DOCSLIB.ORG

Congress and the Cold War

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congress and the Cold War JohnsonCongress and the Cold War Survey Article Congress and the Cold War C Robert David Johnson n1990 SenatorDaniel PatrickMoynihan causticallyobserved that “theneglect I ofcongressional historyis something ofa scandal ofAmerican scholarship.”1 Thehistoriography of American foreign relations forthe most partcon rms Moynihan’sobservation. Insufcient attention to congressional inuence hasyielded adistortedperspective, especially inworksdealing with theCold War.Many fundamental questions regardingthe legislature’ srole in theformation and implementation ofpostwar U.S. foreignpolicy remainun- explored. Although some ofthese questions do not yield themselves toan in- tensive exploration ofcongressional inuence, any workfocusing on theU.S. foreignpolicy decision-making process oron domestic ideological debates cannot omit the role of Congress. Thetendency tooverlook Congress hasstemmed frommany factors.For one thing, historiographicaldevelopments haveconspired againsta promi- nent place forthe legislature. Theearly luminaries ofdiplomatic history,such asSamuel FlaggBemis, Dexter Perkins, and ArthurWhitaker, focused their researchon thepresidency ,theState Department, and theforeign ministries ofthe countries with which the United Statesinteracted. In addition, ortho- dox historianstended toframe their questions in awaythat allowed themto avoid inquiringinto thetype ofdomestic political, constitutional, and legisla- tive disputes in whichCongress traditionally hasplayed amajorrole. Bemis’s book on Jay’sTreaty,whichends beforethe highly chargeddebate in the House ofRepresentatives in 1795–1796 on thetreaty’ simplementation, exemplies thepattern. Moreover, thetraditionalist historians concentrated mainly on thediplomacy ofthe early republic, whenthe power of Congress as awholewas relatively weakand thebody played acomparatively minor role in foreignpolicy . 2 Thisapproach was perhaps unsurprising given therealpoli- tik tenor ofU.S. foreignpolicy during thelate eighteenth and earlynine- teenthcenturies, but itunduly inuenced theCold Warinterpretations of- 1.Daniel Patrick Moynihan, On theLaw of Nations (Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1990), p. 50. 2.Onthe weakness of Congress duringthe early republic, see JamesSterling Y oung, The Washington Community, 1800–1828 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966). Journal of Cold War Studies Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring 2001, pp. 76–100 © 2001 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 76 Congress and the Cold War feredby orthodox historians.For instance, Herbert Feis, perhapsthe most prolic and certainlythe most insightfulof the early Cold Warscholars, fo- cused almost exclusively on state-to-staterelations in hisattempt to explain and assign responsibility for the origins of the Cold War. 3 Although revisionist historianshave sought to distinguish themselves fromtraditionalists by exploring therelationship between domestic forcesand theconduct ofU.S. foreignpolicy ,theytoo haverarely delved into theactivi - tiesof Congress. Concentrating instead on thein uence ofmore broadly based economic orideological interestsassociated with the U.S. economy’s capitaliststructure, they have generally treatedthe U.S. government asa monolithic actor.For example, TheNew Empire, WalterLaFeber’ sstudy of Gilded Age foreignrelations, essentially ignores thecongressional anti- expansionist coalition thatfrustrated almost all ofthe executive-sponsored initiatives thatthe volume details, including William Seward’sattemptto pur- chasethe Danish WestIndies, Ulysses Grant’sschemeto annex theDomini- canRepublic, and theFrelinghuysen-Zavala treatywith Nicaragua. The revi- sionist worksthat do include Congress—such as William Appleman Williams’s TheRoots of American Empire —almost alwaysminimize congres- sional inuence. Williams does not treatCongress asan independent actor, but simply asasourceof quotations that sustain hisargument on theconsen- sus supposedly behind Americaneconomic expansion. Standardrevisionist interpretationsof the early stages of the Cold War,suchas worksby LaFeber and Gabriel Kolko, sharelittle withFeis apart from a tendency tobypass Con- gressand tofocus on theexecutive branchas the key tounderstanding the U.S. approach to the Cold War. 4 Asimilarpattern of relegating Congress totheperiphery has character- izedthe reinvigorated debates now wagedover U.S. foreignpolicy and the earlyCold War.Except forthe typical obliging referencesto SenatorArthur Vandenberg, most worksthat fall into thecategory of postrevisionism give 3.See,for example,the three works bySamuelFlagg Bemis, The Diplomacyof theAmerican Revolution (New York:D. Appleton-Century,1935); Jay’s Treaty,a Study in Commerceand Diplomacy (New York: Macmillan,1923); Pinckney’s Treaty:A Study ofAmerica’s Advantage fromEurope ’s Distress,1783– 1800 (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1926);Dexter Perkins, The MonroeDoctrine, 3 vols. (Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1927);Arthur Whitaker, The Mississippi Question:A Study inTrade,Politics, and Diplomacy (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1934);and The UnitedStates and theIndependence ofLatin America,1800– 1830 (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Univer- sity Press, 1941). 4.WilliamAppleman Williams, The Rootsof theModern American Empire:A Study oftheGrowth and Shaping ofSocial Consciousness in aMarketplaceSociety (New York:Random House, 1969);Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (Cleveland:Globe Publishing Company, 1959); W alterLaFeber, The NewEmpire: An Interpretationof American Expansion, 1860–1898 (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1961);and Gabriel Kolko, The Politicsof War:The Worldand UnitedStates Foreign Policy (New York:Random House, 1968).For acritiqueof revisionismon this issue, see DavidPletcher, “ Carib- bean `Empire,’ Planned and Improvised,” Diplomatic History, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Fall 1990), p. 458. 77 Johnson shortshrift to the complexities ofsecuring congressional support fornovel and expensive initiatives, including the1946 loan toGreat Britain, the Mar- shall Plan of1947, thecreation of the national securitystate, and thefunding ofthe remarkable expansion ofthe defense establishment afterthe outbreak of theKorean W ar.Congress virtually never appearsin thework of John Lewis Gaddisor other leading postrevisionists. Melvyn Lefer’ s Preponderance of Power justiably attractedwidespread praise, but it, like thepioneering works ofrevisionism and postrevisionism ofthe 1960s and 1970s, focusesalmost ex- clusively on theexecutive branch. Indeed, thebook’ sbibliography includes only one congressional manuscriptcollection, thatof H. Alexander Smithof NewJersey— athoughtful, moderate Republican. Moreover,reecting the sharedbias oftraditionalists, revisionists, and postrevisionists alike, no promi- nent review of the volume mentioned this oversight. 5 Among recentstudies ofU.S. foreignrelations, FredrikLogevall’ s ChoosingW ar, whichexplores U.S. policy towardVietnam from mid-1963 to mid-1965, demonstratesthe bene ts of incorporating the congressional per- spective. Logevall’smeticulously researchedvolume combines substantial dis- cussion ofthe international perspective ofthe war with an equally detailed analysis ofthe political and legislative situationthat confronted Lyndon John- son. Logevall not only offersextensive coverageof the congressional role in thewar, but also uses thewidespread skepticism inCongress about theJohn- son administration’spolicy tostrengthen his argument that the administra- tion and Johnson himself deliberately chosewar ,spurning alternativessuch as negotiation orneutralization. It is encouragingto see thatsome younger scholarsare also beginning topay more attentionto therole ofCongress. An- drewJohns, one ofLogevall’sstudents, hasbeen studying theattitudes of con- gressional Republicans towardVietnam, and JeffreyBass has recently pro- vided the rstsustained analysis ofthe views espoused not merely by anti-war Democrats but by the entire Senate Democratic caucus. 6 Practicalreasons havecontributed totheweak coverage of Congress. Un- like materialhoused inthevarious presidential libraries ordocuments from otherexecutive agenciessorted in theNational Archives, congressional ar- chives arespread out across the country ,usually in thehome statesof the vari- ous senatorsand representatives. Graduatestudents facingdecisions about possible dissertationtopics, and even senior scholars, understandably prefer 5.MelvynLef er, APreponderanceof Power:National Security, The Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992). 6.Fredrik Logevall, Choosing War:The LostChance forPeace and theEscalation of War in Vietnam (Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress, 1999);and Jeffrey Bass, “Wellspringof aConnecticutCru- sader:Thomas J.Dodd andthe Nuremberg Trial,” ConnecticutHistory, Vol.37, No. 1 (Spring 1996), pp. 31–45. 78 Congress and the Cold War themore centralized access that presidential librariesafford. T rips tomany out-of-the-wayarchives can be expensive and inconvenient. Toinvestigate even ten ofthe senators most activeon foreignpolicy issues during the 1960s—J.William Fulbright, RichardRussell, FrankChurch, W ayne Morse, GeorgeMcGovern, ErnestGruening, Henry Jackson, John Tower,John Stennis, and StuartSymington— ascholar would haveto travelto theUniver- sitiesof Arkansas, Georgia,Oregon, Washington, Alaska-Fairbanks, and Mis - souri, Boise StateUniversity ,Mississippi StateUniversity ,Southwestern (Texas) University,and Princeton University.Moreover, therewould be no
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Truman, Congress and the Struggle for War and Peace In
    TRUMAN, CONGRESS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR WAR AND PEACE IN KOREA A Dissertation by LARRY WAYNE BLOMSTEDT Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2008 Major Subject: History TRUMAN, CONGRESS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR WAR AND PEACE IN KOREA A Dissertation by LARRY WAYNE BLOMSTEDT Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Terry H. Anderson Committee Members, Jon R. Bond H. W. Brands John H. Lenihan David Vaught Head of Department, Walter L. Buenger May 2008 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT Truman, Congress and the Struggle for War and Peace in Korea. (May 2008) Larry Wayne Blomstedt, B.S., Texas State University; M.S., Texas A&M University-Kingsville Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Terry H. Anderson This dissertation analyzes the roles of the Harry Truman administration and Congress in directing American policy regarding the Korean conflict. Using evidence from primary sources such as Truman’s presidential papers, communications of White House staffers, and correspondence from State Department operatives and key congressional figures, this study suggests that the legislative branch had an important role in Korean policy. Congress sometimes affected the war by what it did and, at other times, by what it did not do. Several themes are addressed in this project. One is how Truman and the congressional Democrats failed each other during the war. The president did not dedicate adequate attention to congressional relations early in his term, and was slow to react to charges of corruption within his administration, weakening his party politically.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Russell, the Senate Armed Services Committee & Oversight of America’S Defense, 1955-1968
    BALANCING CONSENSUS, CONSENT, AND COMPETENCE: RICHARD RUSSELL, THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE & OVERSIGHT OF AMERICA’S DEFENSE, 1955-1968 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Joshua E. Klimas, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor David Stebenne, Advisor Professor John Guilmartin Advisor Professor James Bartholomew History Graduate Program ABSTRACT This study examines Congress’s role in defense policy-making between 1955 and 1968, with particular focus on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), its most prominent and influential members, and the evolving defense authorization process. The consensus view holds that, between World War II and the drawdown of the Vietnam War, the defense oversight committees showed acute deference to Defense Department legislative and budget requests. At the same time, they enforced closed oversight procedures that effectively blocked less “pro-defense” members from influencing the policy-making process. Although true at an aggregate level, this understanding is incomplete. It ignores the significant evolution to Armed Services Committee oversight practices that began in the latter half of 1950s, and it fails to adequately explore the motivations of the few members who decisively shaped the process. SASC chairman Richard Russell (D-GA) dominated Senate deliberations on defense policy. Relying only on input from a few key colleagues – particularly his protégé and eventual successor, John Stennis (D-MS) – Russell for the better part of two decades decided almost in isolation how the Senate would act to oversee the nation’s defense.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan the UNIVERSITY of OKLAHOMA
    This dissertation has been 65-12,998 microfilmed exactly as received MATHENY, David Leon, 1931- A COMPAEISON OF SELECTED FOREIGN POLICY SPEECHES OF SENATOR TOM CONNALLY. The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1965 ^eech-Theater University Microfilms. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE A COMPARISON OP SELECTED FOREIGN POLICY SPEECHES OF SENATOR TOM CONNALLY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY DAVID LEON MATHENY Norman, Oklahoma 1965 A COMPARISON OP SELECTED FOREXON POLICY SPEECHES OP SENATOR TOM CONNALLY APPROVED BY L-'iJi'Ui (^ A -o ç.J^\AjLôLe- DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express thanks to Professor Wayne E. Brockriede and members of the University of Oklahoma Speech Faculty for guidance during the preparation of this dissertation. A special word of thanks should go to Profes­ sor George T. Tade and the Administration of Texas Christian University for encouragement during the latter stages of the study and to the three M's — Mary, Melissa and Melanie — for great understanding throughout the entire project. TABLE OP CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................... Ill Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ......................... 1 Purpose of the S t u d y ..................... 6 Previous Research......................... 8 Sources of Material....................... 9 Method of Organization ................... 10 II. CONNALLY, THE SPEAKER....................... 12 Connally's Non-Congresslonal Speaking Career.......... 12 General Attributes of Connally's Speaking............................... 17 Conclusion . ........................... 31 III. THE NEUTRALITY ACT DEBATE, 1939............. 32 Connally's Audience for the Neutrality Act Debate.............. 32 The Quest for Neutrality ............ 44 The Senate, Connally and Neutrality.
    [Show full text]
  • Civilian Involvement in the 1990-91 Gulf War Through the Civil Reserve Air Fleet Charles Imbriani
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2012 Civilian Involvement in the 1990-91 Gulf War Through the Civil Reserve Air Fleet Charles Imbriani Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE CIVILIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE 1990-91 GULF WAR THROUGH THE CIVIL RESERVE AIR FLEET By CHARLES IMBRIANI A Dissertation submitted to the Interdisciplinary Program in the Humanities in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2012 Charles Imbriani defended this dissertation on October 4, 2012. The members of the supervisory committee were: Peter Garretson Professor Directing Dissertation Jonathan Grant University Representative Dennis Moore Committee Member Irene Zanini-Cordi Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to Fred (Freddie) Bissert 1935-2012. I first met Freddie over forty years ago when I stared working for Pan American World Airways in New York. It was twenty-two year later, still with Pan Am, when I took a position as ramp operations trainer; and Freddie was assigned to teach me the tools of the trade. In 1989 while in Berlin for training, Freddie and I witnessed the abandoning of the guard towers along the Berlin Wall by the East Germans. We didn’t realize it then, but we were witnessing the beginning of the end of the Cold War.
    [Show full text]
  • Frank Church, And/ Or United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, And/Or U.S
    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000 FOIA Case: 84652B 11 July 2017 JOHN GREENEWALD Dear Mr. Greenewald: This is our final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of 7 June 2016 for Intellipedia pages on the Church Committee, and/ or Frank Church, and/ or United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, and/or U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. A copy of your request is enclosed. In our initial response to you, dated 8 June 2016, we informed you that this request was assigned case number 84652 and that there are no assessable fees for this request. We provided you with two responsive documents on 12 August 2016 and informed you that we continued to work on your case. The final responsive documents are enclosed. This Agency is authorized by statute to protect certain information concerning its activities (in this case, internal URLs) as well as the names of its employees. Such information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the third exemption of the FOIA, which provides for the withholding of information specifically protected from disclosure by statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of American Political Institutions
    THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS Department of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University AS.190.632 Spring 2021 Tuesdays, 2:00 PM Adam Sheingate Daniel Schlozman [email protected] [email protected] Office hours by appointment Office hours by appointment This course explores institutional development in American national politics, from the Founding until the present. It traces parties, Congress, the presidency, bureaucracy, and courts, and also examines how those institutions have interacted with one another, and shaped and been shaped by the mass public, across American history. Throughout the course, we will consider how ideas, interests, procedures, and sequence together shape institutions as they collide and abrade over time. Finally, although it hardly covers the entire corpus across the subfield, the course is also designed to prepare students to sit for comprehensive examinations in American politics. While the authors come from a variety of theoretical vantage points, combining classic and newer readings, this course is, in a sense, a very traditional one. We examine the formal sites where power is exercised, and the political elites who exercise it. By the end of the semester, you should have a better sense of the virtues – and limits – of such an approach. For three classes, you will write short (up to 5 pages) papers, succinctly bringing together the reading for a particular week. Avoid summary. Instead, specify the core theoretical, methodological, or interpretive issues at stake, and make clear how the various authors have approached them. Papers should be circulated via e-mail to the entire class by 4PM on Monday.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting the Jackson Legacy Peter Beinart
    Henry M. Jackson Foundation 1501 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1580 Seattle, Washington 98101-3225 Telephone: 206.682.8565 Fax: 206.682.8961 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.hmjackson.org Henry M. Jackson Foundation TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY LECTURE nterpreting the JacksonI Legacy in a Post-9/11 Landscape By Peter Beinart About the Foundation Since its establishment in 1983, the Henry M. Jackson Foundation has been dedicated to helping nonprofit organizations and educational institutions in the United States and Russia. The Foundation’s grants provide essential support and seed funding for new initiatives that offer promising models for replication and address critical issues in four areas in which the late Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson played a key leadership role during his forty-three- year tenure in the United States Congress: Inter- national Affairs Education, Environment and Nat- ural Resources Management, Public Service, and Human Rights. About this Publication On the occasion of its twenty-fifth anniversary, the Henry M. Jackson Foundation hosted a dinner and conversation at the National Press Club in Wash- ington, D.C.. Journalist Peter Beinart was invited to share his thoughts on the Jackson legacy and the Foundation’s commemorative publication, The Nature of Leadership, Lessons from an Exemplary Statesman. Foundation Executive Director Lara Iglitzin served as moderator for the discussion that followed his remarks. nterpreting the JacksonI Legacy in a Post-9/11 Landscape WASHINGTON, D.C. • SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 y y Connoll r y Har Photo b PETER BEINART Peter Beinart is a senior fellow at The Council on Foreign Relations. He is also editor-at-large of The New Republic, a Time contributor, and a monthly columnist for The Washington Post.
    [Show full text]
  • Congress' Power of the Purse
    Congress' Power of the Purse Kate Stitht In view of the significance of Congress' power of the purse, it is surprising that there has been so little scholarly exploration of its contours. In this Arti- cle, Professor Stith draws upon constitutional structure, history, and practice to develop a general theory of Congress' appropriationspower. She concludes that the appropriationsclause of the Constitution imposes an obligation upon Congress as well as a limitation upon the executive branch: The Executive may not raise or spend funds not appropriatedby explicit legislative action, and Congress has a constitutional duty to limit the amount and duration of each grant of spending authority. Professor Stith examinesforms of spending authority that are constitutionally troubling, especially gift authority, through which Congress permits federal agencies to receive and spend private contri- butions withoutfurther legislative review. Other types of "backdoor" spending authority, including statutory entitlements and revolving funds, may also be inconsistent with Congress' duty to exercise control over the size and duration of appropriations.Finally, Professor Stith proposes that nonjudicial institu- tions such as the General Accounting Office play a larger role in enforcing and vindicating Congress' power of the purse. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF APPROPRIATIONS 1346 A. The Constitutional Prerequisitesfor Federal Gov- ernment Activity 1346 B. The Place of Congress' Power To Appropriate in the Structure of the Constitution 1348 C. The Constitutional Function of "Appropriations" 1352 D. The Principlesof the Public Fisc and of Appropria- tions Control 1356 E. The Power to Deny Appropriations 1360 II. APPROPRIATIONS CONTROL: THE LEGISLATIVE FRAME- WORK 1363 t Associate Professor of Law, Yale Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986
    Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Steven T. Wills June 2012 © 2012 Steven T. Wills. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwtaer Nichols Act of 1986 by STEVEN T. WILLS has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by Ingo Traushweizer Assistant Professor of History Howard Dewald Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT WILLS, STEVEN T., M.A., June 2012, History Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 Director of Thesis: Ingo Traushweizer The Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 was the most comprehensive defense reorganization legislation in a generation. It has governed the way the United States has organized, planned, and conducted military operations for the last twenty five years. It passed the Senate and House of Representatives with margins of victory reserved for birthday and holiday resolutions. It is praised throughout the U.S. defense establishment as a universal good. Despite this, it engendered a strong opposition movement organized primarily by Navy Secretary John F. Lehman but also included members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prominent Senators and Congressman, and President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger. This essay will examine the forty year background of defense reform movements leading to the Goldwater Nichols Act, the fight from 1982 to 1986 by supporters and opponents of the proposed legislation and its twenty-five year legacy that may not be as positive as the claims made by the Department of Defense suggest.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 1153
    Calendar No. 1153 93D CONGR'ESSB RE..... 2d Session fSENATE No. 93-1217 DEEPWATER PORT ACT OF 1974 JOINT REPORT OF THE COMMITTEES ON COMMERCE; INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS; AND PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE TOGETHER WITH ADDITIO-AL VIEWS TO ACC03PANY S. 4706 OCTOBER2, 1974.-Ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 39-142 WASHINGTON t 1974 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE WARREN 0. MAGNUSON, Washington, Chairman JOHN 0. PASTORE, Rhode Island NO RRIS COTTON, New Hampshire VANCE HARTKE, Indiana JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas PHILIP A. HART, Michigan ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Teaness RUSSELL B. LONG, Lonisiana MARLOW W. COOK, Kentarky FRANK E. MOSS, Utah TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina J. GLENN BEALL, JR., Maryland DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN V. TUNNEY, California ADLAI E. STEVENSON III, Illinois FREDEsCKJ. LORDAN,StafDirector MICHAELPaRTScUN, Chief Cannel JAES P. WALSH,Staff Connet JOHNF. HOaSEY,Professional SiaffMcniber ARTHURPANxoPr, Jr., Minority Staff Director EARn E. COSTELLO,Minority ProfesionalStaff Metaber COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chaiman ALAN BIBLE, Nevada PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona FRANK CHURCH, Idaho CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming LEE METCALF, Montana MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, JR., Louisiana JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho FLOYD K. HASKELL, Colorado DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio JERRYT. VERKLER,SaffDiretor WI.tao J. VAR NaS, Chie" Canners C. SaZANa REED,Pmofesaional Staff Membr D. MICHAELHARVEY, Spetiat CoUnd HARRISONLOosm, Minoritp Conned ROIA SKEEN,Minority Staff Asiatant (m) III COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman EDMUND S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Packwood Oral History About Bob Dole
    This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu ROBERT J. DOLE ORAL HISTORY PROJECT Interview with Sen. BOB PACKWOOD July 20, 2007 Interviewer Richard Norton Smith Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics 2350 Petefish Drive Lawrence, KS 66045 Phone: (785) 864-4900 Fax: (785) 864-1414 This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Packwood–07-20–07–p. 2 [Sen. Packwood reviewed this transcript for accuracy of names and dates. Because no changes of substance were made, it is an accurate rendition of the original recording.] Smith: But at his insistence, it’s about more than Senator Dole, and, when we’re done, we hope we’ll have a mosaic that will really amount almost to a history of the modern Senate, and, in a still larger sense, of the political process as it has evolved since Bob Dole came to this town in 1961, for better or worse; and that’s a debatable point. Let me begin by something Senator [John W.] Warner said in yesterday’s [Washington] Post. It was interesting; I think he came to the Senate in ’78. Packwood: Yes. Smith: What year did you Packwood: I was elected in ’68; came in ’69. Smith: Okay. He talked aboutit’s interesting. He talked about, in effect, the good old days as he remembered them, when freshmen were seen but not heard, when you waited until your second year to give your maiden speech, and when you had a handler to sort of guide you through the initiation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vice President in the U.S. Senate: Examining the Consequences of Institutional Design
    The Vice President in the U.S. Senate: Examining the Consequences of Institutional Design. Michael S. Lynch Tony Madonna Asssistant Professor Assistant Professor University of Kansas University of Georgia [email protected] [email protected] January 25, 2010∗ ∗The authors would like to thank Scott H. Ainsworth, Stanley Bach, Ryan Bakker, Sarah A. Binder, Jamie L. Carson, Michael H. Crespin, Keith L. Dougherty, Trey Hood, Andrew Martin, Ryan J. Owens and Steven S. Smith for comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Madonna also thanks the University of Georgia American Political Development working group for support and comments, and Rachel Snyder for helpful research assistance. All errors remain the authors. Abstract The constitutional designation of the vice president as the president of the United States Senate is a unique feature of the chamber. It places control over the Senate's rules and precedents under an individual who is not elected by the chamber and receives no direct benefits from the maintenance of its institutions. We argue that this feature of the Senate has played an important, recurring role in its development. The vice president has frequently acted in a manner that conflicted with the wishes chamber majorities. Consequently, the Senate has developed rules and precedents that insulate the chamber from its presiding officer. These actions have made the Senate a less efficient chamber, but have largely freed it from the potential influence of the executive branch. We examine these arguments using a mix of historical and contemporary case studies, as well as empirical data on contentious rulings on questions of order.
    [Show full text]