Mr. SAYLOR. In your absence, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Chaney appeared and testified that so there would be no doubt that the State of Alaska would have no jurisdiction over fur seals and sea otters and things which are covered in the North Pacific Treaty between Japan, Canada, and the United States concerning fishing, that this provision be inserted.

Mr. BARTLETT. Did Mr. Chaney say, Mr. Saylor, that it was his construction that the language now in the bill meant that the State of Alaska would have authority only to the 3-mile limit?

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Unfortunately, the gentleman from Alaska, as previously announced, has been elsewhere and could not be present during that discussion this morning. Because of that and because of its importance to him, the Chair would like to suggest that the amendment be laid over. We are going to have to go over anyway. That will give the gentleman from Alaska an opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr. Chaney and become advised of what the amendment does to the area in which he is so much interested.

How many other members have amendments? Mr. Edmondson, you have one?

Mr. EDMONDSON. Yes; possibly two.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Aspinall?

Mr. ASPINALL. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Bartlett, I have seen your amendments. Most of those are pro forma; are they not?

Mr. BARTLETT Most of them are; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We are trying to arrange the time here. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Pillion, wants to address the committee in opposition to this legislation, and because of the importance of this legislation and because we are voting on amendments, members are entitled to know what we are going to do.

Would it be agreeable with the committee if we go over until Monday next for Mr. Pillion's address and thereafter take up the remaining amendments which are very brief-I assume and vote on this bill on Tuesday at 11:45, on all amendments and on final passage? Is there objection?

Mr. SAYLOR. I so move, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, that will be the order of the Chair.

Mr. WESTLAND. Mr. Chairman, may I just suggest one thing off the record?

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the hearings on the statehood bill will proceed Monday next at 10 o'clock and Tuesday next at 10 o'clock, with the final vote upon all amendments and final passage at 9:30 on Wednesday morning.

Mr. EDMONDSON. May I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Can we assume from that there will be no voting on any of the amendments until Wednesday morning?

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir. We will vote the amendments as they come along, but it was the Chair's idea we would hear Mr. Pillion

on Monday on such presentation as he desires to make in opposition, and then proceed with these amendments because you pretty nearly have to vote the amendments as they come along. If somebody wants to put them off, it is perfectly all right with the Chair. There will be no vote on Monday, if that will be some assurance. We can agree to that, can we not?

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be understood that there will be no vote on any amendment on Monday, but if Mr. Pillion does not consume all of the time we will proceed to the discussion of further amendments, with the understanding that they will be voted commencing on Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock, with the final vote at 9:30 on the following day.

If that is agreeable, without objection, it is the order of the Chair and the committee stands in adjournment until next Monday at 10 o'clock, with the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation occupying the two committee dates this week.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m., on Monday, February 14, 1955.)

HAWAII-ALASKA STATEHOOD

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1955

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in the committee room, New House Office Building, Hon. Clair Engle (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order for the further consideration of H. R. 2535 and H. R. 2536 and related bills, to enable the people of Hawaii and Alaska each to form a constitution and State government and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.

Under previous orders of the committee, the gentleman from New York is recognized in opposition for such time this morning as he may desire.

The Chair recognizes the able gentleman from New York.

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. PILLION, A UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 42D DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Mr. PILLION. Mr. Chairman, the controversial problem of statehood for the Territories of Hawaii and Alaska continues to challenge the wisdom of this Congress. My remarks shall pertain to bill H. R. 2535, which proposed to grant statehood to both Territories and is now under consideration by this committee.

THE IMPORTANCE AND THE FINALITY OF STATEHOOD

This momentous issue of statehood compels us to give our most serious attention to its consequences. We are confronted with a measure that has vast implications relating to the internal affairs of this Union. We must also concern ourselves with the finality of whatever decision we may make.

No other problem as vitally affects and shapes our future as will statehood. The seriousness of this subject is transcended only by our struggle to survive the Communist holocaust.

The various domestic and foreign problems of this Congress which relate to finance, defense, health, and foreign aid, are of extreme importance. Yet, if we find ourselves in error, our mistakes can readily be rectified by congressional action or by the flexibility of executive power. With one exception, even our Constitution and its amendments may be amended to conform with changing conditions or attitudes. The most recent example of this change is the repeal of the 18th amendment.

The one exception to the right to change our Constitution applies to the present proposal. Article V of our Constitution provides that no amendment may be made to this clause "and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The principle that no State can secede from this Union is established. The corollary principle that this Nation cannot divorce any State from this Union or restore it to the status of a Territory is equally accepted. Thus, the grant of statehood becomes an irrevocable

act.

The finality of our decision as to statehood gives us cause to approach this matter, not with a lighthearted generosity, but rather with a somber realization and precaution that any mistake will burden us for the life of this Republic.

THE EMOTIONAL, IRRELEVANT, AND MINOR ISSUES

There have been so many issues injected into this debate that it has become difficult to see the forest for the trees. Almost every conceivable argument has been presented pro and con to a degree that has confused and confounded rather than enlightened those who may be interested.

This appears a suitable time to attempt to clarify and place the arguments into their true political perspective. The leading arguments in favor of statehood which are grouped together here as being either emotional, irrelevant, or of minor consequence are:

(a) Americanism and military service;

(b) The psychological impact of statehood upon the Asiatic peoples;

(c) The references to precedent in favor of statehood;

(d) Partisan political considerations.

THE EMOTIONAL APPEAL OF AMERICANISM AND MILITARY SERVICE

Every informed person will acknowledge the courage and the sacrifices of the Hawaiian veterans in both World War II and the Korean conflict. This Nation is eternally indebted to them and in an equal degree to all other American veterans who fought so gloriously in those wars.

The proponents of statehood have cited individual cases of heroism on the part of Hawaiian soldiers. They have made comparisons of the Hawaiian casualties and the numbers in military service as against the casualties and the number of servicemen from the United States as a whole.

The Alaska Statehood Committee has published this claim:

In two world wars and in Korea they have fought-in number exceeding the national per capita average-and by so doing have written a war record second to none in the Nation.

The Library of Congress has furnished the following table of inductees for World War II:

The table follows, with the States in the one column, population in the other, and the draftees in the last column. The indication is that out of 79,000 population in 1945 Alaska had only 3,482 inductees. The table further points out that Hawaii, with 460,000 population had 28,000, whereas New Hampshire, with a less population of 459,000 had

a greater number of draftees, 32,430. Hawaii, in addition to the above, had 8,769 enlistees and no figures are available for the enlistees in the other States.

NOTE.-Hawaii had 8,769 additional enlistees. No figures are available for other States.

These figures do not substantiate claims of superiority in the number of citizens from Hawaii and Alaska who served in World War II. The statements regarding casualties and bravery cannot support the inference that these soldiers were more loyal and more brave than the veterans from the other areas of this country. I defend all segments of this country from the innuendo that any group or area of our people have a monopoly upon patriotism or bravery. There is no scientific thermometer that can measure the warmth of devotion for this great country.

The sacrifices on the battlefield do not constitute legitimate political, economic, or social premises for the admission of these Territories to statehood. These highly emotional appeals could have been, most properly, left out of this debate.

THE IRRELEVANCE OF FOREIGN PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

The proponents of statehood claim that statehood would create good will for the United States in the Pacific area and would avoid for us the stigma of "colonialism."

The question of statehood is solely and wholly a domestic problem of our internal affairs. It is a strange theory that would permit foreign opinion to influence or decide the conduct of our domestic affairs. The Communist line of charging us with "colonialism" cannot be increased in volume nor will it be softened by any act of compliance.

We should not fear to disappoint those enemies. Our foreign friends need no explanations.

The psychological impact of statehood upon foreign peoples is irrelevant and deserves no consideration here.

The height of irrelevancy was attained by a former Governor of one of the Territories. He advanced as an argument in favor of statehood, "the delectation of visitors, the sweetness of Hawaiian music, and the rhythm of its dance." Certainly, the muscular gyrations of the hula dance is far afield from the crux of the statehood problem. This sentimentality borders upon the frivolous.

THE PRECEDENTS FOR STATEHOOD

The proponents of statehood rely extensively upon the use of precedent to lend validity to their claims.