February 13, 1932

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration ' of the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 14) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States fixing the commencement of the terms of President and Vice President and Members of Congress and fixing the time of the assembling of Congress. · The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the · Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 14), with Mr. BUL WINKLE in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one minute. Let me call the attention of the Members to the fact that during the afternoon we will have . up for consideration in connection with this proposed constitutional amendment several amendments, and I hope the membership will remain here so that we will not be caused to lose . valuable time if some one should make the point of no quorum. I trust the Members will remain in the Chamber. We are going to get through with the consideration of this resolution this afternoon under the 5-minute rule after we conclude the general debate.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I yield five minut-es to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. FIESINGER].

Mr. FIESINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the committee that has had this resolution under consideration. I concur in the action of the committee and I rise to state that I am favorable to the resolution. I believe it is a step in the way of progress and I believe further that it has the command of the American people, and I know of the people of my district.

It has been indicated and asserted in the debates and by mention of individu,al Members that a number of amendments will be offered. While not in any way impugning the motives of the proponents of such amendments and believing that such amendments will be offered with a sincere desire to be helpful, yet I shall be constrained to vote against all such amendments because of the fear I entertain that the amendments will tend to impede the final adoption of the resolution which I interpret to have the righteous command of the American people.

Aizy amendment offered to extend the terms of Members of the House of Representatives I shall especially oppose, because in my humble judgment its tendency would be to centralize power and tend to lessen the rights of the people in popular government.

I desire to take no further time and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. LEWIS]. [Applause.]

Mr. LEWIS. Gentlemen of the committee, you are about to propose a most desirable change in our institutions, a change which the passage of time has indicated to be neces· sary for the efficient operation of the great function of national legislation.

I am about to bring to your attention an ingredient in that institution where another change is equally shown to be necessary and important in the operation of the legislative part of our Government.

When this House of Commons was established, ladies and gentlemen, there were few parliaments in the world from whose rituals we could draw.

The ancient democracies gave us virtually no faith-inspiring instruction as to a proper length of term for Members of the represen ta ti ve body.

May I say that research discloses that in only two countries of the world, in Colombia and in Mexico, is the term of the member of their lower house as long as two years. In 18 of the leading 25 countries of the world the term is four years or more, and in the following countries, the first naturally to come in our minds when we consider matters by way of comparison, we have Canada with a 5-year term, France with a 4-year term, Germany 4 years, Italy 5 years, Japan 4 years, Sweden 4 years, Switzerland 4 years, and in England a term of 5 years.

Looking into the effect of the " vote of confidence " on the prematuring of the term, I found that in England, taking all the votes of want of confidence into account, during the Victorian age the term in the House of Commons lasted, on the average, some 3 years and 10 months.

Gentlemen of the House, we are definitely Representatives of the people who live within our districts. How many do we represent? On the average, 285,000. Remember that we are the principal human avenues of approach of these 285,000 to our great Government, with its present multiplied and magnified relations to human life. Two hundred and eighty-five thousand to serve . In Canada it is 41,000, in France 67,000, in Germany 108,000, in Italy 107,000, in Sweden 27,000, in Switzerland 22,000, and in England 72,000. On top of our shortened term and of this greatly magnified number of people we are called upon to represent we have another onerous circumstance. It is the double election that characterizes the politics of our country. It was 13 months before we were allowed to assemble here on this occasion. Already primary troubles had begun to show themselves-yea, and to assert their depleting claims in the hearts of many of the Members of this body.

We are human beings. We are, naturally, going to think of our own futures as well as the well-being of our country. I want to say to you that, judged not only by my individual experience but judged by those comparisons which I have only too briefly given you of the experience of other countries, the 2-year term in the United States does not stand justified by present needs or present human circumstances. It is a matter of tradition that the makers of the Constitution greatly feared oligarchy and absolutism in their day and that the 2-year term was determined upon so that quick, opposing, and antagonistic responses would come from the people if those higher in the Government should attempt such reactionary conduct. Happily, such fears have been completely dissipated by experience. Not only is there no sign of such absolutism but, thinking of the stability of our institutions, if there be anything unstable on this planet after a century and a half of experience with the ideals of our fathers, thank God we are able to say that it is monarchical institutions, aristocratic institutions, that stand in peril and not those other democratic institutions planted on the wider base of the whole population of the country. [Applause.]

Mr. BURTNESS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEWIS. I do, gladly.

Mr. BURTNESS. I was interested in the figures with reference to the number of people represented by individual members in other parliaments. The gentleman has served here before. Has the gentleman any observation to make with reference to the additional amount of work done by Members now as compared with a few years ago?

Mr. LEWIS. The gentleman's question is most timely and appropriate. It happens that after some six years of service in this body my services ceased here and other public work took its place. Coming back now, after some 14 years, the break in my legislative experiences has compelled com .. parisons. I certainly am not overstating the comparison when I say that the number of problems now presented are four times as great as they were 20 years ago and that they have lost nothing in complexity in the intervening time . [Applause.]

Statistics of membership and representation in lower houses ot legislatures of certain foreign countries

Number Number reJ

Country of Year Population sented by each Term members membert

Ytnrs Argentina 2 -------·--------­ 158 1930 311,192,702 70, 840(33, 000) 4 Australia •--------·--------- 76 1 93 0 a 6, 438,999 84,724 3 Belgium 6 _________________ _ 187 1929 18,050,189 43, 103(40, 000) 4 Brazil Canada? o --------------------- _________________ _ 212 1929 a 40, 272, 650 189,965 3 245 1 93 0 19,934,500 40,549 li Chiles··--·-·--------------- 132 1931 4, 264.819 32, 309(30, 000) 4 Colomb ; a •-- ····----------- 131 1928 7,851,000 59, 931 (60. 000) 2 Czecho slo vakia to __________ _ 300 1929 114, 608, 412 48,695 6 Denmark u __ ______________ _ 149 1925 3,434,555 23,051 4 Fr a nce n _. _ -----· ---------- 612 1926 40,74-3,897 66 ,5 75 4 Germany~~--- Greece u ___________________ -------·------ _ 577 1925 62,410,619 108. 164 (75, 000) 4 250 1928 6, 204,634 2t, 819 4 Hun gary 15----------------­ 245 1 93 0 8, 683, 740 35,444 5 Italy 10.----- -------------­ 4.00 1931 42,874, 01 107, 187 5 Japan 17. __ ----------------­ 466 1 929 65 ,703 ,953 140,996 4 Mexico 18 -·-·-·-·----------- U15Q 1 930 16,40-t, 030 109, 360 (60. 000) 2 Netherlands 10 _____________ * 100 1929 7, 832,175 78,322 4 Norway n _ ________________ _ 2,890, ()()() 112 1930 25.804 3 Peru Portugalta 22·····-- * --------------- _ 110 1927 16,147,000 55,882 5 164 1 920 6, 032,991 36,787 3 Rum a nia u ________________ _ 387 1 919 4

17,3 93, 149 44,944

Sweden 25 •• __ • ------------­ 230 1929 1 6,120,080 26,609 4 Switzerland 20. __ ·---------­ 187 1930 4, 067,305 21,750 (22. 000) 4 United Kingdom 21-- ------­ 615 ...... 44.025,518 71,586 5 England ... _.··-··---------- 492 1921 35,230.225 71.606 5 Northern Ireland. _________ _ 13 1926 1, 256,322 96,640 5 Scotland .... ---------------- 74 1921 4, 882,497 65,980 5 Wales .... ·-·--------------- 36 1921 2, 656,474 73,791 5 2 1 77 1926 3, 026,878 39, 310 (35, 000) 3 Venezuela ! _ ---------------

1 Figures obtained by dividing population by the number of members. When the basis or representation is given in the source from which the information was obtained that figure is given in parentheses as well as the one obtained by actual division. 2 Statesman's Yearbook, 1!!31 (pp. 651, 652).

z Estimated population as given in Statesman's Yearbook, 1931 'St atesma n 's Yearbook. 1931 (pp. 346 and 348). 'Ibid., pp . 672, 673. e Ibid., pp. 697 and 699. 'Ibid., pp. 280 and 282. 'Ibid., p. 717, n8. Political Handbook of the World, as of Jan. 1, 1930 (p. 32). 'Statesman's Yearbook, 1931 (pp. 752, 753). 10 Ibid., pp. 770 and 772. n Ibid., pp. 783 and 785. u Ibid., pp. 837 and 841. u Ibid., pp. 916, 917. . Ulbid., pp. 965,966. Political Handbook of the World, as of Jan. 1, 1930 (p. 84). 1~ Statesman's Yearbook, 1931 (pp. 989, 990). Political Handbook of the World, as of Jan. 1, 1930 (p. 93). 1e Statesman 's . Yearbook, 1931 (pp. 1012, 1013). 11 Ibid., pp. 1045 and 1().18. 18 Ibid., pp. 1088, 1089. 11 Under an amendment to the Con.Stitution July 30, 1928, the basis of representation was increased and the membership of the lower House was reduced from 271 to "about 150." Political Handbook of the World, as of Jan . 1, 1930 (p. 126). 20 Statesman's Yearbook, 1931 (pp. 1111 and 1113). 21 Ibid., pp . 1144, 1145. 22 Ibid., pp. 1180, 1181. 23 Ibid., pp. 1201, 1202. 2• Ibid., p. 1222. Political Handbook of the World, as of Jan. 1, 1930 (p. 157.)

u Statesman's Yearbook, 1931 (pp . 1294 and 1296).

1t Ibid., pp. 1310 and 1312.

21 Ibid., pp. 5, 6. Constitutional Yearbook, 1931 (pp. 218 and 251).

21 Statesman's Yearbook, 1931 (pp. 1343, 1344).

1\{r. GIFFORD. · Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. TILsoN].

Mr. Tn.sON. Mr. Chairman, it had not been my purpose to speak at any length on this resolution. On two occasions when it was discussed here--March, 1928, and February, 1931-I took my full share of time and participated quite freely in the debate. I am not doing it to-day, because, first, lack of time, and second, because I feel that the remarks heretofore made by me express my views quite as accurately and completely as I could now express them. These views are pretty well understood by the older Members and the younger Members will be able to gather all the information and inspiration on this subject that they may need if they listen to the remarks of the others.

I do not regard this as the most important piece of legislation in the world. To this extent I agree with the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CoNNoR], that there are many more important things that this Congress should do. The fact is that for more than 140 · years we have gone along on the original provision of the Constitution on this subject.

Compared with other countries of the world, we surely have not suffered by having followed the provision in connection with the meeting time of Congress. Until quite recently there was no effort on the part of anyone to change this provision of the Constitution, but it has been so long since any legislation has been enacted under the provision which per- . mits Congress to meet at any time that there has gone out over the country the notion that Congress can not meet until 13 months after election, and that the retiring Member continues to serve until December. Of course, anyone who reads the Constitution understandingly knows better. The term of a retiring Member expires on the 3d of March. The new Member begins on March 4 to act as a Member in all nonsession duties. He is sworn in either at the :-e gular session in December, or sooner, at a special session called by the President, if the public interests demand it.

In earlier days, on a number of occasions, Congress did act under the constitutional provision relating to meetings of Congress, and fixed the date when Congress should assemble. The most memorable example of the action of Congress in this respect was in the early days of the administration of Andrew Johnson, when there was such a bitter state of partisanship existing that Congress professed to believe that the Government was not safe in the hands of President Johnson unless Congress were in session. Therefore Congress did act and fixed the date of the meeting of subsequent Congresses on the 4th day of March of the odd years. For three successive Congresses, Congress did meet on that date and continued in potential session all through the 2-year term.

In all fairness, I should add that some of the worst legislation ever enacted in the history of our country was enacted during that period, from some of which the Nation is still suffering 60 years afterward.

After the passions of the Civil War had somewhat subsided Congress very sensibly concluded that there was no necessity for so early assembling after the election and repealed the law. Congress then rejected what will surely prove to be the result if this amendment is ratified-a continuous session during the two years or life of the Congress. Therefore in the early seventies this statute was repealed and Congress went back to the time fixed by the Constitution in case . Congress fails to set a different date. From that time to the · present day Congress has never seen fit to fix a different date from that thus provided for in the Constitution, but the President on many occasions has seen fit, when the public interests seemed to demand it, to convene Congress in a special session-not 13 months after election but immediately after the 4th day of March.

The President can now call a special session at any time if he deems the public interests demand it, while any Congress has the power to bind its successor to the extent of compelling the new Congress to meet at any time after March 3.

When, if ever, has the country suffered by reason of Congress not being in session? I do not recall the occasion and history is silent on the subject. Then why change the Constitution for such a purpose? In my remarks on this floor when a similar resolution was · being discussed in the Seventieth Congress, I said:

While fixing the date on which Congress shall meet is not of vital importance, changing the Constitution for this or any other purpose is a serious matter. Of the amendments adopted since the first 1Q-which were to all intents and purposes a part of the original Constitution-some were unnecessary, some have not worked as expected, some have worked badly, and some have not worked at all.

Doubtless I am somewhat old-fashioned in this respect, but I have a deep, sincere affection and admiration for that old document. and I hate to see it changed without the best of reasons. Our experience in changing this precious instrument has not been such as to encourage further experiment along this line, except for reasons clear and compelling. I do not belie v e that the reasons given for the proposed change are sufficient or convincing, but , on the contrary , that when analyzed they become- untenable. What are the alleged reasons for adding the proposed amendment to the Consti t u t ion? The one argument upon which the demand for a change in the meeting da t e of Congress is based is that the time is too long between the election and the meeting of the new Congress. Looked at superficially, th i s is a plausible ar g ument, especially when made to appear that 13 months must elapse after the election before the newly elected Member actually takes his seat: but even this formidable charge can be met and readily answered. In the first place, this charge is not true as I have stated it and as it is usually stated. Under our present Constitution only four months must elapse before the new Member may take his seat. Any longer time than four months is only because Congress, in fits wisdom, has not seen fit to fix March 4 as the date for the new Congress to meet. Then we are called upon to pass a constitutional amendment in order to have Congress meet 60 days earlier than it could otherwise. And even then, in the case of a new Pres i dent, he will not come in for 20 days longer, so that in reality the new Congress will gain only 40 days by meeting January 4 instead of March 4.

But we are told in all seriousness that it will never do for the new Congress to meet as late as March 4, which can be done by a simple resolution, because that would mean running into midsummer, and it is hot in Washington during June and July. Sh a des of our illustrious predecessors! Shall we amend the Constitution of our country in order to avoid a few days of personal discomfort? [Applause.]

In connection with the present resolution the same reasons and excuses have been advanced as in previous discussions, but little that will stand up under analysis. Of course, the practice of other countries has been dwelt upon alW"ays without referring to the totally different conditions existing in those countries, especially as to the form of government. In my remarks during the debate on the subject I said:

The pract i ce in foreign countries of early assembling is cited, but there is no real similarity, and any argument based on such an analogy is not well grounded but is altogether misleading. In other countries governments fall and cease to function, carrying in their fall both executive and legislative authority, which are not separated, so that a new government must be formed to carry on. There is no such thing in our system of government. Our executive and legislative powers are distinct and our terms of office are fixed by law or the Constitution. And, on the who l e, has not the plan worked reasonably well, even as compared with foreign countries?

Later, after much had been said about foreign parliaments, I referred to the matter again:

The practice of foreign countries in early assembling 1s cited and made much of, but this is readily dispos e d of when it 1s remembered that in this respect our Government, where the legislative and executive powers are separated, is entirely different from any of those countries where the legislative and executive powers are combined so that when one ministry falls and fails to function another must promptly take its place. Who can say that this difference has not added to rather than detracted from the success achieved by our Government? The practice of foreign countries has no analogy to our own, so that arguments based upon it are without substantial foundation. There are real, substantial, practical reasons in the case of our Government why it is better, except in cases of emergency or when some very important extraordinary legislation like a tariff bill is to be passed, that there should be a long interval between the elections and the convening of the new Congress. I can do no better than quote from previous remarks made by me on a similar occasion:

Let us consider for a moment whether any real harm comes from postponing the date of convening the new Congress even the full limit of 13 months. We are now under a Budget system and it is working well. During the summer and autumn the President, through the heads of executive departments and the Director of the Budget, prepares the estimates of the several departments and makes up the Budget. It is sent to Congress the first week in December. As at present, the old Congress is organized and before January 4 is well under way in the consideration of the supply bills. The Cabinet heads, who under the outgoing President have submitted their estimates, now come before the committees of Congress and explain each the portion of the Budget which relates to his department. Before March 4, if Congress attends to business, all the supply bills and other necessary legislation is passed, and the old Congress and the old President, with his Cabinet heads and their assistants, all go out together. The new President comes in on March 4 with a new Cabinet and assistants and begins at once to prepare for the new estimates and the new Budget to be submitted in the autumn.

Meanwhile, the new Congress on and after March 4 stands ready to meet in case of need to pass emergency or any other legislation deemed necessary for the public interest. Time after time the new Congress has been called to g ether early for one reason or another, and there is no danger that the public interest will ever suffer for want of a Congress ready to serve.

Let us see wh a t would be the situation under the proposed amendment. The old President and his Cabinet must make up the Budget, as before, but can not submit it before January 4. It 1s then submitted to a new Congress, not thoroughly organized and without committees. Meanwhile the "lame-duck" President holds on for 20 days. Whether he delivers a message on the state of the Union to the new assemblage, now clea ns ed of its lameduck contamination, is not specified in the resolution.

Having organized-if no deadlock interferes--and counted the electoral vote, if there is time, the now pure co n gressional aggregation, out of deference to the new President soon to come in, will probably twiddle their thumbs until January 24 arrives. And now work must begin-on the supply bills, at any rate. A new Cabinet will have taken the place of the old and without time to learn anything whatever about their several departments, with no knowledge whatever of the estimates or the Budget, they must appear before the committees of Congress to explain and defend the provisions of their several bills. The new President must take on faith the Budget of his" lame-duck" predecessor, for surely he is not in position to make up one of his own; and so throughout the first year of his term, the most important year of all for him, the benefits of the Budget system may be nullified, so far as he is concerned. Can you imagine anything worse than such a situation? And yet I have not in the least overdrawn what must inevitably happen in case this amendment should be ratified.

If the " lame-duck " session is a bad thing we can abolish it by a joint resolution and meet on the 4th day of March, after the elections, and in the even years at any time Congress may see fit to fix. It is not necessary to pass this resolution in order to eliminate the "lame-duck" session. I said so emphatically in the debate to which I have referred in the following language:

But it is not necessary to amend the Constitution in order to have an early meeting of the new Congress; and if it be believed that this is what is needed and what the people are demanding, let it be done by an act of Congress. As it stands to-day, Congress can fix any date of meeting it may deem best; and if it should turn out that the day fixed is not the best date, it can be changed and go back to the old date that has served satisfactorily throughout our history. But once fix the date by the Constitution, and it must stand whether satisfactory or not, whether it work well or ill.

As to the harm that might come from" lame-duck" Members, participating in legislation, it seems to me this has always been the most preposterous thing that ever could be offered to influence rational men. The idea that because a man is defeated for Congress he is thereby discredited and disqualified from acting as a legislator is grotesquely absurd. As the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MoNTAGUE] said so forcefully and cleverly yesterday, the proposition is utterly ridiculous.

As he said, this is one time in the life of a Member of Congress when he can vote his real convictions without the hope of reward or the fear of punishment. I defy successful contradiction of the statement I am about to make: That some of the best legislation that has ever been passed by any Congress has been passed in the short session, and often when a considerable number of men have been defeated. The percentage of men not returning is small, many of these retiring voluntarily; in fact, so small as to have no influence whatever, even though we might concede the thing that is not true, that they have been discredited and ~ hat, having been discredited, they would betray the interests of their country. The idea is preposterow;. [Applause.]

The part of the resolution providing for the election of President has been referred to as one of the important provisions of this amendment. One trouble with this is that we do not know where the new proposition might land us, becauSe no one can foretell what will arise in the future. \Ve have tri~d the old and hav~ not suffered from it, but no one can tell how the provisions of this aniendmerit will work in case of a controversy.

There is one thing I wish to call particular attention to, and that is the fact that Congress under the present provision is organized and ready for legislation. In the proposed amendment it is not. In 1876, when the unfortunat-e controversy between Hayes and Tilden occurred, when there was danger of civil - strife or revolution in this country, the fact was that the House had been organized, the Speaker had been elected, Congress was actually in existence and was able to act.

Congress took action to meet the emergency. A commission was appointed. Whether we agree with the final decision of the commission has nothing to do with the case. The point is that Congress was in a position to act and did act and did appoint a commission to save the country from danger. The magnanimous action of the defeated candidate for President, Mr. Tilden, should always be gratefully remembered by all of the people of these United States. [Applause.] The fact I wish to emphasize is that at this time Congress was organized. The contests of the election had been settled, which can not be the case under the proposed change. More than that, when the choice of a President depends on the action of the new Congress, not organized, the difficulty of organizing may be greatly increased. Let us assume that the parties are fairly evenly divided in the House, so that the change of a vote or two might, in its result, make a difference in the presidency itself.

We can readily foresee that there might be very serious danger from having the old Congress out of existence, and the new Congress, without organization, to be depended upon to count the votes or to elect the President. Please observe, also, that by this resolution only 20 days are allowed in which Congress must organize and · elect a President, if one has not been elected by the Electoral College. I called attention to this danger in previous remarks on the subject, as follows:

Can we afford to take such a step which, once taken, can not be retraced? It matters nothing to me personally. It matters · little to any of us older Members, whose time here after this amendment is in effect at most will not be long; but it does matter very much to the people of the country through all the years to come and to those who follow us here in giving service to the country. I have one boy of my own, dearer to me than my own life, as every father will understand. He is only a · schoolboy now, but in the dreams of a fond father touching his son I have seen him standing here in my place, giving himself to the service of his country as his father has faithfully tried to do. I would not for this right arm do anything by my vote that would make his path more difficult or render his service and that of the others who will then stand where we now stand, less effective or useful.

Among all the many able newspapermen gathered here in Washington none has described the so-called "lame duck" . resolution we are now considering so concisely or so accurately as the brilliant columnist George Rothwell Brown when he characterized it as a quack - remedy for a disease of the Constitution that it does not have. Nor can I close my own remarks now more fittingly than by quoting what I said in closing four years ago:

I can not vote for this resolution. Neither can I allow it to pass without giving voice to my opposition and utterance to my conviction that its adoption will be an unfortunate mistake which those responsible for it should never cease to regret. And remember, when we give our vote for it and send it on its way all the harm of which · it is capable throughout the years to come will have been done, so far as we are concerned.

[Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut has expired.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TILSON. My time has expired . .

Mr. KELLER. I wanted to ask a question and the question is this--

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut has expired.

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. RAMSEYER].

Mr. RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, a resolution similar to this one was before the House in 1928 and again in 1931. Like the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. TILsoN] who preceded me, I have addressed myself at length to the membership of the House on each occasion when the proposition was before us. The gentleman from Connecticut and myself are on different sides of this proposition. I have a profound respect for the gentleman for his attitude and for his courage always in taking the side of any controversy that he thinks is right. I first became interested in this proposal when it was being studied by a special committee of the American Bar Association. It was before such special committee a number of years. This committee made a report to the American Bar Association in 1923. I was present at the particular session when this resolution was up for discussion. It was unanimously indorsed by the American Bar Association at the convention of that association in 1923. This committee prepared a resolution to be introduced in Congress. I took the proposed resolution and introduced it on the first day of the following session here, that is, the first Monday in December, 1923. Afterward, during that session, I appeared before the committee having charge of' the joint resolution and argued in favor of it.

t do not attach as much importance to this resolution . as some Members do. I am in entire sympathy with the gentleman from Connecticut in resenting the reflections castby some upon Members who happen to be defeated-that their defeat means there is something wrong with them and that they can no longer be trusted. Some of the leading men of our country, including Lincoln, were defeated time and again. In fact, some of the noblest characters of history never could be elected to any office. They were guillotined, burned at the stake, and even crucified.

I have favored the resolution in the past and still favor it. I think newly elected Members should be allowed to go into action sooner than they do now under the present practice. If I were responsible for the program for this House, this resolution would not be here exactly at this time. I agree with what has been said-that there are more important matters before the country that should receive attention. The passing of this resolution will not feed the hungry nor furnish any jobs to the unemployed. It will not help to solve the economic paradox of impoverishment in the midst of abundance, to correct the inequitable distribution of wealth, or to solve the money and credit problem, which I consider at this time the most important problem before the American people.

The resolution before us I favor in the main. There have been suggestions made during the debates that we must not amend this resolution in any manner. I do not know why Members take the floor and speak that way. When this resolution passes the House it should reflect the independent judgment of this House. [Applause.] Thomas Jefferson, in his Manual, after stating the rule against referring to de- gress. bates and votes in the other House, gives as his reason in support of the rule, the following:

Because the opinion of each House should be left to its independency, not to be influenced . by the proceedings of the other. One of the amendments to be offered is the Longworth amendment. I did not vote for it when it was offered before and shall not vote for it to-day, for the · reason that I think we should go on the assumption that Congress will have sense enough to adjourn when it is through with its business; but if I had believed in that amendment when it was considered before, if I still believed in it, I would vote for it to-day. I would express my own independent judgment. Just because the other body has not taken kindly to this proposal is no reason why Members should not at this time exercise their own independent judgment on that amendment or any other amendment that may be proposed. [Applause.]

There is no danger of this resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution getting lost in the shufHe. It was lost at the end of the last session because there were only a few days of the session left when it was sent to conference. If there are some provisions in the resolution different from the Senate resolution-and there are already provisions in it that are materially different-it will go to conference. The conferees can come back for further instruction. The same with the Senate conferees.

The Longwo r th amendment, and also an amendment which I shall offer at the end of the resolution, have never been considered by the other body. No one here knows what the other body thinks about either one of them. Even though some of you may think you know how the other body feel s about it, i t is all the more reason why you should at this time express your own independent judgment on the amendments to be offered. Probably the gentleman from Maryla,nd [Mr. LEWis] will offer an amendment. Each House should be left to its own independency of judgment on these matte r s. There is no reason in the world why this House sh o uld have an inferiority complex every time the other body is men ti oned, or when we find the views of the other bo d y a re d i fferent from this body. If we truckle to the o t he r body, or if the other body truckles to us, it will simp l y res u lt iJ;l the body being truckled to losing respect for the other body, and the body truckling will lose its own selfrespect. Exercise your own - independent judgment on any ' of the amendments that are going to be offered under the 5-minute rule .

In 1928 when this joint resolution was before this body we printed as a House document the debate and proceedings. I have regarded this document as the best debate on any subject ever had in either House . since I have been a Member of this Hou s e. I have made a somewhat careful study of each amendment to the Constitution beginning with the thirteenth amendment, and the procedure in the States in ratifying those amendments. Mr. Garrett, of Tennessee, formerly leader of the Democratic side, was probably as . careful and as thorough a student of the Constitution as we have had in this body during recent years. When this proposal was before the House in 1928 Mr. Garrett offered an amendment to the resolution, which was adopted by a vote of 187 to 23, on a rising vote. That amendment was incorporated in 'the resolution which was before this House dur- · ing the last session as section 6. For reasons or for no reason, the committee this time eliminated section 6. This section I regard as most important to insure orderly consideration of proposed amendments. My time is up. I will have more to say on my amendment under the 5-minute rule. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. HASTINGS].

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, we have under consideration the joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States fixing the commencement -of the terms of President and Vice President and Members of Congress and fixing the time of the assembling of Con- · A similar resolution has been before Congress for anum- · ber of years. It passed the House during the last session of Congress with an amendment fixing the date of the adjournment of the second session of each Congress.

This resolution contains five sections.

Section 1 fixes the time when the terms of 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 have ended if this article had not been ratified. At the present time, of course, the terms begin and end on the 4th day of March.

Section 2 provides for the assembling of Congress-at least once in every year and fixes the date of the meeting to begin at noon on the 4th day of January, unless Congress shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3 provides for the election of a President and Vice President if death should occur to either or if the President elect or the Vice President elect fails to qualify. This section authorizes Congress to provide for this situation.

Power is given to Congress to provide by law who shall act as President in this case or the manner of selecting who shall act as President, but such person shall act only until a President qualified is or a Vice President is qualified.

Section 4 provides that Congress may provide for the contingency of death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President or the Senate may choose a Vice President.

The report of the Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress is an exhaustive one and goes thoroughly into the reasons why favorable action should be had upon this amendment. It has been called to the attention of the public for a number of years. I think everyone agrees that it is advisable to have sessions of Congress convene soon after the election.

When the original Constitution was adopted and our Government was organized in 1789 we bad no modern facilities for communication or transportation and it was then necessary to have more time intervene between an election and the convening of Congress. This was particularly true when some of the Western States were admitted into the Union. Now all sections of the country have been brought together by modern means of communication and transportation, ~o that the necessity no longer exists for having . such a long time intervene between the election and the date when Congress convenes and the Members elect assume office.

I voted for a similar resolution before and favor the passage of this resolution now.

Section 5 provides for this resolution to take effect on the 30th day of November of the year following the year in which this article is ratified.

This resolution must pass both branches of Congress by a two-thirds vote and be ratified by three-fourths of the States before it becomes operative. and not then until the 30th day of November of the year following the year in which this amendment is ratified and promulgated.

I have heard no convincing argument advanced why this resolution should not be passed proposing this amendment. There is always a reluctance to amend the Constitution. ' The framers of our Constitution provided a method of amendment. Without a general agreement to add the first 10 amendments the Constitution would not have been ratified. We could not have financed the World War without the income-tax amendment.

In brief, it will do three things:

First. It will provide for an early convening of the new Congress after each election;

Second. It will clarify the law with reference to filling the office of President in event of death or other failure to assume the duties of office before inauguration; and

Third. It will provide a speedy recall in the event the Members of Congress do not reflect the true sentiment of the people of their districts.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr . . SUMNERsl.

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Chairman. whenever we come to the responsibility of amending the Constitution of the United States we approach the most solemn responsi­ to us. bility, perhaps, which can be placed upon a Member of the American Congress.

During my period of service here one thing particularly has impressed itself upon me. In every field of human endeavor, except in the operation of government. men recognize that there are basic fundamental natural laws which limit human beings. That is true in every field of human endeavor except in the operation of government. Is not that an interesting fact? A person who would be a physician goes to school to learn the laws of nature which govern the human body. He succeeds in his practice in proportion as he is able to harmonize his practice with them. The sc i entist seeks to learn the laws of nature which govern in the field of endeavor. We have agricultural schools to teach boys how to work in accord with the laws of r ... nature; but when we come to the point of undertaking to operate the complex machinery of a great Government we do not take cognizance of the fact that there are natural laws which limit our discretion. That is an interesting fact.

Now. I make this further observation. and I make it with all respect, that when you come to the scientific operation of government. in my humble opinion-and I put myself in the same class-we are about in the same relative development that medical science was when it bled George Washington to death over a hundred years ago. We do not even recognize that there are natural laws which govern in the realm in which you and I work.

That is preliminary to just one general statement I am going to try to get across. The Fourth of July orators tell us about the fact that the fathers met in some constitutional conventions and arranged our system of government with three coordinate branches. The truth of it is, of course, that the people who sat in the Constitutional Conventions did not have a single thing to do with reference to the arrangement of our system of Government in three coordinate branches. That arrangement of Government had been developing under natural law through a process of centuries among a people peculiarly gifted with the genius · of self-government. It was not a debatable question when the constitutional conventions met. The men who assembled in those conventions were the agents of exactly that sort of government.

That brings me to the practical point to which I direct your attention. and that is the necessity of preserving, as far as we can, those lines of cleavage, not because those lines of cleavage originated from human genius but because they originated from the genius of God Almighty, who made the natural laws which govern governments.

Human experience has demonstrated beyond any peradventure of doubt that when you come to determine policy of government you need the counsel of many minds. No one man who sat in the Constitutional Convention would have done otherwise than shipwreck the whole system if he alone had been privileged to write the policy that was incorporated in the Constitution. When you come to execution you need a single Executive.

There is a tendency in this country, manifested when we come to write a tariff bill-and I do not want to get into the realm of partisan politics-and in the agencies of government that are expending these billions of dollars-in fact everywhere the · tendency of the representative branch of the Government-to surrender the powers which nature says belong to the representative branch.

They are being surrendered to the Executive. That is the truth of it, and we are accumulating about the President of the United States powers so great that no human being in human history has been able and no human being ever will be able to possess without their abusive exercise. I mean. God Almighty has put that limitation upon human capacity.

When we come to deal with our powers and responsibilities. gentlemen of the Congress. let us not try to hide ourselves and protect ourselves against the people through the shifting of powers to the Executive. powers which belong I am trying to speak fundamentally. We are falling into another error in this country. We are undertaking to establish a sort of guardianship, each generation of the generations that are to come after us. That can · not be done either. In the time allotted to me I can only state the basic reasons which underlie opposition to the amendment known as the Longworth amendment. which I understand is to be offered to the resolution. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAmMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for one minute.

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Chairman, in this one minute I want to state that for years I have been considering this resolution. I have been brought to favor the" lame-duck ” amendment idea. but now I very much regret that I have favored the " lame-duck ” idea at the price of removing a limitation similar to that which we have always had in this Government. It is not a question to-day of " lame-duck "legislation. The debate has been and will be to the question as to whether or not we shall have two long, possibly continuous. sessions of Congress. While I am a friend of the amendment and probably shall vote for it because I can not retrace my steps so far. I want to appeal to the House to stay with their opinion of last year in a vote of 229 to 148, and listen to the words of Jefferson. quoted here to-day, that we vote our own independent thought, not considering the attitude of another body.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that all Members who have been recognized be permitted five legislative days to extend their remarks.

The CHAffiMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired, and the Clerk will read the resolution for amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

That the following amendment to the Constitution be, and hereby ts, 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.

Mra _ CELLER .. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentarY- inquiry,

The CHAmMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr .. CELLER. May an amendment to the preamble be offered after the word Constitution in line 4, page 3, or must we wait until the first section has been read?

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment should be offered now.

Mr .. CELLER . . Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

· Amendment offered by Mr. CELLER: On page 3, line 4, after the word "Constitution," strike out the colon and insert "within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."

Mr. McKEOWN. Mr. Chairman, a. parliamentary inquiry.

. The CHAffiMAN. The gentleman will state- it.

Mr. McKEOWN. Has the amendment of the committee been offered?

The CHAmMAN. The committee amendment is pending under · the special rule.

Mr. McKEOWN. Is it proper at this time to attempt to amend the committee amendment?

The CHAffiMAN. That is proper.

Mr. RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, I . do not know whether the colloquy between the Chair and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McKEoWN] is with. respect t~ any question of policy or not. We did not get the gentleman's question. Mr. McKEOWN. · The question was whether or not the amendment to the committee amendment could be considered before the committee amendment was offered.

. Mr. RAMSEYER. That was taken care of by the rule yesterday. _ ·

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, the only purpose in offering this amendment is to remove whatever there may be of ambiguity in the bill, as I see it, concerning the period during which ratification may be perfected.

Article V of the Constitution makes no provision with reference to the time within which ratification may be had, either by the State legislatureS" or by the conventions assembled in the states. U we do not put some limitation in . this proposed amendment, seven years or . some other reasonable provision, we might have a situation develop where one State would ratify this year, another State would ratify next year, and the procedure might continue along for 20 years. The question would then arise whether or not 20 years is a due and proper period of ratification within the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

We have a decision of the United States Supreme Court, a very important decision, and 'I hardly think we should act, or much less deliberate, upon this proposition Unless some knowledge is brought to us concerning this decision.

When tile eighteenth amendment was tested in the Supreme Court, the court held as to ratification in the case of Dillon v. Gloss (25o U. S. Repts.), that the 7-year provision which was attached to the eighteenth amendment was a reasonable provision, and th€m it went on, significantly, to make this statement---

Mr. RAMSEYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. In just a moment, when I have finished this statement, I shall be very happy to:

Proposal and ratification-

As embodied in the fifth amendmentare not treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding steps in a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they are not to be widely separated in time • • • the reasonable implication being that when proposed--

That is, when amendments are proposedthey are to be considered and disposed of presently • • • there is a fair implication that it must be sufficiently contemporane~usThat is, the ratificationin that number of States to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period, which, of course, ratification scattered through a long series of years would not do.

I take it if through a long period of years there are separate ratifi-cations by various States, that would not, in the spirit of this decision, be an appropriate ratification of the Constitution. In other words, the proposal of the amendment by the House and. the Senate and the ratification by the States must be contemporaneous. They must. be related one to the other, and there is good reason for this.