UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

«.tongressiona( RecordPROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 9 I st CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

VOLUME lIS-PART I

JANUARY 3, 1969, TO JANUARY 21, 1969

(PAGES 3 TO 1380)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1969

January fO,196f! CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 419

The BILL CLERK; A resolution (S. Res.11) to amend rule XXII of the standingRules of the Senate.

The Senator from Idaho obtained thefloor.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will theSenator .yield for a unanimous-consentrequest?

Mr. CHURCH. I yield.PRIVILEGE OJ' THE FLOOR

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that during the de­bate about to begin now relative to ruleXXII I may be allowed to have with meon the floor of the Senate my legislativeassistant, Mr. Thomas A. Young.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, withoutlosing my right to the floor, I suggestthe absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered. The clerk willcall the roll. .

The legislative clerk proceeded to callthe roll.

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 President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, yester­daY, when the pending resolution wassubmitted, a number of cosponsors joinedin submitting it, but their names werenot listed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORDof yesterday.

Accordingly, I ask unanimous consentthat the names of the cosponsors of theresolution appear here in the RECORD.

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

SPONSORS OJ' SENATE RESOLUTION 11Mr. Church.Mr. Pearson.Mr. Anderson.Mr. Bayh.Mr. Burdick.Mr. Cranston.Mr. Dominick.Mr. Eagleton.Mr. Harris.Mr. Hart.Mr. Hartke.Mr. Hughes.Mr. Jackson.Mr. Kennedy.Mr. Magnuson.Mr. McGovern.Mr. McIntyre.lYrr. Mondale.Mr. Moss.Mr. Nelson.Mr. Pastore.Mr. Proxmire.Mr. Randoiph.Mr. Ribicolf.Mr. Williams of New Jersey.Mr. Yarborough.Mr. Young ot Ohio.Mr. Muskie.Mr. Brooke.Mr. Case.Mr. Fong.Mr. Hatfieid.Mr. Javits.:r.rr. Scott.M1'. Allott.Mr. Goodell.Mr. Percy.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the reso­lution which will later be motioned upfor consideration, submitted yesterday

by the distinguished senior Senator fromKansas (Mr. PEARSON) and myself, alongwith 35 other cosponsors from both sidesof the aisle, retains all of the presentlanguage of Senate rule XXII relatingto the termination of debate, except thatit changes from two-thirds to three­fifths the number of Senators presentand voting required to limit debate byinvoking cloture.

This amendment would, in my judg­ment, bring about a distinct improve­ment in Senate procedure. Moreover, itis offered on the strength of the con­stitutional principle that a new Congresshas the right, at the time of its com­mencement, to decide the rules underwhich it wishes to operate.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will theSenator from Idaho yield?

Mr. CHURCH. I would be glad to yieldto the distinguished Senator, but I wouldprefer to complete my argument andthen yield, unless the Senator has somepressing reason to ask me to yield at thistime.

Mr. HOLLAND. I gladly accept theSenator's explanation and will ask myquestions later.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, my pur­pose in sponsoring this amendment isthe same as that expressed, 2 years ago,by the distinguished junior Senator fromSouth Dakota (Mr. MCGOVERN) when heintroduced a similar resolution at thecommencement of the 90th Congress. Itstems from my conviction that a modi­flcation of the filibuster rule would en:'able the U.S. Senate to discharge itsresponsibility to the American people ina more democratic and expeditiousmanner.

This represents the eighth attempt in16 years to change the filibuster rule andto enforce the proposition that the Sen­ate, at the outset of a new Congress, canby majority vote, work its will on therules under which it chooses to operate.Although the constitutional validity ofthis proposition would seem self-appar­ent, we have yet to accomplish the goal.

The struggle began in 1953, when 19Senators, led by the distinguished seniorSenator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDER­SON) sought to achieve a change in thefilibuster rule.

I wish the Senator from New Mexicowere sti11leading the fight to obtain thethree-fifths rule, because he is, in fact,the originator and constant champion ofthis proposal. His heavy responsibilitieshave required him to tum his energyand attention to other matters, but he isfirst entitled to claim the generalship ofthis effort.

When he initiated the struggle tomodify the filibuster rule, on January 3,1953, 18 other Senators joined him in anattempt to assert the right of a majorityin the Senate to adopt new or differentrules.

That list of 19 Senators, who led offthis historic effort to unfetter a newSenate of procedural restrictions imposedby old rules, inclUding the following dis­tinguished Members of this body:

Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, a formerCabinet member, a former chairman ofthe Interior and Insular Affairs Commit­tee, the Joint Committee on Atomic

Energy, and presently chairman ?f theSenate Aeronautical and Space SCIencesCommittee.

HUBERT HUMPHREY, a former Senatorfrom Minnesota, at one time assistantmajority leader of the Senate, and nowVice President of the United States.

Senator MIKE MANSFIELD, now the ma­jority leader of the Senate, who com­mands the universal respect of Memberson both sides of the aisle.

The late John F. Kennedy, then aSenator from Massachusetts, and after­ward President of the United States.

Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON,wholater became chairman of the Commerce .Committee, over which he still presides.

Senator JOHN PASTORE, who now serveswith such distinction, in alternate years,as chairman of the Joint Committee onAtomic Energy, and who delivered thatstirring keynote address at the 1964Democratic National Convention.

Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, who nowserves as chairman of the Committee onInterior and Insular Affairs, and wasformerly national chairman of theDemocratic Party.

Wayne Morse, former Senator fromOregon, widely recognized as a brilliantand respected constitutional lawyer, andformer law school dean.

Paul Douglas, former senator fromIllinois, who served as the able chairmanof the Joint Economic Committee, whomwe would all acknowledge as one of thefinest minds to grace the senate in re­cent years.

The late Senator James E. Murray ofMontana, who was chairman of the In­terior and Insular Affairs Committeewhen I first entered the Senate.

The late Senator Theodore Green, whobecame chairman of the Senate Com­mittee on Foreign Relations.

The late Senator Herbert Lehman,who served as Governor of New YorkState, and was Administrator of theUNRRA program, which helped to re­build Western Europe after WorldWar II. .

The list also included such distin­guished former Senators, both Demo­crats and Republicans, as MatthewNeely, Harley Kilgore, Lester Hunt,Charles Tobey, Irving M. Ives, Robert C.Hendrickson, and James H. Duff.

Some of these Senators were frompopulous states, some were not; somewere from the East, some from the West;but all had in common, as is true of theSenators now identified with the presenteffort, the need to affirm the constitu­tional principle that the membership ofthe Senate, acting by a majority vote atthe outset of a new Congress, possessesthe power to set its own procedural housein order, unrestricted by any limitationsestablished or observed in previous years.

I think we are indebted to the fore­sight of the 19 men who began this fight16 years ago. When I entered the Senate,in January of 1957, I cast my lot withthem. Since that time, I have seen ournumbers grow, and I hope that thismight be the year when a majority. ofSenators will prove themselves willingto assert their constitutional right.

However, I would not want to proceedfurther without giving special credit tothe distinguIshed junior Senatortrom

420 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 10, 1969

South Dakota (Mr. MCGOVERN) and theformer Senator from Kentucky. Mr.Morton. for their leadership, 2 years ago,at the commencement of the 90th Con­gress. in advocating the adoption of thethree-fifths rule. Mr. Morton is no longerwith us, and Mr. MCGOVERN is unable,owing to the heavy pressure of specialcommittee duties, to perform the samerole again this year. For this reason­and this reason alone-I have under­taken. in the welcome company of myworthy Republican colleague (Mr. PEAR­SON), to introduce the resolution.

To begin the argument, let me stressthat by amending rule XXII to providethat three-fifths, rather than two-thirds,of those Senators present and voting mayinvoke cloture, we would work no rashor radical change. This proposal is amodest one, moderate in its purpose andreach. It is anything but a "gag rule."It would not alter the essential charac­ter of the Senate as a deliberative body.It would not undermine nor even jeopar­dize the opportunity for extended debate.

Indeed. the real issue we face is quitethe reverse. The long history of the fili­buster has shown that rule XXII, aspresently written, places undue power inthe hands of the few; the requirementthat two-thirds of the Senators votingmust concur before debate can be lim­ited raises a nearly insurmountable bar­rier in the procedural path of even asubstantial majority. The present fili­buster rule is too formidable. Its mischiefcannot be measured by its direct impactalone, but must embrace its far-reach­ing indirect consequences.

As Senator MCGOVERN once observed:Too often there has been the very clear

implication in debate on the floor of the Sen­ate or in the Senate cloakroom to the effect"yield on this point or that point, make thisconcession or that concession, or we will fili­buster. and you know you would not be ableto get a two-thirds majority."

In that fashion, legislation Is often modi­fied or even controlled by a very small per­centage of members. The harm flows, in otherwords, not just from the bUls that have beenblocked and have been prevented from evercoming to a vote and have been delayed ordefeated by filibuster, but the filibuster onmany pieces of legislation is an ever-presentpressure to dilute the work of the Senate.

Reducing from two-thirds to three­fifths the number of Senators requiredto limit debate will temper the undulyharsh effects of the present filibusterrule. If the filibuster, unknown to anyother parliament, is king of the Senate.even with the adoption of the three­fifths rule. it will remain crown prince.Far from diminishing the stature of thesenate, I think such a change in the rulewould actually dignify the Senate byrendering it better able to proceed, afterfull and fair debate, with the proper dis­position of the Nation's legislative busi­ness.

For the truth is that the enthronementof the filibuster has itself brought theSenate into ridicule. As the distinguishedformer Senator from California, our es­teemed friend, Mr. Kuchel, said here in1967:

The theory of legislation by physical ex­haustion, the theory of legislation by irrel­evance, is equally abhorrent to all reasonablepeople. in the Senate chamber and outside.

In such instances, the good reputationof the Senate itself has been called intoquestion. Radio, television, and press in­form the world that the Upper House ofthe Congress of the United States liesparalyzed by its own procedures and leftunable to act.

Mr. President, in urging the adoptionof a three-fifths rule, I am not unmindfulof the importance we should attach tosafeguarding the privilege of extendeddebate. This is, and should remain a de­liberative body. Thorough and lengthydebate on public issues of major impor­tance, extending over a period of weeks,can help to inform the people and, onoccasion, can even influence the ultimatevote. The educational function of de­bate, both within and without the Sen­ate, should not be regarded as inconse­quential. I, for one,believe the oppor­tunity for lengthy deliberation in theSenate is a virtue to be prized and pre­served.

Moreover, whenever a particular legis­lative proposal constitutes so great anaffront to a large segment of the countrythat many Senators are willing to fightit as long as they have strength to standand speak, I am far from convinced thatour best national interests would beserved by permitting debate to be ter­minated by the vote of a simple majority.In such a case the prudent rule shouldrequire no less than a substantial ma­jority.

For these reasons, I oppose any drasticrevision of rule XXII, I believe it wouldbe a mistake to adopt majority cloture.I am against any rule that might "gag"the Senate, or leave the privilege of ex­tended debate with no other safeguardsthan those conferred by custom.

A three-flfths rUle, in my judgment,would strike a proper balance. Whileleaving the privilege of extended debatestrongly fortified, it offers us greater as­surance of avoiding the pitfall of legisla­tive paralysis. when the urgent needs ofthe country call for action.

It is often urged that rule XXII, aspresently constituted. somehow protectsthe rights of small States against large.But in the Senate no State is smallerthan any other; all stand ·equal. Alaskacasts the same number of votes as NewYork. As the inscription carved in marbleon the pediment of our own new officebuilding reminds us, "The Senate is theliving symbol of our union of States."

If, by this argument. it is meant thatthe present rule somehow prevents Statesof small population from being trampledby the more populous, it still makes nosense. For in the Senate the States ofsmaller population are in the largemajority.

There are times; of course, when thetradition of extended debate. backed upby the rule on cloture, can make a Sen­ator bigger than himself. that is, biggerthan his individual vote, or make a clus­ter of Senators loom larger than theircollective votes. This occurs, with par­ticular force, near the close of a session,when the pressure is on to complete our 'legislative business. But it matters notwhether the Senators involved representStates that are urban or rural, large orsmall, or that they come from the Northor the South, the East or the West.

If this "clout" is what we seek to pre­serve, the adoption of a three-fifths rulewill affect it hardly at all. The difficultyof securing a 60-percent vote for clotureshould prove sufficient, in nearly everycase, to keep the practice intact.

So I reject, as baseless, the argumentthat any liberalization of rule XXIImight somehow jeopardize the sparselypopulated States. I treasure the interestsof my own State and try my best to rep­resent them well. Yet the strength of myState, the strength of any State, can beno greater than the strength of the Na­tion. We are Americans first, and we areSenators of the United States, as well asSenators of the respective States we rep­resent. In the final analysis, we shallstand or fall on the basis of the strengthand well-being of the great country inwhich we live.

As important as it is to write a three­fifths cloture rule for the 91st Congress,it is even more fundamental that we af­firm the principle that the Senators whoduly comprise this body are masters oftheir own House.

A majority of the 100 Members of theSenate must possess the right under theConstitution to adopt whatever clotureprovision they deem best for the 91stCongress. without hindrance from ruleslaid down by the Senate of any earlierCongress. The Senators of the 91st Con­gress, new and old alike, are not second­class Senators; they are not limited,through action taken by other Senatorsin previous Congresses, in any way thatcan lessen their power as compared tothat of their predecessors. They havethe same right to determine the ruleswhich shall bind them during the next2 years as the Senate of the first Con­gress had when it met in 1789, or, forthat matter. the same right that theSenate exercised in 1917. which wrotethe two-thirds rule that we now proposeto amend.

The Constitution provides in articleI, section 5, that "Each house may de­termine the rules of its proceedings."No reason has been or can be adducedto interpret this constitutional provisionas a grant of rulemaking authority tothe Members of the Senate who met forthe first time in 1789 or in 1917, and awithholding of the same authority fromthe Members of the Senate of later Con­gresses. Both language and logic leadus to the conclusion that the constitu­tional authority to make rules rests, atthe commencement of each new Con­gress, with a majority of the Members ofeach House.

When the Senate of the first Congressmet in 1789, it was perfectly clear thatthe majority could decide upon the rules;a filibuster against adopting rules wouldquickly have been overruled by majorityvote.

No less can a majority of the Senateof the 91st Congress be in control of itsdestiny. Every precedent since 1789 hassupported the right of the Senate of anew Congress to fix its own procedures.uncontrolled by the grip of the past. Ad­visory rulings by Vice President Nixonir.. 1957, 1959. and 1961 clearly reflecta sound understanding of this constitu­tional principle, a position with which

January 10, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 421our present Vice President HUBERTHUMPHREY, fully concurs. Both agreethat we, who comprise this new Senate,have the right today, under the Consti­tution, to act by majority will.

Mr. President, we shall hear talk thatthe Senate is a continuing body. Ofcourse it is, in the limited sense thattwo-thirds of the Members carry overfrom Congress to Congress. But, in alarger sense, the Senate is not a con­tinuing body. All consideration of reso­lutions, treaties, bills and nominations,starts afresh at the beginning of eachnew Congress, without any continuationof what has taken place in the past;officers of the Senate are newly electedat the beginning of each new Congress;newly-elected Members are seated andmajority control, which carries with itthe right to organize the new Congress,may shift from one party to the other.

But, whether we choose to call theSenate a continuing body or not, thefact that two-thirds of the Senatorsnormally carf'J over does not supportthe proposition that rules adopted bya Senate of an earlier Congress can pre­vent the Senate of a new Congress fromaltering those rules in such manner asthe majority may determine at the open­ing of that Congress.

Still, the argument persists that thefixed rules of the Senate carryover fromone Senate to another. Reduced to itsbare essentials, the argument seems tocome down to this: since two-thirds ofthe Senators carry over, the rules carryover. But this is an obvious non sequitur.It necessarily assumes that the carry­over of two-thirds of the Senate alwayscanies over p, majority in favor of theold rules. The infusion of newly electedSenators--both by their numbers bytheir convictions, and by their powers ofpersuasion-may very well change themajority view on the rules, and it mustbe this majority view that is determina­tive, under our constit'.ltional democracy,not who carries over into the new Con­gress. That the newly elected one-thirdmay change the majority viewpoint iswell illustrated by the shifting of the Sen­ate from party to party over the years.

The argument that the two-thirds car­ryover prevents a new majority from act­ing on the rules disenfranchises not oniythe newly elected one-third, but also thenew majority who are thus preventedfrom exercising their powers to fashionthe rules that shall govern their ownwork in the discharge of their duty tothe people of the United States.

Article I, section 5 of the Constitutiondoes not disenfranchise today's majority.The Constitution stands above the exist­ing rules of the Senate, including thatrule which purports to even now requirea two-thirds vote to invoke cloture.

The time has come for the majority ofSenators to assert their authority underthe Constitution of the United States.Whatever decision we reach regardingrule XXII, let the present majority seizeupOn its right to make it.

Nothing less can free the Senate fromthe ;:elentless grip Of the past.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I takethis opportunity to compliment the dis­tinguished Senator from Idaho for thefight he 15 making this morning and, I

suspect, that he will be making in thedays that lie ahead. I have been on hisside in the fight before this, and I will bethis year. At this point, I would like togive him whatever moral boost I can ashe begins his argument in behalf of thechange he has advocated.

Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator.Mr. HOLLAND al:d Mr. PEARSON

addressed the Chair.Mr. CHURCH. I am happly to yield

to my cosponsor, the distingUished Sen­ator from Kansas.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I sayto the Senator from Florida that I have avery short statement, to make. It will nottake more than 3 or 4 minutes. I knowhe is anxious to proceed with questions.

Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. President, I sim­ply intended to address some questionsto our distinguished "Mend from Idaho,but I am perfectly happy to wait, pro­vided the Senator from Idaho will re­main on the floor.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I wishto associate myself with the very persua­sive arguments made by the distin­guished Senator from Idaho, and to sayalso that the resolution now known asNo. 11, which is sought to be considered,represents in my judgment a reasonableand, in the words of my cosponsor, amoderate amendment of rule XXII, andis a balance between the right of com­plete debate and the right to vote.

Because in recent years this issue hasbeen the inevitable first Senate businessof each Congress, it has acquired arather formal or ceremonial exercise inparliamentary skirmishes. But I think,Mr. President, the issue is more than aprocedural question or a nicety of par­liamentary practice.

As is the case of many rules of proce­dure, it involves substantive rights nec­essary for equality for the orderly con­duct of business.

Mr. President, the object of the pres­ent rule is to prevent minority control inthe U.S. Senate. Among the balances ofour scheme of government, and, indeed,the essence of the genius of our govern­mental structure, is the protection ofminority rights under majority rule. Inthe U.S. Senate, there should be the rightto the fullest and most complete debateof the issue, but as stated before thereshould also be a right to vote on thatissue at some time. To do otherwisewould be to deny equal representation asguaranteed by the Constitution.

If a small group of Senators, of one­third plus one, can prevent the enact­ment of legislation, that power repre­sents a veto power never contemplatedby the Constitution. That minority maynot only prevent the enactment of legis­lation, but can coerce the acceptance ofmodification and amendments whichmay be harmful. The measure that "ex­tended debate" known to the public as afilibuster may have diminished publicconfidence in the legislative processesand in the efficiency of Congress to meetthe onrush of change in these challeng­ing days, may not ever be known.

Mr. President, for the Senate to have arule of procedure which arbitrarily pre­vents the enactment of legislation notonly inhibits the majority of the Senate

from acting but also prevents the enact­ment of measures approved and passedby the House of Representatives. No oth­er legislative body permits the filibusteras it now can be conducted in the U.S.Senate. It is contrary, Mr. President, tothe philosophy of our Founding Fathersthat a minority, being perhaps from oneparticular section of the country, or per­haps from one particular political partycan thwart the majority.

Mr. President, I hope that this resolu­tion may be considered and that it maybe approved.

Mr. CHURCH. I thank the distin­guished Senator from Kansas. I wanthim to know how deeply I appreciatehis cosponsorship.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield nowto the distinguished Senator fromFlorida.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator.First, I compliment the Senator fromIdaho and the Senator from Kansas ontheir statements of the objectives whichthey have in mind in offering the resolu­tion now being debated. That resolutionhas long been the subject of a great dif­ference of opinion on this cloture ques­tion. That does not mean that any Sen­ators, I am sure, will lose their sense ofmoderation or sense of good humor andgood will. I certainly recognize the goodwill of both of my distinguished friends.

Mr. CHURCH. I fully reciprocate thatfeeling.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senatorfrom Idaho. I first want to go into thepoint that Senators so often accentuate--'­the desire merely to substitute a three­fifths rule for the two-thirds rule in thisimportant rule XXII, which has to dowith cloture of debate.

Is it not true that the major change inthe whole Senate procedure which wouldbe accomplished if the present effort ofmy distingUished friends were success­ful would not be so much to change froma two-thirds to a three-fifths rule, butthe adoption of a precedent which, incase of the Senator's success, would befirst adopted and first become a prece­dent of the Senate, and which would, ineffect, mean that a mere majority of theSenate, no matter how transient, at thebeginning of any Congress could changenot only rule XXII but any other rule,and, in the judgment of a mere majority,all other rules of the Senate? Is not thatwhat the adoption of such a precedentwould mean in its overall effect upon theSenate?

Mr. CHURCH. First of all, that wllIdepend upon what happens during thenext few days. If the Senate were per­mitted to come to a vote on the proposedthree-fifths rule, then the precedent towhich the Senator from Florida allUdeswould not have to be established. But ifit is necessary, in order to get to a vote,to assert the constitutional right of themajority to act, then I think that mustand should be done.

I cannot read any different meaninginto the clear words of the Constitutionitself than that it lies within the powerof the present majority, at the com­mencement of a new Congress, to decideupon the rules under which that Senatewill operate.

422 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD _. SENATE January 1(),.1969.Mr. HOu..AND. Then, if I have cor­

rectly understood the distinguished Sen­ator, he recognizes the fact that if hisresolution were adopted, a new precedentwould be established in the Senate underwhich at the beginning of every Congressa mere majority of the Senate could, ifit wished, rewrite every Senate rule,adopt new Senate rules, and do away'With any old Senate rules that that meremajority wished to act upon?

Mr. CHURCH. Yes; but if a precedentwere established by such action of theSenate, it would conform with the rulingsthat the Senate itself has received from~othVice President Nixon and Vice Pres­ident HUMPHREY, to the effect that theConstitution confers upon the majority,at the commencement of a new Congressthe right to formulate the rules underwhich the Senate will function.

Mr. HOLLAND. Does not the Senatorrecall that the ruling by Vice PresidentNixon was simply an advisory ruling, nota ruling that was binding and wouldestablish a precedent of the Senate?

Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is quitecorrect; however, I repeat that the prece­dent, if one were established, would bestrictly in accord with the advisory rul­ings of both Vice President Nixon andVice President HUMPHREY.

Mr. HOLLAND. Then, it was not theintention of the distinguished Senator toindicate that either of the two distin­guished Vice Presidents whom he hasnamed were actually issuing ruling bind­ing upon the Senate to the effect thathe has stated?

Mr. ~HURCH. I think that is onlywithin the power of the Senate itself todo.

Mr. HOLLAND. Then, this is a matterof first a determination by the Senate asto whether the resolution now offered bythe distinguished Senator from Idahoand other Senators should be adopted,and thus set a precedent in the existingsenate, under which precedent a merebare majority of the senate, at the be­ginning of each and every Congress,could completely rewrite the rules if thatmere majority wished to do so?

Mr. CHURCH. Yes, the senator is cor­rect; and, I might add, such a precedentwould be exactly in accord with articleVI, section 5, of the Constitution.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator fromFlorida respectfully differs with his dis­tinguished friend from Idaho on thatpoint. He thinks that the traditions ofthe Senate, the intentions of the Found­ing Fathers, and the unwillingness of theSenate, as heretofore shown on many oc­casions, to follow the course now sug­gested by his distinguished friends allshow that it is not a part of the Senate'soperation to exercise at the beginning ofeach Congress such sweeping power by amere majority of the Senate.

The Senator from Florida thinks thatit would be a real disaster to establishsuch a precedent with respect to the sta­bility of the Senate. It was for the pur­pose of insuring stability that the Senatewas created as it is now set up and as itnow exists. It would be distressing if suchaction were to lead to the complete de­struction of that stability, in the humble·opinion of the Senator from Florida.

I note in the able statement made by

the distinguished senator from Idahothese words, found on page 7, in the lastsentence of the second paragraph:

Both language and logic lead to the con­clusion that the constitutional authority tomake rules rests, at the commencement ofeach new Congress, with a majority of theMembers of each House.

I ask my distinguished friend if thatis not just a plain statement of what hehas conceded would be the result of adop­tion of the precedent to which we bothhave been alluding.

Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is correct.In fact, my argument is an appeal to

the present majority to assert whatseems to me to be its clear constitutionalright.

Now, how they choose to assert it--..­what form of rule they choose to adoptregarding the limitation of debate forthe coming 2 years-is quite a differentquestion.

As the Senator knows, I am urgingthe adoption of a very moderate modifi­cation of the existing rule, which wouldhave the effect of reducing from two­thirds to three-fifths the number of Sen­ators present and voting required to in­voke cloture.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is, ofcourse, proceeding in a much more mod­erate course than some of his friends andassociates have followed in the past. Butthe Senator from Florida is deeply con­cerned about the procedure the Senatorfrom Idaho is invoking and about hisattempt to set up a precedent which theSenator from Florida thinks is clothedwith unmeasured danger to the prestigeof the Senate and to its fulfilling thefunction of stability in our Governmentwhich it was designed to fulfill.

I should like to ask one more questionof the Senator. The Senator lays greatstress on majority. Is it not true that bya majority vote of the Senate, the Senatehas twice made substantial amendmentsto rule XXII since its immediate adop­tion in 1917?

Mr. CHURCH. Yes; the Senator iscorrect.

Mr. HOLLAND. Then there is no con­tention, is there, on the part of any Sen­ator, that assuming that authors of aproposed amendment to rule XXII, or toany other rule, proceed in accordancewith Senate rUles, the final issue will bedetermined-and has been determinedin the past, on at least two occasions asto this very rule-by a majority of theSenate?

Mr. CHURCH. I would say to the Sen­f.tor that on two occasions in the past ithas proved possible, within the rules, tomodify rule XXII. But that is not theentire story, by any means, because onmany occasions in the past it has provedimpossible to alter rule XXII, simply be­cause of the restrictive prOVisions of therule itself; that is to say, we have man­aged to modify rule XXII only whenthose Senators opposing the change per­mitted the majority to vote by refrainingfrom resorting to a filibuster.

The Senator speaks of his abhonenceof affirming a constitutional principlewhich seems to me to be absolutely sound.If he does have this abhorrence, I sug­gest to him that we would not have toutilize this procedure, if we could get to

a vote on the three-fifths proposal. It isonly because we cannot get to a vote onthe proposal that we must seek to assertthe constitutional right of the presentmajority to work its will.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I beg todiffer with the distinguished Senator, be­cause it is not at all certain in the mind ofthe Senator from Florida that it would beimpossible, with a moderate amendmentof the type offered by the Senator fromIdaho as compared with what has beenoffered some times in the past, to obtainaction in the regular way.

The Senator from Florida has been aMember of the Senate during bothperiods when the amendments have beenvoted, and he knows that they were re­garded as coming up in the regular way,they were subjected to the machinery setup by the rUles, they came on for debate,full debate followed, and, in the end,compromise settlements were made andvery meaningful amendments wereadopted on both occasions.

The first occasion was one .underwhich the original rule of 1917 wasamended so as to bring under the opera­tion of the rule the motion to take up justas had heretofore been the case withreference to the consideration of the billor resolution itself, but not as to themotion to take up. In effect, this meantthat unlimited debate on the motion totake up was made as subject to ruleXXII as any other proceeding; and thatwas regarded as a very material con­cession at the time of its adoption inthe regular way.

The second time the amendments cameup, as the Senator from Florida recallsthose amendments, several changes weremade. One was to reduce from two-thirdsconstitutional membership of the Senateto two-thirds of the membership presentand voting-assuming that a quorum waspresent and voting-the number of votesrequired to close debate.

Another amendment made at thattime, I believe in rule XXXII or other­wise in the rules, prOvided that theamendment of rule XXII could be madeonly under the very terms of the rulesthemselves.

All I can say at this time, without re­argtilng the matter, is that thOSe friendsof mine in the Senate who were veryanxious to amend by weakening--emas­culating, if I may use that word-ruleXXII seemed quite happy about theadoption of the amendments in that in­stance.

The feature I see in this matter is this:Instead of showing willingness under therules, instead of willingness to proceedwithout establishing a hurtful precedent,the distinguished Senators who offer thisresolution make it very clear, as alreadyconceded by the distinguished Senatorfrom Idaho, that the setting up of theprecedent that a majority of the Senate,a mere majority, can change rule XXIIat the beginning of any Congress meansthat such a majority can at the begin­ning of any Congress completely rewritethe rules.

As a matter of fact, the Senator fromIdaho may recall that one of our distin­guished colleagues, no longer a Memberof the Senate-I do not know whether thefact that he offered all those additional

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 423rules hadanrthing to do with his unfor­tunate departure from our midst-theformer distinguished Senator from Penn­sylvania,offered, as I recall, some nine­it may have been less; it may have beenmore--changes in the rules which hewanted incorporated at the beginning ofa session, giving very clear evidence thata general rewriting of the rules is entirelypossible mthe event such a precedent isadopted.

Some Members of the Senate, as we allhave been shown clearly, wish to go verymuch farther than does the distinguishedSenator from Idaho and his associates.

Mr. CHURCH. Let me say, in reply tothe excellent summation of the historyon the matter of rule XXII which, so faras I can recall, has been rendered in amost accurate way by the distinguishedSenator from Florida, that, first of all, Ido not share his apparent fear that theSenate is likely to adopt majority cloture.I do not believe that any of us will eversee the day when that will happen, sostrongly embedded in the tradition ofthe Senate is the privilege of extendeddebate.

Second, let me say that I, for one,would oppose majority cloture. I have al­ways opposed it. I oppose it now. As longas I stay in the Senate I anticipate thatI will continue to oppose it.

Third, let me say in reply to the Sen­ator that, at an appropriate time in thisdebate, I will supply for the RECORD a listof the many times attempts have beenmade, within the rules, to modify ruleXXII, after the commencement of a newCongress, frequently on bland assurancesthat it would prove possible to do so. Butit did not prove possible. This list shouldmake it apparent to all why it is neces­sary to make the attempt at the com­mencement of a new Congress, when amajority can assert the constitutionalprerogative I believe exists, and Presid­ing Officers of the Senate believe exists.

I wish to say to the distinguished Sen­ator from Florida that if an assurancewere given that we could bring a three­fifths rule proposal to a vote, within therules, I would be happy to proceed inthat way.

Mr. HOLLAND. If the Senator is in­viting me to give him such an assurance,I would simply say I am unable to do so,and I am sure the Senator from Idahowould equally say that he would be un­able to speak for the Senate in any mat­ter so controversial.

Now, Mr. President, aside from the dis­tinguished former Senator from Penn­sylvania, whom I have mentioned, it iswell known that shortly prior to the con­vening of the present Congress state­ments were made in the press and ontelevision by two of our most distin­guished Senators, both of whom I see inthe Senate Chamber at this time-thedistinguished Senator from Michigan(Mr. HART), formerly the LieutenantGovernor of that great State, and thedistinguished Senator from New York(Mr. JAVITS), formerly the attorney gen­eral of that great State-that they in­tended to offer at the beginning of thissession a proposal under which rule XXIIwould be changed so as to allow clotureby a mere majority.

The Senator, I am sure, was edified bysome of those statements or in seeingsome of those television interviews.

The Senator from Florida is indebtedat this time to his distinguished friendfrom Michigan, who, acting for himselfand the distinguished Senator from NewYork, gave to me on Wednesday after­noon, January 8, at 5:15 p.m., a releaseprepared by those two Senators, whichI thought was being made that day, butit appeared in the press the next day. Ido not know just when the statement wasreleased. It is dated January 9.

Mr. President, I have that release andI ask unanimous consent that it beprinted at this point in the RECORD, sim­ply to be fair to both Senators so thatthe statement may appear in full.

There being no objection, the state­ment was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows;JOINT STATEMENT OF SENATORS JACOB K.

JAVITS AND PHILIP HART ON THE EFFORT

To CHANGE RULE XXII, JANUARY 9, 1969In the best Interests of bringing about a

meaningful change in Rule XXII. we an­nounce today our full support of a resolu­tion prOViding for cloture upon an affirmativevote of three-fifths of the Senators presentand voting. We also announce that the prln­cipal sponsors of this resolution will be Sen­ators Frank Church and James Pearson.

We wlll withhold our own amendment forcloture on the vote of 51 Senators to helpthis consolidation of strength in the Senatebehind the so-called 60 percent amendment.We feel It is our duty to work primarily forthe acceptance of the principle that the Sen­ate Is empowered at the beginning of eachCongress to change its own rules withoutbeing SUbject to thOO!e very rules and webelieve our best approach at this time is toconsolidate our efforts With those ot Sen­ators supporting a three-fifths rule. Underthis proposed revision, all procedures forinvoking cloture, with the exception of sub­stituting three-fifths for two-thirds, wl1l re­main as they are now.

We are convinced that tile filibuster, socapable of use by a determined minority asan extra constitutional weapon to defeat oremasculate vital legislation, is inconsistentwith the national interest and becomingeven more dangerous each year as our na­tional and international problems becomemore complex.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I shallread from that statement these two par­ticular sentences:

We will withhold our own amendment forcloture on the vote of 51 Senators to helpthis consolidation of strength In the Senatebehind the so-called 60 percent amendment.We feel it is our duty to work primarily forthe acceptance of the principle that the Sen­ate is empowered at the beginning of eachCongress to change its own rules without be­ing subject to those very rules and we believeour best approach at this time is to consoli·date our efforts with those of Senators sup­porting a three-fifths rule.

I am glad that my distinguished friendfrom Michigan is in the Chamber. Wediscussed this matter rather frankly atthe time he gave me this release. It wasat that time, incidentally, that he gaveme a copy of the proposed resolution,without however the names of the au­thors, although he stated to me the twoprincipal authors who were going to offerit. I do not know if he knew at that timewho all the cosponsors would be. He wasthoroughly candid, and he was thor­oughly frank. I appreciate that.

We discussed just what was meant bythis release. I asked the distinguishedSenator if he was giving up his long-heldobjective to adopt majority cloture in theSenate. He said he was not. He said hewas most interested, as he stated in thissentence, in the establishment of theprinciple, meaning a precedent in theSenate under which the Senate wouldproceed by majority vote without refer­ence to its rules and without proceedingunder its lules to change rule XXII.

If I have incorrectly stated the mat­ter in any way I would be very happy tohave the Senator from Idaho yield tothe Senator from Michigan because Ihave attempted to relate with completeaccuracy the very cordial conferencewhich we had.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I yieldto the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, the Senatorfrom Florida. has accurately summarizedthe pleasant visit I had with him somedays ago. The Senator from New York(Mr. JAVITS) is in the Chamber and hecan respond for himself at this point ifhe cares to make additional comment.

It is quite true that the Senator fromNew York and I have long felt, and Ibelieve we are not alone in this feeling­although undoubtedly we do not havetwo-thirds on this point of view-thatthe Senate, given the kind of world inwhich we live, would be a much more ef­fective instrument in response to someof the pressures of this world if, afterextended debate, a majority were per­mitted to vote yes or no on some compel­ling question and not be denied by a mi­nority of that right to say yes or no.

What the senator from Florida did notdiscuss at the time of that visit was theform of the majority cloture resolutionwhich the Senator from New York, andI, and other Senators have suggested onoccasion.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is correct.We had no discussion of form.

Mr. HART. Since it is not pending inthis session of the Senate, and as far asI know no one has any intention of in­troducing it, I would say briefly it con­templated debate of some 5 weeks' dura­tion before a cloture petition under thatproposal could be laid down. Knowingthe customs, traditions, and abilities ofmy colleagues, I am sure that 5 weekswould be fully utilized. Indeed, it mightbe that the procedure which would be as­serted against the proposal to take upwhatever the substantive proposal mightbe would take 5 weeks; and after we wereable to get it up, perhaps another 5 weeks.

It has always been the feeling of someof us that in a period of many weeksit is possible to clarify a question aroundhere. It is fine we have extended debate,but to deny a majority eventually theright to act, we think, is wrong, and thematter is as simple as that.

The Senator from New York and I, inour news release, attempted to makeclear that we have a primary objective,along with many other Senators, ofestablishing the proposition that the Sen­ate, the Senator from Florida, the Sen­ator from Idaho, the Senator from Mich­igan, the senator from California, andother Senators who have never had acrack at these rules yet, have the right

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD .:.- SENATE January 10, 1969in this body by action of a majority towrite the ticket under which we shallproceed.

It did not offend the Founding Fathersin 1789. Explicitly we were told we canwrite our rules, and we take the positionthat a majority of the Senate in 1840,or 1917, or 1959 does not have the rightto prevent a majority of senators inJanuary 1969, by majority action, to writetheir rules.

This, to us, seems not to be a surpris­ing proposition. To the contrary, it seemsto us to be the "meat and potatoes" ofthe way a society such as ours operates.

The Senator from New York, I know,will respond, but I do not want to be putin the position of appearing to be apolo­gizing for entertaining a conviction thatafter full debate has occurred, a majorityof this body-we like to think of our­selves as not being completely irresponsi­ble fellows--may be permitted to say yesor no on a rollcall.

I welcome the opportunity. I am grate­ful to the Senator from Florida. I knowI have not persuaded him, but we shallnot apologize for our feeling that a ma­jority of this body tOday-in the days ofthe opening session-has a right to re­view and act by majority on every vote.

For example, lest I forget, in a Demo­cratic caucus a few days ago, I discoveredthat there is a rule which aut~orizesad­mission to the floor of the Senate whilewe are in session a whole list of peopleand categories. I did not know that weopened the doors to so many. I have noquarrel with any of it, actually, but sup­pose a majority in 1969 discovered thatthere was a very compelling reason whythe floor of the Senate should not be opento the general commanding the armies,as he is one of the individuals who cancome in here at any time; or that thereis a compelling reason why judges of thecourts of claims should not come in hereas we are talking; or name our favorite"poison," it might be the Secretary ofthe Smithsonian Institution, as he canwalk in. Does anyone mean to tell methat a majority of us sitting here duringthe opening days of the Senate cannotchange that rule?

Mr. HOLLAND. If that is a question,I counter with another question: Is thedistinguished Senator offering a changeto that rule?

Mr. HART. If I did, and less than two­thirds present and voting were willing tolet it come up, I could not get away fromit. I consider that the logic is applicableto this, as it is to the more basic pro­posal offered by the distinguished Sen­ator from Idaho.

In either case, and in every case, amajority of the Senate-I repeat, theSenator from Idaho is on the floor-heand a majority of the House at this 91stCongress should have the right to decidethe rules under which we shall operate.I have a deep conviction that is preciselywhat the writers of the Constitution in­tended.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President--Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, do I still

have the floor?The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­

ator from Idaho has the floor.Mr. HOLLAND. I will yield to the Sen­

ator from New York in a moment, but I

wanted to say that not just two amend­ments of rule XXII have been made inrecent years. I do not have the exactnumber, but I would say some dozens-­certainly at least a dozen or moreamendments to various rules have beenmade, and without difficulty, under therule.

I am suggesting to the distinguishedSenator from Michigan that if he wantsto propose amendments, that he workunder the rules of the Senate. It has notproved to be difficult for changes to beaccomplished under such noncontrover­sial matters as the one which he has justmentioned.

Mr. HART. I agree with the Senatorfrom Florida that it has not been difficultif one is working to amend a rule that ageneral of the armies can come in here,but if we are acting to establish that amajority can act in a sensitive area, it isvery difficult.

Mr. HOLLAND. While I would like toask some questions of the Senator fromIdaho for that purpose, he has the floor.I am glad to yield again.

Mr. CHURCH. I was merely going tosuggest that if the Senator from Floridahas finished with the questions he in­tends to direct to me, I might relinquishthe floor so that we can proceed to yieldto the Senator from New York.

Mr. HOLLAND. I will be happy for theSenator to relinqUish the floor. Now, Mr.President, since I have the floor in myown right, since the release which Iplaced in the RECORD, and I quote, "TheJoint Statement of Senators JACOB JAVITSand PHILIP HART on the Efforts ToChange Rule XXI!"-since I have al­ready said that it was read to me by theSenator from Michigan, but for the twoof them-that is, for himself and theSenator from New York-I would be veryhappy. to yield, if the Senator from NewYork (Mr. JAVITS) wishes to be heard.

Mr. JAVITS. I do.Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield to

the Senator from New York.Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator from

Florida.Mr. President, I think that Senators

who have heard both the Senator fromMichigan (Mr. HART) and myself onthis question before will know that thisgives us an opportunity, really, to bareour souls on this issue, because the realquestion is the Constitution. That is thequestion which is before the Senate. Ourdilemma and our frustration have alwaysbeen attributed to the fact that the Sen­ate has no procedure for deciding a con­stitutional question except by dOUblingback upon itself. At least, so far, thathas been the practical effect of the com­bination of the rulings of the Chair andthe votes which have been taken herein the Senate.

So that the Senator from Michiganand I really decided that, once and forall, we would try to get a minimal, basicproposition upon which we are convincedthere is a decisive majority of the Sen­ate. Then the question is clearly posedfor the Senate and the country. A de­cisive majority wants to change the rule.Is that majority to be frustrated becauseof an extra constitutional provision inthe very rules themselves which pre­vents their expressing their will? As I

say, the essence of this. question ~ theConstitution, where artIcle I, section 2states:

Each House may determine the Rules of ItsProceedings, • • •.

The fact is that in the other body theydo act upon the rules at the beginningof every Congress. In this body we donot. We do not because we cannot, be­cause we are prevented by our own rules.We have tied our own hands. We havemanacled ourselves for years and yearsand years. We have been unable to castoff these handCUffs, that when the Sen­ator from Michigan and I said what wedid, that we are laying everything aside,inclUding thew'gings of our convictionsin terms of what really should be a fairrule for closure of debate, that is whatwe meant. We felt that the principle in­volved, that the Senate could change therules by majority vote, was more impor­tant than the individual rule change it­self.

The very gentlemen who feel in theirsage wisdom that they now .should con­tinue this process which has gone on foryears in frustration, may rue the dayshould Congress be paralyzed because ofthe inability of the Senate to act on amatter vitally important to the Nation.

The Constitution does not say oneHouse. It says:

Each House may determine the rules of itsproceedings. .

Well, the House of Representativesdoes. We do not. We do not, by an extraconstitutional provision which has, some­how, become engrafted in the rules andhas escaped our every ability to unlockourselves from that restriction making ittwo-thirds instead of a majority. Thereis nothing about that in the Constitu­tion, just in the rules of the Senate. Butit is just as effective as a veto of thePresident.

So, gentlemen, this is the issue whichfaces us. We are going to use our inge­nuity. We are going to try to find a wayto give the Senate an opportunity to getout from under this dilemma in which itis entangled. We have tried before and,frankly, we have never been successfulexcept when we really threatened, suchas in 1957, when some concession wasmade to allow two-thirds present andvoting to impose cloture instead of theflat two-thirds constitutional number ofSenators.

It is interesting to me and I inviteSenators-I shall be grateful if my col­leagues will indulge me for a minutemore-to read a brief which we have orwill insert in the RECORD on this wholequestion, which shows in detail just howwe have gotten tangled up in this moreprocedural quagmire.

For example, in the 88th Congress,after a motion was made to close the de­bate by constitutional authority, on theground that we did not have to followthe rule, here is what happened: VicePresident Lyndon Johnson put the mo­tion to close debate, under the 'Consti­tution, to the Senate for debate.

Fantastic, is it not, to put it to theSenate for debate? Well, the Senate justgoes on and debates the motion to closedebate.

Jan1J,ary' 10, 19.69 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 425And so, time and again, we have been

frustrated and stymied in some circum­locution, some way of aborting the clearmandate of the Constitution, because sooften when we hoped the Presiding Of­ficer ",as willing to make the ruling, forone reason or another he final1y decidedhe would not or could not make it, butthat he would, somehow or another,leaveit to the Senate. In most instances, hewas unwilling. And when he left it tothe Senate, debate would go on and onin the Senate.

We thought the Gordian knot couldbe cut. We hope it can be. We shaH tryto cut it.

For that reason, we have concentratedour efforts on the most modest propo­sal, which has the greatest support.

One last statement, which bears onwhat the Senator from Florida referredto. We are accepting, which is also ac­cepted in the House, that what we do notmove to amend, we accept. That is whywe have said we would bring up a res­olution to change the rule and that iswhy, when 2 o'clock comes, and thismatter goes on the calendar, the Senatorfrom Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) wiII move totake it up. We accepted the rest, againjust to narrow the issue. We could con­test ail these matters. on the groundthat the other rules also double back .on themselves. We could have moved toamend rule XL and rule XIV at the sametime we moved to amend rule xxn; butwe preferred to have the Senate "zero in"on the key issue. The key issue is theextra-constitutional provision which.gives power to two-thirds. not a ma­jority. of the Senate; to have the Senateact. That is what it real1y comes downto. We hope very much to be able to re­solve it at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from Idaho had yielded the floor.The Senator from Florida (Mr. HOLLAND)has the fioor.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I appre­ciate the candor of th.e Senator fromNew York. He has taken the same posi­tion which was taken in the conversa­tion which I had, on the previous daymentioned, with the Senator from Michi­gan; namely, that they were not yield­ing in their desire. their objective. andtheir intention of substituting majoritycloture for the present requirement. orfor the one. if it is adopted, in the pres­ent proposal. and' that what they arereally interested in is in getting the prin­ciple adopted. which would make it abinding precedent of the Senate, underwhich principle every beginning of eachCongress couId be marked by contro­versy, perhaps supported by merely amajority of one in the Senate, for thechange, not just of rule XXII, but of anyother rule, or the addition of any otherrule, or the emasculation or amendmentof any other rules. It is against such aprecedent that I raise my voice, becauseI think it would so completely destroy theobjective of stability given to our formof government by the Senate.

How given? Because the Vice Presidentis the Presiding Officer. and we alwayshave a Vice President. BecaU3e in theSenate, made up of two Senators fromeach state, only one-third of them in

total go before the voters every 2 years,leaving two-thirds still there. By thefact that a President has been shownto have the power to call the Senate. atany time he Wishes, into special sessionthat will not involve the other House atall. By the fact that the pronouncementsof the Founding Fathers, which I amgoing to advert to directly, in so manyinstances made it clear that they re­garded the Senate as a continuing body,and a body which. because of that con­tinuation and because of the peculiarstructure under which it was set up,would give stability to the Government.which might otherwise be left withoutsufficient stability.

With respect to the other House ofCongress. every Member of it has to gobefore the voters whom he representsevery 2 years.

At any rate, that was the objective ofthe Founding Fathers; and I must saythat, up until now, the Senate has con­tinued to recognize that principle andhas continued to hold itself in existenceas the stablest arm of our Government.

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

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield, without losingmy right to the floor.

ENDORSEMENT OF GOV. WALTERJ. HICKEL AS SECRETARY OF THEINTERIOR BY ASSOCIATION OFVILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS.ALASKAMr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Sec­

retary-designate of the Department ofthe Interior, Walter J. Hickel. will havethe proper management of Alaska's re­sources as one of his major concerns. TheAssociation of ViIIage Council Presidentsissued a formal endorsement on January2, 1969. I ask unanimous consent to haveprinted in the RECORD the full text ofthat endorsement.

There being no objection. the endorse­ment was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as fol1ows:

(News release, January 2, 1969)The Association of Village Council Presi­

dents, Alaska's largest single Native orga­nization, representing 10,000 Eskimos andIndians Hving in fifty-three villages andclaimant in a 55,000 square mile area NativeLand Claim, issued a formal endorsement ofthe appointment of Governor Waiter J.Hickel as Secretary of the Interior today. TheAssociation urged all U.S. Senators to supportand confirm Hickel's nomination.

Moses Paukan, Eskimo head of the AVCPand re-elected Democratic member of Alas­ka's House of Representatives from District19. stated that a man of Hickei's caliber andknowledge of Alaskan problems is indispen­sable to our welfare as a State in solvingour many problems. "The Nixon administra­tion could not have done Alaska a bigger fa­vor," Paukan said, "than to appoint anAlasl~an as Secretary of the Interior, wherecontrol of Alaska's destiny over the pasteighty years has rested. Alaska has alwayssuffered from misunderstanding, misshapenpolicies and Federal bUreaucratic nonsense,primarily through agencies of the Depart­ment of the Interior." .

"The United States must depend on propermanagement of Alaska's storehouse of re­sources in the years to come in order to sur­Vive as a nation," he said. "The Nixon ad­ministration is very wise to start what we

hope will be a constant pattern of AlaskanInterior Secretaries so that our NationalDefense and development of human and nat­ural resources can move ahead with logic andaccomplishment Instead of burying our Na­tional head in th'e sand."

lVloSES PAUKAN.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALASKA'SRESOURCES

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, an articleappeared in U.S. News & World Reportthis month relating to the natural re­sources of Alaska. This article also in­cludes an interview with Alaska's Gov­ernor, Walter J. Hickel. I ask unanimousconsent to have this statement printedin the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articlewas ordered to be printed in the RECORD.as fo11ows:

ALASKA STRIKES IT RICH

(NOTE.-E:o:citement now pervading Alaskastems from more than Just rich oil finds.There is a feeling that the 49th State finallyIs on the threshold of broad-based develop­ment. This on-the-spot survey tells why, andwhat Is planned for the future.)

Suddenly, Alaska's long-promised brightfuture seems close at hand. The questionthat has hung like a cloud over the 49thState---whether it could ever pay its ownway-is fading.

In the words of Governor Walter J. Hickel,Alaska has "turned the corner." A triparound the State, inclUding talks with topofficials and leading businessmen, bears theGovernor out.

Optimism abounds. Forecasts are beingrevised upward. New prioritIes are beingestablished. Decision-makers are predictingthat the decade of the 1970s is to bring thebiggest surge of Alaskan development sincethe gold rush.

New boom: Already under way is a newgold rush. This time it is for "black gold"­oil that recent strikes indicate will make thegold boom of the 1890s seem like penny-antepoker.

All attention is focused on the remoteNorth Slope, a barren and frozen land thatruns down from the Brooks Mountain Rangeto the Arctic Ocean.

Production from two new wells broughtin at Prudhoe Bay Indicates a field withreserves of at least 5 billion barrels. Expertssay the field may yield as much as 10 billionbarrels, making It twice as rich as the fab­ulous East Texas field discovered in 1930.

Describing the Importance of the Alaskanoil strike, Joseph H. Fitzgerald, Chairmanof the Federal Field Committee for DevelOp­ment Planning in Alaska, says:

"Oil is going to power Alaska because of itsnational implications. These reserves maywell have a powerful infiuence on the na­tion's domestic price of crude oil and energy,on our strategic self-sufficiency, and on theU.S. balance of payments and the balance ofpower In the world:'

Full scop'e of the discovery, made jointlyby Atiantic Richfield Company and HumbleOil & Refining Company, may not be knownfor some time. But the rush of other petro­leum companies to get a piece of the actionclearly signals confidence that there ls greatwealth to be tapped in this Arctic region.

Prospecting f0r oil: Drilling of a dozennew weils is to start this winter when equip­ment can be moved across the frozen ground.Seismic crews are moving out across the tun­dra, mapping with electronic soundings theoil-bearing ST;rata below the permafrost.

surveys of possible pipeline routes. acrossthe Brooks Range to Fairbanks and on todeep-water ports on the Gult of Alaska havebegun. Oil-company experts are studying the