ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1 Many cloture petitions have also been withdrawn or held out of order since 1917.

ARGUMENTS FOR FILIBUSTERING

1. Minorities have rights which no majority should override. Government is constituted to protect minorities against majorities. Obstruction is justifiable as a means of preventing a majority from trampling upon minority rights until a broad political consensus has developed.

2. A Senate majority does not necessarily represent a consensus of the people or even of the States. Frequently popular opinion upon a question has not been formulated or, if it has been, it is often not effectively expressed. Prolonged debate may prevent hasty majority action which would be out of harmony with genuine popular consensus.

3. It is the special duty of the Senate, sitting in an appellate capacity, carefully to inspect proposed legislation, a duty not readily performed without freedom of debate. In our system of government, where legislation can be gaveled through the House of Representatives at breakneck speed with only scanty debate under special rules framed by a partisan committee, it is essential that one place be left for thorough-going debate.

4. Filibusters really do not prevent needed legislation, because every important measure defeated by filibuster has been enacted later, except the civil rights bills. No really meritorious measure has been permanently defeated and some vicious proposals have been killed. The filibuster has killed more bad bills than good ones.

5. It is the unique function of the Senate to act as a check upon the executive, a responsibility it could not perform without full freedom of debate. Unrestricted debate in the Senate is the only check upon presidential and party_autocracy. It is justified by the nature of our governmental system of separated powers.

6. The constitutional requirement for recording the yeas and nays is a protection of dilatory tactics. The provision of the Constitution which requires the yeas

and nays to be recorded in the Journal at the desire of one-fifth of the Members present in an intentional safeguard allowing the minority to delay proceedings.

7. Majority cloture in the Senate would destroy its deliberative function and make it a mere annex of the House of Representatives.

8. Simple majority cloture would have brought many a decision which would have accorded ill with the sober second thought of the American people.

9. The Senate, without majority cloture, actually passes a larger percentage of bills introduced in that body than does the House of Representatives, with cloture.

10. To enforce cloture by vote of a chance majority in the Senate might bring greater loss than gain.

11. Filibusters are justifiable whenever a great, vital, fundamental, constitutional question is presented and a majority is trying to override the organic law of the United States. Under such circumstances, Senators as ambassadors of the States in Congress have a duty to protect the rights of the States.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST FILIBUSTERING

1. Under the practice of filibustering, the basic American principle of majority rule is set at naught. Not only is the majority thwarted in its purpose to enact public measures, it is also coerced into acceptance of measures for which it has no desire or approval.

2. The Senate should legislate efficiently, with responsibility only to the people. If the Senate is to be efficient, time should not be wasted in unnecessary delay merely for the sake of obstruction. Filibusters sometimes make special sessions of Congress imperative, with resulting unnecessary expense to the people and business uncertainty in the country. They also destroy responsibility of the majority party to the people.

3. Experience abroad and in the State legislatures indicates that debate can be limited without undemocratic results.

4. The constitutional provision that "the yeas and nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal" requires an immediate vote when the yeas and nays have been properly demanded.

5. Filibustering gives one Senator or a little group of Senators a veto power. It enables a handful of men in the Senate to prevent the passage of legislation desired by the overwhelming majority of the Members of Congress and the country. It permits one Senator to hold up needed appropriations until he extorts the favor that he demands for his State.

6. Filibusters have delayed for decades the enactment of social legislation passed by the House of Representatives and desired by a majority of the American people. Many people are losing faith in American democracy because of its repeated and prolonged failures to perform its implicit promises. Responsibility for these failures lies in large part at the door of Senate filibusters.

7. They arouse popular resentment and bring the Senate into disrepute at home and abroad.

8. Filibusters cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars, consuming days and weeks of valuable time and many pages of the Congressional Record at $80 a page. 9. They impose upon the Senate an indignity which would not be tolerated in any other legislative chamber in the world.

10. The present cloture rule (rule XXII) is so cumbersome as to be unworkable. It has been successfully invoked only 4 out of 22 times in 39 years, the last time being in 1927.

11. Free speech would not be abolished in the Senate by majority cloture because, under the proposed amendment, adequate opportunity to deliberate upon a measure would be afforded during the prepetition stage plus the 2-day interval between the presentation of the cloture petition and the vote upon it, plus the 96 potential hours of debate allowed after cloture has been invoked.

12. Scores of appropriation bills and much meritorious legislation have been defeated or delayed by filibusters in the past.

13. Filibusters are undemocratic in that they permit one-third of the Senators present, plus one, to obstruct the majority. This group of Senators may be from only one section of the country, they may be from only one political party, and none of them may have been recently elected. It is a dubious argument to defend the filibuster on the ground that it protects the minority when actually its principal use, actual or potential, is to deny fundamental democratic rights to certain minorities. Most of the really undemocratic conditions in our country today exist because of the threat or use of the filibuster.

14. An effective antifilibuster rule ought to exist because (a) it is the imperative duty of a legislature not merely to debate but to legislate and, therefore, to tolerate no course of action by any of its members which will absolutely prevent legislation; (b) the majority is and must be held responsible for the conduct of affairs and is. therefore, entitled to use all means proper and necessary for the conduct of affairs: and (c) the vast and steadily increasing volume of business thrust on Congress renders it essential that not one moment of time be consumed uselessly.

REMEDIES FOR OBSTRUCTION IN THE SENATE 1

1. Amend rule XXII to provide for cloture by majority vote of the total membership of the Senate, or by a majority of those present, applicable to any motion, measure, or other matter pending, after unlimited debate for a specified minimum number of days.

2. Adopt a rule providing for use of the motion for the previous question (as the House does) by which all further debate upon a matter may be terminated by a majority vote of the Chamber.

3. Adopt a rule that debate and amendments must be germane to the subject under consideration.

4. Limit duration of debate on bills by special orders as the House does.

5. Enforce the existing rules of the Senate by

(a) Requiring the speaker to stand and not to sit or walk about.

(b) Taking a Senator "off his feet" for using unparliamentary language.

(c) Making a point of order against frequent quorum calls that no business has intervened since a rollcall disclosed the presence of a quorum.

(d) The Chair making drastic rulings against dilatory motions, on points of order raised from the floor.

(e) Objecting to reading a paper (rule XI).

6. Enforce rule XIX that "no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate."

7. Enforce the provision of Jefferson's Manual that "No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously, or tediously."

8. Let the Chair reverse the precedent, established in 1872, that a Senator cannot be called to order for irrelevancy in debate.

9. Let the Chair make a wise use of the power of recognition as between simultaneous claimants (rule XIX, clause 1).

10. Let there be objection to yielding the floor, even though the Senator who has the floor consents to an interruption.

11. Resort to prolonged or continuons sessious.

LIMITATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1. Debate in the House of Representatives is prohibited on a large number of parliamentary motions. Cannon lists 30 questions and motions which are not debatable at pages 143-44 of his Procedure in the House of Representatives, fourth edition.

2. General limitations:

(a) Since 1789 no Member has been allowed to speak more than once to the same question without leave of the House unless he be the mover, proposer, or introducer of the matter pending (rule XIV, clause 6).

(b) Since 1841 no Member has been allowed to occupy more than 1 hour in debate on any question in the House or in Committee of the Whole (rule XIV, clause 2).

(c) Since 1789 it has been possible to shut off debate and bring the matter under consideration to an immediate vote by the motion for the previous question (rule XVII).

(d) Since 1789 Members engaging in debate have been required to confine themselves to the question under consideration, except during general debate in the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union (rule XIV, clause 1).

(e) Since 1789 no Member has been permitted to take the floor or engage in debate until he has been recognized by the Chair (rule XIV, clause 2).

(f) Since 1883 time general debate for in Committee of the Whole has been limited by special orders reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House (rule XXIII, clause 5).

As proposed by United States Senators from time to time through the years.

(g) Since 1847 and 1850 debate upon amendments to a pending bill has been limited by the 5-minute rule (rule XXIII, clause 5).

(h) Since 1880 debate has been limited to 40 minutes under suspension of the rules (rule XXVII).

EXHIBIT 2

WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

In response to letters similar to that sent to former Vice President John Nance Garner (see exhibit 3, p. 360) the subcommittee has received the following statements from organizations and individuals: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SMALL BUSINESS, New Orleans, La., May 27, 1957.

Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: Thank you for your recent communication regarding the proposal to take testimony before the Special Subcommittee on Rules and Administration, regarding a change in Senate rule 22, relating to limitation of debate.

I believe that the United States Senate is the best legislative body in the world, and in all probability, recorded history. Therefore, I can say at this time that the AASBI is opposed to any change in rule 22, which will limit debate in any way.

Please have a copy of Senate rule 22 mailed to me at your earliest convenience.
I look forward to the pleasure of hearing from you promptly.
Yours for keeping small business in business.

Very sincerely,

J. D. HENDErson.

AMERICAN CONSTITUTION PARTY OF IOWA,

STATE HEADQUARTERS,

Davenport, Iowa, May 14, 1957.

Re Senate rule XXII.

Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE,

United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: It is important to our personal, State, and national freedom that no gag rule be placed on debate in the United States Senate.

The tongues of the majority of the people of our Republic must not be tied by the threats nor the cajoleries of selfish minorities. Individual rights and States' rights must again be recognized as valid if our constitutional Government is to endure.

Our elected legislators must speak for us, and we must have the right guaranteed to us by our United States Constitution-freedom of speech. We urge you: Oppose any and all changes to Senate rule XXII which would limit debate.

Very sincerely yours,

GWEN PATTON INMAN,
Mrs. Gerald O. Inman,
American Constitution Party of Iowa.

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF CHRISTIAN LAYMEN,
Madison, Wis., May 14, 1957.

Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE,

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: We are in receipt of your letter of May 10 asking an expression regarding proposals to set limits on debate in the United States Senate.

I believe it is not feasible for us to send a spokesman to a public hearing on this matter. Our directors are widely scattered and none of them are in the immediate vicinity of the National Capital. I personally feel that we can spend the money to better advantage in the course of our work for libertarian principles than by sending a spokesman a long distance to a Washington hearing.

However, I am happy to make a statement on my own behalf, with assurance that I know the members of our board will go along with my statement, which is as follows:

I consider that unlimited debate in the United States Senate is a valuable safeguard to American liberty. It can and often does stand as a protection from rough overriding of the wishes of an apparent minority which often actually represents the will of the majority. But even when it no more than protects a minority group, it serves a useful purpose. All too often a heedless majority sets out to accomplish aims and purposes which are unjust, cruel and actually unconstitutional.

The odd thing about this clamor for limiting debate is that it comes from groups who in the past have been the loudest in their praise of men who have blocked legislation by using the right of unlimited debate.

The late Robert M. La Follette, recently named as one of the five great Senators, won nationwide, even worldwide acclaim for his ventures in filibustering, and if memory serves correctly Senator Wayne Morse set a new filibuster record not too many months ago and was widely acclaimed by those who now wish to limit debate. It all depends on which side is in power.

Just now the superduper liberals, proponents of fake civil-rights legislation and unlimited globalism feel that with debate limitations they could force through their unholy schemes. Therefore, at this time they are in favor of debate limitation.

But should there be a change in the complexion of the Congress, should the conservatives come to be in the majority and threaten to pass truly liberal legislation, these same liberals now favoring debate limitation would be screaming for restoration of the limitation for the protection of the rights of minorities.

And they would be right. As I read and understand the Constitution of the United States, a principal reason for the drafting and adoption of the Constitution was to establish a government of law rather than a government solely by majority vote regardless of whether or not the majority was seeking to proceed by constitutional methods.

You may be sure that all fundamentalist Christians who have thought through these issues are opposed to destroying that last bulwark of liberty, the right of unlimited debate.

With all best wishes,

Cordially and sincerely,

VERNE P. KAUB, President, American Council of Christian Laymen.

Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE,

AMERICAN FLAG ASSOCIATION

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Tampa, Fla., June 7, 1957.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: Replying to your good letter of May 16, and speaking for the American Flag Association of the United States, I wish to state that we disapprove of the changes proposed for Senate rule XXII relating to limitation of debate. We believe in free debate.

Please assure your committee that our association will support you in your efforts regarding this matter.

Patriotically yours,

Mrs. EDGAR S. BLOCK, Secretary, American Flag Association of the United States.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »