sure, such a situation is most logicaic, After all, this is the m

States of America, and our basic interests are primarily the sa But if there be such a thing as a conflict of interests among us, conflict has rested, as demonstrated or as pointed out in past heari between the small and large States. I have hated to hear that sit tion cited. There never should be anything like that in America, nevertheless we have heard of it in the past, and you may hear o again before the hearings are over.

Senator BENTON. Thank you, Senator Ives. We are grateful you for your considerable waiting this morning. Your contribut will be most helpful to the committee.

Senator Stennis, am I right that it is your wish that Senator M should proceed now?

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Senator BENTON. We are sorry for the long delay, Senator Mo As the chairman this morning, I am very happy to have this cha to applaud your distinguished leadership in this field and in the a of civil rights legislation and on your interest over a very long pe of time, I welcome this chance to congratulate you as you begin y statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE MORSE, UNITED STATES SENA FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Senator MORSE. I know you are always very kind to me, Chairman.

I want to say that I appreciate the honor of testifying here morning very informally on Resolution No. 41 of the Senate, of wh the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Humphrey, and I the joint authors and sponsors.

I would like to have consent to have the resolution inserted in record at this point as part of my testimony.

Senator BENTON. The regulation was inserted at the beginning the hearings, but if it bears directly on your following comments shall insert it again.

Senator MORSE. Thank you.

Senator BENTON. In order that your immediate comments now be made more clear.

(The document referred to follows:)

[S. Res. 41, 82d Cong., 1st sess.]

RESOLUTION

Resolved, That subsection 2 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Se relating to cloture, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"If at any time, notwithstanding the provisions of rule III or VI or any o rule of the Senate, a motion, signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close debate upon any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Ser or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meet the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Se and direct that the Secretary call the roll, and, upon the ascertainment th quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close "And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by a majority vo those voting, then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before

Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclu of all other business until disposed of.

"Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than one on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the finished business, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the sa except that any Senator may yield to any other Senator all or any part of aggregate period of time which he is entitled to speak; and the Senator to wh he so yields may speak for the time so yielded in addition to any period of which he is entitled to speak in his own right. It shall be the duty of the siding Officer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks. Except by un mous consent, no amendment shall be in order after the vote to bring the de to a close, unless the same has been presented and read prior to that time. dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall b order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from decision of the Presiding Officer, shall be decided without debate.' SEC. 2. Subsection 3 of such rule is hereby repealed.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much.

A reading of the resolution just inserted, Mr. Chairman, will sl that it provides for a simple majority for limiting debate in the Sena the same procedure for the filing of the cloture petition, signed by Senators, as presently exists, but after cloture has been voted b simple majority vote, then each Senator will have 1 hour after clot to speak on the merits of the issue, as he sees those merits, and he the privilege, if he does not want to use his time, of farming out al part of his time to any other colleague in the Senate.

I have made these arguments before in hearings on cloture and the floor of the Senate, so I will summarize them very briefly.

This farming-out principle in the Morse-Humphrey resolution very important because I think in practice it guarantees adequ debate even following cloture. The historic, traditional rules of co tesy of the Senate, I think, would in any situation guarantee to Members of the Senate adequate time to discuss the merits of an is after cloture even from colleagues in the Senate opposed to him the merits of the issue, who do not intend to speak in opposition to issue.

We see that practiced almost every time we have a unanimous-c sent agreement, where Senator A, opposed to Senator B on a cert issue, but not intending to speak on the issue, is perfectly willing turn over to B some time to speak in opposition to the position t Senator A would have spoken on had he taken the floor.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, a provision that guarantees if th want to use the time, 96 hours of debate following cloture will prov adequate time to discuss the merits of any issue. We can take judi notice of the fact that 16 men will not sign a cloture petition, u they are satisfied that adequate debate has been held.

The third and last main point I want to emphasize in a digest of Morse-Humphrey resolution is that it repeals the provision that p hibits cloture on a proposal to change the Senate Rules.

I think that is fundamental.

Senator BENTON. If you could get this last thing done, it would b great first step toward your first objective.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman, the compromise-which was no noble compromise and about which we have heard so much, a Which constitutes the present cloture rule, requires that to break stranglehold of section 3, we must break a filibuster. I do not th there is any other way out of it. The American people must be e

cloture procedure that prevents the closing of debate on a motion consider taking up an item of business to change the rules.

Senator BENTON. As a distinguished legal scholar, Senator Mor you may be interested to know that Senator Humphrey and Sena Lehman contend that that section 3 is unconstitutional.

Senator MORSE. Well, I am not going to discuss the matter of co stitutionality here this morning, because I have come to discuss public and political policy involved.

Senator BENTON. Our committee has ignored this contention fr the standpoint of our hearings except to continue to make inquir about it, because we have felt that there is no choice for us as a co mittee except to assume section 3 is constitutional, and to proce accordingly through the hearings.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I propose on this occasion talk to the American people through this committee. I have s elsewhere, that I have reached the conclusion it is no longer, with t rule on the books, worthwhile to talk to the Senate. One must t to the people, and the people have got to produce the change.

As a Republican, I want to say that, in my opinion, the Republica who in 1949 bought this compromise

Senator BENTON. You were not here for Senator Jenner's tes mony on behalf of himself and Senator Wherry; he presented a pa providing background on this; but he stressed wholly the question substituting the constitutional two-thirds for the previous two-thi of those present and voting, whereas many of the previous witnes concerned with rule XXII have taken much greater exception to s tion 3, which has not had as much public discussion, and is not generally understood and which, according to Senator Saltonsta went into the compromise with very little debate, and with v little understanding of what was involved.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I make no reference to any w ness who has testified before the committee in the observations th I am about to make because I came here to make these observatio without any knowledge of who had testified before the committ But I want to say that I am not surprised to have a considera number of Republican colleagues, in and out of the Senate, in party in this country, as 1952 approaches, now trying to find a w out of the tragic mistake they made in 1949 when they bought t compromise.

I know a little bit about the background of this compromise. T night we voted it I dared to voice on the floor of the Senate wha knew about that background.

The Congressional Record will show that some of my Republic colleagues took offense at what I said, but I stood by what I said, I do now, and the subsequent events have proved how right I was what I said the night this rule was adopted.

I said then that this rule was the result of compromising and deal that was going on in the cloakroom in respect to other issues directly connected with this issue. Several of my Republican leagues challenged that statement and expressed resentment.

They knew very well I was within the rule of the Senate whe expressed it, and so I told them I would repeat it, which I did. It v very interesting that a little over a year after-to show in part

way this rule came on the books-we had before the Senate thr great transmission line issues, one involving the Southeast, one th Southwest, and one the Pacific Northwest.

The Pacific Northwest transmission line issue came later, it was th third one. The Southeast one passed by a substantial vote. Th southwestern was closer. The third one was to be the northwester and one of my very good friends from the South called me into th cloakroom and said, "Wayne, I don't think you should go to a vo on this one this afternoon." I said, "I had better take the majorit we obtained on the last vote and run. He said, "I can't vote wit you." In the past he had never failed to vote in favor of the princip of the government building what we called the gridback transmissio lines to load centers, and then entering into contracts with privat utilities over those transmission lines for the service of their customer

I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because I want the American peop to have a better understanding of the relationship between the rule and procedures of the Senate and their own substantive rights. As used to teach my law students, let me control the procedure of an tribunal, and I will control the justice that that tribunal administer the substantive rights that it protects.

So, to get back to the transmission-line story, my Southern frien went on to say that while he and some of his associates had alway stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us in having the Gover ment build the gridback transmission lines, they could not do so i this instance. Any other principle would result in the private utiliti getting control of these dams, at dam site. That is, if you let th taxpayers build these great multiple-purpose dams, whether in th Southeast or Southwest or the Pacific Northwest or anywhere else i the country, and then let the private utilities take control of the pow at bus bar, they control the dams.

So the same principle was involved in this particular series of thre votes; and after the southeastern and southwestern had passed, I wa advised that we would not win in the Northwest. Why? Becaus at the time the Wherry compromise cloture rule was adopted in th Senate, what I had warned on the floor of the Senate that very nigh was a reality. Some deals had been entered into in exchange fo votes on the cloture resolution for votes on a certain transmissio power line issue.

Senator BENTON. There were 63 votes against twenty-odd, so don't see how there were any votes really needed to pass this rul There was an enormous margin.

Senator STENNIS. May I interpose just an observation here?
Senator BENTON. Yes.

Senator STENNIS. The Senator has accused or, rather, has attribute some kind of iniquitous deal here among Members of the Senate, an he frequently used the reference there to the Southern Senators and al I think, if he makes those charges, he ought to prove them. Senator BENTON. I think the Senator included pretty much of th Senate, and not merely the southerners.

Senator STENNIS. I don't think he ought to throw out a blanke charge like that.

Senator MORSE. I think I will exercise my right to testify befor

to what the senator from Mississippi says in nis testimony, Du me tell the Senator from Mississippi that, as a representative of people of my State, I am going to present in part what I know the facts in regard to how this cloture rule came into being, and I intend to testify as to what I think my party must do to corred great mistake that it made in 1949, when it agreed to a cloture which in my opinion defeats the real meaning of democracy in country, when it turns over the procedures of the Senate to a min and to a much tighter minority than we ever had even under th rule.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into co versy with the Senator. I think too much of him. But I didn't that charge made at me without denying it; and, if he imputes to me I don't think he does; but, if he does, I deny it and ask to bring his proof.

Senator MORSE. I think I am within my senatorial rights in ha said what I did.

Senator BENTON. I don't think Senator Stennis contends other Senator MORSE. I am repeating what I said on the floor o Senate the night the rule was adopted; that I don't think it could been adopted without trading some votes.

Mr. Chairman, the next point I want to make is that I thin ought to come to grips with the fundamental reason for the fig maintain the privilege of the filibuster on the floor of the Senat have the greatest of respect for, and I try to have an enlight understanding for and of the point of view of, those who I am are as sincere in their support of the filibuster; but in my judg the filibuster defeats democratic rule-and "democratic" I use a small "d."

It defeats what I think is the spirit and intent of the check balance system of the Constitution. It stems from what I con to be an erroneous notion of representation in the Senate.

I think it stems from the notion that a man sits in the Senate ambassador from his State. That came out some 3 or 4 years a an exchange that I had with one of my good friends in the Se who in support of the filibuster argued that if he believed, as h that a certain proposal was unconstitutional and the pro before us was a civil-rights proposal-he considered it his duty t any means that he could to defeat that proposal; he consi it his duty, representing his State, to filibuster, to the point of ex tion if necessary to defeat a piece of legislation that he consider be unconstitutional, and he felt that was his duty under the oa took to sustain the Constitution.

The Congressional Record will show that I respectfully pres an opposite point of view, which was to this effect: that I thoug was arguing for the ambassadorial concept of service in the S of the United States, a concept I thought had died with Cal and had ended with the War Between the States. I thought w established that, after all, this is a Union of 48 States, and that a sits in the Senate of the United States primarily not from his for his State, but he sits in the Senate of the United States prin from his State for his Nation.

I thought that was the conception the founding fathers had job of a United States Senator, and that, if we did not accep