Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the vast majority of the American public does not want oil and gas exploration and development activities to take place in these pristine wild lands. I know that the strong sentiment in my State is that these lands should be last to be leased. The legislation before us today will insure that other lands will be developed first.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to note that in the first three quarters of fiscal year 1982, the Bureau of Land Management has issued oil and gas leases for nearly 30 million acres of public lands. The agency is projecting that by the end of this fiscal year over 35 million acres will have been leased. In other words, in just 1 year, this administration will have leased the equivalent of the total amount of land withdrawn under S. 2801.

Furthermore, 130 million acres are already under lease onshore, in addition to millions of acres leased on the Outer Continental Shelf, and we all know of Secretary Watt's plans to offer hundreds of millions of acres more.

There is no shortage of lands to lease. There is a shortage of wild lands for future generations of Americans to enjoy. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to act favorably on this measure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WALLOP. Senator McClure?

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. McCLURE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wallop, and thank you, Senator Jackson, for the statements that have been made already.

On September 3, 1964, the Wilderness Act became law. The act provided that for the period ending December 31, 1983, the wilderness areas designated by the Congress would be open to mineral exploration, possible location or leasing of minerals within those boundaries of those areas, and the exploitation of that mineral resource if a profitable economic mineral resource were discovered. For now almost 19 years nothing has really been done. Nothing very great has happened under that provision. There has been very little exploration, even less of significance with respect to the location or development of minerals during that period of time.

I think it is also fair to say that the Nation has undergone the opportunity for the evolution of public opinion with respect to the preservation of public lands, but at the same time a growing awareness of the vulnerability of this country, the distortion of our domestic and foreign policy because of our dependence upon imported oil.

I say that not because that prejudges the outcome of the debate with respect to oil and gas exploration within wilderness areas, but to focus upon other national priorities which have developed during the same period of time. The public has not yet focused upon the need for or the critical nature of our dependence upon foreign sources of other minerals, and we should. As a nation, we are very, very vulnerable-our security, our economic base-but our security in the event of war is very much affected by our inability to produce the goods that are necessary in time of war, let alone in time of peace, because we import so much of the critical

minerals that are necessary for an industrial, modern industrial society or for the sinews of war if we were to be involved in such a struggle, and there are those that say that we don't need to worry about that. If a war breaks out, then we can go out and find these minerals and we will develop those industries, and after the war breaks out, we will develop all of that industrial base, and that is pure nonsense.

That is also playing Russian roulette with the U.S. security. If there is one thing that I have been concerned about over the period of time that I have served in the Congress, and I was not here when the Wilderness Act passed, but I participated in a great deal of, a great many of, the debates over specific areas in the years that I have been in the House and the Senate, one thing that I have consistently fought for is better information, the opportunity to know what it is we are doing, the opportunity to know what the resources are so that we have a clear perspective of what it is that we are gaining and what it is we are foregoing when we make a management decision with respect to large segments of the public domain, so I am concerned about the mineral inventory.

I applaud Senator Jackson for having included within the bill a provision for the inventory of the areas, for a minerals inventory of what is within the areas, but at the same time I must say that I have to be critical of the fact that this is probably more charade than reality for two reasons.

First of all, it hasn't happened. Second, I have seen some of the mineral inventories that have been taken as we went through resource evaluations before making management decisions. We dropped a couple of geologists at the top of a watershed with a helicopter, they walk down the watershed, picking up little float, and get back to their laboratory and they make the analysis of those interesting specimens, and then they write a learned report that says to the people of this country we know something about what is inside the boundaries, under the surface of the land, and that is pure nonsense, absolute self-deception, so I am a little concerned when we look at an inventory provision that gives us some sense of assurance when as a matter of fact there is no assurance in the provision.

Second, I am concerned as I hope the hearing will focus on the question of how we go about the business of evaluation, particularly with the underground analysis that comes from seismology, seismology without explosives. I am not sure that I understand that term well, and I am not sure that we have yet determined that we can indeed do that with any degree of accuracy, so I have not prejudged this and I don't intend by these remarks to indicate where my full opinion will be at the end of this yearing. It will depend partly upon the evidence that is brought forth by witnesses who have taken the time and trouble to prepare for their testimony today and to come and give us the benefit of their thinking with respect to what has to be done, but again, we have a critical national need to know what it is we are doing, a critical national need to know what the tradeoffs are, and certainly we do also need to make public policy with respect to what will be the management of the wilderness areas following the expiration of the initial period

ending the end of 1983 under the terms of the original Wilderness Act legislation.

I also would understand that the legislation does not prohibit oil and gas leasing within wilderness areas if the exploration can be conducted according to the terms of the legislation and the development to be done by surface acquisition outside the wilderness areas, slant drilling in underground mining if it should be hard rock minerals from the sources outside the wilderness area. I want that to be explored in these hearings, whether that is a realistic provision, whether or not it can be applied or how that will relate to the demand for protection of wilderness areas, so-called buffer zone management on the public lands immediately adjacent to the boundaries of wilderness areas.

This hearing is an important hearing, and I appreciate the fact that Senator Jackson in introducing the bill recognizes the necessity for developing the information upon which we can then make the judgments, and I applaud him for his approach to that question. These hearings will then give us the basis upon which we can legislate with good information and with some wisdom.

Senator JACKSON. Would the Senator yield? I just want to say I am not an absolutist on this. As you know, under the bill that we have before us the geophysical work can go ahead; and in addition, of course, we have the safety valve should there be a major discovery. I think the chairman knows that in the Alaska lands bill I did not hesitate in the national wildlife refuge to provide adequate safeguard if, in fact, that is indeed a part of the so-called Beaufort Sea oil finding. I want to emphasize that, and I just think that the importance of this legislation lies in the fact that there is a hiatus here. The Secretary would like the clarification, but I do believe, Mr. Chairman, the safeguards are there that would make it possible to move into these areas which, if the world situation demands, could offer great promise from a geophysical standpoint. I want to make that very, very clear. But in the meantime, I think it ought to be prioritized so that we have a set of priorities that will safeguard these pristine areas that I sponsored with the late Secretary Clinton Anderson in the Wilderness Act way back in 1964. That was the culmination of a lot of work, and I want to emphasize, too, that bipartisan nature of this.

I am no idealog, but if it makes sense, I'm for it. If it doesn't, I'm not. That is my ideology.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Senator for his statement, and I remember, too, the way in which we approached the problem of the cobalt deposit in central Idaho wilderness which the legislation carefully drafted said that if there is a valuable economic and recoverable cobalt deposit there, even though it is within the boundaries of wilderness, that can be removed with as little surface disturbance as possible by underground mining methods, so, yes, there is a pragmatism, but I think that cobalt deposit question again focuses on one of my concerns.

The only reason that provision was written into that bill was because we knew of that deposit before we legislated. Had we not known of that deposit before we legislated, there would be no such special provision, and hence my concern about the state of our knowledge about what is within the boundaries of the present wil

derness areas as well as those that are designated for further study and possible future designation.

on.

Senator JACKSON. That is why the geophysical work ought to go

The CHAIRMAN. And I want that to be real. I want us to focus on that today as to whether or not it is real. I am concerned about the restriction that was expressed originally in the House legislation and being continued here saying seismic work can continue but you can't use explosives. I don't know whether that is a charade or real, and I think, too, some reference should be made at the outset of the action that Secretary Watt took.

Senator JACKSON. I have a 9:30 meeting. Before I leave, I want to make it clear that this does not apply to hard rock minerals. This only applies to oil and gas leasing. I am talking about the prohibition here in this legislation.

The Chairman. And that I think is important to recognize and I appreciate the statement that is made. However, we will be making probably, we may well make, or reaction taken in this legislation may well indicate the direction that Congress will take with respect to the continuation or cessation of other activities at the end of 1983, so I think there is more involved even though the legislation itself is directed to oil and gas exploration and leasing primarily.

Secretary Watt indicated earlier his willingness to give Congress the time to act to vary from the provisions of the existing law as he views the existing law with respect to exploration and leasing activities. There is some confusion in the mind of some. There is some fear perhaps in the mind of some as to what he meant by that temporary moratorium. In his letter of August 24-excuse me. I was looking at a date on a different letter. His communication to us indicated the moratorium would last through this session of the Congress. Now that it is apparent that there will be a lameduck session there is some confusion in the minds of some as to when this session of Congress ends. There is some confusion in the minds of the Members of Congress as to when this session ends.

Senator DOMENICI. If ever.

The CHAIRMAN. But I believe it will be possible for us to get a clarification from the Secretary as to what his understanding is as to the meaning of that term, and I don't think we are involved in any kind of mortal, political battle over that issue, nor do I think it is necessary to get involved in any kind of a legalistic or political theatrics.

Senator WALLOP. If the Senator will yield on that point, I had a conversation with the Secretary yesterday, and he authorized me to say quite clearly that he supported the provision that was being put in, the continuing resolution about the expenditures of funds, so in effect what he is saying is with regard to designated wilderness, that he supports it through the end of the next fiscal year, so it would make it still held over for action.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that addition, and that again perhaps will indicate that we need not legislate with any sense of panic, that we do have the time to do the kind of job that this committee is noted for doing.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, might I just ask you on that last statement, did you mean through the next fiscal year if the continuing obligation is to December 15?

Senator WALLOP. As I understand it, the provision that is sought on there provides for the next fiscal year.

The CHAIRMAN. The letter that I referred to earlier should have been referenced January 22, addressed to Senator Malcolm Wallop, with respect to the Secretary's decision for the moratorium. If that does continue how long it will continue I think is at least long enough to allow this committee and the Congress to deliberate for whatever period of time we think is necessary to deliberate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WALLOP. I would ask my colleagues to recall that we have 34 witnesses. I don't want to turn anybody off. I want to have everybody's statement, but I would hope we could get on with it. Senator Domenici.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I have to go preside at a committee hearing, and I will try to get back. I have a statement that explains my concerns.

My State is particularly unique. We have 16 designated wilderness areas, 1,402,000 acres. We just recently added 600,000 at my request just within the last 2 or 3 weeks, and I have no apologies for the wilderness system there. We did our own State program last year, the year before last, and while it was very controversial, it is working well.

I do have some concerns about wilderness study areas. While we have 80 million acres of wilderness, there is another 45 million that are BLM and Forest Service that are being considered, and as I understand it, the approach before us in the bill would put the same restrictions on that wilderness study area as it does on wilderness.

Senator WALLOP. Just on BLM wilderness that is designated. It does not cover wilderness study areas within BLM, but there is the indication that it will-congressionally-designated BLM wilderness, and any that may be as it is, is covered in this bill.

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, would you make my statement a part of the record and attach to it a letter from my Congressman on the subject, the Forest Service in our State, because they have been part of and involved in the three leases that permit slant drilling underneath one of the wildernesses in New Mexico? They have a limited surface stipulation that I think the staff might find interesting, and then the managers of the Lincoln National Forest have been communicating at length regarding their present interpretation of the law with both citizens and potential applicants, and I think the staff might find that interpretation helpful, and Í would ask that you make those documents and my statement part of the record.

Senator WALLOP. Without objection, it will be so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Senator Domenici and letter from Mr. Skeen follow:]