ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Mrs. JENKINS. Thank you.

Senator TALMADGE. The next witness is Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, legislative director, AFL-CIO.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Biemiller is one of my former colleagues in the House, Mr. Chairman, and I am very glad to see him here in a new role today.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BIEMILLER. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Andrew J. Biemiller. I am director of the department of legislation of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, and I am appearing here today to present the views of our organization on Senate rule 22.

Let me say at the outset that we recognize that the rules of the Senate are a subject for internal Senate determination. As a former Member of Congress, I personally recognize that the rules of procedure are established by each House at its own discretion.

We are pleased, however, that Senators themselves, and this committee in particular, recognize that the effects of the operation of rule 22 are felt far beyond the confines of the Senate Chamber.

Rule 22 now provides that debate on any issue may be closed only after two-thirds of the Senators duly chosen and sworn vote to close it. In a full Senate, this means that 64 Senators, or 15 more than a constitutional majority, must rally together to close debate on any measure, no matter how important it may be to the well-being of the people of our Nation, so that the majority may be able to act.

The effect of this rule is that a minority of only 33 Senators can at any time thwart the will of a majority of the Senate, a majority which otherwise could conclusively dispose of the business before the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation politically is a liberal democracy. It is founded on the principle that the majority will create and effectuate the policies of the Government. This principle is followed in every phase of our political life and at every level of Government, local, State and National.

The majority of the people who vote on Election Day select the men and women who will make our laws and who will execute them. In our legislatures, local, State and National, laws are adopted and issues are resolved on this same principle of majority rule.

Within this framework of majority rule, we retain constitutional guaranties which protect the basic rights of individuals, rights which cannot be taken from them by even the largest of majorities.

With these two principles of majority rule and minority rights, our forefathers created, and we carry on, probably the greatest and most successful system for free Government that the world now knows or has ever known. But in this one instance we can and should correct a glaring example of undemocratic procedure.

In its effect, rule XXII simply means that whenever a minority of the Senate so desires, it can enforce upon the Senate, not a system of simple majority rule, but one in which a two-thirds majority is required for the transaction of Senate business.

Through the enforcement of rule XXII, majority rule, 1 of the 2 basic principles of our form of Government, is abandoned to minority rule.

It is no defense to say that the rule is seldom invoked, that filibusters are rare, and that few issues arouse sufficient opposition to cause a filibuster. Since the adoption of rule XXII in 1917, there have been some 22 attempts at cloture. Of these 22 attempts, only 4 have been successful in cutting off debate; and of these, none has been more recent than 1927.

Of these 22 cloture votes, 8 have been attempts to cut off debate and bring to a vote measures dealing with the civil rights of our people. Since 1938, 2 attempts to bring to a vote an antilynching bill, and 3 attempts to bring to a vote an FEPC bill, have failed. Three antipoll tax bills have met a similar fate.

Thus, in 8 of 22 cloture attempts, the proposed legislation which was defeated by being talked to death was civil rights legislation; legislation ironically intended to enhance the protection of minority rights.

It is interesting to note that the platform of both major political parties in 1956 called for Federal action to implement the civil rights planks in those platforms. For example, the Democratic platform said:

We will continue our efforts to eradicate discrimination based on race, religion or national origin. We know this task requires action, not just in one section of the Nation, but in all sections. It requires the cooperative efforts of individual citizens and action by State and local governments. It also requires Federal action.

In somewhat more limited language, the Republican platform also calls for Federal action:

This administration has impartially enforced Federal civil rights statutes, and we pledge that it will continue to do so. We support the enactment of the civil rights program already presented by the President to the second session of the 84th Congress.

In addition, the Democratic platform specifically states:

In order that the will of the American people may be expressed on all legislative proposals, we urge that action be taken at the beginning of the 85th Congress to improve congressional procedures so that majority rule prevails and decisions can be made after reasonable debate without being blocked by a minority in either House.

If these phrases are to be more than mere words, representatives of these two great political parties must take action to amend Senate rule XXII; otherwise, the implementation of their platforms can be accomplished only with great effort under the most adverse conditions, while other important legislation is delayed or sidetracked. Unless and until that is done, the American people can only assume that that political platform is a jumble of words signifying nothing. From the time of its founding convention, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations has firmly supported the principle of majority rule for the Senate of the United States.

At that convention a resolution was unanimously adopted which states in part:

As an essential preliminary to the enactment of civil rights legislation, we urge that the rules be so amended that the will of the Congress may not be stulti

fied by a recalcitrant minority. Rule XXII should be changed to permit a majority of Senators, present and voting, to limit and close debate.

In August of 1956 when AFL-CIO George Meany appeared before the platform committee of the Democratic National Convention to present labor's views on national issues, he said:

In order to assure that dilatory tactics will not be used to block the enactment of civil rights legislation, Congress should amend its rules so that its will cannot be thwarted by a recalcitrant minority. In particular, Senate rule XXII should be amended to permit a majority of Senators, present and voting, to limit and close debate.

In his appearance before the platform committee of the Republican National Convention, Secretary-Treasurer William F. Schnitzler used identical language in calling for a change in the rule.

Finally, in letters to Vice President Nixon and Senators Lyndon Johnson and William Knowland, the majority and minority leaders, in December of 1956, President Meany said:

It is our opinion that the present rule has been a weapon in the hands of those desiring to block progressive legislation. The constantly overhanging threat of filibuster should be removed from the Senate Chamber. We trust that as the leader of your party you will do everything in your power to have the present undemocratic rule changed so that a minority may not block the will of the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, the AFL-CIO's position is dictated primarily by the apparent need for more comprehensive Federal legislation in the field of civil rights, because such legislation has been the subject of filibusters most often in the recent past.

But the issue goes far beyond civil rights. It extends to all measures of a controversial nature. It is an issue which affects the very fiber of our democratic form of government, and it is one which should be resolved expeditiously, and resolved in favor of majority rule.

Let it not be assumed, however, that we want the Senate to ride roughshod over the very real minority right which does exist in parliamentary debate. In every situation in which policies are being formed, which affect the life liberty, and property of people, the right of a minority to speak freely, openly, and at length in an effort to dissuade the majority from its intention is significant and fundamental.

This right should be amply provided for in any change in rule XXII which this committee sees fit to make.

Senator Paul Douglas has suggested that a rule providing for cloture upon the affirmative vote of a simple majority of those Senators present and voting should have a limitation allowing at least 15 days' debate before the cloture motion could be offered. Certainly this provision would be adequate to insure that minority views could be fully presented.

But once the views of the minority have been presented in detail, and emphasized by its adherents, the purpose of full and fair debate has been fulfilled. Beyond that, the endless repetition of the merits of the issue, or the reading into the record of recipes and poetry, provide no useful purpose in a democracy, save an undemocratic and tyrannical minority rule.

Mr. Chairman, the cause of democracy can be advanced in the Senate of the United States. It can be done by modifying the chief tool of a minority bent on obstruction.

The CIO-AFL urges this committee to report a modified rule XXII which will provide for cloture upon the affirmative vote of a simple majority of those present and voting, after a reasonable time for debate. Only in this way can true democracy be restored to the Senate. Only in this way can the Senate be made responsive to the will of the majority of the people.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Biemiller, we thank you very much for your appearance and your very fine statement.

I would like to ask you a question or two, if you do not mind. Mr. BIEMILLER. Certainly, sir.

Senator TALMADGE. The previous witness, Mrs. Jenkins, quoted at length from a representative of labor about labor's objections when Vice President Dawes wanted to change rule XXII. At that time the position of labor was in favor of rule XXII as it then existed. Now you have presented views opposed to it. When did the position of labor change on this issue?

Mr. BIEMILLER. Prior to merger, both the AFL and the CIO had a position against rule XXII. The CIO, to the best of my knowledge, practically from the beginning of that organization. The AFL position changed in the late forties or early fifties when it became apparent that rule XXII was the chief obstacle in the way of passing a meaningful civil-rights resolution.

Senator TALMADGE. They were in favor of the rule up to what date?

Mr. BIEMILLER. I will get you the exact date and send it to you, but my impression is it was the late forties.

Senator TALMADGE. I would like to have that information.

(The information subsequently supplied by Mr. Biemiller is as follows:)

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,
Washington, D. C., June 26, 1957.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SENATOR: During my appearance before the special subcommittee of the Committee on Rules and Administration on June 24, you requested additional information regarding the past position of the American Federation of Labor and of the Congress of Industrial Organizations on Senate rule XXII.

You will recall that at that time I quoted from a resolution adopted at the 1955 AFL-CIO merger convention, which said:

"Rule XXII should be changed to permit a majority of Senators present and voting to limit and close debate."

At the 1951 convention of the AFL, Resolution No. 7 was adopted unanimously, and included the following:

"Resolved, That this 70th convention of the American Federation of Labor, assembled in San Francisco, Calif., September 1951, go on record as endorsing legislation to amend the Senate rules of the Government of the United States to abolish the filibuster by providing for the invocation and application of the cloture rule to limit debate by a simple majority of Senators present that are necessary to proceed with the business of the Senate" (pps. 275 and 549, report of the 70th convention).

At the 1952 convention of the AFL, Resolution No. 8 was adopted unanimously, and included the following:

"Resolved, That the 71st Convention of the American Federation of Labor, assembled in New York City, N. Y., September 1952, go on record as calling upon the 83d Congress to take action on its opening day in January 1953, to obtain adoption of the rules of the Senate that will permit a majority of Senators present and voting to limit and close debate so that the Senate may proceed to a vote

on any pending matter after there has been reasonable opportunity for full debate." (pps. 24 and 457, Report of Proceedings of 71st Convention).

At the 1953 convention of the A. F. of L., Resolution No. 71 was adopted unanimously, and included the following:

"Resolved, That the 72d convention of the American Federation of Labor assembled in St. Louis, Mo., call upon the Members of the United States Senate to eliminate the destructive power of the filibuster by restoring majority rule; and be it further

"Resolved, That in evaluating voting records and platforms of candidates for the office of United States Senator, careful consideration be given to the candidate's position on rule XXII.”

At the same convention, Resolution No. 79 was also adopted unanimously, and included the following:

"Resolved, That this 72d Convention of the American Federation of Labor, assembled in St. Louis, Mo., September 1953, go on record as endorsing and supporting the movement to amend rule XXII of the Senate in order to limit debate by majority vote in the interests of the enactment of civil rights and other legislation" (pps. 422, 425, 608 and 653, Report of Proceedings of the 72d Convention). At the 1950 convention of the CIO, a resolution was adopted which stated in part:

"We demand:

"1. The repeal of the Wherry amendment and support of amendments to permit the breaking of filibusters by a majority of those voting" (p. 263, Proceedings of the 12th Constitutional Convention).

At the 1951 convention of the CIO, Resolution No. 25 was adopted which stated in part:

"We demand:

"The repeal of Senate Rule 22-the notorious Wherry amendment that makes it possible for a minority not responsible to all of the American people, to veto by filibuster the enjoyment by the people of full civil rights, or, indeed, to halt at their whim the whole functioning of the Government" (p. 354, Proceedings of the 13th Constitutional Convention).

At the 1952 convention of the CIO, Resolution No. 23 was adopted which stated in part:

"Rule XXII purports to insure the proper closing of debate in the Senate. It does no such thing; it encourages and abets unlimited, aimless debate to prevent a vote from being taken. It is a rule enacted by ruthless men of both major parties, and it constitutes a singular form of violence against decisions of and by all the American people" (p. 282, Proceedings of the 14th Constitutional Convention).

At the 1953 convention of the CIO, Resolution No. 28 was adopted which stated in part:

"We will continue to measure the faith and good intentions of Senators and Congressmen in both political parties in direct proportion to the support they give toward removing the procedural roadblocks in both Houses of Congress. As long as rule XXII in the Senate exists in its present form, it is an invitation for the opponents of extending human rights to filibuster endlessly *** We urge the amendment of these rules in order that the majority decision of the American people can be heard" (p. 458, Proceedings of the 15th Constitutional Convention).

At the 1954 convention of the CIO, Resolution No. 21 was adopted which repeated the language of the 1953 resolution. (See p. 384, Proceedings of the 16th Constitutional Convention.)

I hope this information will be of value to you in your consideration of proposed amendments to rule XXII.

Sincerely yours,

ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, Director, Department of Legislation.

Senator TALMADGE. How many members do you represent?

Mr. BIEMILLER. 15 million.

Senator TALMADGE. 15 million.

How did they determine the policy of the 15 million on this issue about which you have testified?

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »