Bartlett submitted to the committee gives to the Federal Government exclusive authority over the area that they select for military purposes. Delegate BARTLETT. I can answer that right now. It does give exclusive authority. That did not bother me too much for this particular reason. I was willing to go along to any proper extent to accommodate what I and others were told were the desires of the administration. But in respect to all of this area within the line, the fact is that the military has not been active at all.

Senator BARRETT. We are shooting in the dark because we have not read your amendment and we do not know but it is pretty clear in my mind now from 2 or 3 things. No. 1, the only thing which the state of Alaska is giving up is jurisdiction. They are ceding that out to the United States. No. 2, perhaps this has been suggested by the military, and they say they need that for the defense of the country; consequently, that is the reason it is of such importance. Delegate BARTLETT. Senator Barrett, let me state there that perhaps it has been stated by the military, but it has not been stated to any committee of Congress, it has not been stated officially, and we do not know to this moment where the suggestion came from.

Senator BARRETT. I do not know a thing about it. I am just making a wild guess.

Delegate BARTLETT. For example, Mr. Chairman, let me say that that line which went through the Alaska Peninsula on one of the maps which I disclosed to the committee earlier this morning, included in the area from which the President could make these withdrawals everything west of about half the Alaska Peninsula, including the Aleutian Islands. It is a matter of record that during the post-World War II period the Air Force has practically withdrawn from the Aleutian Islands where it used to have some very considerable bases. So it is difficult for me, as a layman, knowing as little as I do about the military situation, to comprehend why this line was drawn as it was.

Senator BARRETT. That is true. To state my position easily, if the Defense Department says they need exclusive jurisdiction up there for security reasons, I would be in favor of it.

Delegate BARTLETT. But I imagine, Senator, you would want to hear a statement to that effect made.

Senator BARRETT. Now you have agreed to the amendment in there?

Delegate BARTLETT. I have agreed.

Senator BARRETT. If they say they need it and want it I would not question it.

Delegate BARTLETT. The reason I said that was that to me this is something like a mystery book from which someone has torn the last chapter.

Senator BARRETT. That is right. That is the reason I am asking all these questions.

Delegate BARTLETT. I cannot answer them.

Senator JACKSON. Maybe the Defense Department tomorrow will have some answers on their position.

Delegate BARTLETT. One more statement, Mr. Chairman. The House committee adopted several amendments to the bill before it. I know that later on when you come to mark up the bill, you will want to examine those. I in the meantime have furnished com

mittee counsel with a comparison, showing the differences between the bill before you and the bill approved by the House committee. Senator JACKSON. I am sure that the committee will want to consult both you and Mrs. Farrington in connection with the markup of the bill. There will be a number of technical matters that will have to be disposed of before we report the bill.

Senator O'Mahoney, do you have any questions.

Senator O'MAHONEY. I was diverted by the lady from Hawaii, Mr. Bartlett, while you were testifying.

Delegate BARTLETT. I do not blame you.

Senator O'MAHONEY. I knew you would agree.

So that I do not know whether you pursued any further the question which I originally asked which had to do namely with the reason why you were convinced that you should offer this amendment. I would like to know the real origin of the amendment.

You testified, as I understood it, that you felt that it might be an aid to approval of the Alaskan bill when passed by the Congress but that nobody has explained to you why it would bring about such a result.

Delegate BARTLETT. Let me say, Senator, in answer to your question that I opposed the amendment which was originally offered but was defeated by the House Committee and which incorporates a line favored by Secretary McKay.

One of the principal reasons I was opposed to that was that the amendment was presented, as I recall it, to the committee with complicated language. I had no opportunity to study it beforehand and believed it might be a renewal of the partition plan which is so offensive to the people of Alaska, so I opposed it on that basis.

Later that day, having had an opportunity to make a study, it occurred to me it was relatively inoffensive but notwithstanding, because I knew in Alaska there would be a comparison between this and partition, I offered this compromise line, one effect of which was to exclude the community of Nome on Seward Peninsula from the area where the President could make these national defense withdrawals. I believe that language of this character was perhaps necessary because the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs was informed of that by two members of the committee.

After my amendment had been adopted, it was said in open hearing by at least 1 of those 2 members that he believed the language in my amendment would be satisfactory to the administration and would be greatly helpful in speeding the statehood bill on its way and securing White House approval of that statehood bill.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the language of the original amendment be made part of the record.

Senator JACKSON. Without objection it is so ordered. I might say that a committee print of the amendment will be made available to the members tomorrow.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

[Committee print February 22, 1955]

SO-CALLED BARTLETT AMENDMENT FOR USE AS A WORK SHEET BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

[S. 49, 84th Cong., 1st sess.]

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr.

to the bill (S.49)

to enable the people of Hawaii and Alaska each to form a constitution and State government and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, viz: On page 47, line 21, insert the following as a new section 210 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly

SEC. 210. (a) The President of the United States is hereby authorized to establish, by executive order or proclamation issued prior to admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, one or more special national defense withdrawals within the exterior boundaries of Alaska, which withdrawal or withdrawals may thereafter be terminated in whole or in part by the President.

(b) The authority of the President to establish special national defense withdrawals as provided in the foregoing subsection shall be confined to not to exceed 40 per centum of the areas of Alaska situated to the north and west of the following line: Beginning at the point where the Yukon River crosses the international boundary between Alaska and Canada; thence downstream along a line parallel to, and one mile from, the right bank of the Yukon River, to the point of intersection of the Yukon River with the meridian of longitude 158 degrees west of Greenwich; thence north to the parallel of latitude 65 degrees north; thence westward along said parallel to its intersection with the meridian of longitude 169 degrees west of Greenwich.

(c) There is hereby reserved to the United States, effective upon the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, exclusive jurisdiction over all special defense withdrawals established under this section, and the United States shall have sole legislative, judicial, and executive power within such withdrawals. The exclusive jurisdiction so reserved shall extend to all lands within the exterior boundaries of each such withdrawal, shall remain in effect with respect to any particular tract or parcel of land only so long as such tract or parcel remains withdrawn, and the laws of the State of Alaska shall not apply during the period of withdrawal thereof. (d) During the continuance in effect of such special defense withdrawal or withdrawals as may be established under authority of this Act, or until the Congress otherwise provides, within such withdrawals

(1) there shall apply all laws of general application to areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, those provisions of title 18, United States Code, that are applicable within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section 7 of said title;

(2) there shall apply all laws of general application to areas reserved for defense purposes of the United States;

(3) there shall apply, to the extent not inconsistent with the laws made applicable by the foregoing provisions of this section, all laws in force within the Territory of Alaska immediately prior to the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, whether enacted by the Congress or by the legislature of the Territory;

(4) all functions vested in the United States commissioners by the laws herein made applicable shall continue to be performed by such commissioners; (5) all functions vested, by the laws herein made applicable, in any municipal corporation, school district, or other local political subdivision, shall continue to be performed by such corporation, district, or other subdivision; and

(6) all other functions vested, by the laws herein made applicable, in the Government of the Territory of Alaska, or in any officer or agency thereof, shall be performed by such persons or agencies and in such manner as the President shall from time to time, by Executive order, direct or authorize: Provided, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the exclusive jurisdiction reserved to the United States by subsection (c) of this section or the authority of the Congress to implement such exclusive jurisdiction by appropriate legislation, or as limiting the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, or as continuing in effect the laws relating to the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska, or as limiting any authority otherwise vested in the Congress or the President, or as denving to persons now or hereafter residing within the area described in subsection (b) of this section the right to vote at all elections held within the political subdivisions where they respectively reside.

Senator KUCHEL. I would also like to have a little bit of guidance now on what the authority of the President is today. Let us see now whether there is anything in the statute.

Senator JACKSON. Senator Kuchel, in that connection Mr. Slaughter and Mr. Bennett will be able to testify tomorrow. I believe that Mr. Slaughter has advised Senator Barrett that the Pickett Act of 1912 gave to the President statutory authority to make withdrawals for military reservations, among others.

Senator O'MAHONEY. The Pickett Act was designed to give legislative support to the original withdrawal act of President Taft, was it not, Mr. Slaughter?

STATEMENT OF HERBERT J. SLAUGHTER, CHIEF, REFERENCE BRANCH, OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Yes, sir.

Senator KUCHEL. My only question was, if that is true, do you have a legal opinion now on what change, if any, the amendment made to the House bill would have in the President's authority?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. I think the principal change is the one that Senator Barrett has already mentioned, namely, that the Bartlett amendment reserves exclusive jurisdiction to the United States.

Senator KUCHEL. Which is not available now under the Pickett law. Mr. SLAUGHTER. Exclusive jurisdiction attaches only in those cases where the State by act of cession or other appropriate action cons.nts to its being exercised by the United States.

Senator JACKSON. Of course in this case an act of cession is not necessary on the part of the State because it is not a State; it is a Territory.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Exclusive jurisdiction would be reserved by the terms of the bill itself. S. 49 requires that the new State, as a condition to its admission, grant its consent to the reservation of all rights or powers to the United States for the reservation of which provision is made in the bill. This would include exclusive jurisdiction.

Senator JACKSON. So it would be automatic that the State constitution would have to be approved by the Congress and that provision would be in the State constitution.

Senator BARRETT. I was wondering whether or not we were not getting ourselves involved in something where it would take an amendment to the constitution of Alaska after they are set up to change this.

Senator JACKSON. It will not change the picture any because the constitution of the new State will have to be approved by the Congress. It is my understanding that that provision would be in the constitution, is that right?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. The bill as it has been introduced contains a general clause providing that the State of Alaska must include in its constitution a provision agreeing to all the powers and authority reserved to the United States by this bill, S. 49.

Senator JACKSON. That is a condition precedent, in effect?
Mr. SLAUGHTER. That is right.

Senator BARRETT. My question is this: Assuming all that is done and that 10 years from now we want to give the State of Alaska

concurrent jurisdiction over that area, would they have to change the constitution of Alaska?

Senator JACKSON. No. Then the Congress could give to Alaska concurrent jurisdiction. The act of giving there would have to come from the Federal Government, logically, it would seem to me.

Senator BARRETT. The State of Alaska will put in its constitution that the United States has exclusive jurisdiction over this area, is that right?

Senator JACKSON. Well, one of the conditions precedent to the admission of Alaska is a provision in its constitution agreeing to the various requirements contained in the bill, not only with reference to this particular amendment but several other provisions in the bill.

Delegate BARTLETT. And, Mr. Chairman, the President under the terms of this amendment can by proclamation rescind the withdrawals. Senator O'MAHONEY. Who can rescind it?

Delegate BARTLETT. The President, and of course the Congress at any time.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Have you considered the possibility of drafting the amendment in such form that Congress is making the withdrawal for defense purposes to be restored to the complete jurisdiction of the State whenever the President sees no need for defense purposes?

Delegate BARTLETT. Yes, I have, Senator O'Mahoney, starting at the time you spoke. I am considering it very actively. I think it is a good proposal.

Senator JACKSON. I think there ought to be a provision not only in the amendment but also in the report so that it would be doubly clear. Senator O'MAHONEY. I feel that when Congress is exercising its constitutional power to admit a State to the Union it ought to exercise its power and not delegate it to the President. We have been delegating altogether too much power to the executive branch of the Government for the last 50 years.

Senator KUCHEL. Senator, let me ask you this. You would have no objection, however, in the interest of national defense for withdrawals to be made pursuant to a statute?

Senator O'MAHONEY. None whatever.

Senator JACKSON. The only question, as Senator Barrett pointed out, is the one of giving exclusive jurisdiction from an overall administrative point of view.

Senator BARRETT. As far as I am concerned, as I said before, if the Defense Department says they need that, I am for it.

Senator JACKSON. Delegate Bartlett, we wish to thank you very much for your fine statement and the information you have given the committee in connection particularly with the amendment which was adopted by the House.

Senator BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, we have not asked him one question here, what his position would be on the Monroney and Malone bills. We are also taking them up here.

Delegate BARTLETT. I think I would go along with the statement that Senator Anderson made here 2 or 3 weeks ago. He said if that could be done constitutionally, which in his opinion it cannot, and I will add that it is my opinion, that the people of Alaska and the people of every State in the Union would probably want their Terri