ANYTHING IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY CLOTURE WILL HAVE ACTIVE SUPPORT OF AT LEAST 64 SENATORS

Anything so serious and so dangerous to our American form of government as shutting off debate and stifling free expression and argument by United States Senators should never be sanctioned without the affirmative concurrence of at least two-thirds of the membership of the Senate. If any real emergency arises that requires and justifies a limitation of debate, surely the emergency would be recognized and acted upon by at least two-thirds of the Senators.

May I interpolate there to say the history of the Senate is replete with occasions when there have been matters of imminent importance-war declarations, embargoes, and things of that type that have required prompt and immediate action, and although sentiment was not unanimous in the Senate, nevertheless there was no difficulty in obtaining a prompt vote on those matters.

Senator JAVITS. Senator, would you yield a second at that point. You will, however, grant to those of us who feel that civil rights bills are a matter of urgency the sincerity and conviction of our views. You assume in what you said that a civil rights bill is not an imminent and urgent matter. Some of us, including myself, believe that it is.

Mr. WICKER. That is right, yes. Of course, there are exceptions on all sides of every question. I know of you and your views and I know of many other Senators whose views are in sharp contrast with mine. But I am confident they are just as sincere and honest in their convictions and purpose as I am in mine. I am confident of that; yes, sir.

However, on the matter of the urgency, and pending so-called civilrights legislation, I don't agree at all that there is anything that would put that in a comparable class with immediate national peril that might be brought about, as in the past, by sudden attacks or by sudden chaos all over the country in the way of weather or flood disasters and things like that when you need immediate action.

I think the difference of opinion over so-called civil rights is perhaps a sociological matter.

Senator JAVITTS. It is a fact that there have been outbreaks of violence on this issue in part of the South as recently as the school segregation cases. That is all I refer to, and I respect greatly the sincerity of your views, sir, and the views of the national commander. I just wanted to have it clear that by silence we didn't agree that that was the only thing that is urgent.

Senator TALMADGE. If you will yield at that point. I hate to divert the record, but inasmuch as you have brought out the outbreaks of violence in the South, there also have been outbreaks in the North, in New York State.

Senator JAVITS. I don't now know of any outbreaks of violence in New York State of recent origin. But I do know a State in the North analogous to New York-Illinois.

Senator TALMADGE. I seem to recall some sort of boat excursion up the river from Buffalo on which there was quite an affray-in fact the police called it a riot.

Senator JAVITS. I think what I had in mind-however, I accept what the Senator has said-is what are called race situations of more major scale.

Mr. WICKER. Yes. There have undoubtedly been outbreaks of violence not only in the South but in the West and some parts of the North on these racial matters, and those outbreaks have taken place in the past. But I would like to express the opinion and conviction that if the pending "civil rights" legislation is enacted, you will have far more outbreaks than you ever had before. Don't ever get the idea that by passing so-called civil rights legislation nationally you are going to decrease the liability of racial conflict and racial outbreaks in the North and South.

Wherever you find that a large number of the two races, the Negro race and the white race, getting together, the frictions are bound to occur. You have them right here in Washington. I read in an Associated Press dispatch this morning where Washington's newest public school, the Shadduck school, right here in Washington, D. C., is being almost completely destroyed by vandalism. That has been integrated recently.

That is because of the natural conflicts that occur.

Senator JAVITS. As Senator Talmadge said to Mr. Reuther, this is something I could talk on for a couple of hours.

Mr. WICKER. That is right.

And any proposition of that kind which cannot secure the active voting support of at least two-thirds of the duly elected Senators does not deserve to be adopted.

With only 2 Senators elected by any 1 State to represent that State and its people, it would be unreasonable to silence those Senators from expressing their views fully-especially on measures which they believe may involve a violation of fundamental constitutional rightsunless at least two-thirds of the membership of the Senate affirmatively vote to close debate.

Any attempt to shut off debate which cannot command the affirmative voting support of at least 64 out of the 96 elected Senators must have inherent in it such weakness and such objection that it deserves to fail.

MINORITY OF SENATORS, OBSTRUCTING WILL OF MAJORITY, IS SOMETIMES BEST FOR PUBLIC WELFARE

It is claimed that rule XXII permits a minority to obstruct the will of the majority. If that be true, it is not necessarily a damning indictment because our history shows many instances in which a bare majority, if unfettered and uncontrolled, would have done willful violence to the legitimate rights of minorities.

To enable cloture to be applied upon the concurring vote of less than two-thirds of the elected Senators would undoubtedly result in the hasty enactment of some legislation which would otherwise be defeated if debate were sufficiently prolonged to enable the American public to become fully informed as to the merits or demerits of the proposed legislation and to transmit their sentiments to their representatives in the Senate. In the very nature of things there is not as much opportunity for this formulation of informed and considered public opinion in connection with the passage of legislation in the House of Representatives, but this opportunity should by all means be preserved in the Senate.

MINORITY OF SENATORS MAY ACTUALLY REPRESENT MAJORITY OF CITIZENS

A minority of Senators may actually be representative of a large majority of American citizens and of American territory. For example, there are 10 States having a combined total of only 20 United States Senators, and yet these 10 States have a combined population constituting a substantial majority of all the citizens of the United States of America, and also a majority of territory. Even as it stands now, the rule is fraught with some danger of unduly stifling debate but this danger certainly should not be increased-as it would be by a weakening modification of the rule by the pending resolutions.

PRESENT RULE HAS NOT PERMANENTLY KILLED ANY MERITORIOUS

LEGISLATION

Of all the legislation that has failed of passage at one time or another in the United States Senate, because of unlimited debate, very few measures have failed of ultimate enactment. In fact, the few that have failed permanently were those that were of such a vicious type, fraught with such genuine peril to our American system of government, that they fully deserved the defeat they experienced.

SENATE EXPECTED TO BE MORE DELIBERATE THAN THE HOUSE

In view of the important differences in size, basis of representation, terms of office, times of election, prerogatives and functions, the Senate was designed and intended to operate quite differently from the House. It is not unreasonable to say that the Senate was intentionally created of such size and type as to make sure that many things hastily approved by the House would not receive the approval of the Senate.

Elected entirely every 2 years, the House is "fresh from the people" and, quite naturally, reflects the current popular sentiment of the people at the moment. But the Senate, elected by thirds over a period of 6 years, represents a much broader span of public opinion. I should say broader time span of public opinion. Consequently, from the very beginning of our Government, the Senate has been expected to be more deliberate than the House; ordinarily to concur in House action but just as properly to refuse concurrence when any sizable segment of the Senate has reasonable doubt of the long-range wisdom of House action.

MORE DELIBERATE SENATE ACTS AS BULWARK AGAINST EXECUTIVE

DOMINATION

While the House and Senate are of equal dignity, there are many important functions performed solely by the Senate; for example, the confirmation of important executive appointments and ratification of international treaties. If limitation of debate could be brought about by less than the concurring vote now required, it is conceivable that the Senate might not be able to discharge its important functions as intelligently as it should, and as it now does.

The smaller size, staggered changes of personnel, and representation on the basis of individual States rather than population, all

combine to show that the Senate was consciously designed to act also as a safeguard against executive domination. Otherwise, why is it that the Senate, rather than the House, must approve or reject important official appointments made by the President? Obviously because-ordinarily although not always-the majority of the House is more apt to be of the same political party or governmental persuasion as the President. Thus, ordinarily, the House is more likely to "go along" with Presidential policy. The Senate, however, being more removed from the popular pressures and changing passions of the day, is more apt to apply its own deliberate judgment. And whenever necessary, in the interests of constitutional government, the Senate is expected to act as a deterrent and checkmate against hasty action, regardless of whether that action originates in the House or in the Senate.

It has been true in the past-and may well be so in the futurethat it is a minority of both parties in the Senate that must be counted upon as the last bulwark against improper harmful legislation. And this bulwark should not be destroyed or weakened, regardless of how high and noble the motives of the proponents may be.

HISTORY WARNS OF THE DANGER OF BARE MAJORITIES

With no reflection upon anyone, let us remember that most of the foreign tyrants of the past have acquired absolute and despotic power on the temporary but surging wave of popular sentiment of the dayallegedly to promote social welfare and so-called civil rights, and other things of like nature. Few indeed would have succeeded in their autocratic seizures if their countries had been blessed with a legislative body with the courage, power, and deliberative character of the United States Senate. In the few instances where there was indeed a legislative body at all comparable to our Senate, the first step of the tyrant and his cohorts was to suspend or repeal all rules which permitted anything less than an absolute majority to oppose him. Of course, it may be said that "such a thing could never happen here." Well, that same thing was said-and believed-in every country before it succumbed to the tyranny of a dictator.

WHY WEAKEN MINORITY IN SENATE TO STRENGTHEN MINORITY OUTSIDE?

It is a strange and paradoxical thing that many of the leading proponents of cloture, who seek to make it possible to stifle the voice of substantial minorities in the United States Senate, appear to be doing so principally in the hope of thereby bringing about the passage of pending legislation, allegedly designed to protect miscellaneous minorities of people here and there in the United States outside the Senate. It would seem that Senators should be at least equally zealous in protecting the rights of their fellow members of what has well been described as "the most august deliberative body in the world" as they are in seeking to set up a vast bureaucracy of Federal inquisitors and prosecutors to ferret out and punish fancied grievances of a comparatively few individuals.

RULE XXII HAS PROVEN ITS VALUE TO PUBLIC WELFARE AND SHOULD NOT BE WEAKENED

In conclusion, may I say seriously, in all seriousness, as everything else I have said has been, I believe rule XXII has proven its value to public welfare and should not be weakened. It has had considerably more than a century of useful life and it would not be for the best interest of the United States and its people, or of our American form of government, to emasculate or otherwise weaken this rule, regardless of the temporary benefit that might occur in connection with some specific piece of legislation at the moment.

The modification and weakening of the rule would bring about far greater bitterness and resentment; that is, in the actions that would follow from it, than whatever may be occasionally aroused by the operation of the rule as it now stands.

Gentlemen, that concludes my statement.

Senator JAVITS. I have just one question, Senator Wicker, because we want to hear Senator Kefauver. This is the personal position of this Commander Daniel of the American Legion?

Mr. WICKER. Oh, yes, as you know-for you are a good member and so is Senator Talmadge here the Legion is composed of about 3 million members and absolute unanimity of opinion is never possible. I heard Mr. Reuther testifying here a while ago as president of the CIO. Yet some members of the CIO who are right prominent down in Virginia heard he was going to testify and knew I was going to be here, and they told me they are not in agreement with him. Well, they aren't-but he is the president.

Senator JAVITS. I wasn't quite trying to make that point. The point is that the American Legion, itself, as a body at a convention or some other form, or even by its governing committee, has not passed any resolution or passed on this question.

Mr. WICKER. Not directly on this, but the commander looked into the matter very carefully and was advised that the position that he was about to take-which I say is as I have expressed, this is my statement, but it is directly in accord with his views, and on his behalfthat that was in line with actions that have been taken in the past by the American Legion.

Senator JAVITS. Well, is there any contention here that this is the American Legion speaking, not Commander Daniel?

Mr. WICKER. Senator, if you will recall the beginning of my statement-I said I was representing the national commander of the Legion, and upon his authority to express the views of the national commander. Senator JAVITS. He is speaking, personally.

Mr. WICKER. He is speaking as national commander of the Legion just as Mr. Reuther was speaking as president of something.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Reuther produced a resolution which he said his union adopted. Mr. Daniel is not doing that.

Mr. WICKER. No; we are not producing any resolution.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much for your very fine state

ment.

Senator Kefauver, we are happy to have you with us. You may proceed, if you will, at this time.