Imágenes de páginas

I think all of these things and others I have mentioned will be enhanced by statehood. I think the Nation needs the products of Alaska. The Nation will gain in that respect. The Nation will also gain, of course, through increased Federal taxes and other revenues that come from increased production.

Mr. O'BRIEN. And with the development of these great resources here, you figure that in the long-run the taxpayers of New York State would have lighter burden?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; I believe they will be the net gainer.

Mr. O'BRIEN. They would pay a smaller share actually of the Federal taxes because a great flow of such taxes would come eventually from Alaska?

Mr. WHITE. I am fully confident of that.

Mr. O'BRIEN. And New York State, which seems to have almost as much capital as people, it would be a nice place for some of that capital to go?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.
Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Abbott, do you have anything?

Mr. ABBOTT. If it is argued that the 4 seats which Hawaii and Alaska would obtain by admission, the seats in the United States Senate would result in 1 Senator for each 157,000 inhabitants, whereas the present average representation is 1 seat for each 1,589,000 inhabitants, do you consider that a valid reason for objections by major States, that is, your larger States, to admission of Alaska as a State?

Mr. White. That is very discouraging to us to hear that reason given. Of course, we had nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution. We like the way it is. We think it is an excellent document. It has done very well by the country throughout the years. The Constitution deliberately set up the House of Representatives on a population basis. The Senate basis of two Senators for every State was set up likewise. We think the argument has no merit at all, that Alaska now has a greater population than twenty-odd States at the time of their admission. We probably have a greater population now than Nevada has. We feel that the place for representatives on population basis is in the House and not in the Senate.

Mr. ABBOTT. We are advised that Nevada passed the 200,000 mark in population for the first time about 6 months ago.

Mr. WHITE. We are breathing hard on their necks.

Mr. ABBOTT. If it is argued that Alaska is too big and too thinly populated to be a natural State, what would your response be?

I might add that it is argued Hawaii is too small and too heavily populated.

Mr. WHITE. I cannot see that has anything to do with it. I suspect maybe the source of that argument is in a large State in the Southwest of the United States which would, upon the admission of Alaska, become the second largest State in the Union.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Abbott, I was interested in your previous line of questioning. As you know and I know, two of the staunchest advocates of that population representation in the Senate come from my State, and I cannot recall that, as a newspaperman covering the legislature of the State of New York--both of those gentlemen served in that legislature and never once raised their voices in objection because an assemblyman from New York City represented 500,000

people in the assembly, while an assemblyman representative of upstate New York represented 12,000. There it was a good thing for their party.

Now I do not want to be partisan in this, but I think we should apply and they should apply the same measuring rod to Alaska as they were willing to apply to their own State. I have told them that myself, so I am not running off to Alaska to make that statement. Mr. WHITE. That is very interesting.

Mr. ABBOTT. In the Territory of Alaska, during the short time that the subcommittee has been here, several individuals to my knowledge have approached me and, I am sure, the members of the committee to say, "Bring your Members of Congress to Alaska and let them see Alaska and they would never make Alaska a State.” What is your response to that?

Mr. WHITE. Well, our direct experience has been directly to the contrary. We have found over the years that Congressmen, Senators, who have come to Alaska, many of them lukewarm at best about the proposition, have gone home rather enthusiastic about the Territory, about statehood, and about our future potential.

If funds could be found, I would be the first one to suggest bringing every Member of the House of Representatives and the Senate to Alaska, and I feel fully confident of the result when they went home.

Mr. ABBOTT. A gentleman in Hawaii told us last year that if they could get a simple majority of both Houses of Congress there during the same session of Congress they had no doubt but what those people would go back and provide statehood for Hawaii. Do you feel the same about Alaska?

Mr. WHITE. I would rather not get involved in the politics of the statehood question. We have had a majority both ways, I believe, while the statehood question has been current in Washington, and we still have not got statehood. I rather think it is a question of keep pounding on the door of educating and acquainting Congressmen and Senators of both parties as to what Alaska is really like.

Mr. ABBOTT. The committee had referred to it-I don't know that the subcommittee chairman bas scheduled hearings on it-House Joint Resolution 213, which would propose to permit Alaska to become a county of the State of Washington and to permit Hawaii to become a county of the State of California. Do you have any observations on the purpose of that resolution?

Mr. WHITE. Well, I have heard it said we are to all intents and purposes a county of the State of Washington. Now I have no personal opinion on that. I think perhaps in trying to get statehood that is one of the things Alaskans are trying to get away from.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I might say, in connection with these visits by Members of Congress, it has definitely been my impression that those who have come to Alaska were either converted or made more enthusiastic after their visit. But usually those who come are members of our committee in the House or its counterpart in the Senate. So we have the situation of where we report out a bill or bills favorable to Alaska, and then we run against a stone wall of indifference on the part of the other people who have not visited Alaska or Hawaii. What would you think of the idea of a very special committee coming to Alaska, a committee composed of the chairman and ranking member of each of the committees of Congress-Appropriations, Ways and

Means, all of which have a direct or indirect connection with your problem? But, more important than that, on those committees you will find very often the men and women who have the real life or death power over legislation in Congress. And that would not be an overly large committee if you just limited it to the chairman and the ranking minority member. I think that that would be much less expensive than sending a simple majority of Congress.

Mr. WHITE. I think that would be an excellent suggestion and we would be delighted to see them.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I can't guarantee they would come. I would like to see that because I believe you would get statehood very promptly if that happened.

Mr. ABBOTT. Mr. White, several witnesses have in their statements implied or stated directly that "the South is opposed to statehood for both Alaska and Hawaii”. Do you believe that to be true?

Mr. WHITE. That has been my observation. Perhaps not solidly, but certainly the vast majority of the Southern Senators appear to be opposed to statehood.

Mr. ABBOTT. What is your understanding as to why they would be opposed?

Mr. WHITE. It is my understanding it is tied up with the civilrights question, and their supposed control of Congress.

Mr. ABBOTT. If two grounds are given, and I believe the principal one is "civil rights," that the additional Senators to be supplied or to come to Washington from Hawaii and Alaska would automatically be pro-civil-rights Senators-what would your response to be that? Is that an argument against admission or for admission or it it a correct assertion?

Mr. WHITE. Well, I think it is too bad we have to speculate about how the future Senators from Alaska and Hawaii might vote on particular questions. I think that would be largely a question of individuals, and I hate to see it tied up with the statehood question.

Mr. O'BRIEN. So would we, but it is tied up.

Now we had a young man who testified before us, I believe in Nome, from the University of Washington. He was somewhat embarrassed and a little bit confused, but he did rip through a lot of things. He assumed that we were for statehood. But he offered what he considered a practical suggestion, because your principal obstacle in Washington is politics. Not necessarily the partisan type, but the very odd politics involving civil rights, involving the things Mr. Abbott has mentioned.

Now there has been expressed-in fact this young man expressed the belief that if Hawaii came up by itself with this present administration supporting Hawaii, and not for the time being Alaska, that the Hawaiian bill might very well pass and, that if it did, you could not stop statehood for Alaska.

Now I know this is a difficult question to ask anybody in Alaska, a particularly difficult question to ask a group such as yours fighting for statehood, which is your main objective. Would you be willing to take that risk, to be a part of the deal, if you will, in the hope that you would get statehood sooner? Or would you prefer to continue as you have been, watching the bewildering maneuvers down in Washington, with one House passing it one year and the other one the

next year, and never the twain meeting? Would you take that calculated risk or be willing to?

Mr. WHITE. Well, as a preamble, I agree with what Mr. Atwood said yesterday, that is, that Alaska has never been consulted on joining together or not joining together the bills. That does not answer your question.

I think Alaskans 100 percent have no desire to stand in the way of Hawaii. In my own group, Operation Statehood, we considered as a matter of strategy, this thing: We put out some inquiries to Washington, and we have advised that in the Senate the feeling of the leaders on the statehood question there was, unless the guaranty was given that Alaska would get consideration following the Hawaiian bill going through, that they would not go for any such deal.

Mr. O'BRIEN. You mean immediate consideration of the same?

Mr. WHITE. That is right. So we dropped the matter. We figured we did not have anything to say about it anyway and, so long as there appeared to be no chance of this coming to pass, we might just as well not get involved in it. We do not wish to stand in the way of Hawaii.

I would say no administration or Congress that I can conceive of would deny statehood to Alaska once it had been given to Hawaii.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I agree with you, but you can see the peculiar position that some of the friends of Alaska would be in if this very practical proposition came up, say, in the coming session of Congress. We would be, as far as the record vote is concerned, in the position of voting for statehood for Ilawaii and not for Alaska, or not having an opportunity to vote for statehood for Alaska. If that should come about, I suppose we would have to play it by ear, but I would hate to think that the people of Alaska would think that their friends had deserted them when, in fact, their friends would only be following an expedient course which would bring statehood much quicker.

Mr. WHITE. If I were completely neutral in the thing and outside any connection with Hawaii and Alaska and were sitting in Congress, my only desire was to get the votes through sooner, and I had a chance to vote on one and no chance to vote on the other until the next session, I would go ahead and vote on the one. As you say, it is a very difficult question to answer. I think your friends in Alaska would fully understand any strategy that was decided on.

Mr. ABBOTT. Mr. White, from time to time, both from our acquaintances in Hawaii and acquaintances in Alaska, there has been an expression of a little unhappiness that the two were tied together in the bill reported from this committee. It should be understood that tying together came about only after many, many, many hours of conference, thought, research, and what have you, with exploration of several alternatives that have not been explored in the past. One of those involved a long-standing House rule which permits the calling up of statehood measures from the floor as a preferential matter.

There is one other alternative, which is being considered, in looking over the history of statehood, up to the approval of the ArizonaNew Mexico enabling acts. It has apparently not been used, and it would be this: That the committee report a separate Hawaii bill and a separate Alaska bill and request before the Rules Committee a "joint rule" which would provide, in effect, 4 hours of debate on Alaska, whereupon the Committee of the Whole House would rise, report back

to the House, and that bill would be disposed of; then, in the same resolution, there would be established by vote of the House before either was debated, a section calling for 4 hours of debate on Hawaii, at which time they would rise and vote on Hawaii. What is your reaction to that?

Mr. WHITE. I assume that no amendments are permitted under this procedure.

Mr. ABBOTT. The Rules Committee sometimes decides in favor of closing a rule, which prohibits amendments other than those committee recommended. There are those who argued at the time that the desirability of closing is related to objectionable features in the bill or are matters which even this committee is a little reluctant to finally decide for 435 Members of the House. But whether or not it was a closed rule, it has occurred to many Members that this "joint rule” might be the one device which would set at rest those people who felt that they would not have an opportunity to vote on both bills at the same session of Congress.

Mr. WHITE. That is a new one to me. It sounds just off-the-cuff like a very sensible method to try.

Mr. ABBOTT. I might add we spent 13 hours in front of the Rules Committee rather thoroughly debating issues, ranking from communism to the size of the area's population, perhaps all the arguments that have been presented historically. But the decision that must be made strategywise, as you will recognize, is a very tough one.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I might say at this point, on several occasions during our hearings I brought up the possibility of having an on nibus bill for Alaska. Mr. Atwood did a rather thorough job on it yesterday when he said that by the time we got through down in Congress we would have nothing left but the enacting clause. But I will tell you what I really had in mind: The possibility that we might be confronted with this very practical political consideration, where there might be a bill providing statehood for llawaii with deferment for a year or two of Alaska. That is why I would like to have ready, at least in the works, an omnibus bill which would provide for Alaska many of the things you need here, the land grants, the proper handling of the fisheries, and so forth, because I felt that if there was a decision to go ahead with the Hawaii statehood bill and we had an omnibus bill ready for Alaska, it would be very difficult for Congress to turn down such an omnibus bill, because the only argument that could carry conceivably any weight against Alaska is the argument advanced by those who say Alaska is not yet ready for statehood. I say if we had an omnibus bill, even if it was held on an individual track for such an emergency, that it would answer that argument because that omnibus bill would provide the tools needed to get ready for statehood. In fact, it might be called a prestatehood bill. That was my thought, not to bundle all your desirable legislation in one bill and let it rise or fall, because I still believe we should have separate bills on those problems. But I would like to try to get ready an omnibus bill that could hit the main law and if we ran into one of those practical matters of Hawaii being given the green light.

Do you think it would be desirable to have such a bill? Or do you think that would be a confession that you did not expect statehood, that you had abandoned your fight for statehood and were accepting half a loaf?

« AnteriorContinuar »