subcommittees so that they will be in a fair measure of balance; though not necessarily in the same proportion as the full committee, which has 16 Democrats and 13 Republicans. We shall try to maintain, as the gentleman knows, some semblance of balance.

From past experience it can be concluded that in all probability everyone who asks to be given a seat on a subcommittee will be accommodated if we can arrange it.

Mr. DAWSON. Do I understand the chairman to say that there will be hearings if the committee requests it, and those people who desire to be heard can be heard if a request is made?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair stated that a number of times this morning.

Mr. DAWSON. As I see it, the proposition is not going to be any different, whether it goes to a subcommittee or is considered before the full committee.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAWSON. Yes.

Mr. YOUNG. I think there would be a difference. With a large number of witnesses it would be a wise idea to send it back to the subcommittee, so that it would not hold up the full committee. We might hold up such important projects as the upper Colorado River project and the Trinity project.

I have not yet had an opportunity to study all of the hearings of past years and there are still a considerable number of problems concerned with Alaskan statehood that I should like to study in greater detail, although I generally am in favor of statehood. If there are only a few witnesses, it is possible to have the testimony presented here before the full committee, but if there is a large number of witnesses, I think it would be desirable to send it back to the subcommittee for consideration and discussion.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest to the gentleman that where you have as many as 24 members of a subcommittee, the full committee is for all practical purposes tied up anyway.

That is one of the difficulties, of course, with having very large ommittees, that to a very large extent it preempts the whole ommittee and you cannot very well run 2 subcommittees when you Save t8 or 20 people on each of the subcommittees, because they overThe difficulty is that you simply cannot get a quorum for both

rises a serious question, too, about the policy we adopt with ece to establishing of subcommittees, because the function of committee is to expedite business and if a subcommittee's dership in fact preempts the membership of the full committee, Now you are doing is covering the same ground twice. If all ca serve on all subcommittees, and if all parties serve on the full vw and Trey we are doing the same work twice.

case, with the kind of attendance we have here this morning, ece de only four members who have not requested membership, so Committee is going to be tied up anyway. This legislaco, watch is so important, will have such an interest that I assume act the attendance of most of the membership of the com

nees inyone else wish to be heard?

Mopa. I had not completed, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I beg your pardon; I thought you had concluded. The gentleman may continue.

Mr. DAWSON. I simply want to make the statement, Mr. Chairman, that better progress would be made by having this whole group hear this matter and go into any differences that have come up since we last heard the discussion.

I was one of those who went down to Hawaii and heard the witnesses; I have been through these hearings before and I think that my mind is pretty well made up, but if these new members do not have any objection to curtailing the hearings to some extent, I think we should defeat the motion and let us get along with it.

The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on this motion? If not, the Chair wants to say that the issue before the committee is whether or not you want to hear this in full committee or hear it in subcommittee. The difference is for all practical purposes, four members who have not filed for membership on the subcommittee. It is such a proposition that we face the possibility of doing some of the work twice. The Chair regards this matter of sufficient importance to warrant the consideration of the full committee, without any implication that there is to be a limitation upon the extent of the hearings or the amount of information produced which will be subject to the direction of the committee itself. All members who want to get time for somebody to appear, including the gentleman from New York who made the motion, will certainly receive very careful consideration and cooperation of the chairman.

With that, are you ready to vote?

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, may we ask the gentleman to restate his motion?

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman restate the motion?

Mr. PILLION. The purpose of the motion was to refer the matter to the subcommittee in the usual manner.

Mr. BUDGE. A point of information, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BUDGE. If the motion should not prevail when does the Chair consider it likely that the hearings might commence?

The CHAIRMAN. We will keep right on going and as long as testimony is available, unless we have to wait for some essential testimony to get here; for instance if Dr. Miller has someone he wants to bring before the commitee from Hawaii, of course, it is going to take some

But further than that, if the committee desires to hear from the Department again, although we have reports from the Department and it is the same Department as it was last year, and this legisiation is for all practical purposes identical with what we had last year, therefore it is fair to assume that the report will be the same. Nevertheless if the committee wants them, it may take a little time to get them up here, but we will try to get them.

Mr. BUDGE. A further point of inquiry: I take it then that it is not the Chair's intention to have a vote on this matter this morning? The CHAIRMAN. No; it is not the Chair's intention.

Now, are you ready to vote?

Those in favor of the motion to refer these bills to the Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Affairs for hearings will say "aye." Those opposed to the motion will say "no."

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, let us have a roll call.

The CHAIRMAN. The ayes and nays are requested and the clerk will call the roll.

(The clerk called the roll and announced the results, as follows:)

The CLERK. Seven ayes, fifteen noes, and five not voting.
The CHAIRMAN. The noes have it, and the motion is lost.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Bartlett.

STATEMENT OF HON. E. L. BARTLETT, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, so far as Alaska is concerned, the statement

Mr. SHUFORD (interposing). Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman occupy the chair in front of us so we can hear him a little better, if he has no objection?

Mr. BARTLETT. Certainly.

As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, so far as Alaska is concerned, the statement of the gentleman from New York is correct: For Alaska this is not only important legislation, but the most important legisla tive proposal now before the Congress.

We will submit, with grace, I hope, to hearings of whatever type and kind and duration are suggested by the committee.

We will ask it to advocate statehood. We are prepared to bring witnesses from Alaska, if you so desire. We have done it on many occasions in the past, and I do not suppose that we will be hurt, except our pocketbooks, perhaps, by doing it again. But since the mind of man does have limitations, I would like to suggest to you that only variations of the arguments for and against statehood can be presented now to the committee, because the basic arguments for and against have been presented to the committee and to the corresponding com mittee in the Senate over the years. As a matter of fact, here is a record, the printed record, on Alaskan statehood that has been assembled over the years, starting in 1947. Since the statehood movement is somewhat younger than that of Hawaii, we have not accumulated as many pages, but notwithstanding we have a rather impressive record in that respect. The hearings have run up to some 2,632 pages.

The hearings have been conducted both in Washington and in Alaska. And we are prepared now, as I said, to furnish the committee with a small amount of wordage on the subject, a medium of wordage on a lot of words.

Actually, the desire of Alaskans for statehood began, I suspect, almost simultaneously with the acquisition of that Northwest land by the United States by purchase from Russia in 1867. And at the time of purchase, some Members of Congress foresaw the coming of statehood for Alaska.

The modern statehood movement is about 15 years old and came into being, all of us believe, after every effort to attain greater home rule for the people of Alaska through other methods of legislation had failed, and in essence, those efforts have not been successful to this day.

Alaska is a country in brief with great resources that lie waiting for development, and which we believe can only be developed under the kind of local government that statehood will bring. It is a territory whose population has increased rather rapidly. During the last several years many of the newer settlers have been veterans of World War II; young people have gone up there and have established their homes and they are desirous to have the same kind of government that they lived under in the State of their original residence.

The people of Alaska come from all over the States of the Union. It is truly an American land in every way. There is a patriotic and devoted citizenry there; and they have, time after time, expressed the desire and the willingness to accept all of the responsibility and burdens that we know go with statehood as well as to participate in the manifest and manifold advantages that statehood will confer, not only upon Alaska but upon the entire Union.

Since this proceeding now, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, is not a formal hearing, I am not going into an extensive discussion of why I believe that Alaska should be a State, but I want to say to you that at the time the committee so desires, we will be prepared to offer testimony, affirmative testimony, for statehood for Alaska. But of course we would like to be guided by the committee as to what is desired by way of witnesses who may come from Alaska, who may live here, and the general nature of the testimony that is wanted. I do hope that all members of the committee will find time, take time, to read the hearings in the printed record, which have gone on for so long, because once that has been done, I suspect that your conclusion will be that, unless some additional testimony will be required, as has been suggested, the subject has been boxed about, covering every point on the

continent.

Thank you very
you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that conclude your statement, Mr. Bartlett? Mr. BARTLETT. That concludes it for the time being. I will be prepared to return at any time you desire for further discussion.

The CHAIRMAN. I assume that either one of the Delegates will be prepared to answer questions as the hearings progress, as questions occur to the members of the committee?

Mr. UTT. Mr. Chairman, just a question.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. UTT. I assume that in the formal hearings the Alaskan statements will appear in the hearings?

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.

Mr. UTT. Can you tell us whether or not you will ask the Department for a statement or recommendation?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair intends to do that, but first I want to recognize those on the committee who desire to make statements.

Mr. PILLION. You are now referring to preliminary statements, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. PILLION. Not final statements of Members of the Committee? The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. PILLION. Just preliminary statements?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

The gentleman from Colorado is recognized, Mr. Aspinall. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. heretofore, I have favored statehood for both of these Territories, as those of you who were members of the committee in the past sessions well know. I shall listen attentively and diligently to whatever hearings are held, and my decision in this Congress will be governed and rest on whatever evidence is brought before it.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Miller. Mr. MILLER. I have no comments at this time. I do have some comments on the amendment that I may want to suggest later on.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Aspinall, has expressed my feelings about this. I have taken a position in the past, which is subject to change if the evidence so develops. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Saylor. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues at the opening of the hearings of the 84th Congress, of the dual biennial phenomena on the Potomac that is readily observable in the House of Representatives: Many old faces, many who are here for the new term of Congress, with the return of some gentlemen to Congress.

Of the 435 Members of the House who were present in the 83d Congress, my count indicates 375 answered the rollcall at the opening of the 84th Congress; that by death, and replacement by other constituents, brings in a total of 57 new Members.

Two hundred and thirty-nine returning Members voted for Hawaiian statehood in the 83d Congress. Unfortunately, due to a parliamentary hassel, we were unable to vote on Alaskan statehood. The Rules Committee refused to grant a rule and when the joint bill was sent back by the Senate, the Rules Committee in the 83d Congress refused to grant a rule on that combined bill.

In the 84th Congress an even 10 measures have been introduced providing for admission of the Territory of Hawaii and the admission of the Territory of Alaska.

There are 5 bills advocating statehood of Hawaii, 3 advocating statehood for Alaska, and 2 providing for admission of both, in 2 joint bills.

The Chairman, Mr. Engle, introduced one and I introduced the other.

It has been interesting to note, to call the attention of the members. that as far as the first Hawaiian statehood is concerned it has passed 3 times in the last 4 Congresses. In the 80th Congress it passed with the Republican House and a Democratic President by a vote of 197 to 133.

In the 81st Congress, with a Democratic House and a Democratic President, it passed by 262 to 110.