APPENDIX B Rollcall vote in the Senate, March 11, 1949, on appeal from ruling of Vice President Barkley that cloture rule (rule XXII) does apply to a motion to take up a measure ["Yea" vote is a vote to sustain the ruling] Aiken (R), Vermont YEAS-41 McGrath (D), Rhode Island 醫醫 Bricker (R), Ohio Bridges (R), New Hampshire Johnson (D), Texas NAYS-46 Johnston (D), South Carolina Kerr (D), Oklahoma Long (D), Louisiana McCarran (D), Nevada Maybank (D), South Carolina APPENDIX C Rollcall vote in the Senate, January 7, 1953, on motion of Senator Taft to lay on the table the motion of Senator Anderson to proceed to the consideration of the adoption of rules for the Senate of the 83d Congress Aiken (R), Vermont Bridges (R), New Hampshire Ferguson (R), Michigan Anderson (D), New Mexico Ives (R), New York Jackson (D), Washington Kennedy (D), Massachusetts YEAS-70 Johnson (D), Colorodo Johnson (D), Texas Johnston (D), South Carolina McCarthy (R), Wisconsin Saltonstall (R), Massachusetts Smith (R), New Jersey Thye (R), Minnesota NAYS-21 Kilgore (D), West Virginia Kuchel (R), California Lehman (D), New York Mansfield (D), Montana Morse (Ind), Oregon Murray (D), Montana Neely (D), West Virginia Pastore (D), Rhode Island Symington (D), Missouri Tobey (R), New Hampshire SUMMARY APPENDIX D Rollcall vote in the Senate, January 4, 1957, on motion of Senator Johnson of Texas to lay on the table the motion of Senator Anderson to take up for immediate consideration the adoption of rules for the Senate in the 85th Congress Case (R), South Dakota Cotton (R), New Hampshire Aiken (R), Vermont Allott (R), Colorado Anderson (D), New Mexico YEAS-55 Jenner (R), Indiana Johnson (D), Texas Johnston (D), South Carolina McClellan (D), Arkansas Thurmond (D), South Carolina Williams (R), Delaware NAYS-38 Kuchel (R), California Lausche (D), Ohio Magnuson (D), Washington Mansfield (D), Montana McNamara (D), Michigan Morse (D), Oregon Neuberger (D), Oregon O'Mahoney (D), Wyoming Pastore (D), Rhode Island Payne (R), Maine Potter (R), Michigan Smith (R), New Jersey Symington (D), Missouri Thye (R), Minnesota EDITORIALS ON FILIBUSTERING PLACED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF MAY 9, 1957 (P. 5965), BY SENATOR PAUL H. DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of January 7, 1957] THE FILIBUSTER UPHELD There is only one way to describe what the Senate did Friday in preserving the filibuster rule. By this vote of 55 to 38 the minority southern Democrats once more maintained their power to obstruct civil-rights legislation by essentially physical means. And they maintained it through the active cooperation of a majority of the Republican Members, in whose hands lay the ultimate decision. The filibuster rule was defended by some Senators on the ground that the Senate is a continuous body, and so must operate under the rules of previous sessions. This is one of those intricate, legalistic rationalizations which Senators delight in when they wish to conceal their real motives. The Senate spent its opening day Thursday electing new officers, setting up a new party organization, and receiving new bills and new resolutions-all on the assumption that this was a new 85th Senate, discontinuous from the 84th. How could it suddenly become a continuous body on Friday, solely for the purpose of adopting rules? The filibuster rule was defiended by some Senators as a sacred refuge of minority rights. This is one of those curious inversions that also find special favor on Capitol Hill. The fact is that the whole purpose and intent of the filibuster is to deny legislative protection for minority rights. It is the means by which a southern white majority withholds equality before the law from the southern Negro minority. Nationally, the southern white majority is a minority. But it imposes its will on the national majority through the filibuster rule. If the Negro minority in the South enjoyed as much unreasonable power as the southern Democrats enjoy as a minority of the Senate, the South would be aflame with angry protest. Again the filibuster rule has been defended as the guardian of the precious right of democratic debate. This also is so much nonsense. Senators engaged in a filibuster do not debate. They do not discuss issues. They do not explore the merits and demerits of legislation. Instead, they use speech as a means of obstructing truly democratic consideration and decision. They use speech as a method of imposing physical barriers to the transaction of Senate business until the Senate accepts their view of what legislation should be allowed to come to a vote. For all these reasons, the filibuster rule is doomed to die in time. It might have been beaten this year if President Eisenhower had exerted his power as Republican Party leader. Because he chose to stand aside from the battle, a majority of the Republicans found it easy to vote with the southern Democrats. And, of course, the southern Democrats will be expected to return the favor by supporting the GOP on legislation in the future. Even so, the move to curb the filibuster got 38 votes plus the support of 2 absentees a total of 40 votes as compared with only 21 4 years ago. The Democrats increased their antifilibuster vote over 1953 from 15 to 21, and the Republicans from 5 to 17. Though the filibuster is preserved for another session, this need not mean the end of progress on civil rights. The situation remains what it has been for years. Great strides are possible through strong and effective action of the executive branch and through courageous judicial defense of our constitutional guaranties of equal rights. There is still plenty to do in both these fields while the Nation waits for Congress to join the fight with legislation. Someday the Senate, too, must step into the 20th century. [From the New York Herald Tribune of January 6, 1957] THE SURVIVAL OF THE FILIBUSTER If the defeat of the attempt to end unlimited filibustering in the Senate was foreseen, it is no less disappointing. Yet progress has unquestionably been made, and the fight is far from over. For one thing, the antifilibuster forces have doubled in strength since the last vote was taken on this issue in 1953. other new attempts will be made-Senator Knowland has announced he will For an introduce an amendment to the Senate rules designed to curb filibustersalthough it must be admitted that the chief opportunity for action in this Congress has been lost. And the bold and statesmanlike opinion of Vice President Nixon, which held that the last part of rule XXII forbidding limitation of debate on the rules themselves is unconstitutional, is bound to influence the Senate's attitude, as it has the public at large. The whole question has been unfortunately confused. There did not seem to be enough distinction made between the fight against the filibuster as a minority veto and the question of changing the rules in general. The Senate is wary of adopting new parliamentary procedures at the opening of each Congress. It justifiably regards itself as a continuing body, and one can agree with Senator Lyndon Johnson's argument that legislative turmoil would result if new rules were adopted wholesale to suit the temper or fashion of the moment. But the point is that in this case it was the filibuster, and only the filibuster, which was the object of attack. The question of new rules was brought up because that was the only way of rooting it out into the open where it could be amended. Behind this struggle over rules, of course, lies the logjam of civil-rights legislation blocked by the threat of southern filibusters. But even so, advocates of this legislation are hopeful that some of it, at least, will pass during this session. Public opinion is behind it, and the diehards may well decide to bow to the inevitable. And although the filibuster is still with us, its days may well be numbered. [From the New York Times of January 5, 1957] THE RULES REMAIN As prearranged by the leadership of both parties, the Senate of the United States yesterday turned down the one and only opportunity it will have at this session to make a serious fight against the rules that give to the threat of filibuster its potency. The parliamentary situation under which the brief debate was held and the foreordained vote taken may perhaps have been another example of Majority Leader Johnson's famed tactical skill in getting what he wants. But to avoid unpleasant obstacles is not to make them disappear, and to smooth away real issues is not to solve them. The Senate vote yesterday leaves the basic problem of the filibuster just where it was; and to both Democrats and Republicans goes the discredit of helping make that result possible. Minority leader Knowland happily joined Mr. Johnson in the scheme to insure that there would be only a formal fight over the issue of whether or not the Senate was to go on under the same old rules that permit the filibuster to throttle democratic procedure. When the appointed time came to vote, the powerful coalition of conservative southern Democrats and rightwing midwestern Republicans won its expected victory. But at least there is something encouraging in the fact that more than one-third of the total member ship of the Senate-21 Democrats and 17 Republicans-voted against killing the Anderson motion that would have been the first step in overcoming the menace of the filibuster. The filibuster threat ought to be removed by the Senate so that it can regain its own freedom of debate. That is reason enough; but, as everyone knows, the further purpose in fighting the filibuster is to clear the way for civil-rights legislation, which has traditionally been blocked by the threat of this antidemocratic device. However, even though the Senate rules remain unchanged and the filibuster still is potentially as strong as it ever was, there is a growing hope that some moderate civil-rights bills may actually be enacted by this Congress. Both the liberal Democrats and the administration itself have been behind such proposals. Though the more conservative element in the Senate won their victory yesterday through continuation of the outworn rules, that victory should not be consolidated by subsequent rejection of the sensible and highly desirable civil-rights proposals that will be coming up at this session. |