bring about a change in those rules during any session of the Senate. We believe that the best hope of changing the rules is on the day the new Congress is organized, when, according to the Constitution, based upon the authority of the documents we have brought together, 49 Senators have the constitutional right and responsibility for the establishment of rules of procedure for that term of the United States Senate. That is the day the simplest procedure is possible in bringing about corrective steps in abolishing rule XXII.

But, despite the difficulties of trying to get relief during the current session, we nevertheless urge that effort be made and we support Senate Resolution 17, introduced by Senator Paul Douglas, of Illinois, Senator Ives, of New York, and others.

What does this resolution provide? I have a copy here. It provides that after 15 days of unlimited debate that a majority can close debate.

Now, I think that any reasonable person would agree that 15 days of full and continuous debate-the number of hours is a matter for the Senate to decide-that that is not an attempt to restrict unduly the right of full and free debate. After 15 days-not on the 10th day, not on the 14th day, but only after 15 days of full debate, can the majority decide to close debates so that it can act.

This resolution also would strike out section 3 of rule XXII which unconstitutionally would attempt to bind all future Senate bodies by the rules of the past. This is unconstitutional for the simple reason that if this is constitutional, if the 81st Congress of the United States Senate can pass a rule that goes into eternity, then a man elected to the United States Senate in 1958 is a second-class Senator because he is denied his full constitutional prerogative by the previous action of the United States Senate before he was elected and came to the Senate.

I maintain that every Senator elected at any election from any State in the Union has precisely the same constitutional rights and privileges and prerogatives when he is sworn into the United States Senate as any other Senator throughout the history of this body.

Senator TALMADGE. Would you yield at that point? Could not the same argument be made about any law adopted by any Congress or even about the Constitution of the United States itself-that is, that it ought not to be binding because we were not living at the time it was passed?

Mr. REUTHER. But you can repeal laws and you can amend the Constitution according to due process. The Constitution provides for rules of procedure. The Constitution is a living document.

Senator TALMADGE. So do the Senate rules. They provide for changes under the same conditions.

Senator JAVITS. Would you yield at this point? They do, but don't they also provide for absolutely unlimited debate in respect of such a rule change if this part 3 of rule XXII stands, even more opportunity for a filibuster than an ordinary debate which can be closed by 64. Isn't that what you are really talking about? Practically, it is impossible.

Mr. REUTHER. As a practical matter, what do you do? You build into rule XXII in section 3 a super filibuster, so that you practically have no relief in terms of breaking the filibusters and bringing about a corrective rule.

I maintain that on the first day of every new Congress, on the first day, when the Senate is being organized and new people who have been elected are being sworn in, on that day the Senate starts from scratch and it can do anything it wants by majority decision; 49 Senators can act.

Senator TALMADGE. Would you yield at that point? Why do you think the framers of the Constitution provided for one-third of the Senators to be elected every 2 years, divided them into classes and gave them a 6-year term if they did not mean for the Senate to be a continuing body?

Mr. REUTHER. Because the Founding Fathers in their wisdom were trying to find a workable compromise and balance between direct representation and proportional representation which we have in the House of Representatives based upon population and the fact that we had a problem of how we could put together the various States of the Union in a common Union. And, therefore, they worked out 2 legislative bodies, 1 the House of Representatives, based upon direct representation, proportional representation based upon people, and the other type of representation in the Senate based upon the fact that we had States who were binding together to form a Union.

Now, this was the compromise. It was quite different than the British structure. The House of Lords in Great Britain has really no legislative function, while the United States Senate has an equal legislative function. So they were bringing about a compromise, and in the second body, unrelated to proportional representation, they decided that there they would have a rotating system but this does not change the fact that the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, and the documents are there to prove this contention, provided that the Senate of each new Congress when it organized, had the right, by majority decision, to establish its own rules of procedure. Otherwise, the original Senate would have written a set of rules for eternity. Senator TALMADGE. Now, you say the Constitution of the United States grants the Senate the right to make its own rules. You agree to that?

Mr. REUTHER. I do.

Senator TALMADGE. So do I. And the Senate has written its rules under those provisions, therefore, is it not a fact that under that authority the Senate can write any rules it may see fit?

Mr. REUTHER. It can, sure. We are not challenging that. By majority decision on the first day of the new Congress, on the day the Senate is organized it has the right to write any set of rules it wants and if 49 Senators want to write a rule that is undemocratic, they have that privilege. But 49 Senators have the right to write majority rules, too.

Senator TALMADGE. Would you yield at that point? Has the Senate not always held itself to be a continuing body, from the time of its founding up to the present time?

Mr. REUTHER. That is part of American folklore. It has nothing to do with the American Constitution.

Senator TALMADGE. Would it not be pretty late for the Senate to decide after 165 years that it is not a continuing body?

Mr. REUTHER. Senator Talmadge, it is never too late to do the thing that is right morally.

Senator TALMADGE. Let me be sure that I understand your position. You say if a majority of the Senate says we have no rules, it can in fact, abolish them and write new ones.

Mr. REUTHER. I say that under the whole concept of a democratic society-and the Senate is an essential part of our democratic societythey must, of necessity, provide that the majority have the right to write the rules that will govern their relationship one to another. Senator TALMADGE. The Senate or the Supreme Court decision, not withstanding?

Mr. REUTHER. Well, there are no Supreme Court decisions that set aside the Constitution.

Senator TALMADGE. There is a Supreme Court decision holding that the Senate is a continuing body. Of course, I disagree with the Supreme Court on many of its decisions.

Mr. REUTHER. I have noted that.

Senator TALMADGE. Now, one other point

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, before we leave the Supreme Court decision I would like to insert into the record the opinion in McGrain v. Dougherty (273 U. S. 135), constantly referred to here which involved a completely different question, and all the Court held in that case was that the Senate had the power to revive a committee started in one Congress by action taken by the Senate in the next Congress. I don't believe that the opinion holds any such thing that the Senate is a continuing body in regard to its rules, and instead of arguing about it, I submit pertinent selections from the opinion for the record. Senator TALMADGE. The Senate has voted on several occasions that the Senate is a continuing body. I have no objection to the insertion. (The pertinent portion of the Supreme Court decision in McGrain v. Dougherty (273 U. S. 135, pp. 180-182) is as follows:)

*** We conclude that the investigation was ordered for a legitimate object; that the witness wrongfully refused to appear and testify before the committee and was lawfully attached; that the Senate is entitled to have him give testimony pertinent to the inquiry, either at its bar or before the committee; and that the district court erred in discharging him from custody under the attachment.

22

Another question has arisen which should be noticed. It is whether the case has become moot. The investigation was ordered and the committee appointed during the Sixty-eighth Congress. That Congress expired March 4, 1925. The resolution ordering the investigation in terms limited the committee's authority to the period of the Sixty-eighth Congress; but this apparently was changed by a later and amendatory resolution authorizing the committee to sit at such times and places as it might deem advisable or necessary." It is said in Jefferson's Manual: "Neither House can continue any portion of itself in any parliamentary function beyond the end of the session without the consent of the other two branches. When done, it is by a bill constituting them commissioners for the particular purpose." But the context shows that the reference is to the two houses of Parliament when adjourned by prorogation or dissolution by the King. The rule may be the same with the House of Representatives, whose members are all elected for the period of a single Congress; but it cannot well be the same with the Senate, which is a continuing body whose members are elected for a term of six years and so divided into classes that the seats of onethird only become vacant at the end of each Congress, two-thirds always continuing into the next Congress, save as vacancies may occur through death or resignation.

Mr. Hinds in his collection of precedents says: "The Senate, as a continuing body, may continue its committees through the recess following the expiration of a Congress"; 23 and, after quoting the above statement from Jefferson's Manual, he 21 Congressional Record, 68th Congress, 1st session, p. 4126.

22 Senate Rules and Manual, 1925, p. 303.

23 Vol. 4, sec. 4544.

says: "The Senate, however, being a continuing body, gives authority to its committees during the recess after the expiration of a Congress." 24 So far as we are advised the select committee having this investigation in charge has neither made a final report nor been discharged; nor has it been continued by an affirmative order. Apparently its activities have been suspended pending the decision of this case. But, be this as it may, it is certain that the committee may be continued or revived now by motion to that effect, and, if continued or revived, will have all its original powers. This being so, the Senate being a continuing body, the case cannot be said to have become moot in the ordinary sense * * Senator TALMADGE. Now, one other point, Mr. Reuther. It requires two-thirds of the Senate to propose an amendment to the Constitution, does it not?

25

Mr. REUTHER. That is correct. That is 1 of those 5 specific exceptions that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution.

Senator TALMADGE. If the Senate saw fit by sheer force of numbers, it could submit a constitutional amendment by a simple majority, could it not?

Mr. REUTHER. Well, the Senate can't amend-they could initiate a constitutional amendment but it would have to follow the due process as outlined in the Constitution.

Senator TALMADGE. And the courts have held that one cannot go behind the rollcall. So, if the Senate were completely devoid of character, it could submit a constitutional amendment by 49 votes. That is the same as the suggestion you make on Senate rules. I am not advocating it, but that is what you are suggesting for Senate rules.

Mr. REUTHER. I maintain when a majority of the people in any deliberative body makes a set of rules by majority action, that is not being irresponsible. That is not being arbitrary. That is merely exercising the responsibility of the democratic majority. It is when the minority blocks the will of the majority that you are dealing with irresponsibility.

And this is precisely what rule XXII-why are you opposed to majority rule in the United States Senate, Senator Talmadge?

Senator TALM. DGE. It would take me about 2 hours to tell you.. Mr. REUTHER. I already know. You don't have to state it. Senator TALMADGE. I will have plenty of time to state my views but today we want to hear your views.

Mr. REUTHER. I am very happy to give them. I am glad to have the opportunity.

Senator JAVITS. Would you yield at this point? We are delighted to hear your views and they are very enlightening. In deference to our colleague, Senator Clark from Pennsylvania, who is now here, how much longer do you think you will take?

Mr. REUTHER. About 2 minutes. I would like to point out while supporting Senate Resolution 17, we oppose Senate Resolution 30 because we do not believe that it comes to grips with the basic problem. Senate Resolution 30 would substitute in place of the 64 votes required for cloture a two-thirds vote of those present and voting.

Now, that may sound like it is some relief but when you look at a practical situation, if you take the situation on January 4, 1957, at which time Senator Anderson's motion on the abolition of rule XXII was on the floor of the Senate, there were 93 Senators present and voting. Thirty-eight voted one way, 55 voted the other way, which means that two-thirds of 93 present and voting is 62. So you get a

reduction from 64 to 62; this really is of no real importance and that is why we think that that resolution 30 is not the answer.

Senate Resolution 30 also tends to nail down this concept that the Senate of one Congress can bind into eternity future Senates, which we think is unconstitutional.

We believe that the establishment of majority rule is a top priority matter in terms of the Senate rules of procedure. In 1953 there were 21 votes against rule XXII. In 1957 there were 41. So we made great progress in that period. We lacked 7 votes. The people of America lacked 7 Senators willing to vote for majority rule.

I, personally, believe that with the work of this committee, with the work of other groups in America, between now and 1959, when the new Senate is organized, we ought to be able to find the other seven Senators who are willing to commit themselves to majority rule and the abolition of rule 22. We urge your committee to make such recommendations to the Senate because we believe that the abolition of rule 22 will establish majority rule of the United States Senate and make the Senate a more responsive, more responsible body in terms of basic civil-rights legislation and other important legislation. It will better equip the American Government to deal with the many complex and challenging problems that we must face and find answers to in this period when freedom and tyranny are engaged in a life and death struggle.

Senator TALMADGE. I want to congratulate you on your presentation, Mr. Reuther.

There is one thing you brought up about which I would like to ask you 1 or 2 very brief questions.

You told how in your travels you found considerable opinion to the effect that our failure to do certain things in the field of civilrights legislation was being used against us in the world struggle.

Now, was it the contention of the persons with whom you spokeor is it your contention-that there is more freedom in Russia and the other Communist countries than there is in America?

Mr. REUTHER. Senator Talmadge, my understanding of what tyranny is like is not an academic matter. I haven't read it in a book. I have lived under Hitler. I have worked in trying to help build the German underground, the fight against fascism and Nazi tyranny. I have lived in the Soviet Union and worked there as a technician. When the Ford Motor contracted to build the model A plant, because I had done tooling in the Ford Rouge plant, I went over there as a technician. I lived under Hitler and I lived under Stalin's tyranny, and I say, while the Russian people may have made progress economically, they may have more bread than they had under the czar because they have industrialized their country, they do not have more freedom.

I told the people of India that this is the essential difference between what we are trying to do and what the Russians are trying to do: We want to get food into the people's stomachs without putting their soul in chains. We want more economic betterment. We want better living standards. But we want more human freedom, more spiritual freedom, and the Communists don't give you any of this.

Senator TALMADGE. Then you do not think we have to apologize to Russia or any other Communist state about our freedom?

Mr. REUTHER. I do not think we ought to apologize to the Russians or the Communists anywhere about America, but I do think we have