Senator CORDON. It may be that the petroleum reserve is a good reason not to grant the land in that area to the State of Alaska, but that is no reason for not including it within the boundaries for administrative purposes.

Senator KUCHEL. Do we not just have a drafting problem, Mr. Chairman? We have already indicated that there is no disagreement in the subcommittee on what constitutes the Territory. We did go into that Territorial waters question, and if it is in order I would like to move that the staff prepare a suitable description of what the State will consist of, holding in mind our discussions on the Hawaiian thing, and get it behind us.

Senator JACKSON. I think there isn't any dispute on the descriptive language of the boundaries of this State.

Senator KUCHEL. Except that in the present wording they use the language "marine league."

(At this point Delegate Bartlett entered the room.)

Senator CORDON. Without objection, the staff, with Mr. Slaughter, will give their attention to the language on page 31 of title II having to do with granting the authority for the formation of the State and defining the boundaries of it. We will have that in front of us, I am sure, very shortly.

Would it be satisfactory to the committee if tomorrow we had the Park Service, with whatever top-level members of the Department ought to be here, who supervise park administration and who are qualified to speak for the Department with respect to the reservations and national parks and monuments? I think it may take a good part of the morning to work that thing out.

Senator SMATHERS. I think we should have them tomorrow.

Mr. BENNETT. We will do our best.

Senator JACKSON. In that connection, would any of the people from the Forest Service come into the picture? I am thinking now of recreational areas in the national forests. I guess not. We could have them up in connection with the disposition of timberland.

Senator KUCHEL. Mr. Chairman, I will not be here tomorrow. I am the chairman of a subcommittee holding hearings tomorrow.

Senator CORDON. We will move along on the technical aspects of it as far as we can, and these matters with respect to gaining a broader understanding of the location of lands reserved, and the views of the Department as to the extent to which they could become restricted or whether they could be abolished, and of what use they might be to the State were they ceded.

Mr. COULTER. Mr. Chairman, I have here an atlas prepared by the Department showing all reservations, which is available to anyone who wants to look at it. It is a little complicated finding things in it, frankly, but it does show the boundaries of all reservations.

Senator CORDON. Generally speaking, the Department has some large maps. I am hopeful that we can have one large map here which will carry the lines delimiting all reserves, forests, national parks, national monuments, petroleum reserves, and what have you, so we can take a look at it.

Delegate BARTLETT. I don't think it is available. I think that is the best you have; is it not, Kirk?

Mr. BENNETT. There is one large map which Delegate Bartlett probably could arrange to borrow for you, which was prepared this

last week and given to the House Interior Committee, which assembled the information from this atlas on one large map.

Senator CORDON. That would be most helpful.

Mr. BENNETT. It is a huge thing. They never used it in those hearings last week. We delivered it at their request, and it is supposed to have everything that is in this atlas.

Miss McSHERRY. We could borrow it, probably.

Senator SMATHERS. We have to have it. Looking at this atlas, you never get the relationship of the reserve to the whole area.

Senator CORDON. Exactly.

Delegate Bartlett, will you try to get that, or shall I? Do you want me to call?

Delegate BARTLETT. I will try to get it sent over, sir.

Senator CORDON. We will have that, then, in the morning, and we will have the park folks here.

With reference to the fishing rights, generally speaking, as I understand it and I am not an expect in this field, either-the State has jurisdiction of the migratory fish, food fish, which come within the limits of the State, but it does not have any jurisdiction when they go without the limits of the State; and it is my understanding-and I can be dead wrong about this—that most of the commercial taking is without the Territorial waters. Is that correct, Mr. Slaughter? Do you know?

Senator JACKSON. I would not say that.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. I am not an expert, but I am quite sure that a considerable part of the salmon fishery and, of course, that is all migratory fish, is within the 3-mile zone of water.

Senator JACKSON. That is correct, Senator Cordon. They are caught within the bays, you see. They catch the salmon as they go up the rivers.

Senator CORDON. Then my understanding was wholly wrong.

Senator JACKSON. Clearly, the main fishery catch in Alaska would be within the jurisdiction of the new State, in much the same manner that the State of Washington and the State of Oregon have jurisdiction because the salmon that are caught in Oregon and Washington are caught in the mouth of the Columbia and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in the bays of the Puget Sound area. There is the question of the Pribilofs that I think we should consider.

Senator CORDON. I will ask the Fish and Wildlife to stand by tomorrow, but I will not call them up here at the beginning. If we can get ride of the park and monument thing early enough, we can have those other folks up here. The Pribilof situation was or was not the result of treaty?

Delegate BARTLETT. It was the result of treaty, and after a series of conferences with the Fish and Wildlife people and other officials of the Department of the Interior, including the then Secretary, it was then decided that the new State should not exercise or attempt to exercise control there, but instead would get a percentage of the net proceeds. But the operation should continue to be Federal in view of the treaty.

Senator CORDON. I presume as long as the Bricker amendment was not in force when that treaty was adopted, it can be open to no question.

43175-54- 2

Senator SMATHERS. What about that island extending out toward Russia?

Senator JACKSON. This is St. Lawrence Island.

Senator CORDON. That would be a part of the State.

Senator JACKSON. As well as St. Matthew and Pinnacle Islands.

Mr. FRENCH. Big Diomede and Little Diomede.

Senator JACKSON. Yes. They are up here in the Bering Strait. St. Lawrence Island is in the Bering Sea, and Big and Little Diomede are in Bering Strait.

Senator SMATHERS. Do the Eskimos on that side of the line have a Russian accent?

Senator JACKSON. They all have an Eskimo accent.

Senator CORDON. You do not need to kid yourself that there is going to be a problem of immigration there.

Senator JACKSON. Would it not be a better and more logical sequence this is merely a suggestion-to have the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management people come up following the Park Service people so we can tie those two together?

Senator CORDON. Surely.

Senator JACKSON. In that order.

Senator CORDON. I would have suggested Forest Service first, but we do not know just when Governor Heintzleman is going to be here. I assume he will not be here tomorrow. So we could go forward with this, and then take the administrative agencies which have the administration of these reserved areas, one after another. That seems to be the thing we need to do.

Just generally, let's think about another problem: In any transfer of the national forest land, other than areas the purpose of the very transfer of which is that of using the lands primarily for another purpose than forest economy, is there any thought in the minds of the committee as to whether or not any cession of commercial forest lands to the new State shall be encumbered by any requirements of management?

In the Pacific Northwest-I regret to state this, but it happens to be historically true-the State of Washington did a much better job with the forest lands it got from the United States than the State of Oregon

did.

Senator JACKSON. I may disagree with you. All I can say is that Oregon has more good timber left than we have in the State of Washington. I am afraid in the early days we permitted our lumber people and I believe they are sorry, too-to go in and cut on an unrestricted basis, which has resulted in the denuding of our forests.

Senator CORDON. You have a considerable amount of that area still in State title, though. I am speaking about the original grants at the time statehood was granted. I am not speaking about the forests generally.

Senator JACKSON. I see. We have a tremendous amount of public school land in the State of Washington that has not been touched, left intact.

Senator CORDON. That is what I am thinking of. As far as forestry laws governing the handling of the lands themselves, I am rather proud of the forestry laws of my State. I think they are outstanding. They have come along, however, in the last two decades, generally. The lands that were originally granted for school purposes in the

State of Washington have been held reasonably intact by the State, and it represents today a very, very valuable asset.

The State of Oregon generally permitted those lands to be alienated and, as a matter of fact, our Supreme Court reports have a number of cases that have to do with fraud in connection with them.

Shall we give any thought here to any cession of timber and lands where the timber would be the primary asset and should be managed for perpetual yield, or is it better to provide for a larger percentage of payment of receipts, in which case, of course, the United States Forest Service or the agency handling the particular asset would determine the extent of those receipts by its regulation of what it sells and for how much.

Senator JACKSON. My offhand and rather curbstone opinion is that we ought to put some provision in requiring management consistent with perpetuity of the forests that are to be maintained primarily as a forest reserve by the State. I would not suggest that it be outlined in detail, but I do believe that, in the light of the experience of the past, we should not hesitate to correct the obvious mistake that was made in the northwest area of the United States when they received statehood, and received the timber on an unrestricted basis.

Senator CORDON. I think the term "sustained yield management" has now achieved a certain meaning, and that it would be so recognized in the law and we could use it if we determined to do so.

Senator JACKSON. I think it would be helpful to the State, because if a part of the Tongass National Forest is to be turned over to the State, for example, it would be helpful for the State to be able to say to a new industry coming in that there will be timber available on a perpetual basis.

Delegate Bartlett, do you have a thought in connection with that? Delegate BARTLETT. Yes. In the first place, I think men are much more alert in Government than they were two decades or longer ago, to the needs of preserving timber. In the second place, I, for one, would make no objection at all to the insertion of such a clause or provision, principally for the reason that Senator Jackson mentioned. It would serve to shore up the State officials if the going got tough, if there were a move on to try to acquire land and strip it.

Senator CORDON. I think we do not need to pursue that further now. Let us take the big one. When we discuss a million acres of land or 10 million or 100 million, or whatever it may be, a big area that we may grant to the State of Alaska, should that be a grant for statutorily explicit public purposes? If so, should there be a right of alienation? Should it be an absolute title with the equivalent of a condition subsequent that the land be used for specific public purposes? Should there be, with respect to the power of alienation, limitations in amount to single purchasers?

What does the committee feel with respect to that? What are your general views?

You are turning over a principality when you turn over 100 million acres of land, and it could represent a tragic error. Perhaps, as the Delegate suggests, they are alert enough now that they will not make those errors, but some of them have been made in the past.

Senator JACKSON. There is always the danger in the State legislature that pressures will be put on through lobbyists who have an ulterior motive, to cause great harm to the State.

Delegate BARTLETT. On the other hand, is it not true that one of the great needs of Alaska is to get this land into private ownership? Even if they make some errors in transferring that State land to private ownership, I think in the long run it will be advantageous, because you have a situation there now where one government owns over 99 percent and you do not get the free-enterprise system operating.

Senator CORDON. Are you speaking in favor of an absolute grant, unconditioned with respect to alienation?

Delegate BARTLETT. I think the State would prosper more that way; and I think even if mistakes were made, they would be rectified in time, and the land would come back through the passage of time, and the Federal Government and the State government would be better off. I honestly believe that.

Senator SMATHERS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in learning lessons from the past, we should grant this land with some limitations. Just what they are, I obviously do not know at the moment, but in looking at the history, as we have learned even from the Hawaiian Islands, one of the big difficulties there has been that just a few families have been able to buy up practically all the land, so that individuals as such, were not able to have their own land and have their own farms. If we turn this over completely, without restriction or limitation of any kind, while I thoughly agree with what the Delegate says, that it is desirable to get this into everybody's hands, if it is available to anybody on a first-come first-served basis, the chances are that 5 or 6 big companies that might have the money and the means at the moment could go in and buy up practically the whole area, which might as well then be in the hands of the Federal Government as far as development purposes are concerned.

Senator CORDON. Let's be specific on it. Let us look at one factor. On an oil lease having its genesis-this is bipartisan-in an administration that has gone out, and having been worked up to the point of consummation, a new administration came in and consummated it. How many acres are included in that oil lease to Phillips Petroleum?

Delegate BARTLETT. Away up there.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the suggestion that the staff make a check on the reservations that have been made in previous grants to the States of public domain in connection with statehood. I am thinking of maybe certain mineral rights in certain areas that should be reserved. I do not know whether it should be done in this bill. I think it would be helpful if the staff could give us some of the history of previous bills.

Delegate BARTLETT. In the first place, I am wondering if you put qualifications on your grant to the new State, if you would not be doing something in a statehood bill that has not previously been done in a general way.

Senator JACKSON. I do not know. I want to find out.

Delegate BARTLETT. That is my original question. In specific answer to your statement about mineral lands, Senator Jackson, the fact is that no State that has been admitted to statehood could take any of the 2 or 4 sections, whichever it might have been in the West, that had land mineral in character, but about 1928 the Congress passed an