CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
February 3, 1966
Page 2046
Mr. SPARKMAN. . . .While the Senator from Maine was absent from the Chamber I stated a while ago that I have some good labor friends in my State. Labor has generally supported me in my State. I believe the Senator from Maine knows that. I have generally supported them in programs which mean so much to labor -- such as, for example, safe, sanitary, and decent housing and schools, and legislation generally intended for their welfare and for strengthening.
Even though I differ with labor leaders in my State at the present time on this question of the repeal of section 14(b), I believe that they understand the reason why that it is basically a division of power between the Federal Government and the State government. Here is a law on the statute books of Alabama which was -- by a vote of the State Legislature and the signature of its Governor -- enacted into law at a time when it was clearly provided in the law of the United States that there was nothing to prohibit States from enacting such laws. In other words, it was perfectly legal for a State to do from a State standpoint and from a Federal standpoint.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield at that point?
Mr. SPARKMAN. Let me finish my thought and I shall be glad to yield. A law had been placed on the books which was certainly legal, and which certainly since the decision of 1949 has been constitutional. It is the enactment of a law by a State. I therefore do not believe it was intended that the Federal Government should be placed in the position of repealing a State motion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPARKMAN. Especially in an area that the Federal Government had recognized was a State area.
I am glad to yield to the Senator from Maine for a question at this point.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I say to the Senator from Alabama that I have spent long hours in this chair in the course of the discussion that has taken place over the past few days. The Senator from Alabama has raised some interesting questions about the merits of the proposal to repeal 14(b), questions which I suggest ought to be discussed, questions that ought to be answered, and which, if answered, would be profitable to the country as a whole. But the issue before us, as I understand, does not get to the merits of the proposal to repeal 14(b). The issue before us is whether or not we should get to a discussion of the very questions which the Senator from Alabama has raised
Mr. SPARKMAN. May I break in right there?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I ask my question?
Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator from Alabama is really interested in answers to the questions which he has raised, will he join the Senator from Maine and other Senators like minded in supporting the proposal to lay the measure before the Senate so we can get into the merits of the bill?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I think the Senator from Maine sidesteps the issue. The point I have been trying to make -- and I am afraid I did not succeed in penetrating the Senator from Maine, or else he does not want to be penetrated -- is that it is a motion to take up, and I had something to say about the fact that it was a motion to take up, and not a debate on whether or not the bill shall be passed. That is not it. But why take up a measure that seeks to do a thing which I believe to be constitutionally bad and contradictory of all of the principles of the division of powers between the Federal government and State governments?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the senator yield again?
Mr. SPARKMAN. Let me continue on a moment. Let me finish this little statement.
Under the Constitution itself, and under the Norris-La Guardia Act passed back in 1932, there could be no requirement that a person would have to belong or not belong to a union. Then the National Labor Relations Act came along, without any change from that provision. When enacted into law, it did not change that provision. But a few years later, when the Taft-Hartley Act was written into law -- in 1947, I believe it was -- in view of the fact that the Norris-La Guardia Act had affirmed an age-old principle that was inherent in the Constitution itself, it was decided by the Congress of the United States, acting for the Federal Government, to insure again that it had no business whatsoever being in the sphere of saying whether or not there ought to be a union shop or closed shop; that that was a matter for the States to decide. Congress so stated again. In other words that was a labor provision very much like what amendment 10 did for the rights of the States under the Constitution.
Therefore, I do not believe it is a good principle. Why should I advocate taking up something that will take a long time on the floor to debate, when it is not a good principle and ought not to be enacted into law?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I rose not for the purpose of interrupting
Mr. SPARKMAN. I welcome the exchange.
Mr. MUSKIE. But to respond to the questions which the Senator directed to me.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I assume the Senator from Alabama directed those questions to me because he was interested in answers.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. And I suggested that the best way to get answers to the questions is to dispose of the motion to take up the measure, if the Senator is interested in answers to the questions, rather than merely proceed to discuss the motion to take up.
I have sat in this chair listening to this debate. I think I sat for 3 ½ hours yesterday and for an hour and a half today, and a like number of hours on other days listening to a learned discussion -- and that of the Senator from Alabama is most learned, as it always is -- but I have not heard one Senator discussing the issue on the same side as the Senator from Alabama discuss whether or not we ought to take up the bill or lay it before the Senate so the Senate can have an opportunity to proceed to discuss the merits.
I have been enlightened by what has been said on the side of the issue which the Senator from Alabama represents, but I suggest it is not relevant to the point before us. I shall be glad to discuss that point when we reach it. But I would like to be enlightened on why we should not get to the point of discussing the merits of the proposal. The Senator from Alabama is making his case.
There is a case on the other side of the question. I believe the country would like to be enlightened on both sides of the issue. I would like to get down to that point. The Senator is interested in answers to the questions he has raised. I suggest that that is the way to really get to the answers, rather than occupy us with these dilatory proceedings.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Let me say to the able Senator -- and he knows I respect his views very highly -- that I have been trying my best, in the short time that I have been speaking -- and I remind the Senator this is the first time I have taken the floor -- to explain my views. I have felt that I would be called upon to vote on this question, and that I ought to take the time to explain my views. I have already explained them to many labor leaders in my State. A good many of them, I believe, understand my position. I felt that I ought to explain my position for the record on the floor of the Senate.
I have not been dilatory in presenting my views. I am not engaging in a long debate. I believe we ought not to take up this issue, because I do not believe it is a good measure.
Let me say something else to the Senator from Maine. He may not feel any obligation on his part to talk on his side of the issue, or to make out a case. However, if I am not mistaken, a Gallup poll was taken the other day which showed that the country as a whole is opposed to the proposed legislation. Was not such a poll taken? It seems to me I remember reading about it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I believe the distinguished minority leader of the Senate, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], brought it to our attention.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes; I saw it in the newspapers, and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] brought it out during his presentation on the first day that the motion was before us, on the second go-round on this issue, so to speak.
Mr. MUSKIE. If I were on the side of an issue which had that kind of support throughout the country, I would be eager to see that support reflected in a vote on the merits of the issue.
Mr. SPARKMAN. If I were on the short side on a question like that I would want to be making a case before the country.
Mr. MUSKIE. We are eager to get to that point.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I do not believe the Senator is doing that. Now is the time to make that case. I believe he should be making his argument now.
Mr. MUSKIE. I wish to make a proposal to the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SPARKMAN. That I sit down and that the Senator from Maine speak instead?
Mr. MUSKIE. No, no; the Senator from Alabama has a function to perform, and I have mine to perform at the moment with respect to the motion which is before us. Let me say to the Senator from Alabama that I have been involved in the question of the union security shop since my first term in the Maine Legislature in 1946.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes; in the forum where it should be; at the State level. That is what the eminent Justice I am quoting has said.
Mr. MUSKIE. The question has been raised as to my willingness to discuss the subject. It was discussed in the session of the Maine Legislature. Those of us who felt as I did lost that fight in the legislature.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Does Maine have such a law now?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. The question went to a referendum. The legislature's action in approving a right-to-work law was overwhelmingly defeated, 2 to 1, in 1948. When we went to the people, we sustained our case. The issue arose once more since that time. The political leaders on both sides -- Republicans and Democrats -- took the same position in opposition to it. To this day, Maine does not have a right-to-work law. We are satisfied with the situation as it is.
The question before the Senate is whether or not it is to consider the repeal of section 14(b) which would make the law uniform throughout the country. I believe this is an issue which ought to be debated on the merits. But what is the point, I ask the Senator, in discussing the merits of the matter now when the Senator and those who are debating this question on the floor of the Senate will not let us get to a vote on the merits.
I am not asking the Senator or those who support his position to support the repeal of section 14(b). I am asking why they do not permit us to proceed with the matter so that we can discuss the merits.
We are not going to discuss the merits if in so doing we contribute to the delay in acting on the motion to take up.
If the Senator will join in supporting that motion, we will take it up, discuss the merits, and vote on it. I would like nothing better. Then, I would be happy to answer questions directed to me by the Senator.
In answering the question I am contributing to the delay in a sense, but I could not resist replying because the Senator was so generous in directing questions to me.
I have not had an opportunity to ask the Senator why he objects to taking up the measure, discussing the issue, enlightening the country with respect thereto, and resolving it one way or another.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I respect the views of the Senator. But his view is that the proper stage to discuss these matters is after the bill has been formally laid before the Senate.
Any time is a proper time to discuss what it means. I repeat that this is the only time that I have discussed it and the only time I propose to discuss it.
The State of the Senator from Maine acted on the question of whether or not it should have right-to-work laws. It acted exactly the way it was intended under the Constitution originally and under the various statutes since that time, including the Norris-La Guardia Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, and in keeping with Supreme Court decisions in 1949. His State did what was contemplated. In other words, it acted at the State level. There, it went to a referendum and the people voted against it.
I would not seek to cause Maine to change its mind. I believe it is a State function. I do not believe the Federal Government has any business tinkering with it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I indicated earlier, I do not believe that this is the time to enter into an extensive debate on the merits, because we ought to dispose of the procedural motion first. If we do that, then we can get to the merits. We ought to come to grips with the question. The argument that the Senator and those alined with him make should be answered so that the country can understand our differences.
Briefly, on the question which the Senator just raised, I believe we have now had 18 years within which the States could decide what their policy ought to be. I believe 19 States adopted right-to-work laws.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Twenty-one States adopted them, nineteen States retained them, one repealed them outright, and another partially repealed them.
Mr. MUSKIE. So these figures indicate that a substantial majority of States decided on the other side of the question.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is a cogent argument to be made for a uniform law throughout the country on this point. Not to have a uniform law tends to be disruptive.
In the case of my State, the fact that some States have right-to-work laws is used as an inducement to industries in New England to move out. We do not believe this sort of competition between the States is conducive to harmony and stability, or in the best interests of labor and management relations.
I believe there is a case for uniform policy. We would be delighted to make that case on the floor of the Senate if the Senator and those alined with him would let us get to the issue.
I appreciate the patience of the Senator in affording me the opportunity to make these observations. It is a view that I sincerely hold, and it is pertinent to the issue before us. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator to discuss it with me.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the viewpoint of the Senator. As I said earlier in my remarks, the Constitution prescribed certain limitations and certain areas in which the Federal Government should be supreme, and others in which the States should be supreme. There are some areas in which they overlap, and usually in those cases we have tried to lay them out by law.
I believe that the field we are now discussing belongs to the State, as never having been conceded to the Central Government, but whether it is or not, the law enacted by Congress on at least two
different occasions and the law made by the Court in its decisions based upon the provisions principally in the Taft-Hartley Act have upheld these. It has said that they were functions of the legislature, and that they were things upon which the various States should speak their minds.
I do not believe the Federal Government ought to be changing that mind.
I am looking at a table. The Senator from Maine said something about industries from Maine being pulled into other areas because of the wage differential, I assume.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. What is feared is the appeal that is directed at employers in States like Maine -- and I believe this includes all New England States -- that if they go to right-to-work States they will not face the prospect of strong union activity and strong union organization.
There is a fear that this is an appeal to many employers and management. From discussions which I have had with many employers it does have appeal.
I have not measured this statistically, but in many right-to-work States there are advertisements toward those States, holding this out as an advantage, if industries wish to locate in right-to-work States.
Appeal is being circulated and being aimed at industries in States that do not have right-to-work laws, with the hope and apparently some expectation that the appeal is a valid one and might produce results.
This kind of appeal directed to industries in New England and my State is of concern to the citizens of Maine.
I wish to ask a question of the Senator. I notice in the RECORD of yesterday at page 1955 the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MONDALE] inserted an advertisement that appeared in the Washington Post of January 25, 1966, signed by, I gather, several hundreds or thousands of citizens in his State, under this message:
WE BELIEVE WE HAVE A RIGHT TO A VOTE -- A MESSAGE FROM THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA TO THE U.S. SENATE
We, the undersigned, citizens of Minnesota, employed in many different occupations, and living in different parts of the State, take this means to inform the honorable Members of the Senate of the United States, that we are deeply concerned about the delay last fall in legislative action in repealing section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, and we hereby declare our earnest hope that the repeal bill will be voted on in the new session of Congress at the earliest reasonable opportunity. We believe the Senate has a right to vote on the bill. We believe we have a right under our representative government to have that vote taken.
Does the Senator agree that that appeal is a reasonable request?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I shall not pass judgment on what other Senators may have decided as to their course of action. Let me answer the Senator's question by posing this question: I have now been speaking for about 1 hour and 30 minutes. I suppose that had it not been for our colloquy, I might have concluded my remarks by now. At any rate, I am delighted to have had the colloquy. Certainly, it will not take me more than 20 or 25 minutes to finish what I had expected to say. That will mean that I shall have spoken less than a total of 2 hours on this subject. As I have said, I fully intend that this speech shall be an explanation of my position on this subject.
Does the Senator from Maine believe that I am unreasonable in asking for an hour and a half to 2 hours to explain my position on a measure so important as this? I am not asking about any other Senator, either on this side or the other side of the aisle. But am I delaying the vote on this question by taking an hour and a half or so to explain my position?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would never describe the Senator from Alabama as unreasonable. But I suggest to the Senator that his eloquent and well reasoned argument in behalf of his position would be better timed if it were made after the Senate voted on the procedural motion to consider the bill.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Perhaps I fear that we shall not get to that point, so this may be my only opportunity to explain my position.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is why I asked the Senator whether he thought the request of the Minnesotans was a reasonable request.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I shall not answer that question. They are speaking from Minnesota. If they want to speak to the Senators from Minnesota, that is agreeable to me.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Alabama knows that that is not their request.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I have a duty to perform for the people of Alabama, the country, and the Senate. I feel that taking 1½ hours to explain my position on a measure so vital as this is only fulfilling my responsibility.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have already said that I do not believe that 1½ hours is unreasonable.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I shall not question the motives of any Senator for wanting to vote or not wanting to vote. I do not want it to be thought that by taking 1½ hours to explain my position on this question I am blocking a vote in the Senate or that I am unreasonably holding up the debate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have already said that I do not believe the Senator from Alabama is unreasonable in taking 1½ hours, or that he would be unreasonable, so far as I am concerned, in taking 15 hours.
Mr. SPARKMAN. But the Senator from Maine wants me to wait until a later date. I think that date might not come.
Mr. MUSKIE. No. I was about to say that even though I believe the Senator's speech would be better placed after the procedural motion, I would not quarrel with him if he made a long speech then, provided he would agree that at some point we should reach a vote on the merits of the issue. That is the only reason why I directed this request to the Senator. I would not care, then, when he took his time or how much time he took.
When I direct that comment to the Senator, I direct it to every Senator. So far as I am concerned, every Senator can take 15 hours to explain his position on the merits, provided that at the end of that time there can be a vote.
I am merely asking whether, assuming that we have all the time needed -- and I am willing to fight for all the time any Senator may desire to explain his position on the merits -- the Senator from Alabama would agree at that point to support any action that might be necessary to bring the question to a vote.
Mr. SPARKMAN. We are dealing with speculative matters in that respect. There is no reason why I should pass on that question. I am certain there will be a vote in the Senate. How that vote will be taken, I do not know. Perhaps it will be on a motion to table.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does not the Senator believe the Senate ought to vote on the merits?
Mr. SPARKMAN. That is a matter of getting to it. We shall not get to the merits unless the bill is taken up.
Mr. MUSKIE. It will be easier to get to the merits if enough Senators believe we should vote on the merits.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Let us cross that bridge when we get to it.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is fine.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Before the Senator from Maine leaves the Chamber -- if he is about to leave -- I invite his attention to some tables which were placed in the RECORD a few days ago by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT] They appear at page 1550 of the RECORD of January 29. There, in a list of right-to-work States, are set forth the increased average weekly earnings of production workers and the rate of increase. It is a particularly telling story. That table and some other brief tables that accompany the list inspired me to say that I wish there were included one that showed the effect this increase had on unions and on the labor movement. That would be interesting and quite helpful. There are a number of tables, but one relates to union activity.
I notice that the average weekly wage in my own State, over the past 10 years, increased from $57.42 to $91.91, or 60.1 percent. The national average during those 10 years was 44.3 percent.
The percentage of increase in right-to-work States was 46.8 percent, whereas the percentage in the other States was 42.8 percent.
Thus, so far as earnings and wage scales are concerned, it seems to me there can be little argument. It would be interesting to know what effect that increase had on unionization.
Mr. President, I was reading from the opinion of the Court in the cases handed down in 1949 involving right-to-work statutes in the States of Arizona, Nebraska, and North Carolina. I had stated that the Court said that in the past 50 years the total number of employed, counting salaried workers and self-employed workers, but not farmers or farm laborers, has not quite trebled, while the total union membership during that time had increased 33 times.
Of course, this is not a fair comparison, because the period covers 50 years; in other words, half a century. So that would not be a fair tabulation, because union membership started from such a low base. Nevertheless, the opinion states that whereas non-farm laborers had increased by 3 times, the total union membership had increased 33 times.
I thought it would be interesting to see the increase that has occurred since that time in the working force as against the union membership. It would be very interesting to see a breakdown between the right-to-work law States and the other States.
I continue to quote from Justice Frankfurter:
At the time of the open-shop drive following the First World War, the ratio of organized to unorganized nonagricultural workers was about 1 to 9, and now it is almost 1 to 3. However necessitous may have been the circumstances of unionism in 1898 or even in 1923, its status in 1948 precludes constitutional condemnation of a legislative judgment, whatever we may think of it, the need of this type of regulation outweighs its detriments. It would be arbitrary for this Court to deny the States the right to experiment with such laws, especially in view of the fact that the Railroad Brotherhoods have held their own despite congressional prohibition of union security and in the light of the experience of countries advanced in industrial democracy, such as Great Britain and Sweden, where deeply rooted acceptance of the principles of collective bargaining is not reflected in uncompromising demands for contractually guaranteed security. Whether it is preferable in the public interest that trade unions should be subjected to State intervention or left to the free play of social forces, whether experience has disclosed "union unfair labor practices" and, if so, whether legislative correction is more appropriate than self-discipline and the pressure of public opinion -- these are questions on which it is not for us to express views. The very limited function of this Court is discharged when we recognize that these issues are not so unrelated to the experience and feelings of the community as to render legislation addressing itself to them willfully destructive of cherished rights. For these are not matters, like censorship of the press or separation of church and State, on which history, through the Constitution, speaks so decisively as to forbid legislative experimentation.
But the policy which finds expression in the prohibition of union security agreements need not rest solely on a legislative conception of the public interest which includes but transcends the special claims of trade unions. The States are entitled to give weight to views combining opposition to the closed shop with long-range concern for the welfare of trade unions. Mr. Justice Brandeis, for example, before he came to this Court, had been a stanch promoter of unionism. In testifying before the Commission on Industrial Relations, he said:
"I should say to those employers who stand for the open shop, that they ought to recognize that it is for their interests as well as that of the community that unions should be powerful and responsible; that it is to their interests to build up the union; to aid as far as they can in making them stronger; and to create conditions under which the unions shall be led by the ablest and most experienced men."
Yet at the same time he believed that "The objections, legal, economical, and social, against the closed shop are so strong, and the ideas of the closed shop so antagonistic to the American spirit, that the insistence upon it has been a serious obstacle to union progress." Letter of September 6, 1910, to Lawrence F. Abbott of the Outlook. On another occasion he wrote, "But the American people should not, and will not, accept unionism if it involves the closed shop. They will not consent to the exchange of the tyranny of the employer for the tyranny of the employee." Letter of February 26, 1912, to Lincoln Steffens.
In summing up his views on unionism, he said:
"It is not true that the success of a labor union necessarily means a perfect monopoly. The union, in order to attain or preserve for its members industrial liberty, must be strong and stable. It need not include every member of the trade. Indeed, it is desirable for both the employer and the union that it should not. Absolute power leads to excesses and to weakness. Neither our character nor our intelligence can long bear the strain of unrestricted power. The union attains success when it reaches the ideal condition, and the ideal condition for a union is to be strong and stable, and yet to have in the trade outside its own ranks an appreciable number of men who are non-unionists. In any free community the diversity of character, of beliefs, of taste -- indeed mere selfishness -- will insure such a supply, if the enjoyment of this privilege of individualism is protected by law. Such a nucleus of unorganized labor will check oppression by the union as the union checks oppression by the employer." Quoted from Louis D. Brandeis' contribution to a discussion, entitled "Peace With Liberty and Justice," in 2 Nat. Civic Federation Rev. No. 2, pages 1, 16 (May 15, 1905).
Mr. Brandeis on the long view deemed the preferential shop a more reliable form of security both for unions and for society than the closed shop; that he did so only serves to prove that these are pragmatic issues not appropriate for dogmatic solution.
Whatever one may think of Mr. Brandeis' views, they have been reinforced by the adoption of laws insuring against that undercutting of union standards which was one of the most serious effects of a dissident minority in a union shop. Under Interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act undisturbed by the Taft-Hartley Act, and of the Railway Labor Act, the bargaining representative designated by a majority of employees has exclusive power to deal with the employer on matters of wages and working conditions. Individual contracts, whether on more or less favorable terms than those obtained by the union, are barred. J. I. Case Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 321 U.S. 332, 88 L. Ed. 762, 64 S. Ct. 576; Order of Telegraphers v. Railway Exp. Agency, 321 U.S. 342, 88 L. Ed. 788, 64 S. Ct. 582; Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. National Labor Relations Bd. 321 U.S. 678, 88 L. Ed. 1007, 64 S. Ct. 830; see Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 737, note 35, 89 L. Ed. 1886, 1902, 65 S. Ct. 1282. Under these laws, a nonunion bidder for a job in a union shop cannot, if he would, undercut the union standards.
Even where the social undesirability of a law may be convincingly urged, invalidation of the law by a court debilitates popular democratic government. Most laws dealing with economic and social problems are matters of trial and error. That which before trial appears to be demonstrably bad may belie prophecy in actual operation. It may not prove good, but it may prove innocuous.
But even if a law is found wanting on trial, it is better than its defects should be demonstrated and removed than that the law should be aborted by judicial flat. Such an assertion of judicial power deflects responsibility from those on whom in a democratic society it ultimately rests -- the people. If the proponents of union-security agreements have confidence in the arguments addressed to the Court in their "economic brief," they should address those arguments to the electorate. Its endorsement would be a vindication that the mandate of this Court would never give.
I invite the attention of the Senator from Maine to that last brief sentence reading:
If the proponents of union-security agreements have confidence in the arguments addressed to the Court in their economic brief, they should address those arguments to the electorate. Its endorsement would be a vindication that the mandate of this Court could never give.
That is from the Supreme Court of the United States, written by one of the most liberal judges, and, I suppose, one of the most forward-thinking judges we have had. He came from the Senator's section of the country -- Justice Frankfurter.
Now, before the Senator breaks in--
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I wish to make a statement. The Senator is going to say that action by the U.S. Congress would be action of the electorate. However, I say that it was intended, and has been said, that each law enacted by Congress is something that belongs to the States. Therefore, when he speaks of the electorate, he really speaks of the electorate of the States. The Court does not say that. I am saying it.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator and his colleagues have confidence in the merits of the argument they are advancing, they should let the Senate vote on it.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The voting should be done in the State legislatures. If it seems desirable to repeal a right-to-work law, let the State that enacted it into law repeal it.
Mr. MUSKIE. But the States cannot vote on the proposal sought to be brought before us.
Mr. SPARKMAN. They cannot vote on this, but they can vote
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator has confidence in the merits of his argument, he should let the Senate vote on it.