We have a hydroelectric commission in the State of Oregon, and it would be 10 times as important and of course it would be 10 times as expensive if the Federal Power Commission did not handle that particular matter.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no reason that Alaska as a State could not have that provision, or any other provision that they saw fit to have. But I think you misunderstand my proposal. The amendment that I am suggesting would apply only to the land title to these power site reserves, and not to the securing of the license. In other words, the applicants might still have to come to the Federal Power Commission for license, but the State would receive the revenue and have the land title.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I think the thing that concerns me is that if the State has the adjoining land, then they control the site for all practical purposes. I do not think there is any question about it. There is no point in applying for a license to construct a dam if the State refuses to convey the property.

The CHAIRMAN. You cannot conceive of the State's turning down a proposition for the development of the power resource up there, can you, Senator Jackson?

Senator JACKSON. That may very well be true; but on the other hand, the State in effect could control the license of the Power Commission by refusing to make a conveyance to one applicant as against another, and in that way the application could be defeated.

I would certinly want to think about this awhile. I am just giving my impression.

The CHAIRMAN. The license for Bonneville comes from the Federal Power Commission, does it not, Senator?

Senator CORDON. Yes, although, may I say, while that is the regular practice in the Pacific Northwest, in a good part of the United States it has not been the procedure. Bonneville, of course, is a Federal project. The license was provided in the authorization itself, and that has been true in all of the Northwest projects.

Senator JACKSON. A license was not needed, because they were authorized by special act of Congress.

Senator BARRETT. I would like to ask this of Senator Cordon: Assuming that the Federal Power Commission issues a license to somebody in the present continental United States, do they not have the power of going in and acquiring the site, if necessary, under the power of eminent domain?

Senator JACKSON. That depends on State law.

Senator CORDON. I cannot answer you. I can tell you, and you know it, the general principle, which is that of superior use, where you have two public bodies. I have never known a case where the court passed upon the question of superior use between the Government of the United States and the State, because of course into that issue comes the equal footing clause of admission, the dual sovereignty concept, and a lot of other things that I am not prepared to pass on.

Senator JACKSON. Senator Cordon, very clearly the private utility would not have the right of eminent domain unless the State

Senator CORDON. I thought he was talking about the Government's having it as against the State.

Senator BARRETT. Senator Butler's suggestion here, as I understand it, is to grant to the State the land at the proposed power sites, am I correct, alongside the canyon, or whatever it might be? The question I am raising is this: The Federal Power Commission issues a license to a certain person, and then you have a conflict between sovereignties, between the State of Alaska and the Federal Government.

Senator JACKSON. The Federal Government only issues the license to take that water for power. The bed of the stream, as provided in this bill, belongs to the new State, the land. In any event, the applicant who goes to the Federal Power Commission also has to get authority, does he not, to build on the site?

Senator CORDON. No. You forget, Senator Jackson, that the courts have held that the title in the State to land beneath navigable waters is inferior to the superior right of the Government under the commerce clause.

Senator JACKSON. To grant a license.

Senator CORDON. But the license carries with it the use of the land in the stream.

Senator JACKSON. Of course, they do not grant title in fee. All you get from the Power Commission is a license, which is not fee simple title. It is merely a lease for 50 years, normally. At the end of that period the Federal Government, through the Federal Power Commission, under the Waterpower Act of 1920, does have the right to take that property for a fair price if it wishes to do so.

Senator CORDON. Yes, that is correct. I am speaking only about the land. It is subject to the superior easement of the commerce clause.

I call on my friend down there, the admiralty lawyer, on that. Senator DANIEL. I do not think it is an admiralty question. Senator CORDON. I understand, but my admiralty lawyer has gone into it.

Senator DANIEL. The right of the Federal Government is of course based on navigability of the stream. What you are saying here applies only to navigable streams. Of course, we might add that everything that will float a log might come under that rule.

Senator CORDON. I correct my lawyer in this instance. Everything that can be made to float that log.

Senator ANDERSON. I just wonder if this thing would be required. If we had specific language that we could look at, we could then study how it related to the present law. I think this is too important a question to decide on the basis of just a suggestion. I wish we could have that as a subsequent amendment that we might look at. know what it does.

If you get into conflict between these sites-here you are starting on the Copper River project, you have the Susitna project, and you have a lot of them coming along I do not know what it would do to say the State should own the power site. The State would certainly get the benefit from it.

Senator CORDON. Here is another thing I want to throw out for what it is worth. The land ordinarily reserved under the Water Power Act for power purposes usually is bounded by the division lines of a section where there is a survey. If we conveyed that to the State

and the State then proceeded to enact law whereby there was an annual payment to the State on account of power generated as a source of income to the State, I can see a situation, conceivably, arising where the State's financial interest to get money out of it might result in payments to the State to the extent that you would substantially nullify the real economic values in the production of power. The power itself, when produced, has to be sold for enough to make all of those payments. I do not want that to defeat the maximum development of power sites.

It might be argued that I am saying in substance that the State is not competent to handle its own business. I put this on the record. so far as that argument is concerned: we have records in this country of maluse of public lands in the early days of statehood in a number of the States. The States have made mistakes. They can make them again. They have had to learn the hard way. We all have to learn to walk before we can run. There would be a period of time when the citizens of the State of Alaska could get themselves into more trouble than we would be extricating them from here if we gave them this possible source of revenue.

Again, I am simply suggesting something that comes to my mind about it.

The CHAIRMAN. My theory is that if the State of Alaska does become the richest State in the Union, it is to no disadvantage of the rest of the States of the Union.

Senator CORDON. I agree with that.

The CHAIRMAN. It is to the advantage of all of us.

Senator CORDON. I agree with that, but that does not affect my idea about it. I think we want to save the State of Alaska, not hold it back. Senator BARRETT. They are not going to have any right at all on this power question up there under the present bill, because I am sure you will find reservations already in force. Am I right about that?

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask Delegate Bartlett about that.

Senator JACKSON. Why can we not put into the bill that the right of reservation shall not extend to any power sites? In that way any applicant who goes in will have the right.

Senator CORDON. Mr. Chairman, what is sought to be gained by the State of Alaska here?

The CHAIRMAN. My only object is to see that the income in the form of a lease or sale of the power site to the people who construct it will go to the State of Alaska instead of to the Federal Government.

Senator CORDON. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the greatest good that could come to the State would be the earliest possible development of that power site, if the State or the Federal Government gave all of it. The thing that we want is an economic base, people working, the money coming in, houses built, the people becoming permanent residents, having their roots there. That comes from economic income.

Senator CLEMENTS. It is not money from the site; it is money from the use of the site by some industry.

Senator CORDON. That is all of it.

Senator MALONE. Let's leave it to the subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no motion that I know of.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the pending bill, together with the amendments and proposals worked out here this morning, be reported.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me make another suggestion before we put that motion. Then I am through.

There is a reservation made now by the Federal Government, the Department of the Interior, withholding right-of-way 300 or 600 feet wide along the Federal highways that have been constructed. As I understand it, such a reservation absolutely prevents the development of industry along the highway. It has been almost impossible to get filling stations, motels, or little towns or businesses set up along the road to take care of the travel along the Alcan Highway. I would like to see something in here that turns those Federal reserves over to the State of Alaska.

Senator MALONE. Leave it up to the subcommittee.

Senator ANDERSON. That, I think, the subcommittee can properly handle, and ought to.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that agree with your idea, Delegate Bartlett? Delegate BARTLETT. Very positively.

Senator ANDERSON. I do not want to move, because you proposed it, but I think we ought to have approval of the idea just now suggested by the chairman. I certainly approve it. Do you want to get a show of hands so you have some action?

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection to including that?
Senator JACKSON. I did not hear the statement.

Senator ANDERSON. Letting the subcommittee work out his proposal on the 300-foot right-of-way.

Senator JACKSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The Federal Government now has it. We want that land to go to the State.

Senator CLEMENTS. The committee heard considerable testimony on that the other day.

Senator JACKSON. I made my motion, which can be repeated by the stenographer.

Senator CORDON. Will you withhold your motion a moment?

I have been sounding off too much, Mr. Chairman, and I have lost my train of thought. Did I make a motion with respect to the 5-year reservation thing, that there be a prohibition against further reservations by the Federal Government within Alaska?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think we took that action.

Senator CORDON. If I have not made the motion, I now move, Mr. Chairman, that there be incorporated in the bill a provision prohibiting any further reservation or withdrawal of public lands from the State of Alaska for a period of 5 years immediately following the admission of the State into the Union.

Senator ANDERSON. And then you had a proviso.

Senator CORDON. With a proviso that the Federal Government may lease or otherwise dispose of the land or its resources under existing law for that purpose, but that with respect to any areas so disposed of, the State may select them, subject to the terms of the contract on the lands, and become the beneficiary of and step into the shoes of the Federal Government with respect to such contract.

Senator BARRETT. What would that do with withdrawals presently in force?

Senator CORDON. That one, as I have made it, is prospective, and it does not reach the present withdrawals. I would be glad to include in the motion a further provision for the right of the State to select under the terms of the lands granted herein any area with respect to which there is an existing lease or other contract for the removal of natural resources, in the same way as it can in the future.

Senator JACKSON. Senator Cordon, I think your suggested amendment is a good one. Might it not be well to include that the period shall run from the date of the enactment of this section? In other words, if you have a hiatus, they could come in and make a lot of withdrawals.

Senator BARRETT. He is going to open up any withdrawals that are in force now, as I understand it.

Senator ANDERSON. Admission of the State will work, because it goes right back to it. As Senator Barrett points out, they can go right back and undo it. The Secretary of the Interior is not going to do it, in the first place.

Senator CORDON. With respect to that, Mr. Chairman, Stewart called my attention to the fact that there may be some actual military necessity for additional reservations for defense purposes. I think we ought to make provision for limited military withdrawals, even though we are all in agreement that they have too much land now. We agree they have too much, but we do not know that they have it at the right place. There may be something else that they need, and that should be excepted.

Senator JACKSON. We can perfect the language of that.
Senator MALONE. By the subcommittee.

Senator ANDERSON. Let the subcommittee work it out.
Senator JACKSON. We can agree on the general principle.

Senator LONG. May I offer this proposal: That at such time as the committee reports an Alaskan statehood bill, the committee will continue to study the question of Alaskan statehood with a view to proposing additional perfecting amendments to the bill, to any bill that is reported.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the privilege of every member of the committee.

Senator LONG. I would like to have that agreed to so we understand that is the situation.

Senator JACKSON. I was going to suggest that following my motion to report the bill, which is now pending and which I am withholding pending the action on the suggestion of the Senator from Oregon. Senator CORDON. There is a question of the time element. Senator JACKSON. I did not put a time element in it.

Senator CORDON. I thought you suggested 5 years from the approval of the act.

Senator JACKSON. You are referring to your motion. No, my only point was that I think the freezing should be from the effective date of the passage of the bill, not from the time that the State formally comes into the Union. I say that because I am afraid, in view of the fact that there is going to be this freeze, the Secretary of the Interior could withhold or make a lot of reservations that would cause difficulty.

Senator ANDERSON. Let's go ahead and make it from the enactment of the act.