Representative Gerald R. Ford (R-MI)
Should Alaska & Hawaii Become States?
Recorded March 9, 1950

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Gerry Ford, your congressman, with a 10th weekly radio congressional report from the nation's capitol. Should Alaska and Hawaii be admitted to the Union? In other words, should the United States comprise 50 instead of 48 states? The House of Representatives acted favorably in both cases. The bill for Alaska received a vote of 186 to 146, and the Hawaiian authorization proposal was approved 260 to 110. Both bills now go to the Senate, where it is rumored there will be considerable opposition from members of both major political parties. Reports indicate some senators will not move over to make room for additional colleagues. Under the House bills for Alaska and Hawaii, each of the new states would have two senators and one representative. If the Senate acts favorably, this would increase the number of senators from 96 to 100, and the membership in the Housefrom 435 to 437. The opponents of statehood for the two territories used a number of arguments which I am sure were repeats or re-treads from the days when other states were admitted to the union. A number of representatives from New York, both Democrats and Republicans, vigorously fought the proposals. Here is a typical statement from one New York member of the House, and I quote: surely the peoples of New York and other large states should not blindly acquiesce in the further dilution of their already under-representation in the Senate by the admission of additional senators of very small communities. New York state, with a population of 14 million people, is represented by two senators only. Yet we are asked to give two senators to the 500,000 population of Hawaii, and two senators to the population of 100,000 in Alaska, endquote. This type of argument is a good illustration of the haves fighting the have-nots. The same argument has been used repeatedly when other states sought admission. These statements today simply echo the debates of yesterday. Certainly no such harm has resulted from the admittance of some of our newer states. Here are some interesting facts: Hawaii now has a larger population than any other state at the time of admission to the union, with the sole exception of Oklahoma. Also, Alaska's present population is larger than that of at least ten states at the time of their admission into the union. After listening to the arguments pro and con, it seemed logical and desirable to favor statehood in both instances. There was substantial evidence that both territories are ready to join the union, and furthermore, their admission now will materially strengthen our vitally
important national defense set-up.

For a moment, let's turn to a domestic matter, one that has been bitterly debated in the Congress and elsewhere for over half a century. The Congress, during this past week, completed legislative action for the repeal of all federal taxes on colored oleo-margarine. When the bill was before the House during the last session in 1949, I voted for the repeal of such taxes. Early this year, the Senate took similar action. But in approaching or approving the repeal legislation, a dangerous sneaker provision was included in the Senate bill. This so-called sneaker provision grants vast new authority to the Federal Trade Commission. This provision was hooked on to the oleo repeal bill without any testimony or any hearings before the appropriate Senate and House committees. The inclusion of this provision is a prime example of bad legislative procedure. Many who favored the repeal of taxes on oleo-margarine did not approve the legislation in its final form because of this new, far-reaching and possibly dangerous Federal Trade Commission authority. It is indeed regrettable that the two issues became intermingled. Thanks for listening friends, and I'll be back next week with still another congressional report from Washington.