hearings and giving all viewpoints an opportunity to be heard on this very crucial matter.

The time has come to follow through on our effort last January and to give the Senate a clear opportunity to decide whether we want to be able to end debate and reach a vote on any isue or whether we want to maintain the right of a minority to block a vote and to hamstring Senate action by a filibuster.

I would like to concur in what Senator Clark said, that probably the filibuster has done more than any other characteristic associated with the Senate to tarnish the reputation of the Senate in America and throughout the world-particularly when the right of debate is abused by a Senate minority for the purpose of blocking a Senate vote on helping a minority in the Nation.

Senators may and often do have legitimate disagreements over the merits of issues and bills. I believe in full debate in the Senate, to bring out all points of view and to give ample time to the public to study the issues and express its reaction. But I can conceive of no defense for a deliberate tactic of preventing the Senate from ever voting at all on a bill. Far from being the skillful use of parliamentary procedure, such a deliberate course represents the complete denial and destruction of parliamentary procedures and of the democratic process.

The Senate does not have to stand still for it. It is within our power to adopt a new, moderate, two-thirds rule for ending debate, which will protect a Senate minority opposing a bill and leave plenty of room for true debate, and it is high time we did so.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say this: I believe that a restriction on limited debate would do a great deal for the Senate itself as an institution. One of the things that has disappointed me as a Member of the Senate-there have been many things that I certainly have approved and that have delighted me-but one of the things that has disappointed me has been what I regard as the quality of the speeches we all make in the Senate. I think the reason for this is that there is a feeling on the part of many Senators, perhaps all of us at this table included, that we have to talk at great length. When we talk at great length, we necessarily repeat ourselves.

There are only so many ideas in the world. There are only so many words in the world.

I have been reading a book recently about Mr. Churchill, who is probably the greatest speaker of our age and certainly the most skillful user of words in the English-speaking world, and this book points out how relatively briefly Mr. Churchill always spoke to Parliament, how he always had the exact word to express his thought, but that his speeches are relatively brief, and I believe that perhaps the Senate in its impact on the country and the whole free world might be improved if there was not such an encouragement to lengthy and unlimited speaking.

I should also like to express my agreement with Senator Clark in his suggestion that there be a rule of germaneness. I was on the Senate floor the other afternoon when we were considering a resolution sponsored, if I am not mistaken, by a Democrat, Senator Douglas, and a Republican, Senator Knowland, dealing with our desire to have the United Nations investigate the atrocities in Hungary.

Here was an issue that has stirred the hearts and souls and emotions of mankind all over the world. Namely, the terrible Russian barbarism and Soviet cruelty in Hungary.

Here the United States Senate was asking the United Nations to use its moral influence in this cataclysm that had occurred to Hungary and which outraged decent people everywhere. During the course of this discussion, while Senator Knowland and others stood on the floor and answered questions about Hungary, one after another of the Senators would pop up and talk about anything-about dredging a creek in his State, about how they approved or disapproved the United States Supreme Court, and so on.

Afterward I met in the reception room with some schoolteachers from my State-intelligent, educated people. They were people who, I think, had never before been in the gallery of the United States Senate. They had visited our State legislature.

They told me how they were shocked by that kind of procedure; that, in the midst of a discussion of the solemnity of what had happened in Hungary, where the lives of men and women were snuffed out, and here the United States was to express its opinion on that, Members of the Senate all over the place were getting up and talking about anything, regardless of how trivial, casual, or even humorous. They expressed to me how really disappointed they were, those schoolteachers from Oregon. And I think they may well be typical of schoolteachers from Georgia, Idaho, New York, or any place else.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank you very much for your courtesy to me, and your kindness in letting me come here to present by views. Senator TALMADGE. We appreciate your coming and presenting your views.

Senator JAVITS. I have one question, Senator Neuberger, if I may, and I shall not detain you. I may say, too, parenthetically, that these three particular Senators have a rather good record on speaking to the point and not too long, although they may not always agree in their views. You are identified with what is considered the liberal group in the Senate, regardless of party, and quite properly, and I have tremendous admiration and respect for you.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much.

Senator JAVITS. Do you feel that the liberals are perfectly willing to accept a stricter cloture rule, even though it may sometimes interfere with something they feel very strongly about, just as much as we ask those who are opposed to the civil-rights bill to accept it in the greater interest of the country and the functions of the Senate?

Senator NEUBERGER. Certainly. I am perfectly willing to have a majority of the Senate decide any issue in which I am interested. If they decide it contrary to my point of view, I may not be pleased about it, but I certainly will accept it. Just take, for example, the Hells Canyon issue. You know how vitally concerned, emotionally and personally, I am with that. But nobody from my State has ever suggested that I should stop the Senate from voting on the Hells Canyon issue merely because the Senate might vote contrary to our particular wishes on the matter. I am perfectly willing to abide by a majority of my colleagues on any possible issue that would come up. Senator JAVITS. Thank you.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much.

Are there any other Senators present? Senator Robertson is here to introduce the Honorable John J. Wicker, Jr., who is representing Dan Daniel, the national commander of the American Legion. I am taking Mr. Wicker out of order because this is the second time he has appeared with this testimony and he has to catch a train.

Senator JAVITS. Senator Wicker, Senator Talmadge has been so gracious to witnesses for the side that I believe in, that I would like to welcome you myself and thank you very much for appearing. Senator TALMADGE. Senator Robertson?

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. WICKER, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW, REPRESENTING W. C. "DAN" DANIEL, NATIONAL COMMANDER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION (INTRODUCED BY HON. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA)

Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have been attending this morning a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee engaged in marking up the Defense bill which, as you know, is about one-half of the budget.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee to present an able and highly esteemed friend from Virginia.

Last year, when the Senate Judiciary Committee was conducting hearings on the so-called civil-rights bill, I introduced as a witness the same gentleman who is with me today. I have known him for many years; first, as an outstanding lawyer, as a member of the State Senate of Virgina, and as one of the founders of the American Legion, and a former Virginia State commander of that organization.

He is a former chairman of the judiciary committee of the Virginia Bar Association and a present member of the executive council of the insurance law section of the American Bar Association.

He was president of the electoral college of Virginia in 1944 and chairman for the first half of the 1945 Constitutional Convention of Virginia. He has served on several State commissions and boards. Most important, for our present purpose, however, he is an astute student of the law and a dedicated believer in the principles of constitutional liberty and in the institutions, including the Senate of the United States, which are designed to preserve that liberty.

Last year he gave a convincing and scholarly argument against proposed legislation which he and I both felt would constitute a threat to constitutional liberty. Today I am sure he will be equally skillful in presenting his views on why it would be dangerous and undesirable to change the rules of the Senate in a way which might remove some of the protections of minority rights which were deliberately provided by the Founding Fathers or prevent the full discussion of constitutional issues which is necessary for the preservation of the spirit as well as the letter of that great document.

It is a pleasure for me to present to this committee the Honorable John J. Wicker, Jr., of Richmond, Va.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much.

Mr. WICKER. Senator Robertson, I appreciate your kindness in coming here today, and I am grateful for your generous and gracious introduction.

It is indeed a pleasure, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, to be here.

My name is John J. Wicker, Jr. I am an attorney at law and for many years I have been a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, of the Federal Court in Virginia, and of the Supreme Court of the United States. I reside, as I have for most of my life, in Richmond, Va. I am also a former Virginia State senator and I was temporary chairman of the 1945 Constitutional Convention of Virginia.

I mentioned my service in the State senate. My good friend, Senator Byrd, sometimes introduces me to somebody up here as "Senator" Wicker and the person will say, "Oh, you have a new colleague up here." Then Senator Byrd will say, "No, he is an alumnus of a much more exclusive body-the Senate of Virginia-which is limited to 40 members."

I am appearing before you at the request of W. C. "Dan" Daniel, the national commander of the American Legion and upon his authority, to express the views of the national commander, with which views I am in full accord

Senator JAVITS. Is the national commander from Virginia, too? Mr. WICKER. Yes, sir, from Danville, Va.-literally born in a log cabin, by the way. As a youngster he had to quit school and go to work. He took a job at $2.50 a week, 11 miles away, and he walked barefoot to the Dan River Cotton Mills, sweeping up lint, and he is now personnel manager of that mill, the largest single-unit textile mill in the world.

Senator JAVITS. My father was a great economic success, too. The most he ever earned a month was $45.

Mr. WICKER. I am speaking to you concerning a number of resolutions pending before you to amend and modify rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, relating to cloture.

The national commander was invited to appear before you by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator Herman E. Talmadge, and being unable to appear in person because of previous engagements, he has requested and authorized me to appear in his stead.

GENERAL PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF PENDING RESOLUTIONS

While the several resolutions pending before you with regard to cloture have some differences in language and in detail, they all appear to have the same general intent and purpose and would probably have the same general effect; namely, to make it possible for less than twothirds of the duly elected Members of the Senate to shut off debate and to deprive more than one-third of the duly elected Senators to their right to unlimited debate.

PENDING RESOLUTIONS WOULD PERMIT 49 SENATORS TO INFLUENCE 47 SENATORS

As the rule now stands, the views and voices of United States Senators upon pending legislation can be shut off by the concurring vote of 64 out of the 96 elected Senators. Under these pending resolutions, cloture could be applied and debate terminated at any time, by the concurrence of only two-thirds of these Senators actually voting

on the resolution of cloture, provided that they constituted at least a bare majority of the total membership.

Thus, the sentiments and opinions and judgments of a large number of duly elected United States Senators-voicing and reflecting the sentiments and opinions and judgments of the citizens of their respective States could be stifled and silenced by the active concurrence of a bare elected majority. And this would be true regardless of how fundamentally important the issue might be.

While the rule now requires 64 affirmative votes to apply cloture, the pending resolutions would reduce that required number by 15that is a reduction of almost one-fourth-so that the required minimum would be only 49 Senators, provided not more than 24 other Senators actually voted the other way. Forty-seven Senators might be conceivably opposed to the pending legislation and/or opposed to cloture; but unless at least 25 of them were actually present and voting, their opposition would be ignored and count for nought.

SENATE AND HOUSE ARE COORDINATE AND OF EQUAL DIGNITY BUT FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT

Our Founding Fathers very wisely provided for two distinct bodies in the Federal legislative branch. The House of Representatives, chosen on a population basis and constituting a large representative body, is fresh from the people as a result of elections every other year. The Senate, being a smaller and consequently much more deliberative body, with each State being represented by two Senators regardless of wide variations in population and area, has its membership elected for 6-year terms with only one-third of the body being elected every 2 years.

Anyone making even a cursory study of the fundamental principles and aims and purposes which the framers of the Federal Constitution had in mind in providing for these two bodies-so vastly different in their size and basis of representation and terms of office and times of election-will recognize that, while the powers of the two Houses are coordinate, their methods of operation would, in many particulars, be vitally and fundamentally different.

LIMITATION OF DEBATE APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY IN HOUSE BUT NOT IN SENATE

Obviously, anything like unlimited debate in any legislative body as large as the House of Representatives (numbering 435 Congressmen) would be completely out of the question. Consequently, limitation of debate in the House of Representatives is not only traditional and historical, but is also absolutely necessary in order to permit the House to operate.

By sharp contrast, however, the Senate, with a total membership of 96 substantially less than one-fourth of the number of the Housecan operate efficiently and effectively without limitation of debate. In fact, the Senate has actually done so throughout its existence.