the local governments and that the Federal Government should enter into it only when it fills a national need.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure I recognize that because that is the constant testimony of the chamber of commerce on all similar proposals. The local government should pay a good share of it.

Unfortunately, when you say "You dig down in your budget and come up for several million dollars for parks," to some States they find it very hard to do so. We have had to use the principle of Federal aid in a great many endeavors.

I want to say that there will be that encounter if the bill proposed by Mr. Moses comes forward. Those people who know anything about past history know that I have not always agreed with Mr. Moses on these things.

It is a very interesting proposal he has made and one that so interested Mr. Laurance Rockefeller, who is chairman of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, that he has asked Mr. Moses to supplement it with some additional information and he has had some discussion about it in the Commission.

It is looking to the future on recreation.

Senator CARROLL. Mr. Chairman, that is why I asked the questions about the Commission, it is very important in the record. Almost all the witnesses this afternoon have testified about putting this bill over until we got a report from the Commission. I think the chairman has pointed out very succinctly here what the purpose of this Commission is. It will not be to face up to the problem with which we are confronted as a legislative body.

Whether it is wise to wait, whether the report will be beneficial, I am sure the report would be beneficial if the bill were passed.

Why? Because it would be under continuous study for 15 years as any other commission report.

Whether we should do this, wait; that is the question I have not, myself, reached a decision on.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say this about the kind of commission it is. It is customary when administrations change for commissions to be changed very frequently. This Commission was selected by Mr. Eisenhower. I think nearly all the members of it are Republicans, but they are exceptionally high-grade people. It was my recommendation to the incoming President that he leave the Commission alone

because I thought it was filled with very fine, dedicated people trying to make a good report.

I want that to go along with the other things I have said.

Mr. CHAMP. We assume, Mr. Chairman, that the Commission would come up with some interesting data on where the people want to play, where they want to have their recreation, whether near at home or in

remote areas.

The CHAIRMAN. I think they will. As you know, they have made use of the Census Bureau and have paid a very substantial sum of money to the Census Bureau so that on a very wisely selected sample (I believe it is at least), the Census asked people a great many questions about recreation, where they wanted to go in the future and by combining it with the regular 1960 census I think we will get millions of dollars worth of information for a rather modest sum. For the first time that information will be available and will be accessible. I do hope out of that a great many conclusions will be drawn as to the necessity for providing recreation along the eastern seaboard and in the areas very close to home.

For instance, I think it is strange that there are no wilderness areas in Pennsylvania so far as I can see.

Mr. CHAMP. As has been pointed out here we are providing a large portion of them under this bill. I have had experience on these wilderness areas. I have spent time with pack trains, and on foot, in the Selway area in Idaho and the beautiful areas in Utah. My experience has been that that is an expensive, rugged experience that not many people could undertake.

The CHAIRMAN. Both physically and financially?

Mr. CHAMP. Both physically and financially; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jay Gruenfeld.

STATEMENT OF JAY GRUENFELD, TACOMA, WASH., CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE

Mr. GRUENFELD. My name is Jay Gruenfeld. I am a practicing professional forester employed by Weyerhaeuser Co., but at this time representing the Tacoma Chamber of Commerce in a very short statement and the Puget Sound section of the Society of American Foresters. With your permission, I appreciate it is unusual, I would like to read both the rather short statements.

The CHAIRMAN. Please proceed.

Mr. GRUENFELD. Thank you, sir.

Tacoma, Wash., and the neighboring area is at the present time suffering critical unemployment. This present unemployment emphasizes the importance of resource base jobs to the social and economic well-being of the community. Any legislation that decreases future opportunities must be carefully examined to make sure that other benefits provided clearly outweigh the job loss. The Tacoma Chamber of Commerce believes in and has often endorsed the concept of wilderness areas. Such areas serve important wants and needs of our citizens and likewise promote proper utilization of the unique qualities of certain areas.

Despite our deep belief in the importance of wilderness we oppose S. 174 for several reasons, including the following two:

One, proper land management requires judicious conservation of productive land which is a basic source of our national well-being. For example, by the year 2000 it is estimated that the United States must double present wood production to supply the predicted demands. This task is even greater than it appears because this would, according to projection, have to be grown on 25 percent less area due to withdrawals for competing land uses.

Blanket inclusion of the present areas as proposed in the bill would make extremely difficult the exclusion of areas having a higher national value for some other use. In our opinion, primitive areas should be eliminated from any wilderness system since they have not had sufficient study to justify proper classification. In our opinion, legislation is premature until a report is received from the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.

Two of the basic objectives of the wilderness portion of this project are, first, to make a careful appraisal of the place of wilderness and wild areas and the national pattern of outdoor recreation and, secondly, to make an analysis and projection of wilderness use, both recreational and nonrecreational. In our opinion, logically the receipt of this information should precede legislation.

Thank you for the opportunity of testifying.

And for the statement on behalf of the Pudget Sound section of the Society of American Foresters, let me say the Society of American Foresters is composed of professional foresters and has over 17,000 members, which is approximately two-thirds of the total professional foresters in the United States.

The Puget Sound section of the Society of American Foresters, of which I am chairman, has over 600 members in the State of Washington working for Federal, State, and private agencies. We oppose bill 174 since, in our opinion, it would not promote wise resources management. In August 1958, by letter ballot, the section overwhelmingly passed a policy statement that affirmed our belief in the importance and desirability of wilderness preservation.

However, it further stated in part:

The Puget Sound section of the Society of American Foresters strongly opposes any attempt to establish wilderness areas by blanket legislative action without exhaustive study of individual areas and their interrelationship with other lands in affected administrative units.

A copy of this entire statement is attached for submission to the record if you agree. Some people believe that foresters are not interested in anything but economics and saw logs. This is not true. Most foresters are not only technically trained land managers but are also devout believers in the nondollar values to be found in an outdoors career. Anyone familiar with the forester's wage scale knows that this must be true.

Many foresters like myself not only like and love wilderness but use it. In our opinion this combination of professional training plus the awareness of nondollar values makes the forester unusually well qualified to make objective judgments regarding wilderness.

Thank you for the opportunity of presenting our testimony.