CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

of Alaska's famous airline owners; and

John Butrovich. Butrovich is a Territorial Senator, and knows more about

the financial and fiscal affairs of Alaska

than almost any man in Alaska. He is

currently chairman of a special committee appointed by Governor Mike Stepovich to examine into the Territory's finances and to plan for the future expansion of Alaska as it becomes a State.

Last, but by no means least, were

two publishers: Robert Atwood of the

Anchorage Times and C. W. (Bill)

Snedden of the Fairbanks Daily NewsMiner. Atwood is the chairman of the

statehood commission-Snedden is a

member of that commission. These

two men worked, silently and effectively, in their chosen field-the news

field. They got the story of the statehood fight out to the Nation. They

worked with the great newspaper chains

of this country-the Hearst papers,

the Scripps-Howard papers-and they

worked with every news medium they

could find, including the very important

local daily and weekly newspapers. All

of us were aware of this work-it was

in the American backyard-and it was

effective.

I note that the Senator from Minnesota said that we would be happy to

welcome the gentlemen to whom he

gives so much credit to this body. I

hope that we will welcome whoever the

Alaskans desire to send to this body as their chosen representatives. Alaskans are not electing lobbyists this

time-they are electing Senators. Alaskans have not had the privilege of sending voting representatives here beforeand for myself, I hope that Alaskans inquire thoroughly into the qualifications

of the people they elect to vote for them.

How do the candidates feel about foreign affairs? How do they feel about

high taxes? What do they believe

should be the role of the Federal Government as opposed to State governments? How do they stand on national

issues-Iraq, communism, foreign aid,

and the other problems which beset this

body continually? These are but a few

of the questions Alaskans, I hope, will

ask of those who seek election.

The Alaska statehood battle was won

by bipartisan forces. As a Republican,

I am pleased that our party representatives voted overwhelmingly to admit

Alaska. In this body our vote was 33 to

7-better than 4 to 1-in favor of Alaska.

We voted for statehood for Alaska be- cause our party pledged statehood to

Alaska in its 1956 platform. We voted

for statehood for Alaska because a Republican President, a Republican Secretary of Interior and a Republican Governor'urged us to do so. We did this despite the fact that Alaskans have elected

Democrats in the past, and, in fact,

elected Democrats to come to Washington to lobby for statehood.

But we do not discount the effect

of those Democrats-nor the effectiveness of Delegate BOB BARTLETT in the

statehood arena. What we do not approve is a one-sided, partisan, review of

the statehood movement.

If these people really did do the job

by themselves-why did they not get

statehood during the last administration? If they were so effective, why did

it take the leadership 18 months to bring

the Alaska bill before the Senate during

this Congress? I think I can state why,

Mr. President. It took the combined

efforts of every proponent of Alaska

statehood to achieve this victory: the

Alaska Republicans and the Democrats;

the Republicans and Democrats in the

House; and both parties in this body.

I feel confident that Alaskans know and

realize this is so. They respect and are

grateful for the leadership of our President and his effective Secretary of the

Interior, as well as the leadership of

both political parties in the Congress.

If I had to assess any one reason why

the Alaska statehood bill passed during

this Congress, I would assert that it

passed because both parties wanted it to

pass. Let me recall that in the 83d

Congress the Hawaii statehood bill,

which has traditionally been first on the

calendar because Hawaii has been an

organized Territory longer than Alaska,

was passed by the House and sent to

this body for action. Notwithstanding

repeated assurances that the Alaska bill

would also be considered, by an almost

strict party-line vote Democrats joined

the Alaska bill to the Hawaii bill. The

result is well known-this shotgun wedding ended in early annulment when the

House refused to act on a joint bill. So,

this year, by not pursuing the same tactic seized upon by the Democrats as the

minority party in 1954, Republicans

proved their adherence to their party

pledge for immediate statehood for

Alaska. There is no doubt that the victory was bipartisan. However, Hawaii's

defeat in 1954 and her unfortunate position today is something that we are very

willing to have the Democrats claim-or

at least acknowledge as their responsibility.

I hope we can get on with this statehood business. Our job is only half

done. Hawaii waits on the doorstep

while we are greeting and congratulating her little sister. Are we to leave the

impression that Hawaii, which has been

an organized Territory since 1900, is less

deserving of statehood than Alaska,

which achieved an organized status in

1913? Do we want Americans to believe that our party pledges on statehood are valid only for Alaska-but meaningless when applied to statehood for Hawaii? Are we prepared to leave the impression with Hawaiians and with the

world that the people of Hawaii, who

first petitioned their Queen to ask for

statehood in 1854-104 years ago-are to

be left out in the cold?

We Republicans stand ready to offer

our support for Hawaii in the same

manner we supported Alaska on the

question of statehood. Just as Alaska's

achievement was not the victory of one

party, nor of one group of men, so will

Hawaii's final victory be a bipartisan

effort. Men of the caliber of Dr. A. L.

MILLER, LEO O'BRIEN, JOHN SAYLOR, ARTHUR WATKINS, JAMES MURRAY, THOMAS

KUCHEL, FRANK CHURCH, and many others

who fought hard for Alaska, will, I am

certain, fight just as hard for Hawaii.

Our minority leader, the Senator from

California [Mr. KNOWLAND], has long

been an ardent advocate of statehood

for Hawaii and Alaska. Hawaii's Governor, Bill Quinn, as youthful and as energetic as Mike Stepovich, is likewise dedicated to statehood for his Territory. Unfortunately, the Delegate from Hawaii

does not appear in the forefront of the

Hawaii statehood action this year.

All we need to achieve statehood for

Hawaii now is the same type of cooperation from the majority leadership

in both Houses of Congress that we received on the Alaska bill. I feel certain

that this cooperation will be tendered

when the majority gets around to feeling

the pulse of the Nation. Americans

everywhere demand statehood for Hawaii.

Let us join together when the job is

finished-when both Hawaii and Alaska

are admitted-and thank the good Lord

for the freedom we enjoy-for the freedom which gives us the power to openly

debate the merits of equal political status

and for the freedom to admit into our

Union full and equal partners-not puppets or satellites.

When we have done that, I think we

may well look the world in the face and

say to the whole world that there is no

territory which is a part of this great

country which we have refused admission into the Union for any reason what-.

ever-no matter what reasons other peoples may assign. Unfortunately, the

reasons which the Reds, the Communists, the Russians, and their satellites

will assign are reasons which are not

true, but they are reasons which cannot

be answered readily. We in America will

take our greatest step forward in one of

our great tests to prove that this is really

a country where all people are created

equal, and retain equal rights, if we admit Hawaii to statehood this year.

We are Americans, and every American can rightfully claim some of the

credit for our acting in accordance with

the principles and precepts of the heritage we received from our forefathers.

METHOD FOR FIXING WAGE RATES

FOR EMPLOYEES OF PORTSMOUTH, N. H., NAVAL SHIPYARDVETO MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 114)

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McNAMARA in the chair) laid before the

Senate the following message from the

President of the United States, which

was read, and, with the accompanying

bill, referred to the Committee on Armed

Services, and ordered to be printed:

To the Senate of the United States:

I return herewith, without my approval, S. 2266, "To provide a method for

regulating and fixing wage rates for employees of Portsmouth, N. H., Naval

Shipyard."

Existing law and practice governing

the setting of wage rates for Department

of Defense wage board employees has

provided that the Department, in each of

the various labor market areas, will follow the wage pattern set by private industry. This has been a most satisfactory arrangement from the standpoint

of the Government. It has been generally fair and equitable to the affected

1958 16009
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

employees and has also been acceptable

in the industrial community.

S. 2266 would provide for a departure

from this basic pattern of determining

wage rates by requiring the Secretary of

the Navy to establish hourly rates of pay

for all per diem employees of the Portsmouth, N. H., Naval Shipyard equal to

the rates paid to employees of similar

classification at the Boston Naval Shipyard.

Approval of S. 2266 cculd have broad

and far-reaching implications on the entire Federal wage structure, for it would serve as a precedent for combining labor

market areas in proximity to one an- other. On the other hand, it is alleged

that inequities exist with respect to the

wages paid at the Portsmouth Naval

Shipyard. I have directed the Secretary

of the Navy carefully to review this entire

situation and to make such adjustments

in the wage rates at this shipyard as his

ieview indicates are warranted.

Such wages should not, however, be

adjusted by legislation. To do so could

ultimately lead to the deterioration of

the present wage board system.

For the above reasons, I regret that I

find it necessary to return the bill without my approval.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 4, 1958.

THE SITUATION IN LEBANON AND

THE MIDDLE EAST

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to have printed in the

RECORD at this point a letter from a very

distinguished citizen of my State, Harry

L. Turtledove, on the Lebanon situation;

I also ask unanimous consent to have cer- tain other items dealing with the Middle

East situation printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter

and other items were ordered to be

printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Oregonian, Portland, Oreg., of

July 21, 1958]

IRONIC

To the EDITOR: American troops are now

in Lebanon, we are told, to protect American

lives and, to use Mr. Eisenhower's words,

"to assist the Government of Lebanon to preserve its territorial integrity and political

independence."

This would suggest that American lives in

Lebanon are somehow more valuable than

American lives in, say, Cuba-not to mention

Iraq. More important, it raises again the

question of the Cairo-Moscow threat in the

Middle East. Sad experience has shownfirst in Syria, then in Lebanon, now most

dramatically in Iraq-that violation of territorial integrity plays little or no role in

Colonel Nasser's and his Russian friends'

plans. Why would it when they can so

successfully subvert these hollow states from

within without risking military intervention?

Of course, the Egyptians and Russians

have aided and abetted the Lebanese rebelsalthough if the U. N. reports are to be taken

seriously the border-crossing question seems

to have been exaggerated in this countrybut does anyone seriously believe that we have not been just as actively, though perhaps not as successfully, aiding and abetting

President Chamoun? It is this miscomprehension of the nature of the Egyptian-Russian threat that made the Eisenhower doctrine as irrelevant at the time of its muchtouted passage as it is today in Lebanon.

What therefore seems to be our real concern is the political independence of Leb- anon. Following the somewhat less than

clarian call-never submitted to his democratically elected Parliament or to his people-of President Chamoun our Armed Forces

have entered his country to protect its political independence. Is it being naive to wonder what government other than that of

Chamoun-or of someone equally committed to our point of view-will now satisfy our test of independence? Or to wonder how

long such a government will survive once American troops are withdrawn, if indeed

they are withdrawn?

It might provide some needed clarification

of American thinking if our action is not

rationalized in pseudo-legal and moralistic terms but judged for exactly what it is: An act of desperate expediency, taken in the

face of grave risks, in order to keep Lebanon

from going the way of Syria and Iraq.

Expediency is, of course, a dirty word in

this country; we enjoy believing that it is

the sort of thing practiced only by immoral

foreigners-that is, those foreigners we don't

happen to like at a given moment. But the

regrettable truth is that any nation, no matter how high-flown its public moral pretensions, reacts in whatever way it considers

necessary to protect its vital interests once

it is convinced, rightly or wrongly, that those

interests are at stake. We did so with suc- cess in Guatemala, the Russians with savage

brutality in Hungary, the British and French

with ineptitude at Suez.

Incidentally, It would not be amiss at this

time-when we who always attach the high- est motives to our own international actions,

nonetheless, find the United Nations somewhat tepid in their enthusiasm over our unilateral action in Lebanon-to recall the

national orgy of moral self-righteousness in

which we wallowed, in the U. N., too, as well as at home, at the time of the Suez invasion.

Nothing has happened, before or since,

that has so strengthened the position of Colonel Nasser as our behavior at that time. It

is at the very least ironic that we-who

helped turn the colonel's military defeat at Sinai into a victory for him-must now send

our own troops into the Middle East in order

to prevent him from scoring still another

victory at our expense.

HARRY L. TURTLEDOVE.

MORSE's ATTITUDE

To the EDITOR: Naturally, everyone expected Senator MORSE to say "I'm agin it"

with regards to our intervention in Lebanon.

However, if our senior Senator had some

member of his family in that troubled area, perhaps he would change his mind (which

he often does).

VERNE M. SOLEY.

RAINER.

WRETCHED STATE

To the EDITOR: It is a wretched state of

human affairs and moral decadence when a country's leaders sink to such a depth as to

value someone else's oil more than its own

citizens' blood.

CARL SCHNOOR.

[From the Chicago Daily News of July 28,

1958]

LIBERAL AT LARGE-SUBMITs His PLAN FOR THE

MIDDLE EAST

(By Harry Barnard)

Having recklessly sent troops there, America now cannot avoid coming up with a

positive policy for the Middle East.

In this regard, we put ourselves on the

spot. The Russian move for a summit meet- ing, which may turn out the one good result

of our impetuosity, was but a turn of an already twisting screw.

A positive Middle East policy calls for

much more than just stability. Nor is it

enough to add the goal of keeping out coma munism, without a program for meeting the

very conditions which make communism

possible.

In the Middle East, as elsewhere, where we seek stability, a social revolution-mainly

leftward-is going on. There will be no stability until this revo- lution runs its course.

If we are smart, also true to our ideals, we will go along with it, hoping to guide it, even encourage it.

First of all, our policy should include a definite stand, sincerely proclaimed, against

all vestiges of colonialism. Many of these

remain in the Middle East.

For example, England still has a protectorate over Kuwait, a patch adjoining Iraq, from

which alone one-third of all Middle East oil comes.

From Kuwait, British and Americans ex- tract a quarter of a billion dollars a year on a 50-50 basis with its sheik. This vestige of

imperialism should go.

If we and our usual partners, the British, extract oil from Arab soil and labor, it should

be as managers or, at the most, junior (very

junior) partners, not as owners or even lessors.

Those 50-50 oil deals, seemingly so fair in an accounting sense, should not be permitted

by our Government. They should be outforever.

The take of private operators should be

related closely, and fairly, to managerial

service (and then only if the service is

wanted) and not, as now, to ownership in one form or another.

"Middle East wealth for Middle East people" (to support needed social reforms)-

that should be our basic principle. This is not followed by deals private operators make

with assorted kings, sheiks, and even presidents, most of whom exploit their own people

and are but window dressing for artificial states that cannot stand except as we or England prop them up.

We should insist that the British, Dutch,

French, and all other Europeans, Russians

included, adopt this policy. Then we, not

the Russians, become the champions of Middle East progress.

This calls for self-denial. It calls for

placing social welfare above shortsighted

military policy which, in view of the new weapons, is unrealistic at the root anyway.

If we do this, then we not only win the

friendship of the Arabs. We also win the

right to advise them on two matters much more important than incidental political

situations in Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan, or the activities of the Russians.

One such matter concerns Nasser, who op- erates much too much like Hitler. The Arabs

won't listen to our warnings about Nassernor will he-unless we convince them of our good intentions.

The other matter concerns Israel.

Israel has the right to exist, or there is

no moral conscience in the world. The

Arabs must learn to accept Israel as the first

step toward fruitful friendship that ought

to replace the destructive antagonism that

now exists.

Through the United Nations, we can and

must insist upon this, but again only because

sympathy for legitimate Arab aspirations

gives us that right.

[From the New York Herald Tribune]

A REPORT ON IRAQ

If an inquiring mind wanted to penetrate

beneath the superficies of Iraqi politics which

showed at the surface of Nuri es Said and cohorts (apparently the only aspect of Iraq

visible to our State Department), it would

discover just what Morris described. Outside

16010 August 4