« PreviousContinue »
have the initiative to come forward within the next 15 years and review all of these primitive areas, but were to change the bill so that it would not require action on the part of both Houses in order to veto a recommendation, but action on the part of either the Senate or the House would reject, then we would be retaining substantially all of the power in the Congress that it would have if it had to take positive action. Or at least that would be the middle ground between what you are proposing and what the bill proposes. Is that not so?
Mr. Hood. Yes, I think that is right.
Senator CHURCH. And though you would prefer positive action on the part of the Congress, the middle ground would be preferable, in your view, to the procedures that are now set up in the present bill í
Mr. Hood. The present procedure is more desirable to me, and I think to the industry, because it does take some time for the Forest Service or other land organizations to determine just what the uses are and to investigate. Slowly; that is all right. We have lots of time. Let us do it slowly and soundly. Let us not get them all locked
up and then have to go at it and take them out. There was lots of testimony this morning that shows there was some confusion as to what would happen.
Senator CHURCH. Yes; but I do not think you understood my question. My question was that you have proposed that Congress take affirmative action in order to put these areas into the wilderness system.
Mr. Hoon. Yes, sir.
Senator CHURCH. The present bill provides that the Congress can only reject recommendations of the President, but it requires both Houses concurring to reject.
Mr. Hood. Yes.
Senator CHURCH. I have suggested a middle proposal between these two, which would permit either the House or the Senate to reject a recommendation made by the President, but would not require both Houses to concur in order to reject such a recommendation.
Do you follow me!
Senator CHURCH. That is fine. And my question is: As between the procedures set up in the present bill, and the middle ground proposal that I make, you would prefer the middle ground to the procedures set up in the present bill, would you not?
Mr. Hood. Well, before I would make such a statement for the industry that I represent, I would want to talk to other specialists in that. But we prefer the present method because we believe it is doing the job, and we have confidence in the method that is now in process.
Senator CHURCH. Under the present method so far as wilderness areas are concerned, this is determined administratively with no congressional review of any kind.
Mr. Hood. We have confidence in the professional men that are handling it.
Senator CHURCH. So you would prefer that the wilderness system be handled as a purely administrative matter and not be subject to any congressional review?
Mr. Hood. Well, we would like to have it just the way it is going, with these professional men, whom we have confidence in, who are
trained in land use and land values, making the decision. I do not think we have gone very far wrong under our present method.
Senator CHURCH. Do you not think that these experts that are now managing the public domain and the public forests would be the ones that, under the wilderness bill would make these recommendations, and that the congressional review is simply an additional safeguard to be sure that the public interest is being protected!
Mr. Hood. Well, possibly. I do not like to have the burr taken out from under the tail of the Forest Service. I like to see them progress on these things actively.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean you can get the Forest Service and put a little pressure on them to do something?
Mr. Hood. No. I think they are handling these lands, and they should know, and they do know.
The CHAIRMAN. Since you have opened up that subject, you say you like the present system. You would want a responsible review by Congress. Now, is it not your understanding that if this bill should pass, all these areas that are primitive areas would be immediately put up for review by the very people you are talking about, that do pretty well!
Mr. Hood. I just have the feeling that they would lag.
The CHAIRMAN. Who else would review? I am just trying to get to the people. We will come to the time in a minute. Who is going to make this evaluation, as you understand it?
Mr. Hood. The Forest Service, for instance.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, when they get through with it, then it is submitted to the Secretary. And that is the situation now, on creating an area of wilderness, or a primitive area or anything of that nature, is it not?
Mr. Hood. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. So that is not changed a bit. He makes the recommendations. Then it goes to the President. Is it the President that you are objecting to, reviewing what the Forest Service does!
Mr. Hood. I just felt that it is complicating the thing. That is all, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. We are trying to get it slowly. Do you object to the President having a review?
Mr. Hood. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Then comes the Congress. Do you object to the Congress having a review? I thought you trusted the Congress.
Mr. Hood. Yes; we do.
Mr. Hood. Our industry feels that the situation is pretty well handled now, and we would rather see the primitive come along, as we do, rather than to be tied up all at once into the wilderness, leaving not enough time, I think, to work them out.
The CHAIRMAN. But you said on page 3 of your statement: I think anyone familiar with western public lands will agree that fair analyses will show we will always have a minimum of 25 million acres of wilderness, because nature has already set it aside.
Now, 25 million acres of wilderness is much more than we are talking about here, is it not?
Mr. Hoon. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And so we are doing a rather conservative thing in cutting it down from 25 million to about 14.
Mr. Hood. There is a lot of this wilderness that we have in the United States that is not covered, and it is in separate areas, talking about wilderness generally over the country.
The CHAIRMAN. I am trying to find out who it is you are worried about in this. If your experience with the Forest Service has been good, do you mind their being called upon to make a decision in 15 years as to which areas they have designated as primitive should really have wilderness values and be included in the wilderness system?
Mr. Hood. If this bill is passed the way it is, these primitive areas will go under a system immediately. And then they will be handled practically as a wilderness. At the present time, the primitive areas are up for current discussions and further investigation. And they are not as yet into the wilderness system itself.
The CHAIRMAN. If that is what you are worried about, how can you keep them from going under wilderness classification now? Suppose Secretary Freeman tomorrow morning decides to sign a blanket order putting all the primitive areas under the wilderness system. What legal resource have you to stop it? Mr. Hood. I think none. The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely none. Mr. Hood. Right.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you object to a bill that gives 3 checks on it before it happens. If you are worried about it happening, I do not quite follow you. If that is what you are worried about, why do you object to checks, when he can do it by himself now! He has full authority.
Mr. Hood. The authority was pretty well handled in the past, and I think it is progressing. We are getting more wilderness. Private owners are cooperating with the Forest Service to help develop and consolidate wilderness areas. The thing is growing, I think, in a satisfactory manner.
The CHAIRMAN. The more satisfied you are with it, the more you ought to endorse this principle, had you not! All right.
Any other questions, Senator?
Mr. Hagenstein, go ahead. STATEMENT OF W. D. HAGENSTEIN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
INDUSTRIAL FORESTRY ASSOCIATION Mr. HAGENSTEIN. Thank you.
My name is W. D. Hagenstein and I reside in Portland, Oreg. I am a professional forester and a registered professional engineer in the States of Washington and Oregon. I am executive vice president of the Industrial Forestry Association which has been promoting constructive forest management throughout the Douglas-fir region of western Washington and western Oregon since 1934.
Industrial Forestry Association members are engaged in the business of growing and harvesting timber and manufacturing every kind of forest product for the Nation's consumers. They operate 319 manufacturing plants which employ more than 67,000 people with an annual payroll of more than $350 million.
We want to discuss S. 174 which would create a national wilderness system. From our study of the bill we find it little different from previous proposals which this committee has continuously rejected during the past 4 years. We find it inconsistent with the recent plea of the President of the United States to develop our natural resources to provide a never-ending supply of raw materials for our industries and a reservior of basic jobs for our increasing population. We also find it inconsistent with the act of June 4, 1897, which established the management policy for the national forests and the act of August 25, 1916, which established the National Park Service and the management policy for the national parks. Inconsistent, we say, because S. 174 would negate the long-established policy of Congress that both national forests and national parks are for use and enjoyment of all the people who own them.
Before I continue my discussion of S. 174 and present our conclusions as to the action this committee should take, let me make it crystal clear that the Industrial Forestry Association at no time has opposed the dedication of significant areas of either national forests or national parks for roadless wilderness. We have favored the establishment of wilderness areas in the national forests by appearing at public hearings called by the Secretary of Agriculture when he was in process of reclassifying primitive and limited areas into wilderness. In each case we made recommendations for specific boundaries of the areas in question based upon field studies.
It is our opinion that the issue at stake in the wilderness bill is not wilderness itself but the idea of establishing a blanket wilderness system on millions of acres of Federal lands which as yet have not been inventoried as to their highest contribution to society. In these days when we plan everything else, how can we ignore the imperative necessity of inventories before deciding how to manage land? That is the crux of the wilderness bill. We think it entirely unnecessary because of the job which both the Forest Service and National Park Service are doing through formal means on the national forests, by the Secretary of Agriculture under his administrative regulations, and by administrative decisions of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to which portions of national parks are left roadless and otherwise undeveloped. As circumstances change, these officials, to discharge their obligations under the laws which established management policies for the national forests and national parks, must have flexibility to decide what use is to be made of what lands.
It is significant to us that only three members of this committee are among the sponsors of S. 174 and that only four of the sponsors are from States with significant areas of public land. This indicated recognition by most western Senators of the importance of managing most of our Federal lands for multiple use because of their importance to our economy.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, you have me interested a little bit. We did not canvass the entire Senate membership. Do you recall 2 or 3 years ago Senator Knowland and Senator Johnson got a clean politics bill and had 86 sponsors on it and could not get it out of committee?
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. I recall that.
The CHAIRWAN. Do you recall in this session Mr. Jennings Randolph had a national fuels policy bill with 54 signatures on it and
many companion bills in the House and it got to the House Interior and 'Insular Affairs Committee and the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee instead of accepting a joint House and Senate study, divided it so it does not have anything to do with the combined study?
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. I was not aware of that.
The CHAIRMAN. How do you suppose the clean politics bill was stopped with 86 sponsors when there were only 96 members ?
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. I am sorry. I couldn't tell you. I do not know, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me go back a little bit in your statement, then:
From our study of the bill we find it little different from previous proposals which this committee has continuously rejected during the past 4 years.
Did the committee reject the bill last year or did it decide it ought to be held pending some further study? Can you recall a vote rejecting the bill
at any time? Mr. HAGENSTEIN. No, sir. But no action was taken on the bill. That is what I mean by rejection here. Perhaps my language is not as precise as it should be. That is my intent. The committee has not in the last 4 years, since it held hearings, in 1957, 1958, 1959, none in 1960, on the bill—no action has been taken on it.
The CHAIRMAN. We did a lot of work in 1960 on it.
The CHAIRMAN. I am interested in these inconsistencies. I hope you point out how they are consistent later on in your statement.
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. Perhaps I will have to do that through questions. The CHAIRMAN. You say:
** find it little different from previous proposals which this committee has **
Did you examine the original bill that Senator Humphrey introduced that included the Indian land and a great many other things?
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. I realize that
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. I find it no different in this respect. It creates a blanket wilderness system from the lands included in the original proposal, even though the Indian lands have been removed from this bill. The original bill.covered principally the wild, wilderness, and primitive areas of the national forest and by definition the wilderness areas of 5,000 acres or more in the national parks and monuments and in wildlife refuges and game ranges.
So the acreage involved with respect to the total area of public land involved in the bill is not a great deal different, in my opinion, than the previous proposals.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that comes as a little bit of a shock to some of the members who sat and worked hours and tried to modify and modify and modify to find at the end of all modifications they have the same bill they started with. I do not believe they will quite agree with your appraisal. Maybe they will.
Mr. HAGENSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say those of us interested in this subject, which you and your colleagues on the committee