ceives money one year and perhaps can only spend it the next, but they do have to have some assurances of having that money if they are going to be able to intelligently plan their projects. The same is true of Alaska. The fact that the full amount was not appropriated immediately places many communities, where in need of facilities, straight up in the air. They cannot very well go ahead and make plans unless they know that moneys are going to be appropriated to construct the projects which they so desperately need.

I want to also emphasize that these facilities are needed in the various towns of Alaska and that the cities themselves do not have the financial capacity to carry out necessary programs alone. One of the reasons for that is that our population has been increasing by leaps and bounds until our total population, including the military, is now 208,000 and our actual civilian population is 159,000 people. The last census showed a population of, I believe it was in 1950 our population was 128,643; in 1954 we estimate that our total population was 208,000; so that you can see that our towns and our communities have expanded so fast in such a short period that it is just impossible for the towns to construct facilities, such as schools, hospitals, sewers and streets, to take care of our people.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Anderson, you would not agree then with Mr. Huston in his statement that that appropriation of $3 million, reduced from a request of $10 million, will not be hurtful to the Alaska communities and to the Territorial government insofar as its part in the APW program is concerned?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. No; I don't agree with him.

Mr. BARTLETT. You believe that the full appropriation should have been made?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. I believe that the full appropriation should have been made so that those communities could go ahead with their plans so that they can get the engineering completed to construct facilities which are going to be necessary.

Mr. BARTLETT. Recognizing the fact that during this present construction season no great harm may result but the penalty will be paid in later years?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Chairman, my statement covered a multiplicity of subjects, and it is some 28 pages in length, and the time is so short that I extracted highlights from it, and I should like your permission to include and have this statement included in the record.

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, I think it should be included. Without objection, it will be so ordered. Does that conclude your presentation, Mr. Anderson?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. Yes, it does, sir.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Sisk?

Mr. SISK. Mr. Anderson, you stated, I believe, that the total income in the last fiscal year was $117 million. Is that correct?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SISK. Can you tell the committee how that compares with the previous fiscal year? Actually, in line with that question, I don't know whether you were in the room, but I brought up the subject yesterday or the day before with reference to a comparison over a period of several years of the total income of the Territory of Alaska, and that is the point that I would like to bring out right here, say, a

comparison of 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954, to actually see if it is increasing or if three has been a considerable falloff as was indicated. by the testimony of one of the witnesses a couple of days ago.

Mr. AL ANDERSON. As a matter of fact, sir, I don't have any figures before I have one other figure, and that was $108 million; so that there has been an increase of about $9 million between 1953 and 1954. Insofar as I know, before that-I have no records of that kind of information, but it did increase between 1953 and 1954. A portion of that increase was due to the establishment of the Ketchikan pulp mill.

Mr. SISK. I believe you stated also, Mr. Anderson, that the Territory of Alaska is paying in a total of approximately $90 million to the United States Government in taxes, income taxes and other taxes.

Mr. AL ANDERSON. No. What I stated, sir, was that in Federal income taxes we were paying $75 million and that in Territorial taxes we were paying approximately $15 million per year; so we paid the Federal Government 75 and the Territorial 15.

Mr. SISK. Oh, I see: yes; that is right. I have the figures 15 and 75. I added them together. I see now. Fifteen million of that goes to the upkeep of Territorial affairs. Seventy-five million of it is given to the Federal Government.

Mr. AL ANDERSON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SISK. Do you by any chance have any figures with reference to the amount of money that is being appropriated by the Federal Government to the Territorial government of Alaska? Now, of course, this does not include and has nothing to do with the amount of money we are appropriating for national defense and for many other things of that nature. But, actually, do you have figures showing how much money that the Federal Government is appropriating to the Territory of Alaska for the maintenance of roads, for the public works program which we discussed, and for other facilities of the Territorial government, and for the carrying on of services in Alaska?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. SISK. I might say, Mr. Anderson, in order to expedite matters, if you don't have those figures readily available, will you pass on, and then, if you would submit them, I think that might be of some interest to the committee.

Mr. AL ANDERSON. I do have them, sir, as reported by the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. Sisk. All right; if you want to read them off.

Mr. AL ANDERSON. However, they are broken down in this fashion: Federal Civil Defense Administration was $835,000; Federal Security Agency; Federal Works Agency; General Services Administration; and these figures of mine include defense, but the grand total for the period from 1948 through 1954, with 1954 as an estimate, is $1,882,759,823.

Mr. SISK. Well, I appreciate those figures but I dont' think those are the figures that I was hoping to get because those do include figures spent for defense, which is a measure of national defense and defense expenditures of various types. I actually was trying to arrive at the amount of money that the Federal Government was actually appropriating which would normally be appropriated to a State, let us say. Mr. BARTLETT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SISK. I will be glad to yield, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTLETT. I either have those figures in my suitcase or my briefcase or readily available in Washington. I will look tonight, and, if they are there, we can include them in the record tomorrow.

Mr. SISK. I actually was just trying to bring out a comparison between that and the $75 million that was paid in in taxes, just for the record, to see actually how it did compare.

Now, there is just a couple of other things that I would like to ask you about. I believe you stated that from the fur seal industry the Territorial government gets no revenue whatsoever; is that correct? Mr. AL ANDERSON. That is correct.

Mr. SISK. Do you know what the total revenue is to the Federal Government on the fur seal industry?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. The appropriations for the period from 1951 to 1954 were $10 million; net receipts were $31 million; leaving a surplus of $21 million.

Mr. SISK. And I believe you made a request or made a recommandation, let me say, that the Territory be given what percentage? Will you give the percentage again?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. I didn't make a recommendation of percentage. I recommended that these receipts be turned over to the Territory so the Territory could finance the management of its fisheries.

Mr. SISK. Oh, I see. In other words, you were recommending a turnover of those receipts for use in managing the fisheries? Mr. AL ANDERSON. The net receipts or the surplus.

Mr. SISK. Now, there is one other. I believe you mentioned that there was one other specific item whereby the Territory was not receiving any percentage. I believe that was on the coal mining. Mr. AL ANDERSON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SISK. Now, how did that happen to be left out, in view of the fact that in many other cases you are receiving a percentage of receipts?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. I can't answer that, sir. I thought that it must have been an oversight on the part of Congress because we operate under the General Leasing Act of 1914, or coal operates under the General Leasing Act of 1914, while oil leases and gas leases operate under the act of 1920. Under the act of 1920 and its amendments the Territory gets 371⁄2 percent. Under the coal leases we get nothing. Mr. SISK. Do you have any idea or can you give us an approximate figure of the income from coal leases?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. I can tell you what the Territory's share would have been at 372 percent.

Mr. SISK. All right. If you have that figure readily available, why, give that to us.

Mr. AL ANDERSON. In 1950 it would have been $16,500 in round figures; in 1951 it would have been $12,000; in 1952 it would have been approximately $21,000; in 1953 it would have been $28,500; in 1954 it would have been $39,500.

Mr. SISK. That is gradually increasing then, at a rather rapid rate?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. UTT. Will you yield for just a minute?

Mr. SISK. Yes; I will be glad to yield.

Mr. UTT. Can you carry those figures on up to the present time? Mr. AL ANDERSON. Well, no, I can't, because that is for the period from 1950 to 1954. We are in the 1955 period now.

the Re

Mr. UTT. In what year did the Alaska Railroad convert from coal to oil?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. When did Colonel Johnson come?

Mr. BARTLETT. I would say it converted around 1949. I am advised 1946 was the year it started, but I would assume that the entire conversion process took 3 or 4 years after that.

Mr. UTT. The reason I ask that is we had some complaint from the coal-mining people to the effect that they should not have converted because it destroyed a great portion of their market, but, apparently, it seems to have been rising every year since they did

convert.

Mr. AL ANDERSON. Well, I don't think that that was due to any of the operations of the Alaska Railroad, Mr. Utt. I think it was because of the increased defense establishments in the Fairbanks and the Anchorage area which required more coal to supply the energy needed.

Mr. UTT. What I mean, the conversion of the Alaska Railroad did not too greatly, adversely affect the market.

Mr. AL ANDERSON. I think it did adversely affect it. To what extent, I don't know. It seems to me tragic that the Alaska Railroad, which passes through one of our-through the coalfields, skips those by, and we bring in oil from California to burn.

Mr. UTT. Well, of course, if that same argument was held true, when they built the Alaska Railroad, then it put a few livery stables out of commission.

Mr. AL ANDERSON. I am familiar with that argument, sir. No. I know that the automobile put a lot of blacksmiths out of business. I doubt, however, whether the Alaska Railroad was able to show sufficient economies in the use of coal over oil to justify the change when you balance against what it did to one of our resources.

Mr. UTT. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Sisk.

Mr. SISK. Well, just to try to wrap it up here, this is a rather broad question, Mr. Anderson, but just what do you feel represents the greatest deterrent to the development in the Territory of Alaska of these great stores of natural resources which you enumerated to us? Mr. AL ANDERSON. (1) The control of our lands. (2) The control of our coastlands. (3) Control of our fisheries.

Mr. SISK. All right. One other question. What effect would statehood have on doing away with these deterrents?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. If Alaska were granted statehood under the bill, under the amended bill which last, which received the consideration of the Congress, some of the obstacles to development would be removed if the bill were to remain in its present form.

Mr. SISK. Do you presently favor statehood immediately for Alaska?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. Yes; but I have to qualify the statement; yes, if Alaska were given statehood under a measure similar to the one which Delegate Bartlett introduced, as amended, if we were to have control of our resources, and if the Congress were to give us those portions of land, and if they were willing to give us the financial assistance that a new State would need to get on its feet.

Mr. SISK. That is all, Mr. Bartlett, except to say to Mr. AndersonI think you made a very excellent statement this morning. I shall

reread your statement in the record because I think it set out in very fine detail the great resources of this Territory, and I do want to commend you on a most excellent presentation. That is all, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mrs. Pfost.

Mrs. ProST. Mr. Anderson, do you know why the Kennecott Copper Co. discontinued their operations near Cordova?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. I believe that they discontinued their operations because they felt that the remaining deposits were not sufficient to be economically exploited.

Mrs. PrOST. Someone in that area made the statement that with copper 56 cents a pound they think that they could successfully operate, and someone else said it would cost that much to get it to the mainland of the States. Is that true; do you know?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. No; it is not true. The price of copper is 43 cents, the last word that we had, but at 43-cent copper there are many copper mines in Alaska, which are now idle, which engineers are reappraising, and I am confident that it will be possible to operate some of our copper mines, some of our known copper deposits. The Kennecott Copper Co. and the details of its operations and so forth are not available to us, so that we don't know all of the reasons for their closure.

Mrs. Prost. Do you know how much it would cost to ship the ore to stateside? Let us use Seattle as an example.

Mr. AL ANDERSON. No; well, it would depend on the amount and many, many other factors.

Mrs. ProST. Perhaps I shouldn't lengthen the discussion by asking you those questions. You did recommend that the 160-acre limitation of land be changed. What figure do you think it should be changed to! Mr. AL ANDERSON. Well, it should be at least 160 acres of arable land, and that would require some additional soil studies, land classification and studies, but the utter minimum would be 160 acres of arable land, and there probably should be as high as 640 in order for people to make a living. 160 acres of land out of 375 million is very minute.

Mrs. PrOST. Well, maybe I got the wrong impression, but, when we were over in the Matanuska Valley, one of the farmers, who had lived there some 20 or 30 years, made the statement that he had cleared only about 30 or 40 acres of his 160. More of his land could be cleared, but it was a very slow process. I was thinking that, if you turn 640 acres to 1 individual-today he is limited to 160 acres; yet he is able to clear only 10, 15, 20, or maybe 30 acres in an entire lifetime-therefore it would unnecessarily tie up large sections, wouldn't it?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. Well, not necessarily. If he had 640 acres, he might be able to get enough capital to go in and do a first-class job. Mrs. ProST. In other words, do you mean that 640 would be additional security, and, therefore, he would be able to get a loan more readily?

Mr. AL ANDERSON. He might be able-he could certainly better get a loan.

Mrs. Prost. We are speaking of land which might be turned into farmlands. Most of this area that we saw didn't have timber of cutting size; so what additional value would it have other than just a few acres that couldn't be especially utilized?