페이지 이미지

of those who are opposing the pending measure. We want this measure to be brought to a vote. We would have been perfectly willing to accept the proposal of the Senator from Ohio that the initial motion should have come tonight at 7:30. We would have been willing to have it come tomorrow night, or the night after. But the Senator from Ohio has now given us a great deal of time. Time will be almost running out of our ears, so to speak. But we did not request this time.

What we are trying to do is not to prevent a vote, but to enable the vote, when it comes, to be more intelligent, because we have spent much time in preparing for this discussion. For 7 years, really for 8 years, a campaign of misinterpretation has been carried on throughout the country. I will not say it was intentional misinterpretation; I think it has been unintentional. The press of the country, with some exceptions, such as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, has been indifferent to the issues at stake. So it has been necessary for the opponents of the Holland joint resolution to educate not merely Senators, but also the press and the public. All this takes time.

The Senator from Ohio really should have been listening to the debate a little more thoroughly than he has been. Last Saturday he expressed the opinion that no new points would be developed during the course of the debate. As will be remembered, the distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Kefauver] took the floor and spoke for 2 days, bringing out a new point, namely the effect of the Holland joint resolution upon the fishing industry of the United States. Yesterday the distinguished junior Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Fulbright] took the floor and made a very able speech on education.

Today the junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Humphrey] has developed some extremely interesting points. For instance, he brought out that the constitutional convention considered the equal-footing clause; rejected proposals that States admitted beyond the Alleghenies should be brought into the Union on inferior terms; and virtually laid down the equal-footing provision which is involved in the Texas and Florida cases.

The Senator from Minnesota also pointed out extremely interesting cases in the early history of the United States with respect to the control of the Federal Government over the marginal sea.

So the debate has been germane, and we shall keep it that way. There will be no recipes for pot likker introduced on the floor. No extraneous materials will be introduced. We shall argue the issues. We shall welcome courteous participation on the part of our opponents, instead of frozen silence.

I say to my good friend, the Senator from Ohio, who has done me the honor of including in the Record a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union, that this is not a filibuster; this is an attempt to educate the American public, the American press, and, through them, the United States Senate.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I only wish to say that I am greatly encouraged by the Senator's statement that he does not intend to prevent a vote. Tomorrow I shall renew my efforts to set some day, on which I hope the Senator will be prepared to agree, when the vote may take place.

Otherwise, all I have to say is that I know a filibuster when I see one.
Now, Mr. President, I move that the Senate take a recess-
Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator withhold the motion?
Mr. Tart. 1 yield to the Senator.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Ohio for yielding to me to make clear that this is not a fiilibuster, and that this will not be considered as a speech in my time. I thank the Senator for yielding to me in this fashion. I hope my statement will establish a parliamentary record of the fact that this does not constitute a speech in my time on the pending question.

Mr. FERMAN. We likewise expressed ourselves on the extended debate on the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 during the closing days of the 84th Congress.

The history and experience of the present rule XXII indicates the ineffectiveness of a cloture rule based upon a vote of two-thirds of the Senate duly chosen and sworn.

Therefore, we support Senate Resolution 17 introduced by Senator Paul H. Douglas. Its basis for cloture in a two-thirds vote of those Senators present and voting, after which debate would be limited to one hour per Senator for 15 days following the introduction of a

cloture petition would lay the basis, we feel, for sound decision after full deliberation of all views.

We favor Senator Douglas' resolution over Senator Johnson's Senate Resolution 30 because of its provision repealing section 3 of the present rule XXII.

We feel that section 3, barring the application of cloture to debate on a change of rules, is in violation of article 1, section 5, providing that each House may determine the rules of its proceeding.

We are in accord with Vice President Richard M. Nixon's views expressed in the Senate on January 4 of this year:

Any provision of Senate rules adopted in a previous Congress which has the expressed or practical effect of denying the majority of the Senate in a new Congress the right to adopt the rules under which it desires to proceed is, in the opinion of the Chair, unconstitutional. It is also the opinion of the Chair that section 3 of rule 22 in practice has such an effect.

I respectfully urge this committee to recommend passage of Senate Resolution 17, so that we can preserve the legislative power of our Senate. In this way, we can protect our cherished institutions which rest on the ideals of the first amendment.

Senator TALMADGE. Any questions?
Senator JAVITS. No.
Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much for coming.
Any other witnesses who desire to be heard today!

If not, this concludes today's session. We will meet on Friday morning at 10 a. m. in this same room.

(Communications from Association of Citizens' Councils of South Carolina; Pride of Malaska Council, No. 100, Sons and Daughters of Liberty, Phillipsburg, N. J.; and Pride of New Jersey Council, No. 243, Sons and Daughters of Liberty, Woodbridge, N. J., were received by the subcommittee for inclusion in the record, and may be found in the appendix, in exhibit 2.)

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Friday, June 28, 1957.)



FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1957



Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a. m., in room 155, Senate Office Building, Senator Herman E. Talmadge (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Talmadge (presiding), and Javits.

Also present: Senator A. Willis Robertson, Gordon F. Harrison, chief clerk and counsel, Committee on Rules and Administration; Langdon West, special counsel to the subcommittee; Robert S. McCain, professional staff member; and Sidney Kelly, Jr., administrative assistant to Senator Javits.

Senator TALMADGE. The subcommittee will come to order.

We have two communications from Senators for insertion in the record at this time: A letter from Senator Hennings and a statement from Senator Potter. Following Senator Hennings' letter, I wish to insert my reply thereto. (The documents referred to are as follows:)


June 24, 1957.
United States Senate,

Washington, D. C. DEAR HERMAN: There has been brought to my attention the attached pamphlet by Austin F. Hancock, a witness who appeared pursuant to your request before your Special Subcommittee on Rule XXII. I feel certain that you are probably unaware of the fact that it had been distributed.

I believe you will agree that the contents of the pamphlet include inaccuracies and intemperate opinions which form no part of the thinking of any Member of the Senate. Even if that were not the case, you and I and the other members of the committee will still highly disapprove of any pamphlet presented by a witness before a Senate subcommittee assuming the appearance of an official publication.

The attached pamphlet, on its face, carries in large type the words "United States Senate" and, in addition, the name and membership listing of the Committee on Rules and Administration. Whether it was so intended or not, this type of labeling could readily create a serious false impression that the Committee on Rules and Administration in some manner, however remote, officially sanctioned the above brochure. As chairman of the committee, I can unequivocally state that such is not the case.

I would appreciate this letter being made part of the record of the proceedings before the Special Subcommittee on Rule XXII, and I know you and Senator Javits and the staff of the subcommittee will cooperate to the extent possible to avoid the recurrence of such an unfortunate incident, which might reflect adversely upon all of us. Sincerely yours,



June 27, 1957.
Chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration,

United States Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR TOM: Thank you for your letter of June 24 calling to my attention the pamphlet distributed by Mr. Hancock, who appeared before the Special Subcommittee on Rule XXII.

Please be assured that I was not aware of its distribution and that I do not concur in either its style of presentation or content. I agree fully with your position that any impression that such literature would be sanctioned by the Committee on Rules and Administration must be dispelled.

Your letter will be made a part of the record of the proceedings of the special subcommittee at its next hearing date, Friday, June 28.

You may be further assured that I shall take every precaution to see that there is no further abuse of the privilege of testifying before the special subcommittee on the part of any witness. With every good wishes, I am Sincerely,



STATE OF MICHIGAN I am gratified that this special subcommittee is currently studying proposed changes in rule XXII of the Senate. Rule XXII should have been changed long ago, but its prompt revision now is most urgent and timely in view of the recent action of the Senate in placing House-passed civil rights legislation on the Senate calendar. By so doing, a substantial majority of the Members of the Senate not only inade clear their desire to have the right to vote on this legislation, and not have it strangled in committee, but, in my judgment, they also clearly and forcefully indicated their vigorous approval of the legislation. Unless rule XXII is changed, the pending civil rights measure is in serious jeopardy-it threatens to be filibustered to death by a small minority thus vitiating the will of a substantial majority

Rule XXII in its present form is not a positive procedural method of conducting Senate business; it is a substantive means of preventing the majority of the Senate and of the people from determining vital substantive issues.

Adequate debate on the merits of all legislation must always be permitted in the interest of sound and wise legislation and to insure complete protection of the rights of all minorities. But, unfortunately, rule XXII has been employed on too many occasions to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed nor intended. A rule that allows a small minority to thwart the will of the Senate, so that a vote may not be taken, destroys the very concept of our republican form of government.

I would oppose with all my might any measure that sought to curta il adequate debate, but the contention that a reasonable limitation on debate poses a threat to minorities is specious and in my opinion utter nonsense.

The critical times in which we live demand that our rules provide for efficiency in legislating. Interminable debate in too many cases has seriously impaired the efficiency of the Senate. Aside from the damaging effect rule XXII can have on the pending civil rights legislation, the rule stands as a constant and continuing threat that might be invoked in time of grave international crises when the very security of our Nation is immediately imperiled and reasonably swift legislative action is imperative.

Opponents of civil rights legislation have endeavored to becloud the major issue involved, specifically, shall a majority of the Senate have the right to vote on legislation after reasonable and adequate debate. This has been done with specious and self-serving questions as to whether or not the Senate has a right to change its rules and with spurious charges that reasonable limitation of debate will impinge upon the rights of minorities.

Majority rule, with adequate safeguards for minorities, is the basic principle of legislative action prescribed by our Constitution. The authors of the Constitution prescribed majority rule as the rule for congressional action by expressly enumerating all the instances in which more than a simple majority vote was to be required. A revision of congressional rules was not enumerated as requiring a two-thirds majority. I am sure that if the framers of the Constitution with their gift for clarity of expression had so intended, it would have been made crystal clear. But such was not the case. They clearly spelled out the exceptions to the rule so that there could be no possible misunderstanding as to the rule itself.

I respectfully urge the committee to promptly recommend legislation that will revise rule XXII, and permit a vote to be taken on the proposal after ample debate. The Senate, as the greatest deliberative body in the world, cannot endure as such and perform its constitutional responsibilities of representing all the people in our Nation under the ever-present threat of filibuster. It is a roadblock to progress and achievement that must be removed.

Senator TALMADGE. Are there any Senators present to testify at this time? If not, we will proceed with the testimony of Mr. Walter P. Reuther, president of the United Automobile Workers.

Proceed, if you will, Mr. Reuther. We are happy to have you with us.



Mr. name is Walter P. Reuther and I am president of the United Automobile Workers, a labor organization representing approximately 112 million members in the automotive, the aircraft, and the agricultural implement industries.

I should like first of all to express my sincere appreciation for this opportunity of appearing before your committee, and I would like to submit for the record a prepared statement. Then I would like to elaborate on it orally, if I might.

Senator TALMADGE. We would be happy to have you do so.
Mr. REUTHER. Thank you.
(The statement referred to is as follows:)



We are particularly pleased at this opportunity to testify before your special subcommittee in support of majority rule in the Senate of the United States both because our union has had a long and continuing interest in this subject and because of its vital significance to our way of life. We in the UAW firmly believe that rule XXII is the No. 1 legislative roadblock to a more democratic America and that only by rewriting this rule to permit majority cloture after full and fair debate can we achieve the goal of freedom, equality, and abundance for all.

As far back as 1951, I had the privilege, on behalf of our union, to present to this same committee a carefully documented brief prepared by our Washington counsel and our national legislative representative in support of the proposition that rule XXII of the Senate violates the Constitution of the United States. This brief and my testimony at that time have been credited by Senator Russell and others with originating the proposition that the Senate of each new Congress has the right to determine its own rules unfettered by the dead hand of the past and that rule XXII could be rewritten at the opening of the Senate of any new Congress whenever 49 Senators made up their minds to do so. We would indeed be gratified if we could accept this “Oscar” from Senator Russell.

« 이전계속 »