Roll Call Vote on 1964 Civil Rights Act
SENATE INVOKES CLOSURE ON RIGHTS BILL, 71 TO 29, ENDING 75‐DAY FILIBUSTER
See the article in its original context from
June 11, 1964
,
Page
0Buy Reprints
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.
About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times's print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.
WASHINGTON, June 10 —The Senate of the United States invoked closure on the civil rights bill today by a vote of 71 to 29, thus ending a 75‐day filibuster
This was four more votes than were necessary. Under the rules, two‐thirds of the Senators present and voting are required to close debate. This means 67 if all 100 Senators are present. And all 100 were present today.
Closure imposed, the Senate immediately began debate on amendments. Under the clothe rule, each Senator is allowed to speak for one hour before the bill is brought to a final vote.
The hour includes all amendments and the bill itself.
With Mike Mansfield of Mon‐ tans and Everitt McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, the Democratic and Republican leaders, in firm control of their forces, the Senate proceeded to overwhelm two of the toughest Southern amendments before it recessed just before 6 P.M.
Funds Cut‐Off Upheld
By a vote of 59 to. 40, the Senate defeated an amendment offered by Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia, leader of the Southern forces, which would have postponed until Nov. 15, 1965, the effective date of the ban on discrimination in public accommodations.
Then, by a vote of 69 to 25, it brushed aside a proposal by Senator Albert Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, to strike from the bill altogether the provision permitting the Federal Government to cut off funds from programs administered in a discriminatory manner by local governments.
President Johnson broke into his prepared remarks before the Presidential scholars in the East Room of the White House tonight to comment on the closure vote.
"Today's action," he said, "demonstrates that the national will manifests itself in Congressional action."
The Senate vote, he went on, represents "a major contribution to meet a national responsibility."
President Hails Action
The vote on closure was historic. The filibuster had been the longest since the closure rule was adopted in 1917.
Eleven tines before proponents of civil rights tills had tried to close off a Southern filibuster. Never had they succeeded.
The session began at 10 A.M., and the rules required that voting begin after a quorum call one hour later.
The galleries were crowded, and most of the Senators were in their seats as Mr. Mansfield rose to speak.
"The Senate," he said, "now stands at the crossroads of his₭
He was followed by Senator Russell, who charged that the bill infringed constitutional and property rights. The bill simply involves a political question and not "amoral issue," he said.
Then Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, Democratic floor manager of the bill, recalled Henry V's speech to his men before Agincourt when he told them they would ever remember that they "fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day."
Senator Dirksen wound up. Civil rights, he declared, was "an idea whose time has come." "We are confronted with a moral issue," he concluded in a direct challenge to Mr. Russell.
Quorum Quickly Reached
At 11:02 the quorum call began, and a quorum of 51 was quickly obtained. The chair stated the motion—that it was the sense of the Senate that de‐bate should be closed on H.R. 7152. The clerk began to call the roll—"Aiken, Allott, Ander‐son, Bartlett."
The galleries were hushed. The Senators kept their tallies.
"I never heard the chamber so silent," Senator Mansfield said later.
As the clerk reached the name of John J. Williams of Delaware and a soft "aye" was heard, a sign swept across the floor from the proponents of the bill.
Mr. William's was the 67th vote for closure.
The real story, however, had taken place late last night and early this morning.
About 7:30 last night, Mr. Humphrey called President Johnson and told him he had "66 soldiers for closure."
This was one short. However, the leaders had in reserve two, and possible three, votes of members who had never voted for closure and were reluctant to, but would if those votes were needed.
As it turned out, they were not needed. Overnight Mr. Humphrey received assurances from two Democrats, J. Howard Edmondson of Oklahoma and Ralph W. Yarborough of Texas, and from two Republicans, Carl T. Curtis of Nebraska and John J. Williams of Delaware, that their votes could be counted on.
Then this morning, before the session began, Howard W. Cannon, Democrat of Nevada, told Mr. Humphrey that he would support closure. It was the first time an elected Nevada Senator had voted for closure.
Mr. Cannon told reporters:
"I just felt we had to bring an end to this matter after a reasonable time and get on with the business of the Senate."
There were reports, however, that organized labor back home had put considerable pressure on Mr. Cannon.
The division on the closure motion was 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans for, and 231 Democrats and 6 Republicans against.
More Votes Than Needed
When debate first began, the bipartisan leadesrhip figured that the Democrats would have to supply 42 votes and the Republicans 25. Thus each party supplied two more than its target.
Carl Hayden, Democrat of Arizona who is the oldest man in the Senate, came out of the cloakroom after the roll had been completed but before the result had been announced.
He has never voted for clostire and he said, "no," this time, too.
But there were reports that lie would have either voted "aye" or reduced the number needed by one by absenting himself, if closure had depended on it.
Among Republicans voting for closure were several who had successfully demanded of the leadership that three amendments be voted on yesterday before the closure test. They were apparently satisfied that these amendments had been given consideration, though only one of them was passed — a guarantee of jury trials in criminal contempt proceedings under all titles of the act except the voting title.
Senator Mansfield gave credit today to Mr. Dirksen and Mr. Humphrey.
However, Senator Russell said:
"Lyndon Johnson had more to do with this than any one man."
Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, leading contender for the Republican Presidential nomination, was careful to pro‐ tect whatever bases he has in the South because of resentment there of the civil rights bill.
Not only did he vote againsti closure, which was expected, but he also voted for the Russell amendment to delay for more than a year the effectiveness of the title banning discrimination in public accommodations. This, too, occasioned little stirprise, because Mr.Goldwater had reservations about this title on the ground that it involved Federal intervention in local affairs.
However, there was surprise when Mr.Goldwater did not turn up to vote on the amendment to strike the title banning discrimination in federally assisted programs.
Hitherto, Mr Goldwater has taken the position that there should be no discrimination where Federal tax money was involved.
The breakdown on the Russell amendments was 40 Democrats
The division on the Gore amendment to strike Title VII was 42 Democrats and 27 Re‐ publicans against, and 21 Dem‐ ocrats and 4 Republicans in favor.
Mr. Mansfield's opening speech was simply a reading of a letter he received some month ago from a 29‐year‐old white woman in Montana, the mother of four children. She wrote:
"At night, when I kiss my children goodnight, I offer a small prayer of thanks to God for making them so perfect, so healthy, so lovely, and I find myself tempted to thank Him for letting them be born white Then I am not so proud, neither of myself nor of our society which forces such a temptation upon us.
"I wish there was something I could do in this issue. The only way I know how to start is to educate my children that justice and freedom and ambi‐tion are not merely privileges, hut their birthrights. I must try to impress upon them that these rights must be given, not held tightly unto themselves, for what cannot be given, we do not really have for ourselves."
Mr. Russell said that the fact this mother had mentioned in her letter a number of Negroes who had achieved prominence showed "that there is no insuperable barrier" to the advancement of the Negro race.
However, he went on, the bill "would take away from those who have and divide it among those who have not."
Mr. Dirksen said that much had happened since the Supreme Court struck down in 1883 a law passed in 1875 banning discrimination in public accommodations.
Nothing, he said, is eternal but change, and America has changed.
"It is an integrated nation. Air, rails and highway transportation make it so. A common language makes it so. A tax pattern which applies equally to white and nonwhite makes it so. Literacy makes it so."
Furthermore, he said, turning to his colleagues, the Republican party had had strong civil rights planks in its platform for many years.
"Were these promises on civil rights but idle words for vote‐getting purposes or were they a convenant to be kept?" he asked.
This article can be viewed in its original form . Please send questions and feedback to archive_feedback@nytimes.com
Roll Call Vote on 1964 Civil Rights Act
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1964/06/11/senate-invokes-closure-on-rights-bill-71-to-29-ending-75day-filibuster.html
0 Response to "Roll Call Vote on 1964 Civil Rights Act"
Post a Comment