1950 done is process practically all cases without receiving the returns from the Berlin Docu- ment Center or from the provost marshal. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from Indiana? Mr. JENNER. Has there not been evidence before the committee that those in charge of operating the Displaced Persons Commission in Europe are not concerned primarily with the security of the country, but that their entire ob- jective is to meet quotas, to rush them through, to get displaced persons into America and, so they say, ‘“‘Let’s get the job done, Iect’s get the 205,000 displaced persons here; we don’t care whether they are subversives or Communists, or crim- inals or thu:s, or black marketeers?” Has not that been the whole premise of the operation of the Displaced Persons Commission in Europe? Mr. EASTLAND. It is the result. It is the result of what has happened, be- cause the man in charge of the immi- gration detail in Europe, an American official, says the displaced persons have been processed without receiving the re- turns from the Berlin document center or from the provost marshal—the two pleces in Germany where the information is assembled. Mr. JENNER. I thank the Senator. Mr. EASTLAND. I continue reading the testimony of Mr. Tripp: Question Those are centers where there would be criminal records on individuals? Tir Trier The Berlin Document Center records would indicate Nazi affiliations and the provost marshal records would indicate arrest and convictions, possibly by the Amer- ican authorities, in criminal cases and in some cases convictions in German courts. Question It was because of your check into the BDC records and the provost marshal records that you found these one hundred- odd cases of criminal conviction, 33 of which had already come to the United States, is that right? Mr. Trier That is right. Question. What expression was made to you by the Displaced Persons Commission with reference to why the Displaced Persons Commission would not make BDC checks or provost marshal checks to ascertain whether or not the displaced persons had criminal records? Mr. Tripp. I was told earlier in the program that if a case was held until the BDO checked—— Question What is BDC? Mr Tripp Berlin Document Center—and rrovost mershal checked, it would materially tlow down the program. Question. Who made that statement? Mr. Tripp. I believe the first person I spoke to about it was Mr. Kaplan. That was one of the first things I discussed on arrival in Germany. Mr. Kaplan is Mr. Squadrilli’s execu- tive assistant. Continuing: Question. He is Mr. Squadrilli’s right-hand man? Mr. Tripp Yes; I believe he is the executive assistant. Question. You had nevertheless on your own volition been making in some instances BDC checks and provost marshal checks? Mr. Tripp. We had been making BDO checks, but I had not been making provost marshal checks, but recently, as I say, two groups of reports became available to me, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE and I have now filed a written request with the provost marshal’s office that I be supplied with the result of every fingerprint check. Question. The Displaced Persons Commis- sion decided, as you understand it, that they would take the calculated risk of not waiting until they received this answer from the Berlin Document Center? Mr. Tripp Yes; and also from the provost marshal. Question. Does CIC send a letter to the provost marshal asking for information? Mr. Tripp. That is in regard to finger- printing. Question. Does the Displaced Persons Com- mission cause the Counter Intelligence Corps to give the Commission a report before the final fingerprint records come back from the provost marshal? Mr. Tripp. I have not been able to find out just what those procedures are on the finger- prints. Question. Well, at any rate, as I under- stand it, leaving out the fingerprints for a moment, your information is that, although the Displaced Persons Commission requests the CIC to make this report as to the ap- plicant’s character and history and all that, the CIC sends over a communication to the Berlin Document Center asking what their records show, yet the Displaced Persons Com- mission has told the CIC to get word back to the Commission about this application with- out waiting for a response from the Berlin Document Center; is that right? Mr. Tripp. That is right. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Sen- ator from Nebraska? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. In connection with applicants who have been admitted as displaced persons under the definition now used, has the Displaced Persons Commission vetoed or overruled any of the applications which have been affir- matively approved by the IRO, referring especially to cases in which the records were falsified? Mr. EASTLAND. it has. Mr. WHERRY. Have there been many instances of it, percentagewise? Mr. EASTLAND. I do not know the answer to that. Mr. WHERRY. Did they do it volun- tarily, or was the matter brought to their attention by the consular agent or the immigration authorities? Mr. EASTLAND. I do not know. My judgment is that they act voluntarily. Mr. WHERRY. Is it not correct that, although the law does not provide that tests of eligibility made by the employees of the IRO must be accepted by the Dis- placed Persons Commission, they are nevertheless actually accepted? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. They are actually ac- cepted. Then, there is no authority, is there, on the part of the consular agent or the immigration authorities to veto the procedure now being followed by the IRO? Mr. EASTLAND. Except under the general immigration law. Mr. WHERRY. I understand. Mr. EASTLAND, But not under the Displaced Persons Act. Mr, WHERRY. That was the question asked this morning by the Senator from Michigan. It seems to me, so far as the In some instances 2735 junior Senator from Nebraska is cone cerned, it is the big issue in connection with the pending subject. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator is cor- rect about that. Mr. WHERRY. The question of quo- tas is another matter. I should like to ask the Senator further, is ours the only country which allows foreigners to sit on a board, such as the board of the IRO, to pass on the applications of persons seeking admission to this country? Mr. EASTLAND. Ours is the only country which permits a foreign inter- national organization to have anything to do with the admittance of displaced persons for the purpose of becoming citi- zens. Mr. WHERRY. The burden of the remarks of the Senator from Mississippi, if I understand correctly, is to the effect that what the committee proposes through the amendments offered by it is to prescribe a definition. Is that correct? Mr. EASTLAND. It is to prescribe a definition as broad as the IRO defini- tion—but it is to be our definition. Mr. WHERRY. What does it define? Mr. EASTLAND. It defines a dis- placed person. Mr. WHERRY. That is, the admin- istration of the law shall be adjusted to provide for a board or agency of the United States Government which is to approve or veto finally the applications of displaced persons to enter the United States. Is that correct? Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct. Furthermore, it is to initiate the appli- cation; that is, the United States repre- sentatives will select those who are to be permitted to enter the country. Mr. WHERRY. Whois opposing it? Mr. EASTLAND. Ido not understand why it should be opposed; but it is not so provided in the substitute which is to be offered. Mr. WHERRY. What does the sub- stitute provide which is in contradiction of that? Mr. EASTLAND. In that respect it carries forward the present law. Mr. WHERRY. That is, the present definition of a displaced person, under IRO? Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. Does the substitute bill in any way modify it? Mr. EASTLAND. It carries forward the system that is in vogue now. Mr. WHERRY. Does the substitute provide that a Government agency, such as the Immigration Service, may veto the application of a displaced person desir- ing to enter the United States who has been certified by the IRO and the Dis- placed Persons Commission? Mr. EASTLAND. I think a fair inter- pretation of existing law is that it could be done, but it is not the present practice. Mr. WHERRY. In other words, with- out a new definition, such as the com- mittee proposes, even though technically the result which I mentioned might be brought about, yet there is not the will to doit. Is that correct? Mr.EASTLAND. That is entirely cor- rect. The administrative policy in the
2736 fleld of qualifying a person as a dis- placed person has been that the deci- sion of the Displaced Persons Commis- sion shall be final. Mr. WHERRY. If it is provided under existing law, and if the substitute also contains the provision, why should there be objection to the committee bill? Mr. EASTLAND. The substitute does not so provide; the committee bill does. Mr. WHERRY. I know the commit- tee bill contains the provision; but, even technically, if the present law provides what we are here attempting to do, what objection is there to the committee bill as amended, the purpose of which is to accomplish a proper administration of the act? Mr. EASTLAND. There should be no objection. Mr. WHERRY. That is what I am trying to find out. Mr. EASTLAND. There should be none. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I de- sire to ask the Senator another ques- tion. I am not sure the Senator knows, because I am not certain the testimony is here. Early in the debate, the distin- guished Senator said certain records were falsified, according to the testimony of & man named Main, if I am not mis- taken. There was a case in which a man went into a town, contacted the official, whoever he is, who makes the record, and persuaded him to falsify the record so that applicant would become eligible under IRO. Mr. EASTLAND. It was not one case. There is testimony as to 3,500 such cases in one area. Mr. WHERRY. I asked why it was, and the answer from the distinguished Senator was that they received money for it. I should like to ask the distin- guished Senator whether these appli- cants have any money? Mr. EASTLAND. There is plenty of money in black-market operations. Many of them have money. Mr. WHERRY. Many of the appli- cants have money? Mr. EASTLAND. Certainly. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. JENNER. Is it not true that the committee had evidence that there was in the black market plenty of 50- and 100-dollar bills, “green money,” as it is called, which is American money, which displaced persons have been handling? Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. The matter is becom- ing more involved. Mr. JENNER. money. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. WHERRY. I do not suppose the Senator has evidence as to where that money came from. Mr, EASTLAND. I would judge that {t came from New York, but I do not know. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. It was New York CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. JENNER. It is Series B money, from the New York district. I do not know how it got to Europe. Mr. EASTLAND. I will yield here, without prejudicing my right to the floor, to the distinguished Senator from Indiana, who heard the testimony on that point. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from Indiana has already answered the ques- tion. Mr. EASTLAND. I should like to see if he can answer it to the satisfaction of the majority leader. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, I in- tend to go into the subject in detail when I speak on the bill, but, in order to make it clear to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, there is an organized black market. The heads of it are dis- placed persons. They not only have plenty of money, but it is American money, series B, from the New York dis- trict, 50- and 100-dollar bills. We had evidence that they are using American ambulances, driven by displaced per- sons, which are filled with cigarettes and things of that kind. Some of the displaced persons have plenty of money. Mr, EASTLAND. There is a report from a senior officer of the Displaced Persons Commission to the Commission itself referring to corruption in the IRO, which initiates all the applications. Mr. WHERRY. That was the very point I was trying to get from the Sena- tor from Mississippi. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes; for a question. Mr. WHERRY. What I am trying to do is to justify the definition we are at- tempting to establish in section 3 of the bill. With the evidence which has been submitted, which has not been available to Members of the Senate, and knowing the distinguished Senator from Missis- sippi as I do—I am satisfied that he is a man of not only high integrity, but of honor—it causes one who is trying to make up his mind in voting on a defini- tion, to think very seriously. I cannot, for the life of me, see why there should be any objection to some Government agency, whether it be the consular serv- ice or some other agency, having the last word in vetoing the application of a dis- placed person if there is any reason to believe that the applicant should not be admitted. I cannot sec why there should be any objection to that. Mr. EASTLAND. I cannot, either. I thank the distinguished Senator for his personal reference and compliment. It is not a question of veracity on my part. I have simply read the testimony of offi- cers of the Government. The Senate can make up its own mind whether the testi- money is correct. Frankly, I think it is. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. WHERRY. Does the definition which is proposed by the committee in any way discriminate against any dis- placed person? Mr. EASTLAND. There is no sem- blance of discrimination in the com- mittee bill against any racial or re- ligious group as to the definition of a dis- Marcu 8 placed person. There is tremendous dis- crimination in the substitute bill. In fact, the substitute bill is a slander against every individual in the United States through whose veins flows Ger- manic blood. Mr. WHERRY. One more question, if the Senator will yield further. Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. There is no discrimi- nation as to the numbers involved, is there? Mr. EASTLAND. In that respect the committee bill and the substitute are about the same. Mr. WHERRY. So that the big issue is the definition that is proposed to be established by the committee, through its amendment, as opposed to the pres- ent law and what is contained in the substitute. Is that correct? Mr. EASTLAND. Whether we shall take in persons who have suffered and who are of German ethnic origin. Mr. WHERRY. And that runs to the date and to the ethnic origin of the ap- plicant. Is that correct? Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct. Some of the finest citizens in this coun- try are people of Germanic origin. I think many displaced persons in that category would be an asset to the United States. I hope that under any bill we shall take a fair proportion of those persons and not discriminate against them as is attempted to be done in the substitute proposed by the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr, EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. So long as the ques- tion I asked has brought out the answer from the distinguished Senator from Mississippi relative to the persons ex- cluded because of German ethnic origin, I should like to say that in my own State there is a considerable population of the very type of persons the Senator has mentioned. They do not need to have anyone carry a brief for them. They have established themselves as very fine citizens; they are exceptional; they make excellent citizens and are helping to build up not only our citizenship, but our American institutions. It seems to me there should be no discrimination against them. Mr. EASTLAND. The white popula- tion of my State is of as pure Anglo- Saxon blood as can be found in the United States, and I am proud of it. I know the German people are fine peo- ple; I know that people of Germanic ori- gin are among the best people of the country. One of the great aims is to remove the stigma of discrimination against them. That is why the Senate committee has provided for the admis- sion of persons of German ethnic origin. The IRO discriminates against them and says, “They are not our concern. Let us kick them out, even though they suf- fered, even though they supported the Allies. They can starve to death. We care nothing about them. We shall not help them. They are not eligible to come to the United States.” We ratified that in the law in 1948, but to rectify a great wrong, the Senate committee desires to admit persons of
1950 German ethnic origin, if they are other- wise eligible. Such a provision is not in the substitute bill. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President—— Mr. EASTLAND. If the Senator has & question about it—— Mr. KILGORE. I was not going to ask a question on this point. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield to the dis- tinguished Senator from Indiana. Mr. JENNER. Is it not true that un- less some provision is made to take care of persons of German ethnic origin who have been run away from their homes because of the Potsdam agreement, un- less we make it possible for them to come in, there 1s no reason at all for increas- ing the number of displaced persons to 339,000? Is it not a fact that if the present law, which provides for 205,000, were permitted to run out, there would be only a very few war-displaced per- sons left in Europe? Mr. EASTLAND. It would be only the ‘‘hard core” of criminals and mis- fits who could not qualify. Mr. JENNER. So, if we are going to increase the number, as is proposed in both the committee bill and the substi- tute, we must permit persons of Ger- man ethnic origin to come in, or we shall not have any displaced persons at all. Is not that correct? Mr. EASTLAND. That 1s _ correct. One of the greatest crimes in all history was the uprooting from their homes, where their people had lived for cen- turies, of men, women, and children, whose only offense was that through their veins flowed Germanic blood and that a thourand years ago their ancestors had been of German stock. They were turned out into the cold and snow, driven like cattle across eastern and central Europe into Germany, where many of them died on the march like flies. I say chat is one of the greatest crimes in all human history, a crime to which the United States was a party. In this bill we have attompted, in a meager way, to permit some of those persons to come into the United States. They are the real sufferers. That is the real immi- gration problem in Europe today. I say “immigration” because, in the last analy- sis, this is an immigration bill. This is not a displaced persons bill. The real displaced persons have b2en taken care of. Mr. WHERRY and Mr. KILGORE ad- dressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield to the Sen- ator from West Virginia. Mr. KILGORE. The Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Ne- vada have, on the floor, quoted from a report of the Inspector General about certain improper practices by persons trying to come here as displaced persons. While it is true that I have not seen the report, because the report is of a confidential nature, and has been classi- fled as secret-—— CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. EASTLAND. Wait Mr. President——— a minute. Mr. KILGORE. I wonder if the Sena- tor—— Mr. EASTLAND. Wait a minute. Mr. President, the Senator is misquot- ing me. I have not quoted from any confidential report. Mr. KILGORE. I believe so. Mr. EASTLAND. No, I have not. Mr. KILGORE. Has not the Sena- tor quoted from a report of the In- spector General on the subject of fraud? Mr. EASTLAND. I have not quoted from a confidential report. I have re- fused to do so. I said I had refused to do so. I told the distinguished majority leader that he could read the report. The report is here. Mr. KILGORE. Will the Senator from Mississippi give the date of the report? Mr. EASTLAND. It would be a breach of faith, Mr. President, if I quoted from the report, even thouzh to do so would prove my case conclusively. We tried to get it released so that we could quote from it. Mr. KILGORE. I asked the Senator if he would give the date of the report. Mr. EASTLAND. No: I am not going to rut anything in the Recorp from that report. Mr. KILGORE. Merely the There is no secret about the date. Mr. EASTLAND. If the Senator will get the consent of the State Department I will put the date in the Recorp, or I will put a part of the report in the Recorp, Mr. KILGORE. May I ask the distin- guished Senator—— Mr. EASTLAND. Wait a minute, please. If the Senator gets consent, I shall do so. They have declined to permit the use of any part of that report. However, to be absolutely fair and square, I say to the Senator that, regardless of the date in the report the facts set forth in the report prove my case. If the Senator will read the report, he will rea- lize that my conclusion is accurate. Mr. KILGORE. If I may, I should like to ask the Senator another question: Is it not true that the report was written in 1947? Mr. EASTLAND. No, sir; that is not correct. That is incorrect. Mr. KILGORE. Will the Senator state the year in which it was written? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I would be guilty of breach of faith if I used any part of the report. Mr. KILGORE, The reason for my question is that my information indicates the report was written prior to the pas- sage of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct. Mr. KILGORE. Then may I ask why questions of fraud in the report are being used to attack the Displaced Persons Commission? At that time the program was operating under the Immigration Service and State Department. Mr. EASTLAND. As I told the Sena- tor, we have used no part of the report. The Senator heard me tell him that. We have not quoted from it. The Senator heard me tell him that. I stated that if we had used the report it would have date. 2737 proved our case. If the Senator would. read it, he would know that to be the fact. : Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I can- not see how a report written before a governmental agency had been created could prove a case of malfeasance against that agency. Mr. EASTLAND. Will the Senator re- peat his question? Mr. KILGORE. I say, I cannot see bow a report can impute misconduct to @ governmental agency which was not in existence at the time the report was written. Mr. EASTLAND. Who said it did? Will the Senator answer that question? Who said it d.d? Mr. KILGORE. Not by direct state- ment, but by inference. Mr. EASTLAND. Who by inference said it did? Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. No, I should like to have an answer to my question. Mr. KILGORE. I have heard the re- port quoted frequently, but I have never been able to see it, or to find the date of the report. It has always been used in committee, and I heard it used on the floor by the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran] to jmpute misconduct to the employees of the Displaced Persons Commission. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator from Nevada can speak for himself. The Senator from West Virginia has not heard me refer to any information in the report, directly or indirectly, or at- tack any man named in the report be- cause of anything contained in it. I am informed that a portion of the report was read in a meeting of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. KILGORE. One paragraph. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator heard that. He knows as much about the re- port as I do. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. No one has seen the re- port in committee, except one paragraph. The Senator has not quoted from it. Just what is the reason for referring to this very mysterious document here in front of Senators? Mr. EASTLAND. I know pretty well what is in the report. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator ought to be able to tell the Senate and the coun- try something about the report if he is going to use it to bolster his case. Mr. EASTLAND. The distinguished majority leader is an influential man in the administration. The Senator from Nevada has been unable to get the report released. I am sure the distinguished Senator from Illinois could get it re- leased. If he does, if it will destroy the chance of the substitute bill, in my judg- ment, or of any similar bill at this time. We have tried to get it released. We want to make it available. I know pretty well what is in the report, but I cannot use it. I am going to read from a letter which the chairman of the committee
2738 wrote under date of January 10, 1950. I am authorized to do so. When the chairman of the committee gave me the report, he gave it to me with the admoni- tion that it would be a breach of faith to use any information in the report, and we have been careful about that. Mr. LUCAS. The able Senator is very fair and impartial. Mr. EASTLAND, tor. Mr. LUCAS. He knows what good conduct and good ethics are in the Senate. Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. LUCAS. Let me ask the Senator if he thinks it is a legitimate argument for him to bring in a report, pass it about in front of all Senators, talk about it, and tell the country and the world that if he could have this report made public, it would blow everything out of the wa- ter so far as the substitute bill or any other bill was concerned, yet he Knows he cannot disclose it to the Senate. Why does the Senator do that? Mr. EASTLAND. Because the people of the United States are entitled to pro- tection, and because I know that people who have a special interest in the pas- sage of a displaced-persons bill are de- liberately sitting on that report, which is a shame. The report should be re- leased, and I think some publicity on the report and its contents, if we could use it, would result in it being released. I am informed tha a high official has stated that security would not be vio- lated if it were released. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. I still maintain that the argument is not quite fair. The Senator of course, thinks differently. Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Illi- nois would never bring in a report of that kind and stand before the Senate and tell the Senate of the United States, “Here is the report which, if I could get it released, would stop the bill.” Mr. EASTLAND. It certainly would, and the people of this country are enti- tled to information as to what is in the report; and their interests are para- mount. Anything that could be legiti- mately done to get that report released, to shed the blessed sunlight of publicity on the facts which are being held back, would be wholesome. Mr. President, I should like to read the Jetter which the chairman of the com- mittee today has specifically authorized me to read, which he wrote the Secretary of the Army, at the Pentagon Building, attention Colonel Finn, on January 10, 1950. The letter reads: Dear Mr SEcRETARY’ In the course of the last month there has been transmitted to me, pursuant to my request of December 5, 1949, a@ voluminous and detailed report of an in- vestigation which was conducted in 1948 by a certain branch of the Army respecting secur- ity screenings and investigations of persons applying for immigration to the United States as displaced persons. This report was transmitted to me with the condition that the contents thereof be confi- dential to the members of the Senate Com- mittee on the Judiciary. In my opinion, it is vital to the security of the Us.ited States of I thank the Sena- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE America that the information contained in the report be made available to the people of this country. I should be obliged to you if you will, as soon as possible, .dvise me under what con- ditions or circumstances I may be permitted to release any or rll of the information con- tained in the report. Sincerely, PAT MCCARRAN, Chairmen, Mr. President, the report is pertinent to the present inquiry. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. “May I inquire where the Senator got the report? Mr. EASTLAND I got it from the Senator from Nevada. Mr. LUCAS. Does the Senator know where the Senator from Nevada got it? Mr. EASTLAND. Ido not know. He says that 1t was transmitted to him. I do not know where he got it. It was transmitted to him through channels of the Government. Mr. LUCAS’ Can any Senator see the report? Mr. EASTLAND. Not under the re- strictions that were given. I broke faith when I said the Senator could see it. The restriction was that it would be available to the Committee on the Ju- diciary. It was made available, and a portion of it was read. The Senator from West Virginia said one paragraph was read. I think the report by all means should be released, without re- leasing, of course, the sources of infor- mation on which it is based. I bclieve phe People of the country are entitled 0 It. Mr. President. it is a startling thing. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? ti Mr. EASTLAND, I yield for a ques- on. Mr. WHERRY. I am intensely inter- ested in the observations made respect- ing the eligibility requirements of dis- placed persons. Awhile ago it was dis- closed on the floor that many displaced Persons had considerable sums of money. Is not the whole theory of the Displaced Persons Act our desire to provide homes for those who are destitute and poverty stricken? I do not say that all displaced persons are, but in the main we must secure jobs for them and locate them when they come to this country. How does it happen that those who carry money in huge amounts, as has been stated here, are considered to be eligible, so that we have to provide homes for them? Mr. EASTLAND. The testimony is that some of them come to this country to secure American passports in order that they may return and engage in black-market operations. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator mean that they do not want to stay in the United States? Mr. EASTLAND. Wait a moment, please. I want to be fair about this matter. Such cases should not be charged to the whole program. Many good persons have come to the United States under the program. Mr. WHERRY. I am simply trying to obtain the facts. It was shown by MaRcH 3 the evidence that some persons who possessed much money came in as dis- placed persons. Mr. EASTLAND. that. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from Mississippi heard the observations made by the junior Senator from Indiana { Mr, JENNER | ? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. When I heard his re- marks it struck me that we are trying to provide jobs for such persons. I have heard the argument made that it is cheaper to take care of them on the other side than it is in this country; but if they are good people and are entitled to citizenship, we need them. That is the argument which is made. Now we find that some of those who have come here are apparently not in need, so it would make no difference whether they would have a job or not; but they are coming here, according to the Senator from Mis- sissippi, for entirely different purposes. Is not all that screened when the per- sons make application? Is not investi- gation made as to how much money such persons have, and as to their personal situation, when they make application? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. Tripp said there are 30,000 of doubtful cligibility. Mr. WHERRY. Thirty thousand of doubtful eligibility have come into the United States under the present law? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes; out of 100 090. Mr O'’CONOR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. O’CONOR. I ask the Senator from Mississippi, apropos of the ques- tions asked by the Senator from Nebraska, if it is not true that it does not necessarily follow that displaced persons are impecunious or penniless? Mr. WHERRY. Oh, no. Mr. O’CONOR. They might very well have savings as the result of hard work. They may be very hard-working and self- respecting and outstanding persons who have been uprooted, and of course, re- quire a new home. Some of them may be possessed of funds which they have obtained through hard work, and they are coming to the United States to pro- cure a new home, after proper assuranccs are given that they will not displace any workingmen here. Mr. EASTLAND. That is true. But I do not see how they can get out of the jron-curtain countries within a month. The majority are good people. Those whom I know are hard-working people and have made good citizens. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. KILGORE. The Senator from Nebraska spoke of persons who when they came here had considerable sums of money. Were not those who were re- ferred to by the Senator the persons who were testified about by the mysterious Witness X? He said that 100 persons had been mixed up in the coffee smug- gling in Germany, but he cited just four cases, one of whom was in this country. Is that not correct? But there were about a hundred persons mixed up in that coffee smuggling. I want to qualify
1950 Mr. EASTLAND. The whole program should not be condemned because some bad actors have come to the United States. The controversy now does not concern itself with condemnation of the program. The commitee bill would re- sult in practically as many persons being brought here as the substitute. What we are trying to do is to root out the bad actors. The committee bill provides a better method for doing that than does the substitute. Mr. KILGORE. Will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. KILGORE. The Senator stated a little while ago that Mr. Tripp of the Im- migration Service said about 30,000 in- eligibles had come to the United States. Mr. EASTLAND. “Of doubtful eligi- bility,” was his statement. Mr. KILGORE. What does he mean by “doubtful eligibility’? Mr. EASTLAND. Persons who were ineligible to come here under the dis- placed-persons law. Mr. KILGORE. Does he mean in- eligible as displaced persons or ineligible for immigration? Mr. EASTLAND. He means ineligible as displaced persons; that is, persons who have come here under the displaced- persons law. Mr. KILGORE. I do not remember that he testified to a number of 30,000. There was some question about whether they really were displaced persons. Is that not correct? Mr. EASTLAND. Within the mean- ing of our displaced-persons law. Mr. KILGORE. Does not that go largely to the question of whether great numbers of them said they were agri- culturists, who had not followed a plow for a long time? Mr. EASTLAND. No, it does not. Mr. KILGORE. And the big ques- tion was not the date of entry. Mr. EASTLAND. No. Let us not put words in Mr. Tripp’s mouth. Mr. Tripp testified that under the law they were of doubtful eligibility as displaced persons. Mr. KILGORE. Very well. Mr. TYDINGS. Before the Senator Jeave that point, will he yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. Suppose a foreigner in Germany wanted to come to this coun- try as an Immigrant, not as a displaced person. Now suppose a refugee from Latvia is in Germany and wants to come to this country as a displaced person. Are the requirements for the latter the same as for the former? Mr. EASTLAND. No, sir. Mr. TYDINGS. Is it easier, or is it more difficult for the refugee to come here than it is for the citizen who comes in on the quota basis? Mr. EASTLAND. It is much easier for the refugee to come here. Mr. TYDINGS. Is the procedure the Senator is recommending for the refugee the same procedure that an immigrant has to go through in coming to this country? Mr. EASTLAND. Substantially the same. Mr. TYDINGS. In what respect is it more severe and in what respect fs it less severe. Mr. EASTLAND. It is no more severe, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. TYDINGS. Is it practically the same. Mr. EASTLAND. It is practically the same, Mr. TYDINGS. There is however, I would take it, this difference, that the refugee would have to be funneled through more boards than an immigrant would have to be funneled through, be- cause he must begin with a displaced per- sons organization. Mr. EASTLAND. No; he must begin with IRO. Mr. TYDINGS. In my opinion, the International Refugee Organization is a displaced persons organization. Mr. EASTLAND. But it is a separate agency. By the committee bill we take the IRO out of the picture. Mr. TYDINGS. What the Senator is advocating, and what an immigrant com- ing to this country would have to go through by way of screening is that in the case of the refugee he must be ac- credited by the IRO in addition to what the immigrant has to go through. Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. TYDINGS. In all other respects the committee bill provides for screening with the same machinery in essence, and with the same procedures in essence, that an immigrant would have to go through if he were coming from one of the west- ern European countries? Mr. EASTLAND. That is substantial- ly correct. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. KILGORE. Under the committee bill, is 1t a fact that the Displaced Per- sons Commission may be reversed by the State Department? Mr. EASTLAND. Not as to eligibility under the Displaced Persons Act. Mr. KILGORE. Icall attention to the use of the word “final” in an amend- ment placed in the bill by the senior Senator from Missouri [Mr. DonNELL]. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I placed in the Recorp today the order of the Displaced Persons Commission which has been adhered to, and that adjudica- tion is final. Mr. President, I quote further from Mr. Tripp, who speaks of screening and fingerprinting: ‘ Mr Tripp. I have not been able to find out just what those procedures are, on the finger- print check. Question. Well, at any rate, as I under- stand it, leaving out the fingerprints for the moment, your information is that, although the Displaced Persons Commission requests the CIC to make this report as to the appli- cant’s character and history and all that, the CIC sends over a communication to the Borlin Document Center asking what their records show, yet the Displaced Persons Com- mission has told the CIC to get work back to the Commission about this appli- cant without waiting for a response from the Berlin Document Center; 1s that right? Mr. Tripp. That is right. Question. And they have also said the same thing to the CIC with regard to the reports from the provost marshall; is that right? Mr. Tripp. That is right. Mr. President, I shall digress from that testimony for a moment. The distin- guished senior Senator from Maryland asked me about the difference in the 2739 bills and I inadvertently forgot to tell one principal difference. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, before the Senator comes to that, and while he is on the subject I formerly questioned him concerning, let me say that this is a@ very comprehensive proposition in both the committee bill and the substi- tute. Only those members who have served on the committee and have had the good fortune to know all the facts can form the kind of judgment on it that we would all like te form. But it seems to me that the proposition of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. KIL- GoRE], on the one hand, and that of the chairman of the committee, the Sena- tor from Nevada |Mr. McCarran], on the other, are not so far apart but that reasonable men can get together and with a little give and take provide ade- quate screening without going too far and requiring too-rigid screening on the one hand or leaving the door wide open on the other. Either extreme is bad. Mr. EASTLAND. But there is this feature: The committee bill removes the discrimination against persons of Ger- man ethnic origin. There are millions of good people who are of German ethnic origin; in fact, the real displaced per- sons problem is in connection with per- sons of German ethnic origin. Mr. TYDINGS. Would the committee bill allow them to be classified as dis- placed persons? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes; and the com- mittee bill would permit a reasonable number of them to be admitted into the United States. But that provision is not to be found in the substitute of the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator from Maryland is totally presumptuous in try- ing to tell the members of the Judiciay Committee, who have spent weeks in studying this matter, how to deal with it. The suggestion I put forth sprang from very good motives, because aftcr having taken part in the debate on sev- eral occasions, for the purpose of obtain- ing information, it is somewhat difficult for me to understand why there is not a reasonable ground for an agreement which will accomplish the objective of the bill and at the same time will pro- tect the United States. I am a little uncertain as to why that cannot be ac- complished. I do not wish anyone to surrender his principles; I do not advo- cate that. But it seems to me that both sides are so close together that, with a little give and take, we could have a very good bill which would not greatly alter the point of view of the Senator from Mississippi or the point of view of the Senator from West Virginia. I do not see why the matter the Senator from Mississippi has just pointed out could not be taken into consideration in that connection. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course, Mr. Pres- ident, I am not in charge of the bill. The Senator from Nevada is in charge of the bill. Aside from the provision for persons of German ethnic origin, I cannot see much difference between the two bills. Aside from that question, how in the world there could be dispute over the provisions of the Senate committee bill
2740 {s something I cannot understand. There is a fuss because Mr. L’Heureux, of the State Department, requested au- thority for the consular service to veto an applicant on the ground that he did not qualify under the act. Some of the gentlemen associated with my friend, the Senator from West Virginia, say that authority already is provided. If so, then I cannot understand why Senators hesitate to have it provided in the bill. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. tion. Mr. TYDINGS. I think the position taken by the Senator from Mississippi in his last remark shows that the door is wide open for constructive and reason- able and sensible agreement in respect to the points in conflict. The Senator him- self has said that the points are not so far apart that reasonable men cannot agree. It seems to me that the differences re- garding the German ethnic origin phase of the matter, which is in dispute, are such that they could be adjusted. Mr. EASTLAND. That question could not be compromised. Mr. TYDINGS. No doubt it would be possible to reach agreement on the other points separately. Many of us who are not on the committee are confused about the situation. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I have stated time and time again that there are questions which certainly should be compromised. But there can- not be any compromise on the question of the admission of persons of German ethnic origin. Mr. TYDINGS. How many of them would there be? Mr. EASTLAND. The committee pro- vision was a very reasonable one, but is was immediately ignored. Mr. TYDINGS. How many would it provide for? Mr, EASTLAND. The Senator from West Virginia has the same provisions, as I understand, in his substitute; but it is meaningless, because the author- ities will not enforce it. So it does not mean anything. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, if the Senator will permit me to say a word, with the understanding that he will not lose the floor, I should like to reply to the question asked by the Senator from Maryland. The primary difference arises over a question of interpretation in re- spect tothe IRO. Regardless of whether persons come to the United States or do not come to the United States, the United States will still have to take care of them, under the agreement. The substitute provides for preference for approximately 54,000 persons of Ger- man ethnic origin, based upon the prop- osition of mortgaging the German and Austrian quotas, and still leaves the total number of displaced persons within the IRO classification, in order to carry out the agreement which the United States has through the United Nations. The committee bill throws the whole German-ethnic group in with the IRO, making, instead of, let us say, 300,000 persons with whom we must deal, 8,300,- 000 persons. That is the primary dif- ference. I yleld for a ques- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, to be frank, we must agree that the hard core of war displaced persons have al- ready been taken care of. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I do not wish to pro- long the discussion. I apologize for again injecting myself into it. But knowing the capacity of the Senator from West Virginia for constructive thinking and achievement, and likewise the talents of the able Senator from Mississippi, I would hope that those of us who have not acquired the familiarity with this problem that these two eminent members of the Judiciary Committee have, might meet tonight or at some other time between now and Monday and might ascertain whether an area of agreement can be reached, so that those of us who wish to do the right thing will be able tu do so. Mr. KILGORE. The Senator from Mississippi and I have discussed such a modus operandi frequently in the past. Is not that true? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes; but we cannot have any agreement on the question of whether a foreign agency, an interna- tional agency, staffed with aliens, can have anything to do with the selection of the persons who are to become citizens of the United States; and I do not believe my friend, the Senator from Maryland, would vote for such a proposition. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I cannot believe that the two Senators can fail to reach agree- ment regarding these things; and it would be most helpful to those of us who do not know much about these mat- ters, to have the two Senators sit down and do that, between now and Monday. I earnestly hope they will. Mr. O’CONOR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. O’CONOR. I should like the Sen- ator to permit me to read a proposed amendment which was drafted at the time when the bill was before the Senate in October, and which could be offered now. I had it drafted at that time, and had it ready for submission. It pro- vides: Nor shall any displaced person be accepted for admission into the United States until he shall have been personally examined by representatives of the Displaced Persons Commission, the Immigration and Naturali- gation Service of the Department of Justice, the Consular Service of the Department of State, and appropriate intelligence agencies of the Government of the United States, each of whom— And they are not international or for- eign organizations, Mr. President— shall certify that each such displaced per- son has been personally interviewed for se- curity and other purposes; and each such re- port shall indicate by whom such person has been interviewed and the disposition which has been made on the basis of the in- terviews, field investigations, and all infor- mation developed from pertinent and rele- vant sources, Mr. EASTLAND. That amendment would be all right, provided the Immigra- MarcH 8 tion and Naturalization Service would have authority to veto an application if the applicant did not meet those tests. Mr. O’'CONOR. Of course, they would not certify that the applicant did qualify under the tests for those purposes, unless he did. Mr. EASTLAND. I think the Sen- ator’s amendment includes the provision I have in mind, with reference to a veto by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Of course, with that provision included, the amendment would be a very constructive one. I read further from the testimony of Mr. Tripp: Question. Well, at any rate, as I under- stand it, leaving out the fingerprints for the moment, your information js that, although the Displaced Persons Commission requests the CIC to make thir report as to the appli- cant’s character and history and all that, the CIC sends over a communication to the Ber- lin Document Center asking what their rec- ords show, yet the Displaced Persons Com- mission has told the CIC to get word back to the Commission about this applicant with- out waiting for a response from the Berlin Document Center; is that right? Mr. Tripp. That is right. Question. And they have also said the same thing to the CIC with regard to the reports from the provost marshal; is that right? Mr Tripp. That is right. Question. In other words, the Displaced Persons Commission, in order to expedite the handling of these displaced persons, has said, “We will take the calculated risk that may result from the failure to get those two re- ports”; is that right? Mr. Trp. That is right. Question. Who is it that issued that kind of statement, do you know? Mr. Tripp. I do not know who may have issued the instruction. Question. I mean the statement to the effect that they were willing to take the cal- culated risk. Mr. Tripp Mr. Kaplan told me that. Question. He is Mr. Squadrilli’s right- hand man? Mr. TRIPP. Yes. Question. He is the man that really runs Mr. Squadrilli’s office affairs? Mr. Tripp. He is the executive assistant. Question. Where was he when he made that statement—in whose presence, and when? Mr. Trp. That was at Frankfurt on the day I arrived in Germany. I believe I dis- cussed it with him again in the first month I was there. Question. Now that calculated risk that they have taken in at least the cases you have told us about was quite a risk in the 96 cases, the criminal cases, was it not? Mr. Trip. Yes. Question. Well, how many cases have come to you from the Displaced Persons Commis- sion since your conversation with Mr. Kaplan in which he told you of this determination that they would accept the calculated risk? Mr. Tripp. Around 125,000. Mr. President, there are 125,000 cases on which the security check was not finished, and in connection with which the Displaced Persons Commission said it would take a calculated risk that such persons would not harm the United States. I read further from the testimony: Question. On those 125,000 cases, am I cor- yect in my understanding that it is your belief that there has been followed this plan of taking the calculated risk by not waiting for the Berlin Document Center, and by not
1950 waiting for the Provost Marshal's report; is that right? Mr. Tripp. That is right. Question. Now, do you think, Mr. Tripp, from your knowledge over this long period of years, that a calculated risk of that kind is a pretty serious thing for the security of our Nation. Mr. Tripp. I think it is dangerous. With reference to the security investi- gations, Mr. Edward M. Glezek, who was formerly employed with the Displaced Persons Commission in Germany, in a report dated May 11, 1949, addressed to the Chairman of the Displaced Persons Commission in Washington, stated among other things: There is hardly an effort made to screen applicants and the burden of this activity is left to CIC, United States consulate, and law-enforcement agencies at the port of em- barkation Mr President, think of that. Here is a former employee of the Displaced Per- sons Commission saying there is hardly an effort made to screen applicants, and that the burden is borne by the CIC and the consulate at the port of embarka- tion. I continue: The attitude of the Commission has been to critize the CIC agency’s restricted re- ports as being a deterrent favor in the proc- essing of required quota of applicants It appears that the Commission is more interested in filling the quota than in the quality of the processed applicants. Conse- quently, people who have falsified documents and who have much to hide in their per- sonal-history records have their cases pushed along without an investigation to ascertain the validity of their documents. Thus many persons are finding their way with completely false information about themselves. The senior officer of the Commission in the field for whom I worked has repeatedly re- fused to grant me permission to call the ap- plicants for interview in order to determine their eligibility. The reason given was that this procedure would hold up the cases from 2 to 3 weeks. Similarly, documentation which appeared incorrect could not be sent to the IRO for correction because this organization refused to correct any statement it has once certified. In practice, there were many such incor- rect certifications, and it was the duty of the Commission personnel to pass these on for further processing. Restricted CIC reports which contained derogatory information about applicants were also dealt with in the same manner, by refusal to call the appli- cant in for clarification. I have in my possession copies of analyst reports of such restricted cases where I had to use an ingenious method of explaining away the remarks which were included in the CIC report, in order that these appli- cants may qualify. Mr. Donald W. Main, who is a senior officer of the Displaced Persons Commis- sion in charge of the Munich area in Germany testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on February 15, 1950, that although the displaced persons law requires a thorough inves- tigation, the central intelligence agency is not given sufficient time in which to make their investigations. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from Ilhnois? Mr, EASTLAND. I yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. LUCAS. May I inquire of the able Senator from Mississippi how long he had expected to speak? Mr. EASTLAND. How long is the Sen- ate expected to sit today? Mr. LUCAS. I had hoped to adjourn probably by 6 o’clock. Mr. EASTLAND. I have considerably more to say, but I should rather speak tomorrow, or, if the pending bill is dis- placed, to speak for a few minutes on another feature of the bill when it is re- sumed. I ‘think the Senate can save time in that way, because I think I could cut it down to 15 or 20 minutes when we reconvene tomorrow. Mr. LUCAS. I was merely inquiring. I do not want to detain the Senator an- other hour and a half, unless he desires to continue, Mr. EASTLAND. I thank the majority leader. I should rather continue tomor- row. It would not take long. If we were to recess at this time, I think I could conclude in 15 or 30 minutes tomorrow— 30 minutes at the most. Mr. LUCAS. It is agreeable to me, if it is agreeable to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. KILGORE. I have no objection. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Mississippi may resume the floor tomorrow at 12 o’clock, when the Senate reconvenes. The VICE PRESIDENT. jection, it is so ordered. RECESS Mr. LUCAS. I now move that the Sen- ate stand in recess until 12 o’clock to- morrow. The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o’clock and 41 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Saturday, March 4, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. Without ob- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Fripay, Marcu 3, 1950 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Bras- kamp, D. D., offered the following prayer: Most merciful and gracious God, hum- bly and confidently we are again turning to Thee in the sacred attitude of prayer, beseeching Thee to inspire us with a re- assuring sense of Thy presence, Thy peace, and Thy power. Grant that with increasing tenacity of faith we may lay hold upon the glorious promise that they who wait upon the Lord shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint. May we count it our highest calling to incarnate and emulate the life of our Lord and our highest wisdom to commit our baffled minds and burdened hearts to the discipline and leading of His spirit. In His name we pray. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of yes- terday was read and approved. SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED Mr. KILBURN asked and was given permission to address the House on Mon- 2741 day next for 5 minutes, following any special] orders heretofore entered. Mr. JAVITS asked and was given per- mission to address the House on Tues- day next for 15 minutes, following any special orders heretofore entered. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mrs. ST. GEORGE asked and was given permission to extend her remarks in the Recorp and include a letter from a constituent. COAL MINES SEIZURE Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, words need not be wasted as to the critical charac- ter of the emergency in coal. There are indications from administration sources that the President believes he has in- herent powers to seize the coal mines and may do so. I ask that the President do not act except with the Congress. The Congress is in session and seizure under such conditions as the Executive alone may impose may well defeat itself in view of recent history in the coal situa- tion, while seizure under conditions es- tablished by the Congress will insure the support of the country. My own National Emergency Seizure Act of 1949 (H. R. 5006), giving a prac- tical and, indeed, a liberal plan for deal- ing immediately and realistically with the emergency is one plan—there are other plans. The President should immediately an- nounce to the country that if the United Mine Workers and the mine owners have not agreed on a contract by Monday noon he will at that time present his recom- mendations to the Congress requesting seizure legislation or other means to deal with the crisis. The grave questions in- volved demand nothing less than the whole effort of Government—not just the Executive effort. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. CHURCH asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an address delivered last night by Franklyn B. Snyder, presi- dent emeritus of Northwestern Univer- sity. Mr. JOHNSON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. Mr. LEFEVRE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and include two newspaper articles. Mr. SADLAK asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp and include an editorial. Mr. NORBLAD asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include extraneous material. Mr. DOLLIVER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a radio talk by R. K. Bliss entitled “Abraham Lincoln, Great Friend of Agriculture.” Mr. LANE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the
2742 Recorp in two instances and include in one a letter sent to him and in the other an editorial that appeared in the Boston Globe. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ad- dress the House for 1 minute and to re- vise and extend my remarks and include an article by Mr. Kluttz. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. [Mrs. Rocers of Massachusetts ad- dressed the House. Her remarks appear in the Appendix.] PEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tlinois? There was no objection. Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to a dangerous rider that has been placed on the oleo bill in conference modifying the Federal Trade Commission Act. I do this by inserting a copy of a telegram addressed to me pertaining to this dan- gerous rider. The telegram from Ed- ward A. Zimmerman, of Chicago, IIL, reads as follows: Hon. Noa M. MASON, Member of Congress, House of Representatives: Oleomargarine bill, H. R. 2023, to be re- ported by conference committee by Monday contains sinister addition to Trade Commis- sion Act not confined to oleomargarine. Ad- dition to section §-L of Trade Commis- ston Act in section 4-C of H. R. 2023 makes $5,000 penalty apply to each separate day of violation of Trade Commission orders which are always so general as to confuse the average businessman. This could pank- rupt small business. Please investigate and take action to prevent this dangerous in- crease in bureaucratic police power. AMUSEMENT TAX Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, more than 6,000 residents of my district have recently written me urging that relief be accorded taxpayers still compelled to pay a 20-percent tax on theater admis- sions and other forms of amusement. The 11 Democratic members of the Paterson, N. J., Board of Aldermen have resolved that this tax is a real burden upon ordinary citizens seeking entertain- ment and they plead for relief. I agree with my people and I am glad to see them exercising their right of pe- tition in this way. More than a year ago when the gentleman from Massachu- setts (Mr. Martin] introduced his excise- tax relief bill, I announced publicly my support. Last year I signed the dis- charge petition to force this measure to the floor. Iam sorry that the President CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE fn his recent tax message failed to sug- gest any relief from this tax. Neverthe- less, Mr. Speaker, I hope administration forces in the House will soon report out @ bill. All I want is a chance to vote. DISLOYAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- {mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, I picked up this morning’s paper and saw an article by Bert Andrews in the Washington Post to the effect that Presiden. Truman said yesterday that he is the only one in the Government who has taken concrete action to rid Federal agencies of disloyal persons. Since I have been a Member of Con- gress I have been watching the work that has been done by the Dies committee and the Un-American Activities Com- mittee, and then have seen the state- ments made by the Chief Executive about drawing a red herring across the trail in the case of Communists they have brought to light. It just does not make sense that a man who has the high office of President of the United States would make a statement of that kind. It is repugnant and repulsive to the average American citizen, when he knows that that is not the condition. Oh, for honest men in high office. FEDERAL AMUSEMENT EXCISE TAX Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks and include extraneous mat- ter. The SPEAKER. Is there obicction to the request of the gentleman from Oregon? There was no objection. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have re- ceived thousands of communications from my congressional district urging the repeal of the Federal amusement ex- cise tax which was imposed during the war. I follow the practice of answering so far as possible every letter I receive from a resident of my congressional dis- trict. However, so many thousands of letters are coming in to me daily urging the repeal of the wartime nuisance ex- cise taxes that I find it impossible with the staff available to me to make per- sonal answers to these letters. I issued a news release some time ago announcing that I favor the repeal of these taxes as I believe we should keep the promise we made when the taxes were imposed that they would be repealed when the war ended. Furthermore, the continuation of these nuisance taxes is impeding business, add- ing to the unemployed rolls and in the long run will not bring in as large rev- enues to the Federal Government as would be the case if they-are repealed. I introduced H. R. 7882 which has for its purpose the repeal of these excise taxes and I have also signed Discharge Petition No. 5 to bring out H. R. 2100, Representative MarTIN’s bill having the MARCH 8 same purpose and I have urged the Ways and Means Committee of the House to report the bill out so that we may act on it without further delay. I hope all of my correspondents in my congressional district whose letters I have not been able to answer will note my position on this legislation. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. WHEELER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp and include therein certain reso- lutions passed by the Georgia Legislature. Mr. PRIEST asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an article from Tax Review, written by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. Mr. BIEMILLER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include some material from the Christian Science Monitor. Mr. BOLLING asked and was given permission tc extend his remarks in the Recorp in three instances, in each to in- clude an editorial. Mr. SULLIVAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial from the St. Louls Star-Times of February 20. Mr. ROONEY asked and was given permissicn to extend his remarks in the REcorD and include an editorial entitled “Pope Pius XII Living Symbol of Peace.” Mr. PRICE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp in two instances, in each to in- clude an editorial. Mr. BRYSON asked and was given per- m.ssion to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a newspaper article. PRESIDENT TRUMAN’S ORDER WIPING OUT SEGREGATION IN OUR ARMED FORCES SHOULD BE REVOKED AT ONCE Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mis- sissippi? There was no objection. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest blunders that could possibly have been made at this time was the President’s order wiping out segregation in our armed forces. If we should get into another conflict, it would do more to cripple our national defense than anything else that has taken place since Pear] Harbor. I am appealing to the President through this record to revoke that order at once and not let it cripple our national defense in this critical hour. The country has just witnessed a tragic example when a bomber plane was turned over to a Bolivian Negro who could not pass the examination for a pilot’s license in this country. The re- sult was one of the most disastrous air- plane crashes this country ever saw, in which he killed 58 of the finest Ameri- cans who ever lived, including a distin- guished Member of the Congress of the United States. I do not know who advised‘the Presi- dent to issue this order, but I sincerely
1950 hope that he will realize its dangers and revoke it at once, and not permit it to cripple our armed forces or to injure our program of national defense at this criti- cal time. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIME STUDY COMMITTEE Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Sub- committee To Investigate Crime and Criminal Conditions of the Committee on the District of Columbia may sit today during general debate. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. ANGELL and Mr. JOHNSON asked and were given permission to revise and extend the remarks they expect to make today in Committee of the Whole on the Alaskan and Hawaiian statehood bills and include extraneous matter. EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT ABOLISHING SEGREGATION IN THE ARMED FORCES Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? There was no objection. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take exception to the comments which the gentleman from Mississippi made in regard to the President’s executive order. I think if there ever was a time in the history of the world when we should sub- scribe to democratic principles and when we should forget the differences in color, the differences in race, and the differ- ences 1n religion, it is today. There is no distinction in the eyes of God of any human being. We know that from the study of the Holy Scriptures, We realize that a human being, regardless of his race, his color, or his creed, is a child of God in the eyes of God. Our founding fathers made provisions that all men should be equal and have an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness. Certainly, as long as discrimination exists in our Nation we are not fully democratic, and as long as discrimina- tion is extant in the most famous and leading democracy in the world, we can- not set an example to the millions of people of other races and creeds, to whom we extol the virtues of democracy and upon whom we seek to impress the fact that we do believe-in the real prin- ciples of democracy. The President’s executive order against race discrimina- tion in our armed services is, 1n my opin- ion, a long overdue extension of the prin- ciple of democracy. If a colored man is worthy to serve in our armed services and offer his life in the service of his country, he is worthy of equality of treatment and the full privileges of our democracy. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from California has expired. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my re- marks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take exception to the remarks of the gen- tleman from California who preceded me. Further, I wish to interpose an ob- jection to an order issued by the Secre- tary of Defense and approved by the President which abolishes segregation in the armed forces of the United States. I believe that I can speak with some authority on this subject because I served in the armed forces for over 5 years. Following 2 years of continuous service in the south Pacific theater of war, I re- turned to the United States and was as- signed duty at the United States Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Tex. In addition to my regular duties at Corpus Christi I was assigned special duty during the month of March or April 1944 as officer of the day at the station. I served in such capacity, subject only to the or- ders of the commanding officer of the station, from 8 o'clock in the evening until 8 o’clock in the morning. I well recall one incident which timely tllus- trates specifically what the results of the nonsegregation order will mean. On this particular occasion I was noti- fled by the officer in charge of the sta- tion dispensary that three men had just been admitted and were suffering from multiple abrasions and lacerations. I was further informed that a fight was taking place near the barracks area. Upon investigation, I found approxi- mately one hundred and fifty or two hundred men of the white and colored races 1n what is commonly called ‘‘a race riot or free for all.” To dispel this un- fortunate situation it was necessary for me to call out both the seamen guard and marine detachment assigned to the base. After due time, order was restored but not until after twenty-five to fifty men had been injured. Proper investigation was made by the commanding officer and others respon- sible for the good order and discipline of the base. As a result of such investiga- tion, it was the conclusion of all con- cerned that the primary cause of the al- tercation was the effort to impose and re- quire compulsory integration of the two races. The compulsory nonsegregation order will injure and endanger our national defense system and organization more than the Communist Party. It will cause an untold amount of dissension and in- surrection among the ranks of our fight- ing men. That is true regardless of what anyone has to say about civil rights. The racial problem is without doubt one of the greatest this country faces. However, that problem cannot be cured or solved by legislative fight or executive order or proclamation. It can only be solved by education, tolerance, under- standing, religious teaching, and time. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from South Carolina (Mr. Hare] has expired. 2743 SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, SCIENCE, AND COMMERCE Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcom- mittee on Health, Science, and Commerce may sit during general debate this after- noon. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ten- nessee? There was no objection. THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from IIli- nois? There was no objection. Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, for a num- ber of months, dispatches from the As- sociated Press have reported statements appearing in newspapers of the Arab countries which indicate they are looking to the next round of their war with the Israeli. They assert that the conflict temporarily concluded was but a pre- liminary skirmish and that there will be no doubt of the outcome of the next engagement. The receipt of vast quan- tities of arms from England adds fuel to their flame and gives substance to their threat. The situation to preserve peace in the Middle East has deteriorated steadily. The arming of the Arabs has continued at asteady pace. Apparently, Egypt has made available to other Arab nations a portion of the weapons she received from Britain. In the meantime our State Department has steadfastly looked in other directions, making no protest to England and totally ignoring the alarm- ing developments in the Middle East. If our aim is to preserve peace by fur- nishing assistance to the people of all democratic nations so they may live free from the theat of aggression by outside powers, as has been stated on many oc- casions by our Secretary of State, then we must use our influence before it is too late. Permitting the flow of jet planes and Sherman tanks to one of the parties to a temporary armistice rather than to both on an equal basis, is not calculated to bring an eventual peaceful and equitable adjustment of an emo- tional dispute, which is still far from settled. The argument by the State De- partment that the cold war requires the present flow of arms to the Arab coun- tries is difficult indeed to accept w.thout a@ corresponding opportunity being given to Israel to participate in the same pro- gram, particularily in view of the fact that the Israeli have already proved themselves against overwhelming odds much more accomplished in defending their Jand than have the aggressors. Mr. Speaker, the time for preventive action by this Government is not after the shooting has started. It is urgent that the State Department act to check the flow of arms to the Arab countries now. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Spceker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House
2744 for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks, and I ask unanimous con- sent to extend my remarks and include an article on the case for home rule in Washington. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. |Mr. KENNEDY addressed the House. His remarks appear in the Appendix.] COMMUNISM Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and ex- tend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. RicH] frequently berate the President because he says the President has not done anything about commu- nism, and then beat his breast about Communists and tell what great things are being done in the House about com- munism. Frankly, the House has not done much about communism, except talk about it. I have a bill pending before the Com- mittee on Post Office and Civil Service to bar the Communist Party from using the mails to disseminate their propa- ganda. My colleague from Ohio [Mr. Secrest] has a bill pending to bar the Communist Party from the Federal bal- lot. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rict] would like to do something about the Communists, there is a chance for him, and those who talk so much about communism to get behind those two bills and bring them out and pass them. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Ohio has expired. LEW DESCHLER Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and ex- tend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that under the Constitution the final voice on judicial matters and the final decision of legal questions of a constitutional nature and other legal questions is the Supreme Court of the United States. We who have served in the House of Representatives, and those who have served in the past, know that the final voice in the House on parlia- mentary questions is the Speaker; the House, of course, really having the final voice on appeal but rarely exercising it. We are all proud of the employees of the House organization, and particularly are we proud of its unofficial supreme court on parliamentary law, if I may use that expression, the Parliamentarian of the House, Lew Deschler. Today is his birth- day, and I extend to him my congratula- tions and the congratulations of all the other Members of the House. A fine family man, a fine husband, a fine father, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE a fine character, these are a few of his other qualities that endear him to us. We are all proud to know Lew Desch- ler, and we are all proud of the great capacity that is his and the great con- tributions that he makes to the proceed- ings of this great body of the Congress. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCORMACK. I yield to the gen- tleman from Indiana. Mr, HALLECK. I wish to join the gentleman from Massachusetts in ex- tending felicitations to our genial Parlia- mentarian, Lew Deschler. The longer I serve here the more I am convinced that those critics of the House of Represen- tatives who on occasion assail us because of our so-called antiquated methods, do not really understand or comprehend the work that is done here. The rules of the House of Representatives have grown up through the years. The remarkable thing about these rules is that operating under them a body such as this, com- prising 435 Members, is able to move ex- peditiously, wisely, and effectively in ac- complishing the legislation that comes before it. I may add also that the longer I serve here the more I realize the su- preme importance of the correct applica- tion of the rules of the House, for they are so all-important. As the gentleman from Massachusetts has said, it is, of course, the responsibility of the Speaker to make the rulings on questions that arise from day to day as we carry on our labors, but we also realize that back of the Speaker we find the Parliamentarian. I have watched the work of Lew Desch- ler. I know from my experience here that if the rules are io be properly ap- plied and if our work is to go forward as it should, the man who advises the Speaker must be, first of all, completely familiar with the rules and all of the precedents that go with those rules; and, furthermore, he must be a man of com- plete objectivity, whose decisions are never colored or flavored with personal friendship or partisanship. We have that in our Parliamentarian, Lew Desch- ler. I wish for him many, many more years of continuing life and happiness; and, yes, may I say, service with us here in the House of Representatives. While, of course, we will never admit that any one man is indispensable, yet if any one man does approach indispensability, that man is Lew Deschler in his service here in the House of Representatives. Mr. McCORMACK. I thank friend from Indiana. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr, McCORMACK. [Iryield to the gen- tleman from Ohio. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. As a Repre- sentative from the State of Ohio, I am especially appreciative of the words spoken by the gentleman from Massa- chusetts and by the gentleman from Indiana about a great Ohioan, Lew Deschler. The great Buckeye State has given many men to the public service and we are proud of the record that our con- tributions in the way of manhood and womanhood to the Nation have made to its welfare. Lew Deschler is one of the men of whom Ohio can justly be proud my MarcH 8 and the State of Ohio, not only its Rep- resentatives in the Congress but every citizen in my State, joins in felicitations to Lew Deschler on this his natal day. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCORMACK. Iyileld to the gen- tleman from Mississippi. Mr. RANKIN. Probably no man in this House has engaged in more parlia- mentary battles than I have since I have been a Member of this body. I have closely followed and scrutinized the work of our distinguished Parlia- mentarian, Lew Deschler. I have never known any man in that position who served better, more dili- gently, and more wisely than Lew Desch- ler. In his position he wields a tre- mondous power, because invariably leg- islation of the most vital importance turns upon a question of parliamentary procedure. I endorse all that the gen- tleman from Indiana |[Mr. HaLLeck] has said and all the gentleman from Ohio LMr. Brown] has said about Mr. Desch- ler, and I want to add my years of ex- perience here in which, as I stated, I have engaged in many parliamentary battles. I do not believe there is a finer parlia- mentarian on earth than Lew Deschler. Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCORMACK. Iryield to the gen- tleman from Michigan. Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, all of these words are very nice, but, when I was chairman of the Legislative Com- mitice, we did something about it. Our committee raised his pay. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, may I say that back of Lew Deschler is that faithful and that charming girl who 1s his wife, and also his dear mother. Everything that evcry Member has said on this occasion in relation to Lew Deschler is also addressed to Mrs. Desch- ler and to his mother. STATEHOOD FOR ALASKA Mr.PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H R 331) to provide for the admission of Alaska into the Union. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill H. R. 331, with Mr. SIkes in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the speakers who fol- low me will bring to the attention of the Committee many of the economic facts in reference to Alaska. We will try to make our arguments as brief as possible, yet present to the membership facts that we feel are pertinent and will give them information on this important subject. A long series of hearings have been held from time to time on this matter. The hearings which you now have are not the only ones. This is the result of
1950 many other hearings, resolutions, and endorsements over a period of years that have come to the attention of the com- mittee, showing a gradual upward growth of this great area in fitting itself for statehood. Shortly after the purchase of Alaska, which was criticized at that time, it was found that within a single year many, many times more than the entire pur- chase price found its way to the United States. As early as August 1869 Secretary of State Seward, at Sitka, Alaska, made this statement: Fellow citizens of the United States, with- in the period of my own recollection I have seen 20 new States added to the 18 which before that time constituted the American Union, and I now see, besides Alaska, 10 ter- ritories in a forward condition of preparation for entering into the same great political family. These citzens of Sitka are the guar- anties not only that Alaska has a future, but that future has already begun, first as a Territory and ultimately as a State— Showing very clearly that the United States Government recognized at that time that the ultimate destiny of this great area was to become a member of the Sisterhood of States to which he re- ferred at that time. Each in their turn has become a valuable member to this Union. With reference to population: Nevada, among the States to which he refers, had less population at the time it came into the Union, and many others had con- siderably less population at the time they came into the Union, and many others had considerably less than has Alaska at the present time. Nevada, when she came into the Union, had a population of 42,491. Vermont was one of the larger ones when she came into the Union with 85,000 My own State of Florida only had 72,090, less than two-thirds of the present popula- tion of Alaska. California had 92,000; that was one of the larger ones. Oregon only had 52,000. So, on a population basis Alaska has shown that she does have the population, but in addition to that, if she can secure statehood, there will be the chance for still further orderly development of that area. Both platforms of the two major po- litical parties definitely pledged state- hood for Alaska. The President, in his address to the Congress, again reiterated that pledge at the beginning of this session. I shall attempt to give you some of the high spots but, as I said before, I leave much of that to those who will succeed me. Alaska’s commercial ties with con- tinental United States by the end of 1944, that is the volume of trade between these two areas since 1906, had a value of al- most $4,000,000,000. Some $2,500,000 represented the value of Alaska’s ship- ment to the United States of fish prod- ucts, fish and frozen fish, canned and preserved animal products, mineral prod- ucts, wood and lumber; a vast storehouse of minerals. Oftentimes we talk about bureaucracy; oftentimes we also talk about absentee landlordism. This is onc of the States which, if we will grant statehood to Alas- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ka, will be the means whereby we will divest bureaucracy of what might be a bureaucrat’s dream with those vast for- ests, those vast fur farms, those vast fisheries, and that sort of thing. Alaska, if not taken into the sisterhood of States, could be actually a bureaucrat’s dream, and we are trying to divest that, and the Bureau and Department ap- proves this bill. Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PETERSON. I yield to the gentle- man from Illinois. Mr. JONAS. I think we are all fully aware of the fact that Alaska has a sub- stantial population and has all of these resources and assets that the distin- guished gentleman from Florida is set- ting forth here. But, what facilities are there in Alaska, along the line of roads and means of transportation, that will permit the people in the backward areas to avail themselves of the opportunity to go to the polls to volte when they have to elect their Senators and Representa- tives? Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quo- rum is not present. The Clerk will call the roll The Clerk called the roll, and the following Membcrs failed to answer to their names: [Roll No. 77] Abbitt Gilmer Murphy Albert Granahan Norrell Allen, La Groen O'Neill Auchincloss Gwinn Patten Barrett, Pa. Hardy Pfeiffer, Beall Hirt William L. Bennett, Fla Havenner Piumlcy Bentsen Hays, Ark. Powell Biemiller Hedrick Quinn Blackney Heffernan Redden Blatnik Heller Rich Boggs, Del Herter Roosevelt Bolton, Md Hoffman, Ml Sabath Brooks Holifield Sadowski Buchanan Huber Sasecer Buckley,N Y Jackson, Calif Scott, Hardie Bulwinkle Jacobs Scott, Burdick James Hugh D. Jr. Burton Kelley, Pa Shafer Byrne, N Y¥ Kelly, N Y. Shelley Cannon Keogh Smathers Carroll Klein Smith, Ohio Cavalcante Kunkel Stanlcy Celler Latham Steed Chatham Lichtenwalter Stigler Chudoft Lyle Taylor Clemente Lynch Towe Clevenger McGrath Vorys Coudert Mack, Il. Vursell Davenport Macy Wadsworth Davies, N. Y. Marcantonio Whitaker Dawson Martin, Mass. White, Calif. Douglas Miles White, Idaho Eaton Miller, Calif. Widnall Eberhartor Monroney Wilson, Okla. Ellsworth Morgan Wilson, Tex. Engle, Callf Morris Withrow Fogarty Morrison Woodhouse Gavin Moulder Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Sikes, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 331) and finding itself without a@ quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 318 Members responded to their names, & quorum, and he submit- ted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal. The Committee resumed its sitting. 2745 Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, at the time the call came one of my col- leagues had asked with reference to the people getting to the communities for the purpose of voting and the improve- ments in those areas. I may say that the public works bill which we passed during the last session of the present Congress will be of material assistance in their public improvements. In addi- tion to that, if they get statehood, then they can, as many other States have, provide for farm-to-market roads and other local roads and may participate under the regular Federal highway sys- tem. Even aside from that, under the situ- ation we are in today, in the elections which they had they already polled a greater percentage of votes than they did in many of the States of the Union. Mr.COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PETERSON. I yield to the gcen- tleman from North Carolina. Mr. COOLEY. How many registered voters do they have in the entire Terri- tory? Mr. PETERSON. I do not know the number of registered voters offhand, but about 34 percent participated in the last election, and there is about 100,000 or more population, Mr. COOLEY. Is there anything in the hearings that would indicate how many registered voters there are in the Territory? Mr. PETERSON. hearings, yes. Mr. COOLEY. Is it not a fact that there are only about 21,000 or 22,000 registered voters? Mr. PETERSON. The Delegate from Alaska can give us exact figures. Thirty- four percent of the registered voters participated. Mr. COOLEY. Iam not talking about that; I am talking about the number of people involved. The gentleman said that the percentage is large, but I am inquiring as to the number. Mr. PETERSON. I will yield to the Delegate from Alaska to give us the exact number of votes. Mr. BARTLETT. Twenty-two thou- sand people voted in the last election. Mr. COOLEY. Twenty-two thousand in the whole Territory. Mr. BARTLETT. Which is, of course, larger than the votes in several of the congressional districts. Mr. COOLEY. What is the percentege of natives of the total population? Mr. BARTLETT. About one-third. ' Mr. PETERSON. That is in the hear- ngs. Mr. COOLEY. Does the gentleman know how many Federal employees are now employed in Alaska? Mr. PETERSON. I do not have it off- hand, but it was in some of the hearings. Mr. COOLEY. About 20,(00, is it not? Mr. PETERSON. It varies from time to time as certain activities there in- crease. Mr. COOLEY. Is it not about 20,000? Mr. BARTLETT. The number of civil- service employees last year was some- where between four and five thousand. There were, of course, other employees on defense projects. In several of the
2746 Mr. PETERSON. That does not in- clude the armed services. Mr. COOLFY. One-fourth of the population of Alaska is on the Federal pay roll at the present time. Mr. PETERSON. if we get statehood, we can change the picture; we can di- vest ourselves of bureaucratic control. I am not criticizing control as such, but if we can give them statchood instead of trying to administer {t here by Federal employees, the picture will change. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself two additional minutes. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman one additional question. How can the people of Alaska make more progress as a State than they are now making as a Territory? Mr. PETERSON. History shows that every Territory, after it acquired state- hood, made progress thereafter. Alaska today has a very good economic show- ing; a better economic showing than onc-fourth of the States of the Union when they came into statehood. Mr. COOLEY. Well, that is just a hope. In other words, the gentleman’s committee hopes that by virtue of being a State the people will be attracted to Alaska who are not now attracted. Mr. PETERSON. History shows that that is the case. History shows that that is the situation, and local government can work and develop much further than you can by having it administered from Washington. Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman knows that no single instance that he has cited is comparable with the situation that we are now dealing with. We are dealing with a Territory that is twice the size of the great State of Texas, with a popu- Jation spread over a vast area clear beyond the Arctic Circle. Mr. PETERSON. Yes, but at the time other States came into the Union their populations were scattered, too. Mr. COOLEY. But you did not have such a wide area and you did not have any such terrific variety of climate as we are now dealing with. Mr. PETERSON. Well, there is some very good climate in this area. Mr.CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PETERSON. I yield to the gen- tleman from Michigan. Mr. CRAWFORD. I would like to in- quire of the gentleman from North Caro- lina if he is contending that during the past two decades the people of this country have lost al) spirit of adventure, all spirit of initiative, all spirit of enter- prise, and that they will no longer go to @ vast empire like Alaska because they are afraid to go there, when he ought to know that Alaska has what is known as @ Banana Belt where the climate is as acceptable to the people as Seattle, Wash. Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman does not know any such thing. Mr. ENGEL of Michigan. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PETERSON. I yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. ENGEL of Michigan. The gentle- man knows I have been very friendly toward Alaska and very much interested in Alaska. Mr. PETERSON. Yes. Mr. ENGEL of Michigan. My infor- mation has been that there are about 90,000 people in Alaska. Mr. PETERSON. We estimate about 100,000. It is estimated from 95,000 to 105,000. Mr. ENGEL of Michigan. There are about 20,000 Government employees and 40,000 Indians, and they are very high- type Indians and Eskimos. The other 30,000 are whites. That is about right; is it not? Mr. PETERSON. They are different figures from what we had. We do not have that many Federal employees. Mr. ENGEL of Michigan. Less than 100,000 altogether. I cannot reconcile myself to give two United States Senators and a Congressman and three electoral votes to a group of people who have less than one-third of the population of my own district, although I am for Alaska and I want to help Alaska if I can. Mr. PETERSON. I represent a large district, but history would show that Alaska has a population greater than 12 of the States when they came into the Union. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PETERSON. I yield to the gen- tleman from Michigan. Mr. CRAWFORD. Let us see if we cannot straighten this out. Who is there on this floor that is contending that Federal employees who have their voting rights in the continental United States go to Alaska and vote in the elec- tions to which the Delegate has referred? Let me ask the Delegate from Alaska, who did the voting up there? Mr. BARTLETT. The permanent residents of Alaska, in a number we esti- mate at about 100,000, not these sea- sonal workers. Mr. CRAWFORD. They own prop- erty there and live there? Mr. BARTLETT. Alaska {!s_ their home. Mr. CRAWFORD. I am really sur- prised that the gentleman from Michi- gan, who is on the Committee on Appro- priations, with all the detailed study he has made of Alaska, made the argument he did. Mr. COOLEY. May I ask the gentle- man if it is a fact or not a fact that Federal employees in the Territory are allowed to vote and do vote there? Mr. BARTLETT. Of course, if they live there all the time. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. JoHnson]. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will all give me very close attention, because I believe I can answer some of the questions that Lave been raised here in this debate. I have a very high regard for the Dele- gate from Alaska, but I have a greater regard for the welfare of the United States of America and for my people in California. I think the passage of this MarcyH 3 bill would be the greatest distortion of representative government we have ever had in America. The last speaker mentioned the fact that 12 States of the Union came in with pcpulations less than Alaska now has, and that is true. However, the ratio of the population of Alaska to the total population is 1 to 1,582. The ratio of Florida, for instance, one of the States the chairman mentioned, and also his home State, at the time it came into the Union, was 1 to 264. All those States had a far greater ratio of their popula- tion to the total population, so the argu- ment that 12 other States came in with a smaller population does not have the slightest validity. It points up graphi- cally one weakness in Alaska’s plea for statehood. Over half the States when they came into the Union had less than 25 percent of the divergence in popula- tion ratio that we have in Alaska today. Just think what this means for a mo- ment. In my State last year we cast over 4,000,000 votes. In Alaska they cast 22,309. Two Senators from that State could nullify the votes of two Senators from our State, who were sent here by over 4,000,000 voters. In a treaty fight, which might be vital to the security of the United States, two Senators from this new State, very small in population, could nullify the votes of Senators repre- senting 10,000,000 voters in California and 15,000,000 in New York, or 25,000,000 altogether. Here are some facts and figures, which the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress pre- pared at my request that graphically il- lustrate the argument I have made and will make in opposition to this bill. They should convince any biased person that statehood for Alaska fs absolutely im- practical now as the Territory is not yet ready for it. ALASKA: SELECTED DaTa CONCERNING PoPruULA- TION, ASSESSABLE PROPERTY, PROBLEMS OF STaTEHOOD I. COMPARISON OF ALASKAN POPULATION AND VOTING WITH SELECTED STATES Times Times . freater a ronan Vote cast | than _ | for Prest | Alas State Alas d kan ent in kan 1948 Vote for popu- lation Dele gato Now York_._.... 14, 392, 000 153. 1] 6, 111, 530) 273 9 California. _....110, 665, 000) 113. 5} 4, 081, 638 150, 7 Tennsylvania ...{10, 633,000} 113.1) 8, 735,087] 167 4 THinois 2.2.22...) 8, 448, 000 59 9] 3, 984, 048) 178 6 hio..... 7, Hay, 000 85.0) 2, 46, 071 131 6 Texas... ... 7, &2, 000 80 1) 1, 147, 245 hl 4 Washington 2, 582, 000 27 5} = 878, 875 394 Florida. -_. 494, 000 5 578, 358 259 Oklahoma 2, 302, O00 24.6| 721, 699 32.3 Maryland ._...- 2, 175, (00 23.1 516, 748 67 Mississippi. ...-. 2, 130, 000 22.7} 192,190 KO Connecticut... .. 3, O18, (OK 21 6 SHH, 618 39 6 Now Hampshire] 544, 000 5.8} 231, 440 104 Montana_.._.... 521, 000 55} 219, 081 a8 Vermont ........ 360, 000 39} 123, 882 55 Delaware... 311, 000 3.3) 139, 073 6,2 Wyoming. 284, 000 3.0) 10), 425 4.8 Nevada ... 174, 000 1.9 62,117 28 TI, VALUE OF ASSESSABLE PROPERTY IN ALASKA Municipalities in Alaska are permitted to levy a 3 percent property tax. According to the 1948 Annual Report of the Governor of Alaska, Alaska had 26 incorporated towns whose assessed valuation totaled $91,611,126, an increase of $19,491,881 over 1947. Moody‘s
1950 1950 Governments and Municipals gives the following figures for Alaska: Assessed value All prop- Unit erly Real Year | Basis Anchoruge inde- pondent school Pet district. _|888, 751, A45 -[1y4e-50] BS Fairbanks _.| 16, 060, 6241.2 .{ 1049 80 Fairbanks school district. -| 22, 082, 560] 0 WAST]. Juneau - 12, 931, 675/912, 101, 914) 1048 100 Ketelukan 14, 191,635] 11,628, 240} 1947 7h Biersbure 1, 440, 000 1944 100 itka.. . 2, 751, 525 1949 100 110, 109, 464 ‘Jan 1, A general property tax was passed by the territorial legislature during its 1949 ses- sion. A complete valuation has not yet been made on the basis of this new tax. Estimates, however, place the valuation of property outside municipalities at approxi- mately $150,000,000 and for municipalities at $105,000,000 Iti A. Population data concerning States having same or less population than Alaska at date of admission Popu- Totul Ratlo ol Year of} lation United ft Na 0 State adsuls- | at ad- States tional sion THe popula popu a sion tion atlou Delaware. 1787) | 50, 006 1.66 Georpiu _-- 1758 1.47 Rhode Island 1790 1 87 Vormont Wo 146 Kentucky_ Wwe 3, 153 Tennessee. 1706 5,308, IRR] OT hO Ohio .. 2... TRO 8,308,483 {1 117 Lomtsiana Ws12 T2syNsr] 104 Indiann | ~ ISIG O,634 455] 1 650 Mississippl ds17 $), Gas, 434 Y 127 Tinos -|  TNIS8 Q, 654, 4554 1174 Missouri Ts21 0, G38, 155 1144 Arkansas [2886 17, 069, 453 174 Florida. 1s45 QUST | 17265 Cualilorma.. -{ 1s50 23, 191,576 | 1 250 Oregon. . sh fy BL, 113,82 1 599 Nevada.. -| Thod | 42, 4010 | 5, 558, 877 J B38 Nebraska 1865 [ERK B30 (245, 700, 67K | 1498 Woyomin 1890, 62, 545 | G2, 047, 714 1 1006 Tdaho Ws9O) | 8H, 548 | 62,087,714 f I 710 Alaska...-...0.--|-------- 94, 000 {148,720,000 | 7 1582 I Closest census year, exeept inthe case of Indiana and Nebrasha whieh ae approximate figures at dates of ad- mussion First Annual Report of the Tadfana Depart- ment of Statisties and Geology, 1679, and the Congres: gional Globe, Dee 11, 1&6 7 Closest census vear, except for Nebraska whieh is est mated continental population figure for 1865, taken from Statisiieal Abstract of the United States, lds, pv B. Population increases of selected States for 10-year period before admission, in come- parison with Alaskan gain, 1940-49 Year Per- 8tute admit- Population cent ted eniey Arkunsas_-} 1836 | (1820) 14,2731 (1830) 30, 388 113 Indiana....| 1816 | (800) 5,641) C810) 24, 520) 485 Maine... Is20 | (1510) 228, 705) (1d20) 208, bS5, 30 Arivona_...} 1Wwi2— | (1900) 12 31) (AVEO) 204, 354 66 Utah__ 1890 | CI8B0) 145, 963) (1800) 210, 779 46 Alaska....-|---.---- (1940) 72, fl (1049) 4, von 30 —_——$—$—$$ C. Lands under Federal jurisdiction Total area State or under Fed- | Per: Torritory Totalarca! | rat juris- | cent diction # Acs Acres Alaska. ...---.---| 365,451, 600 | $364, 000, C00 99 Alabama... $2, 6y, G20 1, 099, 722 8 Arizona. .....----) 72, 601, 200 50, 471, 090 69 Arkansas. 2. 33, 744, 000 3, 051, 431 9 See footnotes at end of table. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE C. Lands und) F ocral jurisditction—Con. Totnl urea under Fed Per etal Juris- cent diction? Stile or Tormtory Total trea Acres Acres Cahforniy o..... 100, $48, 920 45, 900, 157 46 Colorac 66, 53>, 860 24, O81, 06S 37 Connee - t 360 15,714 (4) Delaware - "20 40, 608 3 Florida. 34, 727, Goo 2,851, 207 8 Qeor gia. 37, 441, £20 1, Bal, 103 4 Idaho. 52, 967, 120 a4, 285, COO 65 Mtnois . 35, 806, ORO 44s, 902 J Indiana 238 171, 200 338, OF2 Towa. 35, 831, 040 105, 310 o)) kansas 52, 552, 320 $23, 118 () Kentuck 25, 669, 700 946, 131 Lonistann. -| 28, 913, 280 1, 053, 161 Maine .. 19, 865, 600 144131 ® Maryland. 6, 327, 680 220, 302 Massachusetts 6, 060, 40, 42, 671 Michigan Minnesota . - 36, 494, OBO Al, 205, 760 2, 709, 428 3, 819, 665 Massissippt- - 30, 348, 800 1, 454, 718 Missourl . -] 411,332, 800 1, 641, 502 Montana. - $4, 042, 240 34, 213, 875 Nebraska 49, 057, 920 735, 224 ¢ Buck R-Seawssee we Nevada. 70, 273, 280 59, O50 New Hut &, 775, 260 682, 600 New Jersey 4, 514, O80 Wh, 462 Kew Mev 77, 767, 040 35, 470, 713 Now York - 30, 674, 560 Sos, 214 (4) North Caroh 31, 450, 880 1, 927, 562 6 North Dako 441, 554, 560 2, 657, 808 6 Ono... 26, 818, O80 250, 156 1 Ohlahon 44, 341, 120 3, SOE, 209 9 Oregon. 61, 664, 000 32, 410, 870 GB Pennsy lvanit 28, 828, SOK) 600, 522 2 Rhode Islan 677, 120 Ts, 117 3 South Carol 19, 580, 160 912, 702 5 South Dakot 44, 08.5, 040 8, 610, 766 18 ‘Tennessee -| 26, 855, O40 1, O41, 281 i Pevas. 16d, 7.82, 160 2, 246, 572 1 Utah oo. : 52, 701, 440 37, 602, Ot4 71 Vermont... ...---- 937, M20 Ot, 184 2 Virginia - 2, O78, 615 & Washington 2. 14, 998, 067 35 West Virginia. 4 J, 289, 002 8 Wisconsin. ......- 35,017, 000 2, 243, 003 6 Wyoming. ss... 62, 403, 840 82, 207, OSb b2 ! Fivures from Statistical Abstract of the United States 1948, p. 160 2 Mieures for State compiled by Tohn Tachson, Leg isle tive Reference Service, Qetober 1949 J Estimate piven by Bureau of Land Manageient, Depurtment of the Interior 4 Less than fT percent D Comments on problems presented by Alaskan statehood Confressional Digest, volume 26, No. 11, November 1947 “But the question of statehood for Hawall and Alaska today is somewhat different from the situations which faced Congress in re- spect to admission of the existing States. “Here, for the first time, Congress is faced with two entirely new facts of the problem. “One of these 1s the matter of distance and contiguity. As the history of the for- mation of the United States will show every new State that has been added to the Union has been located in such a manner that !t borders upon existing Statcs or existing Ter- ritorics of the United States at the time of its admission. But between Hawaii and the nearest point of United States mainland lie 2.400 miles of Pacific Ocean. And between Alaska and the United States lle 870 miles of Canadian land. “Tho second point involves a racial ques- tion. The populations of existing States, at the time of their admission to the Union, were made up largely of third-, fourth-, or fifth-generation Americans plus some Amer-~ ican Indians and Caucasion immigrants from Europe, whose characteristics and back- ground were well known and understoud. Both Hawaii and Alaska present populations that are decidedly racial mixtures. Ha- wall’s people are one-third Japanese, one- third native, and one-third Caucasian; Alas- ka’s people are about half Caucasian and half Eskimo or Indian. “These conditions are the source of con- siderable speculation as to the wisdom of bringing the two Territories into the Union. 2747 And as pointed out, the problems they pose to Congress are unique.” Hearings before the Subcommittee on Ter- ritorial and Insular Possessions of the Com- mittee on Public Lands, House of Represen- tatives, Eightieth Congress, first session, pur- suant to House Resolution 93: Testimony of Mr. W. C. Arnold, managing director of the Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., page 155 and following: “I do not think that this Territory can develop until some stable transportation systenr is effected where goods can move into and out of this Terri- tory on a stable basis at a reasonable rate. We do not have such a system now and I fall to see how the Territory can develop, how it can arrive at a status where state- hood would be desirable, until that problem can be solved. * ° ©¢ * * * e e “There has been much said about the abil- ity of the Territory to support statehood. I make no particular comment upon that, but to judge by the past, and the past demon- strates conclusively that whether the people are able to support statehood or not, they certuinly are not willing to support it, be- cause they have not been willing to support the Territorial institutions either and have not contributed anything of consequence by way of taxation themselves but have been content to have the revenue such as could be extracted from the nonresident sources" Eighty-first Congress, first session, House of Representatives, Report No. 255, to accom- pany H R 3881, providing for the admission of Alaska into the Union: “The chief argu- ment of those opposed to statehood now was that Alaska could not support the cost of statehood. This cost, over and above what Alaska now pays for its Territorial govern- ment, was estimated at $1,645,000 by the pro- ponents of statehood, and at $5,857,500 by the opponents. Among the additional expenses which Alaska would have to bear are the salaries of the Governor and the Secretary of Alaska, all, instead of part of, the cost of tho legislature, the State court system, the fishery adnrinistration, and the care of the insane.” Annual report of the Governor of Alaska, 1947, page 1: “At the first referendum ever devoted in the Territory to the question of statehood, the people voted in favor of !t by 9,630 to 6,822. This referendum had been provided by the seventeenth Territorial leg- islature meeting in the late winter of 1945, to take place at the following general elec- tion on October 8, 1946. The 1946, as well as the 1947, legislature, likewise passed memo- rials to Congress asking for statehood. The more populous divisions, the first and third, gave substantial majorities, the first by 3,872 for to 1,953 against; the third by 3,427 for to 2,257 against. The two northern divisions, however, which together cast less than one- third of the total vote in the Territory, re- ported slight majorities against statehood, the second by 191 votes, the fourth by 90 votes. However, both their principal cities, Nome and Fairbanks, voted for statehood.” Those are the things we have to think about when we think about the situation in Alaska. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JOHNSON, I yield. Mr, ANGELL. Is it the gentleman's argument, then, that small States like Nevada and other such States with small population should withdraw from the Union? Mr. JOHNSON. Not at all, sir. Mr. ANGELL. They are in identically the same position as Alaska. Mr. JOHNSON. No; the situation is not the same. I am confident when the Constitution was drawn, giving equality
2748 of representation in the Senate, the founding fathers never had in mind that there would be such a wide divergence in the population of the various States. It is truce that Nevada has only 1.2 per- cent of the population of California. I am not criticizing that situation. The situation 1s there, but I do not want to carry that principle still further, and fur- ther distort the situation as it would be in the upper Chamber, if Alaska, with its 22,309 voters, were admitted. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. will the gentleman yicld? Mr. JOHNSON. I yield. Mr. ABERNETHY. Is it contemplated within a short period of time, I do not know how long a time, after this bill becomes law—if it docs become law—the membership of the House will revert to its present number, that is 435, and that such representation as is given to Alaska in the House will be taken from some State within the continental limits of the United States? Mr. JOHNSON. That would have to happen in the nature of things, unless the membership of the House was in- ercased. My, would, Mr. JOHNSON. There would have to be a reapportionment, unless some other provision were made for this new Mem- ber. There will be a reapportionment in 1950 by virtue of a law now on the books. Mr, ABERNETHY. In other words, some Member of the House of Represent- atives is going to be retired as the result of this legislation? Mr. JOHNSON. That may be true. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me, I want to point out that the history has been that every time a new State was admitted to the Union, an increase was made in the number of Representatives. Today we have 435 Members and 2 Delegates. The Delegates do not vote, but they get the same emoluments. It is contem- plated, therefore, in the Eighty-second Congress that they can take care of that situation. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JOHNSON. I yleld. Mr. GRAHAM. Under the 1950 census the State of Pennsylvania will lose one seat, and pc~haps two. Can the gentle- man assure us that the two seats which will be given to Hawaii or Alaska will not come from the Pennsylvama representa- tion? Mr. JOHNSON. I do not Know where they will come from. They will come from somewhere, but I do not know just where. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the first statement that I want to make on this bill is that I per- sonally am not so selfish and so anxious to stay in the House of Representatives as a Member, that I would deny citizens of the United States their constitutional nights. If I ever get to the point where I am in that frame of mind, I hope ti:at Chairman, ABERNETHY. Of course, it CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE my people will take me from this body forever and keep me out of it. Did our forefathers take the position that our minority groups should not be permitted to come into the Union as a State? If they did, then why were the Territories of Hawaii and Alaska incor- porated into the Union by previous Con- gresses when we know that having been incorporated as Territorics they might eventually become States of the Union? I wish some bright, brilliant mind would answer that question, if the argu- ment is going to be made that these minority people are not entitled to state- hood. Thirdly, I point this out. The two Senators from the State I have the honor to represent can neutrahze the votes of the two Senators from any other State in the other body, and you do not need to make the argument that only the two Senators from Alaska or the two Sena- tors from Hawaii can neutralize the votes of the two Senators of other States. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman ylcld? Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield. Mr. ANGELL The gentleman will re- call that Senator Borah, from the little State of Idaho, exercised perhaps more influence in the Congress of the United States than any other one man down through the years. Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, and perhaps more than any other 15 men. Here is a proposition. Some pcople may criticize me from my Siate for say- ing this, but suppose my State becomes extremely radical and suppose we elect two Senators who are as far to the left as men could go. What are you going to do about it? Why, you will let them sit in the other body. That is exactly what you would do about it. With the kind of bloc voting that we have in this country today such might be possible. Such a representation from any State could do as much damage in the other body as any other group could do if they were elected from the Territory of Hawaii or Alaska. We are supposed to be fairly literate. I am coing to try to follow logical reason! If I cannot win on that basis, I will take my medi- cine in defeat. You have really got two bills before you. You have got the Alaskan state- hood bill and you have got the Hawalian statehood bill. These two areas, the Territory of Alaska and the Territory of Hawaii, are two pivot areas in the defense of the whole world, outside of Russia. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD. Not now. These are pivot points. Who is to be attacked first, according to the present philoso- phy? Those two areas. Those are the first points to be attacked, and those were the two points attacked by Japan in December of 1941; and they took this one, Hawaii, and destroyed practically everything we had there. Today, if we can accept the statement of our chiefs of staff, and other responsible men, what have you got up here in Alaska to pre- vent Rusia from coming down to 26 miics in Alaska and setting down her MARCH 3 ducks and using that whole area against us. These are key points, key areas, in our cold war against communism. As Territorics they are weak. As States they would be strong. Japan struck at both Territories in World War II. Ha- wali and Alaska are prime targets under the American flag. Statehood would vastly strengthen America’s position in the economic conflict now being waged by Russia throughout the Pacific. If we have any chance of survival on earth, the National Defense Committee of this body ought to know that here in Alaska and Hawaii is your vital area. Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD. Not now. S-nce 1945 we have pushed billions of dollars over here in western Europe We have neglected that area. We have let the Far East slide into oblivion. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired. Mr. CRAWFORD Mr. Chairman, I yield mys7lf seven additional minutes. Nobody knows what we can do or what we are likely to do. Mr. JONAS) Mr. Chairman, will the genileman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield. Mr JONAS I think the distinguished gentleman has touched upon something that is the crux of this situation, and that is the strategic position that Alaska plays in this picture, from a military standpoint. My question is this: Is it the opinion of the distinguished gen- tleman from Michigan that Alaska ts of more benefit to us, from a military stand- point, as a State than it Is now as a Territory? Mr. CRAWFORD. Emphatically so. I have personally held hearings all over this Territory, in most every community of importance. I have studied the Ter- ritory and restudied it. I am not kid- ding about this situation. If it were within my power, I would make Alaska a State before the sun sets tonight. Those people up there are financially able to finance a budget for a State. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will ths gentleman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD You do not know about the banana belt down in this pan- handle of Alaska. Mr. COOLEY. I have been in the banana belt, if there is one there. Mr. CRAWFORD. Then the gentle- man should not have made the state- ment he did about the rigorous climate in Alaska. There is a rigorous climate in Alaska, and there is one in Michigan, and there is one in North Dakota, but there is some very mild climate arca in the Territory of Alaska, and that is where we ought to be settling; we ought to be homesteading there. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yicld? Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON. I have been study- ing security problems for 8 years, and in my opinion the defense of States or Ter- ritories is a national problem, and a State government will have no effect on it whatever, Mr. CRAWFORD Oh, wait a minute. The State of Michigan contributes to
1950 national defense, and so does the State of Pennsylvania, and the State of Cali- fornia, and the State of New York, and of all men in this House who should be for statehood for Alaska, it is the dele- gation from Cahfornia Any man who has studied national defense ought to know that Mr. CANFIELD. First, I wish to com- pliment the gentleman for supporting the Republican national platform plank on statehood for Alaska. Did not the late Billy Mitchell say that the nation that controlled Alaska by air controlled the world? Mr. CRAWFORD. There is no doubt about that at all. Mr KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield. Mr. KEEFE I am interested, in view of the extensive knowledge of the gentle- man from Michigan with respect to this subject, for him to tell the House spe- cifically why statehood for Alaska would better provide for the national defense than to have it operated as it is presently operating as a Territory. Mr. CRAWFORD. Let me answer the gentleman categorically. At the present time this Alaska area is without a spokes- man in the other body and is without a voting spokesman in this body. That is No. 1. No. 2: This area, the Territory of Alaska, is under what we would term monopolistic control] from the standpoint of transportation and communication. No. 3: Until these barriers are re- moved, who with sagacious business judgment is going to put his private funds into this Alaskan territory to de- velop it in the absence of statehood? I say that because Mr. Harry Bridges and his gang can at any time they please, cut off the transportation of goods. As an illustration of the necessity for trans- portation let me repeat a conversation I had with a lady in Fairbanks. She was pushing a baby buggy with a child in it. I asked her what the baby buggy cost. She said it cost $29. That was the cata- log price. “What was the freight?” She answered: “$39.” Who wants to go to Alaska other than those who have an extreme desire for adventure? Why? Because there js no representation in the House and in the Senate that can vote to defend these people against the present monopolistic powers that are primarily oppressing this area. I refer particu- larly to the commercial fisheries and the big ship operators. They have a very specific interest in opposing this bill. Why did we convert our western ter- ritory into States? Because we wanted to give them strength, to unite them, and to obtain the benefits which flow from ties of transportation, communication, manufacture of goods, the production of raw primary goods, and the movement and trade of those goods in between. Why have a United States? Why did you now discuss a United States of Eu- rope? Why did you just discuss and sanction a United States of Indonesia? Why do you want to tie them together? You want to tie them together for strength. Anybody who ever studied the old McGuffey’s Reader and Speller ought XCVI—~173 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE to know that if you take six boys, or six States, or six sticks and tie them to- gether, you strengthen all. I now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coo.rey]. Mr. COOLEY. Who owns and oper- ates the Alaska Railroad at the present time? Mr. CRAWFORD. The Alaska Rail- road does not run from Seattle to Alaska. Mr. COOLEY. I asked who owns it? Mr. CRAWFORD. It runs within Alaska, and it is no good unless material comes from the south to carry over it. The United States owns it, of course. Mr. COOLEY. Aiuc operates it now? Mr. CRAWFORD. Why, sure. Mr. COOLEY. Under the Interior De- partment? Mr. CRAWFORD Certannly. Mr. COOLEY. If we should turn that railroad over to Alaska now they could not run it for 24 hours. Mr. CRAWFOFD. Certainly, because what they need up there is highways and air transportation to get to the land. Mr. COOLEY. And the gentleman says they do not need any railroad? Mr. CRAWFORD. The railroad would be an imposition upon them if they had to finance it. I have discussed this with people all over Alaska. The railroad is a, strictly national defense asset and must be financed by the Federal Government. Mr. COOLEY. Do I understand the gentleman to say that we do not necd it? Mr. CRAWFORD. As one intcrested in national] defense the gentleman should know the paramount need of the Alaskan people is for air and highway transporta- tion. The railroad is for national bcne- fit and defense. Mr. COOLEY. It is being operated by the Government of the United States at the present time, but the gentleman ad- vocates its abandonment. Mr. CRAWFORD. Ido nothing of the kind. Mr. COOLEY. Those were the gentle- man’s words. Mr. CRAWFORD. I advocate nothing of the kind, not at all; the gentleman is not going to put those words in my mouth. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York | Mr. DELANEY !. Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation; in my opinion, it is the most important single piece of legislation that has come before the House at this session. This measure is unlike other bills. If we make an error in passing the ordinary type of bill we can correct the error; we can amend it, or we can repeal it. But we are entering now into a contractual relationship between the Territory of Alaska and the United States of America, and it is binding. Someone brought up the point a while ago about one of our Western States that has approximately 90,000 people and it is a part of the Union There is no way I know of, whereby we could, even if we wanted to, change that status. 2749 Before we go further we must be sure of the steps we are taking. Coming from the great State of New York, I cannot consent to watering down the voting rcp- resentation of the people of that State. Alaska has approximately 90,000 people. When we speak of admission of Alaska we have a double package. If we admit Alaska, we must also admit the Hawaiian Islands. There will be four additional United States Senators, not two, but four, additional United States Senators. Just to get down to figures for a mo- ment, we in New York State have ap- proximately 16,000,000 people. Alaska has 90,000, which means that in the United States Senate, the people in Alaska will have nearly 200 times as much representation as the people who come from my district and every other district in the great State of New York. Speaking of my own congressional dis- trict, the Alaskans will have four times the representation in this House as the people who reside in my district. Mr. JOHNSON. The ratio in New York is 273.9. In other words, one voter in Alaska will have 273.9 times as much power as the individual voter in the gen- tleman’s district. Mr. DELANEY. I thank the gentle- man. If we admit Alaska, we admit Hawaii. We must admit also every other Territory or every other possession that we have which seeks admission. We have Puerto Rico in the Caribbean area. Upon application we must admit Puerto Rico. We also have the Virgin Islands and the very committee which reports this bill has asked that they have a Rep- resentative sit here in the Congress with the same rights as every Member except the right to vote. I say if you admit Alaska the people in the Virgin Islands just as much citi- zens of the United States as those people who are in Alaska and upon application and qualification must be admitted to statehood. What is the test? The test has never been population, wealth, or the number of people. It has merely been the ability of the applicant area to govern itself. I think it has been demonstrated to us that the people of the Virgin Islands are capable of governing themselves. In the 1940 census the people of those islands numbered just a few less then 25,000. Do you realize how disproportionate the representation would then be? There is one State—Texas—that made a reservation 105 years ago. When Texas came into the Union it reserved the right to itself to divide into four addi- tional States. I say if this representa- tion is as disproportionate as it would be under the circumstances of admitting these various areas into the Union, Texas would assert its rights and divide into five States. We would have North Texas, South Texas, Central Texas, East and West Texas. Texas would have 10 Members in the Senate instead of the 2 it now has. Mr. Chairman, I say in all sincerity this is something we must at this time guard against. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Youk has cxpired.
2750 Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to ask the gentle- man from New York a question. Upon what ground does the gentleman make the statement that the Virgin Islands can apply for statehood or that Puerto Rico can apply for statehood? Mr. DELANEY. There is no restric- tion under article IV of the Constitution. Mr. CRAWFORD. I am not talking about article IV of the Constitution. Mr. DELANEY. The gentleman a-ked me a question. I will answer him. Mr. CRAWFORD. Iam talking about the fact that the Territornics of Hawaii and Alaska were incorporated into the Union. The gentleman knows good and well those other two areas were not so incorporated. Mr. DELANEY. That is not neces- sary. You can come into this Union without that. Mr. CRAWFORD. I ask the gentle- man to submit a brief and put it in the Reconrp, and if he is correct, I will make an apology. I have studied this question for 15 years, going on 16, on this one com- mittee, and I defy the gentleman to su- stain his argument. Mr. DELANEY. I would advise the gentleman to study the question just a little bit more and maybe he will under- stand it. Mr. CRAWFORD. I will take the word of the experts who have lived with it down through the territorial history. Mr. DELANEY. If the gentleman fs desirous of obtaining information, let me read to him just what the Constitution of the United States says, and what the method is. tt Mr. CRAWFORD. Go ahead and read Mr. DELANEY. The gentleman asked the question. Mr. CRAWFORD. Go ahead and read it. I am yielding the gentleman time. Mr. DELANEY. Article IV, section 3, of the Constitution of the United States, provides: New States may be admitted by the Con- gress into the Union; but no new State shall he formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. Let me point out to the gentleman—— Mr. CRAWFORD. I decline to yield further. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself two additional minutes. Here is the proposition the gentleman lays down. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman from Michigan yielded to the gentleman from New York and took his seat, and he has no vight to take the gentleman off his feet. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigsn had expired, and he yielded himself two additional minutes. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. DELANEY. Mr. point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. DELANEY. I was recognized for two additional minutes for the purpose of being interrogated by the gentleman from Michigan; I therefore have the time. I yiclded to the gentleman for a question and that question was answercd, and I have the remainder of the time. The CHAIRMAN. The 2 minutes that the gentleman refers to have expired. The gentleman from Michigan yielded himself two additional minutes, and the ecnticman from Michigan is recognized for two additional minutes. Mr.CERAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, the Congress of the United States docs have the power. The Congress of the United States exercised that power in making agreements between the Territory of Hawan and the Territory of Alaska. The Congress did not exercise such pow- er in connection with the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. I assume that the ecople of this country, acting through the Congress, have the power to take in the 20 republics to the south of us and make States out of them, if we desire to do so. I would assume that the Con- gress of the United States, through its peopie, by amendment to the Constitu- tion or otherwise, could take in the 3,000,000 ocean mile area that now con- stitutes the trust territory delegated to this country by the trust agreement of the United Nations and take 1n all those islands as separate States 1f we desued todo so. I would assume that the Con- eress of the United States and its people, under our Constitution, could take in American Samoa and make It a State of the Union, and American Guam, and make it a State of the Union, and so on ad infinitum, and when the proposition is put before the Congress it will act on those things. But, why submit the specious argument here today that as the situation now stands, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico could come in as States. Of course, that does not hold. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has again ex- pired. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, according to the ex- planation made by the gentleman from Michigan, here is the situation. A long historic basis shows this, that when we contemplate statehood we first take them in as an incorporated Territory and then look forward to the time when they can live up to statehood. In Alaska that was done. It became an incorporated Terri- ory. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PETERSON. I yield to the gen- tleman from Michigan. Mr. CRAWFORD. Will the gentle- man tell us how many years that has been on trial and how many years Ha- waii has been on trial building them- selves up to the position of statehood? Mr. PETERSON. They have been on trial since the admission of the Terri- tory. Hawaii since 1900, Alaska since 1912. But, the promise was made prior Chairman, a Chairman, I MarcH 3 to that time. The promise was implied in the treaty that they could get all of the rights of citizenship. Very shortly after that Mr. Seward went to Alaska and spoke to them and virtually prom- ised them territoryship and statehood, and we have made a distinction between incorporated Territories and unincor- porated Territories. Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Pico, and the other areas in their organic acts and some of the organic acts that are now being prepared are treated entirely dif- ferently. Hawaii came in by reason of a resolution which recited the ties be- tween the Unitcd States and Hawaii. Uawail was a sovercign nation, a repub- lic, at that time. It was v.rtually the same procedure that was used with ref- erence to the Republic of Texas. That is to show that historically we have trented them first as Territories and then as States. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Tinois [Mr. Price]. Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, much as I dislike to, I find myself in disagreement with the arguments of the gentleman from New York | Mr. DELANEY], but J sub- scribe wholcheartedly to the arguments advanced by the chairman of the com- mittee, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Fererson], and the ranking minority member, the gentleman trom Michigen (Mr. Crawrorp]. I think that 1f we sub- scribe to the arguments advanced by the gentleman from New York we would dis- regard precedent and history. If our predecessors in this body had subscribed to such arguments, the western boundary of this great country of ours would not have extended beyond the Mississippi River. We must remember that many great States in the Union, stars repre- sented in that blue ficld up there, would not have been admitted to the Union if we had subscribed to the kind of argu- ments made here a short time ago by the gentleman from New York. Under the conditions laid down by the gentleman, my own great State of Illi- nois would not have been admitted to statehood back in 1818. I have read the debate in Congress on the question of ad- mission of Illinois. The opponents talked then as the opponents of Alaska’s state- hood talk today. Fortunately their argu- ments did not prevail. You may say that in time Illinois would have been admitted anyway—but how can we be certain it would have. Had the opponents of state- hood of the many States which have been admitted to the Union subsequent to the founding of our Nation by the original 13 been in majority we inight well have a dozen or more independent nations where today we have one nation united. Our predecessors showed great wisdom in rejecting negative arguments in the cases of INinois and the others and I predict the judgment of the House mem- bership will be just as sound here this afternoon. The granting of territorial status to Alaska more than 80 years ago carried with it a guaranty that someday this area would be admitted into the Union. Its people are entitled to full status of American citizenship. They must be
1950 growing impatient in their present posi- tion as wards of the Nation. They can- not be expected to endure such 8, status much longer. They have served the nec- essary period of tutelage. We could not blame them if they became tired of being half citizens and demanded statehood or independence. Now, in effect, they are living under circumstances strongly reminiscent of those which compelled our forefathers to revolt against British rule. Subject to all Federal taxes imposed generally, they have no right to express an effective voice in the making of the tax or other laws. For these reasons I favor statehood for Alaska, but there is to me an even greater reason why I will vote to admit Alaska to the Union, and that is because the history of the United States shows that real development of an area has started only when Territorial status was changed to statehood. Yes, and for selfish reasons as an American, I want this great Territory as a State of the Union. It abounds in un- told natural resources. I want these preserved for the United States. You say we can preserve them as well by holding Alaska as a Territory. I refer you back to my previous remarks; peo- ple grow impatient as second-class citi- zens and they are prone to do something about it in time. It would be far better to grant statehood now than to ferment a condition that would lead to a demand for independence that could embarrass the United States in the family of na- tions. The Alaskans make no such threat—have not even advanced a hint in that direction—but we may very well be creating such a hazard by rejecting this measure today. Since statehood will accelerate the de- velopment of the area, it is of the utmost importance from a military standpoint. Recently the commanding gencral of the Alaskan Department stated that military defense of Alaska could not be effective unless there is a growth in the civilian population and civilian industry. State- hood would aid materially in bringing this about. Alaska has a population of about 100,000 today, exceeding the population of 12 States at the time of thcir admis- sion into the Union. Few States can match her in resources. Her tremendous resources have barely been touched. Her timber, minerals, and her water power have not been tapped. All these things make her a necessary factor in the defense of the United States. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Bosone]. Mrs. BOSONE. Mr. Chairman, I have learned today that some of my colleagues believe that if one comes from a small population he may be a crook or unpa- triotic; but that if he comes from the big, populous centers and the big States of the Union, that carry the big club, he is the only patriotic one. I am amazed. Someone said there {is one State in the Union that hes 90,000 population. My colleague must refer, of course, to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Nevada. I think in the 1940 census Ne- vada had a population of 105,000. We can expect, of course, that that will be greatly increased by the thousands by 1950. If you had not admitted Nevada, what in the world would you have done over the past 100 years without the great wealth poured into this country out of Virginia City and all of the rest of the gold, silver, lead, zinc, and copper camps of that small-populated State of Ne- vada? I happen to come from the small State of Utah. We had a population in 1940 of 500,000, I believe. I think we shall go to almost 1,000,000 in this next census. What would you do without all the cop- per that comes from the richest copper camp in the world, that is in the State of Utah? I just do not like to find that because we belong to the smaller States and the smaller groups we cannot be patriotic. Who am I to sey that the people who would be elected as Senators and Rep- resentatives from Alaska or Hawaii would not give us as good representation as I give and as any of you give? I would be the last one to say Alaska would fail to send to this Congress quali- fled and patriotic delegates. Alaska nceds and wants statehood, but that is not the only reason for my support of the enabling legislation. Statehood for Alaska will be of im- measurable value to the United States as a whole. Alaska’s resources are tremendous, and as yet relatively undeveloped. The Territory’s riches of furs, timber, fish- eries, water-power potential, as well as gold and possibly oil, provide the States with a vast and much-needed reserve. New methods of processing and packing fish are being developed. There is a po- tentially enormous newsprint and paper supply, as well as lumber for construc- tion purposes. Hydroelectric power has not been tapped. The soil and climate offer possibilities for experimentation with new fruits and vegetable species. It is essential that private enterprise be encouraged and enabled to develop these resources in the interests of the Nation, and it is a prerequisite to private invest- ments that the settlement of the Terri- tory be facilitated. Since the war, Alaska’s population has rapidly in- creased, as ex-servicemen who found during their wartime tours of duty in Alaska that the Territory had much to offer, are returning there with their families. But it cannot be expected that the privileges enjoyed in the States will be lightly relinquished in exchange for the undoubted pioneer way of life in Alaska. It cannot be expected that the population of Alaska will reach its peak unless statehood is granted. There has frequently been advanced as an argu- ment against statehood that there are not enough people in the Territory. The answer is that almost half of the States were permitted to enter the Union with smaller populations than Alaska has now. Moreover, experience has shown that very soon after admission into the Union, the populations of the former Territories increased rapidly. Alaska is ' 2751 our last frontier, and every possible en- couragement must be given to its de- velopment. We must also consider the importance to the Nation of a strong Alaska, well-defended, and closely linked to the United States. The military and the Governor of Alaska have in recent weeks called our attention anew to the strategic importance of Alaska to our defense plans, citing the fact that Si- beria may be viewed with the naked eye from Alaska, that Alaska was the only portion of the American Continent to be invaded during the last war, that it ‘s the only part of the continent which reaches into the Eastern Hemisphere, and that its Pacific coast line is longer than that of the three Pacific coast States, and that it lies on the great circle route to the Orient. Because Alaska was not fully developed and well popu- lated at the time of the last war, we spent for defense purposes alone about 25 times the amount originally paid for the Territory. I therefore urge the enactment of enabling legislation for Alaska. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Utah has expired. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield two additional minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. BOSONE. I yield. Mr. CRAWFORD. The gentlewoman from Utah will agree with me in this statement that if these Territories be- came States, both Alaska and Hawaii could protect the interests of their citi- zens and their economic operations to @ greater degree than they can now or were able to during the recent stran- gling strikes on both Territories. Mrs. BOSONE Yes. Mr. CRAWFORD. Do you also agree that statehood for these two areas 15 as important to the United States as it is to those Territories? Mrs. BOSONE Absolutely. Mr. CRAWFORD. And tlat these two Territories play a crucial role in our na- tional destiny, in that they are our west- ern bastions of defense, and that they represent to the peoples of Asia, the Orient, and the Pacific one example of unity and equality among free, great ra- cial groups; whereas we are spending bil- lions of dollars to convince the world that we are for the little people, these two Ter- ritories give a first-class example of Jcf- fersonian doctrine. Mrs. BOSONE. I aegrec with the gen- tleman from Michigan entirely. Mr. HUBER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. BOSONE. I yield. Mr. HUBER. How can we justify statehood for a few thousand of Alackan people while denying the risht of fran- chise to the hundreds of thousands in the District of Columbia? Mrs. BOSONE. I believe the gentle- man from Ohio has a point. The CHAIRMAN The time of the gentlewoman from Utah has again ex- pired. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. JACKSON],
2752 Mr. JACKSON of Washington. Mr. Chairman, those of us in the State of Washington have a particular kinship for the people of Alaska. My district happens to be in the northwest corner of the United States, the closest to Alaska, and the jumping-off point to Alaska. I know that the people of our area are vitally interested in statehood for the people of that great Territory. Mr. Chairman, in considering the ques- tion of statehood for Alaska, I believe we should ask ourselves what the criteria for statehood have been o- should be, and then see if Alaska meets the standard. Is population a criterion? If it is, then Alaska certainly meets the standard. One-quarter of our 48 States had popu- Jations smaller than Alaska when ad- mitted. Is importance to the Jnited States a factor? Alaska meets that test, too. It js not only of the highest military and strategic importance, but it contains valuable resources for which new uses and new demands are constantly being found. Statehood will, in my opinion, attract the people and the capital that are now the only missin, factors in the full development and use of these re- sources. Is desire for statehood a test? Then Alaska meets it. The people of the Ter- ritory formerly voted in favor of state- hood 3 to 2, and a recent poll showed 68 percent of Alaskans desiring the change. If political maturity is a factor, then there is ample evidence that Alaska qualifies as a State. Within the restric- tions imposed upon it by the organic act, Alaska has enacted modern, progressive legislation, and in some cases has even led the United States. As the commit- tee report points out, Alaska permitted its women to vote 6 years before we in America did. The Territory has an active two-party system, as evidenced by the fact that in every Presidential election year Alaska has chosen, a few weeks before we held our elections here, a Delegate of the same party as the American President. If a Territory should be required to serve some sort of apprenticeship before achieving full statehood, then Alaska has served its period longer than all but four of our own States. The United States stands as a leader in the eyes of the world, striving to create the world over conditions under which peoples may guide their own destinies. Yet, the United States has denied to a politically mature people, prepared and anxious to make their own decision, the full right of self-government, and the right to a voice in the affairs of the Nation to which they are so closely tied. I urge that we correct that situation. I hope, and I am sure that the House will vote, in favor of statehood for Alaska today. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington has ex- pired. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. MILLER]. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, I want to try and bring to the mem- bers of the committee some information CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE about Alaska. I have been on this com- mittee for 8 years. I was a little aston- ished how the membership has changed since 1945 when the committee made a trip to Alaska to look over the territory. I fird that only two Members who were on the committee at that time are still members of the committee today, the gentleman now addressing you, and the gentleman from New York | Mr. TayLor]. Even the present ranking majority and minority members of the committee to- day were not members in 1945. The change was brought about through the reorganization of Congress. So perhaps my few years of experience may warrant my taking a few minutes of your time to tell you some of the things learned by the committee that went to Alaska. First let me say that at the proper time I propose to offer an amendment at page 6 of the bill, section 5 providing that if the Territory is admitted as a State they will have the opportunity of having more than four sections of land out of a township. The Federal Govern- ment now controls 98 percent of the land in Alaska. It is difficult to understand the thinking of the Interior Department. The first statehood bill introduced for Alaska, in 1945, proposed to give the new State two sections out of each township. A township is 36 sections. We finally got them to grant two additional sec- tions, or four sections out of each town- ship. I propose to offer an amendment which will give them every even-num- bered section. I think this is neccssa- ry if we expect the new State to survive as a State. How large is Alaska? Alaska is 586,- 400 square miles in area. Compared to the 3,022,387 square miles of the United States. Alaska is one-fifth the s:ze of the United States. Something has been said about the population of Alaska, The 1940 census of Alaska showed a population of 72,400. Our report made in 1945 estimated the population at about 80,000, of which some 45,000 was composed of native Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos; and about 55 per- cent white. I understand that the esti- mated population at the present time is 100,000. I presume it is growing and that it will continue to grow. But I want to point out that the Federal Gov- ernment today controls 98 percent of the land in Alaska in the form of na- tional parks, national forests, Indian reservations, and public domain. Something was said about the plebi- scite taken in Alaska for statehood. I have had a number of letters from peo- ple in Alaska. If in that plebiscite they had been asked “If you are given state- hood would you expect to have two sec- tions of land out of each township?” They would have said “No.” If they had been asked: “How much do you think Alaska ought to have?” they would have said “At least one-half; we ought to have all of it, but at least one-half.” I dare say that if you had placed on the ballot in the plebiscite that their coming in asa new State would be predicated on having only four sections out of each township that they would have rejected statehood because it would have been so unfair. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to ru- mors spread by the Foreign Affairs Com- MARCH 3 mittee that it was not the intention of the Government to defend Alaska Ido not know if the State Department takes the same attitude about Alaska as they do about China and other areas of the world; but if they do they will act like an amoeba and start to pull away when the irritation comes. I do not know whether they are going to do that or not but I think it is worth exploring. Personally, I voted for statehood for Alaska. Some- times I question whether the area of the State should embrace the whole Terri- tory or that area where the population is heaviest and the land most usable, the southern and southeastern part of Alaska, But to go way over to the west, clear to the end of Alaska, and way up above the Arctic Circle and clear down to British Columbia we take in a tre- mendous extent of area. I am satisfied in my own mind that the new State cannot exist if we are only going to offer it four sections out of each township, then let the Interior Department control the rest of the land, Our committee in 1945 found that the application of the statute on public land has proven burdensome, and I refer to the act of March 3, 1903 (32 Stat, 1128). The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska has expired. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman two additional min- utes. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, the section to which I have just re- ferred reads as follows: The application of this statute has proven burdensome, Alaskans contended at the hearings, particularly in the southeastern portion, The Department of the Interior, it was charged, only infrequently granted waliv- ers of the shore-space requirement, thus making settlement more difficult since choice settlement opportunities are often to be found along the water courses. Further, that the Department takes an unreasonably long time to process such share-space appli- cations. The committee recognizes the basic im- portance of the policy underlying the act of March 8, 1903, namely, the preservation for general public use of the desirable shore areas suitable for wharves and like uses. However, to assume that whenever a settle- ment is made on the shore of a navigable water that a quarter mile of free space must separate it from the next settler, is to over- look the realities of Alaska. The committee urges the Department of the Interior to adopt a more liberal attitude, one based on the true values for shore-space purposes as intended by the policy of Congress, thus facilitating greatly the development of the Territory. Mr. Chairman, you cannot get access to the water line in Alaska under this bill. The Department of the Interior will take the land for a quarter of a mile back. So that has held up the develop- ment of Alaska. If statehood would overcome that situation I would be for it, but I do not think it will. I think the Department of the Interior is holding too much land and the new State cannot exist with only four sections out of 36. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. JOHNSON. Irrespective of whether Alaska is a Territory or State,
1950 it is our national duty to defend Alaska against attack?, Mr. M R of Nebraska. Yes. Mr, JOHNSON. What would state- hood add to that defense, if anything? Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. I do not know. The gentleman's opinion is as good as mine. Mr. JOHNSON. I do not think it would add anything, The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska has again ex- pired. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 56 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. ANGELL]. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Chairman, I hap- pen to have served on the Committee on the Territories for a number of years during my service here in the Congress. In fact, I was the ranking member on the Republican side at the time the Re- organization Act was put into effect, at which time the Committee on Terri- tories was combined with the Committee on Public Lands. During my service as a member of the committee I have had occasion to go to Alaska twice. We traveled extensively over the entire Territory. Coming as I do from the State of Oregon, which is very close to Alaska, outside of Washing- ton the nearest point in continental United States, I have had during all of my life an opportunity to observe the great Territory of Alaska and also the Hawaiian Islands. The people in my area believe very strongly that both Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands should be admitted into the Union as States. First of all, we believe it would be for the best in- terests of those two great communities to whom we pledged our word a long, long time ago that when they attained the population, the commercial activity and the other qualifications of statehood they would be admitted. Further than that, Mr. Chairman, it would be in the best interests of the United States, certainly in these trouble- some times when war is threatened. We only hop from one war to another. We have not got through with the last war. We have not signed the treaties ending the last war, yet we are preparing for another war at this time. We have $13,000,000,000 in the budget this year for another war. We spend three- quarters of the money in our Federal budget for war purposes—past wars, present wars, and future wars. In the very next war we engage in, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii will be two of the most strategic places in the world for the defense of continental United States. I want to tell my good friends who come from the populous areas in these United States, great States like New York, if they want their terri- tory defended, they should not be penny- wise and pound-foolish in national de- fense. They should look beyond their noses and realize that these great stra- tegic areas in the Pacific are the very keystone to the defense of our Nation in the next world war. When I was in Alaska the war was on. There great flights of planes were land- ing on Ladd Field, Alaska, coming in like CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE flies, hundreds of them. Do you know where they were going? They were turned over to the Russians at Ladd Field. The Russians put their pilots in those planes—incidentally, these pilots could not speak English and I interviewed a@ number of them through an interpre- ter—and within a day or two those planes were on the battlefronts of Europe fight- ing in that great war. Thousands of our war planes went to those battlefronts to fly the Russian flag. If our planes can go from the United States to Russia, their planes can come over here. You must remember that the first place of attack in the next war would be on the Pacific coast, Alaska, California, Wash- ington, and Oregon. You know that the Japanese in their war program contem- plated taking that area, taking over all of the area up to the Continental Divide, and that we would never again, they hoped, be able to repossess the great States along the Pacific slope. It is unwise to try to determine this question along State lines. Are we not all Americans? Are not the people, who live in Oregon or Nevada or Alaska Amer- icans just the same as the citizens in New York, IlMinois, and Indiana? Are we not all Americans? Are we not trying to do what is best for the country as a whole and not for any individual State? When you say that because a State is small it should not have the influence in the United States Senate that a larger State has in this great country of ours, the founding fathers settled that question when they adopted the Constitution. Let me call your attention to the fact, as I noted a moment ago, that Senator Borah came from the little State of Idaho, with only a few hundred thousand popula- tion, and he had, perhaps, greater influ- ence in the Senate of the United States than any other man who sat there dur- ing his generation. His statue now adorns Statuary Hall. Only a few Sen- ators have that distinction. There on the wall in this Chamber above the Speaker’s desk you will see the remarks of Daniel Webster. Perhaps no man who ever sat in the United States Sen- ate had such a commanding influence upon this great country of ours. He was the greatest statesman of his gen- eration in the United States Senate. But, where did he come from? He came from the little State of New Hampshire. New Hampshire has only two Representa- tives today. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has expired. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman two additional min- utes. Mr. ANCELL. My good friends who now are arguing against the admission of these Territories because they are small would have denied Daniel Webster an opportunity to sit in the United States Senate. They would have denied the right to Senator Borah to sit in the United States Senate. Even our own Senator, Senator McNary, who was the head of our party in the Senate for many, many years, having served there for over 20 years, would not have been admitted into that great body. My observation is from my travels over Alaska, and the experience I have 2753 gained by living in an area that is very close to Alaska, that in every respect, where we catalog the requirements for statehood, Alaska will meet the test, and that we should, not only in the interest of Alaska itself and the residents who happen to be living there at this time, but also for the best interests of the 48 States, this great country of ours, and particularly for the defense of this Na- tion, let us keep our word with Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands as well, and admit them into statehood. As has been called to your attention here on the floor today, after statehood is once granted, the population will in- crease rapidly. Take my own little State of Oregon. We have increased 49 per- cent since the last war; a greater per- centage of increase than any other State in the Union. The Pacific coast is now enjoying the greatest percentage of in- crease in population than any part of the United States. It is still true, west- ward the course of empire takes its way. One of our colleagues just inquired whether by granting statehood to Alaska his State would lose a Member of Con- gress, and who would get it Well, I will tell him who would get it. Oregon will get it, California will get, Wash- ington will get it, other western States will get it where the population is mov- ing, and that same answer applies to Alaska. The important fact is what is best for these American citizens and the United States as a whole. My colleagues, let us not decide this question on the question of narrow par- tisanship or State lines. Let us decide it on the merits. Mr. Chairman, I introduced in the Eightieth Congress H. R. 1808 which pro- vides for the admission of the Territory of Alaska into the Union as a State on an equality with the other 48 States of the Union, and I have reintroduced the same bill in the Eighty-first Congress, H.R. 25. I will discuss briefly my purpose in spon- soring this legislation. As I have already said as the ranking Republican member of the House Com- mittee on Territories in the Seventy- ninth Congress, I made trips through Alaska on two separate occasions, the first one in the summer of 1943. As a lone member of the committee, I covered a considerable portion of Alaska and traveled on a bus over the entire length of the Alaska Highway from Whitehorse to the southern terminus. The remain- der of the road to Fairbanks at that time had not been completed. In August of 1945 as a member of the subcommittee of the Territories Com- mittee I had occasion again to visit the Territory, at which time the committee traversed much of the Territory by rail- road, bus, and airplane supplemented by water transportation. We went as far north as Point Barrow on the Arctic Ocean, covering the Nome area on our return. We not only held hearings in the major cities we visited but we inter- viewed many Alaska citiuens everywhere throughout our entire trip. On our re- turn the hearings were transcribed and transmitted, together with a report, to the full Committee on Territories, for its consideration. It is now available for use by the Eighty-first Congress.
2754 The purpose of the trip of the subcom- mittee to the Territory was to see for ourselves and to obtain on the ground first-hand information by the members of the committee the conditions existing in this great Territory and to discuss the problems facing it with Alaskan resi- dents in order to acquaint the committee with the needs of the Territory and the legislation required to protect its inter- ests, including the proposal for admis- sion of Alaska into the Union as a State. The committee in concluding its report said: The committee is not in a position to make definite recommendations at this time on all the several matters which have been brought to its attention Many of these proposals deserve careful thought and study. It is the spirit and desire of the committee to give careful attention and consideration to all proposals which have been presented to it, whether now in the form of specific legislative proposals or whether at the stage of discussion. We hope to work with the citizens of Alaska in a continuing effort to recommend and enact legislation which is in the best interests of the Territory and which will aid to open up and develop this great section of our country. The committee did not make a spe- cific recommendation on the question of statehood by reason of the fact that the citizens of Alaska at that time were con- templating holding a plebiscite to deter- mine whether or not the majority of the residents of Alaska desired statehood. Since that time, as is well known, the vote has been taken and the statehood proposal was approved by a heavy ma- jority. On August 24, 1912, the Congress cre- ated the Territory of Alaska by an act which provided for the creation of a leg- islative assembly and defined its powers and duties. The organic act has had no major revision since its adoption. The fundamental powers granted the legis- lature were sharply restricted and are now outmoded and the Territory is harn- pered thereby in its desire to govern it- self. The citizens of Alaska, including the Indians and Eskimos, are citizens of the United States and, of course, are subject to the duties and obligations of citizenship, including service in the armed forces and the payment of Fed- eral income taxes. The Territory is not permitted to participate in the making of the Federal laws which govern it nor in the determination of taxes which 11s citizens have to pay. It is a striking example of taxation without representa- tion. Furthermore the major portion of the land area of Alaska is owned by the Federal Government, aggregating 98 per- cent of the total of 586,400 square miles. These federally owned lands consist of national parks, national forests, Indian reservations and public domain. Re- strictive laws and regulations governing these federally owned Jands are such that it is difficult for residents of Alaska to obtain title to land within the Territory which, to a large extent, has hampered the development of the Territory. If the Territory were admitted into the Union as a State it should and no doubt would receive parity treatment with other States of the Union and these re- strictions which have hampered its de- velopment and growth would be removed. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Under statehood the old organic act which is outmoded and ineffective would give way to a modern constitution and State laws of Alaska’s own making. Alaska is the last great frontier re- maining in the United States for settle- ment and development. Its vast area, reaching from the mild climate of its southern coastal areas to the frczen northlands of the Arctic contain great natural resources capable of development and use. First of all, the fishing industry of Alaska is one of the great resources and has added many millions of dollars to the economy of our Nation, providing it with food products of inestimable value. It is true the Territory itsclf has not profited to the full extent possibie from this valuable industry by reason of outside controls and imported labor and withdrawal of the fishery products and cash returns therefrom from the Terri- tory. Forestry is an Alaskan asset of large value. There are vast stretches of tim- bered areas, particularly in the southern portion, which are awaiting use. Much of this is suitable for commercial saw timber. Extensive portions are valuable for pulp for the manufacture of paper, an adequate supply of which is coming to be a serious prob!em in continental United States. Since the gold rush to Alaska in 1898 mining has continued to be one of the great enterprises of the Territory. Be- tween 1880 and 1939 Alaska produced gold valued at $779,592,777, which is more than 108 times the purchase price of the Territory. Seward’s folly has turned to gold. Gold, however, is accountable for only 81 percent of the mincral produc- tion. There are many known coal de- posits in Alaska, but only two are com- mercially developed fields, which are lo- cated along the Alaska Railroad. There is reason to believe that there are exten- sive oil deposits underlying Alaska, Ex- tensive development has already taken place in adjacent Canadian oil fields. Our own Government is now actively en- gaged in tapping these deposits in Alaska, and the outcome is most promising. The mining industry will continue to be through the years a major one in this great frontier land. Alaska, from the days of Russian control, has been the source of much of our fur supply, and it continues to be a heavy producer of furs of great economic value to Alaska. Our committee was particularly in- terested in the development of agricul- ture in the Territory. Many of our peo- ple do not appreciate that man: portions of Alaska are especially adapted to agri- cultural use. Much has been written about the Matanuska project developed by the Federal Government. While it is true that excessive sums of Federal money were expended, if not squan- dered, in the development of this project, it is also true that it has demonstrated the fact that the lands in the Matanuska Valley will produce exceptionally fine crops and when properly managed will successfully support many families. This valley lies at the head of Cooks Inlet. The winters are comparatively mild, the climate being influenced by the warm waters of the Pacific Ocean, and it en- joys a heavy rainfall, Hardy vegetables MARCH 3 thrive in the area. Grass suitable for grazing abounds and the dairy industry is carried on extensively. Fortunately there is a heavy demand and ready mar- ket for all agricultural products raised in the Territory and in spite of the agri- cultural developments in the Territory large shipments from the outside are re- quired to meet local demands. Agricul- tural development is also carried on ex- tensively in other parts of Alaska. The University of Alaska at Fairbanks main- tains two agricultural . experimental farms which are performing a real serv- ice 1n determining the kind and type of agricultural products and animal indus- try suitable for the various areas of the Territory. The great hinterland extending back from the mild southern coast line over the great interior plateaus and mountain ranges and across McKinley National Park and on to the Arctic Ocean, makes Alaska indeed a land of wonders. An asset of great value to the Territory is its tourist possibilities. It is a hunter’s and tourist’s paradise. The grandeur of its scenery and the beauty of its coastal azeas on the inside passage are unsur- passed. Alaska abounds with large game, Kodiak, grizzly and polar bear, mountain sheep and goats, reindeer, moose and caribou, and will continue to be the mecca for sportsmen and other tourists who are interested in the wildlife of our country. The greatest need in Alaska is ade- quate transportation facilities. Its de- velopment has been held back by lack of adequate low-priced transportation to continental United States, as well as transportation within its borders. Be- fore the war 1t could only be reached by air or water. No land transportation was available and air transportation was crude. Asa war project the great Alaska highway was forged through the wilder- ness some 1,600 miles, terminating in Fairbanks. While the major portion of this highway lies in Canadian territory and has now been turned back to the Canadian Government, it has demon- strated the fact that an adequate high- way can be maintained, giving Alaska land transportation to the outside world. As the Territory develops under state- hood in the years that lie ahead, this great artery should be improved and maintained with lateral extensions as a permanent land transportation system servicing this great north country. The war further demonstrated the need of permanent first-class air service connecting the United States via Alaska with Asia, Europe, and the Far East. The great circle route from our mainland via Alaska is the shortest and most serv- iceable skyway to the Old World. The 9,000 war planes we delivered to Russia at Ladd Field, Alaska, to fly this route to the battlefields of Europe and Asia, dem- onstrated the worth of the great circle approach via Alaska to the Old World. If these sky engines of death can fly from the United States, others can fly back to the United States the same way. Alaska may no longer be the back door but the front door to America. Alaska may be the Pear] Harbor of world war III. It is only a few hours flying time from our mainland and is within bombing range
1950 of Tokyo and Vladivostok as well as other European and Asiatic centers. Perish- able air cargo now leaves Portland, Oreg., in midafternoon, arriving in Anchorage about midnight. Alaska holds the key to the national defense of the United States mainland in the event of a third world war. Our air and land defenses in Alaska should be made impregnable. Immense sums have been expanded by our Government during the war in chart- ing airways and building airflelds and air facilities throughout the Territory and there should be no slackening of our efforts to develop and maintain Alaskan air facilities to full strength not alone for peacetime use but for our national security. The welfare and development of Alaska requires that the whole transportation field receive early attention to the end that this strategic area of our Nation will be provided with adequate transporta- tion by land, water, and air. Such trans- portation service should not only be ade- quate to its needs but should be reason- able in cost so as to obviate the high charges now being exacted in every fleld of transportation to and within the Terri- tory, a bottleneck impeding the develop- ment of Alaska. Alaska has one railroad, Government- Owned and operated, leading from the coast into Fairbanks. The rates are ex- cessively high. It is old and worn out through age and excessive use during the war servicing Ladd Field at Fair- banks. It should be rehabilitated and restored to full effectiveness not alone for local services in Alaska but as a part of the program to Keep Alaska impreg- nable for national security. The high- way system in Alaska should also be ex- tended and improved to permit its full development, Alaska needs settlers and it can only secure Settlers by having adequate highways and other transpor- tation to enable its settlers to reach markets. New settlers bring new in- dustries. Statehood will afford the peo- ple of Alaska the opportunity to solve these and many other problems in the American way by local State govern- ment. The schools of Alaska are maintained in part by the Federal Government and in part by the Territory. If statehood were granted, the whole school problem could be revamped and coordinated un- der local State control so as to provide an integrated school system, providing adequate education for all the children within the Territory. Proponents of statehood for Alaska realize that it will involve increased local taxation. Self-government means State budgets which must be met out of taxes. However, with the citizens of Alaska in control of their own affairs they will be in a position to meet this problem by practicing strict economy in government operations and capturing tax funds from all of its citizens and from all of the in- dustries and commercial operations in Alaska. The tax load may in this man- ner be equalized and spread fairly upon those who should bear the burdens of government. The people of Alaska have now main- tained a territorial government for 36 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE years, and the period of pupilage should be ended. Alaska has grown up and should discard its knee pants. Terri- torial government has outlived its use- fulness. Alaska has developed an econ- omy with ample resources justifying statehood; its citizenship has advanced socially and educationally in keeping with the standards of continental United States. The residents of the Territory have voted by a large majority in favor of statehood, and the best interests of the Territory and its people, as well as the welfare of the United States itself, require that statehood be granted. Mr. Chairman, I urge that the bill (H. R. 831) receive the support of this Congress so that the Territory of Alaska may be admitted to full statehood in our Union of States. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Wier]. Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support to the pending measure pro- viding for the entry of Alaska into the Union. I do that because I am quite sure that the people of my great State of Minnesota would want me to do just that. I can remind you that among other reasons I have in mind for sup- porting this bill is this: A few years ago several hundred citizens of the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota formed a colony and moved up into the Matanuska Valley of Alaska as an ex- periment to find security on new land. Mest of them have remained there and are slowly succeeding. I am sure those people in their communications to the folks back home have asked for this very bill we are considering today. The thing that irks me most in this de- bate this afternoon is the question raised by some Members of this House as to how many civil-service employees or Government employees are involved up there. What difference does that make? I think the civil-service employees and the Government employees are beginning to find themselves in a state of serfdom, because everywhere the bars are being drawn against their rights as free Amer- ican citizens and to exercise their fran- chise of government. The first question asked here todcy is, How many Govern- ment employees are up there? I have found Government employees to be very loyal citizens of this country and very good judges of those whom they want to select as their Representatives. Another question that comes up here is the qu*stion of the number of Mem- bers of Congress there shall be. Four hundred thirty-five. By granting to Alaska statehood we may have to take in one or two more Mcmbers. I find plenty of seats here and I have not yet realized that we were operating a closed shop here as against any further mem- bership in this House. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yleld such time as he may desire to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WoL- VERTON]. Mr. WOLVERTON, Mr. Chairman, I am conscious that from present indica- tions there is a strong possibility that this House will vote statehood for Alaska. If such favorable action is taken it will in 2755 my opinion be largely due to the fine per- sonality of the Delegate from Alaska [ Mr. BartietTt). His manner is always charm- ing, his attitude friendly and his ability of a high order. Recognizing as I do these persona] elements it is difficult for me to vote against this bill. However, I believe it is my duty to give consideration to the subject, divorced from the person- alities involved, and consider it from the standpoint of national welfare and neces- sity. As Idoso,I am unable to agree with the proponents of the measure that it is either necessary or will promote our na- tional welfare at this time. Consequent- ly, I will vote against the bill. There are many reasons that bring me to the conclusion I have reached. Up- permost is the fact that giving statehood to Alaska will enable it to have two United States Senators for a voting pop- ulation of approximately 20,000 voters, a population that is far less than any State of the Union, This would give to a terri- tory thousands of miles away, with an ex- cecdingly small population, the same voting strength in the United States Senate that New York and many other populous States with millions of voters in each, including our own State of New Jersey, now have. This is my opinion, especially if Hawaii and Puerto Rico should hereafter be recognized and there- by obtain two Senators each, is an undue representation for the number of people involved. Furthermore it is reported that the total assessed value of property subject to taxation in all of Alaska amounts to only $110,000,000. This in my judgment is not sufficient to produce sufficient tax rev- enue to sustain a State government and the local governments necessary to carry out the responsibilities and obligations of statehood. It is difficult to understand why the administration leaders should press at this time for representation for the peo- ple of Alaska, and, at the same time ignore the hundreds of thousands of citi- zens residing in the District of Columbia. ‘he latter are without any direct repre- sentation in either House or Senate. They do not even have the right to cast their votes for President of the United States. It seems to me that this presents a cece where justice should commence necrer home. An argument has been made for state- hood for Alaska on the theory that it is a very strategic area from a military standpoint. I agree that it is but it does not require statehood to strengthen our security in that respect. This se- curity has and will continue to be a na- tional chiigation. The strategic char- acter of this territory has and will con- tinue to be recognized by our military forces. They have and will continue to make our defenses in that area impreg- nable against foreign attacks against the United States by way of Alaska, There is nothing that statehcod could provide any more than has been done in the past with Alaska a Territory of the United States. The people of Alaska have no basis of complaint against the treatment it has had as a Territory. Conrrcss has al- ways been ready and willing to give every
2756 consideration to its needs, and provide the facilities that would promote the wel- fare of its people. It has been my privi- Jege as a member of the House Commit- tee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to assist in the passage of legislation that would promote the transportation fa- cilities of the Territory, both land and air, advance its health, and in all other ways that come within the jurisdiction of our committee. The same can be said with reference to all the other commit- tees of the House and Senate, and, both bodies have ever been ready and willing to pass all such legislation, and the Pres- ident to approve the same. For these and many other reasons I cennot see my way clear to vote for the bill. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. JOHNSON], Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking minority member of the committee for giving me this extra time. Mr. Chairman, I have grave doubts as to whether or not Alaska is at the pres- ent time capable of handling statehood. They have an assessed value of all pri- vate property of only $110,000,000. With the tremendous extent of their terri- tory, I doubt if that is enough of a tax base on which to raise enough revenue to run a State government with all the ramifications and different things it has to do. My home city of Stockton, Calif., which approaches 100,000 in population now, has an assessable base of only $80,- 000,000, and it has a very difficult time running that town with that assessable tax base. I do not want anybody that listens to me to think I have anything against the people of Alaska or against the small States or against States with small pop- ulations. I just believe that Alaska to- day is not ready for statehood. It does not have a_ sufficient population to handle the situation. With reference to the national de- fense, statehood would not make one single contribution to national defense. That is a Federal responsibility exclu- sively. We all look to the National Gov- ernment for our defense and security. I am on the border of the country in California, where we could be attacked. We look to the National Government to take care of our national-defense prob- lems, although we furnish great num- ber. of National Guard troops and Re- serves. When war comes they are promptly federalized. Concerning population increases, we cannot be sure that the population will increase, so we had better wait until Alaska has the requisite population. If they had a half million people I would be the first one to help them get state- hood, but they have only between 95,000 and 105,000 population, and that is not adequate at this time. Capital will be attracted to Alaska if it gives investments a chance. State- hood would not help that one bit. The opportunities are there and the re- sources’are there. If it is attractive enough, capital will go into Alaska, It will not go into Alaska simply because CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the people have statehood, Everybody knows that. Another thing, the plebi- scite showed that only 3 out of 5 voters went for statehood in a vote of 16,384 people who voted on the question. I doubt as a matter of morals or fairness whether we should force upon 40 per- cent of the population of Alaska state- hood, which they do not now want. I believe ultimately Alaska should have statehood when she has demonstrated that she can handle it and that she has the population to warrant statehood and can take care of the responsibilities that come with statehood. This she does not now have. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from Arizona |Mr. MurpDock}. Mr. MURDOCK Mr. Chairman, be- cause I believe that the admission of these two Territories, Alaska and Ha- wali, into the Union is a part of the his- torical westward movement of our star of empire, I favor this measure. I have a practical reason for favoring it, also. I recognize the strategic place that these Territories occupy as has already been pointed out. The Pacific Ocean from now on will be the ocean of commerce and of history to be written just as the Atlantic Ocean has been historically the ocean of commerce and great achieve- ment. Alaska occupies a strategic place of increasing importance and for that reason she ought to have the dignity and standing of statehood. Every phase of colonial policy may be found in the history of various colonizing peoples. Some good colonial policies may be cited and some unwise colonial policies might be given as illustrations. The United States of America—meaning the Old Thirteen as the mother coun- try—has had a successful and wise colo- mial policy. Under that policy, the original 13 States have grown to a vast Nation of 48 States. In that process of growth, we have maintained strong ties of union and have written across this continent and throughout American history the phrase “E Pluribus Unum” which we see on the coin of the Nation and read on the ceiling above our heads. That is one of the most significant facts of American political history, What was it in the policy of the orig- inal 13 States that has brought about this great and splendid result? It was our policy of encouragement, kindly consideration, and guaranty of equality to the children who have moved into the West—into an ever-expanding West— to build new commonwealths, establish- ing there the institutions which they brought with them from the older States. This encouragement helped to settle the West, built up its new States, and ce- mented those new communities to the older communities into an indissoluble Union. As we look back over the past, we are grateful that the founders of the Nation took a wise and unselfish view of the West and provided in the basic law that “new States may be admitted to this Union on terms of equality.” T -five States have thus far been ad to the original 18 and forged into one strong Nation because of that wise Policy, The admission of Alaska and MARCH 3 Hawaii will, in my judgment, be a carry- ing out of that policy. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Mites]. Mr. MILES. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly in favor of statehood for Alaska, believing it to be in the best interests of the welfare of the Nation. I sincerely trust the bill passes. Mr. Chairman, recently, upon my re- turn from an extended tour of the Pacific Ocean area, I joined with my colleagues of a Subcommittee of the House Com- mittee on Public Lands in recommending immediate statehood for Hawaii. A bill to enable Hawaii to become a State, H. R. 49, had already been favorably reported by the full committee, and on January 23 the House agreed to its consideration. Statehood for Hawaii is not new. It was not dreamed up yesterday. Statehood for Hawaii goes back 100 years into the history of our Republic and its earliest interest in the Pacific. The need for tying Hawaii to the United States was first advocated in the Congress of the United States in 1852. In that year, a Democratic Congressman from the State of California demanded that the Hawaiian Islands be annexed on the ground that they were necessary for the protection of California and the Pacific coast and essential in carrying on American trade with Asia and the Pacific islands. The Whigs, the then opposition party, were opposed to further expansion and did not look with favor on annexa- tion proposals in general. The expan- sion question went to the people in the 1852 national elections. In the fall of 1852, a Democrat, Frank- lin Pierce, was elected President of the United States. In his inauguration ad- dress, President Pierce declared that his administration would not be controlled by “any timid forebodings of evil from expansion.” In 1853 President Pierce appointed a new United States Commissioner to the Kingdom of Hawaii, David L. Gregg of Illinois. The first instructions to Com- missioner Gregg pointed out the in- creased importance of Hawaii to the United States because of the acquisition of California and the Oregon Territory and the developments in eastern Asia which was then being opened to trade. Mr. Gregg’s first instructions contained nothing on annexation. On his arrival in Hawaii, however, Mr. Gregg found annexation to be the subject of the day and no little source of trouble in the community. The official repre- sentatives of the Governments of France and Great Britain in Hawaii were busy doing everything in their power to stem the proannexation tide. In a sharply worded note, the King of Hawaii was advised that— Any attempt to annex the Sandwich Is- lands to any foreign power whatever, would be in contravention of existing treaties, and could not be looked upon with indifference by either the British or the French Govern- ment. The American Commissioner, when informed of this action by his British and French counterparts in Hawaii, re-