February 12, 1932

There was no objection.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman. I will consume 10 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this matter, as everyone knows, has been under consideration several times in this body and has been discussed at length. 1 trust that during the discussion · to-day the Members of the House will observe the meaning of the rule and devote themselves to the contents of the proposed amendment.

Let me say that this is a very important constitutional amendment. We have often seen the chaotic condition in the Congress which comes about during the so-called short session, or so-called "lame-duck " session, of the Congress when Members of Congress who have been defeated at the preceding November election take it upon themselves to shackle the Congress in both branches and interfere with, or even prevent, the consideration of important legislation upon which the country wants action. So I regard this as a very important reform and one which should receive the careful attention and thoughtful consideration of all Members.

Let me say that in appearing here to-day on the majority side in charge of the time on this bill, 1 am simply acting in the place of our beloved and esteemed colleague, Mr. Rutherford, of Georgia, who passed away a few days ago. 1 am taking his place at this time, and I want to say that the work on this bill at this session of Congress was done largely by our esteemed and beloved colleague, Mr. Rutherford, of Georgia, before he was called away from us. He labored on the report for the two or three days just prior to his untimely death, and has presented to us a splendid report, which the Members will find very helpful in the consideration of this proposed constitutional amendment.

Let me also say that the material in this report is taken largely from the report compiled last year through the efforts of the then chairman of the committee, now the ranking minority member. the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GIFFORD). Great credit is due to the gentleman from Massachusetts as well as to our late chairman. Mr. Rutherford.

Now, let me try to explain the resolution which is before us. Section 1 of the Senate joint resolution, which is superseded by the language of the Rutherford bill as we have it now, provides that-

The terms of the President .and Vice President shall end at noon on the 15th day of Ja.nua.ry, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 2d day of .January , of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; -and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

We have stricken out all after the enacting clause of the resolution as it passed the Senate and substituted the Rutherford bill, section 1 of which proposes that-

The terms of the President .and Vice President shall end at noon on the 24th day o! January, and the terms of Senators · and Representatives at noon on the 4th day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended i:f this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors Shall then begin. Section 2 of the Senate resolution provides that-

The Congress shall assemble at least once · in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on ~he 2d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

The text of the House bill changes this to January 4 and still carries the proviso - u unless Congress by law appoints a different day." Now, it is on this section that it has been proposed, or suggested, here that an amendment may be offered to place a limiting date on the ending of that evennumbered year session of the Congress.

Now, such a limiting date, I feel, would be a foolish thing for the congress to adopt. Suppose, looking forward '20, 30, or even 50 years, and longer, it develops that Congress actually needs more time each YE"JU' to complete its business we can not foresee what the business of the Nation may ~ 50 years hence, and if they do need more time then they will find that we have shackled them by placing in the constitution of the United States a fixed and certain date beyond which they could not go, save by the calling of a special session of Congress.

And suppose they have down at the other end of the Avenue a Chief Executive who refuses to call the necessary special session of Congress. The Congress must simply go out of existence if such an arbitrary limiting date is placed in the Constitution of the United States. And even if such an amendment should be adopted, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GIFFORD] proposes, the Senate would be in position to absolutely block the House, or the House could block the Senate, because it would require the joint action of both Houses. I think it would be very presumptuous in this Congress to adopt such an arbitrary limiting date to apply for all time to come, because we can not foresee what need may -come up in the .future. We should allow future Congresses to control that for themselves, according to what they, in their own judgment, may then determine to be necessary and wise.

The first sentence of section 3 of the Senate resolution provides that whenever the right of choice of a President devolves upon the House, the Vice President shall act as v President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional ~ disability of the President, if the House has .no~ chosen .a President before the tune fixed for the begmrung of his term. The corresponding provision of the House amend­ ~ent-the .first clause o~ the second senten-ce of section 3- IS broader m that the VICe President elect acts President not only when the House falls to choose a President before the time fixed for the. beginning of. his term but also .in any case where at ~~at time the President fails to qualify ~or any reason. This part ?f the House amendment specifically provides that. the VI~ President 1n such cases acts as President onlY a President has qualified. Th.e Senate resolutiOn on this ~omt fails to state whether the VIce President acts as President for the whole . term or only until a President has been elected or ~as qualified. .

The second sentence of section 3 of the Senate resolution gives Congress the power by law to declare what officer shall act President m a case where the election of the President IS thrown mto the House and that of the VIce ~resIdent IS thrown mto the Senate, and neither the President nor the Vice President . is chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of their terms. ) This includes not only the ease where the failure of both to qualify is caused by the failure of the House to choose a President and the failure of the Senate to choose a Vice President, but also other causes of the failure of both to qualify, such as resignation, death, inability, ineligibility, and so forth. Under the House amendment the law of Congress may declare who shall act as President or the manner of selecting a qualified person to act. The person so acting as President may act only until a President or Vice President has qualified.

Section 4 of the House amendment gives Congress the power to provide by law means by which a President or a Vice President may be selected, when the right of choice devolves upon either body, if any of the , persons from whom the House may choose a President or the Senate may choose a Vice President, as the case may be, has died. There is no corresponding provision in the Senate resolution.

Section 4 of the Sena,te resolution provides that the constitutional amendment shall take effect on the 15th of October after its ratification. Section 5 of the House amendment provides that sections 1 and 2 of the constitutional amendment shall take effect on the 30th of November of the year following the year in which the constitutional amendment is ratified. Under the Senate resolution the provisions relating to the terms of President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives, and the provisions relating to the meeting day of Congress, take effect on the 15th of October next following ratification, whereas under the House amendment such provisions take effect on the 30th of November of the year following the year of ratification. Under the Senate resolution the provisions relating to the contingencies with respect to the filling of the office of President take effect on the 15th of October, following ratification whereas under the House amendment such provisions take effect upon ratification. -

Now, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, your committee has given very careful consideration to this complicated and technical matter, and I feel that we have inserted some very helpful and remedial provisions in the resolution which should be included in the proposed constitutional amendment and submitted to the States for ratification. Permit me to say that we feel that we have put only constructive matter into this resolution.

I believe your committee has given thoughtful attention and careful consideration to the matter, and has presented a resolution which should pass as it is now written. Let us not" muddy the waters" and spoil the chances for the final adoption of this much-needed constitutional amendment by adding unnecessary and unwise amendments to it. [Applause.]

Mr. RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CABLE].

Mr. CABLE. Mr. Chairman, our Constitution contains no provision relative to the beginning of the term of the President. The Constitution was ratified by the ninth State on July 2, 1788, and thereupon · became operative. Thereafter the Continental Congress set" the first Wednesday in March next "-March 4, 1789-as the day Congress should convene and the President should be inaugurated. It happens that the first Wednesday was the 4th of March, and for that reason Congress convenes and a President is inaugurated on March 4. There were reasons then, not existing to-day, for a considerable period of intervention between election and commencement of work by the new Congress. Originally Senators were elected by the legislatures; these legislatures did not convene until January or February. By the seventeenth amendment the Senators are now elected in November . Communication and transportation have greatly improved. The first House did not organize until April 2; the Senate on April 6. Thereafter the electoral votes were counted. It was not until April 30, 1789, that George Washington was inaugurated President. Now there is no reason to wait until March for the convening of Congress. The delay now occasioned by the convening of Congress until December of the following year often causes the expenditure of a large sum of money. For example, we usually have 8 or 10 election contests in the House, and very often a few in the Senate. Thirteen months now intervene until Congress convenes and is ready to consider the contests. If the contestant is finally seated, it means that the taxpayers of this country pay two men for representing that particular district. As proposed by this amendment, Congress shall meet on January 4 following the election. The contested cases will quickly be decided and the rightful holder of the seat will be determined and considerable salary and clerk hire money will be saved.

An important part of this amendment, in my op!nion, is the fact that the majority people have a right to have created quickly into law then· own desires as expressed at the November election. Under our present method, as we all well know, an election occurring in November, the new Congress does not begin to legislate for almost a year and a half. The will of the majority may be denied. The delay of 13 months in convening of Congress prevents a l'lew Member from showing his worth before he must campaign for reelection. He has no record to present to his constituents. But there is an equally important provision in this amendment and that is this--

Mr. GIBSON. Will the gentleman yield right there?

Mr. CABLE. I yield.

Mr. GIBSON. Is it not a fact that Congress, under the Constitution, has the power to fix the date for its meeting?

Mr. CABLE. Congress has the power to fix the date.

Mr. GIBSON. For its assembly?

Mr. CABLE. Yes; but since the term of the President is for 4 years, and of a Member of the House is 2 years, and of a Senator 6 years, the convening of Congress can not be changed except by a constitutional amendment.

Mr. GIBSON. Is it not true that the Congress on various occasions . has fixed some other date than the first Monday in December for assembling?

Mr. CABLE. Congress has that full authority, but the beginning of the term is March 4.

Mr. GIBSON. But has it not fixed a date other than the first Monday in December for convening upon no less than 18 occasions?

Mr. CABLE . . That is for the assembling of Congress, but the term begins March 4.

Mr. GIBSON. But there is nothing to prevent a session of Congress before it adjourns to fix the meeting -time of the next session.

Mr. CABLE. There is no inhibition in the Constitution, as I understand, as to the date of assembling, but to carry into effect the will of the people and the enactment of laws promised in the convention and campaigns we must change the present date of the assembling of Congress. The reasons for the March date no longer exist. · We should meet earlier, not later; that requires a constitutional amendment.

But there is another important reason why we should change the present situation. Our machinery has been amended once already relative to the selection of the President. We now have the twelfth amendment. This is the first time that I am aware where we seek to amend for the second time any part of the Constitution of the United States. The framers of our Constitution and the Congress that wrote the twelfth amendment left defects or inadequate machinery for the selection of the President. Let me call attention to this fact: If a President elect should die, if he should become disqualified, and likewise the Vice President, the United States of America would be without a President and Vice President. A constitutional amendment · is not necessary to provide for the case of the death of a party nominee before the November election. Presidential electors and not the President are chosen at the November election. The electors would be free to choose a President, notwithstanding the death of a party nominee. This same rule applies in event of the death of a party nominee after the November election and before the electors' vote.

But if the President elect and the Vice President elect should both die or become disabled or found disqualified before March 4 our country would be without a President. Dire results would follow. The law dealing with succession applies to the President, not the President elect.

Sections 3 and 4 of the House resolution provide remedies against the contingencies I have just called to your attention. Second, if the President elect could not be determined on a count of the electoral votes, the election would be thrown into the House. Under our present procedure we would have a Congress that may have been repudiated at the polls making the selection for the American people of a President for the four following years. In all fairness to the people, I say to you that the recently elected Congress rather than the Congress which has been defeated should be the one to determine who will be President.

If the gentleman from New York, who criticized this resolution a while ago, would take five minutes of his time to study the measure and consider the very serious and important points of the resolution he would not have made the statement he made concerning it.

We have had this resolution before our committee for 10 or 12 years. It has been before this House under able leadership, as has been pointed out by the gentleman from · Alabama; the Members, in my opinion, are ready to vote on it, and it should be carried overwhelmingly.

I submit and prophesy that when submitted to the legislatures of the various States it will quickly be ratified and become a part of our Constitution; and when it does, the safety of the American people so far as the Presidency is concerned, and the security of the American people so far as placing on our statute books the will expressed by the last election will be assured.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I 'Yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. LoZIER].

Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Chairman, I very seriously -regret my inability to agree with my worthy colleague from N.ew York [Mr. O'CoNNOR] in his ~x -Cathedra pronunciamento that this resolution is insignificant legislation. If it .is insignificant legislation to so amend the Constitution of the United States so that the will of the electorate may be speedily crystallized and translated into legislation, then this is insignificant legislation. If it is insignificant legislation to provide against a calamity that may result from a deadlock in the Electoral College, which would thwart the will of the people and compel the members uf a political party in this House, voting by States, to vote for the candidate for President of an opposite political faith, and th-ereby disfranchise them from voting for a man who represents their political convictions, then this is insignificant legislation.

If it is insignificant legislation to correct the present system under which Members of Congress · are elected :and then stand by and remain inactive 13 months - before a regular session of Congress convenes, and before they can express and reflect the will of their constituents, then this is insignificant legislation. Under the present arrangement, when the people pass judgment on parties and policies in a November election, they must wait 13 months before their will . c.an be registered in Congress. Does the gentleman consider legislation curing this outrageous condition insignificant? Under the present system, when a Representative has been repudiated at the polls, and another person chosen by the voters to succeed him, does the gentleman think the repudiated Congressman should be permitted to :return to Congress and for four months speak for and represent the people who by their ballots have chosen another agent or representative to speak for them?

Does not the gentleman think - that the newly elected Representative who comes fresh from the people With a vote -of approval and confidence, should speak for and represent the people rather than the rejected and discarded Representative? Should -a Representative, no matter how good and able he may be, but whose policies have been repudiated by his constituents, be allowed to come back to Congress for four months, and vote for and secure the enactment of legislation that his constituents have repudiated?

I want to say to my worthy friend from New York that in my nine years' experience in this Chamber I do not believe any bill or resolution has ever been considered by Congress that embodies as wholesome, wise, and important provisions as this resolution. The question involved in the pending resolution is whether or not the American people have a right to express their will and opinions on public questions, and then to have their opinions and mandates presented to Congress and crystalized into legislation without 13 months' delay.

The resolution now under consideration represents many years' hard work by committees of the House and the Senate. For nine years I have been a member -of the Committee on the Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, · which committee has jurisdiction -of this legislation. We have studied the proposal from every standpoint. We have greatly enlarged its scope, and extended its provisions so as not only to eliminate the so-called " lame-duck " sessions of Congress but to provide for presidential succession in several contingencies for which the present Constitution has made no provision.

I want to say in this connection that if a resolution was ever industriously and studiously considered over a long term of years, and if a resolution ever came before the House in what is practically a perfect form, that is, embodying the last and best word that could be said upon the subject involved, in my opinion it is this resolution. And I hope I may not be considered presumptuous in making this claim.

Some reference has been made to the author of this resolution, a Member of another body of the Congress. I hold no brief for GEORGE W. NoRRIS, the man whose name will go down in history as the great proponent of the principle embodied in this resolution, but I want te say, as I have said in this Chamber before, that when this resolution becomes a part of the Constitution of the United states, · as it most sur-ely will at no distant date, the lion's share uf the credit will be due to the Senator from Nebraska, GEORGE W. NoRRIS, the Tribune of the People, and outstanding .advocate of social justice. The brilliant Irish poet and patriot of Boston, John Boyle O'Reilly, referring to William Lloyd Garrison, the Gr-eat Liberator, said:

He dared to be traitor to country

When .country was traitor to right.

May I paraphrase this language and say of the Senator of Nebraska-

He dared to be traitor to party _

When .Party was traitor to right.

With a -commendable zeal he labored in season and out {)f season to have this principle incorporated in our organic law. Beset on every hand · by the reactionary and stand-pat elements in both the Democratic and Republican Parties, he stood steadfast in favor of this legislation, because be realized, as the country realizes, that this resolution is a long step tow.ard giving the people of the United States representative government in the true sense of that term. Let no thoughtless .or envious man underappr.aise his services to his -country in securing the submission and r.atification of this amendment. L It is true that the resolution which we are now considering is not the -original Senate resolution. Seemingly that resolution has been introduced in the .Senate in practically the same form year after year and .session after session, featuring the " lame-duck " part of the resolution, . but omitting that part -of the pending resolution relating to the presidential succession. The responsibility for perfecting that resolution .and providing for contingencies which were not covered by the Senate resolution fell upon the House committee. While I had -only a modest part in formulating this perfected bill, my whole soul is in this legislation, -and I . am looking forward with unalloyed pleasure to the time this resoluti-on will become a part .of our organic law.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LOZIER. Yes; I yield to my friend from New York. Mr. O'CONNOR. The gentleman says it has been introduced in the same form.

Mr. LOZIER. Practically the same form in the Senate, but not in the form in which the House -committee now presents it.

Mr. O'CONNOR. It has been amended at least forty times .and the gentleman must know it bears no resemblance to the form in which it was introduced originally by the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. LOZIER. I am constrained to say that the gentleman from New York is in error. The first and second paragraphs are essentially the same as in the bill that was originally introduced in the Senate by the Senator from Nebraska. The third section in the pending bill is an enlargement and improvement of the provision of section 3 of the original Norris resolution. The fourth section in the House resolution was formulated by the House committee of which I am a member. The provisions of this section are not to be found in the Norris or Senate resolution. The first and second sections deal with the so-called" lame-duck" sessions of Congress, the terms of the President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, and the assembling date of Congress. The third and fourth sections relate to the presidential succession.

Credit for perfecting the third section and fm· the addition of the fourth section of this resolution is due to the House committee, but the proposal for eliminating the " lameduck " session of Congress has been in every Senate bill since I entered Congress. Nothing that anyone can say or do will deprive the Senator from Nebraska of the credit for putting over the "lame-duck" provisions of this resolution, but to the House belongs the credit of providing for contingencies relating · to the presidential succession which were not covered by the Senate bill.

Now, let me very briefly call your attention to the provisions of this bill. The original Norris bill made no provision for a contingency such as might have happened in 1924 or similar presidential contests. You will recall that there were three candidates for the Presidency-Calvin Coolidge, John W. Davis, and Robert M. La Follette-and the r e was a widespread opinion for many months that there would be a deadlock in the Electoral College, and that neither one of the three candidates would have a majority of the electoral votes. In that event, under the Constitution, the election would have been thrown into the House of Representativesnot the newly elected House of Representatives, but the old House of Representatives elected in 1922; not the House of Representatives coming fresh from the people, not the House of Representatives elected in the 1924 presidential election, not the House of Representatives that represented the last expression of the people, but the old House of Representatives selected two years before the three parties came to grips in the 1924 presidential election. Now, in electing a President when the Electoral College fails to perform that function, under the Constitution the Members of the House, voting by States, must vote for one of the highest three candidates who were voted for in the Electoral College. If one of the three dies, the choice is confined to the surviving In 1924 suppose there had been a deadlock in the Electoral College, no candidate having a majority. Then the election would have been thrown into the House, the membership of which was elected in 1922. Also, suppose that between the time of the meeting · of the Electoral College and the time the House met to elect a President, President Coolidge had died. Under the Constitution, you Republicans, voting by States, when your names were called, would have been in a very serious predicament. Mr . Coolidge being dead, you would not have had the privilege of voting for some other Republican for President, although the Republicans might have had, as they did have, a tremendous popular majority in the November, 1924, presidential election. You would have been bound down by the straight-jacket provisions of the Constitution and been compelled to vote for either John W. Da v is or Robert M. La Follette, a situation no Republican, Democrat, or Progressi v e could justify.

On the other hand, in 1924 if there had been a deadlock in the Electo r al College, and John W. Davis had died between the meeting of the electors and the assembling of the Congress, every Democratic Member of the House would not have had the poor privilege of voting for some other Democrat for President, but would have been disfranchised under the Constitut i on or been compelled to vote for Calvin Coolidge or Robert M. La Follette, which would have shocked the political conscience of an orthodox Democrat.

Section 4 of the pending resolution, which is the product of the labors of the House Committee, makes provision for a contingency of this kind and authorizes Congress to enact statutes so as to avoid the intolerable situation that may arise under the present provisions of the Constitution.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman two additional minutes.

Mr. LOZIER. I may say to the distinguished gentleman from New York that in section 4 we are providing a remedy that may prevent sedition or the disfranchisement of the major or minor party in a presidential election where the Electoral College fails to function and the election is thrown into the House.

It is an act of wisdom and patriotism for Congress to provide against contingencies of this kind that would result in injustice and perhaps precipitate sedition. Congress, looking into the future and seeing the dangerous complications that may at any time flow from the present unsatisfactory provisions of our Constitution, should have the foresight and courage to amend the Constitution so as to make impossible these dangerous conditions; and in all fairness it can not be said that an amendment that will accomplish this is insignificant and unimportant legislation?

And may I say, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the American people, when they express themselves at the ballot box, have t he right to have their will respected and reflected in legislation. We must not set ourselves up as a wet nurse of the people. We have no right to ignore their mandates or delay the crystalization of their demands into laws. Under our form of government the American people have a right to be wrong, if they want to. According to the genius and spirit of our institutions, when policies and is s ues are subm i tted to the American people and they, speaking through the ballot box, pass on these policies, whether in your opinion t heir verdict is right or wrong, the people have the right to demand that their representatives meet speedily and translate their mandate into legislation, subject, of course, to constitutional limitations; and the man in this Congress or the man outside of Congress who opposes a policy and a principle of this · kind is a stranger to the genius and the spirit of our institutions. I have made a number of speeches in this Chamber advocating the passage of this resolution. In view of the strong sentiment in favor of this proposed amendment, I will say no more. Let us pass this resolution by an overwhelming majority. [Applause.]

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. DICKINSON].

Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. Chairman, I am heartily in accord with this joint resolution seeking to amend the Constitu ­ tion of the United States, and desire to speak briefly with reference to sections 1 and 2, which read as follows:

That. the following amendment to the Constitution be, and hereby IS, proposed to the States, to become valid as a part of said · Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of the several States as provided in the Constitution:

"ARTICLE-

" SECTION 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 24th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 4th day of January, of the years in which such terms would ha v e ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of . their successors shall then begin.

"SEc . · 2. · The Congress shall assemble at least once i.n every year, and such meet i n g sh a ll begin a t noon on the 4th day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."

The terms of Repre s entatives in Congress elected in November commence under existing law on the following 4th of March, but they do not meet in session until December the r eafter, 13 months after their election. A short session, commencing the first Monday in December and ending March 4, follows said election, in which Representatives defeated in November continue to serve for three months; and that short term has been called · the " lame-duck " Congress. To get rid of that condition and to have a Congress responsible to the will of the people this amendment has been proposed. A similar resolution I introduced in 1923.

To delay longer its passage would be a grievous wrong. This will put an end to the " lame-duck " Congress, where -. Members defeated for reelection in November continue to legislate and · are more -- liable to listen to influence of special interests who seek to defeat legislation desired by the people and to execut iv e influence rather than the expressed will of their constituents. Why wait 13 months after the election to respond to the wishes of the electorate? In every State of the Union and in all other countries of the world no such delay is permit t ed. Only here in the United States is there such long delay to enact into law the legislation to do. desired by the people. For 10 long years this proposed amendment has been fought and delayed. In no country on earth does there exist such power to defeat and delay the passage of legislation sought to be enact e d in the interest of all the people for whose benefit government was created.

The rule of the people is the safety of the Republic. Representative government must be preserved. The power of the people must not be weakened by inaction or long delays. This is the method desired by those who would control the Government and its activities.

Centralization of power in the hands of a few has gone too far and must be ended or the voice of the people will be forgotten. The struggle for control of government and its agencies has been the contest in all ages.

There is no better way to preserve the rights of the masses than to have an early response to the declared will of the people by their elected representatives.

Keep in mind that the preservation of the life of our Republic depends on the will of the people being preserved and not defeated by inaction. Well may the people be anxious to have their expressed will carried into effect without undue delay by theirrepresentatives in Congress and in aU departments of the Government.

I hope this long-delayed proposed constitutional amend­ nothing? ment passed by the Senate time and time again will pass Congress now and be submitted forthwith to the 48 States for ratification.

Mr. R.AlVI:SEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. FREAR].

Mr. FREAR. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering, as Winston Churchill sat over in the rear of the House a few minutes ago, what his emotions would be if, in the Parliament of England, he and his colleagues sat around for 13 months after election before they took their seats for legislative work at the next regular session. There, the English people throw out an administration upon their own vote. returning the new Parliament that then comes in and legislates, while we wait 13 months unless called here in extra session.

We are the only Government in the world, so far as I can learn, at least I have not heard of any other, that does that strange thing by virtue of the present provision of the Constitution. I speak of this because the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CoNNOR] says that this is a frivolous proposition-! believe that is the term he used.

Let me read what is stated in the report on that point: Under our present system, the old Congress expires on the 4th day of March of the odd years, and the first meeting of the new Congress is on the first Monday of the following December. The newly elected Members have no opportunity for 13 months even to be g in to put into effect the policies on which they were elected, unless a n extraordinary session of the Congress should be called by the President before that time.

No other government in the world waits 13 months after the representatives come in before they take their seats. And yet the gentleman from New York calls this an unimportant or frivolous resolution. The reasons for an earlier meeting of Congress are obvious. This resolution has been further. about Congress for 10 years, and yet we are asked by the gentleman from New York why we do not ' do something in legi s lation instead of waste time with this resolution. Well, we legislated on the moratorium, and the gentleman did his share, and I congratulate this Democrat i c side of the House in what they have done to remove the business depression. Both sides of the House have united on every aid bill that has been presented.

We legislated through a $2,000,000,000 credit appropria­ ~ tion, and $125 , 000,000 for farm relief, all for the same purpose, and yet the gentleman objects because more has not been accomplished in two months' time. I never criticise those who differ with me in bringing in legislation, but why not tell us what other relief bills he wants us to pass, if any are in mind.

We are trying to pass legislation. We are trying to do our full duty, and also to cure by this resolution a manifest defect in om· legislative sessions. Is it unimportant to try and cure this situation? That is what this resolution propo s es A gentleman a moment ago came over from your side of the House to our side, urging us to vote for the Longwo r th amendment. I said to him, " If you do that, it may kill the bill again, as it did the last time." He smiled, and s aid something to the effect that that would not do much ha r m. Now, if any gentleman wants to kill the bill, why put on such a limitation. It defeated the bill in conference before; it will probably do so again. We are trying to get the resolution passed by both Houses and sent to the States for their action. We want to get through Congress this 1·esolution.

No gentleman has gotten up on the Republican side and said that without the proposed amendments he would vote against the resolution. In fact, speakers have generally said, if for the amendments, they would support the resolution without them. If it is a good resolution in this shape, irrespective of the amendments, which some Members believe ought to be passed, why not pass the resolution as it is, so that it will not be killed in conference as before?

Mr. BANKHEAD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FREAR. I yield.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Why is it that the House, if its amendment is advisable and necessary on a material matter, should be placed in the attitude by another body of take that or

Mr. FREAR. That is a fair question. This resolution came originally from the other side. For several y~s it has come to us from the Senate. We have been placed here in the position of obstructionists by insisting on amendments that Members say are not important to them if the bill will be supported without their addition. I am speaking of the House's action last session and in prior sessions.

We did not offer originally any kind of a resolution. We eventually acted on the Senate resolution, but we put on an amendment that was objectionable to the other body and the conferees could not get together. I do not know who is responsible, nor do I care. The important thought is that 13 months is to continue in the future, during which we are to serve inactive unless something is done with this proposal. I believe the House has as much right to its judgment as the Senate has, but they studied this question over there and prepared the resolution which we have sought to perfect, with the aid of those who first offered the Senate resolution. I say this with some knowledge, because I know that both Chairman · Rutherford and Senator NoRRIS were p r actically agreed as to its terms. If we put on that amendment limiting the sessions . with the knowledge that we will defeat it, how can we justify that action?

Mr. GIFFORD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FREAR. I yield.

Mr. GIFFORD. The Senate never has had a vote on this amendment. We do not know.

Mr. FREAR. That is not the question. I am not questioning who is primarily responsible, but why invite another defeat of the resolution?

Now, I have only 10 minutes or I would be glad to yield What is the Longworth amendment? As was suggested, it provides that one of the sessions shall be shortened to May or June. Is that an important limitation to urge? My State legislature has no limitat i on. Why should it have? Why should Congress bind itself to a fixed tune limit? The sugge s tion is made that in another body they may filibuster and delay things, but is that any justification for an amendment which in effect says we can not control ourselves and can not curb ourselves as to length of sessions whenever the question comes up? We have done so in the past under the . 3-day recess until both Houses were agreed. We have always been able to meet that situation. We always have done it. Yet we are asked to shorten one session arbitrarily or four months, however important the legislative may be. Why should we insist upon it this tain knowledge that last session it resulted in the bill? Now, that is the Longworth amendment. of us who are thoroughly interested in the bill the belief that it will defeat the bill again if If the membership desires to defeat the bill, privilege, of course. Few will vote against I take it, if the Longworth amendment is acceptance will prevent the resolution's passage; the probable result.

The other amendment is for the resolution's adoption by the States in seven years. Alabama's legislature once in four years. The others meet in shorter the danger in State action with a matter of this it is not to the State legislatures a matter of portance. They may not realize the importance a 60-day session which is often the usual reason we are liable to defeat the resolution ~ecure adoption by 36 States which must then resolution within the period _ of seven years.

they may not.

Of course there is the chance that a legislature which meets only once in four years will act upon it; not, the resolution might by that limitation be defeated.

There is no object in 7 years' limitation for the States to act any more than 9 years or 10 years. I feel that we

Length of term

(years) Salary

State I----,----- I fixed by statute

Senate House Time

Alabama _________ 4 4 Arizona ___________ 2 2 Yes _____ BienniaL _______ 60 days ___________ _ Arkansas _________ 4 2 ---------- _____ do _______________ do ____________ _ California ________ 4 2 ---------- _____ do __________ Colorado __________ 4 2 ---------- _____ do ___________ None _____________ _ Connecticut_ _____ 2 2 ---------- _____ do___________ 5 months _________ _ Delaware _________ 4 2 ---------- _____ do ___________ 60 days ___________ _ Florida ___________ 4 2 ---------- _____ do ________________ do ____________ _ Georgia _____ -----_ 2 2 ---------- AnnuaL ________ 50 days ___________ _ Idaho ____ -------- 2 2 ---------- Biennial ________ 60 days ___________ _ Illinois_---------- 4 2 ---------- _____ do___________ None _____________ _ lnd iana ___________ 4 Iowa ___ ---------- 4 Kansas ____ ------- 4 Kentucky_------- 4 2 Yes __________ do ___________ Louisiana _________ 4 4 ---------- _____ do ________________ Maine ____________ 2 Mar y land_------- 4 4 ---------- _____ do ___________ Mass a chusetts ____ 2 MichigAJl _____ _: __ 2 Minnesota ________ 4 2 Yes __________ do __________ Mississippi__ _____ 4 Missouri__ ________ 4 2 ---------- _____ do Montana _________ 4 4 Yes. _________ do___________ 60 days ___________ _ Nebraska----~---- 2 2 ---------- _____ do ___________ None _____________ _ Nevada ___________ 4 2 Yes __________ do ___________ 60 days ___________ _ New Hampshire .. 2 New Jersey _______ 3 1 ---------- AnnuaL _____________ do ___ _ ________ _ New :r.fexico ______ 4 2 ---------- BienniaL_______ 60 days ___________ _ New York __ _ _____ 2 1 ---------- AnnuaL ________ None _____________ _ North Carolina ___ 2 2 ---------- BienniaL ____________ do ____________ _ North Dakota ____ 4 2 ---------- _____ do ___________ 60 days ___________ _ Ohio ______ -------- 2 2 Yes. _________ do ___________ None _____________ _ Oklahoma ________ 4 2 ---------- _____ do ________________ do ____________ _ Oregon. __ -------- 4 Pennsylvania _____ 4 2 Yes __________ do _ __________ Rhode Island _____ 2 2 ---------- AnnuaL-------- South Carolina ___ 4 2 ---------- _____ do __________ _ South Dakota ____ 2 2 ---------- BienniaL------- Tennessee ________ 2 2 ---------- _____ do_. ________ _ Texas _____________ 4 Utah.------------ 4 i :¥~:~~~I~~~i~~;=~~~~~~~~ Vermont._------- 2 Vir Washington g inia.--------- ______ 4 4 2 ____ : _____ ll _____ do __________ _ 60 days ___________ _ West Virginia ____ 4 2 ---------- _____ do __________ _ Wisconsin ________ 4 2 Yes __________ do __________ _ Wyoming _________ 4 2 Yes __________ do __________ _ 40 days ___________ _ : In States paying on a yearly or biennial basis, the salary per

:An attempt to increase the stipend through an allowance for

:Divided session; first part limited to 30 days.

to three ought to pass this resolution in the House, if we believe it situation is right, and we should put it through without hanging time, with cer­ amendments onto it that will embarrass its final passage. the defeat of Any amendments that we place on it may result in the Those defeat of the resolution. We do not know what will happen vote for it with 20 years or 50 years from now. We are legislating for the it is amended. future as far as this resolution is concerned, so either that is their the Longworth amendment or any · other may be a source of this resolution, trouble hereafter. Of course the time for the sessions to defeated, but its begin can be fixed under the resolution, but the resolution that will be is offered to cover the 13 months' delay under the present practice, and it does not need any defense. •

Now, I have just been placed on the committee. I regret meets only exceedingly that the gentleman who was the chairman of times, but the committee, Mr. Rutherford, a splendid official, is not kind is that here to present the resolution. His death leaves it to Mr.

supreme im­ JEFFERS, who has made a fair and complete statement. I of it in repeat, if these amendments are placed on the bill we stand term. For that a chance of losing a resolution again that has been worked by failing to over for 10 years. We all recognize, I believe, that it is act upon the right in principle, and, as I said, we are the only country They may or in the world that has such a legislative situation regularly presented.

In my extension of remarks, I ask permission to put in a but if they do tabulation that has been prepared for me, showing the time of legislative service and other data in the different States. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The matter referred to is as follows:

What price la11'makersr (Prepared by Waldo Schumacker, professor of political science, University of Oregon] Sessions Salary Allowances per mile for one round l--------;------- l --------.-------t trip per session unless otherwise stated

Limit Regular session 1 Special session

Quadrennial ____ 50days - _ $4 per day _____________ ---------------------- 10 cents.

$15 per day ____________ ---------------------- 20 cents one way.

$1,000 for 2 years _______ $6 per day----------- 5 cents.J

None~------------ $2,400 for 2 years ______ ---------------------- 5 cents.

$1,000 for 2 years ______ ---------------------- Traveling expenses.

$300 for 2 years ________ ---------------------- Do.

$10 per day ____________ ---------------------- $25 for supplies.

$6 per day _____________ ---------------------- 10 cents.,

$7 per day _____________ ---------------------- 10 cents.

$5 per day _____________ $5; 2D-day limit _____ _ Do.

$3,500 for 2 years ______ ---------------------- Round-trip fare weekly; $50 for stationery. 2 ---------- _____ do ___________ 61 days ____________ $6 per day _____ _ _______ $6; 40-day limit _____ _ $5 for 25 miles. 2 Yes __________ do ___________ 100 days ___________ $1,000 for 2 years ______ $10 per day _________ _ 5 cents. 2 ---------- _____ do ___________ 50 days __________ ~ $3 per day _____________ $3; 3D-day limit _____ _ 15 cents. 60 days ____________ $10 per day ____________ ---------------------- Do. do _________________ . do _ ________________ ---------------------- 10 cents per trip; not over 3 trips. 2 Yes __________ do ___________ None _____________ $4-00 for 2 years ________ $2 per day __________ _ $2 for ten miles. 90 days ____________ $5 per day _____________ ---------------------- 20-cent limit; $25 for stationery. 2 YPs _____ AnnuaL ________ None ______________ $1,500 per year_ _______ -------- - --- - --------- $4.20 per mile, one way. 2 ---------- BienniaL ____________ do _____________ $3 per day _____________ $3; 20-day limit _____ _ 10 cents. 90 days ____________ $1,000 for 2 years ______ --·------------------- 15 cents. 4 Yes __________ do ___________ None _________________ _ _ do __________________ $10 per day _________ _ 10 cents. _________________ do ____________ $5 per day; 7o-da · y ---------------------- Traveling expenses; $30 for postage.

limit.

$10 per day ____________ ---------------------- 10 cents. $800 for 2 years. $10; 10-day limit ____ _ Do. $10 per day ____________ $10; 20-day limit ____ _ 10 cents; $20 for stationery 2 ---------- _____ do___________ None _____________ _ $200 for 2 years ________ $3; 15-day limit__ ___ _ Traveling expensas. $500 per year __________ ---------------------- $5 per day _____________ $5; 30-day limit _____ _ 10 cents. $2,500 per year-------------- - --------------- $1 for 10 miles. $600 for 2 years________ $8; 20-day limit__ ___ _ 10 cents.

$5 per day _____ -------- ---------------------- Do.

$2,000 for 2 years _ ______ ---------------------- Round-trip fare weekly.

$6 per day; $2 after 60 ---------------------- 10 cents,? days.

2 ---------- _____ do ___________ 40 days ____________ $3 per day •----------- $3; 20-day limit _____ _ $3 for 20 miles.2 None ‘ $3,000 for 2 years ______ $500----------------- 35 cents weekly; $150 for postage;

$50 in special session.

60 days ___________ _ $5 per day _____________ ---------------------- 8 cents. 40 days ___________ _ $400 per year __________ ---------------------- 5 cents; $5 for postage. 60 days ___________ _ $5 per day _____________ ---------------------- 5 cents; $200 for living expenses. 75 days ___________ _ $4 per day _____________ $4; 20-day limiL ____ $4 for 25 miles.? None 3_ ----------- $10 per day; $5 after ---------------------- $2.50 for 25 miles. 60 days ___________ _ $4 120 per days. day _____________ $4; 30-day limit. ____ _ 10 cents. None _____________ _ $400 for 2 years ________ $4 per day __________ _ 20 cents. 60 days!_--------- $720 for 2 years ________ $360; 30-day limit ___ _ 10 cents.