« 이전계속 »
got some homework to do to square America's promises and to abolish its ugly practices. I say it is wrong.
I happened to be born in the world with one color of skin. I don't think that God thinks I am a special person in his eyes. I think that I am no better nor worse than anybody else and I say when the laws of man block the operation of the laws of God in man's relationship to man, that is wrong and that is what is happening in America, and that is the thing you can't explain to people all over the world.
I just happened to think that freemen can win out over tyranny, but I think we have got to work at some of our unfinished jobs in America, and civil rights, I think, is one of our most important and serious problems. We have got to find a way to get over it. I personally believe, Senator Talmadge, that the people in the South want to work this out, too. I don't think the people in the South are bad people. I know thousands of them. I have great respect for them. I, personally, think that, if given a chance, the people of the South want to work this problem out just as much as I do.
Senator TALMADGE. I agree with you and they are working it out. I happen to know the members of your union down there and they are very fine folks. Mr. REUTHER. They sure are. Senator TALMADGE. Senator Javits, any questions? Senator JAVITS. I would like to question you for a long time. Mr. REUTHER. I would like to have you.
Senator JAVITS. You have a provocative and perfectly magnificent statement, very well prepared, and very illuminating, even to people who have been through this, they thought, from stem to stern.
I have just two questions. Senator Clark is waiting. We wish to hear from him very promptly.
One is this. Is it a fact, in response to Senator Talmadge's question, about tyranny in the Soviet Union, that to people in areas where there isn't a tremendous amount of sophistication in world affairs, it is easy to say a plague on both your houses because of the breakdown of civil rights and the presence of discrimination because of color in certain areas of the United States, not alone in the South but very heavily in the South, and that is really the essence of your argument, not that anybody would equate the tyranny in the Soviet Union with the freedom in our country.
Mr. REUTHER. That is right. You see, if you can sit down and list all the virtues of America and the lack of virtues in the Soviet Union, you could have a checklist and go over these things, there is no question about where we will come out. But here we are dealing with this emotional thing. The Communists keep throwing it at us. They don't have to give any answers, they just keep accusing us. The problem we have, we do have, we do have a problem in America that gives them a tremendous emotional and psychological weapon with which to beat us over the head.
Senator TALMADGE. They also complain about our capitalistic system, among other things.
Mr. REUTHER. That isn't giving us any trouble because you know I know something about capitalism and I know something about their kind of system. Frankly, I would rather bargain with General Motors than with Uncle Sam. 'I said many times at least they don't have an Army.
Senator TALMADGE. I agree.
Senator Javits. You know, Mr. Reuther, it is hard for many people to understand when liberals are very passionately devoted to private enterprise. You are giving the answer.
Just one question further, and then I have nothing further to ask you.
From your great experience here, what do you think of the chances for civil-rights legislation in this session of Congress if we don't do something about rule XXII?
Mr. REUTHER. Senator Javits, I have given this matter a great deal of serious thought because I am concerned about this matter. After all, this is my country and my children are growing up here and I happen to think that America is the last best hope of freemen everywhere. If we don't do these jobs here, the world is in trouble. I, personally, think that the United States Senate has before it now a billthey will postpone actual debate now for a couple of weeks but very shortly you will be debating the bill that was passed in the House and it relates to civil rights. I believe that when that bill comes out, the Senate of the United States ought to resolve and ought to so advise the American people that you are going to have full debate and that if a minority attempts by the technique of filibuster to block the will of the majority, the majority ought to serve notice upon the minority that if it takes all summer, you are going to sweat out the filibuster.
I think you ought to have a couple of weeks of normal sessions and then step it up on a 2-shift basis, about 16 hours a day, and then get it on a swing-shift basis around the clock and wear out the filibusterers, and outlast the filibuster and permit the majority to vote.
I think that the majority has the moral right of staying with this and sweating out the filibuster. And I think that if the majority lets it be known that that is what is going to happen, you will take some of the incentive and initiative out of the filibusterers. I think that if that is done, this Congress can go home with a civil-rights bill on the statute books.
President Eisenhower is committed to sign it and America will have delivered a powerful blow against immorality at home and a powerful blow against Communist propaganda in the world.
Senator Javits. You have got some Senators with you.
Senator Clark has been waiting for some time. We are very happy to have you with us, Senator. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH S. CLARK, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator Clark. Senator Talmadge and Senator Javits, I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before you this morning, and also the opportunity of listening. I am frankly happy that I had to wait awhile because it gave me an opportunity to listen to that splendid presentation by Mr. Reuther whose views I find strikingly similar to my own, and since they are, I shall be very brief with you gentlemen this morning.
In my opinion, an early revision of rule XXII would be a great service to the Senate, to the American people and to the democratic
process. In my judgment, the measure which I hope your subcommittee will recommend and the full Rules and Administration Committee report out favorably is Senate Resolution 17 offered by Senator Douglas on which I and 13 other Senators are cosponsors.
Since you gentlemen are fully familiar with that resolution, I won't take the time to discuss it at any length. I do feel, however, that whether that resolution or some other one meets with the approval of this Rules Committee, it is of greater importance that some change in this rule should be forthcoming at this session of the 85th Congress.
What we need, of course, and I imagine we would probably all agree to this, despite our differing points of view on the basic issue, is a rule which will allow the minority to be heard fully and completely but which, at the same time, will permit the majority to act ultimately. I don't think there is a single Senator who would like to see rule XXII so curtailed or emasculated that it would prohibit full and complete discussion and debate of every issue that comes before the Senate.
The time does come, gentlemen, when action is required and when it does come, the Senate must be free to act. At the moment, rule XXII effectively prohibits it from acting.
Now, no rule of the Senate I think should be placed above the Constitution of the United States. I guess, Senator Javits, you weren't actually in the Senate when we had the debate on rule XXII, but I am sure that you followed it very carefully.
Senator Javits. Not only followed it but Mr. Reuther included me as one of the 41 Senators he relied on to vote that way.
Senator CLARK. I am sure his conclusion is justified.
Senator CLARK. I don't always concur-in fact, very rarely do I concur with the views of the Vice President, but I cannot fail to concur with his view expressed from the rostrum at that time to the effect that section 3 of rule XXII operates as an infringement on the constitutional power of the Senate to make and change its own rules. I would differ with the Vice President in this respect. He seemed to limit that right in his comments from the Chair to action taken in the very first days of the Senate, of the session. I would feel that that right was a continuing right and was not curtailed by the passage of time, and, for that reason, I would suggest that if it becomes impractical or not feasible to report out a comprehensive revision of rule XXII favorably, and I hope that a favorable revision will be recommended, but if it didn't, I would like to suggest favorable consideration and passage of Senate Resolution 29 which was offered jointly by Senators Humphrey, Anderson, Douglas, and myself on January 9, 1957.
That proposed resolution states that it is the consensus of the Senate that section 3 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate having operated as an infringement on the constitutional right of the Senate to make its own rules, is now void and of no further effect during the 85th Congress. Adoption of this resolution would make it possible for the Senate itself to change its rules, and was attempted last January because of the possibility that you gentlemen are unable to get a majority of the Committee on Rules and Administration to report out at this time a comprehensive revision of rule XXII.
Now, I want to make it clear that that would be a point of retreat in the event you are unable to get Senate Resolution 17 out because I think that-reporting favorably Senate Resolution 17—is what should be done. There are times, as we know, when we can't get done everything we want. At least Senate Resolution 29 would remove an impossibility on the changing of the rules by the Senate, itself, by making section 3 of that rule ineffective and void.
I would oppose the suggestion of the minority leader, Senator Knowland, that there should be written into rule XXII a provision, and I quote:
That the rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rulesbecause I believe that to be restrictive.
Senator JAVITS. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Senator CLARK. Then, as sometimes happens, I find myself in disagreement with the majority leader, too.
I would suggest that a more desirable provision would be:
The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress until changed by the vote of a constitutional majority of the Senate.
This would both retain the power of the Senate, itself, to change its rules at any time, and yet by requiring a constitutional majoritythat is, 49 Senators-prevent changes by a mere majority of the quorum.
I believe the subcommittee has before it a number of proposals as to how rule XXII should be amended from among which it is the subcommittee's proper function to select a recommendation to the full Committee on Rules and Administration.
Now, at this point, I am going to briefly violate and I assure you, Senator Talmadge, it will be very brief-the rule of relevance which I think you have quite properly applied to the deliberations of this subcommittee, and I am going to violate that rule of relevance
Senator TALMADGE. I don't think one Senator has ever called down another Senator for irrelevance.
Senator CLARK. My purpose in violating this rule of relevance before your subcommittee, is to urge your subcommittee to see if we can't get passed a rule of relevance in the Senate itself. We three are lawyers, and I am sure each of us probably with respect to different matters has been restless and unhappy about the constant violation of the rules of relevance in the Senate. Of course, we don't have a rule of relevance now, so you can't violate a rule that isn't in effect. A rule of relevance is a necessary part of a speedy and intelligent procedure. The absence of a rule of relevance unnecessarily slows down Senate action.
Almost every debate on important legislation is interrupted by Senators who discourse on other matters that have nothing to do with the one under discussion. Adverse comments by citizens in the gallery and by the press tend to bring the Senate into public disrepute as an effective legislative body. Indeed, gentlemen, the most important reason in my judgment for changing the rule of the Senate, both with respect to rule XXII and with respect to establishing a rule of relevance, is to restore prestige to that great institution, which we all three belong to, throughout the country and the free world.
I am sure that I differ with at least one member of this subcommittee when I say that in my judgment our real danger today is political lag, not the undue concentration of power. The real danger is the inability of the Congress of the United States to act quickly enough to solve critical worldwide and domestic problems before it is too late. We should be alert to make the Senate an efficient intrument of good government rather than a pleasant and leisurely institution unable to deal effectively with the problems of the modern world because its rules of procedure are geared to the 18th and not the 20th century.
Senator TALMADGE. Senator, thank you very much for your fine statement.
Senator TALMADGE. We appreciate your appearing and we are sorry you had this delay, but Mr. Reuther was already on the stand-and, I understood, with the permission of the Senators who would follow.
Senator CLARK. I do hope it will not be considered a sort of applepolishing gesture if I say I am very happy I had the privilege of listening to Mr. Reuther.
Senator TALMADGE. Thank you, very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator TALMADGE. We are delighted to have you with us.
Senator NEUBERGER. It is a pleasure to be here, Mr. Chairman. You are very kind to bear with me, and I want to assure you I will be very brief today.
I have listened to Senator Clark's testimony, which I thought very able and with which I am in substantial agreement, and that will make it possible, I know you will be relieved to hear, for me to be more brief that I originally thought.
In my opinion the United States Senate must be able to vote, one way or the other, on crucial national decisions, if we are to pride ourselves on the claim of being the world's greatest parliamentary body.
I am cosponsor, with a bipartisan group of 14 Senators favoring civil rights legislation, of a new Senate cloture rule which would permit two-thirds of the Senators present and voting to limit Senate debate after 1 additional hour's allowance for each Senator and by a majority of 49 Senators after 15 days of debate.
As you, of course, realize, the present rule XXII requires 64 Senators to vote to shut off debate.
When a number of us made the fight at the beginning of this session to adopt a new rule XXII, we were met with the argument that the Senate, as a so-called continuing body, does not adopt its rules at the beginning of each Congress. We were told to follow the regular procedure for changing the rules after committee hearings and report.
I am glad these hearings are now being held. While the chairman of the subcommittee and I might not agree on the substantive issue at stake, I wish to commend him for holding these