April 8, 1964
Page 7199
Mr. CLARK. . . . In an editorial entitled "Helpless Senate," published on March 19 of this year in the Washington Post, it was stated:
The archaic nature of the Senate's rules has seldom been more pointedly demonstrated than by the current civil rights debate.
That statement is, of course true; but 1 should like to point out that we have not been engaged in a debate at all. A debate, in the ordinary sense of that word, involves the clash of opinions, back and forth, on the provisions of a bill, on issues, and on principles. To be sure, there has been some such mild debate from time to time, since we indulged ourselves in the fiction -- for the first time, on March 9 -- that time did not run; that, in fact, for the Senate, time stood still.
What I have just said is clearly indicated by today's Senate Calendar, which indulges in the fiction that this is still the legislative day of March 30; and on March 29 we were indulging in the legislative fiction that that was the legislative day of March 9.
All that is merely a symptom of a deeper malaise which affects the Senate. We have not been engaged in debate -- except for a very few hours of our sessions -- since March 9. The rest of the time has been devoted to the delivery of long and, I fear, quite dull speeches, such as this one will soon turn out to be, and in placing in the RECORD, by unanimous consent, a great mass of even duller material. These speeches have been made to a practically empty Senate Chamber, because of our ridiculous quorum-call rule.
I shall illustrate what I mean by that statement: Shortly after 10 o'clock this morning, the absence of a quorum was suggested. Under the rule, the clerk was required to call the roll. He called the roll once, but 51 Senators did not answer to their names. So three bells were rung; and then the clerk called the roll a second time. Largely because of the exhortations delivered by the majority leader and the minority leader, as a result of the spectacle the Senate made of itself on Saturday, when it could not obtain a quorum, by the time the roll had been called the second time the clerk was able to tell the Presiding Officer, "Mr. President, a quorum is present."
Of course, a quorum was not present; but that was part of the polite legislative lie in which we indulge ourselves more or less like ostriches with our heads in the sand, denying the truth. At the time when the Presiding Officer announced -- incorrectly, but, of course, sincerely and in accordance with one of our most hallowed traditions -- "A quorum is present," there were in the neighborhood of 25, rather than 51, Senators on the floor.
I am now speaking at a time when, in the Senate Chamber, there are 11 Senators -- an unusually large number of Senators to be present, I may say, during the civil rights debate. Three of those Senators are what might be termed 11 captive Senators. First, we must have a Presiding Officer present; so the able and distinguished junior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF], complying with his obligation as one of the more recently elected Members of this body – although the fact that he was more recently elected has nothing to do with his high ability -- has to be here, although I know he wishes he did not have to be here. Next, the junior Senator from Missouri [Mr. LONG] is also a "captive Member"; he is the acting majority leader. I know he wishes he did not have to be here, but he has to be.
The Senator who probably wishes more than anyone else now in the Chamber that he did not have to be here is my very able friend, the senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], who has to be here to help the opponents of the bill be sure that the proponents do not "pull any parliamentary tricks."
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I shall be here, too.
Mr. CLARK. The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] is ably abetted by one experienced in the ways of the filibuster -- the able senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], my good friend, in whose State I pay taxes. However, he had arranged to go off in due time to the Cherry Blossom Festival with the understanding on the part of the proponents of the bill that we would not ask for a quorum call while he and many other Senators were absent.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK. I yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. I did that to please others, not to please myself, because I shall be in the Senate Chamber.
Mr. CLARK. I am sure that the Cherry Blossom Queen from Louisiana will be greatly disappointed if the Senator from Louisiana is not present at the festival. I know that she will not be much pleased if the distinguished Senator from Louisiana is not present to give her the customary salutation.
Mr. ELLENDER. I have sent a good substitute -- a nice looking young fellow.
Mr. CLARK. No one could be better looking or more handsome than my friend from Louisiana.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?
Mr. CLARK. I yield to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina with the understanding that I do not lose my right to the floor. I shall not even require that the Senator ask me a question.
Mr. ERVIN. I shall ask a question. Am I to construe, the remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania to indicate that he deplores the apparent boycott of the Senate by Members of the Senate?
Mr. CLARK. No. What I deplore is the existence of quorum calls. They are one of the most ridiculous monstrosities, among many, which afflict us in this body and make it impossible for us to do our work.
Mr. ERVIN. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania not think there is something in the nature of a boycott in that Senators do not come to the Chamber to hear him speak or to hear me speak?
Mr. CLARK. I should like to think that the seats in the Senate would be crowded by Senators who would identify my friend from North Carolina as the spiritual descendant of John C. Calhoun and me as the spiritual descendant, not of Simon Cameron or Daniel Webster, but perhaps some learned Senator from the North who stood up to vote for civil rights -- perhaps Charles Sumner would be a good prototype. But I fear that the Senator from North Carolina and I would be deluding ourselves if we indulged ourselves in that type of euphoria.
Mr. ERVIN. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania not feel that perhaps some Senators, particularly the proponents of the bill, are reluctant to come to the Senate Chamber and hear those of us who oppose the bill express the truth in connection with the bill, for fear that receiving the truth might cause them to change their minds?
Mr. CLARK. Senatorial courtesy prevents me from making a candid answer to the Senator's question.
Mr. ERVIN. If I could obtain unanimous consent to suspend rule XIX of the Senate, would the Senator answer my question?
Mr. CLARK. I should be strongly tempted to do so, but I would not yield for that purpose.
Mr. ERVIN. Will the Senator permit me to observe that I believe a boycott is at least as reprehensible as a filibuster, and in no sense approaches the dignity or sanctity of an educational debate?
I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maine. I shudder to think what is coming.
Mr. MUSKIE. The RECORD should reflect the fact that the southern colleagues of my good friends from North Carolina and Louisiana are not present in the Chamber to hear the speech of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. I wonder if, by the same reasoning, we could conclude that they fear they might be persuaded by the distinguished Senator that his views are correct.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK. I yield.
Mr. ERVIN. I should like to point out that they are absent for an entirely different reason. They already have possession of the truth, and they are now pondering some way in which to express the truth more eloquently in the hope that the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Pennsylvania will be converted to the right side of the debate.
Mr. CLARK. I suspect that their absence may be due more to the interest of a large number of our colleagues from the Southern States in saluting the cherry blossom queen than from any distaste about listening to the profound truths which the Senator from Pennsylvania is about to elucidate.
Mr. President, I proceed to the procedural morass in which we find ourselves.
I remind Senators how absurd it is to have quorum calls, and express the hope that after this "debate" is over and the bill disposed of one way or the other, we can turn our minds to the procedural reform which, in my judgment, is so essential to enable not only the Senate but also the House of Representatives to perform their appropriate constitutional functions -- functions which I fear we have been singularly inept at performing for many years.
I know it is rather radical to suggest the elimination of quorum calls, but I ask Senators whose minds are not frozen in the past – and, of course, that includes all 99 of my colleagues -- to take a look and ask, What useful purpose does a quorum call serve? Why not get rid of it? Why do we not merely do business prior to a vote? Of course, when there is a vote, there must be 51 Senators voting. We do business all the time with3 or 4 Senators on the floor. All a quorum call does is to annoy Senators, and bring them to the Chamber, if it is a live quorum, when we could be spending our time to better effect elsewhere. I suggest that it serves no useful legislative purpose, and that we would be well advised to get rid of it in the interest, first of the more expeditious conduct of the business of the Senate without sacrificing in any way the desirability of meaningful debate; and, second, to enable Senators to get a few more minutes, and occasionally a few more hours, of useful service into their already crowded days, which useful service tends to be conducted, not on, but off the floor, in a great majority of cases.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK. I am happy to yield to my good friend from Texas for a question.
Mr. TOWER. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania contend that the quorum call serves absolutely no useful purpose?
Mr. CLARK. I do.
Mr. TOWER. What sort of device could be used for delaying proceedings, for the change of speakers, or for warning the Senate that some business is about to be considered? What other device would be used?
Mr. CLARK. I suggest that the Senate get into the habit of having short recesses when the majority leader and the minority leader wish to consult, when it is desirable to call a Senator to the floor of the Senate to make a speech, or when, for any other reason, it is not a good idea to continue the Senate in session.
Such a procedure would be more candid. It would be more frank. The Senate could continue to have the bells rung twice. That would give notice to Senators either that some Senator was about to make a relatively important announcement on the floor of the Senate and that Senators had better come forward -- then after a 5-minute recess the statement could be made -- or that perhaps a premonitory warning has been given of a vote about to come, so Senators would not be rushed into a roll call vote.
Perhaps a request for the yeas and nays would result in the ringing of the bells. I have no doubt that there are many procedures by which we could provide for the necessities which the Senator from Texas has quite properly stated, without going through the utter nonsense of calling the roll twice, then pretending that the Sergeant at Arms is leaving his office to request the attendance of absent Senators, when everyone knows he is not, and finally coming to the conclusion on Saturday morning -- which we knew Friday night -- there were only 41 Senators in the city; so what was the use of continuing the farce any longer?
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK. I am happy to yield to my friend from Rhode Island. The Senator is one of the imaginative Members of the Senate who saw the desirability of having some kind of rule of germaneness.
Mr. PASTORE. I did not rise for the purpose of receiving a compliment. But I am grateful for it. I rose for the purpose of trying to assist in the expression of these very imaginative ideas. They ought to be considered very seriously.
We ought to strive diligently in the Senate to eliminate all the procedures which have been instituted purely for the purpose of harassment and for the purpose of delay, because, as the Senator has brought out, I believe they impede the functioning of the Senate.
The idea of the Senator from Pennsylvania has merit. I would not be willing to go quite as far as he has suggested, for the reasons that have been pointed out by the distinguished Senator from Texas. But one thing we should consider is that the second call of the roll, which is now known as the live quorum, ought to be subject to cancellation by unanimous consent. We have sometimes actually worked ourselves into the position in which a quorum call has become "live," and we have not been able to bring 51 Senators to the Chamber. Sometimes we have waited for 3 or 4 hours to obtain a quorum. I remember at one time I was called in Providence to return to Washington by plane. I came in the door of the Senate Chamber, and I constituted, I believe, the 50th Senator to respond to the quorum call. Then my colleague, who was on the same plane, constituted the 51st Senator to respond. The only reason why the Senate needed a quorum was in order to recess. The Senate waited 4 hours to get enough Senators here merely to recess, How ridiculous can we be?
Mr. CLARK. Pretty ridiculous.
Mr. PASTORE. How ridiculous can we be? All I am saying is that even the second call, on a live quorum, ought to be subject to being called off by unanimous consent. It may be impossible, either because of the time of day or the time of week, to obtain the presence of 51 Senators. The leader of the party should be able to say, "I ask unanimous consent to cancel further proceedings under the quorum call." That is one point that should be given serious consideration, because once the quorum call becomes "live," it becomes an instrument of harassment.
Mr. CLARK. I thank the Senator for his comment. I agree with what he has said. If there were such a change, we would get out of the "batter's box" and perhaps take a step in the direction of first base. I would like to go all the way around the bases and score a run.
I ask the Senator, although I know he is pretty busy, as we all are, if he will not, before he is through with this cogitation, think through whether a quorum call serves any useful legislative purpose or whether we are not merely kidding ourselves.
Mr. PASTORE. The only argument I make is that there would have to be some other substitute to accomplish the purpose of a quorum call.
Mr. CLARK. Of course there would.
Mr. PASTORE. There might be a recess, but a recess might involve delay. I see no objection to a quorum call provided it is subject to revocation by unanimous consent, rather than the idea that once the clerk has gone through the roster of names once, and begins to call the names from the list again, it becomes a "live" quorum call which can go on ad infinitum until 51 Members come to the Chamber. Such a call cannot be canceled even by unanimous consent. That is where the harassment comes into the picture.
Mr. CLARK. Before we complete this discussion, let me ask the Senator what useful purpose there is in having the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from Pennsylvania, and perhaps other Senators leave their dinners, as happened last night, in order to walk in the Chamber door, hold up their hands so that the recording clerk may acknowledge their presence by nodding, and then walk out the same door and go back to dinner. This enables our southern friends, acting within their rights, to put us to harassment day after day and night after night, hoping to wear us down. They do it in a charming way and with fine manners and we, being good natured, do not become angry at them: but I think it is a ridiculous procedure to go through.
Mr. PASTORE. I agree with the point the Senator has made. Our friends ought not to be permitted to harass us. If any Senator wants to object to calling off a quorum call, he should be present in the Chamber to do so. But where there were three or four of the opposition, they would have to object if it took 4 hours. The minute they moved out the door, I would again ask unanimous consent. I would harass them as they are harassing me. If there is to be harassment, it ought to work both ways. I like to play a little, too.
Mr. CLARK. I hope my friend from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] will not be affronted if I say it requires only one of them to bring 51 of us back from our wives and children. It is the necessity for bringing 51 of us back that I object to.
Mr. PASTORE. If we are to suffer, let us all experience a little of it.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?
Mr. CLARK. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true that we have not seen anything yet so far as calling of quorums is concerned?
Mr. CLARK. I quite agree.
Now, Mr. President, in accordance with the ridiculous procedure under which we operate, I ask unanimous consent that, without losing my right to the floor, and in violation of the rule of germaneness, I may briefly yield to the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE].
The PRESIDING OFF E . Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. What I am about to say is very germane to the subject matter under discussion.
Mr. CLARK. I am glad.