Page images

rect in this—that it is not the desire of any member of the committee to intend to impair the contract they have with the Federal Government through the Forest Service.

The CHAIRMAN. With the consent of the committee, I will pass this proposed amendment on to Senator Cordon, with the idea that his committee will revise it in such a way as to protect the company, if that is necessary.

Senator CLEMENTS. Mr. Chairman, the Senator from Washington is on that subcommittee.


Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, in the letter I have from the attorney for the Ketchikan Pulp Co., he expressed concern. The company entered into a contract to purchase timber from certain specified areas in the Tongass National Forest. It now develops that the estimated timber in those areas within the Tongass National Forest is not as had been previously anticipated. There are indications that there are deficiencies in the amount available.

It will be necessary for them, in accordance with the provisions of their contract, to select additional timber elsewhere in the Tongass National Forest.

Am I correct about the general provisions of this contract, Delegate Bartlett?

Delegate BARTLETT. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the matter would be well covered if you took the subject matter of your letter up with Senator Cordon in connection with this amendment.

Senator JACKSON. I think, Mr. Chairman, just for the record here, that there is no intention on the part of anyone on the committee to do anything which would impair that contract.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
Now, page 38, lines 12 to 16, inclusive. Is there any change there?

Mr. BENNETT. No question has been raised to the present time on that one, but there is a very definite question on the next subsection.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, beginning on line 17, subsection (e): Block 19, and the structures and improvements thereon, and the interests of the United States in blocks C and 7, and the structures and improvements thereon, in the city of Juneau, are hereby granted to the State of Alaska.

What are they?

Mr. BENNETT. Governor Heintzleman testified that that section applied to the Federal Building in Juneau and that there are only two small units of the Territorial government in that structure, Naturally, there will still be a Federal function in Alaska if Alaska is admitted to statehood. That being the case, he indicated that it may be that the committee was not aware of the situation when that language was put in the bill, and they thought everybody ought to know what they were doing before they proceeded to any decision on the matter,

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I think it ought to be limited to the Territorial buildings located in block 19 and blocks C and 7. I don't believe we could properly convey a Federal facility unless it is surplus to future Federal requirements in the State.

Delegate BARTLETT. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Slaughter has reminded me that the reference to blocks C and 7 have to do with the Federal jail there. I take it that that jail would not be required by the Federal Government in the event of statehood.

Senator JACKSON. That would be surplus to Federal requirements.

Delegate BARTLETT. That would be surplus. It might be, even if the committee did decide that the Federal Building should remain the property of the United States, it ought to convey the Federal jail and the jail site to the new State.

The CHAIRMAN. We will turn that over to Senator Cordon for consideration.

Subsection (f): The following grants of vacant, unappropriated, unreserved public land are hereby made for internal improvements:

For legislative, executive, and judicial public buildings heretofore erected in said Territory or to be hereafter erected in the proposed State, five hundred thousand acres; for institutions for the mentally ill, two hundred thousand acres; for penitentiaries, two hundred thousand acres; for schools and asylums for the deaf, dumb, and the blind, two hundred thousand acres; for normal schools, five hundred thousand acres; for State charitable, penal, and reformatory institutions, two hundred thousand acres; for homes for needy pioneer residents, two hundred fifty thousand acres; for the University of Alaska, in addition to grants heretofore made, five hundred thousand acres. Lands granted for the foregoing purposes will not be taken from lands included within a military or other reservation of the United States. The selections provided for in this paragraph shall be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in section 2379 of the Revised Statutes (43 U. S. C. 857): Provided, That nothing herein contained shall affect any valid existing claim, location, or entry under the laws of the United States, whether for homestead, mineral, right-of-way, or other purposes whatsoever, or shall affect the rights of any such owner, claimant, locator, or entryman to the full use and enjoyment of the land so occupied.

That last sentence we crossed out in one section before. I do not know whether it is necessary here or not.

Are there any suggestions on that one, Delegate Bartlett!

Delegate BARTLETT. No. That is pretty much a copy of the language from previous enabling acts. The acreage varies, but the intent follows that of the past.

I might add, again, that the need for those special grants is probably much greater when the amount of land intended to be transferred is smaller than is found in this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the total acreage provided for here? Have you added it?

Delegate BARTLETT. It is something on the order of 3 million.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. It is 2,550,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Someone is going to have a busy time up there trying to find that much.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. This provision is a little different from the general 100-million-acre grant, in that there is a reference down here to section 2379 of the Revised Statutes, which ties this in to surveyed lands. So the grants under this section would have to be selected from surveyed lands.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there that much surveyed lands?
Senator JACKSON. That is the question I have been asking.
Delegate BARTLETT. Oh, no, of course not.
Senator JACKSON. Then it is an ineffective provision,
Delegate BARTLETT. Ineffective for the early days.

Senator JACKSON. Until it is surveyed. Why should it have to be surveyed in order to be granted ?

Delegate BARTLETT. In 400 or 500 years there might be found some value in this land which was heretofore not considered valuable, and then a survey might be taken.

Senator JACKSON. That might be an optimistic projection.
Delegate BARTLETT. I am sure it is.
The CHAIRMAN. We will pass that one, then, with a question mark.

(g) All real and personal property of the United States situated in the Territory of Alaska which is specifically used for the sole purpose of conservation and protection of the fisheries and wildlife of Alaska, under the provisions of the Alaska game law of July 1, 1943 (57 Stat. 301 ; 48 U. s. C., secs. 192-211), as amended, and under the provisions of the Alaska commercial fisheries laws of June 26, 1906 (34 Stat. 478; 48 U. S. C., secs. 230-239 and 241-242). *

This is one of the important ones, is it not, Delegate Bartlett? Delegate BARTLETT. No, not until we get down to line 13, on page 40. The CHAIRMAN (reading): The State of Alaska shall possess and exercise the same jurisdiction and control over the fisheries and the wildlife of Alaska, except fur seals and sea otters, as are possessed and exercised by the several States within their Territorial limits, including adjacent waters.

Delegate BARTLETT. That is vitally important.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that agreeable?
Delegate BARTLETT. Very.
Mr. BENNETT. Senator Jackson had some comment on that.
The CHAIRMAN. I was just waiting for him.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the statement of Delegate Bartlett. I think the provision on line 13 should be in there. I think the only question is whether it should be turned over to the State all in 1 year, in 2, 3, or 5 years. I think the Department should express some opinion before the committee makes a decision. I believe the Department was going to send something up. I have not found out just what their views are.

There is no dispute in my mind about the right of the Territory to run their fisheries. I think the question is: Should it be turned over all in 1 chunk, all in 1 year?

It is the biggest resource in the Territory that is being managed by the Federal Government. Under the Štate there will be some substantial changes in regulations. I think the fishing industry and the fishermen themselves will want a reasonable period of time to make their adjustments. I think it is fair to say that one of the first things that the new State will do will be to abolish the fishtraps. If they are going to be abolished, I think in fairness to everyone they ought to give them a reasonable period of time to convert to some other means of catching the fish.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the committee heard anybody from the Department on this?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. The Fish and Wildlife Service.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Rhode was here, but he was not authorized to make any policy comment.

Mr. BENNETT. I think it is very definitely established that the Department, as a matter of policy, would like to see a gradual turnover, 2 or 3 years, whatever it might be, but there are certain constitutional questions which we have not faced yet, Senator Jackson. If the matter with which we are dealing is the matter of exclusive jurisdiction by the State, then can we, as a condition to an admission bill, provide for continued Federal control which would not be constitutional as a another State?


Senator JACKSON. I think we ought to find out about it. I do not know.

Mr. BENNETT. As I say, we have had some discussions on the policy, and I think we look on it favorably, if it is constitutional. The exact time period, whether it should be i, 2, 3, 5, a definite number of years has not been decided.

Senator JACKSON. Delegate Bartlett pointed out that it would take 2 years from the time the bill was passed by the Congress until the time the State actually acquired jurisdiction under the statehood legislation. Is that your estimate?

Delegate BARTLETT. That is my personal estimate. I think the minimum time would be 18 months, and more likely it would be 24 months.

Senator JACKSON. Before they could comply with all the conditions precedent. Why do you not check on that, Mr. Bennett, and let's get an opinion from the Department.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there is any objection to the next sentence.

The rights of the State of Alaska over fisheries and wildlife shall not be construed to include control over fur seals, sea otters, and such other fish and wildlife resources are protected under the provisions of international agreements. I

guess you would approve that. Mr. SLAUGHTER. That sentence is in part a repetition of what is said in line 15, which says "except fur seals and sea otters," but the thought seems to be a very appropriate one.

Senator JACKSON. Is that provision constitutional ?

Mr. BENNETT. I think in the light of the court's interpretations of the treaty powers, it probably is. You probably have been listening to the debates on the Bricker amendment.

Senator JACKSON. I know what you mean, but I do not want to say anything about it.

Delegate BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, while I think of it, may I suggest here that I hope the committee will give consideration at the appropriate place in the bill to turning over also to the new State the equipment of the Alaska Road Commission, which will be automatically going out of business then.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe such a provision is already in the bill. Reading again on line 21:

At the close of each fiscal year, commencing with the year during which Alaska is admitted into the Union, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the State of Alaska 50 per centum of the net proceeds, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, derived during such fiscal year from all sales of seal skins or sea otter skins made in accordance with the provisions of the Act of February 26, 1944 (58 Stat. 100; 16 U. S. C., secs. 631a-6319), as supplemented and amended.

Senator JACKSON. Delegate Bartlett, in our appropriations bill some time ago, we made a stipulation that the amount of receipts would be increased by a certain percentage to be used for the administration of fisheries and game in Alaska.

Delegate BARTLETT. Yes.

Senator Jackson. Do you recall what that is now? Was it 85 percent?

Delegate BARTLETT. I thought it was 60 percent.

Senator JACKSON. I thought we increased it to 85 percent out of the receipts.

Delegate BARTLETT. You may be correct. There was a new formula adopted for using the Pribilof receipts.

Senator JACKSON. My only point is that I do not know whether this is adequate. I do not think you are getting as much; are you? The point is that the receipts are now being used to administer the fisheries and game in Alaska. I am suggesting that if these functions are to be carried on by the State, they ought to have the same percentage as is being made available at the present time to the Fish and Wildlife Service to administer their program in Alaska.

I think we could look up that statute. We amended it in connection with the appropriations bill passed 2 years ago. It would be the appropriations bill for fiscal year 1953.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. As I recall, that money is used largely for the administration of the fur sealers and the other activities on the Pribilof Islands, which would not go over to the new State under this provision but would be retained under the Federal reservation under the clause that the chairman read a little while ago.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Slaughter, that may be true. I understand, however, that a portion of the receipts from fur seals is now being used by the Fish and Wildlife Service to administer the game and fish program in Alaska, as distinguished from administration of the Pribilof program. I may be in error.

Delegate BARTLETT. You are right. I can say that categorically.

Senator JACKSON. The money is made available each year. I do not believe it requires appropriation. It is automatic.

Mr. BENNETT. The amount that actually has been expended, aside from the administration of the Pribilofs, is something I do not know, and would require some breakdown of their expenditures of that money.

Delegate BARTLETT. It did not work out, I might add, quite as the Fish and Wildlife Service had hoped for, because they wound up with a little kitty.

Senator JACKSON. That was a rider that was not put on at that time. Delegate BARTLETT. No. That was later.

The CHAIRMAN. We will check a little further on the amount provided for here, splitting the fund 50 percent each way, because I think Senator Jackson has a point there, if it has been more. We will put a question mark on that.

(h) Grants previously made to the Territory of Alaska are hereby confirmed and transferred to the State of Alaska upon its admission. No grants, other than those specified in this act, shall be made to the State of Alaska by reason of its becoming or being a State, except by subsequent legislation.

I guess there can be no question on that.
Line 11:

(i) The schools and colleges provided for in this section shall forever remain under the exclusive control of the State, and no part of the proceeds arising from the sale or disposal of any lands granted herein for educational purposes shall be used for the support of any sectarian or denominational school, college, or university.

There is no objection to that, I guess.

Mr. BENNETT. It might be desirable to find out whether that is a common provision in other enabling acts. I don't know where it is.

« PreviousContinue »