Mr. KETCHUM. No; not the action of the national convention; that is right.

Senator JAVITS. Okay.

Mr. KETCHUM. I appreciate your offer to appear here this morning to speak for the Veterans of Foreign Wars on the subject of cloture in the Senate.

Senator JAVITS. Will you yield at this point? That is not correct, is it?

Mr. KETCHUM. Theoretically, yes; it is. The commander in chief, under the constitution and bylaws, has the authority to speak for the organization in between national conventions. Now, the convention might not support him in the future, but the commander is given the authority in between conventions, where there is no specific position taken, to take a position for the organization.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you.

Mr. KETCHUM. The question of shutting off debate in the world's most exclusive deliberative body is an old and controversial subject. Since the 18th century, various rules and devices have been proposed as a means of terminating debate or ending the filibuster, which is a device for literally talking a bill to death.

At present, under Senate rule XXII, debate can be shut off by a vote of two-thirds of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, except in cases of debate concerning the Senate's standing rules. In that case, there is no limit to debate.

The resolutions which would amend rule XXII and which are now before this subcommittee for consideration-Senate Resolutions 17, 19, 21, 30, and 32-would make cloture more easily accomplished by amending or repealing section 3 of rule XXII, and by amending section 2 of the same rule so that a two-thirds vote of all Senators duly chosen and sworn would not be required. These bills variously propose that cloture be effected by a majority vote of the authorized Senate membership, by a majority of those present and voting, by a twothirds vote of Senators present and voting, and by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, provided they are not less than a majority of all Senators duly chosen and sworn.

It is our opinion that, all things considered, it would be better to let Senate rule XXII stand as it is rather than change it as proposed in any of the above-mentioned resolutions.

Cloture rules in the Senate have varied over the years. Generally speaking, filibusters have always been possible despite the efforts to end them that were started about the middle of the last century when they were introduced as a Senate stratagem. Something close to unlimited debate has become a tradition and hallmark of this body--and something that should not be upset except for the most compelling

reasons.

Our major interest in considering this issue should not be the passage of legislation which may be desired by a majority even though it is bitterly opposed by a significant minority, but rather what is best for this country in the long run. There may be temporary diplomatic and propaganda value in passing certain legislation, but, in the long run, greater harm than good may be done by forcing such legislation. through the Senate by weakening the present cloture rule.

I believe all thinking people must be impressed by the fact that today, both here and abroad, there is a tendency toward bigger and

more centralized government. This is a natural result of the increasing complexity of our lives in many fields. But big and centralized government is always, of its very nature, a threat to individual liberties, and this is something we cannot afford to forget. If anything, we need more protection against government today than ever before. We need a revival of the old healthy skepticism of government that characterized Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers. Rather than loosen the reigns on government, we should try to tighten them. We need to be certain that our system of checks and balances is in good order and the tradition of nearly unlimited debate in the Senate has become a part of that system of checks and balances.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Ketchum, will you yield at that point? I was very impressed with what you said about big government. Is it not true that liberties of the people have always been destroyed by governments, instead of by a few individuals?

Mr. KETCHUM. Well, it would seem to me, based on my knowledge of history, Mr. Chairman, that that is essentially correct.

Senator TALMADGE. Government destroyed the liberty of the people in Russia, didn't it?

Mr. KETCHUM. That is correct.

Senator TALMADGE. Isn't it also true that government destroyed the liberty of the people in Italy under Mussolini?

Mr. KETCHUM. That is correct.

Senator TALMADGE. And that government destroyed the liberty of Germany under Adolf Hitler?

Mr. KETCHUM. That is correct.

Senator TALMADGE. In every other case that I recall from history, the same has been true.

Senator JAVITS. Isn't it a fact, in each of the instances mentioned by Senator Talmadge, it was an individual who manipulated government for that purpose-whether it was Lenin, Trotsky, Mussolini, or Hitler?

Mr. KETCHUM. That is correct, but I am coming to another important point that will illustrate that point.

Senator TALMADGE. It became the government, whether an individual initiated it or not.

Mr. KETCHUM. I get into that, the danger involved.

In addition to the tendency toward big government, there is another factor which today poses a potential threat to our traditional liberties and makes reasonable obstacles to the easy termination of Senate debate more desirable than ever before.

Tremendous progress has been made in the field of communications. We have greater newspaper coverage than ever before and, in addition to our almost universal distribution of the radio, we have the relatively new element of television. The potential for good in these communication mediums is tremendous.

Although far from perfect, they have undoubtedly helped to make many Americans better informed about their Government and vital matters of national and foreign policy.

At the same time, however, these mediums also have a potential for mischief. As one example, they provide a means by which a Chief Executive with dictatorial leanings and spellbinding ability could create an unreal and unfounded sense of urgency on a certain issue, and thus arouse great numbers of people to support measures that may

actually threaten their welfare and fundamental rights. Khrushchev recently paid tribute to the propaganda value of television.

Inasmuch as legislation can be rushed through the House with little or no debate, it is more important than ever that some means be present to prevent the same thing from happening in the Senate. Making it easier to invoke cloture in this body would have the effect of breakdown our protection against such a development.

ing

want to make it clear that in pointing this out, I have no intention of implying sinister motives of any kind to our present President or any other important officeholder.

This, and my remarks about the need for skepticism of government, are no more than observations on the nature of government and the kind of persons who occasionally comprise it. It could happen here.

If I may be permitted to digress for a moment, we go back now to our friend Adolf Hitler, and Mussolini, and the tremendous individual appeal that they had to the people through the medium of mass communication, in which they swept them off their feet and with no control in the legislative body, were able to wreak havoc upon the people in the long run.

Senator JAVITS. Would you mind answering this question, however: Isn't it a fact that Mussolini and Hitler came to power because the people were frustrated by legislatures that didn't legislate and do for them the things that needed to be done?

Mr. KETCHUM. That could be true. I don't know.

Senator JAVITS. And a little band of willful men can tie up the Senate of the United States by filibustering, so that could bring on a legislative dictatorship; isn't that true?

Mr. KETCHUM. I don't agree it would be easier to bring on a dictator, through the imposition

Senator JAVITS. I didn't say that. I said if a legislature finds itself impotent, that is just as much an avenue as any other, by which a dictator may be brought on, who says to the people, "Your legislature won't help you; I will."

Mr. KETCHUM. I come to that point, whether this will serve to flaunt the will of the people in the long run.

Senator TALMADGE. Will you answer this question, please? Can you cite any illustration in all of history where free debate has created a dictatorship?

Mr. KETCHUM. No, I cannot, Mr. Chairman.

Senator TALMADGE. Proceed, please.

Mr. KETCHUM. It has often happened in the past that majorities, including well-meaning ones, have shown considerable disregard for the rights of minorities. At times, even courts have exhibited the same lamentable failure. This is a country whose distinguishing characteristic is concern for individual and minority rights. The individual and the minority must be protected against an unreasonable majority at all times.

In considering this factor we must bear in mind that Senate minorities represent not populations, but political entities, self-governing States. The minority protection in the Senate concerns the rights of the separate States, all of which are equally sovereign under the Constitution.

If the characteristics that distinguish the Senate from the House are to be preserved, that equality must be maintained. The right to unlimited debate-within reasonable bounds-is a way of protecting that constitutional equality.

It appears to us that the present rule is reasonable and that it would be dangerous to change it so that less than two-thirds of Members of the Senate could override more than one-third on any matter. Surely, there is serious question about the immediate desirability of any piece of legislation if two-thirds of the Senate's Members cannot be rallied to support it by voting for cloture.

Loosening up the requirements for cloture will remove the almost free debate that has served in the past as a safeguard for the rights of States.

In spite of the fact that filibustering has been possible and used in the Senate for over 100 years, the Senate on the whole has been able to function well. Some fairly important bills have been killed temporarily by filibusters, but in most cases these same bills have subsequently been passed by the Senate. Only a relative few have been permanently killed.

There is no doubt that the filibuster can be abused, but so, too, can many other rights, privileges and institutions in our Government.

Today, Communists are obviously abusing the Bill of Rights, but no intelligent or serious-minded person is advocating that we throw out the Bill of Rights for this reason. The same applies to the fili

buster.

The opinion of a Senate majority or a majority of Senators present and voting on any issue does not necessarily express the opinion of the majority of the people of this country. The Senate considers many issues before public opinion is formed on them. The claim that filibusters frustrate the will of the majority of the people is therefore often not tenable.

It is a fact, too, that the passage of a law which is strongly opposed by a significant minority of the people-and perhaps even by a majority in cases where public opinion is not formed-does more harm than good.

I believe that, all in all, it would have been a good thing if someone had been able to filibuster the 18th amendment, the prohibition amendment, to death.

In time, it became clear that the majority of the people in this country did not really support this amendment. It was eventually repealed-but not before tremendous harm had been done.

It encouraged crime and gangsterism and, of course, did not solve the drinking problem which, like many others, cannot be solved simply by legislation. Only time and education will provide sound solutions for many of our most vexing problems.

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to digress for a moment to point out that one of the great statesmen of this country, only a day or so ago, in a copyrighted article in the American newspapers, in discussing what should be done, where a President is incapicitated for duty, very emphatically stated:

We must not hurry and jump to conclusions on something that should be done. We must take our time, look at this carefully, before we hurriedly enact some legislation or measures to provide what shall happen when a President becomes unable to fulfill the duties of his office.

actually threaten their welfare and fundamental recently paid tribute to the propaganda value Inasmuch as legislation can be rushed throu or no debate, it is more important than ever + ent to prevent the same thing from happenin it easier to invoke cloture in this body wou ing down our protection against such a dev I want to make it clear that in pointing of implying sinister motives of any kin any other important officeholder.

This, and my remarks about the ment, are no more than observation and the kind of persons who occasi pen here.

If I may be permitted to digreour friend Adolf Hitler, and Mus appeal that they had to the peo munication, in which they swe trol in the legislative body, we in the long run.

Senator JAVITS. Would y Isn't it a fact that Musso people were frustrated by them the things that need Mr. KETCHUM. That c Senator JAVITs. And ate of the United St legislative dictatorsh Mr. KETCHUM. I tator, through the Senator JAVITS. self impotent, th a dictator may ture won't help Mr. KETCH flaunt the wil Senator T cite any ill dictatorshi Mr. KE Senator Mr. K including the rig same l

charact

dividu major In

ties r State the s

stitu