presented until all the Senators have exhausted all legitimate debate on the question and more especially since no motion could possibly carry unless they had. The history of debate in the Senate is such, too, I think, it would convince any fair-minded person that the Senators are not going to close debate if they feel that there is legitimate debate still on the question, except in the case of an emergency. I think, for instance, if a question of war were the question before the Senate, that might have a different bearing on it because there under present conditions you simply could not permit the Senate to debate it, have all the legitimate debate on it, because they could legitimately debate the question of war for many days, as anyone knows. That is the only possible question I can see which would permit closing a debate before legitimate debate has been exhausted.

Senator IVES. Well, as a matter of fact the progress of science almost makes the question of war undebatable, does it not?

Mr. HADDOCK. Yes, it does; it is ispo facto. As a matter of fact we were in the last war before it was declared by the Senate and by the Congress. I do not think there is anyone who will question that. It is an actual fact. We were at war.

Those are the only questions that I wanted to emphasize.

Senator HAYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the gentleman a few questions. I have before me a copy of the CIO News, a weekly publication of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the February 3, 1947, issue. On the back page in a box, there are references to certain bills that have been introduced in both Houses of Congress, the heading, "Keep Your Eye on Congress," from which I read:

Listed in this box are just a few of the more important bills which have been filed since the Eightieth Congress convened. Hearings on antilabor proposals have opened before the Senate Labor Committee, and the committee is apt to combine sections of the various bills into one omnibus proposal. Watch this box for future details.

The legislative proposals listed are nine in number. First, Senate 49 and Senate 70, Capehart and Wiley bills, and H. R. 589, the Gwynne bill, and under the heading or subheading "What It Does," appears the following:

Bills limit workers' rights to collect on portal-portal suits for "make-ready time" wages; also weaken vital sections of Wage-Hour Act.

And under the subheading "Where It Is":

Senate Judiciary Committee concluding hearings on S. 49, S. 70. House Judiciary hearings open this week on H. R. 589.

And appearing under the last heading "Action":

Write, wire your Senators and Senator Wiley of Judiciary Committee; request that bills be rejected.

And the second proposal is S. 55, the Taft-Ball-Smith antiunion bill. It is stated under the heading "What it does": "Closely follows last year's Case bill. Bars check-off, limits health fund, sets up 60-day cool-off periods, outlaws jurisdictional disputes, and so forth." And the "Action" is to write your Senator and members of the committee to reject the proposal.

98126-47-5

The third proposal, S. 105, Ball antiunion security bill, and the description is: "Outlaws various forms of union security, union shop, and so forth." And the "Action" is: "Send protests to your Senators, to Senator Ball, and members of Senate Labor Committee.

The fourth proposal, Senate 133, Ball antibargaining bill, is described as follows: "Bars any unions from negotiating with employers outside same 'labor marketing area.' Would atomize collective bargaining." Under "Action" the same instruction appears: "Send protests to your Senator, Senator Ball, and members of Senate Labor Committee."

S. 415 is No. 5 on the list, the Hawkes rent-control bill. "What it does: One of several bills on rent control. Extends controls to 1948, but gives 15-percent increase, no controls on new homes." And under "Action": "Write, wire committee and Senators; ask extension of rent control 'as is'."

H. R. 725, the Case bill, comes next. Under "What it does," appears the following: "Revises Wagner Act, permits United States to get injunctions versus unions, permits States to bar union security, and so forth." "Write your Congressman for defeat of this and other versions of the same bill.

1

Then, again, H. R. 17, 34, 68, 75, 76, antistrike bills. "Proposed by five GOP Congressmen. Gives President power to break strikes, compel arbitration." "Action": "Demand defeat as dangerous to national welfare."

The eighth bill to be opposed is: "H. R. 1, the Knutson 'soak-poor' tax bill." Description: Offers 20-percent tax cut; little saving for lowincome families, big profits for wealthy." "Action": "Ask Congressmen to pass bill to place heaviest tax burdens on high incomes." Ninth and last, "Anti-poll-tax bills." Description: "Several versions of bill filed in House to end poll-tax in seven Southern States." "Action": "Ask committee to report out this bill for House vote.”

You will note that of the nine legislative proposals the Congress of Industrial Organizations is opposed to eight and in favor of one. I assume, therefore, that whatever any friend of organized labor could do to defeat each and all of eight proposals as listed you would welcome; upon the other hand, anything that was done to defeat the anti-poll-tax bill you would condemn. Do you believe that Senators who are opposed to the legislation that your organization is against should take advantage of the rules of the Senate to bring about the defeat of such bills?

Mr. HADDOCK. I have an aversion, myself, to anyone taking advantage of any rule, measure, or anything which is at variance with democratic principles, and what I consider to be not only the fundamentals of our own democracy here in the United States but world democracy and peace.

Now, at the risk of being criticized as being pro-Russian I want to recall to your mind that for 2 or 3 months the newspapers and radio and, yes, some of our Senators and Congressmen were castigating Russia for using the veto power. Well, I do not condone minority rule of any kind, but I think it is very short-sighted for people in the United States to whip up a spirit against the Russian position when

in our own Senate, which is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world-and I assume that it is, because I know of none that I would consider better-there. is exercised the veto power of one Senator over another, not occasionally, not when it is with regard to war and peace and the lives of humanity generally, but on any matter that they are interested in.

Senator HAYDEN. Then, you would not want Senators who are opposed to the eight bills that are listed here which the Congress of Industrial Organizations is against, to exercise that kind of a veto? You would rather see the bills passed by Congress than do that?

Mr. HADDOCK. Definitely. I would rather see an "aye and nay" vote on any measure, irrespective of what it is. You do not resolve proposals by dodging them. We have to face proposals, and we certainly have people in the Senate who are mature enough and intelligent enough to honestly face and vote on all questions.

Senator HAYDEN. There is another kind of veto in this country. It was exercised on the Case bill. I have before me an editorial printed in the Washington Post on Sunday, June 2, 1946, when the Case bill was at the White House waiting either approval or disapproval by the President, and this is what the newspaper had to say about it. I read extracts from the editorial:

The Case bill which is now on the President's desk is a catch-all of necessary reforms and retrograde provisions. Such speedy passage of any permanent labor legislation, let alone this, was not at all intended by Mr. Truman.

And, again:

Congress chose to disregard the Presidential plea. Taking up the House Case bill, which had come out of committee with nothing left of it but a revamped proposal for a new mediation board, the Senators tacked on one "tough" amendmen after the other. The House in turn accepted the Senate version with the same alacrity.

Then, further along in the editorial:

In short, the Case bill is full of so much undigested matter that the President, if he is able to get emergency antistrike legislation passed, would be well advised to veto it. Congress should be asked again to give this careful consideration for which Mr. Truman pleaded in this address to Congress.

** * To be sure, the danger is that we might not get any law at all. But the danger is not great enough to permit acquiescence in a bad law, and, if public pressure is maintained, a good law-that is to say, a law which would promote labor peace-could be legislated. Congress should remember that the law exists not to rebuke but to guide the people, and to guide them so that they may live in harmony together.

It is a matter of record that the Congress of Industrial Organizations urged the President to veto the bill, is it not?

Mr. HADDOCK. It definitely is. I know that to be a fact.

Senator HAYDEN. Is it also true that when the bill came up for the second time in the House of Representatives, the Congress of Industrial Organizations urged Representatives to vote against it? Mr. HADDOCK. They did.

Senator HAYDEN. The measure did not obtain the votes of the required two-thirds majority to pass it over the President's veto, and the bill, therefore, failed to become a law?

Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct.

Senator HAYDEN. Do you condone a legislative system which permits a one-third vote to veto a bill?

Mr. HADDOCK. No; I do not condone one-third majority rule, but under our system of government we have that system of lawmaking. Whether those safeguards were adequate as established in the Constitution-looking at it over the over-all years, I would say that they are. There are many instances where I disagree with all of them, frankly.

Senator HAYDEN. The fact remains that, as to the No. 9 proposal on the CIO list, which is the anti-poll-tax bill, you do recommend that the Senate change its rules so that only a majority can pass the bill.

In the instance of the Case bill, however, you say it was entirely all right for one-third of the House of Representatives to prevent its enactment into law.

Mr. HADDOCK. I do not say it is all right. If you want to go to the extent of a constitutional amendment-to change that-that is one thing. I prefaced my remarks by stating we were getting into the whole question here of the concept of our three branches of Government. They are checks upon each other, and they are balances.

Now, whether or not they are correct the question has never been posed to me heretofore, and it is one I would want to think about. After all, the President is elected by all of the people; the Congress cumulatively is elected by all of the people; so that certainly the President should have certain checks upon Congress and Congress should have certain checks upon the President. What those specific relations should be I am not competent to say because I have not studied the question purely

Senator HAYDEN. You realize that historically there were Thirteen Original Colonies, each completely independent of the other. They joined together to form a Union, the United States, and in so doing they reserved to the States certain rights. They particularly reserved to themselves, each one of them, the right to have equal representation in the Senate, as has been well brought out here this afternoon? Mr. HADDOCK. That is right.

Senator HAYDEN. Therefore, it is obvious that a majority of Senators does not necessarily represent a majority of the people of the United States?

Mr. HADDOCK. It is the House which does that.

Senator HAYDEN. The House of Representatives does that, but not in the Senate.

Mr. HADDOCK. As I understand it, theoretically, the Senators are supposed to represent their State interests.

Senator HAYDEN. United States Senators have been called ambassadors from sovereign States, but in truth and in fact they are elected from each State.

Mr. HADDOCK. That is right.

Senator HAYDEN. As has been pointed out this afternoon, Nevada has equal representation with New York, one State having the largest population and the other the smallest population in the Union. So that a majority in the Senate does not necessarily represent a majority of the people in the United States. I wanted to develop the idea that

so far as the Congress of Industrial Organizations is concerned, it has been willing in the past to utilize in opposition to legislation a veto of the President and sustaining of that vote by less than a congressional majority, whereas with respect to legislation favored by the CIO you are inclined to let a majority control. That is not a consistent position, it seems to me.

Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct, and I want to maintain, though, that it is a consistent position as far as I know it. The Congress of Industrial Organizations has always urged the President to veto measures when they felt they were not in the interest of the country. That has been a consistent policy, and it is well within the framework of the Constitution, and it is one of the balances and checks which were established in the Constitution-the President representing all the people and the Congress representing all the people.

Now, the founders of our Constitution decided that the President only represented two-thirds of the people with regard to legislative questions. So they cut him down there now. Maybe it should only be half. Maybe they should have equal powers. I do not know. That is something I, frankly, have not gone into, but I cannot draw any parallel to a veto of the President as compared to a veto of 1 or 5, or, if you mind, 30, or 47 or 48 Senators. I don't think the analogy is an equal one.

Senator HAYDEN. Of course, you are well aware, if you have read the history of debates in the Senate, that many very able Senators have opposed cloture for the reason that they felt that that freedom of debate was the best way in which to protect the rights of the people. One of them was Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin, who I am quite sure you will agree-was a friend of the workers and of organized labor throughout his long political career. I would like to read you what Senator La Follette had to say in the Senate in that regard:

Mr. President, believing that I stand for democracy, for the liberties of the people of this country, for the perpetuation of our institutions, I shall stand while I am a Member of this body against any cloture that denies free and unlimited debate. Sir, the moment that the majority imposes the restriction contained in the pending rule upon this body, that moment you will have dealt a blow to liberty, you will have broken down one of the greatest weapons against wrong and oppression that the Members of this body possess.

This Senate is the only place in our system where no matter what may be the organized power behind any measure to rush its consideration and to compel its adoption, there is a chance to be heard, where there is opportunity to speak at length, and where, if need be, under the Constitution of our country and the rules as they stand today, the constitutional right is reposed in a Member of this body to halt a Congress or a session on a piece of legislation which may undermine the liberties of the people and be in violation of the Constitution which Senators have sworn to support. When you take that power away from Members of this body, you let loose in a democracy forces that in the end will be heard elsewhere, if not here.

Now, I ask you, was Senator La Follette right or wrong?

Mr. HADDOCK. Well, I am not sure that I get all the purport of the meaning of his statement, but basically, if I understand democracy correctly, it means rule by majority. At least that is the concept of it that I understand, and I believe that our Government was founded for the purpose of the majority ruling, and I believe in that system myself. If I am meeting with 20 of my members on a matter of a road, we will say, and 15 of them decide that we should or we should