moses.law.umn.edumoses.law.umn.edu/mondale/pdf15/v.121_pt.5_p.5609-5652.pdfMarch 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5609 NO WINDFALL FOR TEACHERS HON. JOHN B. ANDERSON OF ILLINOIS

OF Al\1ERICAUNITED STATESI

ltongrrssjonal Rrcordth

PROCEEDiNGS AND DEBATES OF THE 94 CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

VOLUME 121-PART 5

MARCH 5, 1975 TO MARCH 13, 1975

(PAGES 5213 TO 6674)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1975

March 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5609NO WINDFALL FOR TEACHERS

HON. JOHN B. ANDERSONOF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, March 6, 1975

Mr. ANDERSON of TIlinois. Mr.Speaker, I am pleased to join today withmy colleague from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) in introducing legislation to closea loophole that would allow teachers todraw unemployment compensation during summer vacation.

The loophole was created last December when Congress passed the

Emergency Jobs and UnemploymentAssistance Act of 1974. This legislationprovides special unemployment assistance to two basic groups: Those whohave exhausted their regular, additionaland extended compensation; and thosein a line of work which is not coveredunder existing State plans. The bill extends coverage to persons otherwise ineligible for regular compensation, provided they meet the State's regular wageand employment standards for compensation on the basis of total employmentduring the year preceding the claim. Byfailing to specifically exclude teacherswho are not actually working at jobs

during the summer, the law permits theStates to extend jobless benefits to them,and Dlinois has decided to do this.

The legislation being introduced todayby Mr. ERLENBORN and myself woulddeny summer unemployment benefits toany elementary or secondary schoolteacher who has a contract for the coming school year. The Congress did not intend to create a windfall profit forteachers at the expense of the taxpayer.Just as I am in favor of taxing windfallprofits which accrue to big oil companiesat the expense of the American consumer, so too am I against such profitsevolving from Government programs. Iw'ge its speedy enactment.

SENATE·-Friday, March 7, 1975The Senate,met at 8:30 a.m. and was

called to order by Hon. RICHARD STONE,a Senator from the State of Florida.

. PRAYERThe Chaplliin, the Reverend Edward

L. R. Elson, D.D., offered the followingprayer:

In the morning and the evening and atnoonday we offer our thanks to Thee, 0Lord, for Thy goodness and mercy. Openour lives to Thy light and Th:' truth thatwe may serve Thee with our whole mindand soul and strength. May the words ofour mouths, and the meditations of ourhearts be acceptable in Thy sight, 0 Lordour Strength and our Redeemer. Amen.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill please read a communication to theSenate from the President pro tempore(Mr. EASTLAND).

The legislative clerk read the following letter:

U.S. SENATE,PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,

Washington, D.C., March 7,1975.To the Senate:

Being temporarily absent from the Senateon official duties, I appoint Hon. RICHARDSTONE, a Senator from the State of Florida,to perform the duties of the Chair duringmy absence.

JAMES O. EASTLAND,Presidentpro tempore.

Mr. STONE thereupon took the chairas Acting President pro tempore.

THE JOURNALMr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Journal ofthe proceedings of yesterday be considered as read and approved.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURINGSENATE SESSION

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that all committeesmay be authorized to meet during thesession of the Senate today.


EXECUTIVE SESSIONMr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate gointo executive session to consider nominations on the Calendar.

There being no objection, the Senateproceeded to the consideration of executive business.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The nominations will be stated.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEThe assistant legislative clerk read the

nominations of Victor V. Veysey of California to be an Assistant Secretary ofthe Army; and Donald G. Brotzmanof Colorado to be an Assistant Secretaryof the Army.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the nominationsare considered and confirmed en bloc.

U.S. AIR FORCEThe assistant legislative clerk pro

ceeded to read sundry nominations in theU.S. Air Force.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the nominationsbe considered en bloc.


U.S. ARMYThe assistant legislative clerk pro

ceeded to read sundry nominations inthe U.S. Army.



U.S. NAVYThe sssistant legislative clerk pro

ceeded to read sundry nominations inthe U.S. Navy.



U.S. MARINE CORPSThe assistant legislative clerk pro

ceeded to read sundry nominations inthe U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the nominationsbe consi<fered en bloc.


NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read sundry nominations inthe Air Force, Army, Navy, and MarineCorps placed on the Secretary's desk.


The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, t,~e nominations are considered and confirmed enbloc.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the President benotified of the confirmation of the nominations.


LEGISLATIVE SESSIONMr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

move that the Senate resume the consideration of legislative business.

The motion was agreed to, and theSenate resumed the consideration of legislative business.

AMENDMENT OF RULE XXII OF THESTANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

The Senate resumed the considerationof the resolution (S. Res. 4) to amendrule XXII of the Standing Rules of theSenate with respect to the limitation ofdebate.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 1 hour for debate on thecloture motion on Senate Resolution 4,as amended, shall be equally divided and

5610 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 7, 1975controlled by the senator from WestVirginia (Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD) and theSenator from Alabama (Mr. ALLEN).

Who yields time?The Senator from Alabama.Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair.Mr. President, I yield myself such time

as I may require.Mr. President, we are faced in a short

time with a vote on a cloture motion tobring debate on Senate Resolution 4, asamended by the Byrd substitute, to anend.

No one doubts the outcome of thatvote. Why then prolong the consideration of this resolution? In the first place,Mr. President, there are numerous areasinvolving rule XXII that l'equire or needrevision or reform. The Senator fromAlabama has 35 meritorious amendments, some of which he believes wouldbe accepted-relatively few; or possiblyjust to show the great strength and unanimity of the overwhelming majoritythey will be rejected.

The distinguished Senator from Maine(Mr. HATHAWAY) has an excellentamendment that I hope will be given serious consideration. So this cloture procedure needs revision in areas other thanthe fraction of the numbers of Senatorsrequired to cut off debate. It needs norevision at that point, in the view of theSenator from Alabama.

The gag rule Senators have made onelittle change in the amendment, changing the fraction two-thirds to threefifths. That one fraction I believe is theonlY change they made in their originalproposal they rammed through the Senate up to the point of actual vote. Thatearned them the title of reform Senators,whereas other Senators have meritoriousamendments seeking to reform this cloture process and they are referred to asantireform Senators. The Senator fromAlabama believes those terms ought to bereversed.

But, whether or no, the amendment orthe rule, rule XXII, being before the Senate now for consideration not just onthis one issue but for consideration because every single· word of rule XXII iscarried over into the Byrd substitute,plus additional matters making a different rule for the rules change, all of whichare just excess verbiage because the gagrule Senators will not follow that procedure when they get ready to amend theSenate rules again; they will go thesteamroller route of ramming the changethrough by a majority vote. So we havegot majority cloture; that is what wehave.

They talk piously about having therules changes which would require twothirds vote all the time, knowing whenthe time comes they will just move thesteamroller out and go the constitutionalroute-this alleged constitutional route,I might say.

So, Mr. President, we need deliberateconsideration of the amendments thatthe Senator from Alabama has, the Senator from North Carolina has, the Senator from Maine has.

Mr. President, there are two main rea-

sons, other than the substantive reason,why amendments are in order andamendments should be made. One is, onereason we should consider this issue atlength, and I guess this is the main reason, there should be no appeasement ofthis type of effort-there shOUld be noappeasement of this effort, and I havelikened this situation to what took placeat Munich where the demands of Hitlerwere met with appeasement, and Hitlerpiously said:

Give me this Sudetenland and I will nevermaI:e any more territorial demands.

Well, the gag-rule senators say, "Giveus this little change and we will neverseek again to amend the rule exceptunder the ruIes."

Yet, Mr. President, the Senator fromAlabama offered an amendment yesterday that sought by words-and it is apending amendment-to hold them tothat type of commitment.

A strange thing took plac~ in the Senate on yesterday when the Senator fromAlabama got through talking on hisamendment, expecting a vote thereon.Why, what happened? Why the distinguished Senator from Minnesota (Mr.MONDALE) and the distinguished Senatorfrom Vermont (Mr. LEAHY) got up andconducted what had to be called a filibuster. The entire filibuster was carrying a filibuster to prevent the amendment of the Senator from Alabama frombeing considered yesterday.

It was stated in the Chamber yesterday, "Well, do not worry, we will give YOUa vote on tomorrow"-that is today.

That is not the point, Mr. President.They well knew that if this amendmentwere rejected by the gag-rule Senatorson yesterday, they were Going to losetwo or three cloture votes.

Let us see what it says.At the end of the resolution, add the

following new section:Section -. Motions, Resolutions, Bills or

otber measures haVing any reference to anamendment of the Senate Rules alTered orpresented at tbe beginning of a Congress orat any other time shall be governed by thedebate limitations prOVided for In this Resolution In like manner as any other bill, resolution, motion or other measure, and themethod of limiting debate provided in thisresolution shall be the llxcluslve method,other than by unanimous consent, of limiting debate on any such motions, resolutions,bills or other measures baving any referenceto an amendment of the Senate rules irrespective of when offered.

So the gag-rule Senators filibw:;teredUlat amendment to the point that itcould not be acted on yesterday.

W·ell, we say, "What is wrong withthat? Get a vote on it today."

Yes, but the vote will not come untilafter cloture has been invoked.

Many Senators making a good-faitheffort to compromise this issue with thegag-rule Senators exacted a commitment, as the Senator from Alabama understands it though he was not a part ofthe negotiations, that this precedent ofmajority debate cutoff established by theVice President on February 20 would bereversed.

Well, it has not been reversed.But this amendment, while it could

not bind gag-rule Senators, keep themfrom coming in 2 years from now andramming through another change by amajority vote, wouId constitute some little restraint, some little standard of ethical conduct. It might possibly have somelittle bit of restraint on the gag-rulaSenators to have staling them in theface a resolution saying that efforts toamend the ruIes ara going to be governedno matter when they are made, whetherat the beginning of a session or otherwise, they are going to be governed bythe same debate limitations as any otherbills, resolutions, motions, or measures.

That is presently the rUle, but it hasnot b"en spelled out with such clarity asthis.

So, the gag-rule Senators preventedthis amendment from coming up on yesterday. It will come up, it will be voteddown after cloture has been invoked, butthey did not want to run the risk of offending the free debate Senators whoagreed with them on the compromise.

So the compromise is no good. It is justan appeasement a 130 Munich.

I thought of another parallel-when Iuse this parallel I mean no disparagement of the gag-rule Senators and amnot likening them to this incident exceptthat what has happened here remindsme of a situation that might take placein this fashion.

This compromise of this principle, thatwe have got to follow the ruIes when weamend the rules, we have got to followthe rules when we act here in the Senate, and the disregard of that principleby the gag-rule Senators and then thecompromise by free-debate SenatorsWitll that unauthorized process, puts mein mind of-and I say I do not makeany disparagement of the gag-rule Senators in drawing this parallel, just statingthat I am reminded of· this situation-isnot too unlike a burglar who goes inthe back door, shall I say-and this is aback-door approach that has been usedby the gag-rule 8enators-;---a burglar whogoes in to relieve the occupant of thehouse of, shall we say, his wife's jewelryand the burglar is caught in the actand these gag-rule Senators were caughtin the act at the time. •

There was a minirevolt here in theSenate, and the strong-arm tactics of theVice President, and the gag-rule Senators then abandoned the management ofthat resolution and turned it over to theleadership, but they were caught in theact. It was getting a little too odoriferous,even for them, to proceed.

So a compromise was reached, justlike a compromise might be reached withthe burglar by the householder, and theagreement reached between the householder and the burglar, "Well, I am notgoing to give you all of the jewelry, butI will give you half of it provided youpromise not to come back and get morelater." The burglar says, "Oh, that isfine, I will not come back, just let mehave half of what I was asking for."

That is what has happened here, Mr.

March 7, 19.75 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5611

President. An effort made to proceed outside the rules. An effort to snatch up arules change to provide for furthersteamroller tactics here in the Senate.caught in the act of proceeding outsidethe rules.

How can you compromise with anysuch effort as that? I say there cannotbe any compromise. where you retreat from a. principle. That is thereason the Senator from Alabama didnot go along with the compromise. Itwould have been surrendering a principle. It would have been putting thest.amp of legitimacy· on these effortsoutside of the rules.

So that is the second reason whythis debate. this discussion, must continue to the very last. The very lastmay come today; I do not know. Wecame in at 8:30, I assume in an effortto close out today. I suggested the otherday that we might have a· Saturdayvote on this. 'It was suggested by aMember of the leadership that we. wouldnot have any Saturday vote. I do notknow what to. expect. All I know isthat this assault on the rules must befought to the limit.

Thus, we have the need for reformof rule XXII in areas other than thosesuggested by the Byrd amendment; wehave the principle that we cannot compromise on any compromise that requires the surrender of principle; and.third, Mr. President, we have to servenotice on gag-rule senators that anyeffort to make a further assault on therules is going to be resisted right downthe line. We are not going to roll overand play dead; we are not going toallow them to come in here one day.as they tried to on February 20, andram through a rules change by majority vote. without debate. withoutamendment, without intervening motions. We have to serve notice that isnot going to be allowed.

That is the reason the Senator fromAlabama is fighting this issue.

I do not know what time the gavel wUlpound and the Senator from Alabamawill be told that he cannot offer anymore amendments. that he cannot berecognized any more. We are going tosee. That effort will be made to forceit over, I am sure.

I was somewhat amused the other day.We have had Senators presiding overthe Senate who would not recognize theSenator from Alabama when he wantedto offer a motion and wanted to speakon his own motion. They would lookright past him and recognize somebodyelse to table.

The other day another Senator wasin the Chair. I expected pretty muchthe same type of treatment and was alittle bit testy with him. After he hadgiven another Senator, not the Senatorfrom Alabama. an opportunity to be recognized, I told him I apologized for mydoubt of him. I just supposed that hehad been named for the day to carry ona similar policy to the policy which hadbeen carried on.

CXXI-355-Pal't 5

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Will the Senatoryield?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. May I assure

the Senator that. so far as I know. noSenator has been put in that Chair bythe leadership to carryon the policy ofthe leadership.

Mr. ALLEN. I did not refer to the leadership, the Senator will recall.

Mr. President, notice has to be servedthat we are not going to permit an assault on the Senate rules without it being fought to the limit whenever an attempt of that sort is made.

There is another thing, Mr. President,on which I want to serve notice. I wishthe distinguished Vice President were inthe Chair. I have a parliamentary question to propound. I assume the presentoccupant of the Chair. after consultingwith the Parliamentarian. could give theanswer. I want to serve notice on theChair and the Members of the Senatethat we are going to use title I. section5, of the Constitution today. It has beenmisused, misconstrued, misquoted, andmisapplied here in the Chamber by gagrule Senators. What it says is that a majority shall constitute a quorum for thetransaction of business.

Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama is going to insist that we have thisconstitutional quorum here in the Senate at the time this matter comes up fordebate under the cloture rule.

Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore. The Senator will state it.Mr. ALLEN. Does the vote that will oc

cur in the Senate within the next hourto cut off debate require a t\~'o-thirds

vote in order to succeed?The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore. Two-thirds of the Senators presentand voting is required to invoke cloture.

Mr. ALLEN. The Senator from Alabama understands that. The question heasked was will the vote that will be putto the Senate-Is it the sense of theSenate that debate on the pending question shall end-that particular question,require a two-thirds vote of the Senatorspresent and voting to carry?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the question stated in thecloture rule, and that does require twothirds of the Senators present andvoting.

Mr. ALLEN. IITespectlve of whetherwe are operating under the cloture, I justasked the one question: Will the votethat is to be put to the Senate respecting limiting debate require a two-thirdsvote of the Senators present and voting?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is advised that the Senate is operating under rule XXII and,therefore. the two-thirds requirementsof the Senators present and voting is operative in this matter.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair. I willnot comment on his statement that weare operating under rule XXII. I believethat is right. But this cloture vote thatwas held 2 days ago and this cloture

vote to be held today are nothing morethan shams or hollow shells because overthis Chamber is the threat that if cloture is not delivered to the gag-rule Senators. we are going to go back to the majority cloture. That is the threat underwhich the Senate is operating. I, for one,do not like to operate under any suchan implied threat.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainderof my time.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. PresIdent, I suggest that absence of a quorum.the time to be taken out of my time.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. PresIdent, I ask unanimous consent that theorder for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLEN. I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection

is heard.The rollcall was resumed and con

cluded. and the following Senatorsentered the Chamber and answered totheir names:

(Quorum No. 16 Leg.]Abourezk Glenn MontoyaAllen Gravel MorganBaker Griffin MossBartlett Hansen MuskleBayh Hart. Gary W. NelsonBeall Hart, Philip A. NunnBellman Hartke PackwoodBentsen Haskell FastoreBlden Hatfield PearsonBrock Hathaway Pel!Brooke Heims PercyBuckley Holllngs FroxmlreBumpers Hruska RandolphBurdick Huddleston RothByrd. Humphrey Schwelker

Harry F., Jr. Inouye Scott, HUghByrd. Robert C. Jackson Scott.Cannon Javlts Wl1l1am L.Case Johnston SparkmanChiles Kennedy StalfordChurch Laxalt StennisClark Leahy StevensCranston Long StevensonCulver Magnuson StoneCurtis Mansfield SymingtonDole Mathias TalmadgeDomenlcl McClure ThurmondEastland McGee TowerFannin McGovern TunneyFong McIntyre WelckerFord Metcalf WUJlamsGam Mondale Young

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announcethat the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.MCCLELLAN) , the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF). and the Senatorfrom Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON) are necessarilyabsent.

Mr. GRIF'FIN. I announce that theSenator from Arizona (Mr. GoLDWATER)is necessarily absent.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom Ohio (Mr. TAFT) is absent due toillness.

The PRESIDn~G OFFICER (Mr.B1Jl'lIPEns). A quorum is present.

CLOTURE MOTIONThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ate will come to order.There being a quorum established. the

5G12 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Miu'ch 7, 1975

The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote,the 7'eas are 73, the nays are 21. Twothirds of the Senators present and voting haVing voted in the affirmative, themotion is agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senatorfrom Montana.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent, if I am out of order,to proceed for not to exceed 5 minutes onmy hour.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senatorfrom Montana is recognized.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Iwonder what the people of this Nationand what the students in our schoolswould think of the way the Senate ofthe United States has been conductingitself off and on for the past month anda half, and on for the past week 01' so.Here we have a group of gro\'m men,mature men, our constituents think, andwe have been acting like schoolchildren.

We have been accused of conducting acharade, and we have been. I think I canspeak on this subject as one who has always been opposed to majority cloture,and always will be. But I do believe therecomes a time when it becomes impossiblefor a Senator or a small group of Sena-

tors to hold up the legitimate businessof the Senate. And may I say that I amglad that in such overwhelming numbersthe Senate today, when it had a chanceto face up to the situation in fact, agreedto invoke cloture. And the real total wasnot 73 to 21. If all Members had beenpresent, it very likely would have be~n

about 75 or 76 to 22 or 23. That is anawful lot of Senat{)rs, in this lOO-manbody.

But I would point out that the Senatehas more important business to do thanto be delayed day after day after dayand maybe we will be delayed still morefor the next several days-than to engage in this charade. The Senate hasmade its wishes known, and three-quarters of the Senate is entitled to the consideration of the full Senate, includingthose who voted in the minority,

Speaking of the minority, I believe inthe rights of the minority, and I believethe rights of the minority should be, mustbe, and will be protected. But I do notlike to have the majority referred to as"the arrogant majority." I do not liketo have aspersions cast on the Senate asa whole, and that is what that is, whenwe are referred to as "an arrogant majority" because there is disagreementamong us.

It used to be that the filibuster wasused for a specific purpose. Now it is usedfor any and all purposes. And I think thatthe way we have been conducting ourselves has denigrated that needed political weapon in this body.

I would hope that the Senate wouldact as a body of mature men representingseparate States, recognizing that thereare differences, that there are mattersof principle, but that the Senate as aninstitution-an institution-must survive. We cannot allow a minority, asmall group of Members, to grab theSenate by the throat and hold it there.It is about time, may I say to my colleagues in this body, that we recognizeour responsibilities and live up to them,regardless of our particular feelings.

I hope that the civics lesson or lessonswhich this body has gone through overthe past month-and-a-half will not beconsidered a model of this institution bythe people of this Nation,or by the children attending our schools. We have farmore important things to do than to engage in charades, and when the Senateof the United States, by its expressionthis morning, has exprer.sed itself, Iwould express the hope, in turn, thatthere would be nothing more in the wayof dilatory 01' delaying tactics.

AMENDMENT NO. 53

The VICE PRESIDENT. The pendingquestion is on agreeing to the amendment (No. 53) of the Senator fromAlabama.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, t seekrecognition.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senatorfrom Mississippi.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, there 15no one in the Senate who has done morethan the Senator from Montana to uphold high standards for the Senate, llotonly in his representation as a Senatorfrom Montana, but as our leader here;

Scott,William L.

SparkmanStennisTalmadgeThurmondTower

MossMuskleNelsonNunnPackwoodPastorePearsonPellPercyProxmireRandolphRothSchwelkerScott,HughStaffordStevensStevensonStoneSymingtonTunneyWeickerWilliamsYoung

EagletonGoldwater

Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Connecticut;eMr. RIBICOFF) would vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER)is necessarily absent.


I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Ohio (Mr.TAFT) would vote "nay."

The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 73,nays 21, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 45 Leg.]YEA8-73

Abourezk Hart. Philip A.Bayh HartkeEeall HaskellEentsen HatfieldEiden HathawayErooke HruskaBumpers HuddlestonBurdick HumphreyByrd, Robert C. InouyeCannon JacksonCase JavitsChiles JohnstonChurch KennedyClark LaxaltCranston LeahyCulver LongCurtis MagnusonDole MansfieldDomenici MathiasFord McGeeGarn McGovernGlenn McIntyreGravel MetcalfGriffin MondaleHart. Gary W. Montoya

NAYS-21Allen EastlandBaker FanninBartlett FongBellmon HansenBrock HelmsEuckley HollingsByrd, McClure

Harry F., Jr. MorganNOT VOTING-5

McClellan TaftRlbicoff

CALL OF THE ROLLThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant

to rule XXII, the Chair now directs theclerk to call the roll to ascertain thepresence of a quorum.

The second assistant legislative clerkcalled the roll and the following Senators answered to their names:

[Quorum No. 17 Leg.]Abourezk Glenn MontoyaAllen Gravel MorganBaker Griffin MossBartlett Hansen MuskleBayh Hart, Gary W. NelsonBeall Hart. Philip A. NUllnBellmon Hartke PackwoodBentsen Haskell PastoreBlden Hatfield PearsonBrock Hathaway PellBrooke Helms PercyBuckley Hollings ProxmlreEumpers Hruska RandolphEurdick Huddleston RothByrd, Humphrey Schweiker

Harry F .. Jr. Inouye Scott, HughByrd, Robert C. Jackson Scott,cannon Javits Willlam L.Case Johnston SparkmanChiles Kennedy StaffordChurch Laxalt StennisCiark Leahy StevensCranston Long StevensonCuiver Magnuson StoneCurtis Mansfield SymingtonDole Mathias TalmadgeDomenici McClure ThurmondEastland McGee TowerFannin McGovern TunneyFonl:( McIntyre WelckerFord Metcalf WilliamsGarn Mondale Young

The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum Ispresent.

The question is--Mr. ALLEN. May we have order, Mr.

Prei5ident?The VICE PRESIDENT. Order in the

Senate, please.A quorum Is present.The Question is, Is it the sense of the

Senate that debate on Senate Resolution4. as amended, amending rule XXII ofthe standing Rules of the Senate withre3pect to the limitation of debate, shallbe brought to a close?

The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule, and the clerk will call theroll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr,MCCLELLAN). the Senator from Missow'i(Mr, EAGLETON), and the Senator from

clerk will now state the motion to invokeclcture.

The assistant legislative clerk read asfollows:

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, In accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII ofthe Standing Rules of the Benate, herebymove to bring to a close the debate on S.Res. 4, as amended, amending Rule XXII ofthe Standing Rules of the Benate with respect to the limitation of debate:

Robert C. Byrd, Mike Mansfield. JenningsRandolph. Warren G. Magnuson, John O.Pastore, Walter F. Mondale, Quentin N. Burdick, James Abourezk, Frank E. Moss, VanceHartke, Lee Metcalf, Walter D. Huddleston,Wendell H. Ford. Dale Bumpers, ClaibornePell, William D. Hathaway, Abraham Riblcoff, Mark O. Hatfield, Floyd K. Haskell.Charles H. Percy.

March 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5613and I think he is not only a leader forthe majority as we use the term, but avery valuable leader to the entire senate.I am not just trying to compliment h!m,but I think he has a splendid idea. too. ofleadership in cooperation, when it iswhat he thinks is sound, with the executive branch of the Government, whetherwe have a President from one party orthe other.

But when he touches on the idea of anindividual Senator, in representing hisown state or representing his own viewsof what he thinks is sound government,when he touches on that Senator refraining for any of the reasons given by theSenator from Montana. I would just haveto. with deferenct: and respect, disagreewith his reasons and with his conclusions; and, as a humble Member of thisbody, I do not make any apologies, notany, to anyone, under my circumstances,for doing what little I, can to keep theSenate a distinc!tive body.

Again the Senator from Montana hascertainly played a great part in that fieldhimself, not only in this vital effort, butover the years. ;

But coming back to the point that anySenator is compelled, on a matter asvital as the rules are, to stand up and becounted and speak out without anyapology or explanation, and particularly,Mr. President, during a debate where thePresiding Officer of the Senate-and I donot attack his motives a bit, though I doattack his reasoning-particularly indebate where a Presiding Officer, just byone stroke of the pen-and he did noteven have a pen; just by a few remarksin a ruling-struck down and totally destroyed a precedent of this body-of theSenate; and the Senate belongs to thepeople, not to us-struck down a wellestablished principle of this body thathad been a prevailing, hard core of thisinstitution for almost 200 years.

I have helped take the lead in everyone having his own views, in voting as hesaw fit, on thatruIing or any other ruling. I have no complaint. I have not evenchecked to see how anyone voted, exceptthat I checked the absentees to see whatchance there might be to pick up a voteor two.

I do not carry those things on my mind.But I do carry on my mind any kind ofan insinuation that anyone who happensto delay the Senate beyond what someother Member may think is sound. ofthat Member of the Senate being chastised. redricted, or held up to the pressor the people as being out of order ordilatory, or any other word that does nothave a complimentary meaning.

I have on my mind-not just trying totake up time-what is happening hereand what has happened already with reference to the change in the basic structure of this institution through the doorhaving been opened-and I pray it willnever be successfully used here, but having been opened-where a sitting VicePresident, President pro tempore, thetemp()rary occupant of the Chair, plus abare majority of those present and voting that day, a majority of a quorum,can, in effect, hold that at the beginningof the session at least, as a constitutionalmatter, can change the rules contrary to

the express letter and words of the Senate ruIes as they exist.

Now that. to me, is sacred ground thatwe ar,e treading on; and to the Senatorfrom Montana it is sacred ground. theidea of being dilatory here. He may thinkI am being dilatory, and that is sacredground to him. But, to me, this institution is more than just a body of people.

There is nothing new now either, Mr.President. about some delay.

There has been a battle fought overthese ruIes, and I remember distinctlythree times where it was thought it wassettled, and the rules were rewritten, andthose of us who take the position in opposition to change of rule XXII did theconceding, and all wound up with handshakes and congratuIations and warmth,and some kind of a feeling that fixedthings for all time or for decades anddecades ahead.

So this is not new. This ground hasbeen plowed many times and. generally,before there has been agreement thatboth sides had gone far enough. But Isee now due to this ruling to which Ihave already referred where it is an entirely new start, and I cannot forgetthat.

By the way-I do not want to compliment myself-but talking about wastingtime, a young man here who works in theCapitol has just told me this morningthat he enjoyed my speaking here theother day on this subject. He is not fromthe South, he is not a friend of mine. Hesays he had not been in the galleries for4 years, but that something I said arrested his attention. and he said he hadnot thought about the thing that waybefore.

So, some of these seeds that are sownhere in opposition may fall on stonyground, but some might fall where theycan sprout and grow into ideas, as thisgentleman related.

So. I do not know, but I think goodcomes from discussions anyway, andthere has not been any overdebate onthis matter so far. There has been somedelay here on procedural matters.

Frankly, now, I do not know of anymajor legislation that relates to energythere may be some bill that we are ready

- to take up-but I have learned a greatdeal here since we reconvened in Januaryabout this energy problem. I think we allhave learned. and the people have learnedand I think the thinking has shifted onthe point that with respect to emergencyaction we must do something now immediately or everything is lost. Generally,it is conceded now that it is n()t so urgent.

The people outside, away from here,whom I have seen, who came in, manyof them have told me that. Some are very,strong for the President's plan. I justhave an idea that the President-and hehas not told me this-if he were reconsidering the matter now might recommend some different plan, a plan withsome differences. at least, from his present plan. I believe that he. along 'l\ith us.has more light on it.

I have never been prouder to be a Senator than I was at one of the caucuseswe had here on this energy matter wherethe chairmen of the committees whichhad been working on these problems foryears were there. This happened to be the

majority caucus, but they were therewith the fruits of the loom, and explainedtheir facts and what they found, whattheir recommendations were that theyhad to make.

The same thing happened at a meetingof the chairmen sitting right here withinreach of the Senator from West Virginia,and I had talked to him some, but wenever had a chance to sit down and talkthis thing over about energy-I amspeaking about the Senator from WestVirginia (Mr. RANDoLPH)-and his statement at that caucus was outstanding. Itwas very helpful to me.

The same thing is true about the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROX:MIRE). Heand I are prone to disagree on manythings. but he had an amazing analysisand statement at that caucus.

The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.NELSON) is the same way. He is my authority on environmental matters andother matters, with his great information, and he, too. has been helpful.

This thing is fermenting. That is mypoint. I do not kIiow of any oi these billsthat are ready ~o be taken up. I mighthave just slipped up on that, but I donot know of any of them.

There is a bill before the Finance Committee with reference to the rebating oftaxes, and so forth. I understand thatperhaps that is almost ready.

If there has been a veto message herewith reference to the excise tax, if thathas come in, it just shows how busy Ihave been this week maybe, but I havenot heard about it.

Now, somebody is holding that up.Why can we not have that in a matterof a few minutes? The fellow who wastalking to me about getting an educationfor his son talked as if he wanted it by8 o'clock in the morning.

I am not calling for a veto message.Maybe it has not come In.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It is in theother body.

At this point Mr. BAKER assumed thechair.

Mr. STENNIS. It is pending in theHouse. Anyway it is not here. It hasbeen delayed there, and that is a constitutional delay. The President had thatconstitutional time and perhaps it willcome to us.

But I do not know. and that would bean urgent matter-I do not know of anyother major legislation that is ready tobe taken up here. Frankly, I am surprised-fiattered, too-that so manyhere have waited for some reason--somemight be waiting to hear what I wasgoing to say. The other day I quotedWoodrow Wilson as having said when heprepared his message asking for a declaration of war with Germany in 1917I do not know what others think aboutWoodrow Wilson, but he is my boyhoodmodel of President of the UnitedStates-I notice that other Presidentshave had his picture down in the CabinetRoom-but he said he wanted his friendsand associates to know that even as hewas asking for a declaration of war, heknew that our country wouId never bethe same again and, of course, it hasturned out that way, and I think the warhad to be declared. That is not my point.

5614 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 7, 1975

The point is that there was decisivedepth.

Now, the Senate, unless this matter isstopped from proceeding in the way thatour respected Vice President started itoff the other day, is never going to be thesame again.

Personnel can come and go, ideas andopinions and conclusions can vary, andwill, but this body will never be the sameparliamentary body again if this finalstep, this fateful step, is ever taken.

I do not know. We are blessed herewith membership inclUding former Members of the House of Representatives,former Governors of States, and others,most of whom have been performers, andsuccessful performers to a degree, inother areas of Government.

There is a yearnir g and a distit,ctivefeel about coming to the U.S. Senateand it has been true for many, many,many decades, and I hope it will be truefor a thousand years.

But if we just make it a body nowwhere the majority is going to controland can write the rUles, or rewrite them,and majorities with all their virtues areimpulsive at times, if we are going tomake it into that kind of a body, we willtake off something that has a great dealof attractiveness, a great many of the attractive features of being here.

I have a great respect for the House ofRepresentatives and I am totally in accord with those special powers giventhem by the Constitution in the earlydays, and I think no man could have agreater honor than to serve with fidelity,and everything, in the House of Representatives. But at the same time, manymen who have served there want to comeon over here.

Why is that? I could not describe why,but I believe a part of it is that the membership in this body just cannot bepushed around, and that is what itamounts to, on subcommittees, on committees, here on the fioor. They have thatfeature under this peculiar institution.I use that word "peculiar" deliberately,if someone wants to say we are peculiar,but under this distinctive feature, this isa body where men cannot be pushedaround.

Perhaps those who have joined us lately have not yet had enough experiencehere to feel this quality that I am talkingabout, but wait until someone attemptsto push them around, wait until theyhave experiences where they see, exceptfor some protection here, rule XXII,they could have been pushed around andthen they will get a better understandingof what I am trying to transmit to them,and in a very feeble way.

We call ourselves the deliberative body.That is a little more, I think a good dealmore than a self-serving declaration,and that deliberative bodY, the fact thatit is that kind of a body, has had tremendous influence in public affairs.

As a young lawyer, in the 1930's, I remember what has become known as theattempt to pack the Supreme Court andI remember my first impulse to the argument was so smooth and so plain and all,I said that maybe it is my duty to consider that further. Under the circum-

stances, it had some attraction to it,maybe,

But anyway, as I started reading andreading and looking and relooking andgetting into the mores of our system, iIistantly it became clearer and clearer andclearer to me that that would be an awfully bad step, a nagging precedent, anda body blow that would, in effect, destroythat body, restrict and restrain it so.

I came here hter and understood frommen who were here-I could call namesbut I will not-but many of them said,and some of these WEre in favor of President Roosevelt's recommendation, thatwithout a question, without a question,it was the influence of rule XXIIlooming as a possible roadblock thatmade it known one could not rush thepian through.

But it loomed larger and larger as anobstacle and gave time for discussionthat W,1S needed.

Finaliy, at the end, it never was votedon directly, as I recall, by either House,but there was a "'hale of a debate thatwent on all over this country. I know,because I was in my State and in contactwith lawyers and groups, and everything,and that was true everywhere.

At the end, after many weeks of debate back and forth, the matter wassettled without its ever even hwing cometo a vote.

At th8t time, there was a large majority of the party of the late PresidentFranklin Roosevelt in this body, to startwith, that favored the plan.

So I have that as experience, more orless. I was not here, but I was aspiring tobe here, maybe, and I got the feel of it,and I fed that I know the history thereand wll1t would have happened.

I do not think there are many whohave been here long that could avoidsaying, admitting and agreeing, that thiswas a downgrading of the Senate, to goto the rule of majority of those presentand voting could change the rule andmake it possible to cut off debate on abare majority vote.

Now, back just one minute to the matter of filibustering and those chargedwith evil things just because they didfilibuster.

I have been mixed up with them andassociated with them when it was notjust civil rights matters, and everythingelse, but it was filibuster carried on bysome of the so-called liberals of thatday and it was with the utmost satisfaction that they got some modifications.

I know, because I was with them ontheir stand. I agreed with them in thatposition, those modifications that theyfought for and got.

I remember we had a long debate herewith reference to the satellite bill, as itwas known then, something far removedfrom the subject matter of many otherfilibusters about civil rights bills.

It is the nature of the thing thatcounts. It is the nature of the Senate, itis the prerogatives of Senators that isat stake,

I said the membership. Certainly, wecould not mention the subject withoutmentioning also the States. The Statesstill have some rights here.

We mUst not forget that there was atime when those who were writing theConstitution of the United States cameto George Washington and said, in effect,that "It seems we have met obstaclesthat cannot be overcome." ltwas thisvery point about representation, whetherby States or by the number of people.The proposal that was made to thatmatchless-and this is not just adulation; I have heard both sides of the argument about George Washington-wasthat "We get together on this vital matter. It is probable anyway that whatever we do here will not be accepted bythe States. Therefore, we propose thatwe put something together-put something together-and adjourn and gohome and submit that to the people."

There that man, that leader, this manwithout any formal education-virtuallynone at all-this man without any realmilitary training until he went forth tobattle with the British long before 1776,this man who has been called so manytimes the father of the country, toldthem at once, "No. No, we shall not dothat." He said:

I agree that it looks like now whatever wedo here will be rejected by the people. Butwe cannot recommend to them somethingwe cannot approve ourselves. How can weexpect them to take it seriously? We wlll

. do the very best we can to submit a pianthat we think is just-

and I have forgotten the other word heused-and then the event wlU be in the hands ofGod.

He sent them back to the drawingboard, so to speak.

This is the vital part that rule XXIIprotects.

Within 10 days or 2 weeks later thissame group of men came forth with thisplan that, with only slight modification,was adopted. .

That was the roadblock; that was thelogjam. They adopted the plan, of course,with representation in the House by population and representation in the Senateby States. They moved qn then to thateventful day when they' conclUded, byfar from unanimous, with some of thegreatest debates. The most momentousparts of our history were the debatesthat were at the state levtll as to whetheror not the Constitution would beapproved.

In the State of Virginia, and I havespecial reasons for loving the State ofVirginia, the motion to approve the Constitution carried by the slim margin ofonly 10 votes.

There were something like 300 delegates, or close to that figure, but itcarried by only 10 votes.

I am not trying to teach history, but Ithink these things have a meaning.

Men like Patrick Henry opposed it. Youwill remember he said it was a leaguewith hell and a covenant with death.

I am talking about the Constitution ofthe United States.

George Mason, the man who wrote thefirst real Bill of Rights this Nation evercomposed, a next door neighbor, so tospeak; of George Washington, opposed it.He would not sign the Constitution. He

March 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5615came back home and actively opposed itwith that great mind that he had. Therewere many others. .

I say, it carried by a slender margin.Ten votes is my recollection, but it mighthave been 15 votes.

Now it is almost 200 years later. As Isay, with nothing but respect for theposition of the occupant of the Chair,the Vice President has swept aside allof these precedents of this Senate. Wefind ourselves in this situation. Whowould not squirm? Who would not exhaust himself? Who would not do everything he could to change that situation?Who would not do everything he couldto make it hard that a thing like thatwould happen again?

Mr. President, it is said that even theworm will tum in self-defense.

I do not know what others may think,but I believe that those who try to rectifYwhat I think was error, or make it moredimcult that i~ might occur again, arerendering the Nation and this institutiona. service to try and preserve a large partof its lifeblood.

Mr. President, I must meet with theRules Committee on a special missionof the Armed Services Committee. Howmuch of my allotted time have I used,Mr. President?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 36 minutes of his 60minutes.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair verymuch.

Mr. President, I am ready to yield thefloor.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,some question was raised a little earlierby my distinguished friend from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) , about measures thatmayor may not be awaiting action bythe Senate. I call to the attention of allSenators the following measures on theSenate Calendar now awaiting Senateaction: S. 326, Calendar Order No. 22,reported on February 24, 1975-

Mr. STENNIS. Will the Senator yieldfor a moment? I will not take 15 seconds.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield for otherthan a question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.GARY W. HART). Without objection it isso ordered.

Mr. STENNIS. Will the Senator excuseme from the Chamber under the circumstances that I must go to the Rules Committee to present the so-called moneyresolution. I am right on the spot about itfor 11 o'clock. I will come back.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I may say tothe distinguished Senator that there willbe a motion to table within 5 minutes.

Mr. STENNIS. I will go to my otherpost of duty anyway.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,continuing: Other measures on the calendar awaiting action are CalendarOrder No. 25, Senate Resolution 23, aresolution disapproving the proposed deferral of bUdget authority to carry outthe comprehensive planning grants program under section 701 of the HousingAct of 1954;

Calendar Order No. 26, H.R. 3260, anact to rescind certain budget authority

recommended in the message of the President of November 26, 1974;

Calendar Order No. 27, S. 622, a bill toprovide standby authority to assure thatthe essential energy needs of the UnitedStates are met;

Calendar Order No. 28, S. 7, a bill toprovide for the cooperation between theSecretary of the Interior and the Stateswith respect to the regulation of surface coal mining operations;

Calendar Order No. 29, S. 66, a bill toamend title VIII of the Public HealthService Act to revise and extend the programs of assistance unC:er that title fornurse training;

Calendar Order No. 30, S. Res. 61, aresolution disapproving the proposed deferral of budget authority to carry outthe home ownership assistance programunder section 235 of the National Housing Act.

So, Mr. President, there are severalmeasures on the Senate Calendar awaiting action by the Senate. I would hopethat the Senate would proceed withoutundue delay to dispose of the measurenow before the Senate, so that the Senate can then turn its attention to thosemeasures on the Calendar that are soneeded to deal with the serious problemsthat confront this country.

Mr. President, I am going to move totable the pending amendment shortlY.Debate was had on this amendment allday yesterday, following the special orders and routine morning business. As amatter of fact, this amendment reallyadds nothing to the present rule. Thepresent rule was written by the greatestSenate Parliamentarian of my 17 yearsin the Senate, a man who knew moreabout the rules and the prcedents of thisbodY than any man I have had the honorof serving with, the late Senator RichardB. Russell. He was the author of paragraph 2 of rule XXXII of the StandingRules of the Senate.

Paragraph 2 reads:The rules of the Senate shall continue from

one Congress to the next Congress unless theyare changed as provided in these rules.

Mr. President, there is a great deal tobe said for clarity and brevity. I do notsee how paragraph 2 of rule xx:xncould possibly be written with greaterclarity or brevity. The amendment thatis now pending before the Senate, offered by my distinguished and ablefriend, the Senator from Alabama (Mr.ALLEN), would add nothing to that rule.I move to table Mr. ALLEN'S amendment.

Mr. ALLEN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques

tion is 011 the motion to table.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

for the yeas and nays.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a

sufficient second?The motion is not debatable.Mr. ALLEN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Alabama.Mr. ALLEN. I withdraw the amend

ment.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

amendment is withdrawn.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I understand that the Senator from

Maine has an amendment he wishes tooffer. .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair recognizes the Senator fromMaine.

AMENDMENT NO. 32

Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I callup my printed amendment, which is atthe des!r. It is amendment No. 32.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.LEAHY). The amendment will be stated.


The Senator from M:line (Mr. HATHAWAY)proposes an amendment numbered 32.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that further readingof the amendment be dispensed with p~ld

that· the amendment be printed in theRECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:On page 2. line 16, beginning with "shall",

strike out aH through line 22, and insertthe following: ", upon the ascertainmentthat a quorum is present, shall at once statethe motion to the Senate.

"Thereafter, the motion to close debateshall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposedof. Every Senator shall be entitled to speaka maximum of thirty minutes upon themotion, except that a Senator may relinquishall or part of his time, or may yield all orpart of his time to another Senator. It shallbe the duty of the Presiding Olficer to keepthe time.

"When all time has been used or relinqUished, the Presiding Olficer shall lay thocloture motion before the Senate and directthat the Secretary call the roll, and uponthe ascertainment that a quorum is present,the Presiding Officer shall, without debate,submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay votethe question: ".

On page 3. line 7, strike out "one hour"and substitute "thirty minutes".

On page 3, line 24, beginning with "shaH"strike out all through line 6 on page 4, andinsert the following: ", upon the ascertainment that a quontm is present, shall at oncestate the motion to the Senate.

"Thereafter. the motion to close debateshall be the unfinished business to theexclusion of all other business until disposed of. Every Senator shall be entitled tospeak a maximum of thirty minutes uponthe motion, except that a Senatol' mayrelinquish all or part of his tlme, or mayyield all or part of his time to anotherSenator. It shall be the duty of the PresidingOfficer to keep the time.

"When all- tlme has beeu used or relinqUished, the Presiding Officer shall lay thecloture motion before the Senate and directthat the Secretary call the roll, and upon theascertainment that a quorum Is present, thePresiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to t.he Senate by a yea-and-nay votethe question:".

On page 4, line 14. strike out "one hour"and substitute "thirty minutes".

Mr. HAT.dAWAY. Mr. President, rhave some misgivingS about altering thecloture rule from two-thirds to threefifths. Although I would have been willing to go along without offering anyamendment if the proposed three-fifthsrule were going to be in effect for onlya 2-year period on an experimental basis,in view of the fact that the matter beforeus now is going to be in the rules permanently, unless changed at a subsequent


NelsonNunnPackwoodPearsonPellPercyRandolphRothScott. HughSparkmanStaffordStevensStevensonSymingtonThunnondTowerTnnneyWeickerWlll1amsYoung

date, I feel obligated to offer my amendment.

Although I agree with the proponentsof the change that the two-thirds ruleis a burdensome rule that has led to a lotof delays in considering important legislatian-indeed it has led to the demise ofsome very important legislation beforethe Senate has had an opportunity tovote on it-I am afraid that if we reducethe two-thirds to three-fifths, eventhough it is a constitutional three-fifths,we are approaching closer to a majoritycloture, against which I am firmlY opposed. And even with the constitutionalthree-fifths, the propensity to offer cloture motions at a very early stage ofdebate is going to be much greater thanthat propensity or inclination has beenunder the two-thirds vote.

I do not want to see a situation inwhich a bill is brought up on I day andcloture motion is filed on the same day,and 2 days later we are voting to close offdebate, without giving the Members ofthis body an adequate opportunity todebate. For that reason, I have offeredmy amendment to guarante, prior to thetime that cloture is being voted upon,that every Member would havl;l one-halfhour of debate, and that that Membercould yield that time or any portion ofthat time to any other Member. Thiswould guarantee a maximum of 50 hoursof debate prior to the time cloture isvoted upon. If cloture is invoked, then anadditional 50 hours would be grantedthereafter.

This would mean that the rule, as it isnow proposed, would not be altered substantially, because under the present rulethere is a provision for every Member tohave 1 hour of debate after cloture isinvoked, and the total time under myamendment amounts to the same 100hours.

This amendment, as I have mentioned,guarantees that there is going to be precloture debate and that it will be distributed among all the Members whowish to take advantage of it.

I suppose some can argue that underthe present system, in view of the factthat the cloture motion Is filed while thematter in question is the pending business and that the cloture motion cannotbe voted on until 2 days later, this alsoguarantees a certain number of hours ofdebate.Unfortunately, all that time couldbe occupied by one Senator or possiblytwo Senators. But certainly it is noguarantee to every Member of this bodythat he or she is going to have his orher say prior to the time that the cloturemotion is voted upon.

Some may say, "What difference doesit make whether we have 50 hours beforeand 50 hours after, so long as you ereguaranteed that you have 1 hour of debate after cloture is invoked and the totalamount of time is 100 hours?"

Mr. President, I think it is crucial thatwe allot the 50 hours prior to the time thecloture motion is voted upon, so that theminority can have a chance to persuadethe Members not to vote for cloture. NoMembers can be persuaded after clotureis invoked, during the 100-hour period. Ifthere is no opportunity plior to that time,one is precluded from making that argument.

Of course, there is this vei-y practicalargument: We know that in the past,·after cloture has been invoked, Membershave felt that that was the end of the ballgame, and not many Senators were onthe floor to listen to the debate. Membersfeel that the matter will be coming upfor fmal passage ir a i'elatively shortperiod of time. So that actually the 100hour provision does not guarantee to theMembers any real opportunity to persuade other Members on the merits ofthe legislation.

Without further ado, Mr. President, forthe reasons that I have outlined in myremarks, I hope that the Senate will goalong with this amendment. It is a minimal guarantee. It guarantees only onehalf hour. I should have liked to make itlonger, but I do not think, as a practicalmatter, that I would have much of achance of getting such an amendmentthrough if I did make it longer. Theremay be Members who have legitimateamendments to a bill that they want toget in prior to any clotw'e vote, and if aMember had three or four amendments,a half hour would be grossly insufficienttime to press for those amendments.Nevertheless, I am willing to give up thatopportunity. Hopefully, where a Membercould relinquish or yield his time, hecould get together with others who arein support of his amendments and collectively, they would probably haveenough time to talk on a reasonable number of alterations that they might liketo make to the pending legislation.


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senatorfrom West Virginia.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,the purpose of the cloture rule is to bringan early close to the debate on a givenmatter or measure pending before theSenate. With all proper respect, and Ihave the highest respect for my veryable friend from Maine, his amendmentwould go exactly counter to the purposeof the cloture rule and, instead of expediting the debate on any matter beforethe Senate, as a result of his amendment, if it were to be adopted, the debatewould be prolonged.

Mr. President, I move to table the~mendment.

Mr. ALLEN. I call for the yeas' andnays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second? There is not a sufficientsecond.

Mr. ALLEN. I suggest the absence ofa quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk\vill call the roll.


]1.111'. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quonilll call be rescinded.

:Mr. ALLEN. I object.The assistant legislative clerk reswned

the call of the roll.The PRESIDL'l"G OFFICER. A quorum

is not present. The clerk will call thenames of the absentees.

The assistant legislative clerk called

the roll and the following Senatorsentered the Chamber and answered totheir names:

(Quornm No. 18 Leg.)AlIen Glenn MondaleBaker Hart. Gar)' W. MorganBurdick Haskell MossByrd, Hathaway Pastore

Harry F .• Jr. Kennedy ProxmireByrd. Robert C. Leahy Scott.Clark Magnuson W1lliam L.Ford Mansfield StoneGam McClure Talmadge

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorumis 110t present.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Imove that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to request the attendance of absent Senators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of theSenator from Montana.

The motion was agreed to.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ser

geant at Arms will execute the order ofthe Senate.

Pending the execution of the order,the fonowing Senators entered theChamber and answered to their names:AboW"ezk GravelBartlett GriffinBayh HansenBeal! Hart, Philip A.Bellmon HartkeBentsen HatfieldBiden HelmsBrock HollingsBrooke HruskaB.uckley HuddlestonBumpers HumphreyCannon InouyeCase JavltsChiles JohnstonChW"ch LaxaltCranston LongCulver MathiasCW"tls McGeeDomenicl McGovernEastland McIntyrel''annin MetcaI!Fong Muskle

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorumis present.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask for the yeas and nays on themotion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second? There is a sufficientsecond. •

The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will can the roll.The second assistant legislative clerk

called the roll. •Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.EAGLETON), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Senatorfrom Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN), theSenator from New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA) , and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF) are necessarily absent.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE), theSenator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER),and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.SCHWEIKER) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that tIle Senatorfrom Ohio ~Mr. TAFT), is absent due toillness.

I further announce that, if presentand Yoting, the Senator from Ohio (Mr·TaFT), would vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 57,nays 33. as follows:

March 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5G17

NAYS-'-33

past 10 days the Senate has votedcloture.

The Senate is now operating under thecloture provisions of the rule. I supportthat rule.

While I voted against cloture earliertoday, I recognize that cloture wasbrought about under the rules of theSenate, in a proper way.

So I support that rule. and we aloe operating under it now. I am allowed,under the rules of the Senate, after cloture has been invoked, 1 hour to statemy position on the pending legislation,just as is e\'el'Y other Member of theSenat.e,

Besides opposing the change in therule which pelmits debate be brought toa close by a two-thirds vote of the Members of the Senate present and votingwhile I oppose that change because Ithink that rule has served us weI!, I havean additional concern. I refer to a ruling from the Chair that would permitcloture to be sustained by a majOlityvote.

';rIle able Senator from Mississippi, inhis remarks, said that the Vice President, when he so ruled, cast aside nN\rly200 years of precedent.

What has happened during t.his debate, which has been going on fOl' quitea while now, and I think properly so, isthat the Senate went far beyond whatI believe even a majority of the Senatorsintended. As indicative of the accuracyof that statement, I point to the fact thatearlier this week the Senate took theunusual procedure-and I believe vndera unanimous-consent agreement-of reconsidering action which it had takenthe previous week. The purpose of thatwas to try to ease what apparently isconsidered by even a majority of the Senate to be a very bad ruling by the VicePresident. Such a ruling could lead tocloture by a simple majority of the Senate, if that majority has a favorable VicePresident in the Presiding Officer's ('hair.

If the Senate should ever go to majority cloture-and we are heading inthat direction, Mr. President, and that iswhy I am forcee: to oppose the so-calledcompromise-I submit the Senate as wehave known it will no longer exist. So,as I judge this situation, the issue is farbroader and far more important thanwhether the rules be changed to prm-idefor a two-t.hirds vote to shut off debateor a three-fifths vote to shut off debate.

I think, although the able Senatorfrom Alabama does not fully agree withme, that t.he Senate has gone a long wayto erase the ruling made by the VicePresident a week or so ago under whichcloture could be invoked by majoriw cloture.

When we talk about majority cloture,we are talking about a simple majorityplus a sympathetic Presiding Officer.When we permit a simple majority, plusa sympathetic Presiding Officer, to shutoff debate and silence everyone else, Isubmit we are getting into very dangerous ground; we are changing radicallythe purpose of the U.S. Senate as envisioned by the Constitution.

The majority is not always right, not byany means. All history tells us that, andtbat is why I would hope that an amend-

McintyreMetcalfMondaleMorganMossNelsonPastorePearsollPercyRaudolphSparkmanStaffordStennisStevllnsStevensonSymingtonWilliamsYoung

ThurmondTowerTunneyWeicker

NOT VOTING---l1Kennedy Sc!lweilterMcClellan Scott, HllghMontoya TaftRibicoff

BrookeEagletonGoldwaterHartke

RothScott,

WilliamL.Stone'Talmadge

NAYS-58Abourczk GravelBayh GriffinBeall Hart, Gary W.Bentscn Hart, Pbilip A.Buckley HaskellBumpers HatfieldBurdick HollingsByrd, Robert C. HuddlestonCannon HumphreyCase InouyeChiles JacksonChUl'ch JavitsClark JohnstonCranston LeahyCulver LongCurtis MagnusonDomenici MansfieldFong MathlosFord McGeeGlenn McGovern

So the motion to reconsider was l'ejected.

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I-may we have order, Mr. President?

The PRESIDING OFFICER I Mr.INOUYE). The Senate will be in order. TheSenator f!'Om Virginia may proceed.

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I lise to support the position enunciated just a short time ago by the ableSenator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS).He put in perspective the dilemma andthe problem facing the Senate of theUnited States in regard to the proposedchange in the rules. I cannot speak withthe eloquence of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, but I do support hisarguments and associate myself with thesplendid remarks which he made earlier.

Mr. President. rule XXII came intobeing in March of 1917. Up to that timethere was no way that debate in the Senate could, be shut off.

But just prior to World War I, the thenmajority leader of the Senate of theUnited States, one who then occupied theoffice now held by the Senator from Virginia, the late Thomas S. Martin ofCharlottesville, ·Va., presented to theSenate what in essence is now rule XXII.

Senator Martin's proposal has stoodt.he test of time.

It has served the Senate well. It hasserved well the people of these UnitedStates.

Whenever 16 Senators file a cloturemotion, that motion shall be voted on thenext calendar day save one, and if twothirds of the Senators SO decide, debateshall be brought to a close.

It seems to me that is a fair proposition, that gives reasonable protection tothe l'ights of a minority, and yet it permits the Senate, when it wishes to do so,to shut off debate and bring the issueto a close.

To indicate that it does not presentgreat difficulty in achieving cloture underthe existing rules, I cite the fact that thispast December, on three separate occa8ions, the Senate voted cloture. I alsocite tlle fact that three times within the

MuskieNunaPackwoodPellProxmlre

HausenHatbawayHeJ..msHruskaLaxaltMcClure

ProxmireScott.

William I,.SparkmanStennisStevensonStoneThurmondTowerTunney,Weicker

McGeeMcGovernMcintyreMe~calf

MondaleMossNe,sonPastorePearsonFercyHnndolphRothScott, HUl';hStall'ordStevensSymingtonTalmadgeWilliamsYoung

A!:cnBakerBartlettBellmonEidenBrock

GnmGravelHansenHathawayHruskaLlJ<altMcClureMorganMuskieNunnPackwoodPell

NOT VOTING-9Dole Kennedy RibicoJIEagleton McClellan Schweil,erGoldwater Montoya Taft

So the motion to lay Mr. HATHAWAY'Samendment on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move toreconsidel;.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask for theyeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If; therea sufficient second? Thel'e is a sufficientsecond.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The clerk will call the roll.The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.EAGLETON), the Senator from Indiana(Mr. HARTKE), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Senatorfrom Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN), theSenator from New Mexico (Mr. MON".!'OYA) , and the Senator from Connecticut(Mr. RIBICOFF) are necessarily absent.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Massachusetts (Mr.BROOKE), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.GOl,DWATER), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIKER), and. the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. HUGH SCOTT)are necessarily absent.


On t,his vote, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. HUGH SCOTT) is paired withthe Senator from Ohio (Mr. TAFT).

If present and voting, the Senatorfrom Ohio would vote "yea" and theSenator from Pennsylvania would voteu nay."

The result was announced-yeas 30,!Jay;; 58, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.)

YEAS-30Byrd,

Harry F., Jr.DoleEastlandFanninGam

AllenBakerBartlettBellmonBrockBuckleyByrd,

Harry F., Jr.OhllesDomeniclEastlandFannin


YEAS-57Aboure:',k GriffinBayh Hart. GaryW.Beni! Hart, Pbilip A.Bentsen HartkeEiden Haske"Brooke HatfieldBumpers HelmsBurdick HoliingsByrd, Robert C. HuddlestonCannon HumphreyCase InouyeCburch JacksonC;ark JavitsCranston JobnstonCuivel' LeahyCurtis ~ LongFang MagnusOnPort! MansfieldCEenn Mathias

5618 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE Jltlm'ch 7, 1975ment could be added to the pendinglegislation to make clear that at nofuture time shall debate be shut off by ama~ority of the Senators present andvotmg.

I have no quarrel with how anyoneyotes on these issues. of course. I do thinkIt important for the RECORD to show,however, that the present rule XXII hasserved the Senate well, and that underthat r~e cloture has been invoked many,many times; three times within the last10 days, and three times this past December, just to use the most recent history.

At this point, Mr. HATHAWAY assumedthe chair.

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. It may be.Mr. President, that the long struggleover what to do about the Senate ruleswill serve a useful purpose. It will if itbrings about a realization on the part ofmany of us in the Senate as to just howdangerous it would be to the rights of allif majority cloture, the shuting off ofdebate by a single vote majolity is everto prevail in the future. '

Mr. President, may I ask how muchtime I have used?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 16 minutes.

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I listened to the majolity leaderwith great care an hour or so ago, andfelt he was very persuasive. I believe hisarguments were quite logical and wouldagree that he certainly attempts to protect the rights of the minority. Frequently he also attempts to protect the rightsof the individual Senators. Of course, heattempts to do this consistent with hisresponsibility as majority leader, and Ihave considerable respect for the majority leader of the Senate. In my opinionhe discussed the concerns of the day thedelay in considering what he believ~ tobe important legislation. I do not quanelwith his conclusions in this respect.

Yet there are some important andlasting principles that are involved inthe proposal to change rule XXII. I believe the debate has been an enlightening matter and indicates principles areinvolved that go beyond the importanceof the issues of the day.

There may be other majority leadersin the future who may not be as sympathetic to the rights of the minority asthe present leader is. The majority leaderof the future may be of either of ourmajor political parties and we need tolook be~ond the present leadership.

I believe that we are considering achange in the permanent rules of theSenate. A change in rule XXII whichnow permits 16 Senators to file a'motionto invoke cloture where cloture was notpermitted to be imposed prior to theadoption of rule XXII. The present rulestates, in part:

Notwithstanding the provisions of rule IIIor rule VI or any other .rule of the Senate,at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate uponany measure. motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinishedbusiness. is presented to the Senate, thePresiding Office shall at once state the mo1I!0n to the Senate, and one hour after theSenate meets on the following calendar day

but one, he shall lay the motion before theSenate and direct that the Secretary caUthe roll, and, upon the ascertainment thata quorum is present, the Presiding Omcershall, without debate, submit to the Senateby a yea-and-nay vote the question'

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?"

Now, present rule XXII requires anaffirmative vote by two-thirds of theSenators present and voting.

As I understand it. Mr. PresidentSenate Resolution 4, the proposal thatis before us, would permit the termination of debate, cloture by three-fifthsof the Senate present and voting, or 60percent rather than 66% percent.

A number of amendments to that proposal have been offered. I favored theamendment offered by the distinguishedSenator from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY),who is now occupying the Chair. It wasa more reasonable amendment becauseit indicated that each Senat~r couldspeak for 30 minutes after the cloturemotion was filed, but before a vote onwhether to impose cloture.

There is doubt as to the effectivenessof debate under the I-hour rule aftercloture has been imposed and I believethat the Senator from Maine was gettingat that in permitting half of the timeto be ut1llzed before the vote on cloture.

It appeared to be a good amendment.Unfortunately, it was tabled.

The proposal offered by the distinguished majority whip (Mr. ROBERT CBYRD) is in the nature of a SUbstitute:His suggestion is that we have 60 percent of the membership of the Senatenot those present and voting. There ac~tually would have to be 60 Senators onthe floor and voting to impose cloture.

But, Mr. President, I am concernedthat this may be an erosion of the rightsof the minority. I am fearful that, whenwe reduce the two-thirds vote by anyextent, it may be setting a precedentfor a further reduction. It could lead tocutting off debate by a simple majority.

In fact, it could lead to a furtheramendment that would cut off debate if40 pel'cent of the Senators wanted toimmediately vote, or any lesser percentage that a majority might agree to.From a more practical point of viewit could lead to cutting off debate by ~simple majority.

We have before us, Mr. President, areport by the Committee on Rules andAdministration entitled "Limitation ofDebate in the Congress of the UnitedStates." It relates to the Senate's cloturerule and was prepared by the CmIgressional Research Service of the Libraryof Congress. On page 55 there are a number of arguraents for a filibuster.

Now, that is the common word usedwhen we speak of the right of unlimiteddebate unless cloture is imposed underrule XXII of the Senate rules.

These arguments say that-Minorities .have rights Which no majority

should overrlde. Government is constitutedto protect minorities against majorities. Ob·structlon 15 justifiabie as a means of preventing. a ~ajority from trampling upon mi·nonty nghts until a broad political consensus has developed.

Now, Mr. President. I am a memberof the RepubIlcan Party. That is aminority in the Senate of the United States.

My philosophy is generally conservative.That is a majority, I believe at this timein the Senate of the United States. '

We could be talking about minoritieswithin the political party or minoritiesas to philosophy. Perhaps issues will arisethat need thorough review on variousmatters and .any Member of this bodYC?uld find hImself in a minority in agIVen situation.

There may. be times when anyone ofus would want a thorough discussion. Iwould hope that the present proposal willnot eliminate the right, the opportunityo~ Members of the Senate to thoroughlydiSCUSS any proposal that comes beforethe Senate:

A Senate majority does not necessarilyrepresent a consensus of the people or evenof . the states. Frequently popUlar opinionupon a question has not been formulatedor. if it has been. it is often not effectivelyexpressed. Prolonged debate may preventhasty majority action which would be outof harmony with genuine popular consensus.

Another argument that is made in thecommittee report:

It is the special duty of the Senate, sittingin an appellate capacity, carefUlly to inspectproposed legislation, a duty not readily performed without freedom of debate. In oursystem of government, where legislation canbe gaveled through the House of Representatives at breakneck speed with only scantydebate under special rules framed by a partisan committee, it is essential that one placebe left for thorough-going debate.

Now, we know, Mr. President, in theHouse of Representatives sometimesamendments are offered and under therules of the House the proponent of ana~endmentmay only have 5 minutes todiSCUSS his amendment, and sometimesthat is not time enough.

I feel that this body offers the opportunity as suggested in the report of the~ommittee on Rules and AdministratIOn of a more thorough review of proposals than that extended in the Houseof Representatives.

The committee report reads further:Filibusters really do not prevent needed

legislation, because nearly every importantmeasure defeated by filibu$er has been enacted later. With rare exception no reallymeritorious measure has been permanentlydefeated and some vicious proposals havebeen killed. The filibuster has killed morebad bills than good ones. •It is the unique function of the Senate to

act as a check upon the Executive, a responsibility it could not perform without fullfreedom of debate. Unrestricted debate in theSenate is the only check upon presidentialand pal·ty autocracy. It is Justified by the nature of our government system of separatedpowers.

The constitutional requirement for recording the yeas and nays is a protection of dUat?ry tactics. The provision of the Constitutlon whIch requires the yeas and nays to berecorded in the Journal at the desire of onefifth of the Members present is an intentional safeguard allOWing the minority to delay proceedings.

Majority cloture in the Senate would destroy its deliberate function and make It amere annex of the House of Representatives.

Simple majol'ity cloture would havebrought many a. decision which would haveaccorded Ul with the sober second thOUght ofthe American people.

The Senate, without majority cloture, actually passes a larger percentage of bUls introduced In that body than does the Houseof Representatives, with cloture.

ltlarch 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5619To enforce cloture by vote of a chance ma

jOrity in the Senate might bring greater lossthan gain.

FlUbusters are justifiable whenever a great,vital, fundamental, constitutional questionIs presented and a majority is trying to override the organic law of the United States.Under such circumstances, Senators "as ambassadors of the states" in Congress have aduty to protect the rights of the states.

Mr. President, a few minutes ago I indicated a feeling that our distinguishedmajority leader had been very persuasive,had been very logical, in the remarksthat he made to this body. I was almostpersuaded. Then we had the distinguished Senator from Mississippi (Mr.STENNIS) take the floor and rebut, atleast to an extent, the statement thatwas made by the Senator from Montana.

I felt that Senator STENNIS also madea very logical and a very reasonablestatement with regard to the cloturerules. Reasona.ble people can disagree ona given issue and this underscores theneed for a thorough discussion.

Mr. President, we have a book on Senat\.- procedure. that was prepared lastyear by the then Parliamentarian, Dr.Floyd M. Riddick. Dr. Riddick, a longtime Parliamentarian of the Senate, anda well-recognized authority on the subject, discusses cloture procedure on page207.

I believe this whole section with regard to cloture is worthy of considerationby the membership of the Senate. I feelthat cloture is something that does perhaps give us time to think a bit beforeit is imposed. Rule XXII has to do withthe method by which we can impose cloture. Sometimes a thoughtful discussioncan result in a more reasonable or betterdecision, in better laws than if a. votewere taken without a. thorough discussion:

The Cloture Rule is designed to bring debate on a pending proposal to a close. It provides that sixteen Senators may at any ttmesign a motion "to close the debate" and present It to the Presiding Officer. who is required to state the motion to the Senate Immediately. The motion may be presented tothe Senate over the objection of any Senatorwho has the fioor. This does not take thatSenator's right to the fioor away from him,but merely suspends It during the time necessary for call1ng the membership's attentionto the motion. Following such notificationto the Senate, debate can be continued justas if nothing had happened until I hourafter the Senate convenes on the followingcaiendar day "but one" (2 days later) that itis in session. At that time the Presiding Officer "shall lay the motion before the Senateand direct that the secretary call the roU,and, upon the ascertainment that a quorumis present" he shall "without debate, submitto the senate by a yea-and-nay vote" thequestion: "Is it the sense of the Senate thatthe debate shall be brought to a close?"

Mr. President, may we have order inthe Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Continuing:The vote on the motion, according to a

decision on July 29, 1946, will be had atthe hour reqUired by the rule, even thoughthe bUl may have been displaced in themeanttme, unless the rule is suspended bya two-thirds vote or unless by unanimousconsent the Senate determines otherwise.

A two-thirds alllrmative vote, a quorumbeing present, is required to invoke cloture,which makes the pending question "the unfinished business to the exclusion of allother business until disposed of:' If a. twothirds vote is not forthcoming, the attemptIalls and the debate remalns unrestrained.

When cloture is invoked, no Senator mayspeak more than one hour "on the pendingmeasure, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the same." The PresidingOfficer, or someone designated by him withthe consent of the Senate, keeps the timeof each Senator who speaks. The rule anddecisions of the Chair in pursuance thereofprohibit th~ offering of any amendment after the vote "unless the same has been presented and read prior to that time," exceptby unanimous consent. "No dilatory motion,or dilatory amendment, or amendment notgermane shall be in order:' Hence, anyamendment offered to a bill on which cloturehas been invoked must meet the acid testof being germane, and if it Is not, a pointof order, if sustained, prohibits its consideration. All questions of procedure-"points oforder, Including questions of relevancy, andappeals from the decisions of the PresidingOfficer"-shall be decided without debate.

The application of the rule extends to anymeasure, motion, or other matter pendingbefore the Senate.

Mr. President, I note that our distinguished majority leader is now in theChamber, and I again commend him forthe splendid statement he made rightafter the vote on cloture earlier today.

It was a very persuasive, a very logicalstatement that the majority leader made,if it was only addressed to the issues ofthe day, and did not relate to procedureto be followed in future years.

We have the permanent rules of theSenate, however, that we are now considering. I do not feel that it is in theinterest of the minority party, I do notfeel that it is in the interest of those withIt minority philosophical view, I do notfeel that it is in the interest of an individual Senator, any Members of the Senate, or in the interest of the country, tochange the rules of the Senate which nowrequire a two-thirds vote to cut off debate and provide that it can be done byIt three-fifths vote, as suggested by theSenator from Kansas, who is in theChamber at this time, and by the Senator from Minnesota, who has cosponsored this proposal with him.

I hope we will not vote to change thepresent rule in any way. I feel that cloture can be imposed under our presentrules. Debate can be cut off. It has beendone on various occasions during myshort tenure in the senate. I feel thatit should be retained exactly as it is. Itis a compromise now between the unlimited right of debate that existed in theSenate prior to the adoption of ruleXXII. But if we are going to have anychange, I would hope that we wouldadopt the amendment by the Senatorfrom West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C.BYRD), which would preserve the twothirds requirement for the changing ofthe rules of the Senate and would provide that 60 Senators would actuallyhave to be on the floor of the Senateand vote to impose cloture.

Mr. President, how much time haveI consumed?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 27 minutes.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

AMENDMENT NO. 66

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I call upamendment No. 66 and call for a division of the question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill state the amendment.

The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Alabama (I\Ir. ALLEN)

proposes amendment numbered 66.


Mr. ALLEN. The amendment has notbeen stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendment is to strike out and insert,It is not subject to division.

The clerk will continue to state theamendment.


On page 2, line 16, beginning with "shaU",strike out aU through line 22, and insert thefollowing:", upon the ascertainment that a quorum ispresent, shall at once state the motion to theSenate.

"Thereafter, the motion to close debateshall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposedof. Every Senator shall be entitled to speak.a maximum of one hour upon the motion,except that a Senator may relinquish all orpart of his ttme, or may yield all or part ofhis time to another Senator. It shall be theduty of the Presiding Officer to keep thetime.

"When all time has been used or relinquished, the PreSiding Officer shall lay thecloture motion before the Senate and directthat the Secretary call the roll, and uponthe ascertainment that a quorum is present,the Presiding Officer shaU, without debate,submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay votethe question:

On page 3, line 7, strike out "one hour"and substitute "two hours:'.

On page 3, line 24, beginning "cith "shall",strike out all through Une 5 on page 4, andinsert the following:". upon the ascertainment that a quorum Ispresent, shall at once state the motion to theSenate.

"Thereafter, the motion to close debateshall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposedof. Every Senator shaU be entitled to speaka maximum of one hour upon the motion,except that a Senator may relinquish all orpart of his ttme, or may yield all or part ofhis ttme to another Senator. It shall be theduty of the Presiding Officer to keep thettme.

"When all time has been used or rellnquished, the Presiding Officer shall lay thecloture motion before the Senate and directthat the Secretary call the roll, and upon theascertainment that a quorum is present, thePresiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay votethe question:

On page 4, line 14, strike out "one hour"and substitute "two hours".

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,this is a modified version of the amendment that was previously offered by Mr.HATHAWAY and tabled. I move to tableMr. President, I withhold the motion justa moment. Let the clock run on my time.

Mr. President, while I am waiting, Iunderstand that the word has gone outthat this matter shOUld be put over toMonday. There is no question in mymind that one Senator, using the rules,


McGovernMcintyreMetcalfMondaleMossMusltieNe~son

FearsonPellFercyProxmlreRandolphRothScott, HughStaffordStevensStoneSymingtonTunneyWeickerWilliamsYoung

NAYS-I8Byrd, Curtis

Harry F., Jr. EastlandChiles Fannin

NOT VOTING-I2Kennedy PastoreMcClellan RlblcoffMontoya SchweikerMorgan Taft

AllenBakerBartlett

Abourezk GlennBayh GravelBeall GrUfinBentsen Hart, Oary W.Biden Hart. Fhllip A.Brock HartkeBrooke HaskellBuckley HatfieldBumpers HelmsBurdick HruskaByrd, Robert C. HuddlestonCannon InouyeCase JacksonChurch JavitsClark JohnstonCranston LaxaltCulvel' LeahyDole LongDomenici MagnusonFong MansfieldFord MathiasGarn McOee

So the motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.STAFFORD). The question now recurs onagreeing to the motion of the Senatorfrom West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C.BYRD) to lay on the table the amendment (No. 66) 0': the Senator from Alabama (Mr. ALLEN) .

On this question, the yeas and nayshave been ordered, and the clerk willcall the roll.

The second assistant legialative clerkcalled the roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announcethat the Senator from Missouri (Mr.EAGLETON), the Senator from Mimlesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), the Senator fromMassachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN),the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA) , the Senator from North Carolina(Mr. MORGAN), the Senator from RhodeIsland ~Mr. PASTORE), the Senator fromConnecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF) , the Senatorfrom Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS), and theSenator from nlinois (Mr. SI'EVENSON)are necessaril~' absent.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.HUMPHREY), the Senator from Illinois(Mr. STEVENSON), and the Senator fromRhode Island (Mr. PASTORE) would eachvote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON),the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER), the Senator from Oregon (Mr.PACKWOOD) , and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIKER) are necessarilyabsent.


I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senawr from Ohio (Mr,TAFT) would vote "nay." •

The result was announced-yeas 66,nays18,asfollows:


YEAS-66

BellmonEagletonGoldwaterHumphrey

Scott,William L.

SparkmanStennisThurmond

MondaleMossMuskieNelsonNunnPackwoodPearsonPellPercyProxmireRandolphRothScott, HughStaffordStevensStevensonStoneSymingtonTalmadgeTowerTunneyWeickerWilliamsYoung

NAYS-14FongHansenHe,msHollingsMcClure

AllenBakerCurtisEastlandFannin

propositions, any Senator may have thesame divided, except a motion to strikeout and insert, which shall not bedivided.

The Senator's amendment is not divisible.

Mr. ALLEN. I appeal from the ruling ofthe Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I move totable the appeal and I call for the yeasand nays on the motion to table the appeal.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is therea sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll.The assistant legislative clerk called

the roll.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.EAGLETON), the Senator from Minnesota(Mr. HUMPHREY), the Senator fromMassachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN),the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA) , the Senator from North Carolina(Mr. MORGAN), the Senator from RhodeIsland (Mr. PASTORE), and the Senatorfrom Conne~ticut (Mr. RIBICOFF) arenecessarily absent.

I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Minnesota(Mr. HUl.'lPHREY) and the Senator fromRhode Island (Mr. PASTORE) would eachvote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON) ,the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIKER) are necessarilyabsent.


I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Ohio (Mr.TAFT) would vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 73,nays 14, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.)YEAS-73

Abourezk GlennBartlett GravelBayh GriffinBeall Hart. Gary W.Bentsen Hart, Philip A.Blden HartkeBrock HaskellBrooke HatfieldBuckley HathawayBumpers HruskaBurdick HuddlestonByrd, Inouye

HarryF., Jr. JacksonByrd, Robert C. JavitsCannon JohnstonCase LaxaltChiles LeahyChurch LongClark MagnusonCranston Mansfie:dCulver MathiasDole McGeeDomenici McGovernFord McIntyreGarn Metcalf

can delay this, possibly until Monday orlater. But there comes a. time with respectto those who play hard ball-and whohave been playing hard ball-when theresponsibility is on the leadership alsoto play hard ball.

So I just want Senators to know thatthat is the game plan of the oppositionnow-to lay this matter over until Monday. Of course, when Monday comes, Isuppose the game plan will be to put itover to Tuesday and as long thereafteras the rules can be utilized to the advantage of a Senator WllO may wish to delaythe Senate from working its will.

As I indicated yesterday, the rules arestructured to protect the minority. Therules are also so structured that anyoneSenator, by using dilatory motions, dilatory amendments, dilatory points oforder, dilatory appeals, and by puttingin dilatory quorums, can delay and delayand delay.

It is much easier, under the Senaterules, to obstruct action than it is toforce action. Of course, under rule XXII,dilatory amendments and dilatory motions are not in order, and appeals arenot debatable. But delaying tactics arestill possible.

We have witnessed over the past 2weeks, actions taken under the rulescertainly within the rights of any Senator-which have unduly delayed theSenate. I would hope that Senators whoare backing the substitute would be prepared to stay on the fioor of the Senatethroughout the day so that action can beexpedited as fast as it can be expedited,which at best is going to be very slow,at the rate we are moving. Advantage istaken of the fact that not enough Senators are on the fioor to support thedemands for the yeas and nays, and thatopens the way for quorum calls. Senators are in committee meetings and intheir offices transacting business, all ofwhich lengthens the quorum calls thatare then made and not allowed to becalled ott. I just want Senators to be onnotice that the game plan of the opposition is not to complete the action onthis measure this weekend, even thoughcloture has now been invoked on it. Ihope that Senators who support thecompromise will stay as closely to thefioor as possible. This would help to bringmatters to an earlier conclusion.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas andnays on my motion to table the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is therea sufficient second? There is a sufficientsecond.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas

and nays have been ordered, and theclerk will call the roll.

Mr. ALLEN. A point of order, Mr.President.

The Senator from Alabama, in submitting his amendment, requested a division of the question, and the motionto table will have to be confined to thefirst part of the question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair has already ruled that the amendment is not divisible. Under rule XVill,if the question in debate contains several

March 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5621

s~ott,

W!lliamL.Sparl;:manStennisStoneTalmadgeThurmond

Stever-sonSymingtonTov.'erTunneyWeickerWilliamsYoung

NAY8-21EastlandranninHansenHollingsHruskaMcClureNunnProxmire

PackwoodPearsonPeUPercyRandolphRothScott, HughStaffordStevens

NOT VOTING-llRibicoffSchweikerTaft

Eagleton McCle'lanGoldwater MontoyaHumphrey MorganKennedy Pastore

So the motion to table was agreed to.Mr. HELMS. Mr. President. I move to

reconsider.Mr. ROBERT C.BYRD. Mr. President.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator from West Virginia.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

it is obvious that this exercise in futilityis getting nowhere fast. The die is cast.The Senate has made up its mind and,repeatedly, it has shown where it standsand where it will stand, I think, whenthis battle is over. The leadership wishesto alert Senators that the Senate will bein not only through the evening, butthroughout the night, if necessary, tobring this matter to a close this weekend.

I move to lay the motion to reeonsideron the table.

Mr. HELMS. I ask for yeas and nays,Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is therea sufficient second? There is a sufficientsecond.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The second assistant legisiative clerk

called the roll.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.EAGLETON), the Senator from Minnesota.(Mr. HUMPHREY), the Senator fromMassachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) , theSenator from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.MONTOYA) , the Senator from NorthCarolina (Mr. MORGAN), the Senatorfrom Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF), andthe Senator from Illinois (Mr. STEVEN-SON) are necessarily absent. •

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Minnesota(Mr. HUMPHREY) and the Senator fromDlinois (Mr. STEV[;NSON) would each voteu:yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I anno.mce that theSenator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER)and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.SCHWEDl:ER) are necessarily absent.


I further almounce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Ohio (Mr.Taft) would vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 72,nays 16, as fo11o,,'s:

AllenBakerBartlettBrocl<Byrd,

Harry F., Jr.CurtisDole

MathiasMcGeeMcGovernMcIntyreMetcalfMondaleMossMuskieNelson

HaskellHatfieldHathawayHelmsHuddlestonInouyeJacksonJavitsJohnstonLaxaltLeahyLongMagnusonMansfield.

NOT VOTING-12Eagleton McClellan RibicotrGoldwater Montoya SchweikerHumphrey Morgan StevensonKennedy Pastore Taft

So the motion to lay on the table Mr.HELMS' motion to reconsider was agreedto:

AMENDMENT NO. 51

Mr. ALLEN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LAx

ALT). The Senator from Alabama.Mr. ALLEN. I yield myself 5 seconds

to call up amendment No. 51.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

amendment will be stated.The legislative clerk read as follows:The Senator from Alabama. (Mr. ALLEN)

proposes amendment numbered 51.

The amendment is as follows:Amend S. Res. 4 as amended by Byrd sub

stitute In folloWing manner: At the end addthe following new section:

"SEC. -. Not more than a total of threecloture motions can be filed with respect toany Senate bill or its companion House blllin anyone CO:1gress ....

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I move to lay that amendment on thetable.

Mr. ALLEN:. I ask for the yeas andnays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient number? There is a sufficientnumber.

-rhe yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll.The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.EAGLETON), the Senator fron. Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), the Senator fromMassachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN),the Senator from Mew Mexico (Mr.MONTOYA), the Senator from NorthCarolina (Mr. MORGAN), the Senatorfrom Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE), andthe Senator from Connecticut (Mr.RIBICOFF) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Minnesota(Mr. HUMPHREY) and the Senator fromRhode Island (Mr. PASTORE) would eachvote "yea."

:Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Arizona (Mr. GOLJ'WATER),and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.SCHWEIXER) are necessarily absent.



The result was announced--yeas 67,nays 21, as follows:

(Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]YEA8-{l7

Abourezk ChurchBa~-h ClarkBeall CranstonBellmon Cul verBentsen DomeniclBiden FongBrooke FordBuckley GarnBmnpers G:ennBurdick GravelByrd, Robert C. GriffinCannon Hart, Gary W.Case Hart, Philip A.Chiles Hartke

NunnScott.

WilliamL.SparkmanStennisThurmond

MetcalfMondaleMossMuskieNelsonPackwoodPearsonPellPercyProxmireRandolphRothScott, HughStaffordStevensStoneSymingtonTalmadgeTowerTunneyWeickerWilliamsYoung

TalmadgeThurmondTower

HansenHathawayHelmsHollingsJohnstonMcClure

AllenBakerByrd,

Harry F., Jr.EastlandFannin

NunnScott.

William L.Sparkman

NOT VOTING-I5Bellmon McClellan RiblcotrEagleton Montoya SchweikerGoldwater Morgan StennisHumphrey Packwood StevensonKennedy Pastore Taft

So the motion to lay Mr. ALLEN'Samendment on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move toreconsider.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on thetable and I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll.The assistant legislative clerk called

the roll. •Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.EAGLETON), the Senator from Minnesota(Mr. HUMPHR~Y), the Senator fromMassachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) , the Senator from. Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN),the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.MONTOYA), the Senator from NorthCarolina (Mr. MORGAN), the Senatorfrom Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE), theSenator from Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF). and the Senator from Illinois (Mr.STEVENSON) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Rhode Island(Mr. PASTORE), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), and the Senator from Dllnois (Mr. STEVENSON) wouldeach vote "yea:'

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER)and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.SCHWElKER) are necessarily absent.



The vote was announced-yeas 71,nays 16. as follows:

[ROllcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]YEAS-71

Abourezk FordBartlett GarnBayh GlennBeall GravelBellmon GriffinBentsen Hart. Gary W.Blden Hart, Phlllp A.Brock HartkeBrooke HaskellBuckley HatfieldBumpers HruskaBurdick HuddlestonByrd. Robert C. InouyeCannon JacksonCase JavitsChIles Laxal tChurch LeahyClark LongCranston MagnusonCulver MansfieldCurtis ~Iathias

Dole McGeeDomenlci McGovernFong McIntyre

NAY8-16

HansenHathawayHollingsMcClure

5622 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD _ .. SENATE March 7, 1975StaffordStennisStevensStoneSymingtonTa'madgeThurmondTowerTunneyWeickerWilliamsYoung

PackwoodPastorePearsonPellFercyProxmireRandolphRothScott. HughScott,

WilliamL.Sparkman

MansfieldMathJasMcClureMcGeeMcGovernMcIntyreMetcalfMondaleMossMuskieNelsonNunn

The PRESIDING OFF-ICER. A quorumis present.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President--Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President-The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator from Wyoming.Mr. HANSEN. Am I recognized?The PRESIDING OFFICER. I recog

nized the Senator from Wyoming.Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I would

be happy to yield, without losing myright to the floor, to the distinguishedSenator who seeks recognition.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presideni;, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that, Mr. Sam Marler, a member of my staff, be allowed thepr'vilege of the floor during this debate.

The PRESIDINu OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, to continue the article by Nicholas von Hoffman written Febru3.l'Y 17, 1971:

Tomorrow the Senate liberals wlll have another go at making it easier to kill off a tlllbuster. They've been trying for 20 years. butthey may get it this time because the President is on their side, and that ought to makethem wonder how good an idea knocking outthe old filibuster Is.

The White House contends that withoutthe filibuster the Senate· can do its work"more promptly and expeditiously," Congress,and especially the Senate has of late beenmuch taxed with being inetlicient and oldfashioned, a thIck-sapped institution in anage of speed and transistorized jUdgments.

The Senate's job isn't speed or neat dispatch, but wisdom, and these elements don'talways go together. In legislation part ofwisdom is delay and procrastination, knowing how not to get swept off your feet, howto temporize because it's better to be latethan sorry.

Stalling around and pulling on ltsbeardand not being hasty is an aspect of the Senate that pre-dates its coming into existence.During the Constitutional Convention of1787, James Madison argued on the floor thatthe first purpose of the Senate was "to proteet tIle people against their rulers; secondlyto protect the people against the transientimpressions into which they themselvesmight be led ... They themselves,· as wellas a numerous body of Representatives, werelIable to err also, from fickleness and passion.A necessary fence against this danger wouldbe to select a POrtion of enlightened citizens,whose limited number, and firmness mightseasonably interpose against impetuouscounseis . . . How is the danger in all casesof Interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded against? Among othermeans by the establishment of a body in thegovernment sutliciently respectable for itswisdom and virtue, to aId on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing Its weight into that scale."

The Senate hasn't often lived up to Madis<;m's hopes for it, but it has sometimes, andone of the ways it does is through the fillbuster. A lone, filibustering senator, if he's

19 Leg.]Hart, Gary W.Hart, Philip A.HartkeHaskellHatfieldHathawayHelmsHollingsHruskaHuddlestonInouyeJacksonJavltsJohnstonLaxaltLeahyLongMagnuson

Presumably he had the busing issuein mind when he made that observation.I would like to read Mr. von Hoffman'sentire column, as many here today mayhave forgotten his commentary, andsome now in the Senate may have livedin areas where newspapers do not subscribe to Mr. von Hoffman's column.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will- theSenator yield while the Senator fromAlabama suggests the absence of aquorum? There is no quor~ here, andI know the Senator would like to have aquorum of the Senators here to listen tohis statements.

Mr. HANSEN. I yield for that purpose.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I suggest

the absence of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll.The legislative clerk proceeded to call

the roll.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLEN. I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

THURMOND). Objection is heard.Mr. FORD. Point of information, Mr.

President.The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is

no debate in order.The legislative clerk resumed the call

of the roll, and the following Senatorsentered the Chamber and answered totheir names:

[Quorum No.Abourezk CaseAllen ChilesBaker ChurchBartlett ClarkBayh CranstonBeall CulverBellmon CurtisBentsen DoleBiden DomeniciBrock EastlandBrooke FanninBuckley FongBumpers FordBurdick GarnByrd, Glenn

Harry F., Jr. GravelByrd, Robert C. GritlinCannon Hansen

We teach our young in America to beever openminded and to take every opportunity to acquire new knowledge andinformation. Yet by amending rule XXII,we do the very opposite by enhancing theopportunity for an impassioned majorityto ride roughshod over the minority without even bothering to hear and considertheir views.

In his February 17, 1971, column inthe Washington Post, Nicholas von Hoffman observed that with the support ofthen President Nixon "Senate liberalswill have another go at making it easierto kill off a filibuster." Mr. von Hoffmanopined that· President Nixon favoredweakening the filibuster because he wasconcerned with getting passed by theSenate such legislation as the antiballistic missile, the draft, and the supersonic transport.

A key point by Mr. von Hoffman wasthat in regard to the filibuster.

A Northern llberal can use the device aswell as a Southern reactionary, and in thenext couple of years the Northerners aregoing to need it more than the Southerners.

SchweikerStevensonTaft

Scott,WilliamL.

SparkmanStennisStoneThurmond

McIntyreMetcalfMondaleMossMuskieNelsonNunnPackwoodPastorePearsonFe.]PercyRandolphRothScott, HughStaffordStevensSymmgtonTalmadgeTowerTunney\VelckerWilliamsYoung

McClellanMontoyaMorganRlbicoff

NAY8-16EastlandFanninHansenHe.msMcClureFroxmire

NOT VOTING-llEagletonGoldwaterHumphreyKennedy

AllenBakerBartlettByrd,

Harry F., Jr.Curtis

So the motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.THURMOND). The question is on theresolution.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yieldto the distinguished Senator fromWyoming.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, theseare disturbing times for many Americans. They have worries-and withcause-about the Nation's economy, theNation's energy supply, the world balanc.e of power and the prospect of theUnited States becoming a No. 2 nation.They know that a No.2 nation militarilyis no better off than a No. 3 nation, orperhaps even a No. 10 nation.

Those are some of the bigger worriesof many Americans. But they have otherconcerns, and many of them. One is whatthey see as the steady erosion of theirtraditional values.

One of the most prized of America'straditional values is the right of a minority in this country to be heard-to beheard and to have their views considered.

Yet we see in this body, which hasearned the reputation as the world'sgreatest deliberative body, those whoprofess to be concerned about minority rights stand and vote to shut offthe minority-to muzzle any oppositionthat a minOlity might seek to present fortheir consideration.

Rule XXII is ·"he authority for minority's right to be heard in the Senate ofthe United States. To amend it-to tearaway its requirement that a two-thirdsvote be required to end a minority's rightto present its views-is to restrict theopportunity to hear the views that reflectthe thinking of millions of Americans,or that given time and forum even couldbecome the views of 200 millionAmericans, and perhaps even a majorityof the Senate of the United States.

[Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.1YEA8-72

Abourezk GlennBayh GravelBeall GriffinBeilmon Kart, Gary W.Bentsen Hart, Philip A.Biden :.c;artkeBrock HaskellBrooke Hatfie.dBuckley HathawayBumpers HollingsBurdick ':ruskaByrd, Robert C. HuddlestonCannon InouyeCase JacksonChiles JavitsChurch "ohnsionClark La··:a:tCranston LeahyCulver ron:;Dole MagnusonDomenicl Mansfie:dFang MathiasFord M~Gee

Garn McGovern

MaTch 7; 1975 ,CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5623got the gu~,may bellbleto m~ke the wholecountry think twice. before it s carried offby enthusia.sm or hysteria.,

Because of the South's use of, the deviceto fight down civil rights legislation thefilibuster may now have too bad a name t,osave it. People forget that the filibusu:r didn t

. prevent the passage of the great CiVIl rightsacts legislation of the '60s. It delayed them.In this way it acted like the temporary vetoin the English House of Lords; in effect thefiilbuster· asked the country, "Hey, did youreally mean it With this civil rights legislation?"

That angered a lot of people who wantedthe civil rights laws on the books immediately, people who had no patience Withthe Southern contention that much of thislegislation was unconstitutional. Since thenthe courts have said they are constitutional,but even so they were a sharp departure frompast practice... Such things as takingaway the freedom to refuse to rent, sell orservice people because of their race orreligion.

These aren't the kind of laws that shouldbe passed With a 51 per ceut majority. Theyare too important to slip into passage byseven or eight votes. The Senate's famousrule XXII requires a two~thirds vote to breaka filibuster, and that's the kind of numbersneeded to ensure such important laws have achance of being enforced. The Reconstruction Congress passed all kinds of ciVil rightslegislation that was not only ignored butliterally forgotten; There just wasn't enoughr,team behind them to do more than passthem so that they became a kind of legislative tokenism.

But the filibuster and civil rights is history.Nixon certainlY doenn't want to weaken thefilibuster In order to pass a new civil rightsact. He's concerned about such matters asthe anti-ballistic missile, the draft and theSST. A Northern liberal can use the device aswell as a Southern reactionary, and in thenext couple of years the Northerners aregoing to need it more than the Southerners.

The big winner In the cutting down of thefilibuster will be the White House, whichwlll need to twist fewer senatorial arms toget what it wants passed. That's why Nixon'sfor it, and it's Why everyone who wants tosee congressional. power diminished shouldbe for it.

Killing the filibuster is presented as a ! ,

form measure. Words lilte modernize andexpedite are used when talking about it. Asif the Senate is old-fashioned because thesenators talk too much. The problem is thathalf the time the senators don't know whatthey're talking about, and eliminating thefilibuster isn't going to cure that. Whatmight help, what mig" '; be r. true modernization would be if the congressional researchand information gathering facilities weresignificantly enlarged. The legislative branch18 dangerously deper_dent on the executivefor too much of whe.t it knows.

Minor mechanical adjustment in the rulesisn't going to make a. better Congress. Thisis so of the filibuster, and of the furor overthe seniority system. Those old cootS runthings, not because of the rUles, bilt becausethe good guys don't have enough votes. Whenthey do have the votes seniority doesn'tmatter.

You can see that in the case of Congressman John L. McMillan, the superannuatedlyimpossible gent from South Carolina whochairs the House District of Columbia Committee. The liberals had a chance to votehim out but they didn't have the numbers;then later, they were able to Clip his po 'erIn the committee because they constitute amajority.

Thelast 50 years o'lght to have schooled usto watch out for reforms that promIse usbusiness-like procedures by strengtheningcentralized power. The problem isn't to get

Congress to shut up but to get them to shoutback.

I think Mr. von Hoffman's column isvery interesting because he is not knownas the most conservative of the writers,and I oftentimes do not agree with him.But I must say in this instance it seemsto me that he perceived very clearly whatmay yet come into the awareness of someMembers of this body.

Mr. President, in that year about whichMr. von Hoffman wrote, the Senat~ defeated the repeated attempts at modIfication of the filibuster rule.

Congressional Quarterly on March 5,1971 described the Senate's defeat ofthe third attempt to modify the filibusterrule. The publication noted that theformer chairman of the Committee onForeign Relations, Senator Fulbright,during the debate on the matter pointedout that the Gulf of Tonkin resolutionmight not have been adopted if it hadbeen thoroughly debated under the authority granted by the filibuster rule. Iwas not in the Senate when the Gulfof Tonkin resolution was adopted, but Ibelieve that observation by SenatorFulbright is worthy of our considerationtoday when we consider the Americanilves lost in Southeast 'Asia, the maimedfrom that war, and the loss of nationaltreasure-not to mention the trouble inthe streets and the bitter memoriesfrom the sixties that many Americanshave.

Mr. Fulbright stated in 1971 that hadthe issue been debated under the filibuster rule-in his words:

I could have delayed that vote. The vehiclewas there, the power was there. I failed tohave the wisdom to use it, as did every otherMember of this body.

I believe in those words, Mr. Fulbrightreflected his personal agony over a mistake that many in America shared inand many share his mental anguish overthat war and whatever role they mayhave had in it or failed to have in it.

The Congressional Quarterly describedthe filibuster rule modification failurethat year, this way:

Opponents of a modification of the existing Senate filibuster rule March 2 defeateda third attempt in as many weeks to limit debate on a motion to consider an amendment(S Res 9) to Rule 22.

The vote was 4.8-36-elght votes short ofthe two-thirds majority required to end afilibuster (invoke cloture). With 84 Senatorsvoting, 56 votes would have been needed byproponents of a rules change.

No Senator changed his position on thethird vote. on the three cloture votes (Feb.18, Feb. 23 and March 2) already taken thissession, the position .of all 100 Senators hasbeen recorded. By including those senatorspaired for and against cloture as well as thosepresent and voting, the results of all threevotes would be the same: 58-42 for endingthe filibuster-nine votes short of the twothirds majority. Thus Senate reformers havefailed to pick up a Single vote since the firstcloture attempt.

S Res 9, cosponsored by Senators James B.Pearson (R Kan.) and Frank Church (DIdaho), would allow a three-fifths voterather than a two-thirds vote of Senatorspresent and voting to limit debate.

Senate reformers had predicted that theyWOllld add significant strength to their effort on the third vote, but the result indicated that proponents of a chang'e in the

filibuster rule had not been successful inmoving toward the necessary two-thirds majority.

After the vote. Church requested that Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D j\l[on~.) allow a fourth vote. "I confess there IS notmuch life left in tllis proposition, but thereis £Gme. Give us another week."

Mansfield scheduled another vote forMarch 9, but emphasized that it would bethe final test 011 the matter.

Sen. John O. Pastore (D R.I.) questionedthe need for another vote, saying it washighly unlikely that the necessary supportcould be obtained. "We find ourselves in thevery difficult position tl,at we need a two_thirds vote in order to create a three-fifthsshutoff. I do not think that is ever going tohanpen,"

In another development, Sen. Jacob K.Javits (R. N.Y.) said if the fourth vote wasunsuccessful, he would ralse the constitutional argument that the Senate, at the beginning of a new Congress, could break offa filibuster and adopt new rules by a simplemajority. Both Mansfield and Church saidthey would oppose such a contention.

ALTERNATIVE CLOTURE PROPOSALS

Various alternatives have been suggestedto the three-fifths proposal for mOdifyingRule 22. All alternative plans preViously hadbeen rejected by Church and Pearson.

Some alternative proposals that may beconsidered if a compromise is initiated include:

A resolution (S Res 14) introduced by JackMlller (R Iowa) to assure bipartisanship indebate cutoff. It would reduce the cloturerequirement to three-fifths but make thethree-fifths include a majority of each party.In the eight successful attempts to limit debate since Rule 22 was adopted in 1917, amajority of Senators from both major partiesvoted for cloture.

A resolution (S Res 50) introduced byRobert Dole (R Kan.) providing that thefirst cloture vote on a motion start with atwo-thlrds requirement, and that the requirement be reduced by one vote on eachsuccessive vote until, after eight attempts,it dropped to a three-fifths requirement.

A proposal first made in previous yearsthat would leave the debate cutoff figure attwo-thirds for the first three weeks of debateon any issue, then reduce It to three-fifths.

A proposal that would install the threefifths cutoff for filibusters against everything but further rules changes, for whichthe two-thirds requirement would be retained.

Since S Res 9 was introduced Jan. 25 with51 Senators as cosponsors, a filibuster conducted primarily by southern Senators hasbeen waged against bringing the resolutionto a vote.

Tactics used in 1971 by the Senators opposed to a change in Rule 22 have variedsomewhat from those used in previous debates on attempts to modify the two-thirdsrequirement. The new arguments have astheir basis the following points:

During tile 1960s, the fillbuster was usedprimarily against civil rights legiSlation. V.irtually all of tile major civil rights bl1lJ5eventually passed, although they were subst.~nvia!ly improved because of the delay provic,E':l by extended debate. Thus, the pressurefor ~ltering Rule 22 has abated greatly.

PORsible consen-ative trends in politicalphilosophy could make the filibuster a nec~s

sary tool of libe!"al Senators ill :,;orkI~g

against "repressive" or "reactionary legISlation.

The power of the Executive Branch hasoutgrown that of the Legislative Branch. partiCUlarly regarding war-making and foreignpolicy decisions. Congressional power will bediminished if the influence of the filibusteris weakened.

A key Senator among those favoring retention of the two~thirds requirement was John

CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD- S~NATE,Sherman Cooper (R Ky.), who In past yearshad sUpported ali ea~ihg of the antHll1busterrequirement. In a fioor speech Feb. 18, Coopersaid he had introduced legislation in 1957and 1959 to reduce the number of Senatorsrequired to szcure cloture fmm two-thirdsto three-fifths of those present and voting."I do not hold that position now," he said.

Cooper sai:! he supported a rules changein previous years because he felt the twothIrds rule was hindering enactment of civilrights legislation. He changed his position,he said, after it became clear that such legislation woUld be cleared by Congress despitethe present cloture requirement.

"These last 20 years have shown that ifthere is an issue before this body, one whichhas been reasoned out and is believed inthis body and in the country, it will prevail,and that to me is much better than the ideathat ..• speed Is needed... ,"

In a colloquy Feb. 24 between John Sparkman (D Ala.) and John Stennis (D Miss.),Sparlqna.n referred to an article in theFeb. 20, 1971,is3ue of the New Republic magazine Which opposed a change In RUle 22,Sparkman asked if the article "made a prettygood warning to the so-called liberals as tothe disaster they might be courting by trying to cut down the requirements of Rule 22,"

Stennis agreed.. saying, "Many people arebavlng second thoughts. I have noticed theproponents In this struggle that we are having are not as vociferous, not as vigorous asin years heretofore. I think some of the windhas been taken out of their sails... ,"

. Stennis warned of "increased executivepressure, increased executive dominance"over Congress. "There must be some kind ofsafeguard or slowdown in these legislativeprocesses that wUl not permit just a bareminority to run over and prevail here. Theremust be a checkrein," he said. "The easierit becomes to close off debate by·cloture, theharder it is to perform one of our prime missions-the protection of the rights of thestates," . .

J. W. Fulbright (D Ark.), a leading critic ofthe war in Indochina and an opponent ofany change In Rule 22, suggested Feb. :;15that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution mightnot have been adopted if it had been thoroughly debated under the authority grantedby the rula. .

"I could have delayed that vote. The ve11iele was there, the power was there. I failedto have the wisdom to use it, as did everyother member of tht'i body," FUlbright said.

Fulbright said the United States has been" .. , In a state of war or a near state of warsince World War II, some 25 years" and thatthe power of the Presidency "inevitably"grows as a result of wartilne conditions.

"We have to be extl'emely careful not togive up what few· powers the legislativebranch has, and to resist this enormous increase in the power of the executive, and tokeep balance within our constitutional system. To that end I think Rule 22 Is an extremely important element,"

Mr. Pi'esident, the distinguished minority leader, who was the leader· in 1971also, of course, received a March 2 letter from President Nixon relating to thefilibuster modification debate. Congressional Quarterly l'eported that also, asfollows:

NuoN ON. FU;lln;STER

III a March 2 letter to Senate l\IinorltyLeader Hugh Scott (R Pa.).President Nixonreaffirmed his position favoring .an e'lslng ofRule 22. Text of the letter follows:

"Dear Hugh: Thank you for your recentletter and enclosures regarding the Senatedebate on RUle 22 and requesting my assistance in efforts to change the cloture rUle.

"My record as Vice President in supportof tl1eSenate changing its rules by majority

vote, and my current v\ews recently expressed by my press secretary are well known..

"Nevertheless, I feel that 'specific cha,nges·in congressional rUles are matters properlyto be determined by the Senate and Houseof Representatives, arid it woUld be inappropriate for the President to suggest howthe Senate should proceed In considering itsrules or to attempt to in!luence individuals.I trust you will agree with the '\\isdom inthis approach.

"With cordial regards, sincerely,RICHARD Nn::ON.'·

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for thequorum call be taken from the Senator'sspeaking time.

Mr. ALLEN. I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ob

jection is heard.Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President::Mr. Nixon said Feb. 12 through Press Sec

retary Ronald Ziegler that he endorsed anymove by the Senate "to reform or to adjustits work procedures and schedUles in a waythat allow them to deal Wltll business morepromptly and expeditiously," (Weekly Rellort p. 416)

As Vice President, Mr. Nixon Jan. 4, 1957,rendered an adVisory opinion Which statedin part:

"It is the opinion of the chair that whilethe rules of the Senate have been continuedfrom one Congress to another, the right ofa current majority of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress to adopt its ownl'ules, stemming as it does from the Constitution itself, cannot be restricted or limitedby rules adopted by a majority of the Senatein a previous Congress," (Congress and theNation Vol. I, p. 1427)

Vice President Agnew has refused to makea similar ruling in the current debate onRule 22. (Weekly Report p. 450)

Mr. President, I would like to believethat the Senate of the United Stateshas benefited from the wisdom of someof the great men who have served inthis body.

Foi'1l1er Senator Sam Ervin is such aman, and I would l'emhid my colleaguesof his solid position against the proposalsto weaken rule 22. Senator Ervin-orgood old "Uncle Sam" as his millions ofadmirers throughout the Nation liked tocall him at a time when they were acutely aware that America's traditional values needed protection and viewed himas their pl'otector:""-gave me in 1971,some quotatiol).s that he believed helpedbring a· degree of intelligence into anyconsideration of rule 22. These are thequotations l11Y friend, Sam Ervin, gaveme, and I want again to share them withmy colleagues, and bring them to theattention of new Senators, who were sounfortunate as to not have the opportu-uity to serve with Sam Ervin: . .

These are Sam Ervin's ObSCl'Vutions:The filibuster under the prescnI. rUles of

the Senate conforms with the essential spiritof the American Constitution, a~ld it is oneof the very strongest practical guarantees wehave for preserving the rights whicl1 :ire inthe Constitution. (Walter Lippmann "TheEssential Lippmann,")

Of those who clamor against the Senate,and its ~llethods of procedure, it may trulybe said: "They know not what theydo.~' Inthis chamber alone are preserved, withoutrestraint, two essentials of wise ieglslatlonand of good government--the right ofamendment and of debate. Great evils oftenres\llt !rom hasty legislation; rarely !rom the

delay which follows full discussion and deliberation. In my humble· jUdgment, the'historic. SenMe..:.cpreservlng the unrestrictedright of amendment and of debate, maintaining Intact the tlnie-honored· parlhmehtary methods and amenities Which unfailingly secure action· after dellberatlon~pos

sesses in our scheme of government a valuewhich cannot be measured by words. (AdlaiE. Stevenson, Vice President of the ·UnltedStates, speech upon leaving office) .

Unlimited debate Is a rarity among na·tional legislatures, and the glory of theUnited States Senate. (Prof. Raymond Wolfinger. "Readings on Congress").

As the much vaunted separation of powersnow exists, unrestricted debate in the Senate is the·only check upon presidential andparty autocracy. The devices that theframers of the Constitution so meticulouslyset up would be ineffective without thesafeguard of senatorial minority actton ...Abolish cloture and .the Senate will gradually sink to the level of the House of Representatives where there is less deliberationand debate than in any other legislative assembly, (Prof. Lindsay Rodgers, "The American Senate".)

Obviously, the Senators, who are 100 welleducated, well-informed, and rather "liberal"men ... see something exceedingly valuableto their corporate and individual status inthe privilege of unrestrained debate. Thatvalue is the right to resist In a most publicmanner policies that a President desires....(In tlie Senate) the notorious filibusterstands as an insufferable bar to presidentialambitions. (Prof. Alfred de Grazia, "Republicin Crisis.")

The Senate's opportunity for open and un~

restricted discussion and its simple comparatively unencumbered fonns of procedure, unquestionably enable it to fuUm withvery considerable success its highfunc·tionsas a chamber of revision. (Woodrow Wllson,in his doctoral thesis "CongressionalGovernment," written impartially before hewas stricken by "presidential ambitions").

And those who mock the Institution ...might recall that the public is not alwaysright all at ollce and that it Is perhaps nottoo bad to have one place In which matterscan be examined at leisure, even if a leisureuncomfortably prolonged. Those who ·.(je~

nounce the filibuster ... might recall thatthe weapon has more than one blade andthat today's pleading minority could becometomorrow's arrogant majority. (William S,White, "Citadel").

If I were to teach again a course in government' I would say if you really want to knowthe kind of manners and rules of conductthat you ought to have to assure the meaning of the First Amendment, partlcularly.. asit comes to free speech, and the rights toredress for your grievances, the freedom ofthe press, the freedom to assemble . . . theSenate of the United States represents thatin its fullest measure. And in that alone, it'sworthwhile. If nothing else, that would makeIt a very worthwhile American Institution.(HUbert Humphrey, U.S. Senator and FormerVice President NBG-TV Interview, January,1971) .

Many of the wise men who have servedin the Senate have come to believe that it isimportant that tilere should be one place inthe legislative Journey when, the opportunityfor discussion is unfettered. They have foundthat this has not in the end prevented anydecisions persistently wanted by the people,but on the other band stood In the wayof much action that the country has cometo conclude would have been unwise, (Hon.l'1obert· Luce, "congress: .An Explanation").

The ability of any Senator to speak for aslong as he chooses is one of the lnost sacredof the iJ1stitutions of the Senate and distinguishes it quite sharply from the House pfRep;e3entati\'es, or, indeed, any other legl~-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5(;25latlve bOdy In the world. (Prof. Lewis Froman, Jr., "The Congressional Process").

If ever the free institutions of America.are destroyed, that event may be attributedto the omnipotence of tile majority•. , . Ofall the paUtical institutions, the legislatureis the one that Is most easily swayed by thewill of the majority.•. ', I am not so muchalarmed at the excessive liberty which reignsin that country as at the Inadequate securities Wllicll one finds there against tyranny.(Alexis De Tocqueville, "Democracy In<1merica") .

His book was written more than 100ye9rs ago.

Mr. President, I haveolle additionalquotation:

TIle most significant difference . . . between the House of Representatives and tileSenate is to be found In the proVisions otlimited debate in the House and unUmlteddebate in tile Senate. (fl·of. Ernst Fraenkel,Free University of l3erUn "American Systemof Government.")

Mr. President, like many Senators whodo not enjoy the privilege of ma,intaininglarge office staffs, I have found is necesSfU'y from time to time to call upon theLibrary of Congress to do some of myresearch, and to provide the facts onsome subjects. The staff of the Libraryof Congress does a magnificent job. TheLibrary of Congress staff has done a lotto help give many Senators the reputation for being knowledgeable ill manyfields.

One area that the Library has researched. at length and in depth formany senators is' the area of Senaterules and the Library of' Congress hasnot ignored rule XXII m this respect.The Library of Congress has providedpowerful and persuasive argumentsagainst any weakening of rule XXII. ButI do not intend today to advise my colleagues of all the arguments that theLibrary of Congress has provided againsttampering with this long-time traditionof the Senate of the United States. TheLibrary bolled down many of the arguments against modification of the ruleinto 11 points, which I gladly pass on tomy distinguished colleagUes:

ARGUMENTS poa FJr,IDUSTERING

1. Minorities have rights which no majority should override. Government Is constituted to protect minorities against majorities. Obstruction is justifiable as a means ofpreventing a majority from trampling uponminority l"ights until a broad political consensus has developed.

2. A Senate majority does not necessarilyrepresent a consensus of the people or evenof the states. Frequently popular opinionllpon a question has not been formulated or,If it has been, it is often not effectively expressed. Prolon~d debate may prevent hastymajority action Which would be out of harmony with gcnuine popular consensus.

3. It is the special duty of the Senate, sitting In an appellate capacity carefully to In"pect proposed legislation, a duty not readilyperformed without freedom of debate. In oursystem of government, where legislation canbe gaveled through the House of Representatives at breakneck speed with only scantydebate under special rules framed by a partisan committee, it is essential that one placebe left for thorough-going debate.

4. Filibusters really do not prevent neededlegislation, because nearly every importantmeasure defeated by fiUbuster has been enacted later. With rare exception no reallymeritorious measure has been permanentlydefeated and some vicious proposals have

been killed. The filibuster has killed morebad bills than good ones.

5. It is the unique function of the Senateto act as a check upon tile Executive, a responsibility it could not perform without fullfI'eedom of debate. Unrestricted debate inthe Senate Is the only check upon presidentialand party autocracy. It is justified bythe nature of our governmental system ofseparated powers.

6. The constitutional reqUirement forrecording the yeas and nays is a protection ofdilatory tactics. The provision of the Constitution which requires the yeas and naysto be recorded in the Journal at the desireof one-fifth of the Members present is anintentional safeguard allC'"ing tile minorityto delay proceedings.

7. Majority cloture In the Senate woulddestroy Its deUberative functioll and make ita mere annex of tile House of Representatives.

8. Simple majority cloture would havebrought many a decision which would haveaccorded ill with the sober second thoughtof the American people. ~

9. The Senate, without majority cloture,actually passes a larger percentage of billsintroduced in that body than does t.he Houseof Representatives, with cioture.

10. To enforce cloture by vote of a chancemajority In the Senate might bring greaterloss than gain.

11. Filibusters are justifiable whenever agreat, vital, fundamental, cOllstitutionalquestion Is presented and a majority is trying to override the organic law of the UnitedStates. Under such circulllStances, Senatorsas ambassadors of the states ill Congress,have 'a duty to protect the right.s of thest.ates.

Under such circumstances Senators asambassadors of the States in Congresshave a duty to protect the rights ofStates.

Mr. President, the office buildings ofU.S. Senators are named after two g1'eatAmericans, now deceased. I refer, ofcourse to Senator Richard Russell, a distinguished Democrat from the State ofGeorgia, for whom the Russell Buildingis named; and to Senator Everett Dirksen, a distinguished Republican from theState of Illinois, for whom the DirksenBuilding is named. These are two famousnames that surely come to mind whenever an American thinks prOUdly of menwho have served this country.

Senators Russell and Dirksen both observed-keeping in mind their long yearsof experience in the Congress-that theyknew of no instance in the history of theUnited States that rule XXII had prevented passage of a piece of legislationwhen the time had come in our historyfor passage of that legislation. Theirmeaning was clear. When the peoplewant a law-an important law-it willnot be blocked by rule XXII-it will haveoverwhelming support of the Senate, notjust bare majority support.

These two dist·inguished Senatorsnoted that they could cite many examples of instances in which a law thatwas proposed received careful study andwas the subject of great deliberation,and benefited-from foot dragging, ifyou will-and was amended, thereby becoming a far better piece of legislationthan its original form.

And Senators Russell and Dirksen attributed much of improvement in theseamended proposals to the existence ofrule 22, our valuable rule that providesthere shall be unlimited debate untll at

least two-thil'ds of the Members of. theSenate decIde to end that debate,

Mr. Pl'esident, one-third of the membership of the Senate is elected every 2years. The Senate is therefore consideredto be a continuing body of Govelnmentwith two-thirds of the Members assured,God willing, of continuing in officelIDless recalled-dm'ing any given election.

The Senate has continued to operateas a continuing body on the principlethat a two-thirds vote IS required toinvoke cloture should there be a debat·eover a proposed rule change.

The cloture provision of rule 22, it ismy understanding, was adopted in 1917.The rollcall vote resulting in adoptionof that provision was 76 to 3. It is myunderstanding adoption of the provisioncame on the heels of great agitation inthe Senate over the failure of the Senatebefore U.S. entry into World War I toarm American merchant ships. PriOlO tothat time, there was no precedent forshutting off debate, for muzzling t.heviews of a colleague, of a State, or of anentire region of the United statcs.

The right to extended debate, according to an article in the CongressionalQuarterly in 19'11, was established in the18th and 19th centuries. According to thepUblication, the purpose of extended debate-a cherished tradition of the American people, and considered a fundamental right in most parts of this greatcountry-is "to afford full and fair hearings on public issues from all geographical and political viewpoints."

Mr. President, the distinguished seniorSenator from Wyoming (Mr. MCGFoE)and I represent to the best of our abilitythe geographical and political viewpointsof the State of Wyoming-the people ofWyoming.

Those of us from \Vyoming are notonly a minority in number, and '.hereare less than 350,000 Wyomingites; butwe are part of a minority of States inthis country that because of God's blessing on the lands within our borders areat the center of the solution to one of thebiggest problems of the entire Nation inthis cE'ntury. I refer to the energy shortage. Wyoming is one of the so-labeledenergy-producing States. The State hasvast treasures of oil and gas, coal, m'anium, and oil shale. Wyoming has othermineral wealth as well, but these are themain ones pertinent to the enen;,y crisis.Some Wyoming people call this mineralwealth a blessing. Others call it a cm·se.W~'oming, and a few other encrgy

producing States, have the resources tomeet this Nation's energy requirements.The vast majority of Americans live inwhat are called the energy-consumingstates-those States that have to importenergy-from the Middle East, fromCanada, from Vfyomi!1g, Louisiana, 01'

Texas, or wherever.Mr. President, many people in Wyo

ming-I among them-do not want tosee the scenic beauty of our state rippedaway to get at the fossil fuels needed byan energy-starved majority in the consuming States. We believe that we havesome minority rights, We believe thatwe have a right to be heard on this issueand other issues.

In the Senate Interior Committee, I

5626 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE March 7, 1975Senator's inquiry whether this is on mytime?

Mr. FORD. Yes.Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Of course,

that is up to the Chair, but yes, it is onmy time.

l'.n·. FORD. I only wanted to know.Th~ PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator from Virginia.Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Now, Mr.

President, I will go back and start allover again and if I am not interruptedI will finish reading the portion thatrelates to debate:

After the adoption of a cloture motion, "noSenater shall be entitled to speak in allmore than 1 hour 011 the measure. motion, orother m~.tter pending before the Senate, orthe u.'l.finislled business, the amendmentllthereto, and motions affecting thesame • • '," but no Senator is restrictedto ene speech; he may divide his time as hesee3 fit or proper, but all time is charged tothe Senator having the floor, even if heyields for an interruption.

If cloture Is adopted on a proposition, eachSenator is entitled to 1 hour of debate on allissues to which the cloture Is directed, andl,e may not yield it to another Senator onobjection.

TIle time taken for parliamentary inquiriesis charged to the Senators making suchInquiries.

The time consumed in reading an amendment or for calling a quorum is not takenout of a Senator's time allowed under thecloture rule.

TIle Chair does have authority to declarequorum calls dilatory, but Rule XXII saysnothing about quorum calls, reading ofamendments in the limitation of debate;it says that each Senator under the rule oncecloture Is invoked may speak in all not morethan 1 hour and under the practices of theSenate, a quorum call has never beencharged to any Senator.

A Senator may use his hour at any pointin the consideration of the issue to whichcloture has been invoked.It is not In order, dUring cloture proceed

ing." for a Senator having the floor to replyto a question asked him by a ~enator 011the latter's time.

A lmanlmous consent agreement limitingdebate on a bill wm not be affected by therejection of a cloture motion, SUbsequentlyoffered.

Then it has the paragraph headedDebate and Yielding:

It is not in order, however, for one Senator to yield his timeto another without losing his right to the floor. He can yield onhis own time for a question, but not for astatement.

The Senator who has been recognized canyield only .forao..uestion when the regularoreler lscalled'for,and he may not yield toanotller Senator.

A Senator who has the floor may yield onhis time for a question,but he cannot interrogate another Senator.

A Senator who has the floor, during proceedings undcl'cloture. may yield for a question, but he may not ask another Senator aquestion.

A SenatOl' having time available may notask a question of another Senator and yield

:Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the his own time for the answer to that que£tlon.Senator yield for a question? A Senator who yields for a question will

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Very briefly, bave time charged to himself, and he can-I will be happy to yield. not yield time to another senator,

Mr. FORD. On the Senator's hour?: The Chair in 1971 advised the 8enatethata Senator had aright to assert that he

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOT!'. It is 011 m~ yielded back his allotted time If he so desired.hour, if the Senator just wants to ask a'blief question. The next .pl:\ragrapb, Mr, President,

Mr. FORD. That is all I wanted. • I"eads-and this.is Debate-Time KeptMr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Was the by:

Mr. WILLIAM h SCOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator has completed hisremarks, I ask to be recognized.

Mr. HANSEN. I am happy to yield tothe Senator from Virginia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has theSenator from Wyoming yielded thefloor?

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, I yield theftoor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator from Virginia.Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. Presi

dent, we had some discussion a fewminutes ago about procedure aftercloture is adopted. I have looked at page213 of the Senate Procedure, the bookprepared by Dr. Riddick last year, andwould like to share with the membership of the Senate the portion entitled"Cloture Procedure" and the subtitle of"Debate," and it reads in this manner:

After the adoption ci~ a cloture motion,"no Senator shall be entitled to speak Inall more than one hour on the measure,motion, or other matter pending before theSenate"-

successful. Failures were recorded on threevotes on repeal of Section 14(b) of the TaftHartley Act. two on civil rights Issues andone on borne rule for the District of Columbia. (1966 Weekly Report p. 381, 2193,2259,2466)

In Its 1917 form, Rule 22 required twothirds of the Senate present and voting toInvoke cloture. Over the years. however, aseries of rUlings and precedents made Rule22 Virtually inoperative by boldlng that Itcould not be applied to debate on proceduralquestions, although it could be used on attempts to change Senate rules. In 1949,when the Truman Administration was seekingenactment of a civil rights measure, theRule was changed to reqnlre two-thirds oftho entire Senate to support cloture votes,but it allowed cloture to operate on anypending business or motions with the exception of debate on motions to change theSenate rules themselves. In W59, the cioturerulo was agnin revised to apply to debate onmotions to change the Senate rules and onceagain cloture could be Imposed by two-thirdsof those preEent and voting. At the sametime. language was added to Senate Ruie 32stating that: "The rules of the Senate Shallcontinue from one Congress to the next unless they are changed as provided In thesernles." (1965 Almanac p. 591)

The language added to Rule 32 was directed at a key question with which the Senate had wrestled for years: Was the Senate,since one-third of Its membership was electedevery two years, a continous body whichshould operate under rules carried over fromCongress to Congress or should it adopt newrules by general parliamentary proceduremajority vote-at the beginning of each Congress? (The House, all of wllose Membersare elected every two years, adopts its rulesat the beginning of each Congress.) If theBenate was a continuous body, rules changescould be talked to death unless two-thirdsof the membership supported them. It not,a filibuster could be stopped. by majority voteat the beginning of the new Congress andthe substantive proposals for changes in therules could be voted on.

was the only Member during markup ofthe surface mining bill to support myamendment to give the surface owner ofWyoming lands over federally owned coalthe unrestricted right to surface-ownerconsent as to whether an energy company could mine his land. I believe thevote against my proposal was nine-to-one-and it could have been even morehad all the proxies been exercised. Ob"viously, my view-a 'Wyoming view-wasa minority view insofar as the InteriorCommittee was concerned.

But Mr. President, I was not deniedthe right to fully express my view on thisissue so vital in my State. In fact, beforethe vote was taken, and even though theoutcome was a foregone conclusion, thedistinguished Senator from Montana(Mr. METCALF) who was chairing theproceedings, was careful to protect whathe considered my minority right to beheard, and asked repeatedly if I desiredto make further presentation of Wyoming's position on the matter. Mr. President, the people of Wyoming are gratefulto the Senator from Montana for thisconsideration. His actions reflect beliefin a principle that is deal' to the heartsof all Americans.

Mr. President, Congressional Quarterly in 1967, 1969, and 1971, reportedthe Senate controversy over rule 22.These articles are worthy of our review:

BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE FACE RULESCONTROVERSIES

When the 90th Congress convenes Jan. 10,one of its first tasks will be to adopt the rulesand procedures that wlll govern the Houseand the senate dUring the next two years.

The biennial controversy over Rule 22, thecloture procedure for ending flllbusters, willbe repeated in the Senate. In the House, thepower of the Rules Committee will again bein question. Some action appears certain onthe recommendations of the Joint Committeeon the Organization of the Congress, whichwas established in 1965 to develop the firstmajor overhaul of Congress since 1946. Alsoin the House, the select Committee onStandards and Conduct, establlshed Oct 19,1966, and authorized to serve until the 90thCOllgress convened, has asked the House tocontinue it through the 90th Congress andto grant It additional powers.

CLOTURE RULE

Senate Rule 22. at last amended in 1959,provided for ending debate (filibuster) by utwo-thirds vote of the Senators present andvoting, two days after a cloture motion hadbeen filed by 16 Senators. Thereafter, debatewas limited to one hour for each Senatoron the bill itself and on all motions andamendments affecting it. No new amendments could be offered except by unanimousconsent. Amendments that were not germaneto the pending business and amendmentsand motions clearly designed to delay actionwere out of order. TIle rule applied both toordinary business and to motions to changethe Genate rules. (1965 Almanac p. 590).

Since 1917, when the cloture procedurewas first IIdopted. there were 37 cloture votes,of which only seven were successflll. In recent years, a number of filibusters occurredover civil rights legislation. Cloture voteswere unsuccessful until the 1964 Civil RightsAct and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

In 1966, the senate failed in its attemptto invoke cloture on an Administration civilrights bill. the main reason Sen. Philip A.Hart (D Mich.), one of the liberals seekingmodification of the rule, gave for the needto revise the rule in 11l67. In aU, there wereseven cloture votes dlulng the 89th Congress.On only one, the Voting Rights b1ll, was It

MaTch 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5627It 13 the duty of the Presiding Officer to

keep the time of every Senator. who speal;:s,but by unanimous consent, a Clerk may bedirected to perform that duty.

Now, Mr. President, I merely wantedto read this to refresh the reccllectionof the various Senators as to the procedure after cloture is invoked becausewe have not spoken at great length recently after the imposition of clotureand sometime it might be easy for us toconfuse debate before the adoption ofcloture with debate after the adoption ofc1otme.

Mr. President, how much time have Iconswned in total?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 33 minutes.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of mytime.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator from South Carolina.Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I

rise in opposition to the resolution of theSenator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE) .If this motion is passed Senate rule XXIIwill be amended so as to allow threefifths of the Senators duly chosen andsworn to shut off debate. This would effectively give absolute rule to little morethan a mere majority of Senators. A Senate majority does not necessarily represent a consensus of the people or of theStates. Many times popular opinion onan issue does not develop until afterprolonged discussion of the matter inthe Senate has served to publicize theissue. In this sense, prolonged debatemay prevent hasty majority action whichwould be out of harmony with genuinepopular consensus; whereas simple majority clotme will not allow for a sobersecond thought of the American people.

Mr. President, it is the unique function of the·Senate to act as a check uponthe executf're, a responsibility it couldnot perform without full freedom of debate. Majority c1otw'e in the Senatewould destroy its deliberative functionand make it a mere annex of the Houseof Representatives.

Mr. President, prolonged debate is notresorted to lightly or at the whim of afew Senators. To do so would destroyits effectiveness. It is only when an issueof vital importance is presented, that aminority of Senators, concerned withtheir roles as "ambassadors of theStates," engage in extended debate inorder that all "iewpoints may be presented and all options considered.

Mr. President, I wish to remind mycolleagues that there are presently 61Democrats in the Senate. If this resolution passes, it is then theoretically possible for the members of the majorityparty to close off debate on a highly partisan issue, thus effectively negating therights of the minority. I wish to remindMembers of the Senate that today's majority may be tomorrow's minority.

Mr. President, when this issue was lastdebated in 1969, I, along with manyothers, delivered remarks on the Senatefloor. I feel that these remarks are aspertinent' and pmposeful now as theywere then, and I wish to quote from themat length: "

CXXI--356-Part 5

The Senate is now in the,midst of a discussion about the rules of debate. At firstglance, such a procedure might seem triviallind a waste of time. However, the members ofthe Senate know that the stakes In this issueare high, and that the very survival of freegoverllillent Is threatened If the Senate rulesfor debate are substantially cllanged.

'TIle Senate Is the last forum that allowsunlimited debate in our process of government. The House of Representath'es, becauseof the great number of Its Members, cannotallow everyone to express their views atlengtll. Most legislation moves through theHouse uncler tight restrictions on debate.

I see no reason why Senate proceduresshould become a carbon copy of the House.The practice of unlilnited debate allows athorough discussion of the Issues, even to anunpopular minority. Botll liberals and conservatives have made use of this privilege.When extended debate develops, the nationalattention is focused upon the Issue at hand.Thousands of people become aware of thearguments, and frequently write to theirSenators expressing their views. Thus oncrucial issues, a Senator is able to consulthis constituency during the course of debate,a privilege which is denied to him when legislation is rushed throllgh.

The fact is that, if the Senate really wishesto end debate, It can do so with a two-thirdsvote. The Senate has actually done so on anumber of occasions. Yet, it does not happenvery often, indicating that most Senatorsmail .taln an open mind about the need fordebate. The present debate rUles, particularlyrule XXII requiring a two-thirds majorityfor ending debate, have played 8 long andhonorable history In draWing the Senate's attention to unwise and hasty legislation, whenfundamental constitutional questions maybe at stake. The framers of our Constitutionconsistently reqUired a two-thirds majorityfor fltndamentalissues.

A two-thirds vote of the Senate to ratifyll. treaty, a two-thirds vote of both Housesto oyerrlcle a veto, a two-thirds vote of bothHouses to pass constitutional amendments,a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convicton impellchment, and a two-thirds majorityvote of either House to expel its own Member. The concept of a two-thirds majorityis embedded in the heart of our constitutional thinking.

Onr goverrunental system has developeda complex system of checks and balances,some of them written into the Constitution,and others adopted through precedent, practice, and legIslative decision. The U.S. Senate's practice of unlimited debate Is an important part of that system and must beretained.

. :Mr. President, such words as "democracy"and "liberty" are used often In discoursesconcerning American government. They aretoo often used interchangeably, and taken tomean the same thing. It Is necessary, however, that we ponder for a moment just whatthese words mean, and the difference betweenthem. It is true that these two words referto similar characteristics of the Goverumentof the United States: Democracy. simply put,being rule by the majority, and liberty beingthe rights of the individual. Both conceptsare important to aU Americans. Take awayeither, and the other would probably nolonger aptly describe our system of government.

While both democracy and liberty are essential to our form of government, there isa point at which these two Ideals cohflict,and the fight to preserve both democracyand liberty is often a fight to keep the twoin proper balance with one another. If theprinciple of majority rule is expanded without limitation, the consequences would be.Revere: should 50 percent plUS one of theelectorate decide to ignore the rights of theminority, the J\Ultlce of the minority cause'would become irrelevant. Majority rule would

prevail. Liberty, or the rights of, the individual would be abolished.

Democracy would, in fact, become nlobocracy or tyranny. SimUal'1y, if liberty is allowed to permanently thwart the wiil of themajority, we would not have liberty, butoligarchy and thus tyranny.

Mr. President, we in the Senate have anawesome responSibility. As the world's greatest deliberative body, It is appropriate for usto consider and to ponder the philosophicalfoundations of our Government. The immediate interest of those favoring particular legislation must not be allowed to further erodethe Institutions which buttress our Republic. If the desire of a temporary majority confiicts with a principle important to the maintenance of dem:>cracy and liberty, then, inmy jUdgment, the duty of the Senate is toside with the long-range good of the Nation.Mere temporary majority support for legislation Is hardly the sole criterion for passageof legislation.

l\Ir. President, this concern for our Republic, and the institutions which keep it free,is the principal motivation for thos·e of \lS

who favor retention or the rule XXII in itspresent form. This rule Is one of a number ofimportant rules and procedures which seneto protect our Republlc and its free institutions. By allOWing extensive debate of legislative pl'Oposals, and by allOWing an exceptionally determined minority of 34 SenatOl'sto speak indefinitely, the senate preventspassage of unduly harsh or punitive legislation, even though a majority may favor It. Inmy jUdgment, this is the strength of theSenate: our' goal is not to contrive legislation which pleases a mere majority; rather,it is to attempt to fashion proposals whichwill consider the desires of the many geographical, ideological, economic, and otherinterests of this vast country.

Mr. President, rule XXII in its presentform encourages this great body to considerthe entire Nation when conducting our business. To weaken the rille by allowing threefifths of the Senators to cut off debate is todiscourage this broad approach which isessential to the unity of our Nation. The mostable American and South Carollr.ian John C.Calhoun, who sen'ed \vith great distinctionIn this body, is known for expounding thetheory of the concurrent majority. Calhounwas a brilliant polltlcal scientist, and hisanalySiS of the United States as a pluralisticsociety was not only original for its day, ithas also stood the test of time. This greatSenator correctly perceived that our Nationconsisted of numerous competing grollpsbusiness, agricultural, sectional, religious,and so forth. He contended that none ofthe!<e groups alone could determine thecourse of government, but that the interestswould combine-giving and taking with eachother-until a given policy was sufficientlybroad to receive the support or a majority ofthe interests in the Nation. The coalitionwas hardly permanent, but another would beformed on behalt of another pollcy.

Mr. President, John C. Calhoun, in propounding the theory of the concurrent majority, was presenting an analysis of ourbody politic, and how it worked. He was notadvocating, but obserVing. Howe\'er, Calhoundid foresee a danger that the system couldbreak down if safeguards were not pro\i.dedto Ins'ure that major interests, representinga substantial segment of the population,were given a voice on matters vitally affectingthem. Indeed, Calhoun at one time advocatedseveral executives-with \'eto powers-ratherthan one President, so concerned was hethat our system could not sustain the complete allenatlon of a major part of our Nation.Perhaps Calhoun was prophetic-for indeedthe War Between the States was in part theresult of the inability of our government toreconcile opposing points of vIew within thesystem.

Rule XXII, as presently written, has beencriticized b,Y its critics not merely because

~5628 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 7; 1975its use has prevented passage of certainlegislation but because the threat of eztended debate under the rule works an influence on legislation that is passed. It hasbeen said that the threat of extended debateby small groups of Senators has dilutedctherwise good legiSlation. In my judgment,this is not an argument for weakening ruleXXII, but a most persuasive one for retaining the present rule. While critics use theterm "dilute," in reality they are referringto changes in proposed legislation which accommodate the bill to the numerous pointsof view represented in this body. This process. far from being harmful, actually helpsfashion legislation more acceptable to theentire Nation. The result is not diluted legislation but legislation that is designed to domore than satisfy a temporary majoritythat is, designed to meet the requirementsof as large a proportion of the Amcricanpeople as is possible. In a time of increasingbitterness and frustration among the American people, it woUld appear to be ill-advisedto weaken a device which allows a substantial minority to make its views felt on legislation. Let us all remember, particularlythose who wish to weaken rule XXII, thattoday's majority can easily become tomorrow's minority.

Mr. President, some would give the impression that a small and wlllful minority nowhave a virtual veto over all legislation because of rule XXII. I think we are all awarethat this is not the case. First of all, 34 Senators are required to prevent cloture, if allare present to vote.

I should like to remind my colleagues thatthere are only 22 Senators from the statesof the old Confederacy, and that all 22 seldom vote as a unit. Second, the success ofextended debate depends in some measureon the infrequency of its use. It is a technique that would rapidly become ineft'ective11 used often. A substantial minority ofSenators will exercise their rights under ruleXXII only if they feel very strongly aboutan issue. When this occurs, there call be nodoubt that the issue is important. It is probable that the additional attention focusedon the issue as a result of extended debateboth here in the Senate and in the newsmedia--is justified, and might well preventhasty action that, while acceptable to a.majOrity, would be strongly opposed by aminority. .

:Mr. President, in my judgment, rule XXIIin its present form is an important preservative of the rights of the minority point ofview. It helps prese1'Vc that balance betweendemocracy and liberty essential to the wellbeing of our Republic. It encourages legislation more acceptable to the entire Nation-and thus provides consideration of allmajor interests by the' concurrent majorityof which Calhoun wrote. The Senate--as theworld's greatest deliberative body-would beWise to rcsist those who would weaken itseffect.

Why do we have debate in the Senate atall? We have debate because people havedifferent views, and some have formed opinions, perhaps, on a subject, before they cometo the Senate, or before they have had theopportunity to considerthe matter; but uponthe stimulation of thought With new ideMbeing injected into debate, and upon reftection, and upon reading and hearing discusSiOllS, it is very helpful to Senators ·to getnew ideas and new thoughts. If a Senator isopenminded-and I would attribute to mycolleagues in this body that they are openminded-then debate is helpful. And if debate is helpfUl at all, Why is not extendeddebate helpfui, where the subject involvedis so extremely important and vital to thewhole Nation, 01' anyone section of the Nation?

Not ollly does nIle XXII provi(1e the minority with an opportunity to present its views,but it alsO provides a forum for the major-

ity, speaking bere in this body, to exposetheir opinions to the Nation, and to meetthe approval or disapprOVal by public opinion of what is being advocated; and if theNation approves ot what the majority is doing, then that opinion wlll become strongerand stronger, and put the majority in a veryfortified position, in which they might nototherwise have been.

Mr. President on an occasion when a substantial minority of Senators realizes thatit has a chance of preventing action on anextremely controversial matter, this chance,provided by rule XXII, encourages both sidesto look long and hard at a proposal and givemore carcful consideration to the issue thanwould ha.ve been given.ha.d the rule not ex-ist.ed. .

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent to yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, withthe understanding that I shall not losemy right to the floor.

Mr. CRANSTON. I object.Mr. FORD. Object.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ob

jection is heard.Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. Presi

dent, if the Senator will permit me tomake a parliamentary inquiry, it is myunderstanding that a Senator may yieldany time he wants to for a question without losing his right to the floor. Underthe act of cloture that has been imposed,he has 1 hour, and he may use this. Isuggest that the Parliamental'ian--

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr..President,I ask regular order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.BUCKLEY). The Senator is not correct.Under the rules, dm'ing 1 hour debate,now under cloture, one Senator may notyield for a question on another Senator'stime. He may yield on his own time.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, may I asl{ that the Parliamentarianlook at page 214 of Procedures? .

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask for regular order.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, if apoint of order has been raised by therule, I have no objection, although I amwilling to continue. I am wondering ifthere is any objection on the pal't of theacting majority leader for the Parliamentarian to rule on the matter? If so,I will continue. If there is no objection,it might be well for him to rule.

Mr, ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,the Senator from South Carolina has theright to yield for a question only.

Mr. THURMOND. That is all I wasgoing to yield for, a question, I wasmerely asking unanimous consent toyield for a question, with the. understanding that I not lose my rights to thefloor.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is allright.

Mr. THURMOND. I will be pleased toyield to the able and distinguishedSenator from Virginia for a question.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senatorfl'om South Carolina for yielding, I hadjustl'ead the rules and was familiar withwhat I was talking about.

Mr, President, I listened to the Senator's l'emarks a few minutes ago andI wonder if he was not tl1ring" t~ say

that none of us should have our mindsin concrete, or minds made UP, On agiven issue so that he would not be willing to listen to some other person's pointof view, that we might be persuaded toa different point of view if we wouldlisten to the other man's opinion on agiven issue that might be before theSenate? Was that, in essence. thethought that the Senator was sharingwith us at the time that I requestedthat he yield briefly for a question?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, inresponse to the distinguished Senut<>rfrom Virginia, the Senator from SouthCarolina will say that he was trying tobring out the point that my colleagues dohave open minds and, because they do,then something somebody says in debatemay have some influence on their thinking. New ideas are injected, new thoughtsare injected in debate. Because of that,frequently, Senators change their minds.

I am reminded very much of the storyof the fellow who was on a jury one timeand when he heard the State's caseagainst the defendant he was readyto vote l'ight then and there, withouthearing the defendant's side, that thedefendant was guilty. But then, after heheard the defendant testify and heardhis witnesses, he was ready to vote immediately that the defendant should beacquitted.

So decisions sometime depend on whichside one hears and sometime depend onthe points that are brought out. If debateis worth anything-and I think it is;otherwise, for almost 200 years, this Senate would not have been maintiiined as adeliberative body-then it certainly isworth hearing what Senators have to sayand to get their views and to benefitfrom the views of other people.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCO'IT. I appreciatethe comments of the senator, I was justnoticing in the Book on Procedures onpage 214 that it indicates that a Senatorwho has been recognized can yield onlyfor a question when the regular order iscalled for, and he may not yield time toanother Senator. A Senator who has thefloor may yield on his time for a question,but he cannot interrogate anotherSenator.

Would the Senator construe that tomean that he may yield on his o\vn timefor a question?

Mr. THURMOND. I would construethat I can yield on my own time for aquestion.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I appreciatethe Senator's response.

Mr. THURMOND. I wish to thank theSenator from Virginia. I continue:

:Mr. President. rule XXII demands of theSenate that legislation be carefully drawn. Itdemands that the views of Senators-andalso of part of the 'Amerlcan publlc-wllichmay be in an l.lllpopular minority be givenboth a fail' hearing and a due considerationin the provisions of the legislation. Rule XXIIstands as a barrier to wl1im, to radical changeWhich. though temporarily popular, could doharm not contemplated by the propollcntsof the change.

Mr. President, our Republic has survivedand prospered because we have attempted topreseJ:Ve a balance between democracy andliberty, because our forefathers contemplatedthe democratic process not· as an end in itself, bllt as it means to an end; The right.s of

March '7, 1975' ' 1 COlS'(JRESSIONAL'RECORD~SENAm '\. -. -.... .... -. , . '5629man are held to exist independently- of thE'wUUngness of a majority to tolerate th066rights. For th18 reason, we have not had government by GallUp, In which the wUl of themajority at Ii gIven time Is the sole test 01the merit of a given prOl>osal.

This is not to say that there Is somethingwrong wIth the majority oplnionprevallIng.Our system .of government, while repletewith safeguards against maJority- excesses, isess.mtlally a system whereby majorityopinion is translated into government actIon. The use of extended debate under ruleXXII allows a minority of Senators-whomight actually represent a majority of thepeople--to stand up and yell "Walt a minute:' U a sumc1ent minority of Senators iswllUng to take such a stand, then there iscertainly a serious doubt as to the advisability of the proposal.

Mr. President, it has been said that extended debate delays the senate in Its work.I submit that this is a deliberative bodynot a tramc'court anxious ·to clear the docket.Speed may be a virtue in other branches oragencies of government, but notnecessarllyin the Senate. Deliberation by Its very nature takes time. It is important for thesenate thltt. we consider many aspects oflegislative proposals and other matters. Isthe bill constitutional? This must be considered by the senate-not left' to the Supreme Court. The Senate, being a refiectivebody, is well suited to preventing passage of.legislation which violates the Constitutione1'en though the proposal might be otherwise popular.

In addition, the senate must consider thewisdom of legislation. It is entirely conceivable that a bill acceptable to a majority ofSenators-and a majority of the Nationcould work an extreme hardship on a miriortty. A Senate operating under rule XXIIIs peculiarly sensitive to such matters-abill injurious to the interests of a substantial minority naturally runs the riskof extended debate. A Senate with a weakened rule XXII WOUld, in my jUdgment, bemuch less inclined to consider a bill from thestaridpolnt of It§ elfect on all Americansnot just a majority.

Mr. President, the proposal to alter ruleXXII changes the percentage of Senators reqUired to Invoke cloture from 116% to 60perceat of those duly elected and sworn.Some of the proponents of this change ap1>ear to recognize the advisability of a ruleWhich prevents a cutoff in debate by a meremaJority. They apparently believe, however,that 60 percent represents a sufficient safeguard. I should Uke to remind my colleaguesthat. the 90th Congress began with a Senate composed of 64 Democrats and 36 Republicans. Had a proposal been before theSenate of a highly partisan nature whichseriously endangered the minority party, the36 Republicans could have debated themeasure extensively and probably guaranteed its alteration or Withdrawal, because ofthe requirements of rule XXII. However, hadthe proposed change in rule XXII been inelfect, with only 60 Senators required toInvoke Cloture, the minority party wouldhave been powerless to prevent passage ofsuch a measure.

I make rio prediction, but those of themajority must certainly consider the possibility that the next Congress will find themlooking at the rules from the point of viewof the minoritY-Whether it be a partisanminority, a philosophical minority, a sectional minority, or some other minority. Allof us find ourselves espousing a minoritypoint of \"iew at one time or another. Thereare times when a minority vlev,-polnt needsthe protection which 34 Senators can nowprOVide. As I have sa.id, extended debate isnot us..'"d capriciously in tlle Senate. Senatorson the losing side of an issue often feelstrongly a.bout the matter, yet extended de--

-

bate is resorted to spa.ringly. The rigors involved In extended' debate are Indeed safeguards against its overuse in the Senate.

Mr. PreSident, In attempting to devise a.specific number or fraction of Senators necessary to Cl066 debate, it is to some extentneecessary that the specific figure appeararbitrary. There is nothing magic about thefraction two-thirds or the fractions threefifths, but, In my judgment, it Is clear thata change t<1 the three-fifths rule wouldweaken the protection offered to the minorIty under rule XXII. Simply put, It meansthat where 34 Senators can now prevent passage of extremely harsh legislation, It wouldtake 41 under the proposed Change. I believerule XXII has worked well and that It effectively provides a degree of protection forthe minority point of view.

Mr. President, the issue at stake in thisdebate Is one· of great Importance to allpeople of this country and should be of thegreatest Importance to the minority groupsof this country. It is most unusual that theMembers of the Senate who are proposingrestrictions upon freedom of debate in theSenate and, thereby, curtaliment of the rightof minorities, are the very ones who are themost eloquent In their defense of minorityrights in other areas. It Is also an anomaloussituation in that a number of the proponentsof the proposals for greater restrictions upondebate are noted for their loquaciousness onother issues when they feel strongly eitherfor or against them.

Whlle proponents of this change often talkabout the rights of the minorities, they areseeking to deny a long-standing right of theMembers of the senate, who happen to beIn the minority on a certain Issue, to fullydebate the issue whlie representing their constituents In a manner which Is consistentwith each Senator's pledge to represent thepeople of their State and to uphold the Constitution. Our Government was not foundedon the principle of absolute rule by the majority; there are a number of provisions Inour Constitution which refuse the idea ofabsolute majority rule.

Mr. President, whlie our Founding Fathers,In setting up our Federal RepUblic, providedfor a very substantial Increase of politicalpower In the Central Government, they didnot abolish the sovereign States and they distributed the neWly created powers In a manner which would practically eliminate theposslbillty of absolute rule 'by the majority.one of the primary considerations of ourFounding Fathers In providing a wide distribtltion of power was the desire to preventradical action by a popular majority. Theprinciple of checks and balances which ispreserved In our Constitution by the creationof three co-equal branches of governmentfUlly expresses the spirit of our form of government as being opposed to the rule by anabsolute majority. The Senate and the manner in which it came into being are proof ofthe fact that our Founding Fathers wereopposed to a form of government whichwould allow a popular majority to work Itswill on a powerless minority. The compromisebetween the large and small States at thePhliadelphla Convention to give equal representation to all States in the upper House ofthe Congress of the United States Insuredthat the large States would not be able tocompletely dominate our new National Government. This illustrious body stands as abarrier to the demise of the type of government which has made our Nation great;equal representation for every State In theSenate assures that the people of the smallest State will have an equal chance to havetheir views expressed on any and every issue which is presented to the Congrezs. TheSenate was envisioned by the FoundingFathers as a b0dy Where the rights of Statesand the views of minorities would be giveneA"traordinary consideration.

During the course of the debates of the

Philadelphia Constitutional Convention Dr1787, the delegates reached agreement upona House of Representatives to be elected bythe people every 2 years and based upon apopulation ratio divided into congressionaldiStricts. After this action was taken, thesmaller of the participating 13 states wondered how their minorities could be adequately protected from the capricious whimsof a majority In the House.

After long debate, which was at times mostacrimonious, and which actually threatenedto break up the Convention, the solution wasoffered by the wise and venerable BenjaminFranklin; namely, equal representation inthe Senate for every State. And, to make surethat that representation would be of acharacter that would calmly consider andpatriotically and unselfishly act on lawsunder which all the people would have tolive, it was provided In the original instrument that Members of the Senate shouldbe elected by state legislators and not bypopUlar vote and given a term of 6 years. TheSenate was never intended to be a vehicleto be used by a majority of the large Statesor by any simple majority as a means of imposing their will on a minority of the States;but it was designed to be a long-term protector of tbe freedoms which our FoundingFathers fought and died for and sought topreserve In the new Constitution.

Mr. President, the senators who are makingthis attempt to change rule XXII are at·tempting to deny the protection that wasgiven to the small States by our FoundingFathers against domination of the U.s. Senate, the congress and our Government by thelarge States. There is more at stake in thisdebate than the simple wording of ruleXXII. A change In rule XXII could be thefirst step in a series of maneuvers by a ra.dlcalpopUlar majority which could result in theloss of many of the freedoms which we· haveenjoyed for nearly 200 years in this greatNation.

Mr. President, many of the citizens of theoriginal 13 States were concerned about theextent to which they were submitting themselves to the new Federal law. They hadrecently freed themselves from tyranny andsecured for themselves Individual libertyin a great fight for independence. Consequently, numerous safeguards to protectthe rights of the States were built into theConstitution. Before they would assent tothe ratification of this supreme law, however, they won assurance of early approvalof the first. 10 amendments to the Constitu~tlon. These amendments, commonly referredto as the "Bill of Rights," constitute thegreatest set of civil and IndivIdual rights tobe found anywhere.

Probably the most important of these 10amendments to the present discussion is thefirst. It reads as follows:

ARTICLE I

Congress shall make no law respectingan establishment of religion, or prohibitingthe free exercise thereof; or abridging thefreedOm of speech, or of the press; or theright of the people peaceably to assemble,and to petition the Government for a redressof grievances.

This amendment contains one of the mostimportant restrictions placed upon Congress,In that congress Is prohibited from enactingany iaw which abridges the freedom ofspeech. The Imryortance of free and opendebate was foremost In the minds of theauthors of thiS amendment.

The Founding Fathers also \\Tote into'the original Constitution other safeguardsagainst what the· advocates- ·of a rules'change term "majority rule:' They prOvided'in certain instances for votes requiring amajority of two-thirds. Here are some ofthese provisions as found In the Constitu.tlon.

No person shall be .cOnvicted on impeach-

·5630 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD _. SENATE March 7, 1975ment without the concurrence ot two-thirdsof the senators present (art. I, sec. 8).

Eacl1 Bouse, with tee COnCUrl'ellCe of twothirds, may expel a Memoer (art. I, sec. 5).

A bUl returned by the President with hisobjectIons may be re.:>asoed by e.::ch Houseby a vote ot two-thirds (art. I, sec. 7) .

The President shall have ro~er, by andWith the advice and consent of the Eenateto make treaties, provided two-thirds of theSenators present concur (:lrt. II, sec. 2).

When the choice of a President shall devolve u')on t"e Housc of R~ rcscnt:ltlves, aquorum shall consist of a Member or Members from tv. a-thirds of t:l~ \·arlous Statesof the Union (amendm:mt 12).

A quorum of the Senate when choosing aVice President shall c:nslst of two-thirds ofthe whole number of Senators (amendment18).

The Constitution, therefore, does not giverecognition, in all cases, to the rights of themajority to control, and our FoundingFathers envisioned the Senate as a very realbarrier to ab£olute rule by the ma!orlty andas a citadel to protect the numerated rightsof the citizens of the new RepubUc, • • •.

Mr. President, one of the most Importantsafeguards of our freedoms estabU£hed andpreserved by the U.S. Constitution Is articleV which requires that two-thirds of bothHouses must concur on any amendment tothe Constitution. Article V reads as follows:

"ARTI~LE v"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of

both Houses shaIl deem It necessary, shallpropose Amendments to this Constitution,or, on the AppUcation of the Legislatures oftwo-thirds of the several States, shall call aConvention for proposl· g Amendments,Which, In either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by tIle Legislatures ofthree-fourths of the several States, or byConventions in three-fourths thereof, as theone or the other Mode of Ratification may beproposed by the Congress: Provided that noAmendment whlch'may be made prior tothe Year One thousand eight hundred andeight shall In a-.y Manner affect the firstand fourth Clauses In the Ninth Section ofthe first Article; and that no State, withoutits Consent, shall be deprived of Its equalSUffrage in the Senate."

Not only does an amendment to the Constitution reqUire the concurrence of twothirds of bcth Houses or the concurrence ofconventions called by two-thirds of theStates but the Constitution provides thatany amendments approved must be ratified"by the legislature of three-fourths of theseveral States, or by conventions In tllreefcurths thereof:'

Extended debate, or If you prefer, filibuster,Is a weapon as old as parliamentary procedure and Is justified as man's last defen£eagainst what Aristotle first recognized as tile"Tyranny of the ma~orlty." It is Impossibleto determine when Its use first began, wilenthe first "leather lunged, Iron legged" menbegan to stand up In forums and literallytalk to death public measures they deemedobnoxious.

When JuUus Caesar was Praetor-according to Seutonlus-he staged one of the firstrecorded filibusters. Alone of the Raman Senators, he was bitterly opposed to a measureto condemn and execute the Catiline conspirators. Caesar began what started out asan argument against conviction, and quicklydeveloped into a fUll-fledged fillbusteragainst the measure. After some time, theRoman guard entered the chamber with loudthreats against Caesar's life, began thrustlngat him, with their swords, until h's friends,fearing for his Ufe, covered him with theirtogas and ushered him from the Sen3.te.

As conSUl, Caesa.r himself was victimizedby this same stratagem practiced by Cato.

'The younger Caesar was anxious to pass afarm bill. and Cato the younger started tofillbu,ter against It. Outraged by the samepractice he had indulged, Caesar ordered thesergOlallt-J.t-arms to eject Cato from thechamber. When this officer performed hisduty the entire Senate left the chamber withC:l.to as a demonstration of their disapprovalof this arbitrary conduct. Thereafter, to theend of the Ramo.' Rep:Ibl1c. there was no attempt to limit debate In the Senate. andfill!)usters flourished on many occasions.

The Romans undoubtedly carried the artand practice with them through WesternEurope and Into England, where we nell.1; lindfiUbusters used defensively agal:'st tyrannyrf a ma;orlty In forums. In 1604, the BritishCommo:ls sought to curb fillbusters by providing for "submission of the previoUS question," and while this had the result of terminating debate and bringing the Issues toa conzluslon, ways were still found to debateand delay extreme proposals for legislativeenactment.

Ed,mund Burke, Parnell, and other Members of the Commons were adept at findingparliament3.ry means of opposition. Theyused mostly the ruse of forcing rollcalls ordiVisions. Parnell, a great and fearless Irishman, led the famous battle of 1881 to obstruct all business of Commons and compelpublic attention to the Irish home rule blll.With a llttle group of 24, Parnell dominatedthe House, forced endless rollcalls, raisednearly 2,000 points of order, and made over6,000 s'leeches.

It was on this occasion that Speaker Branddeclared:

"Under the operation of the accustomedrUles and methods of procedure, the legislative powers of the House are paralyzed. Anew and exceptional course Is Imperativelydemanded."

Then the House adopted the rule of "urgency" under which the Speaker might putthe main question, in Itself a form of cloture against which the opposition fought,without success, tooth and na11.

France, too, had her troubles. In fact, "cloture"-as opposed to English cloture-lB aFrench word. It was introduced In the Frenchparliamentary procedure In 1814.

The United States borrowed "fiUbuster"from the Engllsh, and gave It Its name. Theword Its~lf Is derived from "fillbusteros,"West Indl3.'l pimtes who sailed in smallvessels called fillbotes or fiy boats.

Our Government owes much of its successto the fact that the exercise of sovereigntyby the people Is facilitated by the Senate'sfull and free debate on public issues. Tofurther curtal! this basic func"lon of theSenate would be to weaken further the entire political system on which our Nation hasbased Its hope for freedom and prosperity.I urge the Senate to reject the pending pro~

pos'll to amend rule XXII, lest our countryfall Victim to that historical nemesis offreedom, self-government and statehoodthe "tyranny of the majority:'

The Senate, in Its wisdom, has recognizedthe Importance of preventing absolute majority rule. The Senate has recognized thatthc wishes of a temporary majority may contIlct with the rights of a minority, rightswhicll should be preserved. The Senate hasrecognized Its role as a body peCUliarly wellsuited to giving due consideration to a pointof view that may not be popular, but maypossess great merit Let us continue to exercise this wisdom by rejecting once again theproposal new before us.

This attack upon the Rules of the Unitedstate:> Senate should he viewed as what Itactually I,-a frontal assault upon traditionand orderly procedure and a real and presentdanger to the Senate of the United States.This f.let is largely for~o 'ten or intentionallyoverlooked due to the propaganda barrageleveled against the present rule XXII by the

liberal press as merely a device for defeatingclvU rights legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Tradition, in and of itself, is not accurateand cannot provide the complete answer toevery problem. Nevertheless, longstandingtraditions are seldom maintained Withoutsu1Jiclent reason, Almost invariably, traditions serve as a warning beacon of oft-forgotten and sometimes obscure, but alwayssound and logical. PUrp06es.

A beacon of more than 178 years unbrokentradition stands as a warning of the seriousness of the propo631 before this body.Should the motion to nroceed to a consideration of the rules be favorably considered bythis body, this 170-odd year tradition wll! bedestroyed, and regardless of a subsequent return to the same method of procedure by thisbody after sober refiectlon, the tradition Willbe broken, and the beacon extinguished forevaI'.

Even more vital, however, are the logicalpurposes which prompted the unshatteredexistence of this tradition. Foremost aDlongthese purposes Is that of insuring &n orderlyprocedure, so vital in such an authoritativebody.

Complaints have been made that this bodyIs not only dellberatlve but. on OCCllBlons,dilatory when operating under its presentrules. Yet some of those Who voice thesecomplaints would have this body declare Itsclf, by an affirmative vote to proceed to theadoption of rUles, to 1:IIil.. a noncontlnulngbody and, therefore. vnthout any ruleswhatsoever.

The Senate Is not an ordinary parliamentary body. Analogies to the procedure ofother p:l.l'lIamentary bcdles h1ve llttle, If any,relevancy to the question bef:we us. For Instance, the House of Repr:scnt:ltives Is exclusively a legislative body. The Senate Isfar more. In addition to being a leglslatl,'ebody, It performs, by constitutional mandate, both executive and jUdicial functions.Article II, section 2, of the Crmstltution provides that tile Prealdent sll:lll share With theSen:lte his executive treatyrnaklng powerand his power of appointment of thJ officersof tho United st:ltes. Article I, section 3, oftI10 C ;ll1stitutlon requires of t:le Senate a judicial function by reposing In the Senate thes~lo ,",ower to try all .1m'e3.'1hmants.

"The uniqueness of the Senate is not confi::led, by any mea.lS, to Its variety of functlo::ls. There are Innumerable other aspectsabout this body which prevent Its orderlyoperation at any time under parUamentarylaw other than Its own rules, adopted Inaczordance wi th the provisions of these rules.For example, almost all parllamentary 'procedures presuppose that any main questloll,after due notice, can be decided by at leasta majority of the Members of the particularbody using the parllament.lry procedure.Any Senate rules which presupposed such aconclusion would be Inop~rable, for the Constitution Itself specifies the necessity fortwo-thirds majority for action on many matters. Among these Issues requiring a twothirds majority by constitutional mandateare for conviction on Impeachment; to expel a Member; to override a Presidentialveto; to concur In a treaty; to call a constitutional convention; to propose a constitutional amendment to the States andto constitute a quorum when tile Senate ischoosing a Vice President. The very fact thateach State. regardless of lt8"populatlon, hasequal representation In this bodY belles thethought of simple majority rule In itsdellberatlon.

"It is this very uniqueness which has compelled so many to conclude that the Senatehad a degree of continuity unknown toother parUamentary bodies.

"The Founding Fathers themrelves, Indrafting the Constitution, provided for thiscontinUity by establishing a 6-year term 0.[office for each Senator, so that a minImum

March'l, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5631of two-thirds of the entire body would continue from one session to the next. Had theFounding Fathers desired continuity only,.but less than a continuing body, they couldhave provided for a staggered term of 4years for a Senator with one-half of theSenate returning from one session to thenext. This would not have prOVided the neceS321ry quorums to do business at alI times,and the Senate would not have been a continuing bJdy.

"The Senate Itself has reinforced the premIse that it Is a continuing body by the unbroken precedent of continuing its rulesfrom one session to the next. In recent yearsthere are two clearcut precedents upholdingthe Senate's status as a continuing body,and even more specifically, that Its rules continue from O:1e sessl~n to the next. In 1953an:! again in 1957, this body tabled a motionthat It proceed to take up the adoption ofrules for the Senate.

"In 1954, the Senate voted to condemnthe late Senater McCarthy for his conduct Ina previous session. The committee reportaccompanying the resolution stated: 'Thefact that the Senate Is a continuing bodyshould require little discussion. This hasbeen uniformly recognized by history. precedent, and authority:

"In addition, the Senate has jealouslymaintained its authority to continue Itscommittees in their operations beween adjournment and the commencement of thenext ensuing session. The Supreme CourtIn the 1920 ca~e of McGrath against Daugherty speclflcally ruled that the Senate wasa continuing body and that, therefore, Itscommittees were authorized to act during therecess after the expiration of a Congress.

"Is the purpose sought to b~ accomplishedby the drastic action proposed so worthy asto justify the risk of stripping the Senate'scommittees of their authority to functionafter the date of adjournment? Is It so Imperative that It justifies the abandonment oforderly procedure for the jungle of 'generalparliamentary law'? The Senate has againthis year answered this question in the negative. The Senate is a continuing body.

"The proponents of the pending motionaver that the real tart!!t for this all-outeffort is one Senate ruH!;',and only one-theone which primarily governs the limitationof debate. This much maligned rule has beenmade the scapegoat by many groups. Itsgreatest distinction, however, appears to beIts seclusion from objective consideration."

In discussing the history of limitation ofdebate In the U.S. Senate, many newspapercolumnists appear to be under the Impression that a limitation of debate existed inthe United States In the period between1789 and 1806. Their assumption Is basedon the fact that, during that period, theSenate rules allowed the use of a motioncalled the previous question. Dm'ing the debate on this subject In previous years, thepoint was discussed, and it appears that thedebate would have established in the mindof a reasonable person that there was nolimitation on debate in the Senate duringthis period, Nevertheless, some newspapereditorials and columnIsts apparently stilllabor under the misapprehension that "theprevious question," which existed In theSenate between 1789 and 1888 was a motion.to end debate. For this reason, I believe Itwould be well to review this matter to someextent so that any lingering doubts thatthere was a limitation of debate In the Sen~

ate between the years 1789 and 1917 will bedispelled.

In discussing the "previous questlou"which existed in both the Senate and theHou~e until 1803, Dr, Joseph Cooper stated:

"There Is very little eVidence to supportthe contention that in the period 1789-1808the previous question was seen as a mecha~ism for cloture. as a mechanIsm for bringIng a matter to a vote despite the desire of

some members to continue taking or to obstruct decision. This is true for the Houseas well as for the Senate. On the other hand,convincing evidence exists to support thecontention that the previous question wasunderstood as a mechanism for avoidingeither undersired discussions or undesireddecisions, or both.

"The leading advocate of the view that the·proper function of the previous question related to the suppressIon of undesired discussions was Thomas Jefferson. In hisfJ.mous manual, written near the end of histerm as Vice President for the future gUidance of the Senate, he defined the properusage of the previous question as follows:

"The proper occasion for the previousquestlJn is when a subject is brought forward of a delicate nature as to high personages, etc., or the discussion of which maycall forth observations, which might be ofinjurious consequences. Then the previousquestion Is proposzd: and, in the modernusage, the discussion of the main questionis suspended, and the debate confined to theprevious question:'

"In terms of his approach, then, Jeffersonregarded as an abus~ any use of the previousquestion simply for the purpose of suppressing a subject which was undesired butnot delicate, and he advIsed that the procedure be "restricted within as narrow limitsas possible."

"Despite Jefferson's prestige as an Interpreter of parliamentary law for the periodwith which we are concerned, his view of theproper usage of the previous question cannot be said to have been the sole or even thedominant one then in eXistence. A secondstrongly supported conception understoodthe purpose of the previous question In amanner that conflicted with Jefferson's view;that Is, as a device for avoiding or suppressing undesired decisions.

"The classic statement of this vIew wasmade In a lengthy and scholarly speech delivered on the floor of the House of Representatives on January 19, 1816, by WilliamGaston. In this speech Gaston, a Federalistmember from North Carolina, argued that onthe basis of precedents established both InEngland and America the functIon of theprevious question was to provide a mechanism for allowing a parliamentary body todecide whether It wanted to face a partiCUlardecision. In the course of his speech he tookspecial pains to emphasize his differenceswith Jefferson:

"'I believe, sir, that some confusion hasbeen thrown on the subject of the previousquestion (a confusion, from which even theluminous mind of the compHer of our Manual, Mr. Jefferson, was not thoroughly free)by supposing it designed to suppress unpleasant discussions, lustead of unpleasant decisions III * 4: t

"Gaston's speech, to be sure, was made 5years after the prevIous question had beenturned Into a cloture mechanism in theHouse and It was made as a protest againstthis development. It is valuable, nonetheless,as an Indication of the state of parliamentary theory In the years from 1789 to 1806and Its standing as evidence of this nature Issupported both by the arguments made Inthe speech Itself and by less elaborate statements made on the floor of the House in theyears before 1806.

"That the previous question was understood as a mechanism for avoiding undesireddecisIons in the early Senate as well as theearly House Is Indicated by an excerpt fromthe diary of John QuIncy Adams. The excerptcomes from the period In which Adams servedin the Senate and It contains his account ofVice President Burr's farewell speech to theSenate. In this speech, delivered on March 2,1805, Burr by implication seems to understand the function of the previous questionas relating primarily to the suppression ofundesired decisions.

"He (BtllT) mentioned one or two of the

rules which appeared to him to need a revisal, and recommended the abolition of thatrespecting the previous question, which hesaid had in the four years been only oncetaken, and that upon an amendment. Thiswas proof that It could not be necessary,and all Its purposes were certainly muchbetter answered by the question of indefinitepostponement. • • •

"We should note in closIng our dIscussIonof proper usage that in Burr's case, as In anumber of others, his words do not rule outthe possibility that he understood the previous question as a mechanism for avoidingundesired discussions as well as undesireddecisions. Indeed, despite the exclusive chara~ter of the positions maintained by Jefferson and Gaston their basic views could beheld concurrently and In the years immediately preceding 1789 the1 were, as a matterof general agreement, so held In the Continental Congress. The previous question ruleadopted by that body In 1784 read as follows:

" 'The previous question (which is alwaysto be understood In this sense. that the mainquestion be not now put) shall only be admitted when In the jUdgment of two Members, at least, the SUbject moved is In Itsnature, or from the circumstances of timeand place, Improper to be debated or decided,and st.all therefore preclude all &mendmentsand further debates on the subject until it isdecided:

"Thus, a third alternative existed In parliamentary theory In the early decades of government under the Constitution with reference to the previous question-that of seeingit as a mechanism for avoiding both undesired discussions and undesired decisions.The extent to which Jefferson's, G:lston's, ora combination of their positions dominatedcongressional conceptions of the properfunction of the previous question Is notclear. The lack of rigidity In parllamentarytheory was an advantage rather than a dlsadvant:lge and the average member, In theyears before 1808 as now, was not apt to beoverly concerned with the state of theory orits conflicts unless some crucial practical issue was also Involved. However, practice inthese years reveals that In both the Houseand the Senate the previous question wa,used mainly for the purpose of avoiding orsuppressing undesired decisions, rather thanundesired discussions. Still, practice also reveals that the degree to which these purposescan be distinguished varies widely from Instance to Instance and that often any distinction between them must be a matter ofdegree and emphasis, rather than a matterof precise differentiation,

"The previous question of these early congressional days was a mechanism for avoiding undesired discussions or decisions ratherthan to achieve cloture. Three key factorsin the rule's operation from the standpointof parliamentary theory Illustrate this: Themotion of previous question was debatable,the procedure followed after the motion wasdetermined and the limitations on the useof the motion.

"When the previous question was properlymoved by the required number of Members,It was debatable. The debate could be extensive, for the only real limitation In the Senate was the provision that no Senator shouldspeak more than once on the same issue onthe same day without permission of theSenate.

"The procedure following a determinationon the previous question motion Is describedby Dr. Cooper as follows:

"Equally, if not more Important, as an illdlcatlon of the purposes for which the previous question was designed Is the mannerIn which the House and senate understocdthe motion to operate after a decIsion hadbeen rendered on it. With regard to negativedetermInations of the previous questIon. thevIew that appears to have been domin.an~in the period from 1789 to 1806 was that a

5632 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 7, 1975

ous question had been moved on a subsidiary question and allowed such usage togo by unchallenged."

The decision of the House to confine theprevious question to principal questionscreated great dltllcultles cnce It began touse the device as a clot.:re mz~h.lnism.

Neither the rules of the House or the Senateclearly gave the previous questions procedure over other subsidiary questions, such a3the motior.s to postpcne. cO:l:mlt, cr amend.Thomas Jeffer~on's Opl1:l:n was that subslcllary questl01l3 mo';ed b:to:c the pr~vio',1S

question should be de~ided prlJr to a vcteon the previous questio'1. However, suchan approach became c:: tlrcl} unacceptableon:e it was desireJ to em!ll:y the pre-,IJllSque~tlon as a cioture me~hanism.If subsidiary que::;tlo:1S m07ed tefore t:1e previousquestion t:ok prccc·:lcncc c. cr I~ a ::d 11 thepreVious questlen could oeely be fl.:Jplled tothe crlgin:ll cr prLlclpal question, then obstructlo'llsts could move subsidiary questionsbefore th~ previous question and prolong thediscussion of thece questions for greatlengths of time. It was probably no accidentthat the House amended Its rules to givethe previous question pr:cede::ce and usedthe previous questi:n for cloture.

Nonetheless, this change did not transformthe previous question Into an efficient cloture mechanism. Be~innlng with the 12thC0l1gress-1811-13-rullngs of the Speakersstrictly enforced and further developed thedo~trine that the previous question appliedonly to the original or principal question.This caused the House great inconvenience.It meant that if the previous question wasapproved, it cut olf all pe..,dlng subsidiaryquestions and brought the· House directlyto a vote on the orlgl,.,al or prl"clpal question. Thus, a vote might have to be takenon a form of the question undesired by themajority; for example, that the bill withoutthe amendments repcrted p,ss to a thirdreading instead of that the bill with theamendments reported be recommitted withinstructions. Thus also, when a subsidiaryquestion was moved early in debate theHouse might either have to endure a lengthydiscussion on the motion or employ the previous question, whlph would force a vote onthe principal question before It had beenadequately considered. Ultimately, of course,the House did reshape the preVious questionmechanlem so that it could etllciently beapplied to the subsidiary questions involvedIn an issue. However, this reshaping occurred piecemeal over a number of years inresponse to the difficulties we have describedand It was in a serd dependent on them.

We may conclUde, then, that in the periodfrom 1789 to 1806 the previous questionmechanism was designed to operate In amanner that was stated only to its utilization as an instrument'fcr avoiding undesireddiscussions and/or decisions. In the Senateand In the House until December of 1805debate on the motion was permitted. In bothbodies a negative determination of the previous question postponed or permanentlysuppressed the main question and In theHouse, at least, debate and amendment werepermitted after an affirmative decision. Inthe eyes of those who saw the previous question as a means of avoiding undesired decisions this could easily be justified by assuming that the vote on the previous question only determined whether the bodywanted to face the issue. Finally, the natureof the limits on the scope of the motiongreatly handicapped It3 efficacy as a cloturemechanism. It Is true that In the beginningthe House and possibly the Sen&.te allowedthe previous question to be applied to subsidiary questions. It Is also true that, onceboth bodies accepted the proposition thatthe device could not be so applied. this restriction could and in the Senate actuallydid handicap those who wahted to use theprevious question as a mechanism for avold-

Senate. Nonetheless, It should be noted thatthe issue never came to a test in the Senateand we cannot be certain what the resultwould have been if it had.

"Yet, even.if we concede that the Senateunderstood the result of an affirmative decision as Jefferson did, what must be emphasized once more is that this facet of therule's operation does not mean that theprevious question was designed as a cloturemechanism. Jefferson did not regard it assuch, but rather saw an Immediate voteupon an affirmative decision as an Integralpart of a mechanism designed to suppressdelicate qllcstions. To be sure. It was thisfacet of the rule's operation, combined withthe abolition of debate on the motion forthe previous question, which helped make Itpossible for the House to turn the rule Intoa cloture mechanIsm. This occurred in 1811when the Hou~e, fearful that filibusteringtactics were going to result In the loss ofa crucial bill, reversed Its previous precedents and decided that henceforth anaffirmative decision would close all debateon the main question, finally and completely. Nonetheless, despite the fact thatthe pr",vious question was available for useas a cloture mechanism from 1811 on, thethe Hou~e did not make frequent use of Itfor several decades. One of the re'lsons forthis was that the rule, not haVing beendesigned as a cloture rule, continued to retain or was interpreted to have featureswhich made It both ineffective and unwleldly when used for the purpo"e of cloture.Indeed, it took the House another 50 yearsof intermittent tinkering to eliminate mostof these debilitating features."

Mr. President, Dr. Cooper also describedhow the limitations on the scope of the motion "previous question" handicapped thepossibility of Its use as a cloture device. Hestated:

"For one thing, the previous c:uestion couldnot be moved in committee of the whole, aform of proceeding which both. the earlyHouse and early Senate valued highly as alocus for completely free debate. ThUS, whenthe House beginning In 1841 finally decidedto limit debate In committee of the whole,It was forced to develop methods other thanthe pr~vlous question or accomplishing thisresult. However, the early Senate relied toa large extent, not on the regular committeeof the Whole, but on a special form of itcalled quasi-committee of the Whole, i.e.,the Senate as If in committee of the whole;and apparently It was possible to move theprevious question when the Senate operatedunder this form of proceeding.

"ll.'Iore important as a limitation on thescope of the previous question was Its relation to secondary or subsidiary questions.At first, at least in the House, the previousquestion was treated as a mechanism thatcould be moved on subsidiary or secondaryquestions, e.g., motions to amend, motionsto postpone, etc., as well as a mechanismthat could be moved on orIginal or principalquestions, e.g., that the bill be engrossedand read a third time, that the bill or resolution pass, etc. ThUS, though this fact isoften misunderstood, In the early House themain question contemplated by the motionfor the previous question was sometimes asubsidiary question rather than the principal or original question. Whether the Senate permitted the previous question to beapplied to secondary or subsidiary questionsbefore 1800 Is not clear. However, In thatyear Thomas Jefferson, as presiding office~ oftile Senate, ruled that the previous questioncould not be moved on a subsidiary questionand his manual when it appeared reaffirmedthis position. The HOllse followed suit in1807, though as late as 1802 a ruling of theSpeaker, concerned with the effect of a negative determination of the preVious question.too]( cognizance of the fact that the prevl-

negative decision postponed at le1.st for aday, but did not permanently suppress, theproposition on which the previous questionhad been moved. In the House this viewseems to have prevailed during the wholeperiod from 1789 to 1806, though it Is possible to place a contrary Interpretation onthe eVidence, whl~h exists fer the first fewyears of the House's existence. As for the Senate, less evidence is avallable, but it Is probable that its view was simllnr to that ci theHouse. This conclusion can be based enJefferson's stateme:lt that temporary ratherthan permanent suppressicn was the consequence of a negatl'le result and the factthat on O:le occasl::m the Senate seems tohave acted in accord with the tempcrarysusnenslon View. However, It should also benoted that In a number of instances Inwhich the previous question was used inboth the House and Senate, the circumstances were such that permanent suppressl:m was or would have be3n the unavoidableconsequence of a negative result.

"The fact that a negative determinationof the previous question suppressed the mainquestion supports our contention that theprevious question was originally designed foravoiding undesired discussions and/or decisions, rather than as an Instrument for cloture. That the previous question could notbe employed without risking at least thetemporary loss of the main ·quentlon • • •adapted It for use as a cloture mechanism.It is not surprising that one of the long runconsequences of the House's post-1806 decision to use the previous question for cloture was the elimination of this feature. Onthe other hand, suppression was a key andquite functional feature cf the previousquestion, viewed as a mechanism for avoidIng undesired discussions and/or decisions.Indeed, In the period from 1789 to 1806 suppression served as a defining feature of themechanism. Men who Intended to voteagainst the motion would remark that tlleysupported the previous question anu onone occasion the motion was recorded ascarried when a majority of nays prevailed.

"With regard to affirmative determinationsof the previous question, the evidence whichexists again does not lend itself to simple,sweeping judgments of the state of parliamentary t.heory In either the House or theBenate. The House in the years from 1789 to1806 on a number of occasions allowed proceedings on the main question to continueafter an affirmative decision of the previousquestion. Finally, in 1807 a displlte aroseover whether such proceedings could legitimately be continued. The Speaker ruledthat they could not, that approval of themotion for the previous question resultedin an end to debate and an Immediate vote.This was Jefferson's opinion as well. Butdespite the fact that Jefferson's pronouncements on general parliamentary procedurewere as valid for the Hou~e as for the Senate, the House procedure were as valid forthe House as for the Senate, the Houseoverruled the Speaker and voted Instead tosustain the legitimacy of continuing proceedings after an affirmative decision of theprevious question. It is not clear whetherthis decision should be E'xplained by assuming that it refiected the House's long-termunderstanding of proper procedure or byassuming that It merely reflected the House'spragmatic desire to escape the consequencesof the 1805 rules change which abolished debate on the motion for the prcvious question.

"As for the Senate, again less evidence IsaVailable, but the Senate appears to haveaccepted the view that the proper result ofan affirmative decision was an end to debateand an Immediate vote on the main question. This Is what seems to have occurred inthe three Instances in which the previousquestion was determined affirmatively in the

March 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5633ing certain decisions. Still, as the experienceof the House after 1811 demonstrates, thenature of the handicap was one that wasmllch less a limit on the negative objectiveof suppressing a whole question than onthe positive objective of forcing a wholequestion to a vote. In short, we may cone! ude that In both the early House and earlySenate 110t only was the purpose of theprevious question conceived of as relatingto the prevention of undesired discussionsand/or decisions; ill addition, the device itself was clearly de!ligned operationally toserve such ends rather than the ends ofclotlire. In later years the previous questionwas turned Into an efficient cloture mechanism in the House. But this required considerable tinkering, and what Is more,tinkering that resulted Ultimately in abasic transformation of the operational nature of the mechanism.

The PRESIDING OFF'ICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thankthe Chair for recognizing me. I was calledto another matter before the Rules Committee at 11 o'clock and did not get tofinish my remarks. As I recall, there wassomething like 40 minutes that I hadused at that time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 36 minutes. .

Mr. STENNIS. I thank\1'ie Chair.Mr. President, as I pointed out this

morning, this matter is not just a question of a time to vote or a time to changea program for a day, or for any day.There is a great principle involved here.Also there has been an overturning, to adegree, of our Senate ruies and procedures that have served so long.

I do not think there is any doubt thatthe people at large, even the ordinarilywell-informed people, have no,t realizedthe implications of what I call, withproper respect to the office, the Rockefeller ruling.

I say that because this week I havebeen in touch with very well-informedand intelligent people on other matters.They have not realized what has hap··pened here. They have been assumingthat beyond all doubt the Senate is largely the same institution that it was. Therules may be changed slightly, but theydo not realize any other implication ofwhat might be the effect of the developments so far.

I feel that there would be a tremendous interest, a very broad and in-depthinterest among highly responsible people,if it was realized throughout the country, throughout the country as a whole,just what had happened. That would beparticularly true, I think, in the so-calledsmaller States, or the States with lesseconomic advantages, less population, orany other factor that makes them notmajor parts of our great Nation as aresome of the areas or some of the otherStates.

I would hope, too, that we would lookbeyond just the matter of what therights are of this body to change itsrUles; that we would look to the natureof the institution, itself.

As I was saying this morning when Ihad to leave on another official matter,the very nature of the Senate is unique,and its membership has attracted, Ithink, a very fine quality of men, by andlarge, throughout the Nation for decadeafter decade.

One of the attractions is the 6-yearterm. That carries a great deal of meaning.

Another one is-and this is partly repetition but it is part of the necessity ofgetting my thoughts back into focusthat it is the place where a man just cannot be readily pushed around. He cannotbe cut off, at least until he has had somechance to explain his views and, fmthermore, a chance for the people to be informed and to get the reactIon.

During this debate, and this is just oneof many on the subject, I do not know ofany other major parliamentary bodywhere one member-and I am just theone member-can stand up and continueto stand up and just tell the PresidingOfficer the merits of his ruling or thedemerits, or could continue to carryon,without any feeling of being hindered orhampered in any way.

It might be contrary to the leadershipof his own side of the aisle. This resolution is offered by one of our leaders, butI do not feel the slighest hesitancy in opposing it to the limit, or as much as myjudgment might lead me to oppose.

Even though the present position nowis supported by our majority leader, aman of unusual stature, capacity, fairness and value to this body and the Senate, I do not feel any restraint, and Ido not think he personally wants me to.I do not feel any restraint and the average Member would not. This meanssomething, I think, to the body, to theinstitution, to the soundness of the legislation that finally emerges.

I have a very fine personal feeling asto my friends. It is seldom I make reference to one side of the aisle or the other.

Our friends in the so-called minoritywell know that this is the day when thecaucus is becoming more prominent inthe affairs of government and in themaking of laws. The caucus has beena<;serted more in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to a degree--a much lesser degree--since I havebeen here. It would seem to me, and Iwould submit to them, that th~ group inthe minority could well consider againwhether they would vote to cut off a rulethat can be used and is often used bya minority of some kind-maybe not apolitical minority but a philosophicalgroup in the minority.

As I see things, I do not want thecaucus to go where it would try to dictate how a member of the party wouldor should vote, or would have to vote.I know neither of our present leadersfavor that. My point is that this is atime when the caucus appears to be moreactive. more influential and more effective than heretofore in the conduct ofthe affairs of the Congress, not just onthe procedural matters but on the merits. If that is true, it certainly is a timewhen the minority party should verycarefully consider its position and notcontribute here to a change in the rulesthat would lessen the reasonable prerogatives that a Member or a few Members or a group of !\1embers of this bodynow have.

I do not like to use the term "downgrading"-that is not the thought I wantto bring-but you lessen the importanceof a seat in the Senate when you take

powers and prerogatfves away from theocoupant of that seat. That cannot beavoided.

I recall the late Senator Kerr of Oklahoma, who was one of our valued nne!most effective Members for a long time.He never gave but one explanation f.)~

llis stand with reference to c10turQ orthe change of rule XXII, and that wa,that the lleople of Oklahoma did notsend him here to lessen or diminish inany way the powers and the responsibn.ities of the seat that he was honored tooccupy.

! think that is anoth~r rea<;on thatrdd<; tel the stature and the attractiyeness and the power-rlOlitioal power, Imean--that goes with membership inthis body. It makes the entire body distinctive and different, and at the sametime has left it capable of taking careof the serious affairs of our Government.

I think that now, with our tremendouspopulation extending over this vast areaand the problems of economics and social problems becoming more prOnounced, it is as important as ever-ifnot more important than ever-that wenot try to bring everything into a smallfield of operations and legislate hereunder majority rule methods for wellover 200 million people, with the decadesto come being certain to produce evenmore and more people with a more andmore complicated economic system andsociety, with many, many more social problems, even though we makesome headway in solving some of thoseproblems.

So, instead of the change of timespointing in the direction of trying tobring everything into one focus and onepattern and limiting it where a lessermajority-Mr. President, I will yieldhalf of my time to anyone who wants tospeak--

Mr. MONDALE. I object.Mr. STENNIS. The Senator wlIl not

object to what I am saying.I will yield to anybody half the time I

have remaining if they will just let meuse the other half in reasonable quiet.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.FORD) • Is there objection?

Mr. ALLEN. What is the Senator's re·quest?

Mr. STENNIS. I just ask that we havequiet in the Senate, and some Senatormisundel'F.tood me and objected, and Iam sure that he did not mean to object.

Mr. President, returning to the subjectmatter, I want to review what I think wasthe bedrock question that the constitutional convention met, staring them inthe face, when a majority of them reallywere ready to give up for the time beingand submit a documnet that was lessthan what they felt was needed and wasless than what a majority of themwanted; but they could not work out aproposition of how the representationwas going to be chosen and what voting rights they would have in the twobodies. That was when they submittedthe question to George Washington, asthe acknowledged most infiuential Member of that great bod".

The proposal was that they could notproceed further, that they would puttogether something that would servesome kind of purpose, even though it;


Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President. I call upamendment 45 and call for the ~'eas andnays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report the amendment.


Amend S. Res. 4 as amended by ByRD SUbstitute in following manner: At the end addthe following new section:

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President.Mr. ALLEJ.'i. I call for the yeas and

nays.Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, r yield

myself--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

a sufficient second?Mr. ALLEN. I called for the yeas and

nays, Mr. President.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

a sufficient second? There is not a sufficient second.

Mr. ALLEN. I suggest the absence ofa quorum.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator has suggested the absence of aquorum. The cleric will call the roll.


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLEN. I object.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

the Senator has to stand when addressing the Chair.

Mr. ALLEN. I am not familiar withthat rule, but I will do it.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The rule isthere.

Mr. ALLEN. I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

LEAHY). Objection is heard. The clerkwill proceed.

The rollcall was continued and conclUded, and the following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to theirnames:

(Quorum No. 20 Leg.]Abourezk Glenn MuskieAllen Gravel NelsonBalter Griffin NunnBlU·tlett Hansen PackwoodBayh Hart, Gary W. PearsonBeall Hart. Phlllp A. PellBellmon Hartke PercyBentsen Haskell ProxmireBiden Hatfield RandolphBrock Hathaway RibicoffBrooke Helms RothBuckley Holllngs Scott, HughBumpers Hruslta Scott,Burdick Huddieston William L.Byrd, Inouye Sparkman

Harry F., Jr. Jackson StaffordByrd, Robert C. Javits StennisCannon Johnston StevensCase Laxalt Stevenson·Chiles Leahy StoneChurch Long SymingtonClark Magnuson TalmadgeCranston Mansfield ThurmondCUlver Mathias TowerDole McClure TunneyDomenlcl McGee WeickerEastland McGovern WilliamsFang McIntyre YoungFord MondaleGarn Moss

The PRESIDING OFFICER (MI'.LEAHY) . A quorum is p'resent.

Mr. ROBERT C. lK'RD. Mr. President,I move to laY on the table the amendment of the Senator from Alabama (Mr.ALLEN).

Mr. ALLEN. I call for the yeas andnays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second? There isa SUfficientsecond.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

"SEC. -. Not more than a total or threecloture motions can be filed with respect toany Senate b111 or its companion House billin anyone sessIon of a Congress.".

AMENDMENT NO. 45

that I know, with virtually everyone else,that we are facing very, very seriousproblems.

I think that there are extreme measUl'es proposed. I do not expect any quickremedy here. We may have to gothrough a refining process beyond theimagination of any of us up to now. Ido know that the American dollar-andI mention this not to depreciate it onebit, but I am concerned, even though itis a field that I do not understand, thatwe have devaluated the American dollartwice in the last few years, in 1971 and1973, and it did not seem to bring abouta result.

Mr. President, may I make a parliamentary Inquiry as to how much time Ihave left?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.LEAHY). The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair.The devaluation was official that I

mentioned, but the devaluation goes on.According to a statement by Mr. Burnsof tlle Federal Reserve Board, it has lost7 percent of its value since last september. The OPEC countries, those of themthat did have a recent assemblage, observed, or some of them did, that theywould further delay their actions and seeif there was further evidence as to whatthe fate was going to be of the American dollar.

With those conditions, it seems to me,in the uncertainty of what we may face,that we would be justified in laying asidethis entire question of changing the rulesof the Senate until a day when othermatters are less cloudy and less seriousand get somewhere in the direction, anyway, of a start on solving these greatproblems that I have mentioned.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainderof my time. I yield the fioor.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sen

ator from West Virginia.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unani

mous consent that time on any rollcallthroughout the remainder of today andthis evening and tonight and tomorrow,if necessary, be limited to 10 minutesrather than 15 minutes.

Mr. ALLEN. I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec

tion is heard.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I call

up--Mr. FORD. Mr. President.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator from KentuckY.Mr. FORD. I ask unanimous consent

that John Barry, assistant to the Senator from Vermont (Mr. LEAHY), be allowed the privilege of the fioor for thebalance of the session today.


Some 10 days later, after another tremendous effort, they came in with theproposal that the Hous\) of Representatives would be chosen on the basis ofpopulation, and it has worked until thIsday; but the Senate would be composedof each State having equal representation. That was such a far-reaching decision and point at issue that they notonly provided this provision in ordinarywords but also wrote into the Constitution that each State would always havetwo Senators. They did not stop there,because there was a possibility thatsomeone could have proposed that senators from a state with such and such apopulation or less would have less thana full vote. That was their reasoning,and they wrote into the Constitution itself that each Senator would have onevote.

Then they put a veto on any changein that, in this way: They provided thatthat arrangement should not be disturbed without the consent of that particular State, which in effect gave a vetopower to just one State over anythingin that fleld ~at the rest of them mightunanimously agree on.

That is the constitutional background-in minute partiCUlar, we mightsay-that certainly sets this body asideas being different from the rest, andsomething very special as a parliamentary body.

It is a striking thing, too, that now wehave come all the way down the decadesof history. Even though many have disagreed on many points and disagreed asto conclusions about thIs rule which hasnow become rule XXIT-before it hadthat number, there was just an absoluterule with no way to cut off debate-ithas come thundering on down throughthe decades, that this distinctive bodyin parliamentary government, in freecountries, the U.S. Senate, would have arule that did protect minorities and thatmatters could not be passed over theirprotest until they had gone through aprocess of refining and adjustment andamendment and discussion, to the extentthat thel'e would have to be considerablymore than a majority who favored thepassing of whatever form the proposal,blll, resolution, or whatever it was, hadtaken in that process of refinement andamendment.

So I have very strong feelings aboutthis matter; and I appeal to the membership, those Who have reservationsleft as to how they shouId vote, that weshoUld not change that rule now. I donot know what may be coming. I do feel

was not in the final form they wanted.They told him that it was most likelythat whatever they did would not besuitable, that the people would not approve, and that they submit it to him,though, and go home. That matchlessman, in his splendid leadership, whichhe had exhibited so many times, verypromptly and with some impatienceas I have found in the record-turneddown their proposition flatly and said,

If we submIt to the people that which wedo not approve ourselves, it will certainlybe rejected, and we wlll labor on llere andfind a way that is just and fair and submitthat to the people, and then the matterwill be in the hands of God and the people.

March 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE 5635age and gallantry with which he has conducted the battle.

M~r comments nr\! really intended as ntribute to the Senator from. Alabama forhis tenacity, his courage and his determination. I believe he, like myself, probablyknows that the results will not be altered,that whatever chance there was to persuade. to change or to compromise theissue has already been spent in the compromise that has been forged.

I would like to address myself for amoment to the merits of the actionsthat are being taken in regard to filibU,3ter.

~.fr. President, for the greater part ofour history, the right of full and freedebate in the U.S. Senate has stood as avital safeguard over the right of theminority to protest against legislationit believes to be injurious or oppressive.

Over the years there have been manyeloquent attacks and rebuttals on thequestion of limitation of debate in theU.S. Senate. Those of us who come uponsuch well plowed ground cannot hope toshed much in the way of original thoughtupon this subject; yet I am sure thereRl:e good reasons and essential arguments that must be covered at the startof the 94th Congress as we once againconsider this vital question.

We must underscore the principle offull and free debate which is an underlying foundation of the U.S. Senate,along with the basic principle that eachState be represented equally no matterwhat its land area 01' population count.

Historically speaking, the filibuster hasbeen at the forefront in support of theseprinciples.

One of the first important filibustersabout which much is known occurred in1841 in opposition to a bill to removethe Senate printers. Of course, mostsubsequent filibusters have involved moresubstantial questions. In 1863, an unsuccessful filibuster was conducted againsta bill involving President Lincoln's wartime suspension of the writ of habeascorpus. More successful was the prolonged debate in 1890 that resulted in thedefeat of the "Force Bill" which wouldhave provided Federal supervision ofelections.

In more recent years, Senate liberalsresorted to the filibuster in their opposition, in 1953. to the so-called tidelandsoil bill of the Eisenhower administration and to the communications-satellite bill sponsored by President Kennedyin 1962.

If we were to examine the various issues that have created prolonged debates01' filibuster, we would quickly realizethat they covel' a vast range of political,economic, and constitutional conflicts.The filibuster is not the exclusive 'well,pon of any philosophy, party, or sectian ofthe country. On this historical floor distinguished Senators of both parties'representing every shade of politicalthought and every area of our great Nation have taken part on occasion in extended debate or filibuster in support ofa minori ty position.

Also frolll a historical perspective,some of the greatest Members of thisdistingUished body have been the mosteloquent champions of the right of full

I expect that a good many Senatorsmay wonder whether they have time toget something to eat. I suspect they have.I do not say that with any desire at allto delay consideration, but I do it infairness to my colleagues who may wonder what the schedule is. I do not knowwhat the schedule is beyond the periodof time which I control. But having beenrecognized, it is my intention to use atleast a half of the hour which is allotted to me.

There are some who think that the debate on cloture is a futile thing, and Isuspect that may be true. I have beeninvolved in the legislative process forsome time--


Mr. McCLURE. I have been involvedin the legislative process-

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, maywe have order? The Senator is entitledto be heard.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Therewill be order in the Senate.

Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senatorfrom Montana.

I have been involved in the legislative process long enough to count votes,and I think to make some estimatewhether or not a particular parliamentary procedure is going to be successful.I do not think there is anyone whoreally cherishes any illusions any longerthat the proponents of the rule changewill not be Ultimately successful in working their will in the Senate of the UnitedStates. The votes on procedural motionshave indicated the spread between theproponents and opponents of the measure at least in sufficient measure toindicate that it is unlikely that a shiftwill occur which would change the finalresult.

My reason for taking some time nowis not to delay that ultimate act~on, because I am not certain that delay hasany fruitful purpose. I think perhapsthe delay, itself, is as pointless as thedemand that we come to a vote on it yettoday. I think whether the vote occurson Friday night or Saturday morning,or Monday or Tuesday, the outcome willbe approximately the same. I think allof us know that.

So it seems to me we are engaged insomewhat of an exercise in futility as oneside seeks to delay and the other sideseeks to force us to a vote at this time. Ithink both points are equally pointless.

I am sorry that we have gotten ourselves locked in this kind of mortal combat where it seems impossible to reachany kind of compromise agreement thatwould effectuate the same end resultswith probably the same vote and still accommodate the· majority of the Members of the Senate.

One of the principles that we are discussing in this entire debate has been therights of a minority-yes, even a minorityof one Member. So long as there is oneMember who seeks to exercise his rightsnnder the rules, I certainly will applaudand support him, and will seek to supportthe Senator from Alabama as he is PU1'SUing what has become a more lonely roadhour by hour. I believe he is entitled tothat kind of support because of the cour-

SparkmanStennisTalmadgeThurmond

:M:ondnleMossMuskleNelsonPackwoodPearsonPellPercyProxll1ireRandolphRlbicofIRothScott,HugbStaffordStevensStevensonStoneSymingtonTowerTunneyWclckerWilliamsYoung

CurtisEagletonEastlandF1auuinGoldwater

Allen HansenBaker HelmsBuckley NUllnByrd. Scott,

Harr~'F., Jr. William L.

NOT VOTING-14Humphrey MorganKennedy PastoreMcClellan SchweikerMetcalf TaftMonto)'s

will call the roll.. The second assistantlegislative clerk called the roll.

Ml'. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON) , the Senatorfrom Mississippi (Mr. EASTLAND), theSenator from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), the Sena'·,r from Massachusetts (lVIr. KENNEDY), the Senator fromArkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN) , the Senatorfrom Montana (Mr. METCALF), the Senator from !'tew Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA),the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.MORGAN), and the Senator from RhodeIsland (lVlr. PASTORE) are necessarilyabsent.

I further announce that, if present andvoting,. the Senator from Minnesota(Mr. HUMPHREY) and the Senator fromRhode Island (Mr. PASTORE) would eachvote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS), theSenator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN), theSenator from Al'izona (Mr. GOLDWATER),and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.SCHWEIKER) are necessarily absent.


I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Ohio (Mr.TAFT) would vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 73,na;ys 12, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

YEAS-73Abourezk GravelBartlett GriffinBayh Hart, Gary W.Beall Hart, Philip A.Bellmon HartkeBentsen HaskellBlden HatfieldBrock HathawayBrooke HollingsBumpers HruskaBurdick HuddiestonByrd. Robert C. InouyeCannon JacksonCase JavltsChiles JohnstonChurch Laxa1tClark LeahyCranston LongCu!ver MagnusonDole MansfieldDomenici MathiasFong McClureFord McGeeGarn McGovernGlenn McIntyre

NAY8-12

So the motion to lay 011 the table Mr.ALLEN'S amendment was agreed to.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President?Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President?The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair recognizes the Senator fromIdaho.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr,· President, I ~lave

not spoken with regard to the cloturematter. It has not been my custom tospeak on matters under the subject ofdebate under cloture.

5636 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 7,1971;

and fl'ee debate. These men, and they include many of the greatest liberals aswell as conservatives of this century, believed that limitation of free speech inthe Senate-gag rule-would underminethe rights and liberties of all Americans.

Clearly, this is not a partisan matter.This is a matter that goes to the heartof our system. The Senate of the UnitedStates is a unique body. It has been oneof the most useful instrmnents of government down through the years. It hasserved this Nation well as a continuingbody, with two-thirds of its Members going over from election to electi0n as theFounding Fathers provided, to carrywith them experience and an understanding of the operations of the otherbranches of the Government, so thatthey might help to protect the people oftihs country from the excesses of theexecutive branch of the Government; orto undo some excess or wrong that wasworked by the decisions of the jUdicialbranch of the Government.

Mr. President, I would further statethat "the majority of any party in powerwould find the suppression of free speecha convenient method of expediting whatis considered useful and urgent legislation. It is always annoying to have errorsexposed and it would not be long before amajority of one decided that for political purposes it should retain the illusion of infallibility by preventing exposure-here of its errors. And then itwould not be long until corrupt and evenominous legislation might be shepherdedthrough this great and illustrious Chamber in enforced silence."

Of course, there have :1lways beengreat Senators representing both liberaland conservative factions that were morethan outspoken in support of the filibuster as a perfectly valid parliamentarydevice for the protection of the justrights of the minority viewpoint.

Men like Robert LaFollette, in particular, was a strong advocate of opendebate in the Senate. This great Senatoronce stood here and in a ringing statement said:

BelieVing that I stand for democracy forliberties of the people of this COUll try andfor the perpetuation of our free institutions,I shall stand while I am a mcmber of thisbody against any closure that denies freeand unlimited debate. Sir, the moment thatthe majority imposes the restrictions contained in tIle. pending rUle, that momentwill have brolwn down one of the greatestweapons against wrong and oppression thatthe members of this body possess.

The Senate has had a proud historythat has evolve<l. from the right of therepresentatives of the states of thisUnion to stand up and speak their pieces.This is the place where that can be done.

The right of free speech in the Senatejs particularly important because theSenate is the only instiktion of the Federal system in which the smaller Statesexercise an equal influence over the conduct of the affairs of the Nation. In thegeneral scheme of things, the smallerStates are always disadvantaged andhandicapped. Until recent years, very fewmen from very small States were evenappointed to the President's cabinet. Theone place wllere tIle small States Ilavehad a right to he heard, where they

could defend the intere:>ts of their people, was the Senate of the United States.

Accordingly, ours is a country of diverse interests as among the severalStates and the various sections. Whatmay be good for the people of NewHampshire may not be good for the people of Texas and what may be right forthe people of Pennsylvania may not beright fo,' the people of Alaska. The Senate of the United States has become astronghold within our Federal systemwherein the right of the States and therights of the minorities are protected.Without freedom of debate in the Senate; the United states could go the wayof unlimited democracies; we could reachthe stage where a misguided majoritycan destroy tile liberties and right of individual citizens in the name of somecurrently popular cause.

Those who would suppress and gagfreedom of debate should not forget thatpopular opinion can be a wary instrument. Causes that are popular today mayvery quickly sink into a sea of unpopularity. '.rhose who find themselves on themajority side of an issue today may findthemselves cast in the minority positiontomorrow.

Therefore, it is easy to see that amajor issue at stake in this debate isone of great importance to all people ofthis country and should be of the greatest imlJOrtance to the minority groupsof this country. By the same token, itis most unusual that the Members of theSenate who are proposing restrictionsupon freedom of debate in the Senateand, thereby, curtailment of the rightsof minorities are the very ones who arethe most eloquent and loquacious intheir defense of minority rights in otherareas.

Because of numerous reasons likethese, I cannot escape the conclusionthat those who advocate l'estricting therights of the minority by curtailing freedom of speech in the Senate may be sowing the seeds of their own downfall onsome future questions of burning national interest.

Mr. President, from the standpoint ofthe Senate itself as a body-and I havegreat respect for the Senate of theUnited States as an institution-I thinkthe right of free speech in this body hasbeen ono of the factors that has madethis Government, this system of ours,the oldest operating system of government on Ea,rth today. Mr. President, theonly way the light,<; of Senators-therights I have discussed today-can beprotected in representing the States thatsent them to the Senate is to preservethe light of free speech in the Senate.When that right is limited, the powerof every Senator is limited and the rightsof the State that sent here are neglected.

In concluding, Mr. President, few fairminded persons would deny that therehave been abuses in the constitutionalfreedoms enjoyed by all Americans, nonewould advocate striking there basic guarantees from the Constitution. Freeaomof debate in the Senate should not be<lestroyed on the pretext that it is sometimes abused.

I tllink we should realize that thepresent ruIes of the Senate are wholly

adequate to prevent unjustified obstruction of the work of the Senate and thepassage of vital legislation.

Indeed, the present rules have enRbledthe Senate to function as a legislativebodv without serious detriment to t.hewelfare of the United states throughout our history. They have enabled theSenate to discourage and prevent excesses by the temporary m9.jority of themoment that may seek drastic change forselfish or partisan gain.

Over the years when you balance itup, the right of free speech in this bodyhas been VEl.stly more beneficial-in thepreservation of our system of government, maintaining our system of checksand balances, in trying to maintain thediVision of powers between the three separate branches of the Government-thanthe action of any army. The Senate isthe last bulwark of the minority in thisland.

Freedom of debate in the Senate, solong a,s it is preserved, serves as a protection of the fundamental rights andliberties for which men, for thousandsof years, have fought and died.

I made an analysis, Mr. President, ofthe cloture motions that have been filedaml doture votes conducted in the last2 yeai·s in this body. and I think it isinteresting. It is interesting becausepeople who propose this rule change,even the compromise which has beensuggested, have somehow been operating either under the illusion or themisapprehension that a rule change isnecessary to invoke cloture.

In the last 2 years, we have had, inthe Senate of the United States, 13different issues subjected to the cloturepetitiun to limit debate. In those 13issues, doture has been invoked on 9.On the fom' in which cloture was denied,compromises were elfected on two.

I parenthetIcally note that on thosetwo, cloture was denied primarily because liberals in the Senate did not wantcloture invoked. They joined in defeatingthe cloture motions. In only two instances in the last 2 years has a minority been successful in blockinglegislation in which the liberals werenot directly involved-2 years, twotimes.

Is that the kind of evidence of needfor rule change that has been so urgentlyrequested by the proponents of thismeasure?

I note that the reduction from 67 to60, or from a two-thirds of those presentand voting in the current rule to a 60vote to invoke cloture, would not havechanged the results on any of those vote:;>save one with one exception; whenclotm'e that was voted would have beendenied' because t.here were fewer than60 who voted in favor, but two-thirds ofthose present and voting.

I might just go through. the list, because I think it is important to note.Voter registration was the first of these.It took three different cloture motionsbefore cloture was invoked on May 9.1973. How much time did it take to getto that point? The first cloture voteoecurred on April 30, the second onMay 3, and the final one on May 9.. Ifthere had been a 60 vote instead of a

~larch''7,1975' .CONGRESSIONA:e'REGORp\~SENATE' , .. (. ,t. t' 563767 vote, that cloture would have beeninvoked on May 3 instead of May 9. TheSenate· wouId have moved to final consideration of that bill 6 days earlier thanit did. And of course, as everyone knows,that 6 days was not lost to other activities in the interim. Undel' the able leadership of the Senator from West Virginia,the filibuster has lost much of its meaning because the Senate does not stopaction while cloture is being consideredand in the interim between cloture petitions and votes.

The second of those 13 issues was campaign financing, on which cloture wasfirst voted on December 2, 1973, andcloture was denied.

On December 3, a second cloture votewas held and again, the cloture wasdenied. But in April of 1974, cloture wasvoted first on April 4 and again denied;but on April 9, it was carried and theissue was joined on the issues of campaign financing.

Again, if the margin required were reduced to 60, as is now suggested, theAP1:il 4 motion would have carried andthe Senate would have moved forwardto consideration on that issue 5 days earlier than it did otherwise. Again, however,other business was conducted in those5 days.

The third of the issues that were subjected to cloture in the last 2 years wasthe issue of Rhodesian chrome. That wassubjected to three cloture votes beforethe proponents of the change were ableto invoke cloture, the first of those votesoccurring on December 11, 1973, the second on December 13, 1973 and the thirdon December 18, 1973, when cloture wasinvoked. Again, as in the other instances,had the rule then read 60 votes ratherthan two-thirds, cloture would have beeninvoked on December 13 instead of December 18 and again, the Senate wouldhave gotten to the issue 5 days earlierthan they otherwise did.

Is that an earth-shaking change? Doesthat illustrate the necessity for the rulechange where the Senate does wish towork its will?

The fourth· such issue was legal services. The first cloture petition was filedon December 13, 1973, and failed, although' with a 60-vote margin it wouldhave succeeded on December 13.

Another cloture petition was filed onDecember 14 and it failed. But on January 30, 1974, a similar motion was presented and it passed, and legal serviceswere then passed by this body.

The fifth such issue was one in whichthe proponents of cloture .failed, one ofthe two victories of the opponents in thelast 2 years and that was on the Genocidetreaty. On February 5, 1974, it failed by avote of 55 to 36 and on the following day,it failed by a vote of 55 to 38-one of thetwo times that cloture has been refusedby this body in the last 2 years.

The sixth such issue was the Government pay raise, on which a cloture petition was filed and voted on on March 6,1974, and cloture was voted on the firstattempt.

The seventh such issue was the publicdebt ceiling, which the Senator fromMassachusetts may remember well, having been the vehicle for some tax reform

proposals. On that particular one, because of the nature of the issue, theissue had a different outcome, with threedifferent cloture votes on June 19 andJune 26 of 1974, the final vote being 48in favor of cloture, 50 opposed to it, andthe issue lost. But, again, it was not because of any conservative opposition inthat instance.

On the eighth issue, the Consumer Protection Act, or the Agency for ConsumerAdvocacy as it is now known, there werefour cloture petitions, the first of whichwas on July 30, the second on August I,the third on AUgust 20, the fourth onSeptember 19. In that particular instance, the opponents of the 'legis~ation

were able to win. That was one of thetwo instances in the last 2 years in whichthere was not a compromise that affectedthe change other than simply failing toinvoke cloture.

The nintH. such issue was the ExportImport Bank. The Senator from Oregon(Mr. PACKWOOD) was very much involvedin that, as the Senate had voted somelimitations and the House did not wantto go along with those limitations imposed by the Senate. So there was aconfrontation not between forces withinthe Senate, but between the Senate andthe other body. In that instance, afterfour cloture votes, all of which occurredbetween the 3d of December and the 16thof December, the cloture opponents weresuccessful. The House receded from theirdisagreement and the Senate had wonits day. Cloture became a means by whichthe Scnate majority worlced its will andthe other body therefore agreed to theSenate position.

Trade reform was the 10th such issuein the last 2 years and again, cloture wasinvoked on the first effort. I might note011 the Eximbank, the reduction from atwo-thirds majority to a simple, straight60-vote margin would have made no difference. 111e result would have been thesame.

The eleventh of those issues was theschool desegregation amendment andagain, 011 Ol1e vote, on the first vote,cloture was invoked. This is the one timewhere cloture would not have been invoked under the 60-vote rule, becausetwo-thirds of those present and votingturned out to be 56 and cloture was invoked with a vote of 56.

The twelfth such issue was the socialservices, and again, cloture was invokedon the first attempt. The thirteenth wason the taxes and tariff measures onwhich, again, on the same date, December 17, 1974, cloture was invoked on thefirst attempt by a vote of 67 to 25.

Is ~his the record of an urgent need torevise the rules in a way which will limitthe rights of the minority to proteGtthemselves? Is there in this record overthe last 2 years the clear call for achange of rules that threaten the right.>of minorities? Or is it a record which indicates that the majolity, when there isa clear and compelling need, has beenable to work its will over the oppositionof a minority, even though a determinedminority? They have been able to worktheir will where there was substantialopposition,but theY still \\'ere ahle,to in-

voke cloture on all but 2 of the 11 issuesthat were thus involved without compromiSe.

.I think the nature of the debate, perhaps, is better defined in two editorialswhich I am sure most Senators haveread, but in consideration of the possibility that there are those who havenot, I would like to repeat those editorials. One is an editorial from the NewYork Times entitled "Hollow VIctory." Iquote from that editorial:

The Senate liberals ha.ve marched up thehill and down the hill and arrived, if notexactly where they started, not very far away.The vote to impose closure on the long filibnster conducted by Senator James Allen,Alabama Democrat, and his al1les clears theway for a final vote on the so-called compromise proposal to reform the Senate's rules.

The liberals started out wanting to r€laxRule 22 sufficiently to enable three-fifths, instead of two-thirds, of those members present and voting to shut oll debate. After twomonths of time-wasting discussion, SenatorAllen and the dwindllng conservative minority for which he speaks were able to beatdown the liberal majority, forcing it to settlofor a toothless compromise offered by Senator Russell Long, Louisiana Democrat. Theminority prevailed even though Vice President Rockefeller ruled repeatediy in favorof the majority position.

The compromise requires a constitutionalthree-fifths of tile members-that is, no lessthan sixty votes-to impose closure. If all100 members are present, the existing twothirds rule requires 67 votes. In theory, thisis a slight gain for the liberals.

In l'eality, it amounts to virtually nochange because the entire 100 members arerarely present for any vote, no matter howimportant, Only once in history have sixtyor more Senators voted for cloture andfailed to obtain it.· In short, a minority'spower to block legislative action has been.reduced only marginally, if at all.

Senator Allen and his allies have held outagainst even this trivial change, refusing toyield anything to the other side. But thereis no doubt as to who the winners are. Ifti,e Senate liberals possessed Senator Allen'smastery of parliamentary procedure and hisrelentless tenacity in seeking and holding thefloor, they would not now be trying shame~

fully to pass olf this pathetic compromise as... substal.ltial victory.

That is the end of the editorial fromthe New York Times. The second is anessay by William Satire, entitled "Crush_ing Dissent in the Senate," and reads asfollows:

WASHINGTON.-Good men, nobly motivatedby the spirit of reform, can do more harmto our political system than tlle worstvillains lusting after power.

A serious attempt is being made in theSenate this week to alter the compromisemade at the Constitutional Convention of1787. At that time, representatives of thesmaller states were fearful of a "tyranny ofthe majority" in a legislature reflecting thepopUlation as a whole, COlltrariwise, thestates with large popUlations were not aboutto give in to demands that all states haveequal votes.

So the checks-and-baiances compromise ofa bicameral. or two-house, legislature wasstrud~: "Majority rUle," based on popUlation,would be the character of the House of RepJ'csentatives; and "deliberation" or minority protection based on the same number of3ennt,01'5 from each state, chosen by statelegislatures, would be the character of theSenate.

For two centuries. the Senate has helpedmake the Democratic experi1nent work by

5fi38 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March'7, 1975preventing the excesses of democracy. TImeafter time, lonely dissenters-right andwrong-have used the senate's rules to delay,to restrain, to force some adjustment to min ~rity demands. Ultimately, the theory went,the majority would rule, but not until thepassions of the moment--<>r of the year-hadpassed.

In the course of time, the Senate agreedto attune itself more closely to the popUlarwill by permitting direct election Of Senatorsby the people, and they agreed to llmlt debate by a two-thirds vote, treating the vetoof :l. minority the same as a veto by the President.

All along, however, Senators rememberedwhat a senate was for, why it had beencre::.ted in the first place to protect the minority, to ensure dellberation, to make it impossible to crush dissent under the steamroller of democratic majority rnle.

Now there Is a move to make the Senateinto a kind of slower House of Representatives. The Senators who want to change therules to make it possible to cut off debatewith only a three-fifths vote say this willmake it harder for a minority to obstructprogressive legislation. And so it will.

The majoritarians say the fillbuster is antidemocratic. They are absolutely right, it ademocracy Is the absolute rule of the majority. And the majoritarians say they will letthe majority talk for weel;s under the newrules, on the majority's kind of stlfferance,as if talking-and not checking majoritypower-were the central issue.

Helping to crash through the resistanceto this radical change in character of theSenate is its new presiding officer, Vice President Rockefeller. He ruled in favor of theanti-dissenters at the start, which was notunprecedented; but then he went on to refuse to recognize Senators who wanted tooppose the motion.

When Senator James Allen rose with aparllamentary inquiry, Mr. Rockefeller pretended not to hear or to see, and insteadwent to a vote the majority wanted. Onceagain, Mr. Rockefeller sees enormous mischief In delay.

With the majority steamroller piloted byMr. Rockefeller, l\ member of the minorltySenator Long-senses defeat and is suggesting a milder formula for stopping dissent.He is wrong; once the gates are lowered,nothing he writes into his resolution isgoing to keep succeeding majorities frommaking it possible for a simple majority tocut off debate. And then you might as wellnet have a Senate at all.

Senators Mondale and Pearsoll, who designed this steamroller, are men with thebest of intentions who want only to turnthe Senate into a more active body, morecapable of defying a President, more ableto exert leadership. With much logic, theycan point out how a minority in the Senatewas able to obstruct the rights of a blackminority for generations.

But they are fiddling with the foundations of a good system in order to improvethe chances for this year's legislation. Theaut:nnatic supporters of good-guy reformersmight want to consider the day when theother side is in the saddle.

Might it not be possible, only a decade orf.:) 11ence, for the political picture to change50 that a revived "silent majority" is reHected by a conservative Senate and House,R conservative President, and a conservativeSupreme Court?

H could happen here. And then some littlegroup of willful men, or some willful groupof little men, or some fighting band of bigmen, will arise In the Senate to dissent fromthe popUlar tide. Brave liberals all, they willfling their voices and their votes in the wayof rig~t-wi~g retrogression, perhaps led bya whlte-hall'ed Fritz Mondale battJinO' t<)save the victories of tile seventies. co

And their dissent will be choked oIr by asimple majority closure, their resistanceflattened by the monstrous steamroller oftheir own invention. Poetic injustice wmtriumph, the temporary majority will rule,and the spirit of the United States Senatewlll be dead.

Mr. President, I think that the twoeditorials, focusing as they do on twoviewpoints, pretty aptly characterize thestate to whIch we have come at this hour,and again I would say, as I said at thebeginning of my remarks, I have no illusions that the Issue Is in doubt. I haveno doubt that the rollcall by which thisissue will be finally decided can be written now by any number of observers, andthey would not be off by more than oneor two votes. I suspect we can take atally sheet and check it OVer pretty wellnow.

Again I say it is too bad we come to thepoint where both delay for the sake ofdelay becomes important, and vote forthe sake of vote today becomes important, because whether the vote is tonIghtor early after midnight or some time tomorrow or on Monday or on Tuesday,the result Is not in doubt, and I thinkeveryone who has followed this debaterecognizes the truth of those words.

I think It has been a stirring debate.I think It has been a fruitful fight. I hopethere has been better understanding ofthe issues that are involved, and I wouldhope that, growing out of the victory ofthe majority, there wlll come a tolerancefor the minority; that In their eagernessfor victory, they wlll not attempt to usethe powers gained in this historic debate-not the compromise but the precedents that have been set-to crush a minority simply because they have the votesto do it.

I think the compromise may be heralded as an attempt to sIgnal the desireon the part of people of good will to continue to allow the minority its voIce. Butsomething within me rebels at the Ideathat the minority must have its rightsrecognized only as a matter of sufferanceand not as a matter of right within thisgreat body,

The history of the foundation of thisRepublic very clearly Indicates to anyone who will read it that the FoundingFathers had a very clear perception ofthe tyranny of history, that tyrants always seize power and destroy the freedoms of individuals. So they constructeda government that was not intended tobe a model of efficiency in its operations,but to be a model only in terms of protecting the freedom of the individualcitizen.

We have so concentrated in recentyears on the checks and balances, asthough the only checks and balances inthe system were those that were builtbetween the executive, the legislativeand the judicial branches, that we haveforgotten that there were other essentIalchecks against the abuse of authorityand power in Government.

One of those checks that has beenignored to our detriment in recent yearshas been the growing tendency on thepart of the legislative branch and thejudiciary to ignore the fact that the central government, the Federal Govern-

ment, exercises only those powers delegated to it, a·nd that all other rights andpowers are reserved to the states andto the people. That was deliberatelywritten into the Constitution as a protection agaInst the abuse of authoritythat characterized every governmentthey had studied in the history of mankind up to the formation of this one.

Another one of those protectionsthat we give a great deal of Up serviceto is the protection of the rIghts of th~

minorities guaranteed by the first 10amendments, the so-called Bill of Rightsto the Constitution.

We are inclined to look at that todaywith selective acuity. We see some ofthose rights very clearly, and the pressis very jealous of first amendment rights,but somehow the second amendmentwith the right to keep and bear armsis a less sacred right, a less importantguarantee of the rights of indIvidualsunder the Constitution.

But another one of those guaranteesagainst the abuse of power in an allpowerful central government was thecompromise which guaranteed to thesmall States an equal representation inthis body and, as was pointed out byMr. Safire in hIs essay, when the concession was made It changed the character of the election to the senate of theUnited States by a direct popular election within the States, and that WU'.l

somewhat balanced by a two-thirdscloture majority to permit a veto by theminority upon the same terms and thesame conditions as a veto by the PresIdent of the United States.

I would guess that many of those whowould like to change the rules here toallow a three-fifths vote to Invoke cloturewould also like to see a three-fifths voteimposed upon the overriding the President's veto because what they are re:tlIysayIng is they do not like to see the minorities exercise their rIghts unless theyare minorities which they favor, andthen by sufferance they wlIl protect thoserights.

So, Mr. President, without any lllusions that I have sald will change theoutcome of the vote, and without anyillusIons as to what that outcome wlllbe, I wish to rise in strong dissent tothe course that has been charted for uson this measure, a measure which I believe diminishes the stature of this body,a measure, which In the words of thedistinguished majority whIp, the Senator from West VIrginIa, when we weretalking about the course of actIon· thatwill be taken t.hat would impose a majority cloture, would destroy· the uniquecharacter of this body.

There are those who have remarkedthat if the German ParlIament had hada Senate, with its rules, In the late 1920'Rand the early 1930's, Hitler would neverhave gotten the power which he was ableto get through the parliamentary procedures of that body.

I do not charge any Member of thisbody sitting here today, voting upon

. these matters, with desiring that a dictatorship emerge In this country. Butthey are setting thecond,itions underwhich it is easier for that kind of a popu-

MaTch 7,1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5639Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,


Mr. ALLEN. I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec-

tion is heard. .The call will continue.The second assistant legislative clerk

resumed the call of the roll, and the following Senators entered the Chamberand answered to their names:

[Quorum No. 21 Leg.]Abourezk Gravel MossAllen Hansen MuskieBaker Hart, Gary W. Ne.sonBart,ett 1. art, l-hilip A. NunnBayh Hartke ;'-ackwoodBea.1 Haskell PearsonBellmon Hatfield PellBentsen :-ia(haway IercyBiden Helms ProxmireBrock HO.1In[;s Rando. phBrooke Hruska RibicoffBucIuey Hudd.eston RothBnrdick Inouye Scott, HughByrd, Jackson Scott.

Harry F., Jr. Javits WIIllam L.Byrd, Robert C. Johnston SparkmanCannon Kennedy StaffordCase Laxalt S· evensChl.es '.eahy StevensonChnrch Long StoneC.ark Ma"nuson SymingtonCranston Mansfield TalmadgeCuiver Mathias ThurmondDole McClure TowerDomenicl McGee TunneyFong McGovern WelckerFord McIntyre WilliamsGam Metca;! YonngG:enn Mondale

SparkmanTalmadgeThurmond

NelsonNnnnFackwoodFearsonPell~ercy

FroxmireRando: phRlbicoff1,01hScott. HughStaffordS'evensStevensonStoneSymingtonTowerTunneyWeickerWill'amsYoun/;

HruskaHudd_estonInouyeJacksonJavltsJohnstonKennedyLaxaltLeahyLonglvIar.nusonMansfieldMathiasMcCiureMcGeeM:GovernMcIntyreMetcalfMondaleM""Muskie

NAY6-9;--on:enHe:msScott,

\-Vl.l.J.iamL.

NOT VOTING-I5Goldwater MorganGriffin I'astoreHumphrey SchweikerMcCiellan StennisMontoya Taft

BumpersCurtisEa3'~elon

EastlandFannin

So the motion to lay on the table Mr.ALLEN'S amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.HASKELL). The question is on agreeingto Senate Resolution 4, as amended.

Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator from North Carolina.Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.Mr. President, momentarily, I shall

call up-but I do not do so nOW-myamendment No. 29, and thereafter mvamendments No, 27, 28, and 30.

Preliminary to that, the amendmentsthat I am offering woul;l amend thoseportions of the pending resolution-

Mr. ALLEN. Let us have order in theSenate, please, Mr. President. Will Senators please take their seats?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators will pleasetake their seats.

The Senator may proceed.Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.As I was saying, Mr. President, the

amendments I am offering would amendthose portions of the pending resolution pel·taining to the use of allowabletime for debate following the invocationof cloture.

As the resolution reads at present,after cloture is invoked, each Senatormay speak 1 hour. This amendmentwould simply allow Senators to donateor give their 1 hour or any part of it toanother Senator. The total allowabletime for debate would not be increased.It would still be 100 hours at a maximum. Therefore, if a Senator wished tospeak for 2 or more hours, he wouldneed 2 or more Sen!".tors each to givehim a part of or all of their hours, as thecase may require.

Of course, once a Senator had given&way his hour, he would not be permittedtt spea!;: 011 the matter subject to cloture.However, since the prorision in Questionrefers t:J a Senator's "time or part thereof," it is obviously intended that a Sena'tor may give away any portion of his 1hour to one of his colleagues, and retainthe balance for himself. Or, if he chooses,a. Se?ator may give various pOrtions ofhIS tIme to several different colleagues,

AllenBakerByrd,

Harry F., Jr.

CamlonCaseChilesChurchC.arkCranstonCu~ver

DoleDomeniciFongFordGarnGlennGravelHart, Gary W.Hart, Phlllp A.HartkeHaskellHatfieldHathawayHollings

Brook:eBuckleyBurdickByrd, Robert O.

AbourezkBartlettBayhBeall

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorumis present. The question is on the motionto table. The yeas and nays have beenordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.BUMPERS), the Senator from Missouri(Mr. EAGLETON), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. EASTI.AND), the Senatorfrom Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), theSenator from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.MONTOYA), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. MORGAN), the Senator fromRhode Island (Mr. PASTORE), and theSenator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS)are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Minnesota(Mr. HUMPHREY) , and the Senator fromRhode Island (Mr. PASTORE) , would eachvote "yea."

Mr. HUGH SCOTT. I announce thatthe Senator from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS),the Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN),the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER) , the Senator from Michigan (Mr.GnIFFIN), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIKER), are necessarilyabsent.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom Ohio (Mr. TAFT), is absent due toillness.

I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Ohio (Mr.TAFT). would vote "nay."


[ROllcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

YEAS-75BellmonBentsenBldenBrock

The amendment is as follows:Proposed to be offered by Mr. ALLEN to

S. Res. 4 as amended by ROBERT C. BYRDsubstitute.

Amend S. Res. 4 as amended by BYRD substitute In following manner: On page 2 between lines 4 and 5 add the following: "Toproceed to the consideration of any otherbill, resolution, or other measure on thecalendar.'."

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I move to lay the amendment on thetable.

Mr. ALLEN. I call for the yeas andnays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is therea sufllcient second?

There is a sufllcient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. ALLEN. I suggest the absence of

a quorum, Mr. President.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll.The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,


Mr. ALLEN. I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bun

DICK) • Objection is heard.The clerk will call the roll.The second assistant legislative clerk




tion is heard.The clerk will call the roll.The second assistant legislative clerk




tion is heard.The clerk will call the roll.The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll.

lar figure. to emerge in this land. Theconditions in this country are ripe forthe emergence of a demagog. a demagogto lead the people out of their frustrati,)ns and out of their anxieties, and thedirection that we are taking on this reduces the opportunity for this body tostand as a stalwart blockade to the attempt for any acquisition of power nomatter how popular it might seem at themoment.

The rights and freedoms of the peopleof this country are threatened to somedegree by the action which we are taking.


AMENDMENT NO. 42

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, althoughit is obvious a quorum is not here, I shallnot put in a quorum call, but I call UPamendment No. 42.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BURDICK). The clerk will report the amendment.

The .legislative clerk read as follows:The Scnator from Alabama proposes

amendment No. 42.

provided the total time so given does notexceed 1 hour.~ this connection, it is important to

note that the amendments provide thata Senator may "grant, or yield," his timeto his colleagues. Normally, of course, wethink of Senators "yielding" time. However, I added the word "grant," because itis the express intention that this language be so construed that at any timefollowing the invocation of cloture, anynumber of Senators may simply state forthe record that they are "granting," orthat they are "yielding for the balanceof the period that cloture is invoked" under that particular cloture petition, theirtime, or any part of it, to a specified Senator or specified Senators. The intentionis that, then, whenever the Senator whortceived the "grant.. of time wishes touse it-eonsistent with other provisionsof the rules, of course-he may do sowithout the necessity of the donor Senator being physically present on the Senate floor to formally "yield time" in thetraditional, customary manner.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senatebe in order.


Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.Of course, the purpose of this "grant

of time" as opposed to the customary"yielding of time" is obvious. It is to provide the most efficient and expeditiousmethod for the conveyance of speakingtime on the Senate floor under this particular provision. Construing the word"grant" in this manner will render it unnecessary for Senators to be on the Senate floor or to run down to the Senatefloor simply for the purpose of "yielding."They may "grant.. their time wheneverthey choose by stating for the record thatthey are so doing, and the clerk shallthen credit the donee Senator with theamount of additional time so "granted:'

Additionally, in the application of theprovision contained in the pendingamendments, it is the intention that aSenator receiving a "grant of time" asaforementioned may reconvey the timeso granted to any of his colleagues, including the original donor. That is tosay, a Senator may "grant.. time toanother Senator, and the second Senator,if he chooses, may "grant.. the timethat he received from the first Senatorto a third Senator, and so on. If thesecond Senator chooses, he may "grant..the time back to the Senator who"granted" it to him. It is the intentionthat such a subsequent conveyance oftime may be accomplished in the manneraforementioned for an original "grantof time:'

Mr. CHILES. Will the Senator yield?1\:11'. HELMS. I am glad to yield.Mr. CHILES. I lost him between the

second grant of time and the third grantof time.

Mr. HELMS. I am simply saying thateach Senator will have an hour, as hedoes now, and that he may yield or grantthat time to another Senator or Senators, and that they, in turn, may grantor yield it, even back to him, if thesituation should so develop.

Mr. CHILES. Either the grantor or thegrantee could yield the time back?

Mr. HELMS. Yes. I say to the Senator that there would be no increase intime of the total of 100 hours. Therewould simply be more expeditious use.I feel that under the circumstances,since we obviously are going to thethree-fifths, so obviously, there should bea more expeditious use of the time soas to ameliorate, to some small extent,this gag rule that is in the offing. Thatis the purpose of the four amendmentswhich I propose.

I thank the Senator for his question.Of course, this constru ~tion of the

word "grant" is intended to be appliedin the application of the particular provision contained in the pending amendments. In the construction of other provisions of rul~ XXII, or any other rule,it is expected that the traditional, customary meaning will be attached to theword "yield."

Finally, under the pending provision,it is intended that if a Senator wishingto donate time to a colleague prefers notto "grant" his time as aforementioned,but wishes to "yield" in the traditional,customary manner while physicallypresent on the Senate fioor, he has theoption of doing so.

r think, Mr. President, that this is auseful and reasonable method to easesomewhat the impact of this gag rulethat is now being rammed through theSenate. Of course, after I have called upthe first of my four amendments, I shallurge its adoption, and in due course, theother three as well.

The distinguished assistant majorityleader, my friend from West Virginia(Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD), and I discussedthis and looked at the rule book earlierthis afternoon. It may be implicit in therules that a Senator cannot yield to another Senator on the second Senator'stime, but I am not certain that I read theclear inference that apparently some ofthe precedents have in prior years indicated. In any case, my amendmentswould clear up that question.

Mr. President, while I am on my feet,I wish to speak most respectfully of thedistinguished majority leader, the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD) andhis remarks to the Senate earlier today.he said, if I recall his words correctly,that this debate has been a civic lessonfor the people of America; that he wasnot at all happy with that lesson. Thegood Senator spoke rather disparaginglyof those who have done the best we couldto resist this gag rule.

There is indeed a civic lesson involvedin this, and I do wish that the Americanpeople understood the implications ofwhat this Senate is doing, because it isnot, Mr. President, a waste of time. It isnot an exercise in futility or an exerciseof frivolity, in the judgment of the Senator from North Carolina. The traditionsand the precedents and the intent of theU.S. Senate are, to me, very dear, becausethe Founding Fathers intended this bodyto be perhaps the last forum on Earthwhere free men could have their say andwhere the rights of the minority wouldbe protected against an emotional majority or even a tyrannical majority.

What has transpired on this floorreally is not frivolous, in the judgment of


the senator from North Carolina, norshould it be condemned by anyone. Thereare those of us who feel very stronglyand very sincerely that a vital principleis at stake, a principle that should not besurrendered or discarded. Principles arediscarded, Mr. President, principles areabandoned, Mr. President, so easily thesedays and, in the judgment of the Senatorfrom North Carolina, that is one of thecauses of the travail of our country inour time.

It used to be, Mr. President, that personal responsibility in America was arequirement for a mB,n's honor. I thinkwe have develop:d poor attit'ldes, encouraged by legislation that h1S flowedthrough the Senate-even with the twothirds rule in effect-without, in myjudgment, enough consideration. As a result too many Americans are not reallyconcerned about their own personal responsibilities.

Be that as it may, Mr. President, thefight that has been waged in this matterhas not been a frivolous one.

There is indeed, as th:! diatinguishedSenator from Montana said earlier today, a civics lesson of which the American people ought to be aware, but it isnot quite the kind of civics lesson thathe had in mind. It is not a civics lesson,I would say to my dear friend, that theminority in this case has been irresponsible. Rather it is an instance in whichthe Senator from Alabama (Mr. ALLEN)has stood steadfast on principle, againstinsurmountable odds and in the face ofcertain defeat. I have been proud to standwith him.

I have no criticism of the leadershipon either side, but it is a fact that theleadership on both sides of the aisle hasbeen active in support of this gag rule.That, plus the rulings of the Vice President, inclUding his refusal to recognizeSenators seeking recognition, deprivedthe minority of any real hope of exercising the rights of the minority.

So, I do agree that there is a vitalcivics lesson for the people of Americain this matter, and I do wish that thenews media of this country could conveythe importance of what is happeninghere. But I suppose that is too much toask.

AlIlENDMENT NO. 29

In any case, Mr. President, I now callup my amendment No. 29, I move its approval, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendment will be stated.


The Senator from North Carolina (Mr.HELMS) proposes an amendment numbered29.

Mr. HELMS' amendment (No. 29) is asfollows:

On page 3, line 6, In paragraph 2 followingthe phrase "Thereafter no Senator shall beentitled to speak in all more than one houron a measure, motIon, or matter pendIngbefore the senate, or the unfinished busIness, the amendments thereto, snd motionsaffecting .the same," and before the word"and", Insert the following: "unless anotherSenator shall have granted, or yIelded, hIstIme or part thereof to such Senator....

In paragra,ph3 followIng the phrase"Thereafter no senator shall be entitled to

March 7,1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5641speak in all more than one hour on the measure.· motion. or other matter pending beforethe Senate. or the unfinished business. theamendments thereto. and motions affectingthe same." and before the word "and" insertthe following: "unless another Senator shallhave granted. or yielded. his time or partthereof to such Senator....

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.I make a point of order against theamendment. An amendment consistingof two provisions amending a bill orresolution at different points is in facttwo amendments. and cannot be offeredtogether if a question is raised, except byunanimous consent. I make the point oforder that the amendment is not inorder.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.HASKELL). The point of order is welltaken. .

Mr. HELMS. A parliamentary inquiry,Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sena tor will'state it.

Mr. HELMS. In the light of the Chair'sruling, can the amendment be divided?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,the amendment cannot be modified because the Senator can only call up thoseamendments that were presented andread prior to the cloture vote. Modification now would require unanimous consent. The amendment must be before theSenate before a division could possiblybomade.

Mr. HELMS. The Senator from NorthCarolina understands that. and acceptsthe Chair's ruling.

AMENDMENT NO. 27

I call up amendment No. 27.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

amendment will be stated.The assistant legislative clerk read as

follows:The Senator from North Caro!lna (Mr.

HELMS) proposes an amendment n\llnbered27.

Mr. HELMS' amendment (No. 27) is asfollows:

On page 2. !lne 10 in paragraph 2. following the phrase "NotWithstanding the provisions of rule III or rUle VI or any other ruleof the Senate. at any time a motion signedby" and before the word "Senators" strikeout the word "sixteen" and insert in lieuthereof the word "twenty-five".

On page 3, line 19. In paragraph 3. following the phrase "NotWithstanding the provisions of rule III or rule VI or any otherrule of the senate, at any time a motionsigned by" and before the word "Senators"strike out the word "sixteen" and Insert Inlieu thereof the word "twenty-five".

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I make the same point of oI'der. Theamendment is dil'ected at two differentportions of the resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pointof order is sustained.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President. I appealthe Chair's ruling.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Does the Senator appeal?

Mr. HELIM:S. Yes.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I move that the appeal be laid on thetable.

Mr. HELMS. I ask for the yeas andnays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is therea sufficient second?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President. I suggestthe absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll, and the following Senatorsanswered to their names:

[Quorum No. 22 Leg.]Abourezk Gravel· MondnleAllen Griffin MossBaker Hansen MuskieBartlett Hart, Gary W. NelsonBayh Hart, Phllip A. NunnBeaU Hartke PackwoodBednon Haskell PearsonBentsen Hatfle,d PellBiden Hathaway PercyBrock He.ms Fro>.mlreBrooke Hollings RandolphBuckley Hruska RibicoffBurdick Huddleston RothByrd, Inouye Scott. Hugh

Harry F .• Jr. Jackson Scott.Byrd, Hobert C. Javits William L.cannon Johnston SparkmanCase Kennedy StaffordChiles Ia,alt StevensChurch Leahy SLevensonClark Long StoneCranston Magnuson SymingtonCulver Mansfie,d TalmadgeDole Mathias ThurmondDemenici McCiure TowerFong McGee TunneyFord McGovern WeickerGarn McIntyre WllliamsGlenn Metcalf Young

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. INOUYE) . A quorum is present.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted towithdraw the request for the yeas andnays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? The Chair hears' none, and itis so ordered.

Mr. HELMS. The Chair will put thequestion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. No. the question is on the motion to table the appeal.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table the appealof Mr. HELMS. [Putting the question.]

The motion was agreed to.Mr. HELMS. Mr. President. I reserve

the remainder of my time.Mr. ALLEN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator from West Virginia.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I was not seek

ing recognition.Mr. ALLEN. It is interesting that the

Senator is recognized while not seekingrecognition.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I was standing. and that is why the Chair thoughtI was seeking recognition. I do not happen to be one of those Senators who addresses the Chair while sitting.

AMENDMENT NO. 33

Mr. ALLEN. I call up amendment No.33.


The Senator from Alabama. proposesAmendment No. 33.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I move to table the amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. Let the amendment bestated. Is that not customary that anamendment must be stated?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thought theclerk had stated it.

Mr. Au.EN. The clerk had not statedthe amendment.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I beg the Senator's pardon.

The ll.Ssistant legislative clerk read asfollows:

At the end add the following new section:"SEC. 5. This resolution shall become ef·

fective at the end of the beginning of theNinety-fifth Congress....

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.I move to table the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to tablethe amendment. [Putting the question!.

Mr. ALLEN. I call for a division.The PRESIDING OFFICER. A division

is requested. Senators in favor of themotion to lay on the table will rise andstand until counted. [After a pause.!Those opposed will rise and stand untilcounted.

On a division the motion to lay on thetable was agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 34

Mr. ALLEN. I call up amendment No.34. -

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill report.


At the end add the following new section:"SEC. 5. This resolution shall become effe~.

tive at the beginning of the end of theNinety-fifth Congress..•.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presid.ept..I move to table the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to layon the table. [Putting the question.]

The motion was agreed to.AMENDMENr NC'. 49

Mr. ALLEN. I call up amendment No.49.



On page 3. line 6, between the words"thereafter" and "no" substitute the words"unless time is yielded to him by anotherSenator".

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,this amendment allows time to beyielded by one Senator to another Senntor without unanimous consent on ameasure after cloture has been invoked.I move to table the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion in on agreeing to the motion totabl=:. [Putting the question.]

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 35

Mr. ALLEN. I call up amendmentwas that or 49 or 35, which one wastabled?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. FortY-nine.Mr. ALLEN. I call up amendment No.

35.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.The assistant legislative clerk read as

follows:On page 4 strike line 9 and SUbstitute the

following: "by two-thirds of the Senatorsduly chosen and sworn, then said".

56tl2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 7, 1975Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi

dent, this amendment would require aconstitutional two-thirds to invoke cloture, which would mean that we wouldgo baek to the cloture rule of 1959 andprior thereto. I move that the amendment be tabled.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the motionto lay on the table. [Putting the question.]

The motion was agreed to.AMENDMENT NO. 37

Mr. ALLEN. I call up Amendment No.37.

The PRESIDL~GOFFICER-The clerkwill report.


At the end of page 4 add the following:"The one hour period prior to the establ!.shment of a quorum prior to the cloture voteshall be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the cloture petition for the purpose of debate on the cloture!.ssue,".

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, as a general rule, this is done byunanimous consent. If it were not donemorning business normally would occurunder rule VII, and the amendment, ifadopted, would have the etrect of precluding routine morning business, during the hour before the cloture vote. I,therefore, move to table the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the motionto lay on the table. (Putting the question.)


Mr. ALLEN. Call up amendment No.38.

The PRESIDTI'l"G OFFICER. The clerkwill report.


At the end add the following new section:"SEC. 5. The rules of the Senate may be

'amended Only by a two-thirds vote ofSenators present and voting.".

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment has nothing to dowith the closing of debate. It increasesthe number required to change the rules.The rules can now be amended by a majority of Senators present and voting,and this amendment would require twothirds of those Senators present and voting to amend the rules.

I move to table the amendment.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques

tion is on agreeing to the motion to layon the table. [Putting the question.]


Mr. ALLEN. Call up amendment No.39.



On line 17 page 2 .strike word "calendar"and substitute word "leg1slatlve",

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,the effect of this amendment, if it wereto be adopted, would be to force adjournment before a vote on clotw·e. I think

that the leadership might from time totime feel it necessary to recess the Senate rather than to adjourn before thevote on clotw'e, and if this amendmentwere to be adopted, of course, it wouldtake that choice away from the leadership, I, therefore, move to table theamendi"Dent.

The PRESIDL'jG OFFICER. Theque.stiol1 is on agreeing to the motion tolay on the table. [Putting the question.]

The motion was agreed to.A~iEND::\IENT Nl3:. 26

1'\'11'. ALLEN. Call up amendment No.36.


The assistant lpgislative clerk read asfollows:

On page 3 skike all of line 1 and substitutethe following: "by two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, then".

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,the effect of this amendment, if it wereto be adopted, would be to keep the present requirement of two-thirds presentar::.d voting to invoke cloture. I, therefore,move to table the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay'on the table. [Putting the question.]


Ml·. ALLEN. Call up amendment No.44.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill report.- The assistant legislative clerk read as

follows:At the end add the following new section:"SEC. • Debate on motions, l·esolutions.

bills, or other measures having any referenceto an amendment of the Senate rules shallbe governed by and limited only by theSenate rules whether such bill, resolution,motion, or other measure !.s offered at thebeginning of a Congress or at any othertime,".

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,this amendment would simply be excessverbiage because it adds nothing to thepresent rules. I call attention to paragraph 2 of rule XXXII of the presentrules:

The rules of the Senate shall continuefrDm one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in theserules.


tion is on, agreeing to the motion to layon the table. (Putting the'question.)

The motion was agreed to.A~ND]I,IENT NO. 40

Mr. ALLEN called up amendment No.40.


The assiStant legislative clerk read asfollows:

On page 3 strike all of line 1 and substitutethe following: "by two-thirds of the Senatorsduly chosen and sworn, then".


Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I move thatthe amendment be laid on the table tosave the time.

Mr, ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I have the fioor. I may not wish to tablethe amendment. '

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the fioor.

rill'. ALLEN. I withdraw the amendment.

AI,IEND1HENT NO~ 36

Mr. ALLEN. I call up amendmentNo.36.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerl<will state the amendment.


The Senator from Alabama proposes-,.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 36 has been tabled.

AMENDMENT NO. 37

Mr. ALLEN. Well, amendment No. 37then, I got that in the wrong stack,apparently.


That has been tabled also.Mr. ALLEN. What did the Chair say?The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have

a whole pile of amendments that havebeen tabled and amendment No. 37 isin the pile of amendments.

AMENDMENT NO. 41

Mr. ALLEN. Well, I ask the clel'k tocall up the next amendment in numberof the Senator from Alabama.



The Senator from Alabama proposesamendment No. 41.



Amend S. Res. 4 as amended by BYRDsubstitute in following manner:

On page 2, line 7, strike all after semicolon following word "arranged" and strikeall of lines 7 and 8.

Strike semicolon following word "arranged" and substitute therefor a period.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from West Virginia. '

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I move to lay that amendment on thetable.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the motionof the Senator from West Virginia.


AMENDMENT NO. 43

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ALLEN. I ask the next amendmentbe called up,

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment !fo. 43.

The amendment will b';l stated.The assistant legislative clerk read as

follows:The Senator from Alabama proposes

amendment No. 43.


S. Res. 4, as amended by ROBERT C. BYRD substitute.

Amend S. Res. 4 as amended by BYRD sub-

Ma1'ch 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5643

stitute in following manner: At the end addthe following new section:

"SEC. . Motions, resolutions, bllls, orother measures having any reference to anamendment of the Senate rules offered or presented at the beginning of a Congress or atany other time shall be governed by the debate l1mitations provided for in this resolUtion in like manner as any other bill, resolution, motion, or other measure....

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I move the amendment be laid on thetable.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques~

tion is on agreeing to the motion of theSenator from West Virginia.



AMENDMENT NO. 46

Mr. ALLEN. I call up the next numbered amendment.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I wish the Senator would call the number of his amendment. It would assistother Senators in locating the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendment number 46.

The amendment will be stated.The assistant legislative clerk read as


amendment No. 46.



Amend S. Res. 4 as amended by BYRD substitute in following manner: On page 3lines 11 through 14 strike the words "Exceptby unanimous consent, no amendment shallbe in order after the vote to bring the debateto a close, unless the same has been presentedan':! read prior to that time.".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen~

ator from West Virginia.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

this amendment would allow any amendment to be presented after cloture hadbeen invoked-even though such amendment had not been presented and readprior to the vote on cloture.



The motion to lay on the table wasagl'eed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen~

ator from Alabama.AMENDMENT NO. 47

Mr. ALLEN. I call up the next numbered amendment. .





S. Res. 4 as amended by Robert C. Byrdsubstitute.

Amend S. Res. 4 as amended by Byrd substitute in following manner: On page 3between lines 18 and 19 add the following:"'The one hour period prior to the establishment of a quorum prior to the cloture

~----357--Part5

vote shall be equally divided between theproponents and opponents of the cloturepetition for the purpose of debate on theclotur& issue.".

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I thought we had already acted onthis amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. It is probably the sameproposition, stated in different words.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, Then I moveto table the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the motion ofthe Senator from West Virginia.


The PRESIDING OFFICER. TIleSenator from Alabama.

Al'.<ENDMENT NO. 48

Mr. ALLEN. I call up amendmentNo. 48.





S. Res. 4 as amended by Robert C. Byrd substitute.

Amend S. Res. 4 as amended by Byrd substitute in following manner: On page 4,Une 13, between the words "thereafter" and"no" substitute the words "unless time isyielded to him by another Senator".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,this would have the effect of allowing aSenator to yield time to another Senatorafter cloture has been invoked withoutgetting unanimous consent to do so.




AMENDMENT NO. 5DMr. ALLEN. I call up amendment

No. 50.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The



amendment No. 50.



Amend S. Res. 4 as amended by BYRD substitute in following manner: At the end addthe following new section:

"SEC. . Other than by unanimous consent the method of Ilmlting debate providedfor herein shall be the exclusive method ofIlmlting debate on a measure, bill, resolution,or motion, and this rule shall apply whetherthe measure, bill, resolution, or motion concern an amendment of the rules and whetherit is offered during tbe beginning of a Congress or at any other time.".


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,this is another of those amendmentswhich would be just excess baggage Inview of the fact that paragraph 2 of rule

XXXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate accomplishes the same objective insofar as it can be accomplished.

I move that the amendment be tabled.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques


The motion to lay on the table wasagl'eed to.


AMENDMENT NO. 51Mr. ALLEN. I call up amendment No.

51.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

amendment will be stated. AmendmentNo. 51 has been tabled. Amendment No.54 is the next.

Mr. ALLEN. Has No. 52 been actedupon in a deliberative fashion?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 52 is the amendment SUbmittedby Senator ROBERT C. BYRD.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is mYamendment.

Mr. ALLEN. Very well.AMENDMENT NO. 53

Has No. 53 been acted upon?The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes; No.

53 has been withdrawn.Mr. ALLEN. Well, I ask it be called up

again.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The



amendment No. 53.

The amendment is as follows:Proposed by Mr. ALLEN to S. Res. 4 (as

amended), a resolution amending rule XXIIof the Standing Rules of the senate withrespect to the limitation of debate, viz: Atthe end add the following new section:

SEC. • Motlo~s, resolutions, bills, or othermeasures having any reference to an amendment of the Senate rules offered or presentedat the beginning of a Congress or at anyother time shall be governed by the debatelimitations provided for in this resolutionin like manner as any other blll, resolution,motion, or other measure, and the methodof llmltlng debate provided in this resolution shall be the exclusive method, otherthan by unanimous consent, of llmiting debate on any such motions, resolutions, bUls,or other measures haVing any reference toan amendment of the Senate rules irrespective of when offered.


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. M!". Presidentthis is the same amendment, but in a dlf~

!erent form, to which I have previouslyalluded as being excess baggage and onewhich is better taken care of by paragraph 2 of rule XXXII of the StandingRuleI' of the Senate.

I move to table the amendment.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ques4


The motion to lay on the table wnsagreed to.

AMEKD1VIENT NO. 54

Mr. ALLEN. Does the Senator fromAlabama have other amendments at thedesk?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 54.

Mr. ALLEN. I ask that it be stated.

5644 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE MaTch 7, 1975The PRESIDING OFFICER. The



amendment No. 54.



Amend S. Res. 4 as amended by BYRDsubstitute In foJlowing manner:

On page 3, line 7, strIke the words "onebour" and substitute tbe words "two hours:'


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,this would have the effect of allowing200 hours for debate, rather than amaximum of 100 hours for debate, on anymeasure after cloture has been invoked.

I, therefore, move to table the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of theSenator from West Virginia.


The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator from Alabama.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, how muchtime remains to the Senator fromAlabama?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has 53 minutesremaining.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair.I yield myself such time as I may use.Mr. President, there are three reasons

why it was necessary to continue the discussion on this issue after the Senatevoted overwhelmingly to invoke cloture.

The flrst is that there were a numberof basic changes proposed in the amendments that have been given deliberativeconsideration here in the Senate in thelast few minutes.

The Senator from Alabama and theother Senators wanted to have some opportunity to discuss the amendments andto have them acted up~n on their merits.But on yesterday a promise was exactedbetween some of the Senators on the sideof the gag rule that there would be noamendments agreed to with respect toSenate Resolution 4, as amended by theByrd substitute. So there was little opportunity to have serious, careful, anddeliberate consideration given to anyamendment'3. But the case had to bemade for the substantive amendmentsthat were represented in the group thathave now been turned down by the Senate. So thi'3 consideration should havebeen given to this amendments.

The second reason that the debate hadto continue was that in the judgment ofthe Senator from Alabama, and a number of other Senators, there could havebeen no compromisf' with those whoflouted the Senate rulas, who came intothe Senate with a method providing fora majority cloture on the issue of changing the Senate rules.

Since that procedure was outside theSenate rules, it did not seem appropriateto the Senator from Alabama to enterinto any compromise with Senators proceeding outside of the rules. To do sowould have given the stamp of approval

or the stamp of legitimacy to their actions in proceeding through a backdoorapproach to the rules and not throughthe Senate rules themselves.

Of cours,:, the cloture proceedings, bothon the motion to proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 4 and thecloture proceeding with respect to theresolution, itself, was nothing more thana sham to deliver up to the gag rule Senators a cloture as a fait accompli. Cl:>ture had to be presented on a silver platter 01' else the implied threat was thatwe would go back t:> a majority cloturewhich had been estabIishe:!. here in theSenate through the Vice President's ruling. There could have been no compromise on this principle, the principh ofrequiring that the Senate rules be followed. The discussion had to continueuntil such time as all further recourseavailable to free debate Senators hadbeen exhausted. Th~t is the posHion wehave come to at this time.

ThFln, too, Mr. President. I feel that itwas necessary that the debate be continued after the invocation of cloture because it was necessary for us to servenotke on the gfl.g rule S:mators whomight, 2 years from now, see how easyit was to ram a change in the Senaterules through the Senate and they mightcome back in an effort to am~nd therul'!s again.

So, Mr. Preslden~, the towel had been~hrown in immediately after cloture hasbeen invoked. At the time the distinguished majority leadzr (Mr. MANSFIELD)took the floor and polntec. out the topheavy vote in favor of cloture and cautioned Members of the Senate to proceed with dispatch in disposing of thismatter.

Mr. President, if the Idea is prevalentthat Members of the Senate will liedown, roll over and play dead to thistype of action-unauthorized and notcountenanced by the rules-then youcan certainly look for that effort to bemade.

Thz distinguished majority leader,whom I admire very much, a man ofgreat character, dedication, and sincerity, spoke of Senators who had referredto the actions here in the Senate as beingthe actions of an arrogant majority,knew that the Senator from Alabamahas used that very same phrase with respect to those who would move outside ofthe Senate rules and ram through thisSenate something that is not authorizedby the rules.

The Senator from Alabama saved acopy of the speecl~ of the distinguishedmajority leader made on February 20when he was speaking of the action ofthe Senators who were seeking to ramthrough majority cloture.

I concede, of course, that, for the timebeing, this is a constitutional three-fifthsrequirement on invoking cloture. But itdoes not obscure the fact that any timethey want to come in and seek to changethe rules they can do so by offering aresolution, a moLon to proceed a further motion to cut 0!:I debate, t~ cut offamendments, to cut off motions, to havea convenient point of order made, tablethat point of order, have the Vice President say that that tabling put into effect

the very provbions of the majority cloture motion without the motion everbeing acted upon.

So any rights that the philosophicalminority here in the Senate has it has atthe sufferance of the gag rule Senators.

Mr. President, let us see If the opinionof the Senator from Alabama in referring to this action of those who put intoeffect majority cloture here in the Senateis. too different from the opinion of thedIstingUished majority leader.

This is what he said about this effortto ram through m::tjority cbture. Let ussee if he thouzht they were being arrogant;

But the !:lct that I can and do support thecontent of Senate Resolution 4 does notmean that I condone or support the routetaken or the methods beIng used to reachthe objective of changIng Senate rule XXII.

Mr. MANSFIELD continues:The present motion to invoke cloture by

a simple majority vote, If It succeeds, wouldalter the concept of the Senate so drastlcal1ythat I cannot find any justIficatIon for It.

Continuing, he says:The proponents of this motIon would dls

rcg~r<.l the rules whIch have governed theSenate over the years sImply by stating tbatthe rules do not exist.

That sounds like arrogance to me.This is Senator MANSFIELD talking:The proponents of thIs motion would dis

regard the rules which have governed theSenate over the years sImply by stating thatthe rUles do not exist.

How arrogant can you bet?They InsIst that theIr posItion Is right and

any means used are therefore proper.

How arrogant can you get?Mr. MANSFIELD says:I cannot agree.

So the Senator from Alabama does notbelieve in being taken to task for referring to this action as the action of anarrogant majority, when he went evenso far as the majority leader did in categorizing the action of this willful group.

Mr. President, I rather like this procedure here, following cloture. It gives aSenator an opportunity to be recognized.He has an h:>ur's time staked out, andhe can get up and ask to be recognized,with some hope of being recognized. Ofcourse, a moment ago, the same old storyoccurred, however. But that was an oversight, I am sure. But the ability to getup and be recognized and have some littlesay about the issue involved is a rathercomforting feeling.

Of course, you do not get to discussyour amendments, because they recognize somebody to table them before youhave an opportunity to do that.

Another thing that the distinguishedmajority leader had to say about therule of the filibuster: He said that back inthe old days, it was used for one specificpurpose, and I understood that to meana filibuster against a civil rights measure.But now he says it is used for a widerange of things. Well, thank goodness itis. I hope that it is never again tarredwith the image of being a device used todefeat civil rights legislation, because itis far more than that and far deeper thanthat, in seeking to protect a minority

Ma14ch 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5645

viewpoint in the Senate and throughoutthe country. So more power to extendeddebate, if it opens up other fields whereincaution can be advised by Senators whocan and will and do discuss issues pending before the Senate.

So, yes, it is more than that. It is inorethan a device to stop civil rights legislation. It is not that anymore. A wide rangeof usefulness is open to the right of extended debate in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, it seems that in a shorttime, this new rule will come into effectin the Senate, and I am hopeful that itwill not be used to stifle free debate inthe Senate. I am hopeful that it will be auseful check on excess discussion. Butthe two-thirds rule has not hinderedJegislation in recent years, with one or twopossible exceptions; because in December, in a matter of 10 days' time, we invoked cloture in the Senate on a measurethat had never been discussed in theSenate-the first time-and the trade billwas one of them, by a vote of 71 to 19. Sothe Senate can move anytime it sodesires.

Mr. President, I was disappointed thatmy amendment No. 53 was not consideredin the Senate but was tabled immediately. It has this to say:

Motions, resolutions, bills, or other measures having any reference to an amendmentof the. Senate rules offered or presented atthe begining of a Congress or at any othertime shall be governed by the debate llmitations provided for in this resolution in llkemanner as any other bill, resolution, motion, or other measure, and the method oflImiting debate provided in this resolutionshall be the exclusive method, other thanby unanlmous consent, of llmiting debate onany such motions, resolutions, bills, or othermeasures having any reference to an amendment of the.Senate rules irrespective of whenoffered.

Mr. President, we have heard a greatdeal about a compromise in the Senate.The Senator from Alabama did not participate in any conferences looking to acompromise, because you cannot compromise on principle, as I have pointedout. This so-called compromise carriedwith it the idea the precedent set by theVice President, that you could have majority cloture at the beginning of a Congress with respect to amendment of therules. The agreement was-as wasechoed throughout the Chamber andthroughout the cloakrooms-that thisprecedent would be reversed and thatfuture rules changes would be governedby the lules; and they cynically put inthere that two-thirds would still be therequirement for cutting off debate on arules change, knowing full well that theywould go the majority vote route by justputting in a debate-chokeoff motion,getting a point of order made to it, tabling it, and then you would have a nondebatable, nonamendable, nom'eferrablemeasw'e before the Senate.

An effort was made to reconsider voteson a point of order; and when theyfinally got around to acting on it, it wasthe day after the point of order had died,so there was nothing to which to directit.

So the precedent had not been reversed, and these Senators knew it. Theyknew it had not been reversed. If it hadbeen reversed, there would not have been

anything to keep them from coming inwith a nondebatable motion again.

Eo the purpose of this amendment wasmerely to say that future efforts toamend the rules would be governed, insofar as debate limitations are concerned, by the Senate rules themselves.The Senate rules say that; but despitethat, they moved forward with a debatelimitation by majority vote, on February 20.

So the Senator from Alabama was notunrealistic enough to feel that this littleamendment would prevent gag rule Senators from applying the gag rule again.But he thought it might provide justsome little cheek, just some little ethicalrequirement, just some restraint on theiraction. When they got ready to file one ofthese majority vote rebate choke-offmotions, they would look at this partof Senate Resolution 4 or rule XXII andsay, "Maybe we better not do this. Maybe this kind of binds us a little bit. TheSenate voted it; maybe we ought to begoverned by it."

No, they did not even want thatamowlt of restraint. They voted it downwithout really knowing its provision.That is what we are faced with, Mr.President.

What I do not like is the idea thathanging over this Chamber from now onwill be the sword of Damocle:1 that mightfall at any time. Any time the gag ruleSenators are not satisfied with the 60vote cloture, they can come in with theirmajority cloture route, as they startedbefore. As long as the other 40 or 41, asthe case might be, as long as the philosophical minority in the Senate behavethemselves, as long as they do not haveany input in the Senate, as long as theydo not speak on measures before theSenate, as long as they do not bother tocome by the Senate Chamber, as long asthey confine themselves to Fourth ofJuly speeches, and Veterans Day, to Rotary Clubs, Farm Bureau, posing on theCapitol steps, sending out seed to Minnesota-as long as they confine themselvesto those activities, everything will be fine.This new rule is going to just live on andon and on.

But I tell you, the first time that theyare required to seek to invoke cloture andthey do not get 60 votes, we are going tosee an effort to change the rules again.As long as we ar~ good boys and do notinterfere with them, as long as we letthis monolithic 60 Senators run thingshere, in the Senate, decide what measures we are going to have, who is goingto talk on them, how long he is going totalk, how many billions he is going tospend, and the others do not interferewith him, we will get along fine withthe new rule XXII. But if one of thosewho is not one of the 60 comes in andasks to speak, why, he will get treatmentabout like Oliver Twist in asking for second helpings. He would not last very longhere, in the Senate. But as long as weare good boys, everything will be fine.They will not make any effort to changethe rules. Why should they? Everything"ill be going their way.

But if we are naughty boys, if we donot play their game, we can rest assuredthat there are going to be more changesin the Senate rules.

"Oh." they will sa", ."do you notremember, you agreed to reverse thatdecision of the Vice FrBoident?"

Well, the answer will ce, "Well, letus see what the Vice President thinksabout it today." And we know what hethinks about it. And we know what thegag-rule Senators will think about it,that if it is necessary to do it, they aregoing to do it.

That is the reason I haVe been againstthis modification of the rules, the reasonI have opposed it a',d sroken against itat every opportunity, though not toofrequentlv, that I was [il'cn to speak onthe issues.

Mr. President, I was ['1-0 interested inthe fact that this measure had the approval of the Vice Predient and hisactive cooperation in rammi>lg it throughthe Senate. It had the approval of anarrogant majority in the Senate. It hadthe approval of both minority leadersand both majority leaders. And then,finally, it had the avprov,..l of free debateSenators who felt that this was theproper course to follow, who felt, with apistol at their head, that they had betteragree to what the gag-rule Senators wereoffering or they might end up with less.

I find no fault with them for goingoff after that line of settlement. But itwill not last. We would have bee"l muchbetter off allowing them t::J ram throughwhat they intended to ram through tostart with an be stuck with the sorrymess that they had made.

I appreciated the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi inanswering, in graciomly answering, themajority leader when the majority leadersuggested that 21 Senators who votedagainst cloture, in effect, ought to foldtheir tents and get right on this issue.The distinguished Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS), who, I say, withoutany doubt, is the finest and greatestMember of the U.S. Senate, chided themajority leader for any such suggestion.If 21 Senators, or 1 Senator, do nothave the right to express their feelingshere, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, wehave come to a mighty sorry pass.

Mr. President, this battle is going tobe history, probably, in a matter of nottoo many minutes. But it is going to liveon. It would not be proper for me to saythat it is going to live on in infamy, asFranklin Roosevelt once said about aforeign nation's actions. But I do notbelieve it is going to be our proudest day.

This is the direct result not of the cloture vote-that has nothing to do withthis whole issue. The cloture vote wasI would not want to use the word. Itwould be improper here, on the floor ofthe Senate, for me to say that.

But the cloture vote had to have a predetermined outcome, or things wouldhave broken wide open here in the Senate. This is not going to be the proudestday for the gag-rule Senators, startingoff as they did operating outside thelules, knowing fun well that they weregetting the cooperation of the Vice President, cutting off debate in advance, having the Vice President activate a motionthat had not even been passed by theSenate. Then that led to the plan to runit the cloture· route, inasmuch as theoriginal effort acquired such a terrible

5646 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 7, 19'15

The foregoing debate, quoted from theRECORD of January 12. 1959, clarifies ourintent. confirmed by 16 years of SenatJaction on this matter, as to the effectof rules purporting to bind future Congresses on the right of Members to raiseconstitutional grguments against suchrestrictions. In adopting a new ruleXXII today-a rule which, as I said in1959, "threatens to usurp" the rights offuture Congresses-I want to make itclear that I have the right, as I did in1959, to argue this question on constitutional grounds in the 95th Congress.

Finally. Mr. President, I do not thinkwe could really end this debate without atribute to the Vice President. He is a colleague of mine from New York, a man ofan enormous reputation and an enormous record. who came absolutely newto presiding over what has probably beenone of the most difficult debates for thePresiding Officer that has ever takenplace in this Chamber. I think his marks.though not necessarily perfect. were veryhigh. He showed gallantry. courage. anda great conscience, and the willingnessto stick his neck out. to use a commonphrase, in order to serve what he considered to be the dictates of his conscienceas they applied to the law and the Constitution.

Mr. President, he was. in every senseof the word--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.

Mr. JAVITS. I yield myself 2 moreminutes.

He was. in every sense of the word, areal Presiding Officer of the Senate,staking his own reputation upon the decisions which he felt in good conscience.after very profound study, he had tomake.

I honor him for it, and I am verypleased and I feel very honored .that heis a colleague of mine, has been formany, many years. And that he has hadthe rare privilege, vouchsafed a few officers who have presided over the Senate.to have exercised his prerogatives in away in which he did.

Mr. President. I yield the floor.AMENDMENT NO. 52

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I call up Amendment No. 52.


The legislative clerk read as follows:On page 2, beginning on line 14. strike

"except one to amend the Senate rules. it"and Insert in Heu thereof "is".

On page 3, line 1, after the comma, insertthe following "-except on a measure or motion to amend the S~nate rules, in whichcase the necessary affirmatl\'e vote shall betwo-thirds of the Senators present and voting-no

Beginning on page 3,line 19. strike section3.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Because the 'moment thisSenate attempts to impose restrictions uponfuture Senates. to that extent this senate isusurping a power which resides only in thepeople of the United States, not In the Senators of the United State3. Is that correct?

Mr. JAVITS. I thoroughly agree with mycolleague, except that I pOint out that theworm should be "threatening to usurp" because under the Constitution of the UnitedStates I do not believe we can bind any future senate.

tions as wen as further debate on theMonda.Ie-Pearson motion.

On March 3 and March 5, in preparation for adopting a compromise ruleXXII, the Senate voted, lespectively, t.>reconsider the tabling motion of February 26 and to affirm the point of orderraised that day by Senator MANSFIELD.

The point which I believe is important for us to emphasize is that whilethe Senate did reconsider its earliervotes-and in so doing, g'lve up valuableprecedents which could have been usedin future efforts to amend rul ~ X:h""IIwe in no way diminished our rights underth~ Constitution. The same can be saidof our adoption of a nsw rule XXII whichprovides, in part, that all future ruleschanges be accomplished by a two-thirdsvote. Even though we now adopt thisrule, we are in no way precluded, in future Congresses, from arguing that th~

Constitution itself precludes such a restriction. As the distin'Y,ui::hed seniorSenator from California (Mr. CRANSTON)said immsdiat3ly follOWing tho:: vote onMarch 5:

Upholding the Mansfield point of orderonly adds one tree to the Jungle of precedents we reside in. But above and beyondthat jungle stands the Constitution. And noprecedent can reverse the fact that the Constitution supercedes the rules of the Senate-and that the constitutional right tomake its rules cannot be challenged.

If there rem:,jns uny doubt as to ourright to raise the constitutional issueeven though the new rule is specific onthe point we can look to the history ofthe oPeration of rule XXII as amendedin 1959. At that time. the Senatechanged the rule so as to require a twothirds vote of those present and votingto cut off debate-rather than a constitutional two-thirds-and we alsoadded a new section to rule XXII, providing that "the rules of the Senate shallcontinue from one Congress to the nextCongress unless theY are changed asprovided in these rules." Although I opposed the latter provision. and indeedsought to amend it I never believed evenat that time that it would have anypractical effect on our right to raise theconstitutional argument in future Congresses. The history of our continuingefforts to change rule XXII proves thatthat interpretation was correct. To quotefrom the 1959 debate on this point:

Mr. JAvrrs. I also believe that, in all fairne3s, a new Congress could raise the question(of amending the nlles by majority vote)anew. and seek to decide it anew. and noone could stop it. We cannot amend the Constitution. No one knows that better than we.I think this is a constitutional question.

Mr. LAUSCHE. As I understand, the Senatortakes the position that the language of theConstitution conferring power upon the Senate to Impose restrictions upon future Senates in the establishment of its rules of proceedings is violative of the Constitution insofar as it tries to restrict future Senatesin the adoption of rules.

Mro JAvrrs. That Is exactly my argument.Mr. LAUSClm. Therefore. it Is the opinion

of the Senator from New York that to comply with that constitutional provision. allSenates In the future should be left unshack-led in their power to adopt rules of procedures?

Mr. JAVITS. Exactly.

smell that they had to turn the management of the bill over to the leadershipto handle from there on out.

And they did a good job of it. The distinguished assistant majority leader.with his great ability and expertise. hasrammed the bill on through. But. Mr.President. I cannot close without commenting on the fact that when we firstgot started here. the leadership wasagainst this majority cloture effort, andthen when the compromise was made,they started leading the parade. Andthe poor Senator from Minnesota (Mr.MONDALE) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. PEARSON) had to sink into theshadows when the leadership took themeasure over to ram it through.

And it has been rammed through. Nota single amendment was considered onits merits. Not one. Not one singleamendment considered on its merits.The Senator from Alabama had some35 amendments, many of them substantive amendments. He was trying to reform rule XXII, though he was referredto in the media as an antireformist. andthose who stopped the consideration ofamendments, they are the reformers.That is passing strange to the Senatorfrom Alabama.

Mr. President. how much time remainsto the Senator from Alabama?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has until 8: 43 p.m.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair. I reserve the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President. I yieldmyself 5 minutes.

Two votes which have occurred thisweek are of significance. not simply inthe history of this measure,. but as aguide for the future. I believe it is important, therefore. to make a clear record of. what we have done, and what wehave not done.

To recapitulate:On FebruarY 20. Senator PEARSON

moved that we proceed to the consideration of SEnate Resolution 4 and that avote be taken immediately, and withoutfurther debate, on the motion to takeup.

Senator MANSFIELD then raised a pointof order that the Pearson motion was outof order and Senator MONDALE moved totable the point of order.

The Vice President announced thata vote by the Senate to table thepoint of order would be interpreted byhim as an expression of the will of theSenate that Senator PEARSON'S motion beadopted. The point of order was thentabled 51 to 42.

On February 26, after a series of intervening dilatory motions had beentabled. our earlier action was clarified ina series of motions wherein SenatorMONDALE moved that in accordance withthe precedent of February 20. we proceed to vote on the motion to take upSenate Resolution 4. Senator MANSFIELDraised a point of order to the effect thatthe Mondale motion was out of order inthat it would preclude intervening motions. In tabling that point of order by avote of 46 to 43. the Senate affirmed itsearlier intention to preclude such mo-

Ma'tch 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5647.Renumber section 4 as section 3.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,this' is a technical amendment. I.t corrects a typographical error, and It alsoshortens and makes more concise thelanguage of the rule. It makes no substantive change whatsoever in the substitute, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will theSenator yield? I did not quite understandwhat he said. It makes no change in theByrd substitute?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It makes nosubstantive change. It is a technicalamendment. It shortens and makes moreconcise the language, and it corrects atypographical error.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.[Putting the question.]

The amendment was agreed to.TRIBUTE TO SENATOR J'AMES D. ALLEN OF

ALABAMA

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President the long and difficult fight as toWhether the rules of the Senate shall bechanged will come to an end in a fewmoments. The outcome is clear. But I dowish to say a few words about a courageous Senator.

The Senator from Alabama (Mr.ALLEN) has proved himself cot only amaster of parliamentary procedure andtactlcs, but he has proved himself adedicated, tenacious and resolute legislator.

It is never pleasant to go down in defeat.

But Senator JAMES B. ALLE1; of Alabama will stand as tall in defeat as everhe could have stood in victory.

In this political era, where politicalleaders, including two Presidents, haveboasted that in :>olitics the name of .thegame is to win, the Senator from Virgmiais willing to assert for the record somewhat different view.

I realize what I shall say is consideredoutdated but I still believe what I wastaught ~any yt;!ars ago: that whether itbe baseball or politics, the importantelement is not whether one wins or loses,but how one plays the game.

. The Senator from Alabama has playedthe game fairly, forthrightly, and brUlia.ntly. If his rights have not always beenrecognized, it has been through no negligence on his part. If he ha" been beatendown by the theory that might makesright, he can take some consolation, forthat theory prevails in most parts of theworld and in most lines of endeavor.

As to whether history will record thatthe position taken by ':.he Senator fromAlabama, and under his leadership by theSenator from Virgir.ia, would be in thebest interest of our :;ration and the Senate, none can say with certainty. So Isee no point in attem9ting to predict.

But I do want to say to a gallantleader, I have been pleased to serve underyour leadership in this long and difficultfight.

I salute Senator JAMES B. ALLEN ofAlabama and express the co~victlon thatthe people of his State are as proud ofhim in defeat as they would have b3enhad he achieved victory.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will theBenatoryleld?

Mr. HA~RY F. BYRD, JR. I yield tothe Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ALLEN. I would like to express mysincere appreciation for his overgenerouspraise. I will never forget it.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, will theSenator yield? I would like to say verybriefly that I think what has been saidby the distinguished senior Senator fromVirginia voices the thoughts and, indeed,the respect, admiratio'l, and appreciationthat all of us here, no matter which sidewe may be on feel toward the Senatorfrom Alabama' which, I suspect, in thecoming years, will be appreciated moreand more by all Amelicans everywhere.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I rise to inquire as to whether or not anySenator intends to offer any furtheramendments or motions. Apparently not.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas andnays on flnal passage of Senate Resolution 4, as amended.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second? There is a sUfficientsecond.

The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I want to take just a moment to expressmy appreciation to all Senators for theirunderstanding and the patience theyhave demonstrated in this effort.

I want to thank those senators onboth sides of the aisle who have canceled engagements for this evening, forthis afternoon, and even for today in order that they might be present and inorder that the Senate lnight work itswill on this important change in therules. They have demonstrated their intention to stay on the floor throughouttonight and tomorrow, if necessary,to bring this matter to a flnal vote thisweekend.

I especially want to express my commendations to Senator MONDALE, Senator CRANSTON, Senator LONG, SenatorPEARSON, the majority leader, Mr. MANSFIELD, the minority leader, Mr. SCOTT,Mr. GRIFFIN, and all Senators whohave worked so diligently and in such adedicated way to support the substitutewhich, as has been stated repeatedly, isa fair and equitable and well-balancedsolution to the question that has beenbefore the Senate no-.v far too long.

As always, I think the Senate hasdemonstrated that, while it will oftendebate and debate at length, in the finalanalysis, it will render a judgment, andin almost all cases in my 17 years here,I have believed that the flnal judgmentof the Senate has been the right judgment, as will also prove to be the case inthe decision shortly to be rendered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes, I yieldthe floor.

Mr. MANSFIELD. :Mr. President, thedistinguished assistant majority leaderhas mentioned everyone but himself, andI want to take this occasion to go onrecord in extending my thanks to thedistinguished Senator from West Virginia for the way he has conductedhimself during the entire course ofevents leading up to what I hope will bean ultimate conclusion soon.

He, like the Senator from Alabama, isa master of the rules, and he, like the

Senator from Alabama, has done hishomework.

I think that we are extremely fortunate to have a man of the integrity, theability, the dignity and the chara~ter ofROBERT BYRD of West Virginia taking thelead in this particular difficult situation,and acquitting himself with honor andintelligence all the way through.

I wish to extend to him my deep personal thanks for what he has been ableto do and to accomplish in this mostdifficult hour.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Pre~de~t,I thank the distinguished maJol'ltyleader.

Mr. SYMINGTON addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

Mr SYMINGTON. Mr. President, Iwould like to associate myself with theremarks of the majority leader with respect to the distinguished Senator fromWest Virginia.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I thank the distinguished Senator fromMissouri.

The PRESIDING OFFICEI',. The question is on agreeing to Senate Resolution4, as amended. The yeas and nays havebeen ordered, and the clerk will call theroll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.REFORM OF SENATE RULE xxn

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, today isan historic day in the U.S. Senate. Passage of Senate ResolutiC'n 4 rerre~ents asignificant victory for those who havefo~ght to reform the procedures of thisbody. Reform of Rule XXII will makethe Senate more efficient, more democratic, and more effectual.

Senate Resolution 4 is the first reformin 16 years-and I believe, the most impOl'tant reform in 186 years-of a rulewhich has frequently paralyzed this bodyand diminished its credibility with thecitizens of America.

But te real importance of today's action goes beyond procedural reform andbeyond the confines of the U.S. Senate.In a very real sense, today's action is avictory for all America.

With a reformed rule XXII, the Senate will be able to deal with the pressingproblems of America of 1975. With areformed rule XXII, the Senate will beable to legislate in the flelds of tax reform, energy policy, economics, campaign procedures, consumer needs, andother critical matters.

With a reformed rule XXII, the Senatewill be able to act, even when a small,intransigent minority seeks to frustrateaction. With a reformed rule XXII, thewill of this body and the will of theAmetican people will be translated intolegislative action.

Instead of the "filibuster Congress,"the 94th Congress will be known as the"action Congress."

Mr. President, I want to congratulateall of the Senators who have worked sohard to achieve the passage of SenateResolution 4.

It has been a particular honor for me,as chief sponsor of Senate Resolution 4,to serve with the other chief sponsor, thedistinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr.

5M8 CONGRESSIONAL:RECORD -::'. SJ;:NATE'" , T'L. . iJlarch '7''1.975 ;.... , .,

70-23 62

60..31 6362·-33 6l60--3ii 6~60-36 6l64-34 66

--_.-_._~-------

I A.·eL,ge: 63 (without Dec. 14, 19H).

Social serv~ Det. 17. 1974•• =__, _UnslltOeSSful cloture 'votes sinu 1968 with

mor~ titan 60 votes needed:Voler regis., May 3, 1973 , _Rhod. chrome, Dec 13.1973 ._leg serv.,Dec.13,1973.__ •• , __ ._Cam. fin., Apr. 4.1974-. • _CPA, Sept. 19, 1974,.. • ._

Mr. MONDALE. There are, of course,many examples in recent years of cloturevote.s on which less than 60 votes wererequired to hlVoke cloture. But. the record will show that, on the most significant issues, more than 60 was required.Also, the absentees-and, consequently.the lowering of the cloture burden underthe old rule-was often caused by thetacit acceptance of the impossibility ofinvoking cloture under the old rule.

The burden is lower. and the burdenis different too. Instead of having toattempt to persuade a colleague to votefor cloture without knowing whether hisvote will be the 60th vote. with anywhere from 55 to 67 votes needed. a proponent of clotUl'e will be able to insurea colleague that his vote will satisfy aconcrete-60 vote-burden. AbsenteeismwilI be discouraged and positions moreclearlY delUneated.

What will this new bUl'den mean forthe current Congress? Of course. lamforced to guess. But, Mr. President, I amconfident that--with the reformed ruIeXXII-tilis Congress will be able to passimportant· legislation in the fields of economics. tax reform. energy policy. consumer needs. and many others of vitalconcern to the American people.

We w111 be more effective. We will bemore responsive. We will be more efficient. We will be able to act.

All this will. in my opinion. be accomplished without harm to the essentialnature of this body. Debate and thought:.ful consideration are protected and insured. The rights of minority points ofview safeguarded. And. the Senate willremain the world's greatesl- deliberativebody.

Legislation alone will not tell the wholestory of the significantce of this reform.Mr. President. The Senate will savehours and hours of precious time. And.the people of this Nation will have anincreased respect for the Senate and itsperformance.

Mr. President. we cannot know whatthe futUl'e will hold, Time and experiencemay prove this l·etorm insufficient. Wemay find that we want l'•. formula otherthan that we have established todaY'.However. Mr. President. if the past rec.:.ord is any indication, the step which theSenate has taken today should be a significant step forward.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

65 Mr. President. I would be remiss-as62 chief sponsor of Senate Resolution· 4 in~i the 94th Congress-i{ I did not takf a63fevj nioments today to comment on the~g procedural path ,vh!ch we have j~t6') crossed.~~ Many words have' b'3en spoken and~g many assertions :hav~been made about,,2 the significanc~ and precedentialvalue

. .

Votes Votes1:a5t n~eded

65-3265-2761-3076-1\71-2367-3268-2668·2967-3164·:3071-1956-2767-25

Successful cloture votes since 1~68: 1Open housing, Mar. 4,1968 __ -- _Military draft, June 23, 197L __ •• _Military draft, Sept. 21, 197L _U.S.-Sovt. arms, Sept. 14, 1972 _Eq. job. opp., F~b. 22. 1972 __ ---- . _Voter regis., May.9,l973 .. "Rhod. chrome, Dec, 18,1973 _Leg. serv•• Jan 30,1974 ....Govt. pay, Mar. 6, 1974 • _Pub. fin., Apr. 9,1974. _Trade bill,Oec 13,197<l '_School busing, Oec.l4, H74 _Tax reform, Oec·17,1974, ---- •__ ••

Mr. President, I am unhesitating hIcalling the Senate passage of senate Resolution 4 a significant victory. It Is avictory for all of us who want this bodyto be productive. to be responsive. andto be able to deal with the problems ofAmerica.

There has been some criticism of theform in which Senate Resolution 4passed today. I want to take this opportunity to I'espond to that criticism andto prove why the Senate's action todayrepresents a true step forward for thosewho have sought meaningful reform inthis body.

Rule XXII now provides that debatemay be limited on a pending matter bythe vote of three-fifths of the constitutional membership of the Senate-60Senators. Under the old rule XXII, ittook two-thirds of those present andvoting.

In the past 8 years, there has been orilyone successful cloture vote on which lessthan 60 votes was required to invokecloture under the old rule. Removingthat single exception, the average number of votes needed on successful cloturevotes was 63.

In other words, the Senate has significantly reduced the burden on thoseseeking to invoke cloture and facilitateSenate action.

Looking at the other side of the picture, during the same period there werefive unsuccessful cloture votes on whichmore than 60 Senators voted to invokecloture. In one case, 66 Senators votedto invoke cloture, but cloture was notinvoked under the old rule.

In each of these instances, cloturewould have been invoked under'the re·formed rule XXII.

I ask unanimous consent that a list ofthese votes be printed in the RECORD atthis point. .

There being no objection, the materialwas ordered to be printed in the RECORD.as follows:

Officer. the Vice President of the Ul1itedStates. NELSON ROCKEFELLER. Althoughnew to the presiding function nnd rela.- _tiveIy unfamiliar with Senate procedure.the distinguished Vice President performed admirably. He showed a command of Senate practice. precedent. andprocedure. He showed us all his commendable ability to perform skillfullyunder the most difficult of circumstances.He showed unimpeachable fairness toboth the proponents and opponents ofSenate Resolution 4. And, above all, heshowed a deep and determined respectfor the U.S. Senate as an institution ofour system of government.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REFORM OF RULE XXII

PEARSON). I congratulate thedistingulshed Senator on his outstanding accomplishment. His Intelligence, l11sthoughtfulness. his understandtng. andhis hard work have been invaluable tothe success of this effort.

17:uch credit and much thanl'S mustalso go to the distinguished Senatorfrom Iowa (Mr. CLARK). the distinguished Senator from California (Mr.CRANSTON). the distinguished Senatorfrom Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS). and thedistinguished Senator from Vermont(Mr. STAFFORD). These Senators haveserved as coleaders of this effort. Theirtime, their ideas, and their energy havemade today's victory possible.

I thank too all of the other cosponsorsand suppOrters of Senate Resolution 4,many of whom have spent hour afterhour on the floor of the Senate in adedicated effort to achieve passage ofSenate Resolution 4. Particular credit inthis regard, and the sincere thanks ofmany. must go to the distinguished Senator from Vermont (Mr. LEAHY) and thedistinguished Senator from Colorado(Mr. HART).

We all. of course, owe a deep debt ofgratitUde to those Senators who haveworked for many, many years to see ruleXXII refonned. I think particularlY ofthe distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr. HART), the distinguished Senator from New York (Mr. JAVITS), andthe distinguished Senator from SouthDakota (Mr. MCGOVERN). who have beenfighting this battle for many years. Theircommitment and resilience is admiredand appreciated.

On behalf of alI of the cosponsors andsuPporters of Senate Resolution 4. I wishto thank the joint leadership for theirwork on behalf of compromise and conciliation. Because of the effort of thejoint leadership. we have reached a concensus on the reform of Iwe XXII andwe have made the senate a more viableinstitution as a result.

The distinguished majority leader(Mr. MANSFIELD) has once again shownhimself to be an exceptional leader. Hehas been fair to all; he has worked toward compromise; he has held the bestinterest of the Senate above all else. I amproud he is my leader.

Particular thanks and a special salutemust go to the distinguished assistantmajority leader (Mr. BYRD). The distinguished senator has managed theamended Senate Resolution 4 withadeptness. fairness, and distinction. Hisefforts on behalf of this refoInl, on behalf of the joint leadership, and on behalf of the enth'e Senate are to be admired.

Finally, the thanks and recognition ofthe supporters and cosponsors of SenateResolution 4 go to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG) whoplayed a critical role in the formulationof a concensUS ;plan for the I'eform ofrule XXII. Once again, the distinguishedSenator has proven himself an ablenegotiator, an understanding craftsman.and an invaluable Member of this body.

Mr. President, someone who is 110t amember of this body must also be CO!lgratulated on his work during the senate consideration of Senate Resolution4. I speak of our distinguished Presiding

March 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5649

of certain actions which the Senate hastaken over the past several weeks. I hopeto set the record straight, before weleave this matter for the 94th Congress.

Let no one misunders~and. For thefast time in American history, the President of the Senate of the 94th Congressand the membership of the Senate ofthe 94th Congress have both clearly, unequivocally, and unmista~enly acceptedand upheld the proposition that theU.S. Senate may, at the beginning of anew Congress, establish its rules by majority vote, uninhibited by rules adoptedby previous Congresses.

On Thursday, February 20, 1975, thedistinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr.PEARSON), in an effort to amend old ruleXXII, moved to close debate on thepending motion to consider Senate Resolution 4. That motion asserted the rightof the Senate, under article I, section 5of the Constitution, to establish its rulesby majority vote.

The distinguished majority leader(Mr. MANSFIELD) raised a point of orderagainst the motion, questionhlg itspropriety.

The distinguished Vice Presidentruled-as had Vice President Nixon andVice President HUMPHREY before him-that the Senate, if it chose to table thepoint of order, would have validated thePearson motion and asserted its constitutional right to change the rules bymajority vote.

The senate, by a vote of 51 to 42,tabled the Mansfield point of order. TheSenate thereby affirmed its. article I,section 5 ?·jght.

After various procedUl'al occurrences,the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE), on Monday, February 24, 1975,again moved to close debatd on the pending motion to proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 4. That motion, asserted the right of the majority to establish its rules at the beginningof a new Congress, uninhibited by rulesadopted by previous Congresses.

Again, the distinguished majorityleader (Mr. MANSFIELD) raised a pOintof order against the Mondale motion.Again, the Vice President confirmed theright of the Senate to table the point oforder and assert its article I, section 5right. Again, the Senate--by a vote of48 to 40-tabled the point of order andconfirmed its constitutional right. By anidentical vote, it also refused to reconsider the tabling. And, by an identicalvote, it sustained the ruling of the distinguished Vice President on appeal.

On yet a third occasion, on Wednesday, February 26, 1975, the Senate tableda point of order raised by the distinguished majority leader (Mr. MANSFIELD) against the Mondale motion. Fora third time, the Senate asserted its constitutional right. For a third time, theVice President reasserted his ruling.

The record could not be clearer. Theright is in the Constitution. The distinguished Vice President has acknowledgedthe right. The senate has asserted theright.

Now, MI'. Pl'esident, some will point tothe fact that the senate, on Monday,March 3, 19'15, voted to reconsider theFebruary 26 tabling of the third Mans-

field point of order and rejected the motion to table the third Mansfield pointof order and that, on Wednesday, March5, 1975, the senate voted to sustain thethird Mansfield point of order.

I caution against giving those actionstoo much significance. Those actionscannot erase the two other affirmativevotes on tabling during the 94th Congress. Those actions cannot erase theclear rulings of the Vice President. Thoseactions cannot waive, alter, or undercutthe constitutional right which the majority of the Members of the Senatepossess.

Moreover, Mr. President, I believethose actions must be placed in context.It must be remembered that, when thesenate voted to reconsider the tablingof the third Mansfield pOint of order, rejected the tabling of the third Mansfieldpoint of order, and voted to sustain thethird Mansfield point of order, the Senate of the 94th Congress was in the process of seeking compromise and achieving consensus.

Some Senators felt that these actionsby the senate were necessary in orderto pass senate Resolution 4, as modifiedby the point leadership's proposal. TheseSenators voted accordingly. The Senatorfrom Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE) votedagainst these actions, while recogn1z1ngthe right of any Senator to support themin the interest of compromise.

I must say, Mr. President, that I knowof no Senator who had previously supported the article I, section 5 right who,by supporting the March 3 and March 5actions, abandoned the present and future reliance upon or assertion of thatright.

Many Senators acted in the interestof compromise and consensus. No Senator, to my knowledge, abandoned anyright.

The distinguished Vice President is onrecord. The Senate of the 94th Congressis on record. The constitutional right isalive and well. And, Mr. President, thechief opponent of Senate Resolution 4,the distinguished Senator from Alabama(Mr. ALLEN) has confirmed this fact overand over again in his comments on theSenate fioor over -the past several days.

In this context, a word must be saidabout one part of senate Resolution 4as it passed the Senate today. As youknow, Mr. President, the Senate of the94th Congress agreed to limit debate onproposals to change the Senate rulesonly by the vote of two-thirds of thoseSenators present and voting.

That portion of the modified senateResolution 4 means no more than whatit says. This Congress-the 94th Congress-will only invoke cloture on a ruleschange by the vote of two-thirds of thosesenators present and voting.

The Senator from Minnesota <MI'.MONDALE) -and no other Senator I knowof who has asserted the article I, section5 right dUling this debate-does not, bythe adoption of this mle of the 94th Congress, seek to bind the Members of futureCongresses. Nor do we waive our constitutional right in future Congresses. Nordo we waive the right of Members offuture Congresses. Even if we wanted to,we could not, under the U.S. Constitu-

tion, bind a future Congress or waive theright of a future majority.

The article I, section 5 right remainsinviolate. No rule of the 94th Congresscan limit it in future Congresses. And noprivate or public understanding lhnitsMembers of the 94th Congress from itsuse in future Congresses. All rights arereserved; all lights are preserved-asthey must be under the Constitution ofthe United States.

Mr. President, I close with but onewish. It is my sincere and optimistichope that the Senate's historic action today will make this body better able toserve the people of this great Nation,now and in the future.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I join today with my colleagues who are voting tosupport the compromise agreementamending rule XXII. This compromisecalls for a constitutional three-fifths ofthose Senators represented in this bodyto cut off debate on any measure pendingbefore the Senate, and requires, in orderto further change the Rules of the Senate, a two-thirds vote.

This compromise has received criticism from both ends of the spectrum.Those who oppOse any and all changes ofthe fllibuster rule argue that by agreeingto an absolute 60 to invoke cloture, weare starting down an irreversible pathleading inevitably to majority cloture.

Those who represent the other extremecastigate the compromise because theysee it as accommodating those who oppose reform when no accommodationwas necessary. According to the NewYork Times, those who support the compromise "will be surrendering to the obfuscating and intimidating tactics of oneman and a diehard minority."

In my opinion, Mr. President, both ofthese extremes represent an ignoranceof basic traditions of the Senate. Manywho oppose the compromise attempt tocast it as the bullet which will surely killminority rights. I would like to point outthat the distinguished senator from Alabama has been able to occupy the floorfor a majority of the time that this Senate has spent considering changes in ruleXXlI. He has done so without relying onthe tactic of the filibuster, but by a keenand precise knowledge of the Senatel·ules.

Those who sUPpOrt the compromise donot want to see minority rights abrogated. Personally, I do not believe thoserights will be diminished by its acceptance. Neither do I believe that those ofus who have supported either the constitutional three-fifths or three-fifths ofthose present and voting would ever support a further move to majority cloture.We are not dealing with simple arithmetical reductions here, but rather witha commitment to the principle of an effective legislative body-this principlehas been and will always be tempered bydevotion to full and adequate debate onall sides of any issue. I do not believe thatfuture Senates will be any less dedicatedto this principle.

To those who oppose this compromiseon the grounds that it is not the proposaloriginally sought by those of us who suppOrted Senate Resolution 4, I would justlike to point out that the senate hasbeen wrangling' over this iSsue for more

5650 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 7,' 1975

than 2 months now. Rather than continue to block this Congress from at leastbeing able to debate such vital measuresas tax reform, aid to Cambodia, or theenergy question, I think we have a responsibility to the American people tomove forward.

Indeed, Mr. Przsj~".mt, the time hascome to bring tllis nebale to a close. Ihope that all Members of the Senate canjoin us in supporting the proposed compromise which \\ill end this increasinglydisruptive fight and will allow the Senate to enhance its ability to deal effectively with the pressing ismes in the daysahead.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, this reform of the rules of the Senate has been.a long time coming, and the length ofthat effort and the determination withwhich it has been made reflect its 1mportance. In passing this compromiseversion of Senate Resolution 4, a betterbalance will be struck between Senators'right to debate and the Senate's responsibility to decide. The Senate now cantake up the critical issues of economicwell-being and social justice before thecountry with more freedom from thethreat 01 crippling filibusters.

At this point, it is essential to reviewthe terms of this compromise, how itcame to pass, and what its implicationsare for tIlis Congress and future Congresses.

The sponsors of Senate Resolution 4attempted to amend rule XXII so thatthree-flfths-rather than two-thirds-ofthose Senators present and voting couldlimit debate on a question before theSenate. Since its inception in 1917, thepresent cloture requirement has oftenfrustrated and befuddled the Senate and,in turn, the Nation. Legislation that hadthe support of a substantial majority 01the Senate was delayed or destroyed. Inaddition, the mere threat of a filibustCl'often affected the Senate's schedule, especially near the session's end. In all too

.many instances over the years, a small,number of Senators has been able to decide that the Senate will not decide iln-pOl'tant questions before it.

Ably led by the distinguished Senatorfrom Alabama (Mr. ALLEN), the opponents of this resolution have sought forthe last 6 weeks to prevent the Senatefrom changing the rule. But in the process, they have demonstrated vividlY thevery dangers of delay and obstructionwhich this resolution was designed tocurtail.

Despite those tactics, the Senate wasable to reach an initial vote on February 20 when a majority of the Senate, forthe first time, asserted its right underarticle I, section 5, of the Constitution toestablish the Senate's rules at the begimling of each Congress. But even afterthat dramatic expression of the Senate'swill, which cleared the way for a vote onrule XXII, the Senate was frustrated.With skillful parliamentary maneuvers,privileged motions, and quorum calls,Senator ALLEN and his allies were ableto prevent Senate consideration of theproposed rule change. So again, on February 24 and February 26, the Senatevoted to prevent further interferencev.ith its constitutional responsibilities.

Just prior to that last vote, SenatorALLEN ~ought recognition from the Presiding Officer, Vice President ROCKEFELLER, for a parliamentary inquiry.Having presided over Senator ALLEN'Srepeated efforts at delay in precedingdays, Vice President ROCKEFELLER refused recognition-a decision clearlywithin his prerogatives under the precedents of this Senate.

'I11l1t decision generated a storm of protest. Some Senators were distressed thatanyone should be denied the opportunityto address the Chair-,....hatever the precedents. Others. however, seemed more intent on lL.<;ing the occasion to make purely political attacks on the Vice President.

The Vice President's action ,,:as called"one of the most improper decisionsmJ.de by the Chair" in the last 25 years.\Veil, Mr. President, I have served in theSenate but 2 years, and I have seen somevery improper goings on here. At theheight of the Watergate scandal, an obstructionist minority prevented the Senate from acting on campaign reform legislation. In the face of a grossly unfairtax system, an obstructionist minorityblocked meaningful tax reforms. A small,determined group of men prevented aSenate vote on the Consumer Protection Agcncy bill that had been before theCongress for a decade, and on the Genocide Convention that was first submittedto the Senate in 1949.

Such actions may have been technically proper under a Senate rule adoptedin 1917, but they are an affront to thiscotmtry's democratic principles. These

.determined minorities were not trying to"pzrmit further debate"-thelr views hadbeen fully and fairly presented, not justonce but many times. Their goal has andshall continue to be obstruction, plainand simple-to prevent a substantial majority of the Senate from reaching a decision when their own views could notprevail.

In the 58 years that the current ruleXXII has been in efiect, there have been103 attempts to limit debate and come toa vote. Only 23 of them have been successful. No party or political philosophyhas had a corner on ~he filibuster. It hasbeen used by Senators from large Statesand small. But whether the issue has beencivil rights legislation, the supersonictransport or the consumer protection bill,the filibuster has tied up the work of theSenate. At times, it has become muchmore than an expression of the rights ofthe minority to be heard-it has becomean obstacle'to effective govermnent, creating a tyranny of the minority that isno better than the tyranny of the majority that rule XXII attempts to prevent.

That is why I so fervently believe thatrule XXII must be changed. and why Ireluctantly agreed to the joint leadership's request Jar a compromise. It wasnot necessary to compromise. The crucialvotes to end debate had been won, andit was possible to move ahead to passSenate Resolution 4 as originally introduced. But the leadership felt that anexplosive situation existed in the Senate,so the proponents of a change in ruleXXII have cooperated in their efforts to

resolve this dispute, which reached its50th day today.

The terms of the compromise, whilethey seemed to have changed periodicallyover the last several days, have comedown to this:

That a three-f'ilths vote of the Senate's constitutional membership shall berequired to invoke cloture on all mattersother than changes in the Senate rules;

That a two-thirds vote of those present and voting shall be required to invoke cloture on rule changes; and

'That the Senate reverse the precedel"testablished last month to allow a majority to change the rules at the beginniilgof each Congress. .

Now, this compromise has been executed, and I am confident that it willsucceed when it finally is put to a votetonight. In my judgment, the rule requiring a vote of three-fifths of the constitutional membership to end debaterepresents a significant improvement. Itwill make cloture easier to achieveespecially on the major issues before the94th Congress.

However, the other two elements of thecompromise have little meaning insofal'as they attempt to restrict future effortsto amend rule XXII. No matter what ruleXXII says about the cloture requirementfor changing the rules-be it three-fifthsor two-thirds or nine-tenths-lf thisstruggle has demonstrated anything, it isthat a majority clearly has a constitutional right to change the Senate's rulesat the beginning of each Congress. Andthe Senate has voted to uphold thatright, not once, but twice in the past several days.

It is true that the Senate reconsideredand reversed this precedent last Wednesday to comply with the terms of theleadership's compromise. But no less anauthority on the rules and procedures'of this Senate than the very learned Senator from Alabama (Mr. ALLEN) statedearlier this evening that we do not needprecedents. As he said in debate lastWednesday-

If they are looking for a precedent-I donot think they need it, IIiIr. President; ithas been demonstrated- .

The Senator is quite conect, Mr. President, it has been demonstrated. The authority rests with the Constitution of theUnited States, article I, section V, andneither rule XXII 1101' rule XXXII norany other Senate rule or precedent candeny that authority.

I hope that this compromise Works,Mr. PresidCllt. I hope that we do nothave to go through this kind of bitter,wasteful fight over the rules again. I hopethat the constitutional three-fifths cloture rule established today will providethe kind of balance that is needed between debate and decision.

In the months ahead the Congress willbe faced with the need to make crucialdecisions on economic l'ecovery, on taxreform, on health care, on this country'schanging role in world affairs.

Almost certainly there will be determined efforts to prevent any action onthese vital questions. I hope these effortsfail, Mr. President, that this rule changewill allow the Senate to legislate as wellas it debates.

MaTch 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONALRECORD - SENATE 5651weeks have led to this effort, Senators:MONDALE, PEARSON, CLARK, MATHIAS,JAVITS, and CRANSTON. ·Their determination, diligence, and stamina have insured that this rules change has beeneffectively and forcefully pressed, and Ibelieve this body owes them its graUtude.

I am aware, however, of the intensityof the feeling on both sides of the issue.I recall, in particular, the strainedatmosphere following the narrow 46 to 43vote tabling a point of order and a decision by the Chair that the vote couldalso be regarded as our wish to limitdebate on the motion before us.

Vlrongly or not, many Senators feltthat a controversial rules change wasabout to be forced upon them with littleregard for the protections assured bycommon civility, tradition, and the rulesof the last Senate. The intensity of thatfeeling assured that if a rules changewere to be pursued, decorum might repeatedly have been violated, the calendarbeen indefinitely bogged down, andacrimonious divisions among individualMembers become far too deep.

At that point, a proposal was offeredthat truly was in the Lest traditions ofthis body. The 'distinguished Senatorfrom Louisiana (Mr. LONG) , after statinghis concern over the procedures beingfollowed, proposed that a compromisemight be found that would be acceptableto both factions and would facilitate aresolution of the prolonged debate.

Senator LoNG suggested that the Senate consider amending rule XXII to permit a so-called constitutional two-thirds,or 60 Members, to invoke cloture, nomatter how many Members were actually present and voting.

Senator MANSFIELD quickly indicatedhis interest and support for the proposal,and the basis for the compromise whichpermits today's conclusive action wasestablished.

Senator BYRD, our distinguished majority whip, also qUickly gave his supportto the proposal. Since that hour, he hasvigilantly manned the floor, carefullyguiding us past one parliamentary obstacle after another so that progress toour final goal was never interrupted. Hehas once again vindicated ow' deep respect and admiration for him.

The proposal constituted a compromisein the finest sense of that word. SenatorsLONG and MANSFIELD had certainly approached this rules change from different perspectives, and each was thus offering to concede a portion of his positionto facilitate a resolution of this matter.

Senator MANSFIELD has supported theinitiative to change rule XXII to permitclotme by three-fifths vote. He has objected, however, to limiting debate andamending the Senate's rules by less thantwo-thIrd's vote, even at the beginning ofa new Congress. Nevertheless, the maJority leader has been willing to permit theSenate as a body tr decide those twocrucial procedural questions, and he hasprovided the strong leadership needed tobling those issues to a vote. That willingness to trust in the Senate's decision expresses, I believe, a profound respect forthe Members of this body, a respect thatis deeply appreciated and reciprocated ahundredfold for om majority leader.

Senator LONG, 011 the other hand, has

frequently and most eloquently expressedhis support for preserving the right of aminority within this body to E;xtendeddebate. Senator LONG comes from a region that has long highly valued the filibuster as a means of protecting its interests, and I know that feeling in its bells.Ifremains strong there today.

But Senators LoNG, MANSFIELD, andBYRD sensed that the proponents and opponents of change were of equal resolvein defending their positions, that acrimonious division among Members threatened to long pollute the atmosphere ofthis body, and that continued prolongedconsideration of the matt' . would onlyhamstring this institution at a time whenthe American people were looking to theCongress for effective and expeditiousaction on the many important economic,tax, energy, and health prcposals beforeit.

I applaud these three great leaders. Iwould like to acknowledge my colleague'sgratitude and my own deep appreciationfor their efforts. The compromise is amajor step forward. It will permit thisbody to move more easily to deciding anissue on the basis of its merits. And it willallow us at last to get on with the crucialmatters before this Congress.

I am convinced that as a result of theirefforts, this body will be a better institution, and the American people will be thereal beneficiaries.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announcethat the Senator from Missouri (Mr.EAGLETON), the Senator from Mississippi(Mr. EASTLAND), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), the Senatorfrom Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN), theSenator from New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA) , the Senator from North Carolina(Mr. MORGAN), the Senator from SouthDakota (Mr. ABOUREZK), the Senatorfrom Arkansas (Mr. BUMPERS), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON), theSenator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS),and the Senator from Georgia (Mr.TALMADGE) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Minnesota(Mr. HUMPHREY) would vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS),the Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN),the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIKER) are necessarilyabsent.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom Ohio (Th.fr. TAFT) is absent due toillness.

On this vote, the Senator fromNebraska (Mr. CURTIS) is paired with theSenator from Ohio (Mr. TAFT).

If present and voting, the Senatorfrom Ohio would vote "yea" and theSenator from Nebraska would vote"nay."


[RJl!call Vote No. 55 Leg.)YEAS-56

If the new rule does fail-if we gothrough the next 2 years with filibusterafter filibuster, with delay and obstruction and interminable debate-then, Mr.President, when the 95th Congress convenes, we will be back to change ruleXXII so that· it will permit the Senateto act-with the same rights under theConstitution asserted so forcefully inpast weeks. We will be back, Mr. President, because nothing should stand inthe way of the people's right to a Congress that will fUlly consider the meritsof every question and then act for them,instead of just talk at them.

Mr. President, this has been a longand divisive struggle, but a strugglecharacterized by able and determinedleadership on both sides. Senator MONDALE and Senator PEARSON, the originalsponsors of Senate Resolution 4 and theleaders of this effort over the past weeks,deserve the highest praise. They knewfrom the beginning that it would be adiIDcult effort, but one that had to bemade, and they both have demonstratedconsiderable skill and courage throughout.

Recognition also must go to Senators CRANSTON, JAVITS, MATHIAS, andSTAFFORD for the many hours of hardwork in support of this effort-and ofcomse, to the leadership for its cooperation and patience.

And no one should overlook the significant contributions made by the various staff members who have toiled behind the scenes. Senator MONDALE'S legislative assistant, Robert Barnett, consistently demonstrated how valuablegood staff work can be. Arthw' Hill withSenator PEARSON, Roy Greenaway andJan Mueller with Senator CRANSTON,Chuck Warren and Pat Shakow withSenator JAVITS, Terry Barnett withSenator MATHIAS, and Victor Maerkiwith Senator STAFFORD all were of greathelp.

Finally, I would be remiss if I failed tomention the Senator from Alabama, whohas proven once again how worthy anopponent can be. His knowledge of therules of the Senate is clearly unsurpassed, and while I might wish that hewould put that knowledge to better use onoccasion, I cannot help but admire hisskill and perseverance-not to mentionhis endurance.

Mr. President, I ~'ield the floor.Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, the

Senate today has culminated its longeffort to amend rule XXII. As a result ofour action, cloture will be more easilyinvoked. The Senate will more easily havethe opportunity to decide upon the meritsof the truly· difficult issues that comebefore it. But I am convinced that thiswelcomed change will not jeopardize therights of a minority among us. Amplesafeguards remain so that a sizable minority, however constituted, will be ableto present its case fully and to express itsconcerns adequately.

I have supported the effort to amendrule XXII to permit cloture by threefifths vote, as I did in 1971 during myfirst months in the Senate. We simply .must be able to decide upon the crucialissues that face this Nation.

I want to commend the distinguishedMembers .who throughout these long

Bayh ClarkBeall CranstonBentsen CulverBiden DoleBrooke FordBurdick GarnByrd. Robert C. GlennCannon Gr1tlinClISe Hart, Gar)' \V.

Hart. Philip A.HartkeHaskellHatfieldHuddlestonInouyeJacksonJavitsJohnston

5652 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE .March 7, 1975

So the resolution (S. Res. 4), asamended. was agreed to, as follows:

s. RES. 4Resolced, That rule XXII of the Standing

Rules of the Senate is amended to read asfollows:

"1. When a question is pending, no motionshall be received but--

"To adjourn."To adjourn to a day certain, or that when·

the Senate adjourn it shall be to a daycertain.

"To take a recess."To proceed to thc consideration of execu-

tlve business."To lay on the table."To postpone indefinitely."To postpone to a day certain."To commit."To amend.

Which several motions shall have precedence as they st·and arranged; and themotions relating to adjournment, to takea recess, to proceed to the consideration ofexecutive business, to lay on the table, shallbe decided without debate.

"2. NotWithstanding the provisions of ruleIII or rUle VIol' any other rule of the Senate, any time a motion signed by sixteenSenators, to bring La a cl::>se the debate uponany measure, motion, other matter pendingbefore the Senate, or the unfinished business,is presented to the Senate, the PresidingOfficer shall at once state the motion to theSenate, and one hour after the Senate meetson the following calendar day but one, heshall lay the motion before the Senate anddire ct that the Secretary call the 1'011, andupon the ascertainment that a quorum ispresent, the Presidlng Officer shall, withoutdebate, submit to the Senate by a yea-andnay vote the question;

.. 'Is it the sense of the Senate that thedcbate shall be brought to a close?'

..And if that que~tion· shall be decided inthe affirmative by three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn-except on ameasure or motion to amend the Senaterulcs, in which case the necessary amrmatlve vote shall be two-thirds of the senatorspreEent and voting-then said measure, motion. or other matter pending before thesenate, or the unfinished business, shall bethe unfinished business to the exclusion ofall other business until disposed of.

"Thereafter no Senator· shall be entitledto speak in all more than one hour on theme>isure, motion, or other matter pendingbe-fore the Senate, or the unfinished busine,s, tile amendments thereto, and motions"c;'e"ting the same, and it shall be the dutyof the Presiding Officer to keep the time ofeaoh Senator who speaks. Except by unanimous consent. no amendment shall be in

NOT VOTING-16Goldwater SchwelkerHumphrey StennisMcC.ellan TaftMontoya TalmadgeMore-anNelson

KennedyLeahyLongMagnusonMansfie:dMathiasMcGovernI~Ic:Il1tyre

Metcalfl\r1'.Judaie

Al:enBakerBart.ettBe:lmonBrockBuckleyByrd,

Harry F., Jr.ChilesChurch

AbourezkBumpersCurtisEagletonEastlandFannin

MossMusklePackwood1 astorePearsonFe.1Fercyi i'O. m~reRando;phRibicofI

NAYS-27Dcmenic1

~~~~elHansenHathawayEe.msHol1ingsHruskaLaxaltMcClure

Scott, HughStaffordStevensStevensonStoneSymingtonTunneyWilliamsYoung

McGeeNunnRothScott,

Wlll1amL.SparkmanThurmondTowerWeicker

order after the vote to bring the debate toa close, unless the same has been presentedand read prior to that time. No dilatorymotion, or dilatory amendment. or amendment not germane shall be in order. Pointsof order, including questions of relevancy,and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer. shall be decided without debate.

"3. The provisions of the last paragraphof rule VIII (prohibiting debate on motionsmade before 2 o'clock) shall not apply toany motion to proceed to the considerationof any motion, resolution, or proposal tochange any of the Standing Rules of theSenate ....

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr~ President, Imove to reconsid~r the vote by which theresolution, as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President. I moveto lay that motion on the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to lay on the table.


ORDER TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY S. RES. 93

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move thatSenate Resolution 93 be indefinitelypostponed.


ORDER TO VACATE CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the cloture motion which was offered yesterday bevacated.


ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESSMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.

I ask unanimous consent that there nowbe a period for the transaction of routinemorning business, not to extend beyond15 minutes. with statements limitedtherein to 3 minutes.


Is there morning business?

SURFACE MINING CONTROL ANDRECLAMATION ACT OF 1975

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S, 7,Calendar No. 28.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The billwill be stated by title.

The legislative clerk read as follows:A bill (S. 7) to provide for the cooperation

between the Secretary of the Interior andthe States with respect to the regulation ofsurface coal mining operations, and the acquisition of abandoned mines, and for otherpurposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to the present considerationof the bill?

There being no objection, the Senateproceeded to consider the bill, which hadbeen reported from the Committee onInterior and Insular Affairs with amendments on page 3, in the last line undertitle V of the contents. strike out thewords "Sec. 529. Anthracite coal mines."

On page 6. beginning in line 3, strikeout the words "prevent the adverse effects to society and the environment

resulting from" and insert In lieu thereof "protect society and the environmentfrom the adverse effects of".

On page 26, beginning in line 2, strikeout the following language:

At the end of each three-year period following the date of enactment of this Act, theSecretary shall adjust the fea to reflect anychange in the cost of living index since thebeginning of such three-year period.

On page 30, in line 1. strike out theword "thirty" and insert in lieu thereofthe words "one hundred".

On page 30. in line 3, strike out theword "thirty" and insert in lieu thereofthe words "one hundred".

On page 30. in line 9, after the word"agreement;" insert the following newlanguage:except the Secretary may reduce the matchIng cost share where he determines that (1)the main benefits to be derived from theproject are related to improving off-site waterquaUty, off-site esthetics values. or otheroff-site benefits, and (2) the matching sharerequirement would place a burden on thelandowner which would probably preventhim from participating in the program.

On page 48, in line 11. after the word"State" insert the words "no later thanthirty months after the date of enactment of this Act".

On page 49, beginning in line '8, afterthe word "authority" insert the followingnew language:if a Federal program Is implemented for aState, subsections 552 (a). (c), and (d)shall not apply for a }:eriod of one year following the date of such implementation.

On page 52, in line 23. strike out theVlords "the expiration of the thirtymonth period following the date of enactment of this. Act," and insert in lieuthereof the words "six months from thedate of approval of the state programor the implementation of the Federalprograln....

On page 53, at the beginning of line6, strike out the words "existing at the

date of enactment of this Aet".On page 53. in line 22, strike out the

article "An and insert in lieu therof "Unless otherwise provided in the permit, a".

On page 55. in line 22, after the word"program." insert the following newlanguage:

The regulatory authority may devclop procedures so as to enable the cost of the feeto be paid over the term of the permit.

On page 69. in line 5. after the word"prevent" insert the words "to the maximum extent possible, using the bestavailable technology ".

On page 69. beginning at line 22, strikeout the following language:on valley floors underlain by unconsolidatedstream laid deposits where farIdng call bepracticed in the form of flood h'rigated ornaturally subirrlgated hay meadows or othercrop lands (excluding undeveloped rangelands), where such valley fioors are significant to present or potential farming orranching operations •

and insert in lieu thereof:on farming or ranching operations beingconducted on aluvlal valley floors where suchvalley floors are significant to such operations

On page 73, in line 13. after "(8)"strike out the following language:

Documents

moses.law.umn.edumoses.law.umn.edu/mondale/pdf15/v.121_pt.5_p.5609-5652.pdfMarch 7, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5609 NO WINDFALL FOR TEACHERS HON. JOHN B. ANDERSON OF ILLINOIS