February 6, 1947 (2)

I would therefore recommend such an amendment of the Constitution as may re- move all intermediate agency iR the election of the President and Vice President. • • • In connection with such an amendment it would seem advisable to limit the service of the Chief M a gistrate to a single term of either 4 or 6 years.

And he repeated that recommendation in several succeeding messages.

In his letter of August 18, 1884, accepting the nomination for the Presidency, President Cleveland wrote:

When we consider the patronage of this great office, the allurements of power, the temptations to retain public place once gained, and, more than all, the availability a party finds in an incumbent whom a horde of officeholders, with a zeal born of benefits received and fostered by the hope of favors yet to come, stand ready to aid with money and trained political service, we recogn i ze in the eligibility of the President for reelection a most serious danger to that calm, deliberate, and intelligent political action which must characterize a government by the people.

And I would recall to my friends on the other side of the aisle that the Democratic National Convention, held in Baltimore, Md., in 1912, adopted the following resolution:

We favor a single Presidential term and to that end urge the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution making . the President of the United States ineligible for reelection, and we pledge the candidate of this convention to this principle.

This historical feeling and tradition against unlimited tenure in the Presidential office, Mr. Chairman, is not based upon idle fear. The power and prestige of the President of the United States has grown constantly and increasingly since the first inauguration of Mr. Washington. Today; the President of the United States is perhaps the most powerful individual in the world. It is within the spirit of democracy that proper constitutional restraints be placed upon his tenure of office.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. LYLEl.

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Chairman, it is a par- .. adox that we, who generally speak so glibly of the supremacy of the people and government by the people, would, through this proposal now under consideration, limit that supremacy and power.

The statements of many of our leaders of the past have been quoted today supporting arguments both for and against this resolution. President Wilson, as suggested in last night's Washington Star, more nearly summed up arguments on this matter when he said that the President's fighting power in behalf of the people would be immensely weakened by an anti-third term amendment to the Constitution. Further quoting President Wilson, he said:

We would singularly belie our own principles by seeking to determine by fixed constitutional provision what the people should determine for themselves. ·

We should not discuss at this time the issue of the number of terms the President of the United States might be privileged to serve, for the question, the unfortunate question, is that of limiting the power of the people in this regard. It perhaps would be in better taste for this body to consider this resolution had the question not been previously presented to the people.

In 1940 the sovereign voters of the United States, many millions strong, expressed themselves upon this issue. Actually, it seemed to be the only issue in the campaign, for as I checked the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD COVering 1 week immediately preceding the 1940 election last night I found that more than 40 Members of the House made speeches similar, yes, almost identical, to the speeches made today predicting disaster to representative government and to this great country of ours if a President should be elected to serve more than two terms. Those predictions wer'e made again in 1944. Both times the people of the United States repudiated the doctrine of this resolution . and repudiated it overwhelmingly.

A majority in .38 States in 1940 and a majority of some 36 States in 1944 voted that a man might serve more than two terms as President of the United States. As a matter of interest, Mr. Chairman, the very county in which the splendid Speaker of this House lives, and then lived, repudiated the theory that a President should serve no more than two terms and voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Roosevelt, as in 1944, did the people of the State of Michigan, home of the able chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Normally, I would prefer for a new man to be President of the United States after two t ' terms but I have a great deal more confidence and more faith in the fundamental principles of this Government-that the judgment of the people should be supreme-than the judgment of this legislative body or that of any State in this Union. Actually, I think that you have, too.

It must seem strange to the people of this country that the Republican Party is so violent at this time against a third term for the President and in the same breath are asking for a third try to impose a restriction upon the sovereignty of the people. Could it be, perhaps, that they did not like the judgment of the sovereign voters in 1940 and 1944, and have more confidence in the ability of the legislatures?

Most assuredly it is not sound at this' time for any man on this floor to say that we are going to give the people an opportunity to pass on this resolution, for by the express terms of the resolution, it shall be submitted to the various legislatures. The Republican majority could have, had it desired, writtten the resolution and presented it for discussion, with the provision that it would be submitted to constitutional conventions in each State. I am not sure why they did not do this. Perhaps it was the memory of the people voting in 1940 and 1944.

I cannot vote for this resolution unless it provides for submission tq the people; for I cannot say to them, . as you will do if you pass this resolution, "We did not like your judgment in 1940 and 1944, so we are going to sidestep you and submit the question to the legislatures of the various States with the hope that they · will have better judgment than you have." And they might add, and perhaps have in their counsels, "It will be relatively easier to put this through in the Republican-dominated legislatures of the several States."

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

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. FELLOWS].

Mr. FELLOWS. Mr. Chairman, I shall heed the injunction of our former Speaker when he used the words "just a minute," to the extent that I shall speak for just a very short time.

We must not overlook the wisdom of our forefathers, nor should we forget the accumulated experiences during the historic years. Experience is a wonderful teacher. I had this forcibly impressed upon me once. I sat in an old school house in a small town in the · State of Maine, and I looked into the sweet face of an old lady with gray hair, and she said this: "Sometimes I think that the school of experience is the only one in which fools can learn anything," and she looked at me when she said it.

I have listened with great interest to the arguments that have been made against this proposed amendment. We have heard our beloved former leader of this House, the gentleman from Massachusetts, whom everybody respects, speak to this subject. The burden of Mr. McCoRMACK's argument is this: That we may find ourselves with our backs to the wall, a President serving a second term, and that we ,' being in a crisis, could not find the man who could meet the situation and carry us through safely.

I think I ha-ve an answer to that, and I do not think there is any answer to my answer. I think the best answer to that is to point to the living presence of such men as the gentleman himself, who, possessors of such distinguished and pre- eminent ability in a country of 140,000,- 000 people, could and would lead us safely through any crisis. What can their reply be to that? ,

It has been suggested that this proposal is anti-Roosevelt. That is not true. It is not true in any sense of the word. It certainly is not retroactive legislation. There have been some excellent statements made here but there is no better one to be found than that which appears as the minority views of two distinguished gentlemen, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HoBBS] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. GossETTL I am going to read one paragraph:

Of course, other cr i ses may arise in the course of our history wherein we may long to retain the experienced and able guiding hand that may then be steering the ship of state, beyond the limit of tenure fixed, and regret that we surrendered our ancient heritage of such perfect freedom. But in the exercise of our best, studied judgment we certify our conviction that the advantages of limited tenure far outweigh the disadvantages urged against it, and have confidence that, the certitude of law having removed all question of repudiation, we may count with the utmost assurance upon the patriotic service as lieutenant of every captain who steps down from the bridge.

They, · I believe, are in favor of the 6- year term.

I shall vote for this proposal; first, because I believe it should be accepted by the States; and second, we are simply voting to submit this question-permitting the people, through their elected representatives in their States, to vote upon it. And let me say, when the words that inaugurate our great document are referred to, "We the people," that we the people established this system which provides that it shall go to the legislatures.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. GORE].

WE MUST NOT SHACKLE THE FUTURE--QPPOSED TO PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTLEAVE FUTURE CITIZENS FREE TO MAKE THEIR OWN· DECISIONS

Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman, what the President's term of office should be has been a much debated question throughout our history as a nation. Even in the Constitutional Convention it was one of the principal controversies. Many different proposals were then advanced, ranging from a single term with ineligibility for ree le ction to tenure during good behavior or for life.

After much deliberation the constitutional framers wisely fixed the term at 4 years, but refused, by . repeated votes, to limit the number of terms to which the people might elect a President.

But there was not then, nor has there ever been, complete satisfaction with this constitutional provision. In fact, a resolution to change it was introduced in the very first Congress, and over the years since, there have been more than 150 proposals to amend the Constitution so as to change the President's tenure of office.

The people have not seen fit to change it. Nevertheless, after all these years of sound democratic government, we are again debating the question today. After all these prideful years of free government and progressive extension of the right of franchise, is it now necessary or expedient to say that the people shall not be trusted to exercise their , judgment in electing the man they desire as President at a · particular time or any particular e :;::: ergency?

This proposed amendment would be an impairment of the citizenship of the future, a limited impairment, to be sure, but a definite restriction on the ' freedom of choice of our children and our children's children. We must not shackle the future.

Let us suppose that in the future some crisis-a crisis even more critical than we have yet experienced-should come to hand, and that the people should consider absolutely necessary the continued service as President of a particular man who had gained their confidence through a demonstration of &ble patriotic leadership.

Could this question not then safely be submitted to the people, or shall we place a restric t;n, on them because we think, perchance, they may be unable to distinguish between a patriot and a tyrant.

Under certain circumstances the people might think, and rightly so, that there was less danger to their freedom in a third term for one man than in a first term for another who did not seem to them equal to the job of running a nation.

We cannot foresee now what the election issues will be, let us say, in 1980 or whether the President will be a Republican or a Democrat. Why should we prejudge? I wan t to defend the rights of the American people of 1980 to judge for themselves.

To say that we must now put this restriction upon the right of the people to a free choice is to cast doubt upon the whole theory of popular government. I am one who believes that the perpetuity of government by the people depends, not upon restrictions on the people, but rather in maintaining free and frequent choice and decision by the people. The fewer restrictions on the people we place in, the Constitution, the better off we will be . iJl the long run.

We, in America, have a deep-dyed habit of citing the statements and examples of our founding fathers as evidence of the rightness of our course, even though times and circumstances may be materially different. EVen so, I want to cite an example and a statement from the Father of Our Nation.

The origin of the two-term tradition is generally ascribed to President George Washington because he declined to be considered as a candidate- for a third term. History, however, is abundantly clear that he did so from the standpoint of his own personal choice and not upon political precedent. Washington not only voted against limiting _ the terms of a president in the Constitu- tional Convention, but in repeated writings he branded such limitation as both unwise and unnecessary.

For instance, in a letter to General Lafayette, President Washington wrote: I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who in some great emergency shall be deemed universally most · capable of serving the public. This is not a question, though, which should be decided solely upon the beliefs and examples of former statesmen, nor do I believe it is a political weapon, which we can wisely use for temporary political expediency. It is rather a principle which goes to the very heart of democracy-of government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

If I distrusted the free and deliberate judgment of the American people, then no matter who might be President or how short we- might limit his term, I would have little faith that a system of self government by freemen could long endure in this or in any other country.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. FoLGER].

Mr. FOLGER. Mr. Chairman, I am frightened. I feel ba.d, not physically but mentally and spiritually, because this question has been brought up at this time. I do not charge that there is partisanship in the consideration of this resolution; I do not think there is. I do not even charge that there is evident partisanship in the fact that this resolution originated so quickly after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. But, Mr. Chairman, to my mind this is perhaps the most serious subject we will be called upon to give consideration to while we are in this Congress. It is something that is contrary to all which has obtained for 160 years. In all that time just one man, just one, was elected to a third term as President of the United States.

The election of that man was not partisan in its character, essentially. It happened that he was nominated by the Democratic Convention which met in Chicago in July of 1940. It is a fact there were some then in that convention who thought that it would not be justified in us to nominate a man for a third term, but those were in such minority that out of about a · thousand convention votes the man who was in office at that time and who was nominated for a third term received over 900 votes, in the Democratic Convention, which, as far as this action was concerned, was nonpartisan. There could not be any question as between them, whether they were Republican or Democrat. The only reason that man was chosen, who happened not to be Theodore Roosevelt, but Franklin D. Roosevelt, was because it was felt by a great majority of the people of this country that it would be in the best interests of the country and in the interest of the security of the United States of America and all its people in that hour of imminent danger. The man who had been at the helm in the several years prior thereto was not perhaps best qualified inherently but was possessed of the greatest amount of information of any other man in the United S t ates, and. while he was not an indispensable man it was the best opportunity we had to fortify ourselves against the approaching war which eventually did come and which shook the foundations of the world.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with the proposition that .we are withholding from the people of the United States the opportunity or privilege of speaking upon this matter. But it is natural to assume that the representatives in the State legislatures may conclude that we are in favor of it. It is yet to be accepted that Congress influences some. We set in motion a dangerous proposal. In the language of the distinguished former Speakor of this House, I would beg you to wait-wait a minute and let us consider this matter further and more seriously. Franklin Roosevelt did not personally desire a third term. · The people required it in what they believed was to save our country. I beg you to vote down this resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has expired.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the passage of this bill is not of the greatest importance to the American people. In a democracy we have the right to change our laws to fit the exigencies of the momen.,. As conditions arise we meet them. Ours is a fluid type of Government, and I am certain at this time the necessity for limiting the tenure of office of the President is not one of great concern to the people.

My opposition to the measure is based on the recent experiences that we have had with this sort of thing. In time of emergency the American people may want to continue their Chief Executive beyond the two terms as set forth in this bill, as they did at the last general election and at the general election preceding that . .

Emergencies were on us, one domestic and the other international. The American people in their wisdom saw fit toreelect Franklin Delano Roosevelt for a third and a fourth term as President, His dynamic type of leadership appealed to them and they demanded his retention in office.

Being human it is understandable that those who Violently opposed Mr. Roosevelt are taking this opportunity to vent their spleen.

The American people should be left free to exercise the discretionary powers g r anted them in this democracy. .

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, while I am personally opposed in principle to a th i rd or fourth term for the Presidency of the United States, I am nevertheless opposed to this resolution because it proposes the shackling of ourselves and fu ' ture genera t ions in the exercise of free will. It restricts the right of franchise guaranteed under the Constitu t ion and makes slaves of free men.

What the proponents ask for is the imposition of a limitation of unrestri ,c ted cho i ce, the abolishment of a sacred ri g ht wh i ch can be and has always heretofore been exercised by the free people of these United States.

There is no such creature as the indis­ bad one. pens a ble man. I have always said that there are more capable and better men :who have never held office than there are in office today, or who ever held office for that matter, and it is conceded that in the past intellectually great and saintly men have rendered priceless service to the country and to the people.

Mr. Chairman, the question of limiting tenure of the President of the United States by constitutional amendment has ac t ually been put to the test on two separate occasions-in the campaigns of 1940 and 1944. The sovere gn i people spoke unmistakably on the sub j ect. As a free people, they could have voted for the opponent of the aspirant for a third term, · and again on another occ a sion the people could have r e bu k ed M r . R o osevelt when he sought a fourth term, but they did not do so. They established another farre a ching fourth-term precedent. Can anyone fail to understand the temper of the people on that question? Would anybody charge the people with lack of understanding of their prerogative, or worse still, with making an error in judgment? The people, so I hold, right or wrong, are always right. They can elect a man for a third or a fourth term, 01 : they can turn a President out at the end of his first term as was done with Herbert Hoover.

It is the inherent right of a free-born American ci t izen to vote for whomsoever he chooses and as often as a candidate presents his name, once or 10 times. Th i s right must not be abridged now or in the future. The citizen can limit Presidential tenure; he is the sovereign. He exercises this right freely and wilfully. He need not be shielded by a constitutional amendment. It should be and it is a matter of conscience. No restrictions or imped i ments should be placed in the path of the American voter. It works well for both the Democrats and the Republicans.

The people · may some day desire to elect a Republican President, may reelect. and may in some emergency choose to give h i m a fourth term if they want to do so. They shall have that right insofar as I am concerned.

Mr. Chai r man, I fear that this is a bela t ed and a misguided attempt to head off a third term for the late and beloved office. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who has gone to his reward, or, reduced to its lowest common denominator, it may be an attempt to besmirch his good name.

In concluding, I ask, . Why should we abridge an inherent right of the people . by a fixed and irrevocable rule when the individual c i tizen can exercise that right freely at any time he chooses? I trust the resolution is defeated.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. MCCoWEN].

Mr. McCOWEN. Mr. Chairman, in regard to House Joint Resolution 27 , . prO'­ posing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the terms of office of the President, I am fully in accord with the idea to limit the terms to two terms of 4 years each.

Eight years is long enough for a good President and 4 years is too long for a Much has already been said on the floor today on this subject. The argu ... ments pro and con have been pretty well covered. Of course, the passage of the joint resolution will do nothing more than give the people a chance to settle the question as to whether they desire such limitation.

It is a well-known fact that the tenure of the office of President was one of the most difficult and perplexing problems before the Constitutional Convention 160 years ago. The question was not settled until the closing days . of the Convention. In the light of the breaking of the custom of 160 years to elect a President to · only two terms by the four-times elected President in very recent times, it seems quite a p propriate to submit the question to the people so they may have a chance to pass on · the question after such experience. If -this amendment should eventually become a part of the Constitution, it would · be a great step toward preventing a dictatorship or some totalitarian form of government from arising in the United States.

I hope the jo i nt resolution will pass.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. O ' HARA] .

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, the proposed twenty-second amendment to the Constitution presents one of the fundamental issues left unsettled by the founders of the Republic and demands the most careful consideration. The issue, moreover, is one which goes to the very heart of political theory, for the question is whether or not the "indispensable m a n" theory is compatible with the republican form of government.

When I speak of the "indispensable man" I am not speaking necessarily of the recent Roosevelt era, although I do think that those of us who have lived during the period when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President recognized the dangers of continuing one man in the office of presidency for more than two terms. In lieu of the divine right of kings and the prerogatives of a dictator, we find the problems and emergencies of this or that crisis as a reason or reasons given for the continuation of one man in

Almost without exception we have had appointive offices filled by people of the same political philosophy as the late President Roosevelt's. This is not such a problem administratively, but the effect is tremendous so far as the judiciary branch of our Government is concerned. I have heard my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle complain that the test for filling judicial appointments was not whether the individual was a Democrat, but whether he was a particular brand of New Dealer.

There is nothing said or intended by these remarks as derogatory to the late President Roosevelt. The same dangers would exist had President Roos e velt been a Republican instead of a Democrat and I would have felt perhaps even more out-spokenly critical of the v i violation of the precedent of two terms for the Presidency. As a matter of fact, it was Thomas Jefferson himself who insisted that voluntary retirement was a matter of firm principle-, and stated:

I! . the principle of rotation be a sound one, as I conscientiously believe it to be with respect t<1 this office, no pretext should ever be permitted to dispense with it, beca u se there never will be a time when real difficulties will not exist, and furnish a plausible pretext . for dispensation.

It is my conviction that we should limit the Presidency to two terms. If, in a country of 140 , 000 , 000 people there arises occasions where one man, and one ·· man only, is capable of filling the position of - the Presidency of the United States, then I say to the advocates of than theory that both democracy and a republican form of government are a failure. However, as we stand here today, I feel that our form of govern- ment · has been a bulwark against every form of attack because it is a republican form of government and it is our respons i bility and our duty to safeguard it. With dictatorships and monarchies crumbling, the people · of the world as well as the spirit of our forefathers look to us to preserve our form of government. . The proposed constitutional amendment helps to do so, in my opinion. · · ..

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may · desire to the gentleman from California [Mr. PHILLIPS].

Mr. PHILLIPS of California. Mr. Chairman, I shall vote for this resolu .. tion, and I turn to my files of the Seventy-ninth n th Congress for some interesting supporting data. On June 4, 1945, I mailed to each Member of the House a questionnaire on this subject of the limitation of the term of the President of the United States. I asked only three questions-whether the Member favored a 6-year lim i tation; or if he favored a limitation of two terms of 4 years each, and whether the Member thought it was then an opportune time to bring up the question on the floor.

I said I would not quote any Member without his or her perm i ssion, with the result that interesting · comments were received. I said the Member could sign the reply or send it back unsigned. I did not "key" the questionnaires, exc e pt on one point; I cou l d tell which came back from Republicans, and wh i ch from Democrats, but not the individual Members. Even that was unnecessary , as a large majority signed.

Ninety-one signed replies were received from Republicans and 27 unsigned replies. Fifty-one signed replies were received from Democrats, and 17 unsigned. That made a total of 186 replies, or 43 percent of the membership of the House. You could ask, Mr. C h airman, why I never reported the results to this floor. During the tabulation, I discovered that a well-known mag a zine writer was engaged at that moment in preparing a magazine article on this subject. She asked me to withhold my report to you, until her article was ready. Unfortunately, the magazine, after accepting it, did not use it, presumably pressed for space, and it was then too late for me. I now take out the figures and review them in the light of today's vote.

Sixty-five signed Republicans and 19 unsigned, together with·16 signed Democrats and 3 unsigned, a total of 103, favored a limitation of two terms of 4 years. Only 21 signed Republicans and 6 unsigned, with 4 signed Democrats and 3 unsigned, a total of 34, wanted a limitation of 6 years. Only 4 Republicans disapproved the idea of some limitation. Gf these, 1 was considered by his constituents to have voted too closely to New Deal principles and was not returned last November, 1 expressed the somewhat pessimistic thought that such a resolution would somehow benefit the New Deal, 1 recommended care in amending the Constitution on any subject, and 1 gave no reason.

However, 29 signed Democrats and 11 unsigned were opposed to any limitation any time, although I noted this afternoon that 1 distinguished Member of the present minority, who wrote "Never" in a firm hand last June, today voted equally firmly in favor of 2 terms of 4 years each, which indicates that time-and possibly an election-changes all things. There were 14 Republicans who would have preferred a 6-year limitation, but with apparent resignation accepted the likelihood of two 4-year terms, hoping for any limitation as the primary objective. I included them in the 4-year count. One Republican preferred unwritten t-o the written law, which causes me to suggest that the position may be academically excellent, but, to quote the first sentence of the unpublished magazine article, already referred to:

When an unwritten law is once broken, should it be replaced by a written law? · Two Republicans were thoughtful enough to raise the question of the partial term. We decided that this afternoon in favor of limitation. If a Vice President serves part of a term, due to the death or removal of a President, he may, under House Joint Resolution 27, be elected only once in his own right. It would affect the present occupant of the White House, were he to run in 1948, and to be elected, and it would have affected Theodore Roosevelt who had finished the term to which McKinley was elected, and who had been elected once in his own right. It could affect a President who had risen from the Vice Presidency only a few months before the end of his President's term, but so far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, if we are to set a limitation, I prefer to go ill' that direction, rather than the other. I favor House Joint Resolution 27.

One Republican reply brought up the question of longer terms for Representatives, tying it to the limitation on the Presidential term. Of the total replies, 78 signed Republicans and 22 uns i gned, toge t her with 13 signed and 5 uns i gned Democrats, a total of 118, evidently thought if an idea were good, the sooner we made it a law the better it would be for the country. They were in favor of bringing up the resolution 18 months ago. Eleven Republicans and three Democrats felt that the Congress should wait until the war was over, or until the men had returned from the services. That thought, even if it were the minority opinion at that time, prevailed and it was not until today that the necessary resolution passed the House. The vote has been 285 ayes and 121 noes, which shows a fairly good comparison with the replies to my · questionnaires of June 1945. In the history of the Congress, 160 bills have been introduced to limit the Presidential term; it took the present one, House Joint Resolution 27, to get started on its way to the States, for their approval.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I - yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from California [Mr. McDoNOUGH].

Mr. McDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, I favor the . passage of House Joint Resolution 27 providing for a constitutional amendment limiting the term of President to two 4-year terms. · The action we are taking here today is not final or conclusive. We are submitting to the several States an opportunity to determine for themselves whether they want this proposed amendment to become a permanent part of the Constitution.

Should we deny the States this privilege? Should we refuse the people of the Nation an opportunity to express · themselves on this vital and important issue? I say, "No . . " To deny the people this right would be undemocratic and would be unfair.

If the custom and historic practice of limiting the term of President to two terms had not been broken in 1944, this amendment would not be before us today. Because it was broken and because we found ourselves under the domination of one political party and one man as President for four terms, which terminated only by death, we · have this resolution before us today.

What happened under this unprecedented administration under one man is well known. Almost unlimited power grew up in the office of President. This must not happen again and the only practical and logical way to prevent it is to adopt House · Joint Resolution 27 and give the people an opportunity to say definitely and finally what they want. If they do not want a limited term for President they will say so. If we do not pass this resolution they will not have the opportunity to say whether the)' want a limited term or not. I urge the adoption and passage of House Joint Re s olution 27.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from V i rginia [Mr. FLANNAG A N].

Mr. FLANNAGAN. Mr. Chairman, the reason I am against this resolution can be expre s sed in one sentence: I am against pl a cing in the Constitu t ion a limitation ag a inst the people. This never h a s been done, and I am in hopes never will be done.

All power originally resided in the people, and they still possess all power not specifically granted under the Constitution. And in granting power under the Constitution they only granted those powers that they _ could not, in the functioning of Government, exercise individually. And in granting powers to others, · in order to protect their own rights, the people have ever been careful to place certain prohibitions. Congress, for instance, is prohibited from passing expost facto laws, or laws that would impair the obligation of contract, or laws interfering with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or religious freedom, and so forth. But, my colleagues, read the Constitution from beginning to end and you will not find a single prohibition against the exercise by the sovereign people of the powers not granted.

One of the powers not granted by the people in the Constitution was the power to change their chosen representatives whenever in their judgment they saw fit. In order for the Government to orderly function, there was no need to grant or restrict, in any way, this power, because in the exercise of the ballot the people can not only limit the terms of the Preside _ nt, but limit the terms of their representatives in the Senate and House as well. And this is as it should be. Certainly the people should not be restricted, in any way, in turning out of office or keeping in office, the representatives they desire.

Amend the resolution by limiting the terms of Senators and Representatives and the resolution would receive but few, if any, favorable votes. The people should enjoy the same freedom in keeping in or turning out of office their President that they enjoy in keeping in or turning out of office their Senators and Representatives.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT].

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Chairman; as one of the authors of the legislative proposals introduced in this Congress to limit the successive terms which a President of the United States can serve, it goes without saying that I favor the proposed legislation. It was my pleasure to make a statement to the subcommittee which, under the able d i rection of Congressman SPRINGER, did such expeditious and efficient service in bringing this legislation to the floor of the House. I shall consequently not detain you long today in the further amplification of my views.

As has been said here this afternoon many times, this is important and significant legislation. It grows directly out • of the unfortunate . experience we had in this country in 1940 and again in 1944 when a President who had entrenched himself in power · by use of patronage and the public purse refused to vacate the office at the conclusion of two terms, but used the great powers of the Presidency to perpetuate himself in office.

By the hard lessons of experience, this republic has thus learned how easy it is for a man with a yen for power to use the vast authority of the White House to whiplash convention delegates into abject submission and to mobilize the forces of propaganda to his support. In the Democratic Convention of 1940, when, after creating a long series of emergencies, "the then President devoted his best energies to securing the nomination for a third term the newspaper accounts revealed that well over half of the delegates to the Democratic Convention were on the pay roll of the Federal Government as political appointees or they were the relatives thereof. That made the synthetic draft of 1940 an easy matter. - Confronted by comparative weak and ineffectual. Republican opposition in November, the nomination became almost tantamount to the election. In 1944 it happened "again and again and again and yet once again." ThiS' time, with the war clouds upon us and the President's pious pledge that he would not let this country become embroiled in war ringing in the voters' ears as he dramatized that promise in his Boston speech, the fourth term was almost as easy to win as the third, although the caliber and the character of the Republican opposition had been improved. -

While the President found it a bit more difficult to dominate the convention of his own party in the fourth-term ratification meeting-it could sca r cely be called a convention-the well-recognized axiom that the fellow in the executive office who controls all the appointments can also control the delegates to the po- . litical convention operated with its unerring regularity. So we had a fourth term started. Death ended that term in its infancy and under a new President America now faces the decision as whether its experience in departing from our hallowed no-third-term tradition was successful enough so that it should be repeated or so disastrous that a constitutional barrier should be erected against it. Today this House will express its verdict on that question. If we act favorably and the Senate supports our action, the question will be decided by the various States - in time-honored American manner.

Mr. Chairman, the most desperate problems this world faces today have resulted primarily from the fact that too few men have held too much power · for too long a time in too many countries. Let us do what we can here today to safeguard America against this disastrous tendency.

By acting affirmatively on this resolution in our votes today we can lift up a great word of encouragement to freedom-l o v i ng people everywhere that here in . t his Republic our people are · determined to retain the powers of government in their own hands and .to prevent politicians of any stamp or kind from attempting to make the Presidency a personal possession and a position of perpetual privilege.

Only in the United States, today, is legislative government-government by the people-on the upgrade. Only in this Republic do we find the tendency away from government by the executive and toward government by those in the grass roots. · Almost all of the rest of the world has slipped away from the foundations of freedom and skidded dangerously close · to the shoals of executive domination. one-man rule. dictatorship, and ruthless tyranny. Let us consolidate our gains in self -government by passing this resolution to prevent any President hereafter-Republican or Democratic-from perpetuating himself in office.

In 1945, it was my privilege to visit the battlefields of France and to spend some 6 weeks in France and Great Britain shortly after D-day. One of my vivid memories is of an afternoon, near Cherbourg, France, when I was permitted to enter a prison cage in which Nazi war prisoners were kept and to converse with the prisoners through an Army interpreter. On this occasion I spent some time talking with a prisoner who used to be a city official in Berlin.

This prisoner of war denied he was ever a Nazi and condemned the Nazi ideologies vigorously. When I asked him if many others in Berlin had the same idea, he responded in the affirmative. I then inquired why it was if so many did not like the Nazi creed and had no love for Hitler that Hitler was permitted to rule the country so completely. I shall never forget the true significance of his reply although the young prisoner probably did not recognize it himself. He said, "You. see, sir, the people of Germany voted Hitler into power. Then they voted a g ain and increased his majority and added to his power. Each time he got more votes and pretty soon we found that while we had voted Hitler into power we could not vote him out again." That, my colleagues-, · is the meat in the coconut. Freedom is present only when citizens can vote out . of office those whom they have voted in. Mere ability to elect an official is not freedom in its essence if those who vote do not have the power and the practical, workable, effective means of voting these same officials out again. It was that the Germans lost under Hitler. It is that power which we Americans must ever keep. And by limiting by constitutional amendment the terms of any President to two, we shall have taken a big step to retain forever that precious power and that important authority for the free men and women of America.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BURKE].

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, in any consideration of the limitation of Presidential tenure, there is a contemporary situation in military invention that must be taken into fundamental account. This fact is almost self-evident to anyone who appreciates the significance of human history and man's time-binding charac- · teristics.

For over 1,000 years during the Dark and Middle Ages, the ordinary people were held in virtual bondage. The feudal lords and leaders with relatively small numbers of soldiers, through the means of military implements and inventions as then developed, from their · castles and moats, could defend themselves and rule the peop!e with an imperious hand. There was small chance o f throwing off any tyranny.

Then came the development of gunpowder in the fourteenth century, a very simple product to make, and the development of small firearms and smooth-bore cannon that were of easy manufacture. · The feudal lords and leaders gradually became more or less helpless. Their castles and moats were of no avail. The stronger and wealthier rulers survived, and national states began to grow up in self- preservation. ·

Freedom appeared on the horizon and be g an to grow in England particularly, and over the centuries flowered in the American and F r. ench Revolutions. The period culminated in the so-called victorian era which 100 years will be highlighted in man's history, despite its defects and shortcomings, as one of the golden periods up to that time. Freedom grew to maturity over much of the Western World.

Since ·world War I, military invention, forgetting for the moment the imminence of atomic energy-we can never forget it-has proceeded to such a point in its development that the ordinary people in this relationship are again in the position they were in the ages of the feudal lords.

Once a dictatorship develops in a country today, there is small chance for the ordinary people to throw off the tyranny. Rescue can come only · from the outside. Who would rescue America from such tyranny? A turn-over could come only within the dictatorship. This would only result in the same old thing with new faces in control.

The limitation of Presidential tenure is too serious a matter to be toyed or trifled with politically. It transcends all this. It is conceivable that chaotic and confused conditions could arise in this country where the voice of the people might not be sound.

Our democratic way of life in a repub- . lican form of government thrives under a reign of law and an ordered life that can be changed through modification of or even repeal of laws. If we should lose our freedom today, it is gone; it is irretrievable. The Nazis understood this when they said the Third Reich could rule for 1,000 years. Washington and Jefferson foresaw this 100 years in advance of their time.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN].

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DmKSEN].

The CHAffiMAN. The gentleman · from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen] is recogn i zed for 6 minutes.

Mr. DffiKSEN. Mr. Cha i r m2.n, I favor a limited tenure for the Pr esid ent of the United States. My preference, however, is not for the pending resolution, but for a single 6-year term. If that m at ter is . proposed in Committee of the Whole I shall support it. If it fails I sh a ll support the pending resolution. There may be an element of political frus t r a t i on in what we do today, but I pred i ca t e my own conviction upon reality. What we are a tt emp t ing to do today is to repair a shattered political tr a dition-a trad i tion th a t started in 1787 and end u red until 1940. It shows how wide Jefferson finally was of the mark, becau s e he said the force of custom and usage after four Presidents had served t w o terms and no more would make that a rather sacrosanct tradition in American life. But you and I have lived to see it shattered in 1940.

I do not emotionalize over this subject. I start with this premise: The municipal corporation known as the 'Government of the United States is the biggest business in any time or generation that has ex i sted on the face of the earth. If it is admittedly the biggest business that has ever existed, the man who serves as the Chief Magistrate and pilot of that business has no business to deviate from his responsibility to the people and the Nation for any purpose, political or otherwise. The fact of the matter is, and everybody knows, that when a President has been elected for one term he must, among other things, go about the business of being reelected to another. To that end he uses the Federal pay roll and the appointing power. I think the surveys are conclusive on that point; that it was the Federal pay roll and the possibility of having each one count for four · votes that finally made these enormous majorities possible. So, there is in the hands of the Chief Magistrate a tremendous weapon that was unknown in the days of Jefferson and Hamilton and all the rest of the founding fathers. But Andy Jackson knew it and Harrison knew it and Rutherford Hayes knew it and Willi a m Howard Taft knew it, because all of them, having had experience in the Wh i te Hou s e, are on record today in favor of a single 6-year term.

As a matter of fact, a 4-year term is no 4-year term. From 19 4 4 until conven t ion time in June of 1948 is 3% years. Everybody knows that the occupant of the White House is going to be busy, if he becomes a candidate for reelection, in order to trim his political fences, and will devote some time to politics instead of to statesmanship.

If we had one of our own in the White House the answer would be exactly the same. But when you have 141,000,000 , people who are engaged in a business that calls for $37,500,000,000 expenditure in a 365-day period, that man has no business trifling with the destiny and welfare of the people. He should give his time to the business · of the people and then step down and out.

That is the crux of the proposal for a single term of 6 years.

Another thing within the compass of time: In one of the recent elections we have noted the intervention of foreign influence. It had been said that Churchill was wondering what he coUld do in order to influence the political resuits in the United States. The powers that be, overseas, who are the recipients and the beneficiaries of the · largesse of this country through UNRRA , through relief, through lend-lease, not by the millions or hundreds of millions but by the billions of dollars, have suddenly developed a vested interested in what happens politically in the United States of America. It would be far better to have one man, fresh and uncommitted, come into the White House and give entirely of his time to the people and th e n foreclose any opportunity of a foreign government on the basis of disposition and background and weaknesses and predilections to say, "This is our man and we wartt him reelected because - se we are confident that out of the fullness of a sympathetic heart, the dollars and largesse will continue to flow into all corners of the ea r th." There is only one way to meet it, there is only one way to get rid of it and that, of course, is to make a fresh start every 6 years. . Then you get rid of the influence of a tremendous pay roll which at this moment numbers 2,300,000 civilians; you get rid of this foreign influence. There is · behind the proposal for a sin- gle term of 6 years those who have had the benefit of experience. Twice Andrew Jackson stood before this Congress and in his annual messages gave it as his opinion that the Presidency ought to be a single term of 6 years. William Howard Taft has said exactly the same thing except perhaps not so emphatically. Other Presidents behind whom there is that wealth of experience in the White House have said it is their opinion based · upon their experience that a single term of 6 years would be best for the country. So expressing my own preference I shall offer a substitute, and if that does not prevail I certainly will go along with the committee resolution.

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

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from M i nneso t a [Mr. DEVITT].

Mr. DEVITT. Mr. Chairman, it seems a shame to me as a new Member of the Congress of the United S t ates that such an important constitutional issue as faces the House today should be converted to one of petty partisan politics by certain members of the minority.

The issue here is whether or not we should give to the people of the United States an opportunity to express themselves on the all-important question of limiting the tenure of Presidents to two terms of 4 years each.

The vote in this body today will not constitute a plebiscite on the merits or demerits on the third or fourth terms of our late venerable President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is not a post mortem political issue. It is a constitutional question which never before has been presented to the American people. Some would say that the people have overwhelmingly expressed themselves in favor of more than two terms by electing President Roosevelt in 1940 and again in 1944 for a third and fourth term. It is submitted that this is not the case. The issue in 1940 was one as to the relative merits of Franklin . Delano Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie. _ The issue in 1944 was as to the relative merits of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Thomas E. Dewey.

Now, for the first time we have the opportunity to place before the American people the clear-cut issue of limiting the tenure of office. It can be presented to the people not in the midst of a hotly contested political campaign but at a time when cool judgment and sound reason i ng can prevail instead of partisan politics and petty bickering. I urge that the American people have the right to express themselves . on this issue and that now is the time to permit them to do so. It is urged . by some that to take favorable action on the resolution b e fore lls will be to deprive - the people of the inherent n t right to retain a Pre si dent as long as they choose. It is submit t ed th a t exactly the opposite is true. Our affirmative vote on this resolution has the effect of inviting the people in the country to express themselves as to whether or not it is a sound, constitutional principle to limit the tenure of their Chief Executive. They are free to express themselves through their State legislative bodies or State conventions ~ in any manner they see fit. All power of government is vested · in the hands of the people. Our favorable vote on this resolution will permit the people to tell us their wishes in the matter. It is, therefore, a far cry · to say that we are tieing the hands of the people.

One of the fundamental principles of our constitutional framework is the system of checks and balances. This principle, derived from Locke and Montesquieu, and propagated in this country by Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and ethers, is a most valuable one. It was early recognized by the constitutional framers of this country that the greatest dan g er to the republican form of government lay in the concentration of too much power in the hands of one man or one body of men. Accordingly, in the drafting of the Const i tution they diffu se d the power of government among the States and the Nat i on on the one hand, and among the three departments of government on the other, and so today the framework of our constitutional government is characterized on every hand by the checks which the three departments of government have on each other. The simple issue which confronts us today is whether or not we shall add one more check to our present system of checks and balances. I u r ge that it is advisable that we do so. It was not contemplated in the days of the Constitutional Convention that the power of the Chief Executive would grow so extensively as it has grown in recent years. The sprawling settlements of a few million souls spread along the Atlantic seaboard in the 1700 ' s was quite a d i fferent country from the expansive Nation of 140 , 000,000 people with its mammoth government that we have today. A few hundred Federal employees then compares to the two and a half million that we have today. The handful of Government departments then compares '"' with the thousands of departments, - boards, commissions, and agencies which exist today. The office of President of the United States, especially · when held _ by what is popularly classified. as a "strong President," presents an opportunity · for the exercise of influence all out of proportion to that contemplated by the constitutional founders.

The Constitution is not a static instrument. Time and again the constitutional founders recognized this and said that the Constitution as adopted was only a beginning and that the instrument would require amendment from time to time as the growth of the country required. It is submitted to the Members of the House that now is the time when we can well add to our constitutional framework by inserting one more Of our famous "checks and balances" with the end in view of restraining the excess exercise of power which is possible to be exercised by a strong Chief Executive, all to the detriment of a free government and a free people. It is urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCORMACK] that by giving our approval to this resolution, we are legislating for future generations. That is true-:- what of it? Legislative bodies always legislate for the future. Did not the Sixtieth Congress, for instance, pass laws which bind me today although I was not living at the time of their enactment? Are we not all bound by the present Constitution of the United States although none of us had a hand in its drafting?

Laws are always prospective in their operation, not retroactive.

If, therefore, we are · of the mind that a constitutional safeguard should be erected against the possible-even the probable-rise of an executive · dictator- ship, we should not be deterred ' from our action because of the spurious argument that we are tying the hands . of future generations. we · are, to be sure, legislating for them, but they, too, m:!l.y amend our action as we today seek to amend the action of the constitutional framers. The resolution under consideration today, therefore, is one which commends itself to us not as a partisan measure, but as a constitutional one. I urge that it be considered on that basis and that the favorable two-thirds vote of this body initiate the machinery by which the people may express themselves on this allimportant question.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes . to the gentleman from iowa [Mr. DoLLIVER].

Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Chairman, . this debate has been carried on, in my opinion, on a very high level, as befits the importance of the subject, because we are today considering a 1 very important matter. Always the discussion of any constitutional matter evokes that sort of consideration.

Limiting the Presidential tenure by constitutional amendment has a long historical background, a background which has be . en developed admirably by many of the speakers today. There is one aspect, however, that has not been touched upon and to which I will allude in the brief time allotted me.

Since 1914 when the First World War broke out it has seemed to me that there has been a tendency in this world toward political dictatorship. nat tendency has evidenced itself in many of the great countries, as well as many of the lesser countries, of Europe. It is also apparent in the Far East. It has shown itself even in our own country. Even today there have been references to "indispensability" under "emergency."

In the period following the Napoleonic wars until the outbreak of the First World War virtually every new government which was brought into being in the world was based upon the idea of representative self-government on a constitutional basis. In that period new governments were based upon the pattern of the United States. Since 191* there has· been scarcely one such government brought into being. Each and every one of them since 1914, almost without exception, has been based upon the idea of a strong man-a dictator, World War II was brought on this generation by the irresponsible actions of power-maddened tyrants.

Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to demonstrate to the people of the United €tates and to the people of the world that we oppose this tend-: ency toward dictatorial government. We can show that we desire to go back to constitutional government based upon law and not upon men.

By submitting to the legislatures of the several States this constitutional amendment to limit the tenure of the President to not more than two terms, we say that no man shall be permitted to perpetuate himself in that office by the use of the public purse, or by the patronage of office, or by the power of the sword. . Ours shall be, more than ever, a government based not upon the fortuity of one man's life, . but upon the sure foundation of an ordered repre sentative republic.

Let us pass this joint resolution.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GiLLIE] . .

Mr. GILLIE. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I wish to state that I favor limiting the Presidential tenure of office, by a constitutional amendment, to two 4-year terms. In my opinion, 8 years in office is not too long for a good President, while 4 years is entirely long enough for a poor one.

The third term is not expressly provided against in our Constitution, but historians tell us that the only reason the restriction was not written into it was because the Convention at Philadelphia was violently divided upon the proper terms of years for Presidential tenure of office. Some Delegates wanted 7, others 6, others a limit of two terms of 4 years, so finally the founders struck off the document without settling this particular question. However, the action of the early Presidents and their writings on the subject make the two-term limitation a virtual postscript to th~ Constitution.

It remained for Washington to set the precedent at two terms; but Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic Party, established it. Jefferson not only consistently refused to consider a third term, despite the urgings of the legislatures of several States, but on innumerable occasion · . he expressed himself most forcibly about it.

In 1809 Jefferson · said:

If the principle of rotation in office be a sound one, as I conscientiously believe it to be with respect to this office, no pretext should ever be permitted to d i spense with it, because there never will be a time when real difficulties will not arise and furnish a plausible pretext for dispensation.

He also said:

Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after 8 years. I shall follow it. And a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. :

I cite Jefferson because he is regarded as the patron saint of his party. Next among the Democratic Presidents comes Andrew Jackson. He . maintained the Jeffersonian principle and even . went fur- ther. In his inaugural message on December 1, 1824, he urged a single term of 4 to 6 -years and said, in part:

Could the office be limited to a single period of either 4 or 6 years, I think our liberties would possess an additional safeguard. Third on the list of Democratic greats comes , Grover Cleveland. Cleveland was prophetic in 1894, when he said:

When :we consider the patronage of this great office, the allurements of power, the temptation to retain public office · once gained, and more than all, the availability a party finds in an incumbent when a horde of officeholders with a zeal born of benefits received and . fostered by the hope of favors yet to come, stand ready to aid with tra i ned political · assistance, we recognize in the eligibility of the :President for reelection the most serious danger to that calm, deliberate, and intelligent action which must characterize a government of the people.

And fimi.Ily w . e come, in the list of great Democratic Presidents, to Woodrow Wilson, who said in 1913:

It is the "illicit powers" of the Presidents, not their legitimate influence with the country, that the advocates of a constit~­ tional change--to · a term of 6 years--profess to be afraid of and I heartily sympathize with them. ·

These are the words of four Presidents of whom the Democratic Party is most proud. They were men the greatness of whom everybody acknowledges. They were lovers of liberty and sensed the very danger which I ask the Congress to act against. .

I could, of course, cite Republican Presidents who have declared for limitation, including Garfield, McKinley, Hayes, and Taft, but the record of the Republican Party on a third term is clear. No convention has ever -approved it.

The last Republican President to express himself on the subject was Calvin Coolidge who, in 1928, disposed of the talk of his candidacy with the laconic six-word phrase, "I do not choose to run." But . in that year the United States Senate decided to take no chances that Coolidge might be drafted by the Republican Convention. Six months after the terse C.oolidge statement, the Senate passed the . La Follette resolution declaring-

That the precedents established by Washington and Jefferson and other Presidents of the United States in retiring from t~ Presidential office after the second term has become, by national concurrence, a part of the republican system of government and that any dep a rture from this time-honored custom would be unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with peril to our free institutions. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 56 to 26, with the Democratic membership voting in a body for it.

I cite this background of Democratic support for limiting the Presidential tenure of office because a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress will be required to pass this legislation. Unless the Democrats, in goodly numbers, sup- port it, a constitutional amendment is impossible. A division along straight party lines will doom this proposal to defeat. · ·

In conclusion, I call upon all Members of Congress to approach this issue with an open mind; to forget politics; to let their conscience be their guide; to ac- . complish what our founding fathers intended, and what leaders in both parties have long · endorsed, - by writing into the Constitution a limitation of P:r:esidential tenure to two 4-year terms.

Mr. HOBBS. 1\ir. Chairman, at the _ instructions of the _ gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER), I yield -myself 10 . minutes. ~ Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, this > is one of the most delightfulreports I.think that . has ev.er been filed in this _ body. Three . different groups have identically the same object in view. Every one of us is trying to be a statesman and do the job that needs doing with regard to Presidential tenure . as he . sees it. Therefore, there is no fence to cross. There is no place for animosity. It is a happy situation.

I gladly concede to the majority that their bill in their eyes has great · merit. I concede that the minority group, with which I am not affiliated, feels just as righteously that their position is the only one that is consonant with the dignity and honor of a free people. For my - part and for those of us who favor the Dirksen substitute, we feel just as conscientious in advancing the proposition of a singleterm 6-year tenure.

We know the history which has been repeated here so often on the floor since this debate started. We know that single-term tenure was one of the first resolutions adopted in the great Constitutional Convention after 8 days of debate. vVe know that they fixed it at one term of 7 years, prohibiting reelection. To my mind, when we come to consider the emergencies through which we have passed, the argument is sound that it was essential to do what the people of the United States did. Be that as it may, whether you agree or not, it is not pertinent in this debate. The point of this debate is, now that the emergencies have passed and we have an opportunity to consider this matter freed of personalities and every t hing but a sense of our duty, What should be done? I maintain, and my single emphasis here is, that the welfare of the Republic is the sole criterion to be considered, and that, therefore, inasmuch as all of us deplore political considerations and influences beating upon the , White House and its . occupant, we should consider everything in the light of the best possible service from the occupant of the White House.

Now, those of us who favor the Dirksen substitute insist that the best way to approximate the ideal of perfect service, plus perfect assistants, minus timekilling politics, is the way first adopted by the founding fathers, a single term with no reelection, so that before any man assumes the crushing weight of the Presidency he knows that all he will have to do is to do his job to the best of his ability, with the leadership of Almighty God, and that there can be nothing further from his thoughts than reelection. It automatically frees him of all political thoughts for his own future. It is his · one ambition, his single task . to do that job for . that one term, the best that divine leadership will enable him to The first thing he will have to do is to consider his Cabinet. Do you mean to tell me that a man who has to be reelected in 4 years and who almost certainly has it within his power to renominate himself, would appoint a man from Idaho to his Cabinet, when there was a man . from Ohio a candidate for the same position? You know that to propose such an absurdity is to cause a genuine horselaugh. I would get . a bronx cheer if . I were to propose such a thing at the White House.

I repeat, the . President . ought to be saved · for his own good; for the good of his soul; and for the good of . the Nation, from any possibility of having to consider pol:tics. He ought to and . he would, if elected .for a single term without the possibility of reelection, select the best possible Cabinet that could be assembled. The same principle would permeate throughout all his other appointments. There would be no politic - al incentive. There could be none. Therefore, I believe that that one fact alone, which was the predominant element in the thinking of the founding fathers and which has been endorsed by no less than five Presidents as they were in service in the White House and four other Presidents--

Mi-. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, will would be improved. the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOBBS. I would be so happy to yield to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. SPRINGER. I know my distinguished friend is a great consitutional lawyer and I know he believes firmly in States' rights. He believes, I am certain, that it is proper to submit to the people a question of this character, to amend the Constitution on the tenure of the office of President.

Mr. HOBBS. I certainly do, I would say, however, I do not follow the gentleman in his innuendo. I do not think our job as Congressmen is to submit everything that is proposed. I think our job as Congressmen is to decide honestly, as God gives us to see the light, what should be proposed, and not "pass the buck" on to the States just because we want to be good fellows.

Mr. SPRINGER. Since there has been much public discussion throughout the country on this very question, 'the tenure of the office of President, does not the gentleman believe it is fair t o submit the question to the people, bec a use it is a basic problem in our Nation?

Mr. HOBBS. I said in the beginning we were very fortunate to have the opportunity which has been presented at this time by the turn of events in our history, to study dispassionately and decide what is best to submit, and let nothing persuade us to submit any proposal than the best.

The best is the Dirksen substitute to be offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER).

The 4-year term of office has never meant 4 years of service. Here, twice four is not eight. It takes a new administration considerable time . to get organized. The Eightieth Congress was sworn in on January 3, more than a month ago. Although the Speaker and the leadership were all experienced and skilled in legislative work, and although they have worked faithfully, organization has yet to be completed and only one piece of legislation has been passed, consuming less than 1 day on the floor; and it was merely on extension - sion . of a minor, old excise tax bill. The executive department is infinitely more difficult and tedious to organize. Much more of its personnel is new. I~ has been esti- inated that it takes a year to organize the executive department and get it to working well. .. .

William Howard Taft, Elihu Root, and many other qualified witnesses have pointed out unanswerably that politics wrecks the efficiency of the last year or two . of every 4-year term of the President. Such statements have been quoted in this debate and in the reports on the pending resolution.

Therefore, of 'the nominal duration of a 4-year term, efficient service is rendered in only half or less.

So, a 6-year term would produce at least 5 years of efficient service, since the last 2 years of the 4-year term now devoted to politics would be saved. And because of better, nonpolitica;l appointments from the Cabinet down, the quality of that 5 years of efficient service Many other good arguments have been and could be urged in favor of the Dirksen substitute. But my time is too limited to rehearse them. I beg your most statesmanlike consideration.

Mr. · cELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from New York [Mr. RABIN).

Mr. RABIN. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the adoption of the resolution that would limit the time of the President to two terms. I believe that the people themselves can determine the limit of the term of office by the exercise of the ballot in a free election. While we have free elections, I trust the judgment of the people. I know some are concerned about the danger of a dictatorship and the abolition of free elections if one were to hold office too long. I do not fear that danger. Hitler became a dictator in less than 8 years, and so did Mussolini. If one is in office for 8 years and in that time does not assume dictatorial powers, it is safe to assume that he does not aim to be a dictator. We should not tie our hands. We should be free to elect anyone we choose in time of emergency or danger. Again I say, I trust the judgment of the people. Give them the unhampered right to exercise it.