« 이전계속 »
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
YEAS-55 Barrett (R), Wyoming
Jenner (R), Indiana Bennett (R), Utah
Johnson (D), Texas Bible (D), Nevada
Johnston (D), South Carolina Bricker (R), Ohio
Kerr (D), Oklahoma Bridges (R), New Hampshire
Knowland (R), California Butler (R), Maryland
Langer (R), North Dakota Byrd (D), Virginia
Long (D), Louisiana Capehart (R), Indiana
Malone (R), Nevada Carlson (R), Kansas
Martin (R), Pennsylvania Case (R), South Dakota
McCarthy (R), Wisconsin Cotton (R), New Hampshire
McClellan (D), Arkansas Curtis (R), Nebraska
Monroney (D), Oklahoma Daniel (D), Texas
Mundt (R), South Dakota Dirksen (R), Illinois
Revercomb (R), West Virginia Dworshak (R), Idaho
Robertson (D), Virginia Eastland (D), Mississippi
Russell (D), Georgia Ellender (D), Louisiana
Saltonstall (R), Massachusetts Ervin (D), North Carolina
Schoeppel (R), Kansas Frear (D), Delaware
Scott (D), North Carolina Fulbright (D), Arkansas
Smathers (D), Florida Goldwater (R), Arizona
Sparkman (D), Alabama Gore (D), Tennessee
Stennis (D), Mississippi Green (D), Rhode Island
Talmadge (D), Georgia Hayden (D), Arizona
Thurmond (D), South Carolina Hickenlooper (R), Iowa
Watkins (R), Utah Hill (D), Alabama
Williams (R), Delaware Holland (D), Florida
Young (R), North Dakota Hruska (R), Nebraska
NAYS--38 Aiken (R), Vermont
Kuchel (R), California Allott (R), Colorado
Lausche (D), Ohio Anderson (D), New Mexico
Magnuson (D), Washington Beall (R), Maryland
Mansfield (D), Montana Bush (R), Connecticut
Martin (R), Iowa Carroll (D), Colorado
McNamara (D), Michigan Case (R), New Jersey
Morse (D), Oregon Chavez (D), New Mexico
Morton (R), Kentucky Church (D), Idaho
Murray (D), Montana Clark (D), Pennsylvania
Neuberger (D), Oregon Cooper (R), Kentucky
O'Mahoney (D), Wyoming Douglas (D), Illinois
Pastore (D), Rhode Island Flanders (R), Vermont
Payne (R), Maine Hennings (D), Missouri
Potter (R), Michigan Humphrey (D), Minnesota
Purtell (R), Connecticut Ives (R), New York
Smith (R), Maine Jackson (D), Washington
Smith (R), New Jersey Kefauver (D), Tennessee
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. For another new attempts will be made-Senator Knowland has announced he will introduce an amendment to the Senate rules designed to curb filibusters although 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 fili. buster 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. John. son 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.
(From the Hartford Times of January 7, 1957]
DESERVED To Pass The Senate rule that has permitted unlimited debate has long ago completely outlived its usefulness but once again reform has been defeated. Even a bipartisan move could not bury it. By a vote of 55 to 38, the Senate, in its first formal acts of this new session, decided to retain the outdated right to filibuster a bill to death.
Behind this struggle at this time is the civil rights issue which lined up all the Southern Senators against any change in the Senate rules. Other Senators had other reasons. Senators Bush and Purtell were both on the side of needed reform. Mr. Bush has labored long and vigorously against the filibuster practice.
The challenge of the power of Senate minorities to block action on legislation by the filibuster-the tactic of dilatory debate to prevent a vote-was doomed to failure at the start.
Now that the rules fight has ended, according to word quietly passed in the cloakrooms, the leaders will start negotiations to bring forward civil rights bills that should satisfy liberal elements of the party without bringing on an unbreakable filibuster.
But for the time being, at least, advocates of a change in the filibuster rule settled for an opportunity, through a round of speeches, to stage an orderly demonstration against what they called minority rule. In so doing, they redeemed a plank in the 1956 Democratic platform that pledged the party to make an effort to modify the filibuster rule.
The current effort stems from the fact that all past attempts to get advanced civil rights bills through the Senate have been blocked by filibustering southerners. All moves to invoke cloture, or limitation of debate, also have failed when such legislation was at stake.
Under the present rule, 64 Senators, or two-thirds of the entire membership, must approve a cloture motion if debate is to be limited. Some Senators seeking a change favor cloture by a simple majority of those voting. Others are willing to settle for either a majority of the entire Senate49—or a two-thirds majority of those voting.
This issue will continue to assert itself until it is settled right. There must come an end to minority dictatorship.
[From the Denver Post of January 8, 1957]
THE FIGHT GOES ON The significance of last week's vote on the Senate filibuster can be understood only when it is compared with two other votes on the same issue in recent years.
In 1949, the filibuster rule as it now stands was approved in the Senate by a vote of 63 to 23. In 1953, the vote to table a proposed change in the rule was 70 to 21.
Last Friday, the vote to table a proposal for a rule change was 55 to 38. In other words, opposition to the filibuster which could count only 23 adherents 8 years ago and only 21 adherents 4 years ago now has 38 supporters and after Senator-elect Javits, of New York, takes his seat the count probably will be 39.
In 1953 there were 15 opponents of the filibuster rule on the Democratic side of the Senate and only 5 on the Republican side. This year there were 21 Democrats who favor a more liberal rule and 17 Republicans.
Friday's rollcall showed 12 Senators voting in opposition to the position they took in 1953. Of the 12, one was a Democrat, Senator Green, of Rhode Island. Four years ago he voted to consider a filibuster rule change. This time he voted to table consideration of any change.
Eleven Republicans who voted in favor of the filibuster in 1953 voted this time in favor of considering a rule change. The switch of those Republican Members was largely responsible for the better showing the antifilibuster forces were able to make this time.
The 11 Republicans who have adopted a new and more liberal view on Senate rules are Bush and Purtell of Connecticut, Cooper of Kentucky, Payne and Smith of Maine, Beall of Maryland, Potter of Michigan, Thye of Minnesota, Smith of New Jersey, and Aiken and Flanders of Vermont.
It is interesting to note that 19 Members of the Senate had not previously had the opportunity to vote on the filibuster question. Ten of them voted to consider
a change and 9 voted to table the motion which might have led to a change. Thus, among new Senators sentiment is slightly in favor of new rules.
Friday's vote will encourage antifilibuster foes to make new assaults on phases of the complicated Senate rules. The first attack is expected to take the form of a resolution declaring that a present rule, which permits unlimited debate on a proposal to change any rule, violates the part of the Constitution which says "each House (of Congress) may determine the rules of its proceedings."
Vice President Nixon has already expressed the opinion that unlimited debate would be unconstitutional if it prevented the Senate from voting to determine its rules. Foes of the filibuster believe if they can knock out unlimited rebate on rule changes they will have won an important step toward more effective limitations on the debate on bills.
In any event, they aren't giving up and even see a good chance to win.
[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of January 8, 1957)
How THE STATES STOOD Not often is a rollcall vote more in need of study than that by which the Senate tabled the resolution of 31 Senators for revising the rules so as to bring filibusters under reasonable control. For not often is analysis of performance in the Senate so illuminating.
The vote for tabling was 55 to 38 and counting in the 2 absentees favoring the change the actual division of the Senate was 55 to 40. Thus the only Senate seat not accounted for was that of Senator-elect Javits who is still Attorney General of New York. Had he been sworn in he undoubtedly would have raised to 41 the total in favor of restricting filibusters.
As the vote was so much closer than the 70-to-21 division for changing the rule 4 years ago, it is important to know which States blocked progress this time. Here is how the States stood in the division last Friday:
BOTH SENATORS FOR TABLING
Southern States Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina, and Virginia.
Northern and other States Arizona, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah.
BOTH SENATORS AGAINST TABLING Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
SENATORS SPLIT ON TABLING California, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
This breakdown by States makes it very clear that the filibuster rule would have been thrown in the ashcan had it not been for the many Republican votes that supported the southerners. The vote of the Democratic Senators from Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, for example, is explainable if not defensible. What about the two votes cast by each of the pairs of the Republican Senators from Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North and South Dakota, and Utah? Why should these 14 GOP votes have been cast on the side of the filibusterers?
A breakdown by parties is as instructive as the breakdown by States. Twentyeight Republicans were for tabling and 18 were against tabling. The Democrats were more evenly divided—27 for tabling to 22 against it. Again the record shows that the rule change lacked on the GOP side the support it needed to pass.
Are these Republicans one with the Dixiecrats? Or do they not believe what many GOP leaders have been saying about civil rights? Or are they willing