OF Al\1ERICAUNITED STATESI

<rongrrssional1Rrcordth

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

5242 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 5, 1975By Mr. BAUMAN (for himself. Mr. En­

JlERG. Mrs. HOLT. Mrs. BOGGs. Mr.FLOKIO. Mr. BADILLO. Mr. McDoNALDof Georgia, Mr. Gn.MAN. Mr. KKUE­GEll. and Mr. SAIlASIN) :

H.J. Res. 278. Joint resolution authorizingthe President to declare the first Sunday inApril of each year as National Foster ParentsDay; to the Commlttee on Post Office andCidl Service.

By Mr. DERWINSKI;H.J. Res. 279. Joint resolution proposing

an amendment to the QlnstituUon of theUnited states with respect to the rights ofunborn persons; to the Committee on theJUdiciary.

By Mr. FAUNTROY:H..J. Res. 280. .Joint resolution to amena

the Constitution to provide for representa­tion of the District of QllumbiA In the Con­gress; to the Qlmmlttee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HELSTOSKI (for himself. Mr.O'NEn.L. Mr. DUlIELSON. Mr. H.~w­

KINS. and Mr. SISK):H.J. Res. 281. Joint resolution to designate

April 24. 1975, as National Day of Remem­brance of l\ian's InhumanJty to Man; to theCommittee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. HUTCHINSON:H.J. Res. 282. Joint resolution to amend

title 5 of the United States Code to prOvidefor the designation of the 11th day of No­vember of each year as Veterans nay; to theCommittee on Post Omce and Civil service.

By Mr. QUIl!: (for himselt and Mr.UDALL) :

H..J. Res. 283. Joint resolution designating

the week beginning March 9. 1975. as Na­tional Girl Scout Week; to the CommltUeon Post Omce and Civil Service.

By Mr. RHODES;H.J. Res. 284. Joint resolution directing

the Secretary of State and the Secretary ofthe Interior. through the Bureau of Rec­lamation. to stUdy the economic and engi­neering feaslbntty of acquiring riparianrIghts from the RepUblic of Mexico to waterin the Gult of California for the piping andpumping of water from the Gulf of Califor­nia to Arizona for irrigation purposes, andto acquire a permit to locate a desalinizationplant within the territorial limits of theRepublic ot Mexico; jOintly, to the Commit­tees on Foreign Affairs. and Interior andInsular Affairs.

By Mr. SIKES (for himself, Mr. GINN.Mr. McHUGH. Mr. BOWEN. Mr.COCHRAN. Mr. McEWEN. Mr. JEN­RETTE. !'vir. FLOOD. Mr. McDONALD ofGeorgIa. Mr. DICKTNllON. Mr. HAM­MERSCHMIDT. l\fr. BEVILL. Mr. WAG­CONNER. Mr. QUIE. Mr. CLEVELAND.Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. HANNAFORD. Mr.:MOORE. Mr. BLANCHARD, Mr. ECK­HARDT. Mr. LATTA, Mr. FuLTON, Mr.COTTER, and Mr. DAN DANIEL):

H.J. Res. 285. Joint resolutIon askIng thePresident of the United States to declare thefourth Saturday ot each September NationalHunting and Fishing Day; to the CommIt­tee on Post Omce and CivU ServIce.

By Mr. THOMPSON;H. Res. 275. Resolution providing funds for

the expenses of the CommIttee on Ways and

Means; to the CommIttee on House AdminI­istration.

MEMORIALSUnder clause 4 of rule xxn. memorials

were presented and referred as follows:4-.1. By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Leg­

islature of the Commonwealth ot VirginIa.relative to the Federal Coal Mine Health andSafety Act of 1969; to the Committee onEducation and Labor.

45. Also, memorial of the Legislature ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia. relative toforeign investment in the energy and mate­rial resources ot the United states; to theCommittee on Interstate and Foreign Com­merce.

46. Also. memorial of the Legislature of theState of Maine. relative to the U.s. fisheriesmanagement jurisdiction; to the commItteeon Merchant l\iar1ne Illld F'lsher1es.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONSUnder clause 1 of rule XXII. private

bills and resolutions were introduced andseverally referred as follows:

Mr. YOUNG ot Alaska Introduced a blll(H.R.4345) to amend the act entitled "AnAct to authorize the sale of certain publiclands in Alaska to the Catholic Bishop ofNorthern Alaska for use as a mission school."approved August 8. 1953. Which was re­ferred to the Committee on Interior andInsular Affairs.

SENATE-Wednesday, March 5, 1975The Senate met at 12 noon and was

called to order by the Vice President.

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend EdwardL. R. Elson. D.D., offered the 1;ollowingprayer:

o God. our Creator. Redeemer, andJudge, we beseech Thee to forgive thosenational sins which so easlly beset us:our wanton waste of son and sea. oursquandering of energy, our desecrationof natural beauty. our heedlessness ofscars of nature left to those who comeafter us. our love of money. our contemptfor small things and our worship of bigthings, the loneliness of life in big cities,the dull complacency of small towns. thedegeneracy of our culture. our bad man­ners, and our indifi'erence to suffering­for these wrongs done and for rightthings left undone. good Lord, forgive us.

Now send Thy light and Thy truth toheal. cleanse. and renew us. that we maypreserve our heritage and wisely "servethe present age, our calling to fulfill."Amen.

THE JOURNALMr. MANSFIElD. 1M):. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the reading ofthe Journal of the proceedings of Tues­day. March 4, 1975, be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President. reservingthe right to object-and I do not wantto object-I would like to ask the dis­tinguished majority leader if he plans toask that the Senate divide the hour priorto the automatic cloture vote, the quo­rum call preceding the cloture vote,equally between the proponents and the

opponents of cloture, as has been the in­varIable custom since the Senator fromAlabama has had the honor to serve thepeople of Alabama in the Senate.

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is not the ma­jority leader's intention.

Mr. ALLEN. Very well. The Senator isgoilig to force us to go through thischarade to use up the hour toprevent--

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.does the Senator wish to object or not?

Mr. ALLEN. I was reserving the rightto object and was asking a question, ifI might be permitted.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The majorityleader has answered the question.

Mr. ALLEN. Very well. I object.The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection is

heard.The Journal will be read.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President. I suggest

the absence of a quorum.The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will

call the roll.The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob­jection. it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the time beequally divided between the distinguishedassistant majority leader, the Senatorfrom West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C.BYRD), and the distinguished Senatorfrom Alabama (Mr. ALLEN). If this isagreed to. they. of course, can farm outthe time to people to whom they wantto ~1eld during that period.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is that thetime between now and 1 o'clock?

Mr. ALLEN. Reserving the right to ob­ject-and I shall not object. of course­I appreciate the majority leader givingus an opportunity to explain the parlia­mentary situation regarding the cloturemotion. I have no objection.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, mayI make a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Ihave to object.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection isheard.

Is there objectio~ to the reading of theJoun1al? Shall the "Journal be consideredas having been read? Without objection.it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT OF RULE XXII OF THESTANDING RULES OF THE ~ENATE

The Senate resumed the considerationof the motion to proceed to consider theresolution (S. Res. 4) to amend ruleXXII of the Standing Rules of the Sen­ate with respect to the limitation of de­bate.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President. willthe Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield 1 min­ute to the Senator.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President. I askunanimous consent that during the con­sideration of the rule change with respectto rule XXII, Janet Mueller, of my staff.may have the privilege of the floor.

The VICE PRESIDENT, Is there ob­jection? The Chair hears none, and it isso ordered.

Ma'fch 5, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5243

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, will thedistinguished Senator from Alabamayield 2 minutes to me?

Mr. ALLEN. I yield such time as thedistinguished Senator from North Caro­lina desires.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator fromAlabama, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, on yesterday, late in theafternoon, when, as I recall, four Sena­tors were in the Chamber, inclUding thePresiding Officer, the distinguished Sen­a tor from Alabama gave a detailed re­view of just where we stand in this ruleXXII matter. I fear that Senators, un­less their attention is called to it, will notbe blessed with this information.

This morning, the distinguished Sen­ator from Alabama and the Senator fromNorth Carolina prepared a very brief"Dear Colleague" letter which we cir"culated to those Senators who, hopefully,are not beyond redemption on this ques­tion. I ask unanimous consent that thefull contents of this "Del;lr Colleague"letter be printed in'the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letterwas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:

; U.S. SENATE,Washington, D.C., March 5, 1975.

DEAB COLLEAGtTE: Please note from thespeech below that the precedent as to maJor­ity vote cut-olI of debate has not been re­versed, and that the last Mansfield point oforder was never acted on and died with theadjournment of the Senate on Monday,March 3, 1975.

JAMES B. ALLEN.JESSE HELMS.

[From the Congressional Record,Mar. 4, 1975]

AMENDMENT 011' RtILB XXII OF THE STANDINGRULES OJ' THE SENATE

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished Sen­ator from West Virginia for obtaining thistime for me to speak with respect to SenateResolution 4.

I might state that Senate Resolution 4,Introduced by Its chief sponsors, the Sena­tors from Kansas (Mr. I'EABSON) and fromMinnesota (Mr. MONDAU), seeks to changethe Senate rules Without follOWing the rulesof the Senate in making that change.

Their argument Is that at the start of aCongress, the Constitution gave them thepower to amend the rules and cut 01I debateon the resolution to amend the rules or amotion to proceed to consideration of such aresolution by a majority vote. Of course, theConstitution says nothing of the sort. Itmerely says that it takes a quorum for thetransaction of business, and that both HDusescan make their own rules. But the resolutionwas Introduced.

Then, following the Introduction at theresolution and the making of a motion topro~eed to the consideration of that resolu­tion, that was followed by a motion by thedistinguished Senator from Minnesota (Mr.MONDALE) which provided for immediatelycutting 01I the debate on the motion to pro­ceed without any debate, without anyamendments, and without any Interveningmotions.

A poInt of order was made by the dlstin­buished Senator from Montana (Mr. MANS­} lEW) that this was not the method pro,ldedby the rules.

As soon as the point of order was made,without any opportunIty to discuss the pointof order--of course, the point of order wasmade by prearrangement-a motion to tablethe point of order was made. The PresidingOlficer ot the senate, Vice President RocxE­FELLER, said that since a constitutional ques-

C~---332--Part5

tlon was invol,ed he was going to submitthe constitutional question to the Senate.But he did not submlt the direct question tothe Senate. He said in effect that "Whateverthe Senate's ruling Is on this motion to tablethe point of order, I am going to considerthat as a decision on what the Senate thinksthe Constitution provides, and It the senatetables the point of order, I am going to putinto elIect the very provisions ot the Mondaleresolution forcing the motion to proceed to avote. I am going to rule that whatever themotion provides, I am going to consider thatas having been passed, and if the motion saysthat there sha1l be no debate, no amend­ments, no interventng amendments, even be­fore that motion passes, I am going to putthat rule Into effect."

And. sure enough, he did, by complete dis­regard of the rules, by throwing the rulebook out of the window.

So the motion to table carried, and Mr.ROCKEFELLER said, In effect that whateverthat motion proVides, I am going to say It isin effect even before the motion Is passed bythe Senate.

So that was, in the Judgment of the Sena­tor from Alabama, a political decision on thepart or the Vice President. It seemed to theSenator from Alabama that the Vice Presi­dent wanted to reestablish his ultraliberalcredentials as an answer to the false impres­sion that he had moved toward the right inrecent years. So he has establlshed that posi­tion, and has become the ringleader In ram­ming this rule change through the Senate.

It has been interesting to me, Mr. Presi­dent, that the origlnal sponsors of this ruleschange outside the rules have slipped Intothe background. I did not hear a Single oneof those Senators have a word to sayar amotion to make or a question to ask today,and ever since the leaderShip of both partieshas taken over the pUshing of this resolu­tion to change the rUle, we have heard noth­ing from the original sponsors.

Now, Mr. President, when you drive downthe highway, in the experience of the Sena­tor from Alabama at any rate, and see alittle fil1lng station or cafe there and it says."Under new management," that makes mea little susplcioU&-there was "somethingwrong with the first management or theywould not be advertising that there is newmanagement. It also makes me just a littlebit leery of the new management.

In llke fashion, Mr. President, we have aSimilar situation here. The sp,msorshlp ofthis resolution is under new management,and I will have to say it Is somewhat of anImprovement in the management the resolu­tion had prior to the leadership taking itover.

Now, Mr. President, following the tablingof the Mansfield motion, despite the factthat the Mondale motion choking olI debatesaid there could not be intervening motions,the distinguished Senator from Virginia(Mr. IlAaRy F. BYltU, JR.) offered a motion.A point of order was made, a motion totable the point of order was made, and thepoint of order was tabled. The effect of that,Mr. President, was to say that the Senatehad decided that Irrespective of the Mondalemotion and the point of order as to it andthe tabling of the point of order, the Senatefelt that motions ought to be allowed.

So obviously, Mr. President, the gag rulesenators did not Ilke the idea of motionsbeing able to be presented and debated andvoted on.

So the distinguished majority leader, al­ways willing to comply and oblige, makesanother point of order saying that the Mon­dale motion to break off debate Is out oforder in barring amendments, debate, andintervening motions, and the motion to ta­ble was made as t~ that point of order. Thatmotion to table passed by a very narrow voteof 46 to 43.

Then, Mr. President, after some 11 Sena-

tors took the Vice President to task for notcomplying with the Senate rules in makingrecognition at Senators and a turor tookplace here on the floor, the suggestion wasmade by Mr. LONG that this rules changeeffort be Changed from three-fifths of thosepresent to cut off debate to three-flfths ofall those in the Senate, all those electedand having been sworn, the effect of whichwould be that It would take 60 Senators tocut 01I debate no matter how many werehere.

The elIect of the motion to table the sec­ond point of order made by Mr. MANSFIELDwas to cut the ground out from under themodest success that had bEen made by thefree-debate Senators when the point of ordermade to Mr. HABRY F. BYRD, JR.'S interveningmotion was tabled; for the effort of thistabling was that the Senate ruled that in­tervenIng motions were in fact in order.

When the compromise was met with somefavor here In the senate, not with the ap­proval of the Senator from Alabama, or theSenator from North Carolina (Mr. HELMS)or the Senators from Virginia (Mr. HARRYF, BYRD, JR. and Mr. SCOTT) whom I see Inthe Chamber, the statement was made b:%the distinguished senator from Michigan(Mr. GRDTIN), the assistant minority leader,that they were going to have to reverse thisprecedent that had been set about a major­ity cutting off debate at the start of a ses­sion or else he would not be for the com­promise.

Well, Mr. President, steps were taken, butI want to point out that those steps wereIneffectual to accomplish that purpose and.further, that aU of those who made thatas a condition for accepting the compromiseplan and agreeing to vote for cloture on to­morrow, the terms that they Insisted on havenot been met, because that precedent hasnot been reversed.

The first motion to choke alI debate wasmade by the distinguished Senator fromMinnesota (Mr. MONDALE) on February 20;Mr. MANSFIELD made his point of order thenand it was tabled; and Mr. ROCKEFELLERstated the conclusions he drew from that.

Then, it was not until several days laterthat the point of order was made again toportions of the Mondale motton by Mr. MANs­FIELD to cut the ground out from under theright that had been acqUired by the freedebt senators to offer a motton.

A motion was made to table the Mansfieldpoint of order, and as I say, it carried by avote of 46 to 43.

It is true that the Senate did proceed toreconsider the vote by which the secondMansfield point of order was tabled and theSenate did vote to reconsider. Then on theputting again of the motion to table, theSenate refused to table the point of order.

So the point of order was before the Sen­ate. But was a decision made by the senate?No, it was not made.

At that juncture, immediately after theSenate had refused to table the point oforder, meaning that It still had life, but ithad to be considered by the Senate, the dis­tinguished IISSlstant majority leader, the dis­tingUished senator from West Virginia (Mr,ROBERT C. BnlD) , filed a cloture motion withrespect to the motion to proceed to SenateResolution 4, and then he adjourned theSenate for 5 minutes, the elIect of whichbrought down and k1l1ed the second andthird parts of the motion to proceed. It killedthe Mondale choke-olI debate motion, andit killed the point ot order.

The point of order has ne\'er been acted11pon by the Senate and cannot be acted onso we still have these precedents which wouldbe argued as being precedents for cuttingoff debate on ruJes changes at the start of asession or any tune a majority says they cando It.

The point I am makIng, Mr. President, Isthat those senators who felt that this prece-

5244 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 5, 1975dent was being overturned, and thinkingthat, agreed to vote for cloture and agreedto vote for the compromise, are delUdingthemselves because the precedents are stillthere.

Now, Mr. President, we have the furtherdanger. A vote on cloture is coming up to­morrow. Suppose, Mr. President. that a ma­jority, but not a two-thirds majority, votesto invoke cloture, that is, to cut off debate.Suppose the Presiding OIDcer said it eitherway, that two-thirds not haVing voted forcloture, the motion to invoke cloture is notagreed to and then gag-rule Senators wouldappeal that on the very same precedent thatthey have established. Suppose he said lack­ing a two-thirds vote cloture had not beeninvoked.

You would have the parliamentary ques­tion right before you again and a majorityot the senate willing to go against the ruleand to choke off debate.

Suppose he ruled, "Now haVing establishedthis precedent that a majority can cut offdebate, even though two-thirds have notvoted to invoke cloture, I declare that clo­ture has been invoked, because a majorityof the Members ot the senate have askedfor it and under the rules, under my rul­ing"-not the rules but the Vice President'srUling-"a majority can cut off debate."

So either way you go, Mr. President, thefree debate senators are in for a bad dayunless they band together and vote againstthe cloture on tomorrow, against this com­promise. Even then, Mr. President, there isno assurance that they would not ram therules change through whether they wouldvote cloture or not. Mark my words. If theyfal1 to get cloture, they are going to con­tend that it does not take two-thirds underthe Constitution.

So it is heads they Win, tails we lose, be­cause there is little chance either way theresult goes, given the determination of anarrogant majority and a determined pre­siding oIDcer.

I make these points, Mr. President, justto show that while the Senator from Ala­bama did not engage in negotiations look­ing to this so-called compromise, if condi­tions were in fact exacted that this precedentbe overturned-it has not been overturned,and even if it has been overturned momen­tarily-there is no way to prevent it beingraised· again.

Mr. President, I would say it would bemuch better to go down fighting for a prin­ciple than to compromise on a halfwaymeasure.

I might say that the New York Times ofMarch I refers to this as a "Dubious Com­promise." I ask unanimous consent to havethis article printed in the RECORD.

It says that the gag-rule Senators shouldnot accept this because they could havegotten more.

There being no objection, the article wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

[From the New York Times, Mar. I, 1975]DUBIOUS COMPROMISE

After winning an historic victory for thefundamental prinCiple ot majority rule, theUnited States Senate seems about to sur­render that principle to bully-boy tactics.

A week ago, a bipartisan majority sustainedVice President Rockefeller's ruling that a newSenate cannot be bound by the rules of aprevious Senate and can adopt new rules bymajority vote. But Senator James Allen,Alabama Democrat, would not accept deteat.He continued his defense ot the fillbuster,and tor five days paralyzed the Senate withan endless round of frivolous and dilatorymotions.

On Wednesday, Vice President Rockefellerfinally refused to entertain a parliamentaryinquiry from senator Allen, a refusal whichis within a presiding oIDcer's discretion.

Right-wing veterans led by Senators Gold­water, Arizona Republican, and Long, Loui­siana Democrat, then launched a concertedand verbally violent attack on Mr. Rocke­feller, accusing him ot unfairness and of at­tempting to "bulldoze" senator Allen intosubmisison.

Instead of countering these patently un­true charges, the senate reformers chose thatmoment to cave in and accept a. "com­promise" offered by senator Long. The re­formers had been seeking to reduce the ma­jority needed to invoke cloture from two­thirds to three-fifths of those present andvoting. The compromise would substitute a"constitutional" three-fifths of the totalmembership of the Senate, that is, sixtyvotes.

Since the fUll senate is rarely present forany vote, the disadvantage of this new ruleas compared to what the reformers wereseeking-and had actually won a week ago­is readily apparent. Thus, it eighty Senatorsshowed up for a vote, three-fifths ot thatnumber-48-could impose cloture. Underthe Long compromise, sixty votes would beneeded.

Even worse, the Long compromise furtherprOVides that in the future, the rule can bechanged only by a. two-thirds majority. Thatstul tifies the reformers' victory of a week agowhen for the first time a majority sustainedthe Vice President's ruIing that no Senatecan tie the hands of a future Senate in thatfashion.

If senate liberals in both parties vote forthis compromise next week, as they now ap­pear Willing to do, they will be surrenderingto the obfuscating and .intimidating tacticsof one man and a. dir;l.\.ard minority. OnlyVice President Rockefeller seems to be emerg­ing from this fracas with honor. Underfalse and unrelenting attack, he met his firsttest as the Senate's presiding oIDcer withfidelity to principle and dignified self­restraint.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimousconsent that there be printed in the RECORDat this point another article dated Monday,March 3, 1975, from the New York Times.This time by an independent columnist, Mr.William Safire.

I want to read a portion of it first. Hereis a disinterested assessment of Mr. ROCKE­FELLER'S actions-

"With a majority steamroller piloted byMr. Rockefeller, a member ot the minority­Senator Long-senses deteat and is suggest­ing a. milder formUla to stop dissent. He iswrong; once the gates are lowered, nothinghe writes in his resolution-

And I wish the Senator were here at thistime--"is going to keep succeeding majorities frommaking it possible for a simple majority tocut off debate. And then you might as wellnot have a Senate at all."

That is what the Senator from Alabama,the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.HELMS), and the Senators from Virginia,(Mr. H.•RRY F. BYRD and Mr. WILLIAM L.SCOTT) and many others have been arguinghere in the Chamber. This is the start of achain reaction that will end up with majoritycloture because majority cloture has alreadybeen applied in this session.

Mr. President, the title of this article is"Crushing Dissent in the Senate," You cancrush dissent in the Senate and you areletting the country in for very bad timesand very bad situations where the rights ofthe minority here in the U.S. Senate will berun over roughshod, even as we have seenin this Chamber in the last 2 weeks. That isa pretty good example of what a ruthlessmajority and a ruthless Presiding OIDcer cando to achieve Whatever ends they might de­sire.

There being no objection, the article was

ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as tol­lows:[From the New York Times, March 3, 1975}

CRUSHING DISSENT IN THE SENATE(By William Safire)

WASHL"lGTON.-Good men, nobly motivatedby the spirit of reform, can do more harmto our political system than the worst vil­lains 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 refiecting thepopulation as a whole. Contrariwise, thestates with large popUlations were not aboutto give in to demands that all states haveequal votes.

So the checks-and-balances compromiseof a bicameral, or tWO-house, legLqlature wasstruck: "Majority rule," based on popUlation,wouId be the character ot the House ot Rep­resentatives; and "deliberation" or minorityprotection based on the same number ofSenators from each state, chosen by statelegislatures, would be the character of theSenate.

For two centuries, the Senate has helpedmake the Democratic experiment work bypreventing the excesses of democracy. Timeafter time, lonely dissenters-right andwrong-have used the Senate's rules to delay,to restrain, to force some adjustment tominority demands. Ultimately, the theorywent, the majority would rule, but not untilthe passions of the moment-or of the year­had passed.

In the course of time, the Senate agreedto attune itself more closely to the popUlarwill by permitting direct election of Sena­tors by the people, and they agreed to limitdebate by a two-thirds vote, treating theveto of a minority the same as a veto bythe President.

All along, however, Senators rememberedwhat a senate was for, why it had beencreated in the first place; to protect theminority, to ensure deliberation, to make itimpossible to crush dissent under the steam­roller of democratic majority rule.

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 tor a minority to obstructprogressive legisla.tion. And so it will.

The majoritarians say the filibuster isanti-democratic. They are absolutely right,if a democracy is the absolute rule ot themajority. And the majoritarians say they willlet the majority talk tor weeks under thenew rUles, on the majorlty's kind of suffer­ance, as if talking-and not Checkhlg ma­jority power-were the central issue.

Helping to crash through the resistance tothis radical change in character of the Sen­ate is its new presiding oIDcer, Vice PresidentRockefeller. He ruled in favor of the anti­dissenters at the l>tart, which was not un­precedented; but then he went on to refuseto recognize Senators who wanted to opposethe motion.

When Senator James Allen rese with a par­liamentary inquiry, Mr. Roci<efeller pre­tended not to hear or to see, and insteadwent to a vote the majority wanted. Onceagain, Mr. Rockefeller sees enormous mis­chiet in delay.

With the majority steamroller piloted byMr. Rockefeller, a member of the minority­Senator Long-senses defeat and is suggest­ing a milder formula for stopping dissent. Heis wrong; once the gates are lowered, nothinghe writes into his resolution is going to keepsucceeding majorities from making it pos­sible for a simple majority to cut off debate.

J.11al'ch 5, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5245And then you might as well not have aSenate at all.

senators Mondale and Pearson, who de­Rigned this steamroller, are men with thebest of intentions who want onl:' to turn theSenate into a more active body, more capa­ble of defying a President, more abie to exertieadership. With much logic, they can pointout how a minority in the senate was ableJ.o obstruct the rights of a black majority forgenerations.

But they are fiddling with the foundationsof a good system in order to improve thechances for this year's legislation. The auto­matic supporters of good-guy reformersmight want to consider the day when theother side is in the saddle.

Might it not be pooslble, only a decade orso hence, for the political picture to changeso that a revived "sIlent majority" is reflectedby a copservative Senate and House, a con­servative President, and a conservative Su­preme Court?

It could happen here. And then some littlegroup of willful men, or some willful groupof little men, or some fighting band of bigmen, wlll arise in the Senate to dissent fromthe popular tide. Brave liberals all, thE!y willfling their voices and their votes in the wayof right-wing retrogression, perhaps led bya white-haired Fritz Mondale battling to savethe victories of the seventies.

And their dissent will be choked off by asimple majority cloture, their resistance fiat­tened ·by the monstrous steamroller of theirown invention. Poetic Injustice will triumph,the temporary majority will rule, and thespirit of the United States Senate will bedead.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. MANSFIELD, in the earlydays of this debate, denounced this effort totry to amend the Senate rule but not fol­lowing the Senate rules In amending thoserules. He said they excuse It by saying thatthe laudable ends justify the means. He said,"I reject that. I reject unworthy means em­ployed to achieve what they consider to bea. desirable result."

Mr. President, I am hopefUl that we willunite against this effort to ram cloture downour throats. As I say, the danger there alsois even If they do not invoke cloture, by amajority vote they will say that cloture hasheen invoked anyhow.

Another thing I want to point out is thatthere is some lack of understanding amongpeople who were not familiar with what wasgoing on here in the Senate from 12 until2 o·clock. The point was that during thattime it was pooslble that an original resolu­tion by the distinguished assistant majorityleader which does put into elfect the com­pramise plan could have been brought up.I know the distinguished Senator from WestVirginia is sincere In supporting it. If thathnd. been allowed to come up even for aminute. the cloture motion would have beenfiled on that and we would have had thecloture vote on that on Thursday. As it Isnow. we can keep the situation on an evenkeel and not allow the distinguished as­sistant majority leader to bring up his reso­lution and file cloture. We will have twocloture votes: one on the motion to proceedto the consideration of Senate Resolution 4,and then, when and If that is voted, anothereioture motion would be filed as to senateResolution 4. That would be voted on onFriday.

So it was necessary that this v-hole 2-hourperiod he occupied with priority matters be­fore we got to the matter of the distinguishedsenator from West Virginia. We are going totry to keep that from ever being the pend­ing business until this matter has been dis­posed of.

When you are chasing big game sometimesyou see a rabbit cross your trail and you for-

get your big game and go off after that rab­bit. I am just hopeful that Members of theSenate who favor free debate will not chasethis rabbit of compromise. I do not believethey are going to get the compromise throughcloture; because even If cloture is not in­voked, it is my firm judgment and opinionthat a majority will rar.~ it through anyhow.

Those are the remarks that I want to makefor the REcORD. I appreciate the senior sen­ator from West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C.BYRD) alloWing me to address-if not theMembers of the senate-the CONGRESSIONALRECORD and the public record, and the pUblicin general, on this Issue.

Mr. ALLEN. I yield myself such timeas I may require.

Mr. President. on yesterday, near theend of the day's session, the distin­guished Senator from West Virginia gotunanimous conse:lt that the Senatorfrom Alabama might speak for 30 min­utes on the parliamentary situation. andhe did speak extemporaneously. In orderk conserve time. the Senator from Ala­bama is going to read a portion of hisextemporaneous speech of yesterday,pointing out the parliamentary situationat this time, pointing out that those Sen­ators who think that the precedent thathas been set as to So majority choking offdebate having been reversed in the Sen­ate are deluding themselves. Those whohave agreed to this so-called compromisesettlement of the rules issue-those whoagl'eed to go along on the understandingthat the precedent was reversed-haveevery right, it seems to the Senator fromAlabama, to have pointed out that theprecedent has not been reversed, andthey are Wlder no obligation to go alongwith the compromise.

On yesterday, the Senator from Ala­bama had this to say:

When the compromise was met with somefavor here in the Benate, not with the ap­proval of the Senator from Alabama, or theSenator from North Carolina (Mr. HELMS) orthe Senators from Virginia (Mr. HARRY F.BYRD, JR. and Mr. SCOTT) whom I see In theChamber, the statement was made by thedistingUished senator from Michigan (Mr.GRIFFIN), the assistant minority leader, thattl:..ey were going to have to reverse this prec­edent that had been set about a majoritycutting off debate at the start of a sessionor else he would not be for the compromise--

That was the understanding that theSenator from Alabama drew from the re­marks of the distinguished Senator fromMichigan (Mr. GRIFFIN)-

Well, Mr. President, steps were taken, butI want to point out that those steps wereinelfectual to accomplish that purpose and,further, that all of those who made that asa condltlon for accepting the compromiseplan and agreeing to vote for cloture on to­morrow-

Today, of course-the terms t.hat thev illslst~d on have notbeen met, because that precedent has notbeen reversed.

The first motion to choke olf debate wasmade by the distinguished senator fromMinnesota (?o.Ir. MONDALE) on February 20;l\Ir. ?o.L4.NSFIELD made his point of order thenand it was tabled; and Mr. ROCKEFELLERstated the conclusions he drew from that.

Then. It was not until several days laterthat the point of order was made again toportions of the Mondale motion by Mr. MANS­FIELD to cut the ground out from under the

right that had been acquired by the freedebt Senators to offer a motion.

A motion was made to table the Mansfieldpoint of order, and as I say, It carried by avote of 46 to 43.

It is true that the senate did proceed toreconsider the vote by which the secondMansfield point of order was tabled and theSenate did vote to reconsider. Then on theputting again of the motion to table, theSenate refused to table the point of order-

Mr. President, let us analyze and seeif anything has been reversed-

So the point of order was before the Sen­ate. But was a decision made by the senate?No, it was not made.

At that juncture, immediately after thesenate had refused to table the point oforder, meaning that It still had life, but ithad to be considered by the Senate. the dis­tinguished assistant majority leader. the dis­tinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr.RoBERT C. BYRD), filed a cloture motion withrespect to the motion to proceed to senateResolution 4, and then he adjourned thesenate for 5 minutes. the effect of whichbrought down and killed the second andthird parts of the motion to proceed. Itkll1ed the Mondale choke-off debate motion,and It killed the point of order.

That, I assume, is unquestioned. So thepoint of order was killed without everbeing acted on by the senate. It. was just.withdrawn from the Senate's considera­tion by action of the distinguished as­sistant majority leader-

The poInt of order has never been actedupon by the senate and cannot be actedon-

Because it is not before the Senate now.It was killed by the adjournment of theSenate-

So we still have these precedents whichwould be argued as being precedents forcutting eff debate on rules changes at thestart of a session or any time a majority saysthey can do It.

The point I am making, Mr. President. Isthat. those Senators who felt that this prec-edent was being overturned- '

And I make my remarks specifically tothe Senators on the floor who may bedelUding themselves that this precedenthas been overruled-

The point I am making, Mr. President, isthat those Senators who felt that this prec­edent was being overturned, and thinkingthat, agreed to vote for cloture and agreedto vote for the compromise, are delUdingthemselves because the precedents are stillthere.

Now, Mr. President, we have the furtherdanger.

I want Senators to understand justwhat they are voting for when they votefor cloture. I hope the distinguished VicePresident will keep the chair, because alittle later I wish to propound a parlia­mentary inquiry to the distinguishedVice President, if he will recognize theSenator from Alabama for that purpose.

The VICE PRESIDENT. I am de­lighted to.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President. we havethe fw·ther danger-a vote on cloture iscoming up-as I said :resterday, "on to­morrow"-it is coming up in just a fewminutes-

Suppose, Mr. President, that a majority,but not a two-thirds majorIty, votes to in­voke cloture. that Is, to cut off debate. Sup­pose the Prpsldlng Officer said It either way,

5246 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE March 5, 1975that two-thirds not having voted for cloture.the motion to invoke cloture Is not agreedto and then gag rule Senators would appealthat on the very same precedent that theyhave established. Suppose he said lackJng atwo-thirds vote cloture had not beeninvoked.

He is going to be called upon to makea ruling on that prOVided the vote fallsshort of two-thirds:

You would have the parliamentary ques­tion right before you again and a majorityof the Senate willing to go against the ruleand to choke off debate.

Suppose he ruled, "Now having establishedthis precedent that a majority can cut offdebate, even though two-thirds have notvoted to InV'oke cloture, I declare that cloturehas been Invoked.

Or this is the Vice President speakingin a hypothetical situation-because a majority of the Members of theSenate have asked for It and under therUles. under my rUllng"-not the rules butthe Vice President's rUllng-"a majority cancut off debate."

So eIther way you go, Mr. President. thefree debate Senators are In for a bad dayunless they band together and vote againstthe cloture on tomorrow. against this com­promise. Even then. Mr. President. there Isno assurance that they would not ram therules change through whether they wouldvote cloture or not. Mark my words. If the~

fall to get cloture-

That is. if they fail to get two-thirds­they are going to contend that It does nottake two-thirds under the Constitution.

That very same contention was madein 1957 by the distinguished Senator fromNew York (Mr. JAVITS) and the distin­guished Senator from Montana (Mr.MANSFIELD) moved to table the appealand the Senate did table the appeal-

So It Is heads they win. tails we lose,because there Is little chance either way theresult goes. given the determination of anarrogant majority and a determined presid­Ing officer.

I make these points. Mr. President, just toshow that while the Senator from Alabamadid not engage In negotiations looking tothis so-called compromise, If conditions wereIn fact exacted that this precedent be over­turned-It has not been overturned-It hasnot been overturned. and even If It hasbeen overturned momentarily-there Is noway to prevent It being raised again.

Mr. President. I would say It would bemuch better to go down fighting for a prin­ciple than to compromise on a half-waymeasure.

Mr. President. I make the parliamen­tary inquiry: when the question is sub­mitted to the Senate in just a few min·utes under the cloture petition before theSenate. will it take a two-thirds vote toend the debate?

The VICE PRESIDENT. In answer tothe Senator from Alabama, if the mo­tion is made under cloture rule XXII,then it will take a two-thirds vote to beoperative.

Mr. ALLEN. I am asking specificallyon the vote that is to be put to the Senateat approximately 1: 15. Will that particu­lar vote. no matter where it comes from.require a two-thirds majority to close offdebate?

The VICE PRESIDENT. If cloture hasbeen filed under the rule, the answer is"yes."

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished

Presiding Officer. and I reserve the re­mainder of my time.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Will the distinguishedSenator from West Virginia yield mesome time?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes. I yield 5minutes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I have listened with at­tention to the argument made by thedistinguished Senator from Alabama. Atone point during the debate I did indi­cate my view that it would be importantto a compromise to reverse the earlieraction of the Senate with respect to theMansfield point of order. I would like tosay to the Senator from Alabama and toothers that, in the context in which weare operating. r believe we went as faras we could go. as a practical matter.and the effect of the action taken wasto reverse the situation that earlierprevailed.

As the Senator from Alabama has al­ready pointed out. the crucial ruling ofthe Chair related to the effect of a voteby the Senate to lay on the table a pointof order of the Senator from Montana.Certainly there is a lot vf room for argu­ment concerning the appropriateness ofsuch a ruling by the Chair.

The fact is that the Senate did recon­sider its earlier vote on the motion tolay the point of order on the table, andthe Senate proceeded to reverse itsearlier decision on that question accord­ingly to the extent that any significancewas attached by the Chair to that earliervote, it was rescinded or upset.

Now, the Senator from Alabama haspointed out that. after voting to recon­sider, and after voting down the motionto lay on the table. the Senate did notthen proceed to vote on the point of orderitself.

However. it seems to me that we areat the same point where we were beforethe point of order was interposed. andthe situation is as it existed back in 1967,when the Senate did take that thirdstep. and did, by a majority vote, rulevalid the point of order. which on thatoccasion was made by the late Senatorfrom Illinois, Mr. Dirksen.

The precedent established in 1967 isstill in effect. To the extent that prece­dents are meaningful, it can be said thatwhen a majority of the Senate in 1967voted to sustain a point of order similarto that made by the Senator from Mon­tana. a precedent was established whichis still in effect.

Of course, it must be pointed out that,once the vote on the motion to table hadbeen reconsidered and reversed, the pointof order then would have been debat­able-if those working for the compro­mise had elected to seek a vote on thepoint of order itself.

If we had taken that route, I wonderwhether and how soon the Senate wouldhave been permitted an opportunity tovote on the point of order itself.

Insofar as this Senator is concerned,I believe we did achieve what was essen­tial and necessary. We did reverse theearlier unfortunate action of the Senateby reconsidering and voting down themotion to lay on the table the point oforder.

I do not wish to suggest that the Sena­tor from Alabama has no point at all tohis argument. He makes a point worthnoting. Of course, I was conscious of thefact that the Senate did not proceed toa vote on the point of order. But weigh­ing the advantages and disadvantages oftaking that route, I came to the conclu­sion-a different conclusion than theSenator from Alabama-that those whodo not like the Mondale resolutionwould fare much better if we accept thecompromise-would otherwise be thecase.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President. will theSenator yield on my time?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am glad to yield.The VICE PRESIDENT. The 5 minutes

of the Senator froin Michigan has ex­pired.

Mr. ALLEN. I asked the Senator toyield on my time.

The Senator from Michigan says thatwe are now back where we were follow­ing the 1967 ruling. where the Senatefailed to lay on the table the point oforder which was similar to the pointthat the distinguished Senator fromMontana (Mr. MANSFIELD) made.

r believe. however, that the Senatoroverlooks the precedent that was estab­lished on February 20, when the Mondalemajority debate choke-off motion wasmade. The point of order was made bythe distinguished Senator from Montanaat that time. and the motion to lay onthe table was made, on February 20, andit did carry.

The only thing that would have re­versed that precedent would have beenaction on the point of order. So the pointof order reversing the tabling of thesecond Mansfield point of order is allthat has been reversed. and not the Feb­ruary 20 precedent. So it would take ac­tion on the point of order, which diedwhen the distinguished Senator fromWest Virginia made the motion to ad­joum and the Senate did adjoum.

The live precedent right now, if theyare looking for a precedent-I do notthink they need it. Mr. President; it hasbeen demonstrated-but the live prece­dent is the precedent Of February 20, andthe Senator from Alabama says thatthat precedent has not been overruledand would not be overruled unless thispoint of order that 'Senator MANSFIELDmade. the second point of order he made.was acted on. So we are still operatingunder the February 20 precedent.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will theSenator from Alabama yield to me?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.Mr. GRIFFIN. It would seem that the

Senator's argument would have morevalidity if. on February 20, the Senatehad actually voted on the point of order.But the Senate did not do that.

Mr. ALLEN. Well, the Senate voted onthe tabling motion.

Mr. GRIFFIN. That is right.Mr. ALLEN. And the distinguished

Presiding Officer said he was going touse that vote to determine the Senate'sfeeling about the constitutionality of theMondale debate choke-off motiOl'l.

Mr. GRIFFIN. So the crucial point, itseems to me, is the motion to lay on the

March 5, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5247table and the interpretation which theChair has attached the Senate's vote.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, but if the--Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, in view of his in­

terpretation, it was very important andsignificant that the Senate reconsidered

.its vote on the motion to table the pointof order on this most recent occasion, andreversed itself.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, but it still neverpassed on the point of order, to reversethe damage that was done on February20. I just wanted to call that to the Sen­ate's attention.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I cannot say that theSenator Is not reciting facts accurately,but I do not attach the same significanceto them. It seems to me It is a highlytechnical kind of argument. In terms ofsubstance and intent, the Senate hasdone what is necessary to reverse-veryemphatically and very dramatically-theaction taken earlier. And we can con­tinue to point out that In 1967, theSenate, by majority vote, did sustain asimilar pOint of order. That precedentstill stand and I, for one, I want to leavethat argument on tFle RECORD, I think itis a good pOsture for the Senate to be In.

Mr. ALLEN. The Senator from Ala­bama maintains that the only way toreverse the February 20 precedent wouldhave been to have acted on the point ~f

order itself. Had the Senate acted on thatpoint of order and stated that the debateon the so-called motion was out of order,then that would reverse February 20.But the distingUished assistant majorityleader saw to it that the Senate hadno opportunity to vote on the point oforder, because I.e moved to adjourn theSenate for 5 minutes. That had the effectof killing the point of order without theSenate having an opportunity to act onit.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will thedistinguished Senator from West Vir­ginia yield to me?

Mr. ALLEN. I reserve the remainderof my time.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes, I yield.Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, the junior

Senator from Nebraska is very disturbed.I lent my support toward a compromise,because I was afraid that the Senate wasdrifting into a situation where we wOl1~dno longer be the Senate of the UnitedStates, but just another body where thePresiding Officer and a majority wouldbe In control, and that we would not be adeliberative body. I did not want that tohappen.

I thought the ccmpromise consisted oftwo parts: one, a reversal of the prece­dents or near precedents that were es­tablished; and the other one to go not toa two-thirds vote but to a three-fifthsconstitutional requirement.

I disagreed with the rulings of theChair. The Vice President, in essence,ruled, as I understand, that when wevoted on a motion to table a point oforder that the tabling motion constituteda vote on the merits of the point of order.

Mr. ALLEN. On the merits of the mo­tion.

Mr. CURTIS. The merits of the mo­tion, yes.

That is not true. If a point of order is

made and then tabled, the Senate is inthe same position as if the point of orderhad nev~r been made. So the vote sl:ouldbe submitted on the motion itself. Thatwas not done.

I was of the opinion that part of theagreement here was that the procedurewould be corrected, and then the three­fifths constitutional majority would pre­vail. I would like to ask the distinguishedSenator frorr, Alabama what vote wouldbe necessary In order to clearlY correctthe procedures to which he has objected.

Mr. ALLEN. As the Senator from Ne­braska says, when the distinguished as­sistant majority leader adjourned theSenate or the Senate adjourned in re­sponse to his request, that killed thispoint of order. It is no longer, withouta decision on its merits.

Mr. CURTIS. What vote was that?Mr. ALLEN. That was the point of

order made by the distinguished Sen­ator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD).The action that was taken--

Mr. CURTIS. It is that point of orderthat should be ruled upon.

Mr. ALLEN. That point of order shouldhave been ruled upOn.

Mr. CURTIS. All right.Mr. Presiden',;, I ask unanimous con­

sent that notwithstanding the order fora cloture vote, at the time of the cloturevote that the Mansfield point of orderbe debated for 30 minutes, and that avote be taken upon it before we proceedto the cloture vote.

At this point, Mr. BUMPERS assumedthe Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,reserving the right to object--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from ~VestVirginia.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I yield myself 5 minutes. Much has beensaid with respect to the point of orderraised by the distinguished majorityleader to certain portions of the Mondalemotion; the fact that that pOint of orderwas tabled; that the vote was reconsid­ered by which the vote was tabled; thatthe Senate proceeded to untable the ma­jority leader's point of order; and thatI then moved to adjourn the Senate for5 minutes on Monday.

I think, as we have seen demonstratedhere, various interpretations can beplaced upOn what happened, dependingupon one's personal point of view, andthe cause that one seeks to further.

I happen to agree with the distin­guished Senator from Michigan when hesaid that the Senate marched up thehill, tabled the Mansfield point of order,and then marched back down the hillwhen it reconsidered the vote, and whenit untabled the Mansfield point of order.In so doing, the Senate reversed its pre­vious vote to table the Mansfield pointof order.

Now, the reason we did not go furtherat that point was, as the distinguishedRepublican whip has stated, the point oforder was back before the Senate andwould have been debatable. The Senatehad reversed itself, and had shown aninclination to move in a new directionon the point of order, by having untabled

the point of order. The pOint of orderwas then left to stand with no furtheraction thereon.

The Senate had been in session forseveral calendar days, and it was the de­sire of the leadership of the Senate toseek to have the resolution, Senate Reso­lution 93-which had been introducedlate last week-come over under the rule.Only an adjournment would Initiate thatprocedure.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will thedistinguished assistant majority leaderyield for an observation with respect tahis reservation?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Would theSenator let me complete my statement?

Mr. CURTIS. I would like to point out,because I believe he is in error-­

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from West Virginia has the fioor.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield if Ihave made an incorrect statement.

Mr. CURTIS. He rose on a reserva­tion of a point of order on my unani­mous-consent request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeis under the Senator's control, and heyielded himself 5 minutes.

Mr. CURTIS. I would like to clarifymyself for just 1 minute.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.Mr. CURTIS. Is it not 'true that under

the unanimous consent I proposed itwould avoid a long debate on this andwould clarify the situation? That is whyI hoped that by unanimous consent itcould be agreed to.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Well, stillreserving the right to object, Mr. Presi­dent, it was desirable, in the view ofthe leadership, that the Senate adjournso that the machinery could begin mov­ing whereby Senate Resolution 93 wouldcome over under the rule. There wereother reasons, as well. For example, theleadership expected an objecticn to therequest to suspend the reading of theJournal-which had been building upfor several days. By adjourning for 5minutes and having the Journal read onMonday evening, the Senate saved a dayand cleared the way for morning busi­ness on Tuesday to open the door forSenate Resolution 93 to come up underthe rule, which did not occur becausethe opponents were successful in run­ning the clock for the first 2 hours. Inany event, the Senate did reverse itsprevious action tabling the Mansfieldpoint of order.

Now, Mr. President, I want to say thataside from all the talk about precedentsthis Senate has been lately moving in avery dangerous direction. Six weeks ago,I would not have giv'en 10 cents for thechance of any action on the resolutionoffered by the distinguished Senatorfrom Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE). Butwithin the last 2 weeks I have seen aprecipitous change in the mood of thisSenate, and I feel that that mood bodesno good for those who are determinedto prevent a change in Senate ruleXXII.

I have expressed my opposition to theMondale motion in no uncertain terms.But, regardless of the most recent prece­dent or any other precedent, may I sayto my colleagues that if the Senate does

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE5248not change Senate rule xxn now, and Now, Mr. Holland took an appeal.change it in a way that will bring about Fortunately, the Senate upheld the ap­an equitable, fair, and moderate result, peal and refused to sustain the decisiona different kind of result will ultimately of the Chair.but surely eventuate. Now, Mr. President, that could happen

Now, in my judgment, the senator again at a future time with a Presidingfrom Minnesota and his colleagues can Officer ruling that a majority could in­invoke majority cloture on this Senate- voke cloture and, that, cloture being in­if not now I am afraid that it will be voked, no appeal would be debatable un­invoked later. der rule xxn. Any appeal from the rul-

May I point to an event which occun'ed ing of the Chair could be tabled by ma-in the Senate in 1969. jority vote, the Chair's ruling would have

Have my 5 minutes expired? been sustained, and you would have it-The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- majority cloture.

ator's 5 minutes have just expired. Now, it has been demonstrated timeMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Prest- and time again here recently that there

dent-- are more than 51 votes wanting a rulesMr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I ask- change, and the compromise that hasMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi- been offered is a reasonable compromise.

dent-- It is equitable, it is fair, it is balanced,Mr. CURTIS. A unanimous-consent re- and I say that the Senate had better

t think twice before it refuses· to go inques . tho d' tiMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Well, Mr. IS Iree on. .

President my inclination is not to ob- . I do not waI?-t majorIty cloture. I be­ject-- ' - lIeve that if thIS compromise is adopted,

this battle will not recur again 2 years.Mr. CURTIS. Well, I a1!1 afraid that it from now and 2 years from then, and

WIll be objected to as tIme goes on. that we will not be faced again with. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. No, I th!nk as majority cloture in the near future.

tunes ,goes on, the chances are it WIll not Mr. President, I do not object tobe objected to. the-. Mr. CURTIS. Perhaps the Senator is Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I object.

nght.. Some may appear that are not in The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objectionthe discussion. is heard.. Mr. ROBERT ~. BYRD. Mr. President, Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield 5if the Senator will allow me. minutes-how much time does the Sen-

Mr. President, on January 16, 1969, ator from Alabama have?Vice President HUMPHREY was in the Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Would theChair. He directed the clerk to call the Senator from Alabama allow me? Theroll to ascertain the presence of a quo- Senator from Louisiana had asked me torum, and after a quorum had been ascer- yield. Would the Senator, before hetained the cloture motion was restated yields, allow me to yield to Senator LoNG?to the senate, and, under the rule, the Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator from Mis­Senate proceeded to vote by yeas and sissippi has no objection.nays on the question. "Is it the sense of Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Would thethe Senate that the debate shall be Senator from Mississippi--brought to a close?" The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

Fifty-one Senators voted "yea," 47 ator from Mississippi."nay." Mr. STENNIS. Let the Senator proceed

The Vice President announced the first.motion was agreed to, as follows: Mr. LONG. The point I wanted to

The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the provisions make was merely that there have beenof article I, section 6, of the Constitution and Senators in this body who have soughtthose provisions of Senate rule XXII and to accommodate those with whom theyother rules not in conflict with this con- could not agree those who changed theirstitutional provision, the Chair announces . t'"that 51 Senators having voted yea and 47 vot~s m order 0 re~onsider t~e vote bySenators having voted nay cloture has been WhICh the appeal from the rulmg of theinvoked on the motion to p~oceed to the con- Vice President was laid on the table. Theysideratlon of Senate Resolution 11, and de- 'did so, not because they thought theybate will proceed under the limitation pro- were wrong. They did so, in my judg­visions of rule XX. (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, ment, because they hoped that as menvol. 115, pt. I, p, 994.) of good will they could help bring togeth-

Mr. Holland of Florida took an ap- er a fair compromise.peal from the 'ruling of the Chair. The I believe if no compromise can beVice President immediately applied rule worked up they will feel they must joinXXII in all respects but the two-thirds with the majority they fought to beginrequirement holding that the appeal was with. The Senator from Louisiana isnot debatable. The Chair put the ques- seeking to work for a compromise, a ruletion, "Is the decision of the Chair to that hopefully the Senate would be will­stand as the judgment of the Senate?" ing to live with in the future.The Senate, by a vote of 45 yeas to 53 Now, I am satisfied that when mattersnays refused to sustain the decision of of this type reach this point, the losersthe Chair. Thus cloture not having been will be those who place themselves in theinvoked, the Senate continued the debate position of being unreasonable, not will­on the motion to take up. ing to accommodate the majority, not

So in that instance, the Vice President willing to accommodate people who areruled that, although two-thirds of the sympathetic to what they are trying toSenate had not voted to invoke cloture, do and who are trying to do that whichthe majOlity having voted to invoke men of good will would try to suggest tocloture, cloture was invoked. bring together contending forces and try

March 5,1975

to settle for something less than whatmany want, but which is the best mixof everybody's position that can beagreed upon and to let the Senate workits will. Those who project the image ofbeing unreasonable at a POint like thisare going to lose.

What I fear is that they are gOi!lg tolose the whole blamed thing and wind uplosing, if not today, before this fight isover-and it may take 2 years before itis over with-but they will wind UP losingthe entire right of those in the minorityto maintain their debate while they arein the minority long enough to convincea majority of their position.

That, I think, is what we ought to keepvery much in mind in all this.

I will be very disappointed, Mr. Presi­dent, if, having worked for a compromise,it fails to work out because I think whatwill result will be that the majority willfeel that they have no choice but to forgeahead now or at some future point with­in 2 years and change the rule by a sim­ple majority proceeding such as thatwhich the Senator from West Virginia(Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD) referred to in hisvery logical speech.

When that happens, even though therule may say we have 60 percent cloture.as a practical matter, under majoritycloture they would have done somethingI hoped never would happen in the Sen­ate, and something that we ought to seekto avoid. They have abolished somethingthat should be preserved in the Senate,and that is a right of a minority to makeitself heard and to become a majority bypersuading people that there is a greatdeal to be said, even the right for them toprevail for awhile, perhaps a period ofyears, while the people of this Nationconsider the contending arguments ofboth sides, in the last analysis, and makethe decision, l'ather than somebody run­ning roughshod over the other.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President I yield 4minutes to the distinguished Senatorfrom Mississippi.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr President,how much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from West Virgitrla has 3 minutes.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield 2 min­utes of the 3 to the Senator.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator,and if, the Chair WOllld call me at theend of 5 minutes, that would be only 1minute from the Senator from West Vir­ginia.

Now, Mr. President, as I understood theSenator from Louisiana, I do not disagreewith him except in his one single point ofthe wisdom of yielding just because weare In an unhappy situation.

Mr. President, for just a minute or twomay we have qUiet?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Seu­a te will be in ordel'.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I havebeen told by men who were in his pres­ence that when Woodrow Wilson, the for­mer President, asked the Congress for adeclaration of war against Germany in1917, he said that he wanted his friendsand associates to know that he knew,when he did that act, that our Nationwould never be the same again. Using hiswords, regardless of what the parllamen-

March 5, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5249tary situation is, if this body ever goes towhat we call a majority cloture. forwhatever reason, the Senate will neverbe the same again.

Senate Resolution 4, however statedabout three-fifths. is just another for­ward step in that direction of majoritycloture, whatever you may say otherwise.. I believe the effective thing to do is todefeat this cloture motion and then keepon trying to defeat the proponents of theresolution, the Vice President, and any­one else who may be in the Chair.

I am inclined to believe if we vote nowon Senate Resolution 4, even thoughamended, just because we are in a tightplace, that is just adding fuel to the fireand we will be in a tight place again.I say that based upon my being here whenwe yielded from the motion to take upthe bill to two-thirds, and finally to two­thirds of those present and voting. Thisis just another step.

Let us remember as we look down the'vista of time the Senate will never .havethe distinctive featm'\:l again. It will neverbe a so-called deliberative body. It willnever live up to that standard. even asmuch as it does now. We get credit nowfor being' more of a deliberative bodythan we actually are. but this will be theturning point.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof .the Senator from Mississippi hasexpired.

Mr. STENNIS. I was yielded 4 minutesplus 1.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield what­ever remaining time I may have. Mr.President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from Mississippi has 3 more minutes.

Mr. STENNIS. Let us not make anymistake about it. Everyone will soon findout that we are degrading and down­grading the position of this body. I tellyou when the people finally realize that,when they have the chance to find itout-and they do not realize it as of thismoment, though in my opiniOl theY havebeen made to realize it in other cases­theY will not like it. Many of them willraise up, in my opinion.

This is the body that takes the hack­ing, though sometimes it is just the ma­jority; it takes the criticism; it takes thebludgeons of omce in order to hold theline so that somewhere in the Govern­ment-somewhere-there will be some­one who can stand up and cause thecountry to take a second thought.

There is no doubt in my mind that thisrule XXII is what saved the SupremeCourt from being packed in 1937. Therecould not have been a more momentousand far-reaching precedent set than thatwould have been.

Mr. President. I believe we ought toquit talking about what the situation is,what they may do on some other vote,and stop this where we are. One stroke ofthe pen by the Vice President has alreadystruck away, held for naught, fornothing, almost 200 years of precedentsthat this bodY has abided by.

It certainly is time to stand up andsay we will LtOP this thing right now, ifwe can. and then if there is anotherresolution to change the rules that istheir prerogativp

Mr. President, may we have a sem­hlance of deliberation?

:M:r. LONG. Will the Senator yield?Mr. STENNIS. If I have any time I

will be glad to yield.Mr. LONG. When I first came here,

debate could not be shut off with 99 votes.Does the Senator contend we made amistake?

Mr. STENNIS. I said it was changedon us.

I have been here as long as the Sen­ator has, and he has been a great warrior.He is now. I have no quarrel with him.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.Mr. ALLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the

distinguished Senator from NorthCarolina.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, I thankthe distinguished Senator from Alabama.

I will say for the RECORD I would havehoped we could have agreed to the re­quest of the distinguished Senator fromNebraska, for I had understood the pro­posed compromise to be just as he hasstated. While I had not made any firmcommitments to anyone, I think I hadled the Senator from Louisiana to be­lieve that if the compromise were agreedto, as I understood it to be, I would votefor cloture and for whatever parliamen­tary rules 01' proceedings would havebeen necessary to accomplish the com­promise.

I believe the distinguished Senatorfrom Alabama understood that I would,although I had not told him so.

I have discussed the matter this morn­ing with the Senator from West Vir­ginia.

Mr. President, I am afraid that if weproceed to the compromise without vot­ing on the point of order of the distin­guished Senator from Montana, we willhave the three-fifths rule only by thesufference of the Vice President and themajority leader of the Senate, and thatthey can change it any time they wantto.

I would simply say. Mr. President, toall of those I have discused it with thatunless we do proceed to vote on the pointof order of the Senator from Montanain an amrmative sort of way, I will votefor cloture and will not vote for thecompromise.

Mr. ALLEN. Does the Senator meanagainst cloture?

Mr. MORGAN. Against cloture, that isright.

I think the mere fact that the Sena­tor from Iowa has objected to the re­quest of the Senator from Nebraska isa clear indication that the proponentsof Senate Resolution 4 intend at a laterdate to use the ruling as a precedent tocut off debate by a majority.

For that reason, I want to make clearto those with whom I have talked as tomy reasons for voting against cloturethis afternoon unless the point of orderis later voted on.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from Alabama.

Mr. ALLEN. How much time does thesenator from Alabama have?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator has 1 minute remaining.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, the prece­del1t as to majority vote cutoff of debate

has not been reversed, I say to the Mem­bers of the Senate. The last Mansfieldpoint of order was never acted upon anddied 'l\ith the adjournment of the Sen­ate on Monday, March 3, 1975. I haveinserted the speech that I made yester­day in the RECORD. I do not want anySenator to act under any misapprehen­sion of the facts. There has been no re­versal of the precedent. The Senate, byits precedents, and by the action of theVice President, has decided that a ma­jority can cut off debate. That precedenthas not been reversed. I am hopeful thatthose Senators who are opposed to ma­jority cloture will vote against cloturewhen the roll is called in about 15 min­utes.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that time fordebate be extended an additional 10 min­utes, to be equally divided between Mr.ALLEN and myself.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? The Chair hears none. and itis so ordered.

Does the Senator wish the Senatorfrom Alabama to retain the fioor for 5minutes?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I again say that Senators can argue theseprecedents any way they wish. They canplace any interpretations on these recentprecedents that theY want to place. Butat any time that 1'1 Members of the Sen­ate are determined to change the ruleand if they have a friendly Presiding Of­ficer, and if the leadership of the Sen­ate joins them-especially if it is th~

joint leadership-that rule will bechanged, and Senators can be faced withmajority cloture.

I again call attention to the positiontaken by the Vice President in 1969.

Mr. President, may we have order inthe Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenate will be in order.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I would par­ticularly call this to the attention ofmy good friend. the very able Senatorfrom North Carolina (Mr. MORGAN).

A vote to invoke cloture was taken.Fifty-one Senators voted "yea"-thatwas a majority. Forty-seven Senatorsvoted "nay." The Vice President an­nounced that the motion was agreed to,as follows:

Under the provisions of Article I, Section5 of the Constitution and those provisionsof Senate rule XXII, and other rules notin conflict with this constitutional provi­sion, the Chair announces that, 51 SenatorshaVing voted yea. and 47 Senators havingvoted nay, cloture has been invoked on themotion to proceed to the consideration ofSenate Resolution 11, and debate Will pro­ceed under the limitation of the provisionsof rule XXII.

SO the Chair ruled in that situationthat cloture had been invoked by ma­jority vote.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will theSenator yield for a unal1imous-consentrequest?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield.Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President. I ask

unanimous consent that before the voteis taken on cloture. the Mansfield pointof order be submitted to the Senate,under a limitation of 10 minutes of de-

5250 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Mm'ch 5, 1975bate, 5 minutes to a side, prior to pro­ceeding with the cloture vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.GARY W. HART). Is there objection ~

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. And that avote then occur.

l'v1r. CURTIS. And that a vote thencccur on the point of order.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, reservingthe right to object, I ask the Senatorfmm Nebraska if he will withhold thatrequest for 3 or 4 minutes, until wehave had an opportunity to confer withsome other Senators. We have a 10­minute delay, have we not?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.Mr. CURTIS. I will agree that the

Chair can delay in putting my unani­mous-consent request.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi­dent, I' ask unanimous consent thatthe time thus taken not come out of my5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi­dent, I say again that the Chair in 1969ruled on that particular occasion thata majority vote was sufficient to invokecloture. An appeal was taken. The Chairput the question:

Is the decision of the Chair to stand aathe jUdgment of the senate?

The Chair applied rule XXII in alIrespects except that part of the cloturerule that holds that an appeal is notdebatable.

So in that instance, debate on an ap­peal was allowed. But the Chair couldjust as well have held otherwise. TheChair could also have arbitrarily ap­plied that part of rule XXII; and ina future case, if an arbitrary Chairwere to hold that appeals were not de­batable, a motion to table could immedi­ately be made, the appeal could betabled by a majority vote, and the Chairwould be sustained, and the Senatewould have majority cloture. That canhappen. It did not happen in the 1969instance to which I have alluded, be­cause the appeal was upheld. The Chairwas not sustained in that instance. Butthe next time, we cannot be sure thatan arbitrary ruling by the Chair willnot be sustained in support of majoritycloture.

If we adopt this compromise, however,I think it will ctID.stitute insurance thatmajority cloture· will not occur. If thecompromise is turned down, I am afraidthat the Senate is going to continuethis debilitating exercise until some kindof majority cloture, or, in any event,cloture to a lesser extent than a three­fifths constitutional majority, will be­come the rule.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. If I have anytime remaining, I shalI be glad to yieldto the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator has 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. MORGAN. Is it not true that ifwe have an arbitrary Chair or PresidingOfficer and a majority of the Membersof the. Senate vote with him, to upholdhim, debate can be cut off, regardless ofwhat rule we have?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senatoris correct. But I think if the Senate willshow in this instance that it is moving ingood faith toward a moderate change inthis rule-in view of the many seriousquestions that confront this country to­day, and on which action needs to betaken soon-the situation to which theSenator from North Carolina refers isnot nearly as likely as it may be other­wise.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, I wouldsimply say that I think that most Presid­ing Officers would listen in good faith toany precedent that the Senate may de­termine. If we could t{)day uphold theSenator from Montana's point of order,I think it would be persuasive on anysucceeding Presiding Officer or even thepresent Presiding Officer.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, how muchtime does the Senator from Alabamahave?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator has 5 minutes.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presidentwill the Senator yield, without losing~right to the fioor and without the timebeing charged against him.

Mr. ALLEN. I yield.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Ne~braska, so that he may repeat his unani­mOlls-consent request.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President I askl~nanimousconsent that prior to the voteon cloture there be a vote on the :l\1ans­field point of order-I refer to the pointof order pointed out by the distinguishedSenator from Alabama as not havingbeen voted upon; that it be a IO-minutelimit on debate, 5 minutes on a side; thatafter the rollcall, we proceed with thecloture vote now under consideration.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. And that notabling motion be in order to the Mans­field point of order.

Mr. CURTIS. Yes.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection? The Chair hears none and itis so ordered. '

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, a parlia­mentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator will state it.

Mr. ALLEN. If the Mansfield pointof mder is not before the Senate andthe motion as to Which point of orderwas made is now dead, and the motionto proceed to the consideration of SenateResolution 4 is dead, by the Senator fromWest Virginia adjourning the Senate onMonday, how are we going to vote ona point of order made as to somethingthat is not existent? I have no objectionto this charade, but of what effectwould it be? A point of order as to what?Nothing is pending before the Senate.That is the trouble.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLEN. I will yield in a moment.When this question should have been

voted on was when the Senate recon­sidered the tabling motion to the secondMansfield point of order, then refused totable that point of order, and they hadno opportunity to vote on it, because thesenator from West Virginia adjourned

the Senate. So that point of order is notbefore the Senate.

How are you going to breathe life intoit, to make it worth anything as a prece­dent?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLEN. I yield.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The unani­

mous-consent request has just beenagreed to, that the Senate will vote onthat point of order. Does the Senatornot want to vote on that point of order?

Mr. ALLEN. I want to vote on it. Iwant the point of order made to some­thing that is alive. Will we also resurrectthe motion to proceed to the considera­tion of Senate Resolution 4, and also res­urrect the Mondale motion?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.,will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLEN. I yield.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator

has made much about the recent prece­dent in which the Senate did not proceedto vote on the Mansfield point of order.

Mr. ALLEN. That is right.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator

appears to be unwilling to let the Senatevote now on that point of order, becausethat would stand as a precedent.

Mr. ALLEN. No, the Senator draws theWl'ong conclusion fmm that. What theSenator from Alabama wants is also torevive here before the Senate matters asto which the point of order was made.They are not before the Senate. Let lL~

also revive them :::.nd get us back in thesame position we were in prior to th.eSenator from West Virginia adjourningthe Senate and killing the point of order.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Will the Sena­tor yield?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. I want to vote on thequestion, but I want it to be meaningful.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senatorwants to go all the way back to the Mon­dale motion?

Mr. ALLEN. That was what the pointof order--

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Which is de­batable. And all the way back to the mo­tion of the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ALLEN. No, the~Senator is wrongabout that. What I mean is I want some­thing to be there. If the Senator cares,what is the sense of it?

Mr. R,OBERT C. BYRD. Will the Sen­ator yield?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.:Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senate

will be voting on the Mansfield point oforder.

Mr. ALLEN. As to what?Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. For the sake

of establishing a precedent that the Sen­ator from Alabama wishes to have on therecord.

Mr. ALLEN. Very well. Of course, theSenator knows it is just a charade andworth nothing except to get some Sena­tors back in line that seem to be aboutto jump the traces.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Will the Sen­atoryield?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I yield.1'.11'. ROBERT C. BYRD. What hap­

pened yesterday morning? Was that acharade when the Senator offei'ed to

lJfa1'ch 5, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5251

NOT VOTING-3Holllnss McClellan Taft

So Mr. MANSFIELD'S point of order wassustained.

CLOTURE MOTIONThe VICE PRESIDENT. The time for

debate having expired, the Chair laysb'lfore the Senate the pending cloturemotion, which the clerk will state.

The assistant legislative clerk read asfollows:

CLOTURE l\!OTION

'We, the undersigned Senators, in accord­ance with the provisions of Rule XXII ofthe Standing Rules of the Senate, herebymove to bring to a close the debate uponthe motion to proceed to the considerationof S. Res. 4, amending Rule XXII of theStanding Rules of the Senate "ith respect tothe llmitation of debate.

Robert C. Byrd. Jr., Jennings Randolph,Robert P. GriIDn. John O. Pastore, EdmundS. Muskie, Charles McC. Mathias, Jacob K.Javlts, Ted Stevens. Edward W. Brooke, Clif­ford P. Case, James B. Pearson. Gaylord Nel­son. WlIIiam D. Hathaway, Alan Cranston,Walter P. Mondale, DJck Clark, Warren G.:Magnuson, MIke Mansfield.

PackwoodPearsonPellPercyProxmlreRandolphRibicoffSchweikerScott, HughStaffordStevensonTunneyWilliams

MontoyaMorganNunnPastoreRothScott.

Willlam L.SparkmanStennisStevensStoneSymingtonTalmadgeThunnondTowerWeickerYoun~

BayhBentsenBrookeBurdickCaseChurchClarkCulverEagletonGlennHart. Philip A.HartkeHaskellHatfieldHathaway

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on the point of order. Theyeas and nays have been ordered, and theclerk will call the roll

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announcethat the Senator from South Carolina(Mr. HOLLINGS) is necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator fromArkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN) is absent be­cause of illness.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Ohio (Mr. TAFT) is absentdU:l t,) illness.

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

The result was announced-yeas 53,nays 43, as follows:

{Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

YEAS-53Abourezk EastlandAllen PanninBaker FongBartlett FordBeall GamBellman GoldwaterBiden GravelBrock GrimnBuckley HansenBumpers Hart. Gary W.Byrd, He:ms

Harry F., Jr. HruskaByrd. Robert C. HuddlestonCannon JohnstonChiles LaxaltCranston LongCurtis MansfieldDole McClureDomenici McGee

NAYS-43HumphreyInouyeJacksonJavitaKennedyLeahyMagnusonMathiasMcGovernMcIntyreMetcalfMondaleMossMuskieNelson

bama on yesterday to have the Lord'sPrayer printed in the Journal as anamendment to the Journal. May I say,for the RECORD, that I moved to tablethe Senator's amendment. My purposein moving to table that amendment wasthat the amendment itself was debatable.We were engaged at that time in a raceagainst the clock, the hour of 2 o'clockyesterday being the cutoff point for res­olutions coming over under the rule. SoI think the explanation for my tablingmotion should be in the RECORD.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that the vote today on the Mansfieldpoint of order appear in the permanentRECORD of Monday, March 3, followingthe vote against tabling the Mansfieldpaint of order, and just prior to my offer­ing the cloture motion on that date, sothat in the permanent RECORD, the out­come of today's vote will appear as a partof the entire proceeding.

TIle PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.Who yields time?Mr. ALLEN. A parliamentary inquiry,

Mr. President.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yieldS time?Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator from Ne­

braska yield me 1 minute?Mr. CURTIS. I yield.Mr. ALLEN. Would the Chair, for the

information of the Senator, state whatthe Mansfield point of order is and asto what it is directed?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheMansfield point of order was directedagainst that part of the motion by theSenator from Minnesota that providedthat the motion would not be debatable,subject to intervening motions, oramendment.

Mr. ALLEN. It was not directedagainst that part of the Mondale debatechoke-off motion that said that a major­ity could cut off debate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It wasdirected against what the Chair juststated.

Mr. ALLEN. And not what the Sena­tor from Alabama has just stated?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Andnothing else.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, onMonday last, I voted to reconsider myearlier position to table the Mansfieldpoint of order and then I voted againsttabling the Mansfield point of order.

Today I am voting to uphold the Mans­field point of order for the very samereasons I cited on Monday.

We have the opportunity to amendrule 22 if we can get the reasonableleadership compromise up for a vote. Up­holding the Mansfield point of orderonly adds one tree to the jungle of prec­edents we reside in. But above andbeyond that jungle stands the Constitu­tion. And no precedent can reverse thefact that the Constitution supersedes therules of the Senate-and that the con­stitutional right to make its rules can­not be challenged.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield backmy time.

Mr. CURTIS. I ~'ield back my time.

amend the Journal to include the prayerof st. Francis of Assisi, and when theSenator wanted to amend the Journalto include the Lord's Prayer? Was thata charade?

[Laughter.]The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senate will be in order.Mr. ALLEN. The Senator, as the Sen­

ator well knows, was using up the timeto prevent the Senator from West Vir­ginia getting his cloture motion.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Will the Sen­ltor yield?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That was a

charade?Mr. ALLEN. If that is what the Sen­

ator says, it was a charade participatedin by the Senator from West Virginia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator's time has expired.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I ask for the yeasand nays on the Curtis motion.

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

The question is on the Mansfield pointof order. .

Who yields tinie?Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, what

Mansfield point of order? He has madeseveral.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the time beequally divided between the Senatorfrom Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS) and theSenator from West Virginia, the assist­ant majority leader.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Who yields time?Mr. CURTIS. I yield myself 2 minutes.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Nebraska is recognized.Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, the unani­

mous-consent request was made for thepurpose of correcting a defect in theprocedure as raised by the distinguishedSenator from Alabama. Around thisChamber for several days, there has beentalk of a compromise. I lent my supportto that. I thought it was in two parts:One, that we correct the procedure whichmany of us objected to, and the quid proquo was that we would then consider and,no doubt, it would be up to the individualSenator's decision, but accept a three­fifths constitutional majority.

The Senator from Alabama pointedout that we had not proceeded with allthe steps in order to correct the proce­dural matters that had been raised bythose rulings of the Chair and subsequentactions to which we objected. Therefore,I ask that we now vote on whether ornot to sustain the Chair as to the Mans­field amendment. I think it is fully un­derstood. I am ready to yield back theremainder of my time, or I will relin­quish to anybody else who ",ishes to beheard.

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

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

I ~'ield myself 3 minutes.A moment ago, I referred to the effort

"f the distinguished Senator from AIa-

5252 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE Ma1'ch 5, 1975ORDER VITIATING REQUIRElIIENT FOR A QUORUM

UNDER RULE xxnMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the ruleXXII requirement for a quorum be viti­ated.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob­jection, it is so ordered.

put up a sign saying that the place 1Junder new management, chances arethat the original management was notthe type of management that you wouldlike to have in an establishment that youmight patronize. You have a little bit ofsuspicion about the new management aswell.

Mr. President. the effort to ram SenateResolution 4 through by cutting off de­bate by a majority vote, and the steam­roller and strong-arm tactics that wereused to ram that measure up to the pointwhere it was almost on the verge ofhaving debate cut off, became so dis­tasteful in the eyes of the public thatthey backed off from it. They said, "No,we will agree on a compromise. We willagree on 60 to vote cloture instead ofthree-fifths of those Senators present,"

Immediately, the sponsors of the gag­rule effort moved out of the picture andturned it over to the leadership.

Mr. President, the Senator from Ala­bama did not participate in this effort tocompromise this matter. There can beno compromise with principle. If we firstconcede that we have to operate underthe rules, then any effort outside of therules to amend the rules should not becountenanced. If the rule book says thatit takes two-thirds to cut off debate, thenwe should not give the stamp of approvalto efforts cut off debate in a manner notprovided by the rules.

Where do we stand from now on? Westand at' the tender mercies-shall Isay--of a ruthless majority.

That is just the purpose of a provisionfor a two-thirds vote of cutting off de­bate, that a minority might have protec­tion against a ruthless and arrogantmajority.

Mr. President, I pay tribute to the 20other Senators who stood by their con­victions on this matter. We soon willvote, I assume, to proceed to the consid­eration of Senate Resolution 4. I assumethat they will allow an amendment,putting in the so-called compromise.

But the fact remains that this conces­sion to the minority is just given at thesufferance of the majority. They justreached the conclusion that public opin­ion would not support' this effort toamend the rules by a method not provid­ed for in the rules. So they dropped thateffort and said they were,going to go thecloture route-that is. cut off debate bya two-thirds vote.

Mr. President, if they had gone thecloture route to start with,. there is nochance whatsoever that cloture wouldhave been invoked: because on the veryfirst vote we had of any consequence, thevote was only 46 to 43 to cut off debateby a majority vote, and it would takeonly 34 votes to prevent the cutoff ofdebate.

Mr. President, the great English par­liamentarian, Mr. Onslow, the ablestamong the speakers of the House of Com­mons, had this to say about the rules ofa parliamentary body:

And whether these forms be In all casesthe most rational or not Is really not of sogreat importance. It. is much more materialthat there should be a rule to go by thanwhat that rule Is, that there may be a una­nimity of proceeding in business. not subjectto the caprice of tIle speaker-

StennisTalmadgeThurmondTower

AMENDMENT OF RULE XXII OF THESTANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

The Senate continued with the con­sideration of the motion to proceed toconsider the resolution (S. Res. 4) toamend rule XXII of the Standing Rulesof the Senate with respect to the limita­tion of debate.

The question is now on the motionto proceed to the consideration of Sen­ate Resolution 4.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President--The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator

from Alabama.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, how much

time does the Senator from Alabamahave?

The VICE PRESIDENT. One hour.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield my­

self 30 minutes.The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator

from Alabama has the 11001'. May wehave order?

Mr. ALLEN. May we have order in theSenate and in the galleries?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senatewill please be in order. The senator fromAlabama has the 11001'.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, in the judg­ment of the Senator from Alabama thisis a sad day in the history of the U.S.Senate. It is quite obvious that we aremoving toward, and in fact have alreadyreached, a point where we can do, andwill cut off free debate in the U.S. Sen­ate by a majority vote.

Whatever rights the minority in theSenate might have they hold merelythrough the sufferance of the majority.

This whole cloture vote exercise hasbeen merely an effort to give legitimacy.or the stamp of legitimacy, to the originalaction of those gag rule Senators whosought. and, from a practical standpoint,succeeded, in cutting off debate by amajority vote. It was only when therewas a rebellion here in the U.S. Senateagainst the tactics which were beingused to ram this rules change throughthat the gag rule Senators backed off.They stepped out of the picture. Theymoved into the shadows, into the back­ground, and turned this issue over to thejoint leadership.

Mr. President, it reminds me of thetime when you might be riding down ahighway and see a little filling stationor a cafe off on the side of the road,with a little hand-drawn sign whichsays "Under New Management."

Your immediate inclination is not tostop at that place because if they have to

Fannin McClureFang MorganGoldwater Scott,Hansen William L.HeIms Sparkman

PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR. ASPREVIOUSLY RECORDED-2

Cannon, for Mansfield, for

NOT VOTING-3Hollings McClellan Taft

The VICE PRESIDENT, On this votethe yeas are 73, the nays are 21. Two­thirds of the Senators present and vot­ing having voted in the affirmative, thecloture motion is agreed to.

BYI'd,Harry P., Jr.

Eastland

MuskleNelsonNunnPackwoodPastorePearsonPellPercyProxmlreRandolphRiblcolfRothSchwelkerScott, HughStalfordStevensStevensonStoneSymingtonTunneyWelckerWilllamsYoung

NAYS-2lBellmonBrockBuckley

<\llenBakerBartlett

VOTEThe VICE PRESIDENT. The question

is, Is it the sense of the Senate thatdetate on the motion to proceed to theconsideration of senate Resolution 4,amending rule xxn of the StandingRules of the Senate with respect to lim­itation o{ debate, shall be brought to aclose.

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

The second assistant legislative clerkcalled the roll.

Mr. CANNON (after having voted inthe affirmative). Mr. President, on thisvote I have a pair with the distinguishedSenator from South Carolina (Mr. HOL­LINGS). If he were present and voting,he would vote "nay." I have alreadyvoted "aye." I, therefore, withdraw myvote.

Mr. MANSFIELD (after having votedin the affirmative). Mr. President, I, too,have a pair with the distinguished Sen­ator from South Carolina (Mr. HOL­LINGS). If he were present and voting,he would vote "nay." I have alreadyvoted "aye," and I, therefore, withdrawmy vote.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announcethat the Senator from South Carolina(Mr. HOLLINGS) is necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator fromArkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN) is absent be­cause of illness.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Ohio (Mr. TAFT) is absentdue to illness. '

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. 42 Leg.)YEA8-73

".bourezk Hart, Ph1lip A.Bayh HartkeBeall HaskellBentsen HatfieldBiden HathawayBrooke HruskaBumpers HuddlestonBurdick HumphreyEyrd, Robert C. InouyeCase JacksonChiles JavltsChurch JohnstonClark KennedyCranston LaxaltCulver LeahyCurtis LongDole MagnusonDomenic! MathiasEagleton McGeeFord McGovernGam McIntyreGlenn MetcalfGravel MondaleGriffin MontoyaHart, Gary W. Moss

llfarch 5, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5253And, I might say parenthetically, the

Presiding Oflicer of the Senate.or capriciousness of the members. It Is verymaterial that order. decency and regularitybe preserved In a. dignified public body.

:Mr. President, if we had any assurancethat there would be protection in thisconstitutional three-fifths, that might

. not be so bad.The New York Times, as a matter of

fact, denounces the gag rule Senatorsfor agreeing to this compromise.

The trouble is that it is like cuttingoff a dog's tail an inch at a time. It isa constitutional three-fifths today, a ma­jority of the Senate. At the next session­al' tomorrow, for that matter-they couldchange this to a majority cloture.

Mr. President, there is not a thing inthe world to prevent a resolution to cutoff debate, not by 60 percent but by 40percent. Make the motion, have 9. pointof order made, have the Chair submit it,have the majority ram it through, andthen you would cu\ off debate by 40 per­cent. Why have any provision at all tocut off debate?

We are operating merely at the suffer­ance of the majority, and we have seenthat the majority can be pretty ruthlessaround here. When you couple that witha friendly Presiding Officer, what chancedoes that leave a Senator or Senatorswho wish to comply with the rules?

Mr. President, we went through a cha­rade here in acting on a point of orderthat should have been acted upon onMarch 3. Of course, many of the gagrule Senators voted for. that, knowingthat it was worthless, knowing that ifthe Members of the Senate cave in totheir requirements with a .::lub over thehead, they will have their way from nowon. Personally, the Senator from Ala­bama would rather have stood by ourguns, had the three-fifths of the Senatorspresent authorized to cut off debate, thanto have agreed on a halfway comprJ:nisethat puts the stamp of legitimacy onthis effort by gag rule Senators to gocontrary to the rules and, by the strengthof a majority, to ram through theirrequirements.

So the effect of this whole charade hasbeen that this majority, with a favorableruling from the President of the Senate,has voted to disregard the rules. Havingproved that they could make this changewith a majority vote, but seeing tlv\t itwas just a little too raw for the publicto take, they backed off on it and agreedon a so-called compromise.

Mr. President haVing, in effect, giventhe stamp of legitimacy to this effort ~ygag-rule Senators, WE will be in a muchmore precarious position at the next Con­gress when an effort is made to changethese rules again.

Mr. President, I stated that the NewYork Times spoke disapprovingly of thiscompromise. In effect, they said, "Youhave the battle won; you have rammed itthrough. Why did you give back part ofyour victory?"

Well, the New York Times believes in alittle free speech, and they have col­Umnists who do not necessarily agreev.it·~ the editorial policy of the Times. OnMil. 'ch 3 of this year, a very interestingare ~le by Mr. William Safire appeared

opposite the editorial page. It was en­titled "Crushing Dissent in the Senate."That is what we are seeing-the crush­ing of dissent. You are a majority or youdo not get in the game. If your opinionis contrary to that of the majority, youreffort to state your views is going to bechoked off. In a few days, the rule isgoing to be 60 percent to cut off debate,and then, the Senator from Alabamafears, 50 percent; and he has stated itis possible to go to 40 percent of Senatorsto cut off debate, if that matter is pre­sented to the Senate by the PresidingOfficer.

Let us see what Mr. Safire said:For two centuries, the Senate has helped

make the Democratic experiment work bypreventing the excesses of democracy. Timeafter time, lonely dissenters-right andwrong-have used the Senate's rules to delay,to restrain, to force some adjustment tominority demands. Ultimately, the theorywent, the majority would rUle, but not untilthe passions of the moment--<>r of the year­had passed.

In the course of time, the Senate agreedto attune Itself more closely to the popularwlll by permitting direct election of Sena­tors by the people, and they agreed to limitdebate by a two-thirds vote, treating theveto of a minority the same as a veto bythe President.

So it is not so unusual to have a two­tWrds vote to be the requirement forcutting off debate.

All along, however, Senators rememberedwhat a Senate was for. why it had beencreated In the first place: to protect theminority, to ensure deliberation, to make ItImpossible to crush dissent under the steam­roller of democratic majority rule.

That is what we have seen here in theSenate. I add that parenthetically.

With the majority steamroller piloted byMr. Rockefeller, a. member of the mlnorlty­senator 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 Is goingto keep succeeding majorities from makingit possible for a simple majority to cut offdebate. And then you might as well not havea senate at all.

So that is what we are faced with,Mr. President, the cutting off of the rightof free debate in the U.S. Senate.

The U.S. Senate is the only parliamen­tary body in the world that has a pro­vision that does give some measure offree discussion. This effort is making theSenate just another House of Represen­tatives. I say that not by the way ofdisparagement, but by way of comment­ing on the fact that in the House, thereis no way to have a full discussion of theissue; whereas here, in the Senat~, thereis an opportunity to discuss, to reason, toshape legislation, to slow down thesteamroller, to say, "stop, let us con­sider this legislation that is being pro­posed. Let us not ram it through."

I have not seen any matter that wassubjected to free debate. the free offeringof amendments, that has not emergedfrom the legislative process a better billthan the bill first offered.

Mr. President, the right of free debatein the Senate is a time-honored right.That right is being taken a\yay, not justfrom Senators. Individual Senators areof little importance in this issue. Whether

the Senator from Alabama is allowed todebate as long as he wants to is notimportant, but whether the right of thepeople to have their views expressed here,in the Senate, the right of the people ofAlabama and the people of other Statesto have their views expressed here, onthe fioor of the Senate, without havinga gag rule applied-that is important.

I am not worried whether the Senatorfrom Alabama personally is allowed tospeak. It is no great amountof pleasureto speak for extended periods on the Sen­ate floor. But the right of the people tohave their representatives speak is im­portant. That is what we are in the proc~

ess of killing in the Senate today.Mr. President, I fear that I must com­

ment on the procedure that has takenplace to bring us to this unhappy resultthat is clear for all to see. Senate Resolu­tion 4, setting the modification in theSenate rules from two-thirds require­ment to invoke cloture down to a three­fifths requirement, three-fifths of thosepresent, was introduced on the first dayof the session. Then, on February 20, itwas brought up and a resolution was of­fered by gag rule Senators. Then a mo­tion made to proceed to the considera­tion of that resolution. Then a motionwas filed saying that debate on the mo­tion to proceed that had never evenstarted, would be brought immediatelyto a close, that there be no amendment,that there be no intervening motion, thatit not be amended.

A point of order was made by the dis­tinguished Senator from Montana thatthat effort was outside the rules, as clear­ly it was, because it provided for a ma­jority cutoff of debate, as distinguishedfrom the two-thirds required by the rules.Without any opportunity to discuss thepoint of order, a motion was made totable the point of order. Then the VicePresident stated this, or this in effect,that a constitutional question was in­volved about whether the Senate had theright to change its rules at the start of asession and that that right could not becut off by debate and that a majoritycould cut off debate. Of course, the Con­stitution does not say that. It merelysays that it takes a quorum to transactbuLiness and that both houses can maketheir own rules. But the Vice Presidentstated that he was going to take thisvote on the motion to table the paint oforder as being the Senates decision onwhether this motion to proceed to im­mediate vote on the motion to proceedshould be put without debate and with­out amendment. And without interveningmotion. He said that either way theyvoted on the motion to table, he was go­ing to regard their decision on the valid­ity of the motion and of the provisionstherein.

Here comes the strange part of his rul­ing. He said that if the Senate votes totable the point of order, he is going toregard these provisions of the motionthat had not even been voted on asbeing binding on the Senate.

Now, how could there be such a rul­ing as that? He is going to put into effecta motion that is before the Senate andhas never been acted on. He says, "If youtable a point of order, I am going to treatas self-executing·'-this is the effect of

5254 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 5, 1975

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorumis pi'esent.

AMENDMENT OF RULE XXII OF THESTANDING RULES OF THE SEN­ATEThe Senate continued with the con­

sideration of the motion to proceed toconsider the resolution (S. Res. 4) toamend rule XXII of the Standing Rulesof the Senate with respect to the lim­itation of debate.

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

ator from North Carolina is recognized.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, let me first

call for the yeas and nays on final pas­sage.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is therea sufficient second? There is not a suffi­cient second.

Mr. ALLEN. That being true, Mr. Pres­ident, I have no recourse but to suggestthe absence of a quorum; and as soon asa sufficient number of Senators come in,I will ask to call off the quorum call.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ab­sence of a quorum has been suggested.The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,the distinguished Senator will have am­ple opportunity to get the yeas and nays,I assure him.

Mr. ALLEN. I would like to have thatunderstood, so that if the Senator fromAlabama should step out of theChamber, we will not have a quick voicevote.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I assure theSenator that if he does step out of theChamber, we will not have a quick voicevote.

Mr. ALLEN. The Senator is not plan­ning to step out of the Chamber.

[Laughter.]Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I assure the

Senator that if something unforeseenshould require his being called from thefloor, he will not be caught with a voicevote.

Mr. ALLEN. Very well. Under thosecircumstances, I withhold the request fora quorum call.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank thedistinguished Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BA­KER). The Senator from North Carolinais recognized. How much time does theSenator yield himself

Mr. HELMS. As much time as I mayrequire.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent that a member of my staff, Dr.James P. Lucier, be accorded the privi­lege of the floor during the pendingbusiness.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

what he said-"I am going to consider asbeing self-executing these provisions ofthe motion Saying there won't be anydebate, there won't be any amendments,there won't be any motion." How in theworld can we activate a motion until wea~t on it?

Tllis is the strange ruling that we had.So the Senate tabled the point of order,

a:ld the Vice President put that far­fetched, as we say down in my part of thecountry, construction on the action ofthe Senate.

So, ¥r. President, ever since the rul­ing of the Vice President we have beenfighting a rear-guard action to try tohead off this steamroller, and it has beenpretty hard to do. With a determinedmajority, determined to ram this meas­ure through, with a Presiding Officerlending assistance to their efforts by hisrulings, with the leadership of both par­ties at least favoring the compromise, ithas been rather difficult to head off thiseffort. But the warning the Senator fromAlabama wants to make is that this isnot the last of the efforts to amend theSenate rules. We will never go back tothe two-thirds; of course not. But thereis danger of going to a majority for thedebate cutoff. In fact, we have alreadyreached that point; whatever the major­ity says, irrespective of the rUles, is goingto be put into effect.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senatorfrom Alabama limited himself to one­half hour, which has expired. Does hecare to take his other half hour at thistime?

QUORUM CALLMr. ALLEN. No. In view of the ab­

senteeism in the Chamber, I suggest theabsence of a quorum.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk willcall the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll,and the following Senators entered theChamber and answered to their names:

[Quorum No. 15 Leg.)Allen Hart, Gary W. McGeeByrd, Helms Tower

Harry F .. Jr. Leahy YoungByrd, Robert C. Mansfield

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.TOWER). A quorum is not present.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I move that the Sergeant at Arms be in­structed to request the attendance ofabsent Senators.

The motion was agreed to.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Sergeant at Arms will execute the orderof the Senate.

Pending the execution of the order, thefollowing Senators entered the Chamberand answered to their names:Abourezk Church HansenBaker Clark Hart, Philip A.Bartlett Cranston HartkeBayh Culver HaskellBeall Curtis HatfieldBellmon Dole HathawayIlentsen Domenici HruskaBiden Eagleton HuddlestonBrock Eastland HumphreyBrooke Fannin Inouye3uckiey Fong JacksonDLmpers Ford Javitsljurdick Garn JohnstonCannon Glenn KennedyCase Goldwater LaxaltChlles Griffin Long

MagnusonMathiasMcClureMcGovernMcIntyreMetcalfMondaleMontoyaMor!!'anMossMuskieNelsonNunn

PackwoodPastorePearsonPellPercyProxmireRandolphRibicoffRothSchweikerScott. HughScott,

\Villiam L.

SparkmanStaffordStennisStevensStevensonStoneSymingtonTalmadgeThurmondTunneyWeickerWilliams

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, perhapsthe most unfortunate aspect of this lat­est assaUlt on rule XXII is the fact thatthe American people, by and large, donot understand what they have at stake.The news media, for the most part, haveattempted-perhaps successfully so-topOrtray what has been going on in theSenate for the past month as an idle ex­ercise, indeed a waste of time. Mr. Presi­dent, nothing could be further from thetruth.

I say to the Presiding Officer and otherSenators present that there never hasbeen a filibuster against stopping forcedbusing of schoolchildren. There neverha~ been a filibuster against a move bymy liberal friends to balance the budgetof the Federal Government. The truth is,of course, that our liberal friends rammedthrough the Senate their ideas aboutforced busing, and excessive Federalspending-and they did it even with thetwo-thirds requirement for cloture. Howmuch more of this sort of thing will theyram through the Senate when they cangag the minority with a three-fifths vote?

Speaking of the Federal budget, onethinks immediately of the Federal debt,which is now in the neighborhood of ahalf trillion dollars. We have a proposalby the administration which is a consid­erably modest one by the big-spendingstandards of those who are trying tothrust a revision of rule XXII upon us.They consider it a modest deficit thatthe President of the United States isproposing-that is to say, a $52 billiondeficit in 1 year's time.

I would say to the American people,if it were possible for this Senator to gettheir ear, that if they want sanity re­turned to their country, if they want toput an end to the profligacy of the Fed­eral Government-the waste, the extrav­agance, the Federal controls about whichthey have complained to me so often andat such great length-then it is not theSenator from Alabama, nor the Senatorfrom North Carolina, nor anybody elsewho opposes this latest assault on ruleXXII, who has brought this kind of trav­ail upon the people of America. That isprecisely what this issue ls all about. Howmuch more travail can the Americanpeople endure?

Mr. President, this is a liberal versus aconservative matter. It' cannot be castin any other mold. Viewing it in thatlight, I think all of us had better takea look at what the American people thinkof their Government. When I say "Gov­ernment," I mean all three branches­the executive, the legislative, and the ju­dicial.

In a survey taken after the electionof last year, 70 percent of the Americanpeople said, HI still favor a party system,I suppose." But 50 percent of the Ameri­can people polled said they could nottell any difference in the parties. Therewas a dramatic increase in the alienationfrom the political system for the past 10years reflected in this poll and in anearlier poll taken last year. For the firsttime, a majority of the American peoplethought that the average person doesnot have any say about what the Govern­ment does.

March 5, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5255Mr. President, that poll was accurate.

Debate does not seem to matter in theSenate. Look around. If you use bothhands, you can count every Senator pres­ent in the Chamber at this time. Wemight as well seal these doors and fillthis Chamber with water and make aswimming pool of it, so that visitors toWashington can at least have some rec­reation for their tax dollars [Laughter.]

If we are going to have two bodies ofCongress operating under the same rules,then why have a Senate of the UnitedStates? Let us save the money, themoney, the enormous amount of money,that it costs to operate the U.S. Senate.Let us go to a unicameral system. If allwe are going to do is fiood unwise legis­lation through the Senate-and that iswhat is going to happen; that is what isat stake in this matter, Mr. President­then let us not kid the American peopleany more. Let us tell them that the U.S.Senate is no longer a deliberative body,or a body of restraint and reason. Let usat least be honest With them.

Returning to the poll that I mentioneda moment ago, it showed that for thefirst time, the feeling that the peoplerunning the Government did not knowwhat they were doing exactly equaled thefeeling that they did. That aspect of thepoll may have given us the better of it,Mr. President. [Laughter.]

For the first time, the feeling thatquite a lot of people running the Govern­ment were crooked surpassed the feelingthat not many were crooked, and the be­lief that a few big interests were runningthe Government went as high as 70 per­cent. In fact, nearly 60 percent of thesample thought that public officials didnot care what the people thought andthat the Government could not betrusted.

Yet the people, those who were sur­ve~'ed in this poll, probably believe inlarge measure that, well, the Senate ofthe United States has been engaging ina sort of useless activity for the pastmonth. But they do not understand thetyramlY of the majority. I think it wasSenator THURMOND, the distinguishedSenator from South Carolina, who saidon this fioor just the other day that itwas a majority who crucified Christ. Wehave seen an example here in the pastweek wherein all that was needed was amajority of Senators and a very complai­sant Vice President of the United States.Frankly, this Senator felt that the ref­eree was playing on the opposition team.

Mr. President, if democracy meansanything at all in the purest sense, itmeans that the majority ought to haveits way over the minority except-and weought to draw a line under the word "ex­cept"-with conditions applied. No onecommitted to our republican form of gov­ernment-and that is "republican" witha little "r"-no one committed to our re­publican form of government, least of allthose who framed it, could disagree "iththis basic maxim. But here is where the"except" comes in.

The principle of majority rule, farfrom answering evel'y question concern­ing what the Republican governmentought to be like, itself poses some vexing

ones. For example, what kind of majorityshould rule? Geographic? EconOlnic?Ideological? Should one suppose there is,in our Nation, one majority on aU issuesand one minority on all issues, or thatthere are as many majorities and minori­ties as there are issues? Probably the lat­ter, Mr. President.

Should the majority express itselfthrough one or more institutions?Should the majority triumph in the sameway, with the same ease on all issues?

No, Mr. President. Commonsenseshould tell us. That is what the FoundingFathers had in mind when they envi­sioned the Senate of the United States.My good friend and colleague fromNorth Carolina (Mr. MORGAN), who is onthe fioor at this time, well knows thatwhen the Senate was established by theFounding Fathers, there was no limita­tion of debate at all-for the very reasonthat I pointed out at the outset of my re­marks. No, the existing two-thirds ruleis a fairly recent development. Common­sense should telI us, Mr. President-com­monsense-just as commonsense told theFounding Fathers that appropriate an­swers to these questions are not self-evi­dent; that the majority must be countedin different ways for different purposes;and that one should be skeptical of doc­trinaire positions.

Yet what do we have in the Senate to­da~? I am not being personally critical ofany Senator. I have my own momentsof didacticism just like anybody else. fartoo many of them. But I have the uneasyfeeling that too many people in leader­ship positions really do not care abouthow much of the taxpayers' money wespend or how much debt we run up, justso politicians can look to the next elec­tion instead of the next generation. And,really, Mr. President, that is what thisrule XXII fight is all about-to give theminority, though we may be, a chanceto say whoa. To give the minority in thisSenate a chance to restrain the graspinghand of Federal bureaucracy, Federalcontrols and Federal spending.

Let us not kid ourselves. If the spon­sors of this resolution felt that they hadthe votes to pass an absolute majorityrule, they would go like Blalock's bulland pass it. But the fact is, Mr. Presi­dent. that they do not yet have the votes.

Three Senators have come to me in thelast 2 days and said, "I got hooked on acommitment on this thing, I have to gothrough with it. But you are right: RuleXXII should be left intact,"

One Senator even went so far as to say,"I wish we could have a secret ballot onthis question." Of course, we cannot.

The Founding Fathers' commonsense,Mr. President, their statesmanship, exer­cised with the kind of foresight and dili­gence and honesty that are so rare to­day, settled on a rather complex under­standing of majoritarianism. The Found­ing Fathers said: The majority is goingto express itself in many ways, not runroughshod over the minority. Throughan elected President, one majority ruleson all issues for 4 years. The people arerepresented in tile House of Representa­tives where majorities and minoritiesform and dissolve on every issue. But theFounding Fathers provided, Mr. Presi-

dent, that the majority's face would beseen yet in another forum. The U.S. Sen­ate, the Constitutional Convention de­cided, would speak for the majority of thepeople insofar as they were organized intoStates and-and I wish I could under­score the "and"-would do so in an espe­cially reflective manner. Had the Found­ing Fathers understood majority rulenaively, they would never have estab­lished the body where two-thirds of theMembers represent but one-third of theNation's pOPUlation. They did it by de­sign and by intent. The Senate wasmeant to be a peculiar body.

In the Federalist papers, James Madi­son was especially clear on this point.The Senate was not. to duplicate thework of the House. It was not a smallercopy of the House of Representatives.It was not to give legislation a secondlook, but a more deliberative look-'l.much more deliberative look than onecould expect that it would receive any­where else. The Founding Fathers' un­derstanding of majority rule requiredthem to establish one body whereinmajorities of the Members couId be heldin check, both by yesterday's majorities­for two-thirds of the Senate is always acontinuing body-and by today'sminority.

The men who'established the customof unlimited debate in the U.S. Senatehad sat-where, Mr. President? Thedistinguished Senator from Tennessee(Mr. BAKER), who is now the occupantof the chair, knows that they sat in aConstitutional Convention, and there­fore it was no historical accident thatthey allowed unlimited debate. And letme reemphasize, that was absolute un­limited debate from the beginning, andon up until 1917. They rendered a judg­ment on how representation of themajority might best be accomplished.

They said the presidency would pro­vide for summary judgment by a major­ity, which remained fixed for 4 years, butcould then change altogether. The Houseof Representatives, on the other hand,provided for the expeditious rule by ashifting majority.

But where, if not in the U.S. Senate,our Founding Fathers asked, could aminority on any given date require themajority to reconsider, and reconsideragain and perhaps again, what themajority proposed to impose upon thepeople?

There are a lot of folks, a lot of citi­zens throughout this country, who wishthat the majority had not prevailed, forexample, on the issue of forced busingof schoolchildren. After all, it was by im­posing the gag rule that this was broughtabout. And that was by two-thirds, Mr.President. That was not by tlu'ee-fifths,it was two-thirds.

When ,ve look at the way this Con­gress has led this ~ation into deficitfinancing for a generation-only 4 or 5years in most of my adult lifetime hasthe Federal Government operated on abalanced budget-when we look at this,maybe it would have been good for theAmerican people if there had beentotally unlimited debate, because therewere men around who did not agree­and I am looking at the dtstinguished

5256 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE Ma1'ch 5, 1915Senator from Virginia (Mr. HARRY F.BYRD, JRJ, whose lllustrious father satin this Chamber, and constantly warnedabout the consequences of deficit financ­ing. On many occasions Senator HarryByrd, Sr., in his time. as does HARRYBYRD, JR.• today, warned that this ir­responsibility was leading America intobankruptcy. .

But even in the sole Chamber, theonly Chamber where the minority oncehad the right to defend itself withoutlimitation, a minority was found. What aserious thing it is to remove from aminority the filibuster, which is tradi­tionally a minority's last retreat; theU.S. Senate. since 1917, has required atwo-thirds vote. Prior to that time therewas no way to end debate. But since1917, two-thirds has been the margin­the margin which the Constitution re­quires for serious actions.

I wonder, Mr. President. how some canargue that ousting a minority from itslast refuge is not a very serious matter.If the events of the past 2 years havetaught us anything at all. it is that theFounding Fathers knew what they weredoing when they fashioned this U.S.Senate. And it has been my feeling. asa matter of principle. that if we tamperfurther with the work of our FoundingFathers, we ought to be infiuenced bysomething more than our analysis ofthe last election and perhaps a sloganor so. Today as never before, in a systembuilt on majority rule, no slogan is moredangerously antagonistic to the realcause of freedom. perhaps even survival,than absolute "majority rule."

That is why I have been proud to standwith the distinguished Senator fromAlabama as best I could, and not because,really. Mr. President, I thought that wewould win. PartiCUlarly was I certainthat we would lose when I viewed theheavy-handed rulings by the Chair a fewdays ago. But it was at least a battle fora principle that this Senator from NorthCarolina thought ought to be waged, be­cause I do not think the people of Amer­ica comprehend what they have at stakein this matter. Mr. President, I sincerelybelieve that if they did comprehend it,there would be a rising up such as theSenate has seldom seen before on thepart of the people.

I mentioned conservatives and lib­erals at the outset of my remarks. I mustacknowledge that my side of this issue,the side which has opposed this ruleschange, that we did not do our home­work. Common Cause was out there get­ting commitments last year, before andafter the election. The labor union lead­ers were out there getting commitmentsbefore and after the election. They didtheir homework, and the truth of thematter is that our side did not do ours.

Mr. President, I do not have muchmore to say except. perhaps, in the formof a suggestion to those American peo­ple who might somehow, in some ac­cidental fashion, discover what the Sen­ator from North Carolina and othershave been trying to say here this after­noon, and that suggestion is this: thatthey watch the Senate after this rule ischanged if, indeed, it is changed. Theyshould watch how much of the taxpay-

ers' money fiows through here. moneybelonging to the taxpayers; they shouldwatch the imposition of even more Fed­eral controls-and all of the otherfrustrations that might have been heldup for further consideration had thisrule not been changed.

This, whether the American peopleknow it or not, is a perilous matter in­soiar as the things they are interestedin are concerned. If the media want toperform a useful service for the people,the media should explain to them thatforced busing, for example. was not fav­ored by those who opposed this rulechange; deficit financing is not favoredby those who oppose this rule change;the imposition of Federal controls onthe lives of the people is not favored bythose who oppose this rule change.

We are talking about philosophy and,more important even than that. whetherthe people of the United States can hopeto have any restraints placed on theflood of legislation that is certain tocome before the Senate of the UnitedStates.

Mr. President. I reserve the remainderof my time.

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi­dent, I yield myself such time as I maytalce.

Mr. President, I think it is a mistakefor the Senate to change rule XXII. Ithas served the Senate for a long time.

Let me review the history. Rule XXIIwas enacted March 8, 1917. Until thattime there was unlimited debate in theSenate, and no way in which a Senatorcould be prevented from speaking.

During the period near the beginningof World War I. it was the prevailingview of the Senate that that went toofar and there should be some means bywhich debate in the Senate could bebrought to a close.

The proposal which is now the rule ofthe senate was presented to the Senateon March 8, 1917. It was presented byone of my predecessors, the late SenatorThomas S. Martin, of Charlottesville,Va.• was the majority leader. the Demo­cratic leader. of the Senate at that time.That proposal provided that at any time16 Senators signed a petition requestingthat debate be brought to a close. that1 calendar day after that but one, amotion should be put before the Senateand a yea-and-na~' vote obtained.

If two-thirds of the Senators presentand voting supported a shutting off ofdebate, then debate would be brought toa close.

That rule seems to me to be a fair one.a reasonable one. It gives some protec­tion to those who are in a minority. Overa period of time. Mr. President, everygroup at one time or another finds itselfin a minority.

What we are doing today, if we gothrough with the proposal t{) change theluIe, is to take away some reasonableprotection for those who happen to bein a minority.

When rule XXII was enacted in 1917.the opposition to that change came fromthe leading liberal of his day, SenatorRobert M. LaFollette, Sr., of Wisconsin.In expressing his opposition to the pro­posal which would permit two-thirds of

the Senators to shut off debate. SenatorLaFollette said this:

I shall atand, while ·I am a Member of thisbody, a.galnst any cloture that denies :treeand unlimited debate.

So it was the great liberal SenatOL'from Wisconsin who led the oppositionto having any proposal to shut off debate.But the prevailing view was summed upperhaps best by Senator Norris. of Ne­braska. where he said, and I quote hisaddress to the Senate or a paragraph ofit:

I have al ways opposed a.ny change to therule which would give any majority, no mat­ter how large, the right absolutely to closedebate and permit no one to be heard fur­ther, because under that kind of a rule Mem­bers of the senate could absolutely be pre­cluded even :trom expressing an opinion on 8pending measure.... But this rUle, Mr. Presi­dent. goes only to a reasonable extent. It re­qulres, in the fixst place, a two-thirds voteto invoke the rule.

Then Senator Norris said:To my mind that is a reasonable proposi­

tion.

Senator Norris, like Senator LaFollette,was one of the leading liberals of hisday.

When we begin to transgress the rules,as the Senate has done in the last week or10 days. in order to force a rule change,the Senate is getting itself into a posi­tion where those who might be in a mi­nOlity at a particular point will have noway to reasonably protect themselves andprotect the people they are representing.

I do not see how the charge can rea­sonably, accurately, and logically bemade that the two-thirds rule preventsthe Senate from doing its business.

Just to cite the most recent history,just 3 months ago in December, clotureunder the two-thirds rule was invokedthree times. If my memory is correct. it,,"as invoked three times in just 1 week.

Just within the last 10 days cloture hasbeen invoked twice. It is not difficult toinvoke cloture under the two-thirds rule.It is relatively easy to invoke cloture ifthe proposal under consideration hasmelit, and has behind i~ a substantialsentiment in the Senate. .

Mr. President. I say again, I feel thatthe Senate has done and is doing itselfa great disservice, and it is doing thepeople of, our Nation It disservice inchanging this rule.

More than the change of the rule,however. the greatest disservice has beendone by the method which has been usedto seek to change the rule.

Had it not been for what so manyMembers of the Senate regard as an un­reasonable ruling by the Vice Presidentof the United States. there is little likeli­hood that rule XXII would be changed.

To show the Senate how far afieldthe Vice President's ruling went. I wantto quote from the RECORD of February20, 1975. The speaker I will quote is thedistinguished senior Senator from Min­n050ta (Mr. MONDALE) . Mr. MONDALE andthe distinguished Senator from Kansas(Mr. PEARSON) are the authors of the pro­posed rules change. They favor changingthe l'ule.

But Senatol' M:ONDALE. whose motion

MaTch 5, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5257it was to change the rule, said on Feb­ruary 20, page 3844 of the RECORD:

We are not asking the Senate today torule on what rule XXII should be. After 5weeks of the Senate's time, we are simplyasking for a vote to bring Senate Resolutioll4 before the Senate for consideration.

An then the Senator adds this signifi­cant paragraph:

It will be available for amendment; it willbe available for referral; it will be availablefor debate.

But the Vice President of the UnitedStates, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, as the Presid­ing OIDcer of the Senate, handed downa rule with such a wide sweep that itprevented amendments; it prevented re­ferrals; it prevented a motion makingit debatable.

In effect, the Vice President's rulingimplemented the Mondale motion evenbefore it came to a vote.

Not even the author of the rule changeasked for that. As a matter of fact, theauthor of the rille change assured theSenate, and I will read again his wordson page 3844, that if his parliamentarymotion were to prevail that SenateResolution 4, namely, the resolution ad­vocating a rule change, will be availablefor amendment; it will be available forreferral; it will be available for debate.

The Vice President, Mr. ROCKEFELLER,by a carefully preparee. ruling, shut offdebate and prevented amendments to theMondale proposal. He carefully set thestage where a majority of one can silenceall other Senators.

His ruling could radically change theSenate as a deliberative body.

Now, Mr. President, the die appears tobe cast.

Those of us who are in the minority onthis matter and those of us who feel thatit is a mistake to change the rule havebeen beat down by brute force. One mightsay that we have been banged over thehead by the gavel of the Vice President ofthe United States.

Now, the Vice President in handingdown his ruling said that he was follow­ing precedent.

Well, I have consulterl with the Par­liamentarian and the only precedent thathe followed was that of another VicePresident, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, beforehe became Vice President, had spent 20years in the Senate attempting to changethis rule.

So, naturally, when Mr. HUMPHREYbecame Vice President and had the op­portunity to rule, he ruled in such a wayas to benefit his own cause. The Senatefailed to support Vice President HUM­PHREY'S ruling.

So I submit that the current Vice Pres­ident cannot properly or appropriatelyclaim to have followed precedent; and ifhe did follow precedent it was a self­serving precedent by one who had spenta whole career in the Senate attemptingto change this rule.

The Senate of the United States hasbeen the one legislative body in the worldwhere those who found themselves in theminority on a particular issue had afighting chance to try to convince theircolleagues that their colleagues were

wrong. The Senate has been the onelegislative body in the world where thosewho were in the minority had a fight­ing chance to convince the people of theNation that the majority was wrong.

As the years go by, no doubt thosewho are in the majority today will, attimes, find themselves in the minority. Ihope they will be treated a bit betterthan many who today find themselves inthe minority have been treated.

Be that as it may, the merits of thecase, in my judgment, lie with retainingthe current lule. I say again the factsshow that rule XXII, permitting debateto be shut off by a two-thirds vote, isa reasonable one. I cite the fact that inthe month of December, three cloturemotions were approved shutting off de­bate, and within the past 10 days, in­cluding one today, two cloture motionshave been approved shutting off debate.

Mr. President, I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. Presi­dent, I ask unanimous consent that theorder for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. Presi­dent, I want to associate myself with theremarks of my distinguished colleague,the senior Senator from Virginia. Cer­tainly, I do not intend to take up theSenate's time further 011 this matter. Ibelieve we have discussed the merits ofpreserving rule XXII. Frankly, I do notsee any useful purpose that would beaccomplished by prolonging the debateby each Senator who is in opposition toany change in the two-thirds rule takingthe 1 hour of time that is allotted tohim under the rule.

I merely want to reiterate by beliefthat we should retain rule XXII whichwould permit the imposition of clotureupon a motion being filed by 16 of theMembers of the Senate, and then havingtwo-thirds of the Senate vote to closedebate.

To me, this means that we are a de­liberative body; that we do fUlly considerthe various sides of any given questionthat comes before the Senate. It meansthe preservation of the rights of theminority on any given issue-not justthe rights of the Republican minoritythat exists at the present time, but therights of the Democratic minority shouldthat come into being some time in thefuture.

I believe it is in the interests of thecountry not to have any matter that isbefore the Senate be hurriedly passed.That does not mean that I feel we shouldhave extended debate on every issue thatcomes before the Senate. In fact, I be­lieve the RECORD will show there are veryfew instances in which cloture is 1m­posed; very few issues in which there isextended debate.

I believe we do move programs throughthl'! Senate even with greater speed thanthe House of Representatives does wherethey have a 5-minute rule, generally,with regard to amendments on bills com-

ing before them. They do not have theright to full discussion of the issues.

Mr. President, once again I would hopethat the rules will not be changed, butif they are to be changed, if two-thirdsof the Senate want the rules changed,then we must bow to the will of two­thirds of the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield to the distin­guished Senator from Alabama.

(Mr. GARN assumed the chair at thispoint.)

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield my­self 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I am pleased that thecloture rule, rule XXII, does give a Sena­tor the opportunity to speak. He is givena definite length of time and, I assume,is assured of recognition for the purposeof using 1 hour of time in debate. TheSenator from Alabama has used, I be­lieve, some 30 minutes of his hour.

Those of us who are opposing this ruleschange that is being rammed down theSenate's throat outside of the rule, haveno disposition to prolong the debates. Iwould anticipate that within the nexthour or two we will have a final vote.

Mr. President, I was asked a momentago how long this new rule, this com­promise rUle, the 60-vote cloture, wouldremain as the rule of the Senate.

I said that in my judgment it wouldremain the rule until it started pinchingthose who do not want to see adequateconsideration given to measures here inthe U.S. Senate.

It will remain the rule only so long asno effort is made to deliberate on issueshere in the Senate.

When the membership starts wantingto discuss an issue and when some 41Senators ban together to see that an op­pOl'tunity is given to each Senator todiscuss an issue, then we will see therules changed; because whatever rightsthe individual Members of the Senatenow enjoy, or whatever rights the minor­ity in the Senate enjoy, in connectionwith the exercise of free debate in theSenate is held merely at the sufferanceof an arrogant and determined major­ity in the Senate.

As long as the minority Senators-Ido not mean the minority party, butthose of the minority philosophy-aslong as we are good boys, as long as wedo not presume to take the fioor of theSenate and discuss issues, then this ruleis going to remain the same. But whenwe start being naughty boys, when westart getting up and asking for recogni­tion and seeking the opportunity to en­gage in free debate, then the screw isgoing to be twisted, and this rule is go­ing to be changed.

So, Mr. President, in actual practice,from a standpoint of reality, what arewe going to have in the Senate? We aregoing to have a monolithic 60. The Sen­ate is going to consist of a monolithic60-monolithic in philosophy, mono­lithic in determination, monolithic indedication to ultraliberal philosoph:}'­and the other 40 Senators might as wellgo on back to their respective States. Inpractice, instead of there being a 100­Member Senate, we are going to see amonolithic 60 calling aU the shots, say­ing now far debate can go, saying what

r5258 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Ma1'ch5,1975

matters can be considered in the Senate,saying what issues will be allowed to bediscussed, saying what programs will beput through. That monolithic 60 is goingto be the U.S. Senate.

This is a pretty sad situation, that 40Senators, representing 20 States--orvarious combinations, depending onwhether there is a split delegation-willnot have any opportunity to express thewill of the people they represent, becausethis monolithic 60 is going to call all theshots.

Mr. President, I was asked the otherday why Vice President ROCKEFELLERrammed this issue through the Senate.The only answer, as the Senator fromAlabama sees it, is that it was a politicaldecision. It was an effort to establishhis ultraliberal credentials, in answer tothe false charge that has been madeabout him in supposedly moving to theright in his political philosophy. So hisaction in this matter reassured the ul­traliberals that he is one of them; he isone of the boys: "Forget all this stuffabout my having moved toward a con­servative position. That is not true. Bymy actions in this matter, by my joiningin ramming this illegitimate movethrough the Senate, I'm proving my ul­traliberal credentials." That is what wehad to face, Mr. President.

I am aware of the old saying that onepicture equals a thousand words, andaction in the Senate sometimes getsdown to areas outside this metropolitanarea. On February 28, a cartoon ap­peared in the Birmingham News thatpretty well describes what happened inthe Senate. Since I will not be able toput the cartoon in the RECORD, I am gO­ing to describe the cartoon for theRECORD.

It show the Vice President presidingover the Senate. He has a great, big gavel,the mallet of which is about a foot long,and protrUding from one end of the gavelis a long spike, and he is wielding that.There is a big sign in back of the Pre­siding Officer's chair which says, "Let'shear it for the antifilibuster side."

Another sign, pointing to the gavel,says, "Conservatives, keep quiet or you'llget this gavel on your head." Anothersign says, "Go, Senator MONDALE." An­other sign, on the rostrum itself, says"OK, fellow liberals, let's get ALLEN andthat blankety-blank filibuster." Thecaption of the cartoon, coming fromsome unidentified Senator, says, "Mr.Vice President, I don't believe you quitegot the idea of presiding."

I believe the Vice President did havethe idea of presiding, according to hisown rule; but he did throw the rule bookout the window when he mounted therostrum on February 20. So we have beenoperating against that action ever since.

Mr. President, they talk about a needto change the rule that calls for a two­thirds majority to cut off debate. Yet, thecloture motion on this very issue carriedby a vote of 73 to 21-many, many votesbeyond the two-thirds required. So whatis the great need for changing the rule?

Another point that the Senator fromAlabama would like to point out: Whatwe will be called upon to vote on in avery short while Is a motion to proceed to

the consideration of Senate Resolution 4,and that is a resolution that has beenthoroughly discredited because of the ef­fort to bring it to a vote by a majorityvote.

For the last few days, they have beenseeking to abandon that resolution be­cause of the bad odor that has been at­tached to it by the methods that havebeen employed to get it to a vote, andthey have been trying to put in a so­called compromise resolution. But thismotion to proceed has reference not tothe compromise issue, not the compro­mise resolution, but to Senate Resolution4. That speaks of three-fifths of thesenators voting as the requirement forcutting off debate. We might assume thatthey would accept an amendment puttingin a compromise. I trust that that istrue. I have not had any negotiations orany connection whatsoever with anycompromise talks.

I do not know what agreement wasmade in this connection, but the truthof the matter is we are not movingtoward requiring a vote on the compro­mise. What we are moving toward isbringing up Senate Resolution 4, whichdoes not have any compromise languagein it. Mr. President, I hope that Members"ill consider that.

Mr. President, what we have had anillustration of in this whole matter isthe principle that a majority. a simplemajority in the Senate, 51 Senators,aided by a Presiding Officer who hascooperated with them, can go contraryto the Senate rules and change theSenate rules just by the philosophy thatmight makes right.

The distinguished Senator from Mon­tana (Mr. MANSFIELD) renounced thiseffort on February 20 when he said thatthere might be some who feel that adesirable end justifies any means what­soever. He said:

I do not bUy that phl1osophy; I do notfeel that It Is proper to employ unworthymeans to gain 0. desirable end.

So. Mr. President, assuming that thechange to three-fifths, constitutional orpresent and voting, is a desirable end­and I dispute that fact-is it right andis it proper to resort to the unauthorizedmajority cutoff of debate? I say that itis not. Mr. President, if they can cut itdown to 60, they can cut It to 50 or 51.If they can cut it to 50 or 51, if they sodesire, they can cut it to 40 that it takesto cut off debate. So, Mr. President, I amhopeful that the Senate will not vote toproceed to Senate Resolution NO.4. As amatter of fact, I should a lot rather thatwe ,vould proceed to the resolution of thedistinguished Senator from West Virginia(Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD), Senate Resolu­tion 93, I believe, that does at least havethe compromise.

I do not favor the compromise. I wouldrather go dmvn fighting for a principlethan to have agreed on some half-waymeasure that is not worth anything. Justas quickly as these same Senators decidethat maybe they are not able to ramthrough the legislation they want becausethey can get but 58 to cut off debate, thenwe are going to see a movement to reducethe number required to cut 01I debate.

Mr. President, if we cartY on alongthis line, free debate is ended in the Sen­ate. The U.s. Senate as a. deliberativebody is going to be no more and we aregoing to have a great-I almost said"faceless"-monolithic 60 Senators call­ing the shots. But there will be someidentifiable faces in that 60. There willbe about five or six or seven identifiablefaces.

We will have the Senators from Min­nesota (Mr. HUMPHREY and Mr. MON­DALE), and Mr. MCGOVERN from SouthDakota. We will have Mr. JAVITS fromNew York. We will have Mr. PERCY fromIllinois, and two or three other identifi­able faces. The other 50 or 52 or 53 aregoing to be, their faces are going to belost in this monolithic mass.

Mr. President, I feel that the Senatecan best serve Its function as being adeliberative body not by having a Senateconsisting of 60 Senators, but by having100 individual and individualistic Sena­tors who can contribute to the discus­sion, who can contribute to the shapingof legislation, and not have a few faceslea.ding this monolithic 60 and therebycontrolling the entire Senate.

Mr. President, I am hoping that we willnot turn our backs on precedent, that wewiII not knuckle under to a. compromiseforced by the club of might.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator's 15 minutes have expired.

Mr. ALLEN. I yield myself an addi­tional 2 minutes.

This is a compromise agreed to underthe gun, a compromise dictated by Sena­tors with the backing of a ruthless ma­jority, with a club over the head of theSenate, by saying that we have a clearmajority, we have a Presiding Officerthat is helping us ram this through.

What chance do we have? So a -largenumber of Senators did knuckle underto this threat. I am sorry that that is thecase. I respect their reason for doing so.but I would have hoped that they wouldhave stood fast and either won fairly andsquarely on the basis of what is right, orhave gone down fighting.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainderof my time. '.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggestthe absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll. . •

The second assistant legislative clerkproceeded to call the roll.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I amgoing to say but a few words on thissubject. My views are well known. Isimply state that up until 1917, any Sen­ator could speak as long as he pleasedand there was no way to stop debate.In 1917, rule XXII was passed, and sincethat time, it has taken two-thirds of theSenate to shut off debate.

This rule continued until a few yearsago. when the rule was modified fur­ther to provide that two-thirds of thosepresent and voting could stop debate;and that is the rule IDlder which WI"operate today.

March 5, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 5259Mr. President, I predict. that if this

proposed ruIe change which is being sug­gested passes, to shut off debate with aconstitutional three-fifths, it "-'ill not bemore than a few more years until it willbe modified further to provide for three­fifths of those present and voting to shutoff debate. If that happens, the nextmovement will be to shut off debate bya mere majority, and when that daycomes, of course, the Senate will nolonger be a deliberative bodY. In fact,when we pass this resolution, if we do,to shut off debate ,,-'ith a constitutionalthree-fifths, it nullifies to a great extentthe Senate as a deliberative body. Andcertainly when we change the ruIe again,as we probably will do, to three-fifthsof those present and voting to shut offdebate, the Senate will practically ceaseto be a deliberative body.

Mr. President, I think it is importantfor the Senate to be a deliberative body.There are many matters. affecting theStates, the Nation, and the world whichrequire extended liebate. There are manymatters about which the people of thecountry, who are busy making their liv­ings, working at their jobs, and who donot have the tin;l.e for deliberation ordebate, as we do, will not be Informedwithout extended debate to focus atten­tion on an issue.

So it is important that we allow de­bating in this body. The House of Rep­resentatives can cut off debate. TheMembers speak for a few minutes, andmany times they do not have the op­portwlity to present the great issues be­fore the people of the Nation. This bodyhas prided itself on what was called un­limited debate. It was not totally un­limited, but there was a broad field fordebate, requiring a two-thirds vote toshut off debate.

Later when two-thirds of those pres­ent and voting could shut off debate, itwas still called unlimited debate.. But when we begin to narrow the de­bate, and to chip away, as has beendone, and then to chip away again, theprivilege of Unlimited debate; the peopleof this country will begin to suffer, andI believe it is not in the best interest ofour Nation that we limit debate. I amtruly concerned, when we try to makethis body just another body like theHouse of Representatives. The House Isimportant; it has functions to perform,but why have the Senate? Why have adebating organization, if a mere ma­jority, or even if three-fifths of thosepresent and voting, can cut off debate?And that is what it will come to sooneror later, I am afraid.

Mr. President, this matter has beendebated here for some time, and I com­mend all those who have taken an activepart in the debate. I especially commendthe able and distinguished Senator fromAlabama. No one since I have been inthe Senate, in my jUdgment, has shownmore dedication and loyalty to principlesthan the able and distinguished Senatorfrom Alabama. No one, since I have beenin the Senate, has shown a finer knowl­edge of the rules than the able and dis­tinguished Senator from Alabama.

I ask unanimous consent to haveprinted in the RECORD following these

CXXI--333-Part 5

remarks two articles concerning Sena­tor ALLEN which were published in theWashington Post. The first article waspublished on April 12, 1974, written byGeorge F. Will, is entitled "The Filibus­ter: Shield for Minorities," and the sec­ond, written by Spencer Rich, was pub­lished on JuIy I, 1974, and entitled "Al­len, a Master of New-Style Filibuster."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered..

(See exhibits 1 and 2,)Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the

distinguished Senator from Alabama hasdone his best to enlighten the Senate onthis question, and I only wish that Sena­tors couId have been here throughoutthe debate and heard what the Senatorhad to say. I only wish that the Sena­tors wouId read the debate on this im­portant subject; but they have not beenhere in great numbers, and I am afraidthey have not had the OPpOrtunity toread the full debate on this subject. As aconsequence I fear as to how the votewill go.

But in any event, I do want to highlycommend the able Senator from Alabamafor the great fight he has made on thisand many other important matters whichvitallY affect our Nation.

ExHmIT 1THE FILIBUSTER: SHIELD FOR MINORITIES

(By George F. W1ll)

James Allen of Alabama Is an unlikely manto be the Senate's most gifted practitioner ofthe noble art of using a filibuster to blockSenate action.

His is not the medieval fervor of an emo­tional SOUl, lind his forte is not fla.shlng badi­nage or the deftly aimed mot juste. Noth­Ing-not badinage, not mots, juste or other­Wise-flashes from Allen, whose demeanor atall times is that of a man who has been pre­maturely aroused from a summer snooze towhich he hopes to return soon.

But he actually Is about as sleepy as awell-rested fox. In fact, he is like a lot ofthose wlly men the South has been sendingNorth ever since it lost the Civll War andbegan exercising a disproportionate InfluenceIn Congress.

In recent weeks, as he did last December,Allen filibustered to block a vote on a billthat would provide public financing of presi­dential and congressional campaigns. Someeditorialists and columnists and other lowforms of pond life have called Allen obsti­nate, meaning that he finds reslstable theiradvocacy of a position inconsistent With his.

But Allen can be gloriously, usefully ob­stinate without violating the letter-or thesplrit--of the Senate rules.

Unlike many of his colleagues he had thegood fortune to have humble political begin­nings as a state legislator. The Alabama legis­lature's rules, like those of the Senate, arebased on Jefferson's manual of parliamentarypractice.

Jefferson wrote the manual during his ten­ure as Vice President lind President of theSenate (1797-1701). Never since has a VicePresident used his copious spare time asfrUitfully.

Jefferson noted that whlle "it Is always inthe power of the majority, by their numbers,to stop any Improper measures proposed onthe part of their opponents, the only weaponsby which the minority can defend them­selves" are ".he fornli; and rules of proceed­ing" which help a minority check the major­ity's "wantonness of power:' The filibuster,permitted by Senate rules, Is a shield forminorities.

Pure democratic theory demands the politi­cal equality of all Individuals. But prudent

men, like Jefferson, try to accommodate thisfact: not all Individuals feel equally in­tensely about all Issues. So our system hasprovisions to diminish the number of oc­casions when intense minorities w111 be in­tensely frustrated by casual majorities.

For example, "special majorities" are re­qUired before certain things can be done. Ittf\kes two-thirds of both houses of Congressto propose an amendment to the Constitu­tion, and three-quarters of the states mustratify an amendment. And the most impor­tant (because the one most central to theregUlar business of govermnent) "special ma­jority" provision is Senate Rule XXU. Thisrequires a vote of two-thirds of the Senateto shut off debate on a partiCUlar matterand bring it to a vote.

Filibusters are the traditional means bywhich Intense Senate minorities make it hardfor majorities to get their way. But today'sfilibusters have a new look. Gone are thedays when Sen. Strom Thurmond (then aDemocrat) held the floor to pour forth 24hours and 18 minutes of uninterruptedrhetoric-a record.

For such talk-a-thon filibusters a senatorneeded the Intrepidity of a Spartan atThermoylae and kidneys of cast Iron. Buttoday filibusters involve little talk, otherthan a senator saying "no" at the righttimes.

The Senate runs, when It nlns, with theunanimous consent of its members. If asingle senator present In the chamber re­fuses to consent to a request to set a timeto vote on a b1l1, no vote occurs. Technically,the debate on the b1l1 continues.

Usually the Senate goes on to other mat­ters, and the filibustering senator must staynear the floor so he can jump up and objectif anyone tries to get a "unanimous consentagreement" to vote on the bill he wants tobloc.

Eventually, if the majority favoring thebill Is large enough to muster two-thirdsof the senate, and if it is so Intensely Infavor of the bill that It Is willing to violatethe Senate's prOUd tradition of unlimited de­bate, it votes to shut off the filibuster. ThatIs what happened to Allen.

But Allen, with his filibuster, asserted aprinciple, the Jelfersonlan principle that In­tense minorities should not be ridden o,·erby slender or lukewarm majorities.

EXHrBIT 2ALABAMA SENATOR uSWALLO'WED THE RFLE

BOOK"-ALLEN A l\1ASTER OF NEW-STYLE

F'ILrBUSTER

(By Spencer Rich)In the past seven months, soft-spoken

Alabama Democrat James B. Allen has ad­ministered two terrific legislative beatingsto Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass,) andSenate liberals, and has emerged as a masterpractitioner of the "new style" Senate fili­buster.

In December, Allen led a filibuster to blockKennedy from attaching a public cl'mpaignfinancing bill to a routine measure extend­ing the federal debt limit. Last week, usingthe same techniques, he choked off a Ken­nedy move to use another debt-celling ex­tension bill as a vehicle for tax reform Bndtax cuts.

To be sure, Allen had warm support fromthe White House and from Senate conserva­tives, But he exhibited an extensive knowl­edge of the senate rUles, an admirable tacti­cal sense, and the patience and enduranceneeded to stay on the floor all day long fornearly two weeks and make certain bls op­ponents didn't grab a procedural advantage.

Here since 1969, Allen, 61, is a deep­e, ed conservath'e a staunch foe of schoolbusing who has gradually taken over lead­ership of the anti-busing forces in theSenate, and a political ally of Gov. GeorgeC, Wallace. under Whom he served as lieu­tenant gOl"ernor. He Is qUiet, slo,,--talking.

5260 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 5, 1975courteous and sometimes witty in a slycountry way.

Allen knows very well how to use the fili­buster, even though the techniques has radi­cally altered in recent years.

In the old days, before Mike Mansfield(D-Mont.) became Senate Majority Leaderwhen Lyndon B. Johnson moved to the vicepresidency, there was a giant Southern con­servative bloc united against civll rightslegislation. A filibuster meant getting thefioor and holding It and being prepared tospeak all night if your opponents attemptedto wear you down by forcing round-the-clocksessions.

Qne of the last such marathons was inAugust 1957, when Strom Thurmond heldthe fioor for 24 hours and 18 minutes againsta civll rights measure.

Thurmond's feat, made possible by thefact tha~ the South Carolina senator (hewas then a Democrat, but has since SWitchedto the Republicans) is a physical fitness en­thusiast, is unlikely to be matched again.

Mansfield has changed the Whole tech­nique by refusing to schedule round-the­clock seasions. He thinks they are ridiculous,endanger the health of older senators, andactually help the filibusterers rather thanthose who want to shut them 01I.

"What you wear down is not the filibuster­ers but the moderates. And too many peoplewere coming in here to all-night sessionsin bedroom slippers," Mansfield said.

He explained that to keep holding thefioor. the filibuster team needed only shiftsof three or four members on the fioor forseveral hours at a time.

The anti-filibusterers, in contrast. neededmany more people constantly ready to ward01I a surprise attempt to klll or further en­tangle the legislation the fillbusterers didn'twant.

So now, instead of the picturesque butfruitless aU-night sessions, the Senate usesa much more polite and less exhausting pro­cedure. Things are done by signals, and ifthe 1Ulbusterer happens to be 01I the fioor,he is sometimes notified to come back if hewishes to object to an opponent's attemptto move the business forward.

"Yes, I always make it my business toinform the opposition leader. In the longrun it pays alI." Mansfield said. Eventuallyit comes down to whether the proponentshave the two-thirds vote needed to breakthe filibuster. "We get the job done," saidMansfield. "sooner or later we get a cloturevote."

Under the new-style filibuster. a senatordoesn't actually have to talk and hold thefioor for 20 or more hours. He and one ortwo of his aUles simply have to be on hand tosignal that they wlll seek to talk and wUlobject if anyone tries to get a vote on theproposition they are opposing.

For this reason, a debate-limiting cloturepetition is sometimes filed before an hour'sdebate. A senator makes known that he isgoing to filibuster, but without actuallydragging "Gone With The Wind," a Bibleand a sack of nourishing candy bars out tothe fioor.

His opponents then give him credit forhaving done what he has only signaled heintends to do, and they tile cloture immedi­ately. This happened in last week's debate,when a tax-reform amendment was intro­duced by sen. Hubert H. Humphrey (D­Minn.) and a cloture petition was filed atonce by Mansfield, Without a single word ofdebate or even an explanation of the amend­ment.

Mansfield, Kennedy and HlUnphrey knewopponents would block a vote, so they movedimmediately to shortcut the verbal barrageand got a test of cloture. (Two days laterthe cloture move failed by 18 votes, endingthe ta.'t fight and giving AlJen his big vic­tory.)

Filibusters have always worlted best at theend of a session or when the senate is up

u.gatnst some other deadline, such as a needto pass an urgent bill by a certain date, aneed for an election break or simplyI' sched­uled start of a vacation.

This is because some senators, regardingthe right of unlimited debate as a protectionfor small states and minOrities, wlll normallyvote against cloture at first even if they arefor the blll. That's why it often takes two orthree attempts before the needed two-thirdsis obtained. So the less time left, the easierit is for filibusters to ward 01I cloture.

This has become even more true with theerosion of the Southern Democratic bloc overthe years. Qnce it was big and powerful,with 30 or more Senators Who could be abso­lutely relied on to vote conservative. Todaymany of the Southerners are moderates orare even strongly in favor of civil rights.

Men like Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. (D-Tex.),Marlow W. Cook (R-Ky.), Walter Huddle­ston (D-Ky.). and Henry L. Bellmon (R­Okla.) simply don't vote and think the sameway as the old-line Southern conservativesof the 1930s and 1940s.

As a reSUlt, Southerners normally can·thope to sustain a long filibuster in the mid­dle of a session or when no vacation is insight.

Kennedy, stung by the tax blll beating,said the Senate, Instead of deciding issues bya majority as would be proper. "is turninginto rule by two-thirds. This tax blll is theclassic example. We got it on campaignfinancing and we're going to get it on con­sumer protection. Unless you have two­thirds, on an issue that really reaches at theimportant power bases of this country, youcan't get a vote." He called this a seriousdistortion of the legislative process.

Mansfield, who doesn't like filibusters. saidhe believed (as did Kennedy) that the two­thirds rule should be reduced to three-fifths.But he added "the liberals and moderateshave come to the conclusion that they canuse" filibusters, too-as they did to klll thesupersonic transport and to block anti-bus­ing legislation two years ago.

Allen rejected the notion that he is tryingto convert the Senate from a place where amajority makes the decisions to a place whereyou must have a two-thirds majority, allow­ing the tyranny of the one-third minority.

He said that in recent years many liberalshave concluded that the filibuster was a pro­tection for them as well as for conservative.sens. Frank Church (D-Idaho) and AlanCranston (C-Callf.), for example, after firstfavoring filibuster reform said they hadchanged their minds.

With the new style filibuster and the will­ingness of many liberals to accept the fili­buster as a useful if sometimes vexing par­liamentary device, it doesn't appear thatStrom Thurmond's 24-hour and l8-minuterecord wlll ever be broken.

Still, you can't tell. Until Thurmond's epic1957 all-night speech, the champion talkerwas Sen. Wayne Morse of Oregon, who spoke22 hours and 26 minutes in 1953 againstthe tidelands 011 bill. Morse's lungs are stlllgood. And he is running for election again.

APPOINTMENTS BY THEVICE PRESIDENT

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.GARN). The Chair. on behalf of the VicePresident. pursuant to Public Law 85­474. appoints the following Senators toattend the Interparliamentary UnionMeeting, to be held in Sri Lanka, March3l-April 5, 1975: The Senator from NewJersey (Mr. WILLIAMS), the Senator fromNew Hampshire (Mr. McINTYRE), theSenator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH), andthe Senator from Vermont (Mr. STAF­FORD).

AMENDMENT OF RULE XXII OF THESTANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

The Senate continued with the consid­eration of the motion to proceed to con­sider the resolution (S. Res. 4) to amendrule XXII of the Standing Rules of theSenate with respect to the limitation ofdebate.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield my­self such time as I may use.

I wish to express my very deep andsincere appreciation to the distinguishedsenior Senator from South Carolina (Mr.THURMOND) for the very fine and highlycomplimentary remarks that he has madeabout the junior Senator from Alabama.

I wish to commend him for his greatstands for principle in this body. and tosalute him as the holder of the recordfor length of debate here in the U.S. Sen­ate-more than 25 hours on one occasion,as he made a great stand for principle.

I might state that any efforts that Ihave made to seek to have the Senate acton this matter according to the rules hasbeen inspired In very large part by thegreat record through the years of the dis­tinguished Senator from South Carolina(Mr. THURMOND). who enjoys my highesteem and admiration.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Ithank the able Senator from Alabamafor his kind remarks.

NOMINATION OF CARLA ANDERSONHILLS

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I field myself1 minute.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent, as in executive session, that at suchtime as the nomination of Carla Ander­son Hills to be Secretary of Housing andUrban Development becomes the pendingbusiness before the Senate, there be atime limitation of 1 hour on the nomina­tion, the time to be equally divided be­tween and controlled by the Senator fromTexas (Mr. TOWER) and the Senatorfrom Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE),

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection. it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT OF RULE XXII OF THESTANDING RULES OF THE SENATEThe Senate continued with the con­

sideration of the motion to proceed toconsider the resolution (S. Res. 4) toamend rule XXII of the Standing Rulesof the Senate with respect to the limita­tion of debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the motion toproceed to the consideration of SenateResolution 4.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggestthe absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it Is so ordered.

Mr. HELMS. I ask for the yeas andnays on passage.

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

lvlarch 5, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5261

The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest

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

will call the roll.The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll.Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi­

dent, I ask unanimous consent that theorder for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that the Sena­tor may speak on a nongermane matter.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

TRmUTE TO REPRESENTATIVETHOMAS N. DOWNING OF VIRGINIA

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr Presi­dent, I want to pay tribute today to acolleague in the House of Representa­tives, Representative THOMAS N, DOWN';'ING of the First' Congressional Districtof Virginia.

Each year the Non-Commissioned Of­fleers Association presents the L. MendelRivers award for. legislative action to adeserving Member of Congress. Lastyear's recipient was Representative F.EDWARD HEBERT of Louisiana, at thattime chairman of the Armed ServiceCommittee of the House of Representa­tives.

I am pleased that RepresentativeDOWNING'S efforts on behalf of nationaldefense, on behalf of our armed services,and on behalf of the men and womenserving in our Armed Forces have beenrecognized.

Representative DOWNING is a graduateof the Virginia Military Institute; a Sil­ver star veteran of World War II wherehe commanded troops in General GeorgeS. Patton's 3d Army.

He ably and actively represents thepeople of the Fil'st Congressional Districtof Virginia. He represents them withdedication and with ability, and I amproud of my long friendshi~ with him.

I am pleased today to invite the atten­tion of the Senate to this deserved honorwhich has come to RepresentativeDOWNING.

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

will call the roll.The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unan­

imous consent that the order for thequorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT OF RULE XXII OFTHE STANDING RULES OF THESENATE

The Senate continued with the consid­eration of the motion to proceed to con­sider the resolution (S. Res. 4) to amendrule XXII of the Standing Rules of theSenate with respect to the limitation ofdebate.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, how muchtime remains to the Senator from Ala­bama?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from Alabama has 12 minutes re­maining.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield my­self such time as I may use, and I wouldlike to use a portion of the time in ask­ing a question or two of the distin­guished assistant majority leader withrespect to Senate Resolution 4, and alsohis amendment to Senate Resolution 4embodying the provisions of Senate Res­olution 93.

I would like to ask the distinguishedassistant majority leader if it is goingto be his purpose, when Senate Resolu­tion 4 is brought before the Senate, asI feel confident it will in a very fewminutes, and he will offer as a substitutefor Senate Resolution 4 his Resolution93 as an amendment to Senate Resolu­tion 4, and if his amendment wouldprovide for the cutting off of debate un­der the cloture provisions of rule :xxnby a vote of 60 percent of all thoseelected and sworn into the Senate, andthat a two-thirds vote of those presentand voting be required for the ruleschange; is that correct?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The answeris yes.

Mr. ALLEN. That will be offered, andwhile the Senator from Alabama hashad no part in the negotiations leadingto the so-called compromise, is this, infact, the compromise that has beenagreed to by certain Members here inthe Senate, estimated as being morethan a majority?

Mr. ROBERT C. B~D. It is.Mr. ALLEN. That being the case, the

Senator from Alabama would say thatwhile he wouId oppose Senate Resolu­tion 93 as a separate amendment to therules, inasmuch as it does water downsomewhat the thrust of Senate Resolu­tion 4,the Senator from Alabama wouldbe glad to support Resolution 93 as anamendment to Senate Resolution 4 with,of course, the opportunity of offeringstrengthening amendments to the sub­stitute to be offered by the Senator fromWest Virginia.

Would the Senator advise us as towhen it would be his purpose to offerthe amendment? Would it be early inthe game so that we might offer amend­ments to it?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I seek the floor in my own right.

Mr. ALLEN. Very well. I reserve theremainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,when the Senate votes later today toadopt the motion to proceed to the con­sideration of Senate Resolution 4, I willpresent the substitute amendment-­which has been referred to as SenateResolution 93-and ask that the substi­tute amendment appropriately qualifyunder the reading requirements. I shallthen offer a cloture motion.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will theSenator ~'ield for further questioning?

:Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.Mr. ALLEN. Might it be that the Sen­

ator would offer this as an amendmentand that it might be accepted as theoriginal text with leave to amend?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That very wellmay be the case.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair pOints out to the Senator fromAlabama and the Senator from West Vir­ginia that Senators do not have to yieldtime; they are in cloture time, and theymay seek the floor in their own right.

Mr. ALLEN. I was not aware that wewere under that rule, but I will followwhat the Presiding Officer says.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I will yieldthe floor.

Mr. ALLEN. I suggest the absence ofa quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwllI call the roll.

The second asistant legislative clerkproceeded to call the roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENTMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that when theSenate completes its business today itstand in adjournment until the hour of12 o'clock noon tomorrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SEN­AToRs AND FOR THE TRANSAC:'TION OF ROUTINE MORNINGBUSINESS TOMORROWMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that, on tomor­row, after the two leaders or their desig­nees have been recognized under thestanding order, the following senatorsbe recognized, each for not to exceed 15minutes and in the order stated: Messrs.GARN, THURMOND, FANNIN, LAXALT, HAN­SEN, MCCLURE, BUCKLEY, HELMS, SCHWEr­KER, and FORD; and that there then be aperiod for the transaction of routinemorning business for not to exceed 15minutes, with statements limited thereinto 3 minutes each.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it Is so ordered.

FURTHER CONTINUING APPRO·PRIATIONS, 1975

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on Fri­day, February 28, 1975, the Senatepassed House Joint Resolution 219, ajoint resolution making further con­tinuing appropriations for fiscaf year1975, with two amendments prOpOsed bythe Senate Appropriations Committee.

At that time, since it was unclear as towhether a conference would be neces­sary, one was not requested and conferees,yere not appointed.

It now appears that a conference isindicated. Therefore, Mr. President, Imo\'e that the Senate insist on itsamendments, and request a conferencewith the House of Representativesthereon, and that the Chair appOint theconferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to, and thePresiding Officer appointed Mr. INOUYE,

5262 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 5, 1975Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. MCGEE, Mr. PRox­MIRE, Mr. MONTOYA, Mr. CHILES, Mr.JOHNSTON, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. BROOKE, Mr.HATFIELD, Mr. STEVENS, and Mr. MATHIASconferees on the part of the Senate.

CLOTURE MOTIONMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I offer a cloture motion.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, the clerk will report the clo­ture motion.

The assistant legislative clerk read asfollows:

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accord.ance with the provisions of Rwe xxn ofthe Standing Rules of the Senate, hereb:rmove to bring to a close the debate on S.Res. 4, as amended, amending Rule xxn ofthe Standing Rules of the Senate with re­spect to the limitation of debate:

Robert C. Byrd, Mike Mansfield, JenningsRandolph, Warren G. Ma~uson, John O.Pastore, Walter F. Mondale, Quentin N. Bur­dick, James Abourezk, Frank E. Moss, VanceHartke, Lee Metcalf, Walter D. HUddleston,Wendell H. Ford, Dale B\lmperS, ClaibornePell, Walter D. Hathaway, l\braham Ribicoff,Mark O. Hatfield, Floyd K. Haskell, Charles H.Percy.

ment that a quorum is present, the Presid­ing Officer shall, without debate, submit tothe Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the ques­tion:

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

"And if that question shall be decided inthe affirmative by two-thirds of the Sena­tors present 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 untU disposed of.

"Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled tospeak in all more than one hour on themeasure, motion, or other matter pendingbefore the Senate, or the unfinished business,the amendments thereto, and motions affect­ing the same, and it shall be the duty of thePresiding Officer to keep the time of eachSenator who speaks. Except by unanimousconsent, no amendment shall be in orderafter the vote to bring the debate to a close,unless the same has been presented and readprior to that time. No dilatory motion, ordllatory amendment, or amendment not ger­mane shall be in order. Points of order, in­cluding questions of relevancy, and appealsfrom the decision of the Presiding Officer,shall be decided without debate.

"4. The provisions of the last paragraph ofrUle 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.".

EXECUTIVE SESSIONMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the Senatego into executive session to consider thefollowing nominations, in the orderstated: otto George Stolz, of NorthCarolina, to be a member of the Boardof Directors of the New Community De­velopment Corporation; Thomas G.Cody, of Maryland, to be an AssistantSecretary of Housing and Urban Devel­opment; and Carla Anderson Hills, ofCalifornia, to be Secretary of Housingand Urban Development, after whichthe Senate consider the nominationsplaced on the Secretary's desk.

There being no objection, the Senateproceeded to consider the nominations.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill report the first nomination.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I submit an amendment in the nature ofa substitute to Senate Resolution 4. Iask Wlanimous consent that it be agreedto and considered as original text for thepurpose of further amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? The Chair hears none, and itis so ordered.

The amendment in the nature of asubstitute is as follows:

Strike all after the word "Resolved," andinsert in lieu thereof the following: Thatrule xxn of the Standing Rules of the Sen­ate is amended to read as follows:

"1. When a question is pending, no mo­tion shall be received but-

"To adjourn to a day certain, or thatwhen the Senate adjourn it ihall be to aday certain.

"To take a recess."To proceed to the consideration of execu-

tive business."To lay on the table."To postpone indefinitely."To postpone to a day certain."To commit."To amend.

Which several motions shall have precedenceas they stand arranged; and the motionsrelating to adjournment, to take a recess, toproce.ed to the consideration of executivebusiness, to lay on the table, shall be decidedWithout debate

"2. NotWithstanding the provisions ofrule m or rule VIol' any other rule of theSenate, at any time a motion signed by six­teen Senators. to bring to a close the debateupon any measure, motion, other matterpending before the Senate, or the unfinishedbusiness, except one to amend the Senaterules, is presented to the Senate, the Presid­ing Officer shall at once state the motion tothe Senate, and one hour after the Senatemeets on the following calendar day but one,he shall lay the motion before the Senate anddirect that the Secretary call the roll, andupon the ascertainment that a quorum ispresent, the Presiding Officer shall, withoutdebate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and­nay vote the question:

"'Is it the sense of the Senate that thedebate shall bp. brought to a close?'

"And if that question shall be decided inthe affirmative by three-fifths of the Sena­tors dUly chosen and sworn, then said meas­ure, motion, or other matter pending beforethe Senate, or the unfinished business, shallbe the unfinished business to the exclusionof all other business until disposed of.

"Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled tospeak in all more than One hour on themeasure, motion, or other matter pendingbefore the Senate, or the unfinished business,the amendments thereto, and motions affect­ing the same, and it shall be the duty of thePresiding Officer to keep the time of eachSenator who speaks. Except by unanimousconsent, no amendment shall be in orderafter the vote to bring the debate to a close,unless the same has been presented andread prior to that time. No dllatory motion,or dilatory amendment, or amendment notgermane shall be in order. Points of order,including questions of relevancy, and ap­peals from the decision of the Presiding Of­ficer, shall be decided without debate.

"3. NotWithstanding the provisions of ruleIII or rule VIol' 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 toamend the Senate rules, is presented to theSenate, the Presiding Officer shall at oncestate the motion to the Senate, and Olle hourafter the Senate meets on the following cal­endar day but one, he shall lay the motionbefore the Senate and direct that the Secre­tary c,\ll the roll, and upon the l\scert~in-

Tart

NunnScott,

WilliamL.SparkmanStennisTalmadgeThurmondTower

MossMuskieNelsonPackwoodPastorePearsonPellPercyProxmireRandolphRibicoffRothSchweikerScott, HughStaffordStevensStevensonStoneSymingtonTunneyWelckerWilliamsYoung

Morgan

DoleEastlandFanninFongGoldwaterHansenHelmsHolllngsHruskaMcClure

NOT VOTING-4GravelMcClellan

So Mr. ALLEN'S motion to proceed tothe consideration of Senate Resolution4 was agreed to.

AllenBakerBartlettBellmanBrockBuckleyByrd,

Harry F., Jr.ChilesCurtis

AMENDMENT OF RULE XXII OF THESTANDING RULES OF THE SENATEThe Senate continued with the con­

sideration of the motion to proceed toconsider the resolution (S. Res. 4) toamend rule XXII of the Standing Rulesof the Senate with respect to the limita­tion of debate.

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

ator from Alabama.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield back

the remainder of my time.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques­

tion is on the motion of the Senator fromAlabama to proceed to the considerationof Senate Resolution 4.

The yeas anci nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.

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

that the Senator from Alaska (Mr.GRAVEL) and the Senator from NorthCarolina (Mr. MORGAN) are necessarilyabsent.

I also announce that the Senator fromArkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN) is absentbecause of illness.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Ohio (Mr. TAFT) is absentdue to illness.

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

The result was announced-yeas 69,nays 26, as follows:

(Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]

YEA8-69Abourezk HartkeBayh HaskellBeall HatfieldBentsen HathawayBiden HuddlestonBrooke HumphreyBumpem InouyeBurdick JacksonByrd, Robert C. JavitsCannon JohnstonCase KennedyChurch LaxaltClark LeahyCranston LongCuivel' MagnusonDomenicl MansfieldEagleton MathiasFord McGeeGarn McGovernGlenn McIntyreGriffin Metes!!Hart, Gary W. MondaleHart, Philip A. Montoya

NAYS-26