Mr. LANGER. I assure the Senator from Illinois that I shall go along in helping secure the enactment of the Truman civil-rights program. Mr. LUCAS. But the Senator from North Dakota makes some qualifications in that respect. Mr. LANGER. No; I make no qualifications. When the Senator from Illinois asks me whether I favor a resolution which I have not yet had ample opportunity to study, I say that I am not sure whether I shall favor it without the crossing a "t" or the dotting of an “i." Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LANGER. I yield. Mr. MAYBANK. The Senator from North Dakota has mentioned the name of the great Senator Bob La Follette. I wish to ask the Senator a question, because we were here together with another great Senator from the West, Senator Wheeler. I am sure the Senator from North Dakota well remembers the debates on the floor of the Senate with that distinguished Senator from Montana. I wish to remind the Senator that many a time Senator Wheeler Mr. LANGER. Senator Wheeler stood first, last, and all the time for free and unlimited debate upon this floor. Mr. MAYBANK. Also, as I remember, he was a candidate, along with the distinguished Senator Bob La Follette, of the liberal movement in America. Mr. LANGER. That is right. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. KNOWLAND. I wish to inquire of the able Senator from North Dakota, in view of his statement and in view of the parliamentary situation with which the Senate is faced on the question of filibustering on a motion to take up a matter, how he anticipates he will ever get a chance to vote on any civil-rights legislation if we cannot even get it before the Senate for a vote. Mr. LANGER. It would be delightfully simple. Just as the Senator from Michigan said today in his magnificent address, it will be possible to enact civil-rights legislation just as soon as either party makes up its mind it is going to do itany time Republicans will make the sacrifices necessary to do it. The Senator will remember last year I brought up these Republican platform pledges. The junior Senator from Oregon rose on the floor and said he would bring up his cot every day, he would stay here a week, or a month. Just as soon as either the Republicans or the Democrats make up their minds to get the civil-rights program through it can be done. Instead of that, we adjourned for 3 days at a time until toward the end of the session. Then, in the last 2 or 3 weeks, some of us who were opposed to the drafting of our boys under selective service were kept here 2 nights before the Republican convention at Philadelphia, all tired out. We were kept in session because Senators wanted to adjourn and go to the convention. Although many days had been wasted during the month or 2 or 3 months before that, there was an adjournment 3 days ahead of time. So I close by telling the people of this country that I am unqualifiedly for the civil-rights program and will help to enact it-if only the Democratic majority will bring it up. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS H. KUCHEL, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA [From the Congressional Record of January 4, 1957, p. 122] Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, the simple, fundamental issue in this debate, to my mind, is whether the Senate of the United States approves filibusters. Shorn of all legalistic argument, that is what is being decided here today. Yesterday a number of us, from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, coauthored a motion, which reads: "In accordance with article I, section 5, of the Constitution, which declares that 'each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,' I now move that this body take up for immediate consideration the adoption of rules for the Senate of the 85th Congress." Mr. President, that proposed motion rests upon the American Constitution, which provides that each House of the Congress may adopt its rules. The House of Representatives has seen fit, over the years, to exercise the right given to it by the Constitution. The Senate of the United States, by acquiescence, by inaction, has continued in effect, tacitly, the rules of prior years. Mr. President, the old rules of the United States Senate have permitted filibustering, to which some of us earnestly and vigorously object. What is a filibuster? My definition would be that it is irrelevant speechmaking in the Senate, designed solely and simply to consume time, and thus to prevent a vote from being taken on pending legislation. To my mind a filibuster is an affront to the democratic processes and to the intelligence of the people of the United States. It is difficult, if not impossible, to stop a filibuster in all instances; and, under the old rules, absolutely impossible to stop filibusters in some instances. I refer, Mr. President, to rule XXII of the rules of the Senate. That rule provides that a constitutional two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, or 64 Senators, are required to vote in favor of so-called cloture, after which, in accordance with the rule, if 64 Senators so vote, each Senator has an additional hour of debate. That is a higher standard than is required of the United States Senate in sitting as a court of impeachment to find a constitutional officer guilty, and to eliminate him from his official responsibilities. The Constitution of the United States provides that, sitting as a court of impeachment, the Senate of the United States shall find a man guilty merely by two-thirds of those present. That is not 64 votes. That is not a constitutional two-thirds. That, by the Constitution itself, is two-thirds of those Senators present and voting. I also observe, for the benefit of my colleagues, that a declaration of war, requires but a majority of those present and voting in each House of the Congress of the United States. Why should we have more stringent rules to bring issues to finality? Mr. President, there is a joker in rule XXII. It has been alluded to in this debate. The fact is that in section 3 of rule XXII, it is specifically provided that any motion to change the rules of the Senate is not subject to cloture at all; and that means, of course, it is possible to filibuster to death, ad infinitum, any motion which might be made to change the rules. Let me again recall the sturdy words of a distinguished American citizen, a great Republican of his day, the late Vice President, Charles G. Dawes, who said years ago: "I will state the principal objections to the Senate rules as they stand: "1. Under these rules individuals or minorities can at times block the majority in its constitutional duty and right of legislation. They are therefore enabled to demand from the majority modifications in legislation as the price which the majority must pay in order to proceed to the fulfillment of its constitutional duty. The right of filibuster does not affect simply legislation defeated but, in much greater degree, legislation passed, continually weaving into our laws, which should be framed in the public interest alone, modifications dictated by personal and sectional interest as distinguished from the public interest. “2. The Senate is not and cannot be a properly deliberative body, giving due consideration to the passage of all laws, unless it allots its time for work according to the relative importance of its duties, as do all other great parliamentary bodies. It has, however, through the right of unlimited debate surrendered to the whim and personal purposes of individuals and minorities its right to allot its own time. Only the establishment of majority cloture will enable the Senate to make itself a properly deliberative body. This is impossible when it must sit idly by and see time needed for deliberation frittered away in frivolous and irrelevant talk, indulged in by individuals and minorities for ulterior purposes. "3. The rules subject the people of the United States to a governmental power in the hands of individuals and minorities never intended by the Constitution and subversive of majority rule under constitutional limitation. In the words of Senator Pepper, of Pennsylvania: ""The Senate, by sanctioning unlimited debate and by requiring a two-thirds vote to limit it, has in effect so amended the Constitution as to make it possible for a 33-percent minority to block legislation.' "4. The present rules put into the hands of individuals and minorities at times a power greater than the veto power given by the Constitution to the President of the United States, and enabled them to compel the President to call an extra session of Congress in order to keep the machinery of Government itself in functioning activity. The reserved power of the States in the Constitution does not include the power of one of the States to elect a Senator who shall at times control a majority or even all the other States. "5. Multiplicity of laws is one of the admitted evils from which this country is suffering today. The present rules create multiplicity of laws. "6. The present rules are not only a departure from the principles of our constitutional Government but from the rules of conduct consistent therewith which governed the United States Senate for the first 17 years of its existence and which provided for majority cloture." Mr. President, I devotedly believe in full and complete debate on every issue confronting the Senate and the American people. So, I feel assured, do all of us. But that is a far different thing from a situation where Senators speak for long hours, and sometimes for long days and long weeks, not to argue the merits or demerits of a public question, but solely and only to waste and consume time, and thus to frustrate and prevent a final decision by the Senate on an issue before it. How can any reasonable person uphold such tactics as that which occurred some years ago when the Senate ludicrously debated for 2 weeks a motion to amend the Chaplain's prayer? In my first year in the United States Senate I saw a filibuster. I saw the Senate sit for 24 hours a day, never stopping, in an attempt to wear down physically the filibustering Senators, so that through sheer physical exhaustion, and nothing else, the filibuster might be broken and a vote be taken on a bill, incidentally, which had the enthusiastic support of a great majority of us. I decline to accept the parliamentary theory that a physically and mentally exhausted Senate should be a prerequisite to a vote being taken on any matter. Furthermore, I hardly think that an exhausted Senate can intelligently pass bills. It is argued that the Senate is a continuing body, and therefore a motion such as has been made cannot be in order under the old rules. Certainly under the terms of the Constitution our motion is in order. What more authority do you need? I wish to refer to the distinguished late Vice President, Alben Barkley, who said, when he sat in the presiding officer's chair, and I read from page 10 of the proceedings of January 3, 1953: "The organization of the Senate is an inherent right of the Senate, as it is of any sovereign body, and all that has taken place up to date has been under that inherent right." Our motion is grounded upon the American Constitution, and it is upon that basis that I deny that this motion is out of order. Years ago I was a member of the California State Senate. That senate is composed of 40 members. The California constitution provides that each 2 years half of them, or 20 members, shall be elected. The rules of the Senate of the State of California, in which I sat for a few years, provided then, as they provide now, that at the beginning of each session of the legislature the senate shall adopt its rules of procedure. Four years ago, when I was a new Member of the Senate, the same question was before us. I took the position then that I take today, and I believe sincerely that I do so completely in the public interest. Two of us who cast our vote then, in that fashion, here on the Republican side, are here today, the senior Senator from New York [Mr. Ives] and myself. We will not be so lonely today. I am proud of the greatly increased support both sides of the aisle are showing for their cause now. I am proud to say that I cast my vote according to my own conscience. No one intimidates me. No one bullies me into taking positions on public questions. I devoutly believe that the motion which some of us have made ought to be adopted, making the pending business the consideration of adoption of rules of the Senate of the 85th Congress. Meanwhile, the distinguished majority leader [Mr. Johnson of Texas] has made a motion to lay our recommendation on the table. I vigorously object to that motion, and I hope that a majority of my brethren on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle will join in defeating the motion to lay on the table. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to conclude my comments by placing in the Record at this point several paragraphs by a distinguished Republican Senator, the late Henry Cabot Lodge, who sopke up vigorously against the filibuster. There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: "Of the two rights (of debating and of voting) that of voting is the higher and more important. We ought to have both and debate certainly in ample measure; but, if we are forced to choose between them, the right of action must prevail over the right of discussion. To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile. "As it is, there must be a change, for the delays which now take place are discrediting the Senate, and this is greatly to be deplored. The Senate was perhaps the greatest single achievement of the makers of the Constitution, and anything which lowers it in the eyes of the people is a most serious matter. * * * A body which cannot govern itself will not long hold the respect of the people who have chosen it to govern the country." If the position we take in the debate is upheld by a majority of Senators, we can, I feel assured, look forward to full and complete debate on every issue, but without the evil of filibustering. Senator TALMADGE. I have three other statements to be inserted at the conclusion of the testimony. They are not statements from Senators. The next witness will be Mrs. Ray L. Erb. How do you do. We appreciate your coming. Mrs. Erb is the national defense chairman of the Daughters of the American Revolution. STATEMENT OF MRS. RAY L. ERB, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEE, DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Mrs. ERB. My statement is very brief, and, in contrast to the previous speaker, exceedingly brief. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Mrs. Ray L. Erb. I wish to express my gratitude for the privilege of presenting my statement relative to proposed changes in Senate rule XXII before the subcommittee of the Committee on Rules and Administration. I am chairman of the national defense committee, National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution. Every member of the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America; therefore, has assumed a solemn obligation to work for the protection and preservation of this superb body of laws. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Unlimited debate in the Senate is an expression of free speech and should not be curtailed or denied. The Constitution guarantees to every State in this Union a republican form of government. Therefore, every State, as a political unit, is entitled to a full representation in Congress. It follows, that in justice to their constituents, every Senator should have the privilege of unlimited analysis of all issues presented, and the opportunity for discussion of the effect such issues might have upon fundamentals of our Government as translated into action, and the possible results of such action in each and every section of our country. The Senate has the responsibility of educating, informing, and protecting the American people. The rule of unrestricted debate is an important aid in the carrying out of these duties. Is it not possible that there is more danger than merit in restriction of free speech, as indulged in by filibustering, for, could not such a decision result in justification for further free-speech limitations? Would this be wise? Unlimited debate could prevent decisions which in reality were the results of emotion or pressure by a majority. 93635-57- -8 Prolonged debate would not prevent the eventual passage of good legislation, and undoubtedly might prevent some bad legislation. In an address given on February 22, 1832, in Washington, Daniel Webster said: As men may be protected against murder but cannot be guarded against suicide, no government may be shielded from the assaults of external foes, but nothing can save it when it chooses to lay violent hand on itself. The limiting of debate in the Senate would be the laying on of violent hands. The National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, disapproves of any change whatsoever in Senate rule XXII relating to cloture, and we request the Rules Committee of the Senate, when acting upon pending proposals relative to a change in Senate rule XXII, to protect the Constitution and constitutional rights of free speech as established by the first amendment. Senator JAVITS. I have just one question, Mrs. Erb. Has any resolution been adopted by the Daughters of the American Revolution on this subject? Mrs. ERB. No, it has not, Senator. Senator JAVITS. You say the organization itself feels this way. What is the authority? Mrs. ERB. The authority is the executive committee which functions between our national conferences. Senator JAVITS. Have they adopted a resolution? Mrs. ERB. The executive committee has adopted such a resolution. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much, Mrs. Erb, for your appearance and your fine statement. The next witness will be Prof. James Burns, professor of political science, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass. STATEMENT OF JAMES M. BURNS, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, WILLIAMS COLLEGE, WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS. Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, my name is James Burns; my residence is at 115 Park Street, Williamstown, Mass. I am professor of political science at Williams College. I am appearing at the invitation of a member of the subcommittee. and I am not appearing on behalf of any organization. My statement is in favor of Senate Resolution 17, or of any equally effective or more effective means of strengthening the procedures of the United States Senate. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to repeat the many arguments that have been presented in past hearings before the Senate Rules Committee or in Senate debate in favor of enabling the Senate to act as well as to deliberate. I wish only to add a hearty amen to those who have contended so eloquently that the present arrangements violate the fundamental principle of majority rule, that they bring the Senate into disrepute, that they are a weak spot in our democratic system, and that they violate the spirit of our Constitution. What I do wish to do is to present two ideas that I believe have been ignored or underemphasized in previous debate, and then to ad |