Mr. FOSTER. May I also state, Mr. Chairman, that I am the vice president for the southwest division of We, The People, and asked by the president, the headquarters of We, The People being in Chicago, that this statement represents their sentiments.

Senator JAVITS. This statement you have just made?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Foster. We appreciate your appearance.

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Senator JAVITS. Our next witness is Mr. Andrew Wilson Green.
Mr. Green, would you come forward, please?

Will you proceed? Mr. Green, we generally like, if you would be good enough, to have you make some preliminary statement as to your organization, what it is, the number of its members. You may have it in your prepared statement. You do it in your own way.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW WILSON GREEN, STATE CHAIRMAN, PENNSYLVANIA BRANCH, FOR AMERICA

Mr. GREEN. I believe I have it in my prepared statement but I believe I will elaborate a little bit.

Senator JAVITs. All right.

Mr. GREEN. My name is Andrew Wilson Green, and I am from Harrisburg, Pa. I am State chairman of Pennsylvania for America. And while I have not received express directions from our executive board to appear here this morning, I think I can state from my personal acquaintance with them that the views which I am about to state would represent the views of the overwhelming majority of our mem bers. I should like to tell you a little bit about our organization. It is the Pennsylvania branch of For America which supported T. Coleman Andrews for President and Thomas H. Werdel for Vice President in the 1956 elections. I assume you have heard of our organization. In Pennsylvania, we are becoming extensively organized, using the model of the two major political parties as the pattern of our organization. We have a State committee of 65 members, representing some 25 counties, and we feel we can call upon approximately 1,500 workers to give us support in any program of action which our organization desires to support.

I think I might say a little bit about the national organization. It nas a national advisory board of about, oh, 100 members, and is active in about, I would say, two-thirds of the States, and is in touch with approximately 35,000 to 40,000 people in the United States.

I might also say that I am on the national advisory committee of For America.

I think the committee might be interested in knowing that it was our organization which placed the name of Senator William F. Knowland in the Republican presidential preferential ballot in Pennsylvania in 1956, and Senator Knowland received approximately 95,000 votes as opposed to President Eisenhower. However, I must say that after a reading of Senator Knowland's position on rule 22, it is possible that the confidence of our organization was misplaced.

Also, our organization takes substantial credit for the defeat of Senator James H. Duff in Pennsylvania in 1956, who trailed Eisenhower by over 600,000 votes and lost by approximately 14,000 votes.

I opposed his candidacy on a write-in basis, and I am willing to make an affidavit before this committee that a write-in voter in a northern State is more effectively disenfranchised than a colored voter in any State in the Union.

Now let's get on to rule 22. Let us look at the facts. In the Senate hearings on this subject in 1949, the tables indicate at that time that only 37 pieces of legislation have been defeated by a filibuster in the period from 1865 to 1948. In other words, in a period of 80 years, only one-half of 1 bill per session of the Senate is defeated by a filibuster. (Limitation on Debate in the Senate, hearings before the Committee on Rules and Administration, U. S. Senate, 81st Cong., 1st sess., p. 20.)

Furthermore, since the existence of the cloture rule in 1917 through 1948, it appears that cloture has been moved only 17 times, and successfully only 4 of these 17 times. Of the 13 times which cloture failed, it would appear that it had failed because of a lack of a majority in 7 of these 13 times. In other words, even if the cloture rule were liberalized as suggested, it would have brought to vote only 6 additional bills in a period of approximately 30 years.

The conclusion I come to from these facts is that the whole controversy on rule 22 is making a mountain over a molehill. The present rule is a good rule, and even if the Senate had no rule to invoke cloture, it would appear that there would be no substantial interference with the deliberative processes of the Senate.

This leads also to a further conclusion that the proponents of liberalization of Senate rule 22 are not moved primarily by any desire to improve the procedure of the Senate but primarily by political considerations. And I suspect that this political consideration is the desire to pass so-called civil-rights legislation. This conclusion is further confirmed by noting the list of the witnesses before the Senate committee in 1951. Outside of the testimony of members of the Senate, I note that no testimony was received from any person having the reputation of a political conservative, that 12 persons might be identified as expressing a labor-liberal point of view, and that the testimony of 5 persons representing the Jewish organizations was heard. I am sure that you can confirm this statement by checking the list of witnesses on page III of the table of contents of these 1951 hearings.

Since I do not wish to engage in religious controversy in any testimony which I give before this committee, I shall not comment on the testimony of the individuals representing Jewish organizations. I shall only say that testimony by representatives of religious bodies or bodies purporting to represent individuals of a particular religious faith is often unfortunate in the implication that there are no members of that particular religious faith that hold a contrary view.

Now, if I may, I think for the record I would like to state something of my own religious background. I was brought up as a Methodist and am presently a member of the Unitarian Church of Harrisburg.

I, when I belonged to the Methodist Church, opposed the political activity of such Methodist leaders as Dr. Harry Ward, Bishop Oxnam, and Bishop McConnell. And I might say, in my own opinion, judg ing from the actions of Bishop Oxnam and Dr. Ward, that they are under the discipline of the Communist Party of the United States. And I might say also that one of the reasons I am not an active

Unitarian today is because I had attempted to get the Unitarian leaders such as the president of the American Unitarian Association, Rev. Dr. Frederick Eliot, and others to cease their pronunciamentos upon political questions, which I do not feel is the task of a spiritual organization. This effort has failed, and I have not been active in the Unitarian Church consequently for about a year or two.

But, anyway, let me resume now with my statement.

Let us return to the political implications to the proposal to change Senate rule 22. The Pennsylvania State Committee of For America, being in a Northern States, does not feel directly concerned with the merits of the issue of segregation. But we are concerned about efforts to deal with the problems of race relations when they involve changes to our political customs and institutions.

We hear a lot of talk these days about democracy, and many people think that it settles the merits of an issue to say that the majority of the American people have such and such an opinion about it, and that therefore the only political problem concerned is to remove any restraint over our political customs and institutions toward the implementation of the majority opinion, through law or other coercive political measures. Such an attitude is naive, childish, unsophisticated, and irresponsible.

It is worth noting that the Founding Fathers of our country, in writing the Constitution, did not establish a plebiscitary democracy but a representative form of government. The members of the Senate are supposed to interpose their informed judgment and responsible opinion between the uninformed and irresponsible opinions of the majority in the enactment of law.

Furthermore, the American Constitution establishes a system of government dependent upon checks and balances, so that where the controversy is especially provocative and the feeling of concern of minority individuals is intense, their desires cannot be hastily overridden by a simple public majority. We must recognize that Government is based upon consent, not merely of the majority of the people, but of all the people, and that if we are going to override the intense feelings of a minority of our people on certain issues, we will destroy the necessary basis of consent of civilized government, create a spirit of rebellion and disobedience to law, and encourage social disorder. There are some doctrinaire and fanatic democratic theorists who feel that the democratic theory must be vindicated, though the heavens fall. Surely, should such fanaticism become a prevailing temperament of our times, and this great Republic should eventually be destroyed through such irresponsibility, they will have time to repent and change their opinion, but I trust that the members of this committee do not prefer to learn such a vital lesson by experience.

So we arrive therefore at this conclusion:

Has the Senate cloture rule as presently written worked harm upon the welfare of the Nation? We think not. We think that in the instances in which the filibuster has been used, or in which cloture has failed, there have been strong and intense feelings involved in which it would have been harmful to the tranquility and well-being of our Nation to have overridden, even though it should have been a minority who defeated cloture or used a filibuster. In other words, we think experience shows that the filibuster has not been used irresponsibly. In fact, as I recall, the filibuster has even been used by some of the

individual Senators who are presently on some of these resolutions which would liberalize Senate rule XXII, and in particular I recall a certain gentleman from the State of Oregon, whose name at the moment escapes me.

I should, therefore, urge the Senate to retain rule XXII in its present form. We should not abuse our institutions merely out of a strong desire to punish the conduct of a minority with whom we may disagree. It is necessary to maintain our political institutions in such form that they can command the basic assent of not merely a majority of the American people, but of all the American people, and we cannot afford, for political purposes, to stir up contention between different groups in our country, even if we do so sanctimoniously, under the banner of democracy and civil rights.

We have had one Civil War. Is that not enough? Must we create the danger of similar hostility among the American people?

Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Green, for your testimony. Now, the understanding which the subcommittee had was that the hearings would be closed as of today, subject to any further testimony that the subcommittee might agree to hear and subject to the testimony of any Members of the Senate who might wish to testify. In the absence of the chairman, my colleague, the Senator from Georgia, however, I would just make the announcement that the subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the further call of the Chair. The Chair will announce that those Senators who wish to submit written statements may do so for the record without appearing, or they may request the subcommittee to hear their testimony orally.

The understanding is that until such time as the record is actually printed or to be sent to the printer the subcommittee will do so. The subcommittee will stand in recess.

(Whereupon, at 10:25 a. m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the chairman.)

(The statements of Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, Senator William E. Jenner, and Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., subsequently received for the record, are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. LYNDON B. JOHNSON, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

As one of the sponsors of Senate Resolution 30, I appreciate this opportunity to place my views on the record.

We are dealing with a difficult question. It involves the rules of procedure of the Senate and, in fairness to all, the rules should not be changed lightly and without due regard for all consequences.

I do not intend to burden the record with a lengthy review of the history behind this controversy. This committee has available to it expert testimony which will exhaust every historical and legal phase of the issue.

Basically, we are trying to find procedures which will make for greater efficiency in the operations of the Senate. At the same time, we want to be certain that the word “efficiency" does not become a euphemism for abrogating minority rights.

On this issue, it is very easy to take extreme positions.

It is obvious that both the majority and the minority have certain rights and that sometimes these rights appear to conflict. When such conflicts arise, prac

tical solutions must be found.

The majority has a right to act after due deliberation. But this is not an unchecked right and our Constitution specifically sets forth certain acts which require more than a majority vote.

93635-57-19

The minority has the right to free debate-and this is probably the greatest protection of them all. But this right does not carry through to the extent of permitting a minority to paralyze the processes of government.

I do not pretend to know the exact point at which minority and majority rights begin and end. I doubt whether anyone can state that point with certainty. The best we can do is to invoke the rule of reason and try to arrive at a ground which best appeals to prudent men.

We know that a minority can frustrate the majority beyond the point of tolerance. When that happens, there can be a violent reaction which in the long run will be regretted by both the majority and the minority.

We know that majorities are temporary. This means that any majority which deprives a minority of rights today will almost certainly find itself deprived of the same rights tomorrow.

Therefore we cannot tailor the Senate rules to fit a temporary situation. Whatever we pass must be something that we can live with today, tomorrow, and through all the days to come.

I do not pretend that Senate Resolution 30 is a perfect solution to all the difficulties. I do not believe we can find perfection.

But Senate Resolution 30 meets one test which I have applied to every resolution that has been introduced. It is that I would consider it a fair and equitable procedure to follow whether I was in the majority or the minority on any piece of legislation.

I hope that throughout the debate on the Senate rules, my colleagues will engage in a philosophical exercise.

First, I hope they will imagine themselves in a majority desperately longing for the passage of a bill in a situation where they are frustrated by a minority. Second. I hope they will imagine themselves in a minority and desperately longing for the defeat of a bill in a situation where they are outweighed by a majority.

The rule of procedure which they are willing to follow in both situations is the one which should be supported. I hope none of us is willing to allow one situation to outweigh the other.

Senate Resolution 30 is a proposal which to my mind meets the requirements. I am willing to accept with good grace a decision of the Senate under such a procedure regardless of how I feel about any specific piece of legislation.

First, it permits cloture to be invoked by two-thirds of the Senators present and voting rather than by a constitutional two-thirds.

Second, it brings cloture into effect on an issue involving the rules of the Senate an extremely important change. It seems to me that if the Senate can cut off debate on substantive legislation, it should be able to cut off debate on the rules as well.

Third, it would recognize the permanency of the rules. I believe this is a vital principle because if we are to change the rules with every temporary shift in the majority, we would lose something basic to our liberties.

I

This proposal is frankly a compromise between opposing points of view. On the one hand, we have those who believe in cloture by a majority vote. respect the motives of those who hold to this concept but I cannot agree that there is any evidence that such a drastic step is necessary.

On the other hand, we have those who believe in the right of unlimited debate. Again, I respect their motives but I cannot agree that a small minority has the right to frustrate indefinitely the right of the majority to act.

This is reasonable ground; this is prudent ground. And if the experience of the future demonstrates that it does not go far enough, we can take whatever steps are necessary.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM E. JENNER, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

I have participated in floor debates, sponsored cloture resolutions, and deliberated in committee meetings on this subject for many years.

As early as March 17, 1949, I participated in debate on the Senate floor in consideration of Senate Resolution 15. This is popularly known as the HaydenWherry resolution, and I favored it.

Briefly, the Hayden-Wherry resolution provided that 16 Senators could move that a vote be taken on the question of closing debate. The Presiding Officer of the Senate would put the question to the Senate, without debate, and if two-thirds