February 13, 1932 (2)

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be permitted for five legislative days to extend their remarks on the resolution we have had under consideration to-day.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Alabama asks unanimous consent that all Members be permitted for five legislative days to extend their own remarks on Senate Joint Resolution 14. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Speaker, while I shall, in all probability, vote for the so-called Norris resolution, or the substitute proposed by the House committee, I must confess that I am not convinced of the necessity of a constitutional amendment to accomplish the purpose aimed at.

There can be no question but that it is a glaring anomaly to have the Members of Congress wait in suspense for 13 months after their election before they begin to render service or perform their duties. They begin to draw their pay on the March 4th follo w ing their election and there is no reason in the world why they should not begin on that very day to earn it.

Surely the Constitution is not at fault. That superb instrument was drawn with admirable foresight and leaves the time of convening completely in the hands of Congress itself. It provides in article . !, section 4, subdivision 2, that Shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be the first Monday in December, unless they shall appoint a different day.

"Unless they shall appoint a different day!" There is the authority. Why not make use of it if we are really serious about doing away with "lame-duck" sessions?

If each new Congress should meet on the March 4th following its election all complaints about " lame-duck " sessions would vanish. The new Members would have three months in which to prepare to take up their new duties and those not reelected would have the like period in which to resume their accustomed nonpolitical vocations.

The practice of having the new Congress begin its sessions on March 4th following its election has been tried before and in practical results it was successful. The only reason I can conjecture for the abandonment of the practice is that it deprived Washington society of its much-worshiped soirees, fashionable receptions, and dinner parties. If the · demands of fashionable society in the Capital are deemed of sufficiently momentous importance, Congress, which has the power, can provide for a session to begin in December of the odd-numbered years, to last through the dance season, up to, say, February 15. This will give the debutantes a chance to dance with Members of Congress every second winter. •

But whatever plausibility there may be in requiring Congress to meet earlier than March 4, there is absolutely no good reason to have the newly elected President and Vice President take office within two months after the election at which they are supposed to be chosen. The change is fraught with danger. If there should be a tie in the electoral college, throwing the choice into the House of Representatives, a prolonged contest there would have elements of much mischief.

In short, all of the practical, useful, and desirable features of this proposed amendment to the Constitution could be fully covered by a simple law requiring Senators and Congresmen to begin work when they begin to receive their pay and let the new President and Vice President begin their duties with them.

The thing that really needs amendment is the awkward arid absurd twelfth amendment itself, with its undemocratic expedient of the electoral college, putting the States to the utterly unnecessary expense of going through the form of electing groups of figureheads, who have not a thing to say about the election, except to vote as a majority of the voters of their respective States direct them to vote.

The twelfth amendment should be repealed and the President and Vice President should be elected by direct vote of the people.

The hue and cry about " lame-duck " sessions is simply furnishing fodder to bolshevists.

Mr. ROMJUE. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, on to-morrow when we are to vote upon the above-named resolution submitting the matter involved in said resolution either for adoption or rejection by the people of the various States, it is presumed that the resolution will be passed by this body, thereby submitting the matter for the determination of the various States.

Tlte resolution itself has been so thoroughly discussed I want to take time here mainly to call attention and to express my views as to two or three proposed amendments that have been offered to the resolution. First, I wish to consider the merits of the proposed Bankhead amendment, which is, in words, as follows: ...

Provided , That the terms o! the Representatives shall end as herein provided every fourth year after they are chosen by the people of the several States.

I do not think this amendment should be added to the resolution because I believe it would be an unwise thing to do. Those men who framed the Constitution of the United States were an exceedingly able body of men; wise in experience and of great deliberation, and much time was given to the writing of this, which we have so of t en referred to as an immortal document. While, of course, the Constitution being of human creation has never been proposed as perfection, but certainly whenever its terms are sou g ht to be changed it should only be done under the greatest and most pressing need. ·

After much debate at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the terms of the United States Senators were made to extend for a period of six years, while the terms of Members of the House of Representatives were made to be for a period of two years. The reason for the short period of tenure given to the House of Representatives was a desire to have the Members of this body keep in close contact with the people throughout the various States so that each two years they could come back fresh from contact with the people and would be much more closely in contact with the needs and wishes of the people. The greatest danger to all human governments has rested in the fact that they have been inclined to get away from the masses of the people and have gradually grown centralized.

If this amendment to this resolution is adopted none can now tell, even if the matter is finally adopted, just when the last of the requisite number of States will add its approval, if at all, and if the term of a Representative is extended from two to four years there is an extreme likelihood of the terms of the Members of the House of Representatives beginning and ending with the terms of the President of the United States; and should the matter finally be ratified by the requisite number of the States, so that the terms of the President and the Members of the lower House of Congress would be coterminous, I think it would be an unfortunate situation for the people of this country.

I have had a great many people express to me the belief that a Congressman's term should be four instead of two years. Those who have so expressed themselves to me have usually been personal friends of mine, and have expressed the regret that we Representatives were required to make a campaign every two years. So far as the individual Representative is concerned, of course it would be much less expensive to him to have a 4-year term instead of two, but his contact with the people that he represents would very likely be not more than half as much under the 4-year term as it is at the present time, and personal contact with one's constituents enables a Member to much better reflect their views and wishes than one would be able to do if he did not have that frequent contact.

I think one of the most fortunate things in our system of go v ernm e nt is the fact that we have two very strong and reasonably well-balanced political parties, so that whichever political party is in control of the Government, · usually the other political party, whether it be Democratic or Republican, is of sufficient strength to hold quite a check upon the party in power, thus holding and reserving in the interest of the people a well-balanced political situation that is much more beneficial to the public interest than would be the case if one or the other political party were overwhelmingly in the majority in the control of the Government. Even as the matter stands to-day, there occasionally comes sweeping across the political horizon such a shift of power that one party becomes overwhelmingly in control. There is nothing more helpful to this Government than to have the off year, when elections shall occur between presidential elections, when there is much less expenditure in campaigns, and when people are not so much under the excitement of a hard-fought campaign, . gn, are privileged to cast their ballots more free from undue excitement and influence; and so I believe that if Congressmen were only elected when the President was elected that the influence of the presidential election would have a tendency to carry along too strongly perhaps the membership of the House, so I believe it will best preserve the balance of power, which has been so wisely provided for us by those who framed the Constitution, to have the election of Congressmen every two years instead of every four, and, for the reason : given, this amendment to the resolut i on should be defeated.

Now we come . to the proposed amendments offered to the resolution by Mr. WARREN and Mr. GIFFORD. These amendments are practically the same except that in each odd year, under the w-arren amendment, Congress would be forced to adjourn on the 4th day of June , and the provision in the Gifford amendment would p r ovide that in each even year Congress would adjourn automatically on the 4th day of June unless by joint resolution of the House and Senate further time for meeting would be extended. I know there are those who differ with me in their views as to the limitation being put upon every other session of Congress. Under the Constitution, as it is at the present time, each session of Congress begins early in December and the long session may extend until the corresponding time a year later. while the short session begins at the same time in December but automatically comes to an end on the 4th of the following March. So we now have one long and one short term; the -- short term being a 3-month session. If either the Gifford or the Warren amendment were adopted to the resolution, the short term would then be five months long. I believe it is a wise policy for a provision to be maintained in the Constitution of the United States so that Congress will be compelled to adjourn alternately, at least every other session. There is one thing certain, if Congress is not in session it will not be spending the public's money; and in any emergency under the present Constitution, or in case this resolution is finally adopted by the required number of States, the President has power to call Congress into session, and I think one of the greatest dangers to our country is excessive taxation and excessive expenditures of the people's money.

In my State of Missouri there is a limitation put · upon ' the legislative body of that State. Compensation runs at $5 a day for 70 days . . After that, compensation is $1 a day and usually all necessary business is transacted within the 70-day period, so the limitation -serves rather as an automatic closing of the legislature. Every State in the United States, so far as I know, has wisely found it necessary to place in the constitution limitations upon taxing power, and that is one of the wisest provisions that has ever been written into any constitution, because there comes a time in legislative bodies, just as there comes a time with private individuals, when there is a tendency to get on a spending spree; and while the private individual may have a right to squander his own private means and property, no public official should go unbridled and have unlimited power with the restraint to extravagantly spend the public funds. In practically all well- organized municipalities throughout the United States a limit has been provided so that officials in power and authority can not levy taxes beyond a certain limit, and wise · is such provision when written into the organization of such municipalities by the State and municipal laws. The truth is we should be very slow in changing the fundamentals of our Constitution in any respect. If the next generation goes as rapidly as the present and past ones have gone in this respect, 50 years from now we will see little left of the fundamental principles of our Government.

I am, and have always been, a great admirer of " Old Hickory" Jackson, and he and Thomas Jefferson, I think, have been the two greatest Presidents the country has ever had. This Government came into existence and soon: after assumed the payment of the colonial debts, arid our country has never been out of debt from that day since except during the administration of Andrew Jackson. During his administration the United States Government was entirely free from public debt. I doubt if the American people will ever see that condition exist again, and I so heartily approve the presidential conduct of Andrew Jackson that I am ready to believe that he never made to exceed one official mistake in his life. If there is to be a single mistake chalked up against Andrew Jackson it is that when he walked out and found the committee in dispute as to where the United States Treasury Building ought to be located. Being vexed at their differences of opinion, he struck his old hickory cane down in the sod and said, " Thar is where the Treasury Building should be, and thar is where it will be." It so happens that he put his cane down between the White House and the Capitol, so that when the President of the United States looks over to Congress, the first thing that greets his eye is the Public Treasury; and wHen Congress looks down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the White House, the eyes of that body function immediately upon the Treasury Building, and there is where the money is, and so a ready invitation to spend is offered.

It might have been better had Jackson struck his cane in the sod in some out-of-the-way and obscure place so Congress and the President could not have so readily had before their eyes the United States Treasury. For these reasons I believe that it would be a wise policy that at least every other year Congress should be compelled by a law or by the Constitution to automatically adjourn. It is at least equally and I think more important, that the representatives of the people shall return to their homes occasionally and meet with their constituency and find out more what they are thinking and what they are wanting than it is to remain in session all the time without limitation, because certainly when they are not in session the Public Treasury will not be disturbed. For these reasons I favor the adoption of the limiting amendment.

Notwithstanding what I have said of" Old Hickory" Jackson, I think the times through which we are now going demand · nothing so much as a President of the United States of his type. When he was chosen to lead the American troops at New Orleans at first there was a tie vote · and the choice of the commander of the troops depended upon the Governor of Tennessee, who at that time happened to be Gov. Archibald Roane. It so happened that he was a distant relative of my own mother, and I am glad he had the good judgment and good sense to place the troops that were to fight at New Orleans under the command of General Jackson.

Mr. GffiSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. TILsoN] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MoNTAGUE] have pointed out clearly that the amendment is unnecessary for the purpose of fixing the time for the meeting of sessions of Congress, since Congress, under the Constitution, now has the power to appoint the meeting times. All that is desired may be brought about by law rather than by the cumbersome method of a constitutional amendment.

Congress has acted under its granted power and appointed other days than the one fixed by the fundamental law on no less than 19 occasions.

The First Congress, with the , full meaning of the Constitution fresh in the minds of the Members, passed an act setting January 4, 1790, as the date for the beginning of its next session. The following regular session appointed the fourth Monday in October, 1791, for its next meeting. The precedent was followed with frequency. The same date was selected at least ten times prior to 1821. The third and fourth Mondays in November were also chosen, as well as the fourth Monday in October. The short session was set by law on two occasions for the fourth Monday in May.

The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. TILsoN] has referred to the plan followed during the late part of the administration of President Johnson. The act of 1867 provided that-

In addition to the present regular times of meeting of Congress there shall be a meeting of the Fortieth Congress of the United States and of each succeeding Congress thereafter at 12 o'clock meridian on the 4th day of March, the day on which the term begins for which the Congress is elected.

The Fortieth, Forty-first, and Forty-second Congresses convened in accordance with that law, which was repealed April 20, 1871.

Since that time we have departed from the intent of the Constitution that Congress should primarily fix the date for its meetings.

The Members of the early Congresses knew the meaning of the Constitution and followed it in spirit and letter. We can profit by their examples, and before this session adjourns fix a date for the meeting of the short session immediately after the coming elections so that more time will be available for the consideration of necessary legislation.

The last session of the Seventy-first Congress could have fixed March 4, 1931, for the convening of the present Congress and thereby have shortened the time between the date of the election of the Members and the actual commencement of their legislative work from 13 months to 4 months. I will vote for the resolution that it may be submitted to the States for consideration, and because there appears a widespread demand for its approval. I do this with full knowledge that there is nothing constructive or liberal in the section that deals with the convening of Congress.

Mr. REILLY. Mr. Speaker, the principal purpose of the joint resolution now before the House is to amend the Constitution of the United States so as to provide a new date for the commencement of the terms of the President, Vice President, and the Members of Congress, and a new date for the assembling of Congress.

This proposed amendment provides that the terms of the President and Vice President shall begin on the 24th day of January at noon 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; and that the terms of their successors shall then begin.

This amendment further provides that Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meetings shall begin at noon on the 4th day of January in · each year unless Congress shall by law appoint a different day.

The amendment also changes and supplements present constitutional provisions as to the election of President by the House in case a President should not be elected by the Electoral College, and also supplements provisions for filling all vacancies in case of death or disability of the President and President elect.

Sections 3 and 4 of this proposed amendment read as follows:

SEc. 3. If the President elect dies, then the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President is not chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect fails to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President has qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case where a President elect nor a Vice President elect has qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which a qualified person shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President has qualified.

SEc. 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice devolves upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice devolves upon them.

Under this amendment the newly elected Congress will count the electoral votes, and in case no candidate shall receive a majority in the Electoral College shall choose the President of the United States, and the Senate, including the new Members, shall choose the Vice President of the United States, instead of the electoral vote being counted and the President and Vice President being elected by the old House and the Senate, as provided by the Constitution at the present time.

This amendment will cut short the term of Congressmen and Senators and the · President and Vice President in office at the time of its adoption two months. In other words, the terms of their successors will begin two months earlier, and consequently the old terms will be two months shorter. Under this amendment the House of Representatives has the power to choose a President whenever the right devolves upon it, after the time fixed for the beginning of this termin the event that it should not be able to choose a President before that time. Congress has the power to provide by law who would act as President until a President . or Vice President should be elected.

This, of course, all pertains to when there is no choice in the Electoral College. At the present time in case the President elect should die, there is some doubt as to whether or not the Vice President elect should become President of the United States. This amendment specifically provides that in case of the death of the President elect before he assumes office, the Vice . President shall become President of the United States.

Under this amendment, Congress is given power to provide by law fOr the case where neither the President nor Vice President has qualified before the time fixed for the beginning of their terms, no matter what the reason for such failure to qualify. This situation is not covered by any provision in the present Constitution.

This amendment also does away with the so-called short choice. session or "lame-duck" session of Congress, and that is where it gets its name. This constitutional amendment has been before Congress for more than 10 years.

It has passed the United States Senate at least one-half dozen times and has been favorably reported by committees of the House several times. It was passed by both Houses of Congress in the last session, but because of an amendment attached to the resolution in the House, it died in conference. While the amendment works out more carefully the constitutional provisions providing for emergencies in the matter of naming the President and the Vice President of the United States, the important purpose attempted to be accomplished by this amendment is to do away with the short session of Congress, or the second session of Congress, wherein oftentimes the President and certain Members of the House and Senate function as lawmakers, for three months notwithstanding the fact that at the last general election they may have been repudiated by the electorate. Under the present constitutional system we elect a Congressman and a United States Senator in November of an even year and these elected and chosen lawmakers of the people do not and are not permitted to take their offices as lawmakers, unless a special session of Congress is called, unti113 months after their election.

This situation may have been necessary in the early years of our Republic when we did not have the facilities for travel and communication that we have to-day, and when the Members of the Senate were elected by State legislatures, that did not meet until several months after the November elections; but now all this is changed.

We are living in a day and age when science and invention have annihilated space and time, and travel is not only easy, but rapid, and when every hamlet in our land has in its evening papers the happenings not only of our country, but also of the whole world in the last 24 hours. Again, the function of State legislatures in choosing the United States Senators has been done away with and a Senator is ready to perform as a legislator the day after his election in November, just the same as a United States Congressman.

If this amendment is adopted, the Congress elected in November will assemble on January 4, following the November election, unless Congress should determine another date by law. .

Of course, as is well known under the present Constitution, Congress must assemble on the first Monday of each year unless Congress should fix another date by law.

It is a fact, however, that during the period following the Civil War, when the country was in a great state of excitement and turmoil, Congress, by statute, appointed March 4, or soon thereafter, for the meeting of each succeeding Congress, and for about six years this was the law, until the passions of the Civil War had cooled down, and the law was repealed and Congress went back to the original provision of the Constitution regarding the meetings of Congress, from which no subsequent Congress has departed.

Under the present Constitution, the terms of the office of adjourn. President and Vice President and of the Members of both Houses of Congress begin and end on the same day, March 4. Under this proposed amendment the terms of the Members of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives begin on January 4 and the terms of the office of the President and Vice President begin on · January 24. This arrangement was made necessary by the fact that the new Congress must meet in session prior to the beginning of the term of office of the President and Vice President in order to enable Congress to count the votes or the electoral college ( V and decide who is to be President and Vice President of the United ' states. · Under the present Constitution the old House, in the short or "lame-duck" session, performed this duty, while under this amendment it becomes necessary to call the newly elected Senators and Representatives of the House together at an earlier date in order to perform the constitutional functions of counting the electoral votes or of electing a President or Vice President in case the electoral college failed to make a The attempt to make a part of this amendment a provision increasing the term of office of the Members of the House of Representatives from two to four years was wisely defeated, in my judgment. While under the present plan a Congressman has only a few months service in Washington, before he is obliged to stand for reelection, under the new plan, as provided by this amendment, he will take office and become a legislative functioning Congressman about one year earlier and he will have plenty of time within which to exemplify, to his constituents, his merits as a legislator.

In the first place, the proposal to change the term of the Members of the House of Representatives from two to four years is a new and distinct constitutional proposition. While the proposal to fix a new date for the meeting of Congress and to do away with the short session or the lameduck session of Congress has been widely discussed in and out of Congress and I believe the people are ready to vote upon that proposition at this time. The people are waiting for the submission of this amendment. The tacking on to this amendment of a proposal to increase a Congressman's term might defeat the amendment entirely.

On the other hand, I am opposed to putting into this amendment or any other amendment the proposal to increase the term of a Representative in Congress from two to four years. While it may be a hardship upon Members of this House to make a campaign every two years, still, the fact is that this is the popular body of Congress, and in the election of Congressmen every two years, the people have the right, a right that ought to remain with th~ people, to change national governmental policies.

The men who framed our Constitution wisely provided that every two years the people would have the right to approve . or disapprove of the rule of the party in power. To take from the people this right and to give them that privilege only every four years would be to strike a fatal blow to popular government.

I never expect to see the time come when the States of this Union, either through their legislatures or constitutional conventions, will ever take away from the people the right of the biennial opportunity now given to them for approving or disapproving the conduct of our national affairs.

I also think that this House wisely defeated this amendment to this joint resolution providing that in each even-numbered year the said session of Congress shall not continue after noon on the fourth day of June. Under the present Constitution the so-called short session in the odd-numbered years must expire on the 4th day of March, after a session of only three months, for the reason that the terms of all Congressmen and one-third of the Senators end every two years, on March 8; but if this amendment is adopted the situation will be changed and there will be no reason for terminating a session of Congress in the odd years on a certain definite date.

The State legislature of my State is not subject to any constitutional provision as to when its sessions should Congress should adjourn when its business is finished, no sooner and no later. Congress should adjourn when the President and the Members of both Houses agree that an adjournment should take place and not before. I include the President in this agreement, because if Congress should adjourn contrary to the views of the President he would have the privilege of calling it back in a special session. By adopting an amendment limiting the length of a session of Congress, this Congress will convey to the world that in its judgment Congress is incapable of determining as to how long it should remain in session.

I believe that the Congress can be trusted to determine the length of its own sessions. I believe that much illconsidered legislation has been passed by Congress in the short sessions, because of the fact that Congress must adjourn on a certain date, which said fixed date of adjournment prevented the giving of such legislation the necessary consideration.

I am in favor of the so-called "lame-duck" amendment without any amendments, so that it may go to the people carrying the principal idea that, in the future or after its adoption, there will be no short sessions of Congress, and there will be no legislating in this country by a Congress or a President after they have been repudiated at the polls.