Senator STENNIS. Well, I am familiar with all the old bills. On the poll tax, of course, that is one-I think that is directly in line.

I mentioned the FEPC and the antipoll tax by legislation. This bill now, the so-called Brownell bill, attempting to override and overrule and take away all discretion of the local authorities on a number of those matters, I don't see how it could be constitutionally upheld in my concept of the Constitution.

But, of course, the Court's interpretation of the Constitution is considerably different now from what I believe. My constitutional knowledge has been repealed. All of it has been overruled. Most of it has been overruled since I was in law school, or since I practiced law.

Senator JAVITS. Well, the Senator doesn't feel that there is any civil rights bill that we could pass that would be constitutional?

Senator STENNIS. No. I didn't say that at all.

Senator JAVITS. I am trying hard to find out

Senator STENNIS. I would be glad to furnish the Senator a list of what you have, these bills here, and after a little study, give you my opinion on all of them. I have given it on some of them already.

Senator JAVITS. Just one last question. Does it seem to the Senator that the real right of the Senate is in the way the votes are divided? For example, the Senator has what-2 million or 3 million popula

tion?

Senator STENNIS. Yes. Two million and two.
Senator JAVITS. And my State has 17 million.
Senator STENNIS. A little over 2 million.

Senator JAVITS. Nevertheless, we also have two votes.

Now, isn't that the real safeguard of the States, rather than the filibuster?

Senator STENNIS. Well, that just points out and proves conclusively that the representation is by States, and, if you are going to wipe that out now and just say in all matters the majority can do this or do that, you just wipe out all the State lines, as I feel it. Senator JAVITS. The Senator doesn't feel, therefore, that the protection to the States is in the way the voting is set up. That is, you have two votes for a million-plus people. I have 2 votes for 17 million.

Senator STENNIS. The beginning of that protection is through the State's representation in the Senate, but, if they come in and change the rules and wipe it out, they have surrendered part of their powers. Senator JAVITS. And the Senator feels that the filibuster, therefore, is an essential States right?

Senator STENNIS. Oh, I certainly didn't say that. I said that the State's ability to exercise the power that it has depends on the present Senate rules as virtually the last citadel of real State representation. If you take that out, you are just another Member of the legislative body.

Senator JAVITS. Well, I don't want to delay you further.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you. There is a conference committee going on in Appropriations that I don't want to miss.

Senator TALMADGE. If the Senator could stay about 30 more seconds, I think I can complete a couple of questions I would like to ask. Wasn't an effort made during the War Between the States to suspend the writ of habeas corpus?

Senator STENNIS. Well, it was suspended in actuality, as I recall. Senator TALMADGE. Was it not defeated, actually, by prolonged discussion in the United States Senate?

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Senator TALMADGE. And, if these rules had served no other purpose, would it not have been a desirable result?

Senator STENNIS. A wonderful illustration right there. I understand, as a practical matter, it was suspended for a while, but never legally.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you. We appreciate your coming here. I have statements from Senators Langer and Kuchel to insert in the record at this point.

Are there any others?

(The statements referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM LANGER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

It is a distinct privilege to present to the special subcommittee of the Committee on Rules and Administration this prepared statement expressing my views on whether rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate pertaining to limitation of debate should be amended or not.

Gentlemen, I have been on record for many, many years concerning the rules of the Senate and the entire matter of cloture. I must state that, without exception, I have not changed my views. On March 11, 1949, I rose on the floor of the Senate. I followed the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Robert M. La Follette, when he stated at that time that the only remedy the minority had in matters of this kind was unlimited debate. I agreed with that principle, I still agree with that principle, and I shall vote not to amend the rules.

So that there won't be any possible question as to my stand over the years on the subject of unlimited debate, I shall refer to my speech on March 11, 1949, on the floor of the Senate as it was reported in the Congressional Record. This speech, which includes references to unlimited debate by some of the greatest leaders in the Senate in years past and also colloquies between several Senators and myself, is as follows:

[Reprinted in the Congressional Record of January 4, 1957, p. 1401

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, very briefly I want to state my position on this motion. In the 80th Congress I led the fight to have the Republican Party carry out its pledges. The Republican Party at that time did not do so. On June 7, 1948, I brought to the attention of the Senate that in the Republican platform of 1944 the Republicans had placed the following planks. First:

"We pledge the establishment by Federal legislation of a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission."

Second:

"ANTIPOLL TAX

"The payment of any poll tax should not be a condition of voting in Federal elections, and we favor immediate submission of a constitutional amendment for its abolition."

Third:

"ANTILYNCHING

"We favor legislation against lynching and pledge our sincere efforts in behalf of its early enactment."

And, Mr. President, fourth:

"INDIANS

"We pledge an immediate, just, and final settlement of all Indian claims between the Government and the Indian citizenship of the Nation. We will take politics out of the administration of Indian affairs."

Mr. President, day after day I stood upon this floor, when the Republicans had a majority, begging them to carry out the solemn promises, the definite pledges they had made to the people of the United States, and it is significant to note

that I got exactly 7 votes on 3 of the measures, and that only 1 of them was passed.

7

Mr. President, if I were assured that after this appeal had been decided my colleagues on the other side would make a sincere effort to carry out the wishes of President Truman. I would not take the few minutes I am taking. I have a definite idea as to their intentions. I wish to make perfectly clear the reason why I shall vote to overrule the decision of the Vice President yesterday after

noon.

In the first place, North Dakota holds a rather peculiar distinction. At the time rule XXII was adopted, that grand and popular Viking, the late Senater Gronna, of North Dakota, was 1 of 3 Senators to vote against it. Also at that time there was in the Senate a man who was beloved all over the country and particularly by the people of North Dakota. I refer to the late Senator Robert La Follette, Sr., one of the fighting champions-and one of the greatest-in behalf of the common people. Mr. La Follette was elected to the Senate in 1905. Because he had a lieutenant governor who disagreed with him politically he waited until 1906 before he came to the Senate. In 1917, 11 long years after Mr. La Follette first became a Member of this body, the question of cloture came up. Mr. President, I believe that no other question which has arisen in the Senate during the 8 years I have been a Member has resulted in my receiving more telegrams and more telephone calls than I have received in this case, after announcing a few days ago that I would vote not to sustain the anticipated ruling of the Vice President.

In order that my position may be very clear, I wish to say that I fully agree with the late Robert La Follette, Sr. On March 8, 1917, in speaking of rule XXII, just before the vote took place, Mr. La Follette said:

"With a rule such as is here proposed in force at that time, with an iron hand laid upon this body from outside, with a Congress that in 3 years has reduced itself to little more than a rubber stamp, let me ask you, Mr. President, if you do not think a rule of this sort would be bound to be pretty effective cloture? Especially is that true as some of the proposed legislation was of a character that appealed to certain Senators upon this side of the Chamber who, coming from States where the manufacture of munitions is a mighty important industry, are impressed with legislation that benefits the interests they represent?"

Mr. La Follette continued-and I invite this to the attention of every man who pretends to be a progressive. Everyone who has studied history knows that Rome, after 450 fine years, fell when Julius Caesar made himself a dictator and when he subjugated the Roman Senate to his will. The English Parliament was strong for many hundred years, until Gladstone succeeded in abolishing the right of free discussion, at the time when the matter of freedom for Ireland came up for debate in Parliament.

I read at this time what Senator La Follete said when a proposal for cloture was before the Senate 32 years ago:

"Mr. President, 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 upon this body, 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. This Senate is the only place in our system where, no matter what may be the organized power behind any measure to rush its consideration and to compel its adoption, there is a chance to be heard, where there is opportunity to speak at length, and where, if need be, under the Constitution of our country and the rules as they stand today, the constitutional right is reposed in a Member of this body to halt a Congress or a session on a piece of legislation which may undermine the liberties of the people and be in violation of the Constitution which Senators have sworn to support. When you take that power away from the Members of this body, you let loose in a democracy forces that in the end will be heard elsewhere, if not here."

I have not time to quote all of Mr. La Follette's speech. He gave one or two quotations. Here is one from a former Senator from Indiana, Senator Turpie, who, some 50 years previously, had made a statement in regard to limitation of debate. This is what Senator Turpie said:

"I heard this body characterized the other day as a voting body. I disclaim that epithet very distinctly. I have heard it described elsewhere as a debating body. I disclaim that with equal disfavor. This body is best determined by its

principal characteristics. The universal law and genius of language have given a name to this body derived from its principal attribute. It is a deliberative body-the greatest deliberative body in the world."

That was the first time, so far as I have been able to ascertain, that that description of the United States Senate was given. He continued:

"Now, voting is an incident to deliberation, and debate is an incident to deliberation; but when a body is chiefly characterized as deliberative there is much deliberation apart from discussion and debate, and wholly apart from what is called the business of voting.

"The essence and the spirit of a body like ours, now over a century old, may be best gathered from its rules of action, the body of law governing it always very small, now very brief. Of the 21 rules properly affecting parliamentary procedure in this body 11 relate to the subject of deliberation. More than one-half relate exclusively to that subject and have nothing to do with debate or voting. I suppose that the form of law under which the will of the majority must control this body embraces at least the rules which govern us. Here is rule XXII, one which touches us every day. I think it is the most frequently operative of any rule in the Senate."

Mr. President, after referring to the pledges made by the Republican Party, which they did not keep, I now call attention to the Democratic Party-whose members now say that they stand for civil rights. Mr. Truman was a member of this body for 5 years. What does the cold record show as to what he did for civil rights? Did he lead any fight for them in this body, Mr. President? I was here during those 5 years. He did not lead one fight for them. Where is he today? He is not in Washington. Mr. President, he is out fishing, in Florida. That shows his great interest in this matter.

Oh Mr. President, these Negro votes are very fine on election day. Apparently the Democrats think they have to make a showing for civil rights this year and perhaps next year and perhaps the year after that-but not a serious effort to get these civil-rights measures enacted; and the effort here these past 10 days has not been serious.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LANGER. I refuse to yield at this time; I thank the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota declines to yield. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, the effort has not been serious. I imagine the Senator from Florida might give us some of Mr. Truman's votes on various measures. I think that he voted right when it came time to vote; but at no time did he lead a fight for civil rights.

Mr. President, what a difference. When 2 or 3 times at the last session I tried to prevent the passage of a bill which, under selective service, would draft the last remaining son of a family whose two other sons had been killed in the service, the Members of the Senate stayed here and had 2 sessions all night long-2 long, long night sessions. But I have not seen any so far this session, Mr. President. So far in this session we have worked no later than 8 or 9 or 10 o'clock at night, and then we have quit until the next day at noon, not 11 o'clock. I, for one, want to make it very plain that at any time that the Democrats really want to pass these civil-rights measures, I am prepared to stay here all night or stay here a week or a month in order to enact the civil-rights program that Harry Truman has advocated since he has become President.

Not long ago the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. Ives] said he thought he was perhaps as good a friend of civil rights as was any other Senator upon this floor. I think he is correct. I wish to say that during the 8 years I have been here, I have voted for every bill, without exception, calling for the establishment of civil rights in this country. So today I wish to make it very plain that when I vote to override the decision of the Vice President I am still a firm, fighting friend of civil rights-just as strong a friend of civil rights as I ever was; and if the Democrats will begin tomorrow or Monday with a really serious, honest effort to carry out Mr. Truman's civil-rights program, I assure my friend the distinguished majority leader [Mr. Lucas] that he will find me voting with him every single time. I hope the Democratic Party will do that. I hope they begin on it right away, and never quit until they secure the enactment of that civil-rights program. I think they will receive a great deal of support from Senators on this side of the aisle.

Mr. President, apropos of the telegrams and telephone calls on this matter which have been received by Senators-and two of those communications are rather threatening, especially one from New York-I wish to say that it seems to me that the people who sent those messages do not really understand the prob

lem we face here, which was so clearly set forth today by the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan [Mr. Vandenberg].

Mr. President, in closing let me say that when I came to the Senate I had no better friend than Senator Charles McNary, of Oregon, who at that time occupied the desk next to the one I now have in this Chamber. He was then the minority leader. I shall never forget when he said to me that, in his judgment, one of the greatest safeguards of democracy was the fact that the right of unlimited debate. exists in this Chamber, and I remember very well that when a distinguished Senator came to me and asked me to sign a cloture petition I talked with the senior Senator from Texas [Mr. Connally], and I also secured the advice of Senator McNary, of Oregon, and I did not sign it. Certainly when a Member of the Senate like Senator La Follette, who was here 11 years, or a Member of the Senate like Senator McNary, gave me such advice, I did not sign it. I took the advice of the distinguished Senator Charles McNary, of Oregon.

Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LANGER. I yield.

Mr. CONNALLY. I wish the Senator to be correct in his statement. I am sure he did not mean to say that I asked him to sign the cloture petition, for I was against signing it.

Mr. LANGER. That is correct; the Senator from Texas was against signing it. When such a petition was brought to me and I was asked to sign it, the distinguished Senator McNary, of Oregon, joined the Senator from Texas in saying that the right of free and unlimited debate in the Senate was one of the finest things about this body.

Mr. President, again I wish to assure my friend the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas], the majority leader, that if he will bring up this question of civil rights he will find no better backer than myself, and I shall be one of those who will hold up his right arm in carrying on that fight.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LANGER. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. Do I correctly understand that the Senator from North Dakota is in favor of the Wherry-Hayden resolution?

Mr. LANGER. I am not certain; that is a question we shall take up after this one. So far as the question of invoking cloture by a two-thirds vote is concerned, I am not quite sure whether I favor it or am opposed to it. I may even be opposed to it. I know that I do not favor cloture by majority vote, under any consideration.

Mr. LUCAS. In any event, the Senator from North Dakota is in favor of free and unlimited debate, and he has been in favor of it all the time, I understand. Mr. LANGER. That is correct.

Mr. LUCAS. If the Senator does not favor the Wherry-Hayden resolution, why would he wish to keep us here for a month?

Mr. LANGER. I may be in favor of that resolution; I have not stated that I am opposed to it. I wish to study it and go over it. I do not wish to commit myself regarding it until I look it over and study it and hear the debate on it. I may even wish to offer an amendment to it.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. LANGER. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. The Senator has been talking about breaking this filibuster, but he is in favor of free and unlimited debate. I do not quite follow his reasoning, if he is in favor of having the Senate stay here for a month and if he is in favor of free and unlimited debate.

Mr. LANGER. It is very simple. If the Senator needs help, I shall be glad to give it.

Mr. LUCAS. I shall need a great deal of help.

Mr. LANGER. All the Senator from Illinois has to do is keep the Senate in continuous session. If that is done, it will not be very long, as the Senator from Michigan said today, before we shall arrive at some understanding or agreement which will be mutually satisfactory.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. LANGER. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. What the Senator says may be correct; but I am not sure that I shall be able to depend on the Senator from North Dakota, when we finally attempt to break the filibuster, to help us to break it, because he may not be in favor of the Hayden-Wherry resolution. I hope I can depend on the Senator from North Dakota when the time comes for him to go along with us.