February 13, 1932

I therefore ask you to vote down this amendment.

Mr. SHANNON. Mr. Chairman, there are many Members of this body who in good faith are for the Norris amendment. They believe in it. They have been taught to believe in it. It has been before the country for many, many years. It has reached this House before, but by strange ways has met defeat.

_ I regret to say that the so-called liberalizing of the rules of this House does not make them liberal enough so that we can get a roll call on this particular amendment to the · Norris amendment. I dislike to believe that I shall have to tell my people when I go back home that our rules are so poorly "liberalized" that those of us who believe in the Norris amendment have had to vote for it with an obnoxious amendment, or else vote the whole thing down.

I say this is unfair. It is not fair to the people. If the proposal of th~ gentleman from Alabama is offered in good faith, the gentleman should come in here and offer it as a separate amendment.

As the gentleman from Massachusetts said a moment ago, when the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were offered they were voted upon separately, and those 10 amendments came from the followers of Thomas Jefferson. I say to you ._ gentlemen who believe in the teaching's of Hamilton, get those on our side of the House who are really Hamiltonians and form a new coalition; make it a Hamiltonian group; but let those of us who believe in giving the people their own government have a chance, so that even though we may be in the minority we will be heard as Jeffersonians and not as Hamiltonians.

Again I say to you that I am here as one of the protesting Members of this body. My predecessor was elected by a substantial majority. I come from the center of the great agricultural belt of the West. I am in the very heart of it. There was but one vote of my predecessor's that was considered in the late election, and that · was his vote on the tariff bill. After the people considered it, and gave thought to the vote of this gentleman, they elected poor me by 46,600. [Applause.]

When you take away this off-year election, you leave no method by which the people may pass on the existing administration, and you do them an injustice.

Jefferson said he would not give a fig for a people who did not have the spirit of revolt in their blood lest those at Washington take away from them their Government. The vote of the people at the last election was a vote of protest; in fact, it was a revolt against this administration; and now you come in and say by this proposed amendment to the Norris amendment that this right of approval or disapproval shall not be left with the people.

Let me remind you that this protest has been used frequently. It was used against that great soldier, U.S. Grant, and it did not hurt the Grant administration a particle. It made it a better administration. It was used against that great character, Grover Cleveland, and it improved his administration. Then it was used against that fine soldier · and great lawYer, Benjamin Harrison, and it made his administration a better one. Then when the mighty Wilson went out and said, " Send me back a Congress of my own political party," the American people stood up and protested, and I want to say to you that it made the Wilson administration better, by serving notice upon him that this is a people's government and not merely a President's government. [Applause.]

In · conclusion, no matter what may be the motives of the gentleman who proposes this amendment to the Norris amendment, the public will accept it as being intended for conferee. no purpose other than to kill the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska. Let me urge you to meet it face to face. Do not be cowards. Come forward and vote yes or no stating, "We are for the Norris amendment, or we are against the Norris amendment." [Applause.]

Mr. BLANTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr . . SHANNON. Yes.

Mr. BLANTON. The gentleman has correctly stated the parliamentary situation. If the committee adopts the Bankhead amendment, then the gentleman will have to vote for it if he votes for the Norris amendment.

Mr. SHANNON. Then I will be put in the position of being compelled to vote against something I have been for for years, for I shall not vote in favor of the amendment with the Bankhead amendment on it.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BAN"..aiEAD) there were 65 ayes and 112 noes.

So the amendment was rejected.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEc. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 4th day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Mr. WARREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment: Strike out all of section 2, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

SEc. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, yield? and in each odd number of years such meeting shall be on the 4th day of January, unless they shall by law establish a different day. In each odd number of years such meeting shall be on the 4th day of January, and the session shall not continue after noon on the 4th day of June.

Mr. WARREN. Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to discuss this amendment, having said all I care to say about it on yesterday. But I want to call attention to the fact that I have followed verbatim the Longworth amendment, with the exception that the date of adjournment is extended until the 4th day of June, rather than the 4th day of May, as contained in the amendment offered last year.

I again call the attention of the committee to the fact that this is the amendment that was largely supported on both sides of the House and was made a part of this resolution last February.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no intent or desire to delay the proceedings, because we want to go right along. I have hesitated to take the floor at this juncture, but let me just suggest one or two things. Why is it necessary to limit this date? It will become a part of the Constitution, and at some future time in the history of the Nation, when the business of the country has changed, and we can not fore s ee to what extent it may be necessary for them to have more time for the sessions of Congress, we are, In effect, saying now that they will not have sense enough to judge for themselves what time is necessary. They will think we were very presumptuous here in 1932 to insert in the Constitution a hard and fast date for them to be bound by at a time, say, 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years hence. We should leave them free then to decide for themselves.

Now, they contend that the President could call a special session of Congress immediately. But suppose the · President would not do that? The Congress would be without the power to work its own will. Let us leave it to our successors to determine when the session of Congress in which they serve shall end. Surely we can trust them to do that.

I agree with the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. RAMSEYER] when he says that this body should act independently on its own initiative and not be controlled by any other influence. I agree to that, and in the Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, as well as in this Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, my own attitude is based on what I think and believe to be right, and not upon what somebody else dictates. I say that this should not be a part of the bill, and that is my own judgment, after giving much consideration to it as a member of the committee and as a

Mr. BLANTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JEFFERS. Surely; I yield.

Mr. BLANTON. My friend does not believe that after the present Congress has passed the proper relief bills and the proper appropriation bills it is going to remain here any longer.

Mr. JEFFERS. No; Congress, when it finishes its work, will go home. Congress is not going to sit here an undue length of time.

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

Mr. JEFFERS. Yes; certainly.

Mr. MAY. · I have heard a lot said this evening about the wisdom of the framers of the Federal Constitution. If they placed a limit of three months on the second session of Congress, is not this a rather liberal allowance to extend it for two additional months?

Mr. JEFFERS. Now, then, the gentleman knows that that is not a fair question. The reason there is a limit on the session of Congress to which he refers is because on the 4th · day of March that Congress goes out of existence automatically. The forefathers did not arbitrarily place that limit. The Congress goes out of existence at that time by operation of the Constitution.

lVfr. PATTERSON. And this would be arbitrary limitation.

Mr. JEFFERS. Why, of course.

Mr. BURTNESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman

Mr. JEFFERS. Yes.

Mr. BURTNESS. As a practical proposition, was not the adoption of this amendment or a similar one a year ago what prevented the two Houses from getting together in conference then and having the resolution go to the people?

Mr. JEFFERS. To a certain extent that is true. That conference happened in the closing days of the last Congress. The conference was tied up; it was in the jam at the end of the session, with Members of the House and of the Senate hurrying back and forth from the conference room ' to the floor of the Senate and the floor of the House. While that was somewhat responsible, it was not entirely so.

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I regard this as an exceedingly important amendment. Let us get down to the only question involved. The question as to how long the Congress should sit is not involved. Let us get that straight. There is but one question involved, and that is, Shall the Houses of Congress be trusted to determine the length of time during which they shall undertake to transact the public business without having to resort to Executive consent? Is that clear? Is there a man on the floor of this House who will controvert that question? I yield if there is one; I yield in my own time. There is not a man on the floor of this House who can controvert that statement of fact. That is the question. In a Government of three coordinate branches, with Members of the House of Representatives sent here by a sovereign people, will you in this hour confess to your people that you have not the sense or the courage to determine how long you are to sit here to transact the public business?

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

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. As a matter of fact, under certain recent rulings, would not this cut the session 10 days shorter, because the President can cut down the law by vetoing a bill within the last 10 days?

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I shall not leave the major proposition. That is, Shall the Members of the House confess to the country that they believe that they have not the sense or the patriotism or the courage to determine how long they ought to sit here to take care of the public business? I say to my friend who offers this amendment, and for whom I have the highest respect, I am not unwilling to join you in , asking the President of the United States to sit as the arbitrator of that question.

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

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I regret I can not yield. I shall not yield to any man on that question, and I shall not yield to any m a n who ever sat in the White House or who ever will sit there to be the supreme judge above the judgment of my colleagues in this body chosen by - the sovereign citizenship of this country on a question so vital as the continuity of its effort until the work is done. We ought to vote this amendment down out of a sense of respons i bility and a willingness to meet it.

Mr. PATTERSON. And this would be an arbitrary setting of a seven months' period for which we draw salary when we could not transact business.

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I shall not leave the major question and that is, Will we Members of the representative branch of this Government yield to anybody in another branch of the Government the right . to determine for us how long we shall sit here in the transaction of the public business? That is the question and the only question. Every other thing fades into insignificance. It is no wonder that people make fun of the Members of the House. Why should they. not make fun of you if you agree to a proposition like this and ther.eby confess that you have not either the sense to know or the courage to fix how long you will sit here to transact the public business. Of course they ought to make 1 fun of you on every vaudeville stage in the United States if you do this sort of thing. The people will . respect the Congress when it respects itself.

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Chairman, this is a separate proposition, one entirely by itself. We have lived under this limitation ever since the Congress was organized. There has been a limitation when we have to adjourn. This has nothing to do with the "lame-duck" matter, for which so many have said that they want to vote. The matter has been so long under consideration that we are anxious to legislate thereon. This limitation has been considered before, and la s t year it was the vote of this body, by a vote of 229 to 148, that it should be continued in some form. The amendment accepted at that time has been liberalized to-day to June 4, giving five long months, even, in the second term. That is long enough, surely. We have now, in fact, only two and a half months. But if, by chance, the House shall reverse itself from the opinion expressed last year, and the gentleman from Texas still feels that he does not want to be under the control of another branch of the Congress, I give notice that I shall immediately offer this . same amendment, changing the Longworth amendment but little, to provide that in each even year the sessions shall not continue after noon of the 4th day of June unless the Congress shall by vote appoint a different date for adjournment, leaving it entirely within the hands of Congress by joint action as to whether . her we shall sit here or not, and thus deliver us from the possibility of another body deliberately keeping us here by their interminable debates.

Mr. LOZIER. Certainly my friend from Massachusetts does not contend that the language used in his amendment would enable the two Houses of Congress to determine the length of their sessions, without the President in the usual manner approves the action of Congress. There are many places . in the Constitution which authorize Congress by law to do this or that, but this means that Congress shall act in the customary way, and its action must have the approval of the President. The gentleman's amendment in substance provides that Congress may by law determine the length of its sessions, but the courts would construe that to mean that the action of Congress would have to be approved by the President like any other law before it would be effective. The language in the gentleman's amendment does not and can not enlarge the power of the two Houses of Congress to such an extent as to enable them to extend their sessions beyond the time limit mentioned in the amendment unless the congressional action meets with Executive approval. The language that Congress may by law provide for this or that means that Congress in those cases would fun . ction just llke it functions in the enactment of tariff bills, appropriation bills, and other legislation, namely, with the approval of the President. The proposed amendment is not sufficiently broad to take from the President the power to veto the action of the Congress.

Mr. RANKIN. I wonder if the gentleman would offer an amendment along that line to take from the President the power to veto bills for 10 days prior to the end of that session.

Mr. GIFFORD. I wish it could be done.

Mr. RANKIN. It can be done by an amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. MICHENER. Does the gentleman want this on this particular resolution? I would not discuss it, if it is not germane to this resolution.

Mr. RANKIN. If you want to amend the Constitution at all along that line--

Mr. GIFFORD. I do not yield to outside discussion like that.

Mr. STAFFORD. To meet the objection raised by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. LoZIER] the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts would require the approval of the President. I suggest that might be overcome in this way: Instead of having it done by law, have it done by concurrent action by both Houses of Congress, in the form of a concurrent resolution. Would the gentleman be willing to change his amendment to embody that idea?

Mr. GIFFORD. I Should be glad to have it changed to meet that objection, but we often overturn a veto of the President of the United States, and it would be effective in such a case.

Mr. STAFFORD. But the Congress should determine for itself whether it should continue in session.

The CHAmMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, being a new Member, my opinions on this subject were formed outside of this body. Therefore, I may view the question from an angle somewhat d i fferent from many of you. .

It has been suggested that this resolution would change the Constitution, a thing not to be thought of for light or transient reasons. It is urged that the present arrangement originated in the wisdom of the fathers and should, therefore, remain unmolested.

Bear in mind that one of the purposes of this amendment is to change the date on which the President, Vice President. Senators, and Representatives in Congress enter upon the discharge of their official duties. I have been much interested in the history by which this was fixed. Curious as it may seem this date is not mentioned in the Constitution. In fact when that instrument was written it was not known whether it would be ratified and, if ratified, when operation under it would begin. The length of the terms of these . officers, however, was definitely fixed, so we have but to determine the beginning and the end is made certain.

On September 13, 1788, the Continental Congress, by resolution, found that the requisite number of States had ratified and declared the "first Wednesday in March next" as "the time for commencing proceedings under the new Constitution." The first Wednesday in March, 1789, was the fourth day. This date has therefore been recognized and followed for more than a hundred and forty years, and I think will be followed until changed by constitutional methods.

On another phase of this resolution-changing the date for Congress to convene-it is urged that a constitutional amendment is too big a weapon to wield in order to achieve the small results contemplated, " that the game is not worth the candle "; and that the substantial results can be attained by a simple statute. To this I do not subscribe.

It is true under the Constitution that Congress may fix any date for its convening, but there are practical obstacles well-nigh insurmountable. Suppose we fix March 4, as has been done in the past. If there should be much work, the session would run far into the summer. I am informed that summer weather ;.tt this place is inconsistent with good work. You can not repeal the weather, neither can you change it by an act of Congress.

Again, suppose we fix the convening date on January 4, as contemplated by this resolution, without changing the official terms. This would make the long session a month shorter, and, if the short session should last more than two months, would present the remarkable and awkward situation of changing membership in the middle of the session. The welfare of the country demands the deliberate and unimpassioned judgment of its officers. This is especially true in the legislative branch, where such broad discretions are exercised. I agree with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MoNTAGUE] that partisanship " is the most insidious disease any of us possesses, and those who possess it most think they possess it least." I also agree that every effort should be made to remove our deliberations from the sordid atmosphere of partisan politics.

A " cooling time " is urged-meaning a time after an election for its heat and passion to subside. "'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished." I would also warn you of a " warming time," meaning a time before an election when the heat and passion and hope of the approaching contest are being generated and agitated. How shall we dodge the rock and miss the whirlpool?

Let us examine our present situation from this angle. This session convened 13 months after our last election-an ample time for the cooling process. It began only 11 months before our next election, and will probably end 5 months before that contest is determined. We have dodged the rock but the whirlpool lies before us. Free as this Congress has been from partisanship, the shadow of the coming campaign now lies across our pathway, the atmosphere is charged with politics. The " warming time " is on and obstructs and retards our deliberations and perhaps influences them.

From this angle the short session is no better. It convenes only one month after the election. Those reelected return with all the heat and passion of the campaign. Recommissioned they feel not only authorized but directed to write into law what they advocated on the stump. While there are outstanding exceptions the attitude of those defeated is even worse. Some do live in an atmosphere of legislative calm without hope of reward or fear of defeat, but too many entertain a grouch. I have never known a man to be convinced of error in his position by being defeated at the polls. Too often in such a mind his party is personified and loyalty to it is deified. Free from all restraint he goes any length to further the interest of his party. We do not now dodge the rock nor avoid the whirlpool in the short session.

Again, under our party system, elections frequently turn upon principles rather than men. The defeat of a candidate is often the rejection by the electorate of the laws he advocates. It is an anomaly, to say the least, for a man to hold a commission by which he can write into law principles after they have been rejected and repudiated by his constituents. In this debate we have heard described stirring scenes when a party, knowing the end of its power was at hand, made strenuous efforts to pass laws already rejected by the people and the party already elected and approved for succession equally resourceful and anxious for delay. Such, in my opinion, is not for the best interests of our people. · ' Again, I see no reason for a long session and a short session. A better arrangement would be to equalize the work so the sessions would be of about equal length.

For these reasons 1 am for the resolution.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment close in 10 minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, this resolution has been kicked about in Congress now for several years. Some Members say it is not of first importance. That may be conceded; but Congress has magnified its importance by its failure to pass it, and every time it refuses to pass it, it makes it more important in the eyes of the people.

I O f those who have consistently supported the I am one · . resolution every time it has been before Congress, ever since I have been a Member of - this body, and I have as consistently opposed any amendment to it which would fix the time for adjournment of the second session of Congress. It seems to me that that may well be left to the discretion of future Congresses, to be exercised in the light of the exigencies as they may exist at the particular time. In my judgment, it is not a proper provision to put into the Constitution. It would put Congress in a straight jacket such as it ought not to be put into. I am not afraid to trust Congress to fix its own time for adjournment. I do not believe that anyone need be afraid that the sessions of Congress will be unduly prolonged without such a provision. The personal interests and inclinations of Members, if nothing else, will take care of that. Congress is more likely to adjourn when there is business to be performed, when there is legislation that ought to be considered and passed, than it is to stay in session when there is no business before it and when it ought to adjourn. Who ever knew it to continue in session under such conditions? The urge is all the other way.

I wish to say further that I do not entertain the notion that Congress hurts the legitimate business of the country. Business is sometimes inclined to criticize Congress, but it is the first to rush to Congress whenever it gets into trouble. We had an illustration of this this last year. Congress adjourned on the 4th day of March. Some business men said" That is a good thing; it will give us an opportunity to go along about our business without being molested by Congress, and give the country an opportunity to get back into a prosperous condition." We all know what happened. The same critics, before the summer was over, were anxious to have Congress get together again, and as soon as the first Monday in December came and Congress was in session, they were here asking Congress to pass legislation to help them out, and very properly so.

I hold in my hand a copy of an address entitled, "Amending the Constitution," which I was privileged to hear over the radio last Sunday afternoon, delivered by the former distinguished leader of the Democratic Party in this body and now Associate Justice of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Hon. Finis J. Garrett. As everybody here would expect, it was a highly interesting and able . address. Of course, he said nothing about this proposed amendment in that address, but he did discuss it in the Seventieth Congress, and I have before me a copy of his remarks at that time.

I want to call attention to what he thought of this particular amendment. He said:

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the House committee has taken a proposal-

And let me say that the House committee at that time reported the resolution with a provision in it fixing the day of adjournment. In the last Congress the committee left out that provision, as it has in this Congress, but with the prestige of the Speaker behind the amendment in the last Congress, as you all know, it was put into the resolution after it was reported by the committee.

This is what the distinguished leader of the Democratic Party in the House at that time said in the Seventieth Congress about the amendment now proposed:

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the House committee has taken a proposal which was relatively not of overwhelming importance, but which was sufficient to merit amendment of the Constitution, and has attached to it a principle which will do infi.- nitely more harm if adopted than all the good that will be wrought by the origin . al proposal. [Applause.]

While I stated in the early part of the debate on this matter my willingness and desire to support that part of this proposal which is a question of mechanics-and I use the word again because I can think of none better-! was unwilling then, and nothing has been stated in the debate which makes me willing now, to vote to lay this limitation upon the power of Congress itself to determine as to the termination of its sessions. [Applause.] And with that as an integral part of this amendment, I can not vote to submit it for ratification.

Some gentlemen have said, "Submit it and let it go to conference." Upon legislative propositions I might be willing to do that: but upon an amendment to the organic law I am unwilling to nsk my vote to the determination of conferees. The principle of this matter has been asserted by many and it is not necessary for me to go into it. I could bring to your attention many illustrations of possibilities and probably many illustrations of probabilities that would render this undesirable as a matter of principle. Take, for example, the question of impeachment. Congress is called upon to exercise this great function, and has frequently done it. With a limitation such as proposed, ~ed by the Constitution itself, Congress might be helpless even 1n the exigency of an impeachment of the Executive himself. After May 4 of the second year the President is the only power that can bring the Congress back together under this proposition. (Applause.)

Mr. Chairman, we all know that there are two evils which are inescapable at the end of a short session of Congress, when we are automatically compelled to adjourn on the 4th of March, namely, the filibuster and the rushing through of ill-considered legislation. The same evils would exist at the end of any session which was obliged to adjourn automatically on a given day. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, in the constitutional amendment before the House, as in every constitutional amendment, we are considering the granting of power by the people to the Federal Government. We have here provided for the meeting of Congress. The precise amendment now under consideration proposes the limitation that Congress shall not be permitted to act or function in its ' constitutional capacity except by and with the consent of one man. No one knows who that one man is going to be, what his temperament is going to be, or what his mental or physical condition is going to be at the time some important June 4 arrives.

The Constitution, being fundamental law, ought to provide for all contingencies which may happen, and not merely provide for most of the contingencies that may arise.

Who can see into the future and know what the situation will be confronting the country on some June 4 when, by the provisions of the Constitution, if this amendment is adopted, a succeeding Congress will be compelled to adjourn? We might be in the midst of a national or international crisis, yet the Congress would cease to function unless the President of the United States was in a mood to call a special session.

It seems to me this amendment is primarily prompted by the question of the comfort and convenience of the Members. We are accustomed to ~ adjourn about June 4. ~ We realize the weather is warm at that time. We therefore hope that in the future, while we remain in Congress, we will be permitted to adjourn at about that time. Prompted by this desire for comfort and convenience, we are asked to write into the fundamental law of the land that the Congress must adjourn June 4 and go home.

We are willing to give to future Congresses the power and the authority to vote on such important measures as aid to commerce; we are willing to permit future Congresses to incur debts, provide for the coinage of money, and pass laws relative to our financial and national banking system. · We are even willing to give future Congresses the power to declare war; yet under this amendment we propose to withhold from them the inconsequential power of passing a motion to adjourn when the business of the House and the Congress has been completed. If we can trust their judgment on these other momentous questions, why can we not trust them to make a right decision on a motion to adjourn? [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina.

The question was taken; and on a division. (demanded by Mr. WARREN) there were-ayes 54, noes 98.

So the amendment was rejected.

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

The CHAmMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. GIFFoRD: Strike out all of section 2 and insert in Ueu thereof the following:

"The Congress shall assemble at least once a year. such meeting shall be on the 4th day of January. In each even-numbered year the session shall not continue after noon on the 4th day of June, unless the Congress shall by law or by concurrent action of both Houses of Congress appoint different dates for meeting or adjournment." · ~

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. It seems to me it is the same amendment that was just voted upon.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman state his point of order?

~· LAGUARDIA. If I can not reserve it, I make the point of order that in substance it is the same amendment which was just voted upon by the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. No. It is a different amendment. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to call briefly the attention of the committee to the fact that it seems to me this amendment ought to meet the objection of the gentleman from Texas. Certainly, it removes the time of adjournment from the power of the President. It certainly answers the objection of the gentleman from California, and I might call the attention of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. JEFFERS] to the fact that the gentleman advocated this, I think, last year. ·

I regret very much that the other amendment was lost; but, seemingly, this amendment ought to answer practically all the objections made against the other amendment.

I regret that this limitation should be regarded as new matter. I repeat, that we have had this limitation on the second session ever since the Government was organized, but we treat it here to-day as if it were a new thing, as if we were talking about our own convenience. Under this amendment we are extending the time from two and a half months to five months and, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope the amendment will be adopted.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not desire to extend this debate now because I know the members of the committee want to vote, and I am perfectly willing for them to vote, but since it has been stated that this is a proposition which I sponsored last year, I must state that in trying to arrive at something to modify the hard-and-fast date last year I did suggest something to this effect. But it was then suggested as a modification of the other. and more rigid amendment. I was not for this amendment except as a. matter of compromise between .the two, and that goes for what happened in conference, also. I think this proposed amendment simply " muddies the water " and we do not know just what the effect of it might be.

The language of the committee resolution has been studied carefully by the committee. I think this pending amendment should be voted down.

Mr. SANDLIN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JEFFERS. Certainly; I yield to my friend.

. Mr. SANDLIN. Would not the amendment, if adopted, Simply mean that if a majority of the Congress wanted to adjourn they could not adjourn unle.ss we passed a law and then the President could veto it and it would take a J two- . thirds vote to override the veto?

Mr. KVALE. If the gentleman will yield, it is the exact reverse of that. It puts it in a negative way so that unless Congress takes positive action it literally ties the hands of Members for the last six months of their term.

Mr. SANDLIN. I understand that, but we would have to . get the consent of the President also.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment do now close.

The motion was agreed to.

. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment : offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. GIFFORD) there were-ayes 58, noes 88. ·

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. SUMNERS of Texas: Page 3, strike out all after "unless" in li.ne 14 down through Une 15 and insert in lieu thereof the following: " by concurrent action of both Houses of Congress a different day is appointed."

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want & minute of indulgence on the part of the committee to explain the proposed amendment. · This amendment · is intended to bring this section in line with what seems to be the will of the committee with reference to the general question under consideration, and may I ask the Clerk to read section 2 as it would appear if amended?

The Clerk read as follows:

SEc. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 4th day of January, unless by concurrent action of both Houses of Congress a different day is appointed.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Yes.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. This comes rather suddenly. The outgoing Congress could then, by concurrent resolution, fix the date for the convening of the new Congress, and if it were an antagonistic Congress, instead of advancing the date it could retard the date up to almost the very last day.

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. May I say to my friend from New York that the resolution would have to be agreed to by the House and the Senate, and if we assume that the House and the Senate will do an unconscionable thing with regard to the time when their successors are to meet-well, we are just in a pretty bad fix.

What I want to do is to place in the House and in the Senate the power to control their own business without having to go to the other end of the Avenue to get the consent of anybody.

Mr. STAFFORD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I yield.

Mr. STAFFORD. Does the gentleman mean that the power should be vested in the Congress simply to control the convening date of that Congress, or also of subsequent Congresses? The gentleman will recall that Andrew Jackson vetoed a resolution to appoint a different date for the convening of a subsequent Congress because the President held that it infringed his prerogative to convene Congress in extraordinary session. The phraseology of the amendment submitted by the gentleman would seem to give power to fix the convening date of subsequent Congresses.

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I realize that it is hardly fair to the House, hardly fair at this stage of the proceedings, to offer an amendment of this character, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw it, hoping that it may appear in conference. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment will be withdrawn.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEc. 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 30th day of November of the year following the year in which this article is ratified.

Mr - RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEc. 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress; and the act of ratification shall be by legislatures, the entire membership of at least one branch of which shall have been elected subsequent to such date of submission.

Mr. RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment I have just offered does not go to the substance of the pending resolution. That part of the resolution which proposes to change or amend the fundamental law is found in sections 1 to 4, inclusive. My amendment has to do with procedure of ratification.

This is the same section I have referred to as having been offered to this resolution when first considered in 1928 in this House. Mr. Garrett, the then minority leader, was the author of this amendment. It was adopted after a debate of some length by a vote of 187 to 23.

Last year this same proposal was a part of this resolution as reported by the committee.

I am offering the same amendment that was offered by Mr. Garrett in 1928 and was adopted by a vote of 187 to 23. It is word for word the same as section 6 in the resolution last year. Then there was no opposition to it.

Now, my amendment has two clauses. The first is that the proposed article to the Constitution shall be inoperative, unless ratified within seven years. There is a similar provision in the eighteenth amendment, the prohibition amendment, and the Supreme Court in a decision said in regard to the validity of the 7-year provision that:

Whether a definite period for ratification shall be fixed so that all may know what it is and speculation on what is a reasonable time may be avoided, is, in our opinion, a matter of detail which Congress may determine as an incident of its power to designate the mode of ratification.

In another portion of this opinion the court said:

That all amendments must have the sanction of the people of the United States, the original fountain of power, acting through representative assemblies.

Now, the first clause of the amendment is that the proposed article shall be inoperative unless ratified within seven years after submission. The second clause, which I regard more important from the standpoint of orderly procedure, is that the ratification shall be by legislatures, the entire membership of at least one branch of which shall be elected after the date of submission. - This is to give the people, the original fountain of power, an opportunity to get acquainted with and to pass judgment on the congressional proposal before their agents in the State legislatures are intrusted or empowered to act.

Now, the 7-year limitation is reasonable. It has the sanction of the Supreme Court. It affords ample time for the States to act.

Furthermore, every one of the 19 amendments to the Constitution was ratified within four years after its submission. No one can insist with reason that seven years is not long enough.

Now, the second clause, which delays action on the part of the State legislatures, is to insure the people an opportunity to instruct the members of at least one branch of the legislature how to vote on the proposed amendment submitted by the Congress. I do not know how anyone who understands the Constitution and the fundamentals of the Constitution can possibly object to this clause requiring a delay in action on the part of the legislatures. The Constitution of the United States is the people's law. What is in the Constitu- , tion is law. Only the people can change that law. An act passed by a Congress is a law by the agents of the people, and is valid only if that law does not conflict with the fundamental law as found in the Constitution. A resolution to amend the Constitution proposes to change the people's law. The first step is to submit it by a two-thirds vote of each House of Congress. It goes to the States for action by assemblages representative of the people. We could refer it to State conventions. If we referred · it to State conventions, the people would have to elect delegates to the • conventions, and thereby we would get the proposition before the people. Now there are State legislatures in session none of the members of which were elected to pass judgment on the pending resolution. They should not be allowed to pass on this proposal until the people themselves have had an opportunity to consider it. I am sure everyone who understands the Constitution as the people's law will agree with me on this.

On February 14, 1931, I discussed Constitution amending at some length, and presented in detail the action of the States on each of the amendments which have become a part of the Constitution since the twelfth amendment. Some of these amendments were ratified by the States before there was an election to elect members of the State legislatures. In other words, the act of ratification was not by the people but by agents of the people. Agents not selected for that purpose. Briefly, I call your attention to a few facts.

The thirteenth amendment was submitted on February 1, 1865. In that same year 27 States ratified that amendment. In all these States the legislatures acted without instructions from the people. The people were not consulted.

The fourteenth amendment was submitted on the 16th of June, 1866, and that same year six States ratified it. The next year 16 States ratified it. When the fourteenth amend· ment was up in the House of Representatives Thaddeus stevens, who was the leader on the Republican side, wanted the amendment passed before the sun went down in order that it might be acted upon by . the State legislatures, 22 of which were in session at that time: The spirit of Thad stevens still lives. Some Members here are just as impatient as Stevens was and are just as disinclined to give the people a chance to pass on constitutional amendments.

The fifteenth amendment was submitted on February 27, 1869; that same year 20 States ratified it. It is needless to call attention to the fact that in these States the people had no opportunity to express themselves. The sixteenth amendment is the income tax amendment, and that was not so hastily ratified. Only a few States ratified it before new legislatures were elected.

The seventeenth amendment was submitted May 6, 1912. Three States ratified it in that same year. The eighteenth amendment was submitted on December 17, 1917. Fifteen States ratified it in the year 1918 by legislatures the membership of which was elected before the amendment was submitted.

The nineteenth amendment, the woman's suffrage amendment, was submitted June 5, 1919, and twenty-two States ratified it the same year. No new legislatures had been elected. The purpose of my amendment is, first, to prevent ratification after the proposal has gone out of the people's mind, and, second, to delay the act of ratification until the people have had an opportunity to study what the Congress has submitted to them and to instruct the members of their legislatures accordingly. •

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

Mr. RAMSEYER. Yes.

Mr. PARSONS. Why make it seven years? Why not make it four years?

Mr. RAMSEYER. That is a matter of judgment. There is nothing sacred about the figure 7.

Mr. PARSONS. They will go on from year to year and forget about this matter, and some of these years we will wake up to find that we have an amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. RAMSEYER. Seven years has been accepted as a reasonable time.

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

Mr. RAMSEYER. Yes.

Mr. MAPES. I recently read the discussion of the gentleman on this subject in the Seventieth Congress. It was very interesting and informative. Is not the importance of the gentleman's amendment discounted a good deal by the fact, as the gentleman pointed out in his discussion in the Seventieth Congress, that all of the 19 amendments that have been adopted were adopted by the States within four years; and the further statement of the gentleman after reviewing the decisions of the Supreme Court, that in his judgment the court would hold that the adoption of an amendment long after it was submitted would be invalid and not binding?

Mr. RAMSEYER. The 7-year limitation, just as the Supreme Court has said and as I read to the gentleman a moment ago, is reasonable. and should go in here so that people may know the definite period they have for ratification. On second clause, of course, there is absolutely nothing that can be said against a stay of ratification until the people shall have had an opportunity to elect and instruct the membership of at least one branch of the legislature.

Mr. KVALE. Will the gentleman yield? •

Mr. RAMSEYER. I yield.

Mr. KVALE. On that point, would the gentleman not admit that would be largely ineffective, due to the fact that it would be impossible to divorce all local issues that would enter into the election of legislators in a State?

Mr. RAMSEYER. There might be such issues, but I con­ ment? tend that we should at least give the people an opportunity to instruct their legislators for or against the proposed amendment.

Mr. KVALE. But there could be no clear-cut decision of this one proposition.

Mr. RAMSEYER. There might be. They should have an opportunity, at least, and no one who is in favor of orderly procedure in connection with Constitution amending and who has any respect whatever for the will of the people, can say anything against deferring action until the people have had a chance to express themselves as proposed in the second clause of my amendment. ·

Mr. PERKINS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAMSEYER. I yield.

Mr. PERKINS. Does the gentleman know that in one case a State legislature attempted to adopt a constitutional amendment which had been passed by Congress 84 years prior?

Mr. RAMSEYER. Well, that is true.

Mr. HARLAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAMSEYER. I yield.

Mr. HARLAN. Does the gentleman think that placing this amendment on the proposed constitutional amendment which, in effect, means the fifth article of the Constitution, the general article allowing for amendments; will give power to select a legislature which is to do the amending?

Mr. RAMSEYER. Oh, my amendment simply affects this particular proposed article to the Constitution and does not in the least change Article V of the Constitution. It directs that the act of ratification of this proposed article shall be delayed until after one general election. Its purpose is to bring Constitution amending near to the people, where it should be and to give the people an opportunity to consider the proposed amendment at least during one election campaign. ·

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Chairman, I always listen with much interest and profit to the arguments advanced by the gentleman from Iowa, a profound lawyer, a very industrious, able, and useful legislator, but I can not see the necessity for his amendment. Now, let us look this situation squarely in the face. The practical effect of his amendment is to make it more difficult for this constitutional amendment to be ratified. Why? Because it specifically provides that it must be ratified within seven years. It erects a barrier at the end of seven years, and nullifies everything that has been done unless 36 States ratify the amendment within that period. If 55 States ratify the amendment in the 7-year period and the thirty-sixth State acts one day after the seven years, all action by the 36 States would be futile, and Congress would have to begin over again and resubmit the amendment or forego the much-needed reform. The amendment erects a barrier er barb-wire entanglement at the end of seven years that can not be surmounted. I believe more than 36 States will ratify the amendment within less than seven years, but why create a situation that may ultimately defeat ratification, if some of the States should · be tardy in acting on the amendment. Thirteen States can prevent the ratification of this amendment.

Suppose 35 States ratify it; the end of the seven years is approaching. If those who oppose this amendment can induce any one of the 13 States to withhold favorable action until the 7-year period has passed, then everything that has been done by Congress and 35 States will amount to · nothing. Consequently everything will have been dm1e in vain.

Thirty-five State may ratify this amendment within a year. It is not inconceivable that none of the remaining 13 States may act within the 7-year period. But if the thirtysixth state does not ratify the amendment in seven years, the entire movement ends in failure, though the thirty-sixth State might act soon after the expiration of the 7-year period. Why should a limitation be placed on the time within which this amendment shall be ratified? Why should we adopt this provision which makes it more difficult to secure ratification and might ultimately defeat the amend­

Mr. RAMSEYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LOZIER. I yield. .

Mr. RAMSEYER. The gentleman · knows there is no amendment that has been made to the Constitution which has taken longer than four years to ratify. The Supreme Court says seven years is a reasonable limit, so that everybody will know that there is an end to it some time. If this goes into effect, it will be ratified within the next three years.

Mr. LOZIER. I hope the gentleman is right-and he usually is right. But the gentleman does not mean to say that Congress: the Supreme Court has held that seven years, and only seven years, is a reasonable time limit in which an amendment may be ratified.

Mr. RAMSEYER. Oh, no.

Mr. LOZIER. If the gentleman's amendment prescribed a time limit of 8 years, 10 years, or 5 years, no doubt the Supreme Court would hold it reasonable.

Mr. RAMSEYER. I do not know.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment do now close.

The motion was agreed to. · The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. RAMSEYER) there were-ayes 42, noes 65.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out all after the enacting clause in Senate Joint Resolution 14 and insert in lieu thereof the committee amendment which we have 'bad under consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment as a substitute for the Senate joint resolution. The - committee amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the committee rises. Accordingly the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. BULWINKLE, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that committee had had under consideration Senate Joint Resolution 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, and had directed him to report the same back with an amendment, with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the joint resolution as amended do pass.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule the previous question is ordered, and under the agreement made by the House the vote on the resolution will be taken next Tuesday.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. Speaker, the vote will be taken immediately after the reading of the Journal and the disposition of matters on the Speaker's desk?

The SPEAKER. That is the Chair's understanding.