« 이전계속 »
Senator Javits. Well, is it not a fact that Negroes are denied jobs every day in States of the United States because they are Negroes, managerial jobs ?
Senator TALMADGE. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Senator TALMADGE. Can you name one who has ever been denied a job?
Senator Javits. I can dig through the records and give you testimony.
Senator TALMADGE. You cannot at this time name one?
Senator TALMADGE. I am asking you if you can name one, and name his home address.
Senator Javits. I cannot do it now, but I can give you 150 in hearings before senatorial committees.
Senator TALMADGE. I just ask you whether you can give me the name of one.
Senator Javits. Give me the name of 1 of my constituents, of which there are 17 million.
Mr. TAYLOR. I do not know of any Negroes, Senators, that have been denied a job by reason of their color.
Sentor JAVITS. You do not?
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I might introduce into the record at this point, evidence upon that question adduced before congressional committees.
Senator TALMADGE. I have no objections, but I do not understand how that relates to rule XXII. Personally, Senator, I cannot see that there is any relation between it and this hearing.
You insert it in the record, if you wish. I want the hearing to be broad, so the full scope of this question can be heard. If you wish to insert it under those conditions, there is no objection on my part.
(A reference subsequently supplied by Senator Javits is as follows: An example of deprivation of employment because of race, creed, or color occurs in Discrimination and Full Utilization of Manpower Resources, hearings before the Subcommittee on Labor and LaborManagement Relations of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 82d Cong., 2d sess., on S. 1732 and S. 551, pp. 158-159.)
Senator JAVITs. Do you feel that a denial of the right to vote is a denial of a fundamental constitutional right, Mr. Taylor ?
Mr. TAYLOR. I think it is, Senator; but, on the other hand, I think there is ample law and legislation on the books now to protect that right. Senator JAVITS. You feel that is so? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.
Senator Javits. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask that reference be made in these hearings to the testimony of the Attorney General of the United States before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, detailing countless instances in which Negroes have been denied the right to vote in the South.
Senator TALMADGE. We might have an understanding here. Is this a civil-rights hearing, or is it going to relate to rule XXII!
Senator Javits. I am trying very hard to deal with the points made by this witness.
Senator TALMADGE. You are asking extraneous questions which are totally irrelevant to rule XXII, and you know it.
Senator JAVITS. I do not think so, Mr. Chairman, but I am perfectly willing to have the record make the reference, and that does not introduce all the testimony here.
Senator TALMADGE. I have no objection to your putting anything in the record you may wish, but insofar as practical, I want us to confine the hearing to its stated purpose.
Senator JavitS. I think the witness, Mr. Chairman, has testified that the purpose of not amending rule XXII, in his judgment, is to block civil-rights legislation. So I am making reference to the urgent need for the very thing which an unamended rule XXII blocks, according to the witness.
Senator TALMADGE. Of course, the statement does not state exactly the conclusion which you draw therefrom.
I have no objection to your inserting anything in the record, but I think we ought to have an understanding as to whether we are going to get off on tangents.
We could hear testimony as to when Arizona was admitted to the Union, but it would not shed any light on the issue before this committee.
(The reference subsequently supplied by Senator Javits is as follows: Civil Rights—1957, hearings before the Subcommittee on Constituțional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 85th Cong., 1st sess., p. 5 and pp. 237–243, inclusive.)
Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, the witness apparently does think it sheds light on the matter before the committee, and so I am joining with the witness in elucidating the testimony which he has given.
Now, one other question, and we will go on. I do not want to detain you too long, Mr. Taylor, because I think we are very familiar with your point of view.
Do you feel that true deliberation has beeen had by now on the various civil-rights bills, like the antilynching bill, the anti-poll-tax bill, the FEPC bill?
Mr. TAYLOR. Apparently not, because a lot of people seem to want to speak on them.
Senator JAVITS. I call your attention to the fact we have been considering the antilynching bill for about 25 years, the anti-poll-tax bill for 15 years, the FEPC bills for 11 years. There have been all kinds of hearings, debates in the House and Senate.
Do you feel that that does or does not represent true deliberation on the subject?
Mr. TAYLOR. I will make the same answer I did before, Senator, and add
Senator JAVITS. O. K.
Mr. TAYLOR (continuing). That this rule is fundamentally a rule to protect States and States rights, and that so long as a Senator feels that, in the protection of his State, he needs to talk further on anything, I think he should be permitted to do so.
Senator JaviTS. Well, you really feel, therefore, do you not, Mr. Taylor, there should be no limitation on debate whatever ?
Mr. TAYLOR. No. As I said a while ago, Senator, I think that the present rule is a good one, because it does permit limitation of debate in case of great international emergency.
Senator Javits. I notice you referred to Jefferson. I am sure you know, Mr. Taylor, from your research, that in Jefferson's time they had the rule of the previous question, which permitted a majority to shut off debate.
Now, is that, do you feel, consistent or inconsistent with your own position?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, you can quote Jefferson on almost every side of every question.
Senator Javits. Well, this is not a quotation. Jefferson's Manual provided for the previous question.
Mr. TAYLOR. I do not believe in the previous question, no, sir. That is where I part company with Mr. Jefferson.
Senator JAVITS. Well, thank you, Mr. Taylor. I do not wish to protract your testimony.
Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Taylor, I appreciate your statement. It shows very great research, and I congratulate you on the excellence of your presentation. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Senator.
Senator TALMADGE. Mrs. Alexander Jenkins ?
Mrs. JENKINS. Senator Talmadge, Senator Javits, I appreciate the privilege of speaking before your committee this morning.
Senator TALMADGE. What group do you represent, Mrs. Jenkins ? Mrs. JENKINS. I represent no group. Senator TALMADGE. You are here as an individual ? Mrs. JENKINS. I am an individual. I was a former chairman of the Maryland Committee for Representative Government.
I have asked to appear in opposition to changing rule 22 because of my observation of the sessions and hearings, over a period of 6 years, of the City Council of Baltimore.
I have learned firsthand of the precious right we American citizens still retain under our form of government. The more extensive the hearings and debate on the floor, the sounder is the resulting action.
Your true statesman does not fear unlimited debate. He is willing to accept full information on the issue. He welcomes the shared responsibility of an enlightened public opinion.
I am not equipped to discuss the fine points of the seven proposals for changing rule 22, but I am prepared to present material that proves its value.
The longest filibuster by one man in the Senate came in 1953, when Senator Wayne Morse spoke 22 hours and 26 minutes against a bill giving rights to offshore oil to the States. In the course of his remarks, the Senator discussed topics such as events in his own political life, filibusters, the Korean war, psychology, and the decline of American civilization.
Senator Morse is the author of pending resolution 21 and a sponsor of resolution 17, to restrict debate in existing rule 22.
Gentlemen, the authors of the Constitution regarded the Senate as a continuing body. Only one-third of the Senate is elected every 2 years. The Constitution does not provide for the adoption of new rules every 2 years.
Senator Taft stated in the Congressional Record, January 16, 1953, page 99, and I quote:
We must disregard the question of civil-rights issues as affected by the rules predicated on the ground that here is an abuse which justifies the setting aside of the precedents of the Senate. I say there is no abuse. I say we have rules and we can operate under them.
Many a filibuster has been conducted with patriotic purpose and grim determination. Senator Carter, of Montana, in the closing hours of the 56th Congress, talked to death the pending rivers and harbors bill in a speech of 14 hours. Had the bill been brought to a vote, it is certain that it would have been passed, and that it would have been vetoed. But that Senator Carter was not thwarting the will of the majority was evidenced by the fact that at the end of his oration he was surrounded by a throng of grateful Senators and Representatives eager to thank him for saving them from the necessity of voting on a bill in which they did not believe, but which contained “pork” for every one of their States.
In the special session of the Senate in March 1917, Senator La Follette vigorously opposed a proposed rule to effect cloture. He said,
and I quote:
Believing that I stand for democracy, for the liberties of the people of this country, for the perpetuation of our free institutions, I shall stand while I am a Member of this body against any cloture that denies free and unlimited debate.
Sir, the moment that the majority imposes the restriction contained in the pending rule, that moment you will have dealt a blow to liberty. You will have broken down one of the greatest weapons against wrong and oppression that the Members of this body possess.
Vice President Charles G. Dawes, immediately after taking his oath of office, scathingly denounced the Senate rules and demanded their thoroughgoing reform. The most formal and outspoken opposition to the Dawes program of reform came from the American Federation of Labor in their national convention. It unanimously condemned the Vice President's campaign to abolish free speech in the United States Senate, and urged thatevery publicity be given to the denunciation by labor of the Dawes scheme which does not come from the people but emanates from the secret chambers of the predatory interests.
Their statement continued: For several months the Vice President of the United States has conducted an agitation for the purpose of abolishing free speech in the United States Senate, the only forum in the world where cloture does not exist, and where members can prevent the passage of reactionary legislation. The railroad industry, the great oil industry, and other great industries in the United States, want to make it possible for a handful of men in the United States Senate to control all legis"lation. It is a vicious idea, a vicious purpose, to which the Vice President of the United States has loaned himself.
That is the end of the quote from the American Federation of Labor in convention.
Men of longer memories could but contrast the sweeping condemnation erupting from a Vice President who, at the moment, was facing the Senate for the first time, with the far more tolerant judgment which had been expressed by Vice President Stevenson as he left the office after 4 years of service as the Senate's presiding officer. Vice President Stevenson said this:
It must not be forgotten that the rules governing this body are founded in deep human experience, that they are the result of centuries of tireless effort in legislative halls to conserve, to render stable and secure, the rights and liberties which have been achieved by conflict. By its rules the Senate wisely fixes the limits of its own powers. Of those who clamor against the Senate and its methods of procedure, it may be truly said they know not what they do.
That is the end of the quotation.
In the weeks which followed the Vice President's explosion, one significant fact was the frequent avowal of a belief that the Senate rules had at any rate manifested the qualities of their defects; that the filibuster had killed more bad bills than good ones.
Said the Senate minority leader:
In no single instance has a measure of outstanding importance defeated through resort to filibuster been subsequently revived. In every case where a considerable minority has resorted to the utmost extremity to prevent a vote upon a bill, it has been based on the contention that the proposal is inconsistent with the spirit of American institutions, violative of the fundamental principles of our Government and, if thoroughly understood, would be rejected as subversive of American civilization.
It was the intent of the framers of the Constitution to secure from the Senate a different point of view, a more mature judgment than that of the House. To those ends the longer term, the more advanced age, the smaller numbers, the equal representation, were all expected to conduce. What is sorely needed in Congress is seldom greater speed, but always more thorough consideration ir lawmaking.
In these days of weakened party discipline, the temporary majority that group combinations may today give to a pending measure may by no means indicate a responsible majority's conviction that the measure is wise; nor is it safe to assume, in blocking a given piece of legislation, a minority or even a single Senator is thwarting the will of a majority of the Senate.
Professor Lindsay Rogers, of Columbia University, in the preface of his book, The American Senate, states, and I quote:
The undemocratic usurping Senate is the indispensable check and balance in the American system, and only complete freedom of debate permits it to play this role. Its power comes in large part from the guillotine to which the House of Representatives submits, a procedure which has attracted scant attention, and is the more indispensable because it is directed against government by favorable publicity through the medium of the White House “Spokesman." Adopt cloture in the Senate, and the character of the American Government will be pronouncedly changed.
Gentlemen, it is my earnest hope that in these times of confusion and controversy, the integrity of rule 22 will be undisturbed.
I thank you for your courtesy in permitting me to make this statement.
Senator TALMADGE. Mrs. Jenkins, we appreciate very much your coming before us with your very fine statement. Any questions?
Senator JAVITS. I have no question on the statement, Mrs. Jenkins. I wondered how you heard about these hearings. Mrs. JENKINS. Yes. I subscribe to the Congressional Record. Senator Javits. So you knew about them. Mrs. JENKINS. Yes, and I am a very avid reader of it. : Senator JAVITS. Thank you. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you so much.