March 22, 1962 (2)

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion of the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 29) providing for the establishing of the former dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, while it would not be my purpose to raise a point of personal privilege, I wish to call attention to a remark made by the distinguished majority leader in his opening statement this morning wherein he said that the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] was the only one who had mentioned Alexander Hamilton during the debate. I call his -attention to the fact that on two occasions I have reminded the Senate that the motion before us is a motion to consider the resolution to make the home of Alexander Hamilton a national monument. I am sure there was no intention upon the part of the majority leader to slight the junior Senator from New York in saying that Alexander Hamilton had not been mentioned. I think we must always remember that Alexander Hamilton is very much in this debate, and it is that matter which is pending before

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, before the Senator proceeds to that subject, will he yield?

Mr. KEATING. I am happy to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I apologize for not mentioning the intense and undeviating interest of the Senator from New York in the welfare of the home of Alexander Hamilton.

Mr. KEATING. I appreciate the Senator's remarks, and I understand, of course, that he cannot be cognizant of every word that is said by every Senator, but I did not want to yield to the Senator from Virginia in my desire to see Alexander Hamilton properly honored during the debate.

Mr. President, we have been witnessing for several days another dramatic demonstration of the ineffectiveness of the Senate's rules.

The provocation for this performance · is the notice that a poll tax amendment will be offered to the Alexander Hamil­ - ton resolution if it is made the pending business.

But this same process could be applied to a declaration of war, an appropriation bill, ratification of a treaty, or any other issue with which the Senate may be confronted. No matter how serious a crisis faced our Nation, the Senate's work could be brought to a complete halt for as long as a relatively few Members desired to hold the floor.

The filibuster already has exacted its toll in the field of civil rights. Its everpresent threat has discouraged consideration of important measures in this field or pressured acceptance of watereddown bills. In my opinion, we have yielded to the filibuster threat too readily. The success enjoyed by those who oppose civil rights has encouraged them to make each test more difficult.

An even more important concern, however, is the · peril in which this instrument can place our country in time of emergency. I respect the good faith and motives of all my colleagues, but the only sure protection is that guaranteed by the system under which we function, rather than the will of a few men. A system under which harassment and physical endurance can take the place of debate and decision gives little assurance to a people who believe in a government of laws not of men.

The circumstances which have developed this week are serious enough, but they are even more significant as a warning of what could happen at some future time of calamity. I hope the Senate does not have to be subjected to a shock treatment before it takes decisive action to reform its rules and reestablish orderly procedures in this Chamber.

Last September when proposals to amend rule XXII-the cloture rulewere before the Senate, a motion for cloture was filed by the majority leader before the debate had begun. I am not privy to any decision he has made on this occasion as to how long the Senate should be stymied before this endurance contest is limited. As a practical matter, we all know that a cloture move is not likely to succeed unless it has the initiation, or at least the blessing of the majority leader. In my opinion, we have already passed the line between debate, even extended debate, and filibuster-and . a cloture motion at any time would certainly be justified.

Next January . another move will be made to adopt a reasonable rule on Senate debate-a rule which will give every protection to the processes of debate but allow a majority of the Senate to act on the business before this body. At that time I hope the Senate will remember the committee meetings canceled, the problems neglected, the long sessions required, and the generally stultifying impact which has resulted from the failure to adopt an antifilibuster rule during this session. I hope my colleagues at that time will search their souls to determine how much enlightenment they have received from this week's ordeal by vocal chords and how much their positions have been swayed by the arguments they have heard endlessly repeated.

We should not need any more demonstrations of how easy it is to hamstring the Senate before we take action to remedy this situation.

I believe in full debate. I respect orderly procedures. The rules changes I advocate would not weaken but strengthen reverence and confidence in the Senate's ability to continue as the greatest deliberative body in the world.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his suggestion of the absence of a quorum for the moment?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Briefly.

Mr. JAVITS. Of course I could be recognized after the quorum call.

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct.

Mr. JAVITS. I can do that, if the Senator prefers.

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct. I would like to proceed on the basis of orderly procedure. If the Senator wish- es me to wait, I will do so.

Mr. JAVITS. I do.

Mr. President, I should like to join in this discussion which I have just heard, in part, engaged in by my distinguished colleague from New York, as to exactly what we are doing here and why.

I have had the feeling, which, I am sure, is shared by other Members of the Senate, that it is not satisfactory to just amble along in the Chamber in a debate which to the country must seem insignificant, considering th3 issue which is before us. I believe we should explain to the country what we are about and why, what the consequences are, and what ought to be done.

This does not mean that it ought to be done this afternoon. Nonetheless, I believe it is time to begin to get the subject in focus. We are debating a joint resolution to make the Alexander Hamilton home a national historical monument. We all know, of course, because the majority leader has informed us, that this joint resolution will be the vehicle for the repeal of the poll tax either by a constitutional amendment or by a bill. I hope it will be by a bill, and certainly I shall move toward that end when the opportunity is presented. In the meantime, what we are dealing with is a motion to take up the Alexander Hamilton measure. We are not dealing with any substantive element of the measure. We are dealing with a question which is most susceptible of agreement.

Therefore, so that the country will understand, I believe that we might ask whether what is occurring now is notice to Congress that, if it can be prevented by extended debate, as what is occurring now is euphemistically called, there will be no civil rights legislation at this session of Congress. If this activity is undertaken at this early date, as it obviously is-and a leading newspaper in New York has stated that a filibuster is building up on the floor of the Senate-then the country ought to understand that a profound issue is involved, and that if cloture does ensue, there was a profound reason why cloture did ensue, and why such a move should be sustained, and why this may be the time to "shoot the cat." If this is the time chosen by those who oppose civil rights legislation to institute extended debate or a filibuster, then this is the time to deal with it and this is the time to end it, if we can.

I call to the attention of the Senate and to the attention of the whole country, and I believe the country should note it, that we have never adopted a cloture motion on a civil rights bill, and it is my deep conviction that if one is adopted it will mark a historic breakthrough on the part of the Senate. We have tried many times to amend rule XXII of the Rules of the Senate. I hope we will try again and again and again until it is done, because that rule continues to be very definitely a block to the functioning of Congress, particularly in the field of civil rights. The filibuster and the threat of the filibuster conditions all legislation which goes through Congress. That fact is never more evident than at a time like this. It is a time to speak out. I am indeed pleased that I can join my colleague from New York, who entertains the same feelings on this subject that I do, and who has so vigorously and eloquently spoken out against what is occurring.

My purpose in speaking out is that I believe we have a duty to call to the attention of the country what is going on; namely, the fact that a filibuster is building up on a measure · which will apparently serve as the vehicle for the elimination of the poll tax as a condition of voting; and that what is going on represents notice to the country that we will be bitterly fought in our effort to enact any civil rights legislation.

Therefore, the cloture motion, when, as, and if it comes, will be a critically important question. It may present the first, historic breakthrough of cloture on civil rights.

I should like to say a word about the role of the President of the United States in this matter. It is perfectly true that the President of the United States does not control the procedure of the Senate or control what individual Senators do. But it is also incontrovertible that the President of the United States is the leader of his party; that his party has a 2-to-1 majority in this Chamber; that there is a very heavy responsibility on that party to demonstrate its leadership in enacting civil rights legislation; and that that question is squarely presented by this issue. As my colleague from New York [Mr. KEATING] has pointed out, because of the powerful places held by the members of that party on committees and in chairmanships, the Senate can literally be brought to a halt by the fact that Senators from the South feel so strongly opposed even to any effort to take up a measure which they define as a civil rights measure.

In such a situation, I think the President has a duty. The President did not hesitate to move into the situation in the other body concerning the important question of the Committee on Rules blocking activities. Let us remember that the President has been most reluctant to bring any civil rights measures to Congress. I say this advisedly. He was put in a position where he had to do something about it, at long last, at this session of Congress. It seems to me that he, as the leader of his party, has a responsibility toward the vigor and the drive with which the measures which he has now recommended to Congress are undertaken by us and whether they are acted upon.

I do not believe we can remain disinterested spectators of the scene in Congress at a time when we are in contemplation of a situation such as we are facing today.

Again, I repeat that my reason for speaking today is only to emphasize, so that the people may begin to appreciate it, what is occurring in the Senate in terms of grinding the work of Congress to a halt. As I say, this may not be the day or the hour to call the tum on it; but that time will come; and ii: order for it to come and for action to be successful, the country should be alerted to what is occurring, what it means, the reasons for it, and to those who have a responsibility to it.

I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks a statement isSued late yesterday by a number of leading civil rights groups, relating to the merits of the issue which the Senate should be debating and can debate only when the necessary step has been taken to end the present delaying action.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

STATEMENT ON POLL TAX LEGISLATION

(By American Jewish Congress, American Veterans Committee, Americans for Democratic Action, Anti-Defamation League, International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement

Workers of America)

The above organizations unequivocally oppose any constitutional amendment to abolish the poll tax. We urge defeat of any such proposal and immediate abolition of the tax through Federal legislation.

It is a travesty to call a constitutional amendment a civil rights measure when Congress has the constitutional power to abolish the poll tax by legislation as the Attorney General has testified. To approve a constitutional amendment under these conditions would be a blatant slap at civil rights for it would provide an immutable precedent for shunting all further civil rights legislation to the amendment procedure. There is no more reason for proceeding in the civil rights field by way of constitutional amendment when there is ample legislative authority than there is to proceed by way of constitutional amendment in any other field. Yet that is exactly what is being done here. To proceed by way of constitutional amendment under these circumstances is to inaugurate a new form of discrimination against the entire civil rights movement.

The cynicism of this approach becomes all the more apparent when it is realized that such an amendment would have little chance of ratification: the 11 southern States which have refused to ratify the 23d amendment (presumably because they believed that Negroes should not be allowed to vote even in the District of Columbia) would likely be joined by at least 2 others, and the defeat of the amendment would be assured even without the action of the many other States which might oppose the amendment to protect the functioning of their own voting laws. We state flatly that a vote for a constitutional amendment here is a vote against civil rights.

Any constitutional amendment against the poll tax would be an anti-civil-rights measure. But the particular amendment now before the Senate would not only harm civil rights for the general reasons given above; it would also give unprecedented endorsement in our Constitution, the basic document of American Government, to the principle of disenfranchisement for poverty. Section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 58 states: "Nothing in this article shall be construed to invalidate any provisions of law denying the right to vote to paupers or persons supported at public expense or by charitable institutions." To place such a provision in our Constitution would give this antidemocratic concept a respectability which it has never had before , and which we regard with the greatest abhorrence. . _

Furthermore, the enactment of this provision would open a Pandora’s ' s box of leg is lative pettifogging, and the litigation which would be required to block attempts to d i s­ enfranchise the poor by legislative redefinitions of the words "paupers or persons supported at public expense" would jam court calendars for years. How could the amendment accomplish its purpose if a State redefines a "pauper" as a m an who is unable to prove his solvency by the p aymen t of $5 to a named State official? It is all well and good to say that the Supreme Court would not allow a State to accomplish by the b ac k door what is forbidden by the front . But with an endorsement in the Constitution of the principle of suffrage for all but the poor, would not the Supreme Court's hands be tied when faced with subtle attempts to enforce this kind of discriminat i on? There is no justification in a democracy for denying a citizen the right to vote because he is poor; citizens in a democracy vote their interest in liberty, freedom and human dignity, and the preservation of their right to do so is absolutely essenti a l to the future health of our Nation.

Section 2 of the amendment is dangerous because it introduces into the Constitution a principle fundamentally alien to the American way of thought. Section 1, however, which allegedly seeks to abolish the poll tax as a qualification to vote may prove worthless, for a small change in State law could result in a complete circumvention of its provisions. The section prohibits poll taxes "in any primary or other election for electors," but it does not prohibit poll taxes in a direct election. A State need merely abolish the electoral system of voting in favor of direct election in order · to completely evade the amendment. Nor would legislative history demonstrate that Congress intended otherwise, for Senate Joint Resolution 58 is one of the few bills before Congress on this subject which is framed in this narrow and restrictive language.

For the reasons stated , which are only the most immediate anti-civil-rights aspects of the constitutional amendment theory of abolishing the poll tax, we oppose this procedure and urge immediate action to abolish the poll tax through Federal legislation.