February 6, 1947 (2)

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. CoLMER].

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have these 1% minutes to advise the House that at the appropriate time under the 5-minute rule I shall offer an amendment to the resolution which will provide, . if adopted, that the . matter will be handled by conventions rather than by the State legislatures. In that way, the one issue can be put up to the people whether they want to adopt that amendment to the Constitution. There will not be any extraneous matters involved. The candidates for delegates to the State conventions will be elected upon that one issue and that one issue alone.

At the proper time, Mr. Chairman, I shall offer the amendment. The Constitution provides that it may be done in either manner.

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

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I hope no effort will be made to limit debate under the 5-minu t e rule because it is now only 2 o'clock and this is a very important matter. I do hope that broad latitude will be allowed in connection with the debate under the 5-minute rule.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I now yield the balance of the time remaining on this side to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MICHENER].

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, let me first assure the distinguished minority whip, who was such an able majority leader, that, so far as I know, there is no intention on the part of the leadership at this time to follow the precedent, used s<l frequently in the recent past, limiting debate under the 5-minute rule. I feel sure that adequate opportunity Will be given to our membership to discuss this resolution.

We have had a real live debate. Every phase of this matter has been covered just as fully as it would be if we talked for 5 days, and every Member with any experience in the House knows it. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCoRM A CK] made his usual good talk, and when he finished there was very little remaining to be said in favor of the position he takes. Much of what has been said since then has been repetition. We can get nowhere by repeating the arguments. The debate has developed that the House membership may be divided into three categories: first, those who are opposed to any limitation on the presidential term; second, those who · favor a 6-year term; and, third, those who favor a 4-year term," with the limitation that one cannot possibly serve more than 8 years as President. The opponents of the bill are driving for the 6-year limitation, and when the roll is called, if I do not miss my guess, every Member who is opposed to any limitation, as is the gentleman · from Massachusetts [Mr. McCoRMACK]; will vote for the 6- year term. You who are familiar with the procedure here, and are acquainted with strategy of one kind or another to defeat a bill, know that the best way to kill a bill or injure it is to vote for all amendments offered regardless of their merits.

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

Mr. MICHENER. I yield.

Mr. McCORMACK. I want t<l compliment the gentleman on the fact that he has never followed that procedure which he accuses all of us of following.

Mr. MICHENER. The gentleman from Massachusetts is always generous. He is an astute and able leader. He is a past master at strategy.

What is the difference between a 6- year term and a 4-year term? All the arguments that could possibly be advanced for the 6-year term have been presented. I started out as a 6-year term man myself some years ago, but the more I studied, the more I watched, the more I listened, the more I became convinced that if we want to play safe, 4 years, as determined by the forefathers, is the right period.

If we have 6 years, then we have too long a term for an unfortunate Presidential choice, who can only be removed by impeachment. If we have a 4-year term, a good President will be reelected; if he is not good, the people can replace him. Six years is too long when there is a method whereby the people can pass upon the stewardship before hiring the same President for another term.

The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HoBBS] says the President will select a proper decent and right type of Cabinet if he knows he is only going to be there for 6 years, and that he may do otherwise if he knows he is only going to be there 4 years. I do not view it that way at all. I know, as a practical matter, that many Cabinet positions are settled at or before the national convention. I know that the votes cast under the party machinery in a national convention have much weight as far as Cabinet positions are concerned. For my part I had rather take a chance on having a President serve for 4 years, knowing that he could not possibly be reelected by the American people unless he served well and unless he had a decent Cabinet.

Long tenure of the office of President leads to an undue concentration of control of government in one man. Over a period of 12 years a President can secure a firm control over the enormous and powerful machinery of Federal administration, including the so-called independent agencies, thus increasing the natural tendency of bureaucracy to behave in an irresponsible manner. The legislature can be made dependent through the Presidential patronage and the Presidential control of party machinery. Even the independence of the judiciary can be influenced indirectly by the appointment of judges whose attitudes are essentially those of the President. This danger of an overconcentration of powers in the hands of one man by long tenure in the Presidential office is much more serious than in the early years of our history because of the greatly increas-ed centralization of powers in the Federal Government.

Another evil result of long tenure is the growth among the people of too great · a dependence on a leader. Political apathy is a menace to democracy, and blind faith in a leader inevitably means an indifference to great issues and problems. Along with public apathy there is a stiffing of other leaders, so that the capacity for political leadership is weakened.

To safeguard against these evil effects of too long a tenure of office of the Presidency a constitutional amendment is needed. For 150 years the sanction of tradition proved sufficient. Now that the two-term tradition has been broken, however, a longer tenure may well become the practice unless constitutionally forbidden. The argument that a constitutional limitation on tenure evidences a lack of faith in the people by denying them a free choice in the election of their President is plausible but supe r ficial. The point is that the longer a President remains in office the more difficult it is for the people to remove him. This is largely due to the President's great power of patronage. After · 8 years of office almost any President can secure his renomination because the use of patronage will have enabled him to control the party machinery. The majority of the voters of the party may prefer another man, but the nomination process is controlled by the party machinery. It is, therefore, not realistic to argue that the voters have a "free choice" in determining whether or not a President s hall have a third term. The choice for those voters of the President's party who do not want a third term is to abstain from voting, vote for the candidate of the o ther party, or vote for the candidate of their own party in spite of the fact that they oppose a third term. The influence of Presidential patronage further restricts a truly democratic election in that a vast number of voters in our present bureaucracy are dependent on the continuance of the administration for their jobs.

Much has been made · of the argument that a constitutional limitation on the tenure of the Presidential office would prevent the continuance in office of an experienced President in time of great emergency. This is, in effect, an argument that a particular man is indispensable, an idea that should be completely alien to a democratic society. Furthermore, a President can create an "emergency," or at least the impression of an emergency, and would always be tempted to do so if his tenure were not limited.

In short, the potential ~ .buses and evils of more than two terms of office so far outweigh any conceivable advantages that the people ought in self-protection to amend their Constitution to limit tenure to two terms.

As has been stated, 18 Presidents, from . Washington to Franklin Roosevelt, have expressed views on limiting the Presidential term. Excerpts from these statements have been read in the debate; however, if all of the statements made

. bY all of these 18 Presidents are considered, one will find the consensus of opinion was that there should be a two 4-year-term limitation. True, some of . them felt that this has been, and will be, accomplished by respecting .. the tradition est a blished by Washington and made . p e rmanent by Jefferson. None of them, however, spoke after the tradition which they revered had been broken when Mr. Roo s evelt was elec t ed for a th i rd and a fourth term, and died before fif t h-te r m nomination was rea~hed.

Mr. Chairman, it is all very interesting to t al k about what the forefathers said. That is helpful, but I am more interested at the moment in what the people in this generat i on think. Within my memory the public during political campaigns n s has debated the th i rd-term menace from the time Theodore Roosevelt was a candidate for a third term through the Coo lid ge tenure, as well as the campa i gns of . 1940 and 1944.

The only real question before the Congress is: Shall we pass this resolution and permit the States to vote "yes" or "no" on the two-term limitation as here pro- · Posed?

There has been no general discussion throughout the country about a 6-year term. However, the people do have definite views on limiting the Presidential term. They have considered two terms of not to exceed 4 years each, and, I believe, are fully prepared to pass judgment . now. There should be no partisan politics here. This resolution is not aimed at any individual. No personalities are . involved at the moment. The real effect of this constitutional amendment' will be to give vitality to a tradition which every speaker today insists should be effective.

Yes, the Constitution itself does bind the people in certain particulars and prevents them from doing certain things which they mi g ht do under stress, prejudice, and emotion. To argue that the people should never bind themselves so far as future action is concerned is not in keeping with the spirit and purpose of our Constitution.

I am convinced , Mr. Chairman, that this amendment should be submitted at once while many of the State legislatures are in session. If this is done, I am fully per s uaded that the people through their St a te representatives will ratify the amendment.

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

Under the rule , all time has expired.

The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read ' as follows:

R es olved by the S e nate and House ' of Rep­ - resentatives of the , United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following art i cle is he r eby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United St a tes, which shall be valid to all intents and purpo s es as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of threefourths of the several States:

"ARTICLE . -

"S E CTION 1. , No person shall be chosen or se r ve as President of the United States- for any t e r m , or be eligible to hold the · office of Pre side nt during any term, if such person shall have theretofore served as President during the whole or any part of each of any two separate terms; but this article shall not prevent any person who may hold the office of President during the term within which this article is ratified from holding such office for the rem a inder of such term. · "SEc. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legisla t ures of three-fourths of the several S t a t es within 7 years from the date of its submission to the S t ates by the Cong r ess."

With the following committee amendment:

Page 1 , line 9, strike out all of lines 9, 10, _ and 11, and on p a ge 2, strike out all of lines 1 and 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "Any person who has served as Pres i dent of the United. S t a t es during all or portions of any two te r ms, shall thereafter be ineligible to hold the office of Presi­ • dent."

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, l offer a substitute for the committee amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Substitute amendment offered by Mr. CELLER:

"On pages 1 and 2, strike out 3;11 of section 1 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"'The President and Vice President shall hold their offices . es during the term of 6 years. No person shall be eligible to the office of President who has previously held such office, but this article shall not affect the term in progress or to which a President and Vice Pres i dent have been elected at the time of the ratification of this article, nor the eligibility to the office of the President for such term.'" ' Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman,- this is the so-called Dirksen amendment, which amendment was praised by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HoBBSl.

It would provide, in effect, that the tenure of office of the P r esident shall be 6 years, and 6 years only, with no right to be reelected. It would not have any effect upon the present incumbent of the White House, Mr. Truman. I think many Members on our side of the aisle believe that when you have the possi- . bility of 8 years in the White House there is a tendency to squelch new leadership; when young ' men tend to get in front · and have the klieg lights thrown on them they are tugged back by the incumbent in the White · House. The incumbent is usually jealous of his power and discour­ · ages any heir apparent. That has been the pr ~ practice for many, many years, not only when the Democrats were in power but when the Republicans were in power. Successors are not · groomed, successors are not encouraged. To my mind, a 6-year term would change all that. I believe the country is hurt when you have a man serving one term of 4 years with an overweening ambition to serve a ' second term, because at the end of 3 years, just as the President reaches the highest point of efficiency, men in this House and men in the other body, and even men and women outside the Congress, start to ' hunt and hound him; they seek to snipe at hin . and embarrass him, and thereby destroy his efficiency. I believe that 8 years in the White House is also bad for party welfare. Two terms as President makes the President · undoubted leader of his party, but his leadership becomes personal. He becomes a great concentration of party power.

It is well to repeat what · a great Senator from New York, Elihu Root, once said in the other Chamber:

You cannot separate the attempts to beat the President seeking reelection from the attempt to make inefficient the op . erations of government which the President is carrying on in accordance with his duty.

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

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Mi s sissippi.

Ivlr. ABERNE T HY. I simply want to m a ke an inquiry about the effect of the amendment if adopted. A man becomes President, he is sworn in, and 30 days af t er he is sworn in resigns, dies, or for some rea s on the office is vacated. The V i ce P r e s ident then ascends to the Preside n cy. Is the Vice President who becomes Pr e s i dent prohibited from succeeding him s elf?

Mr. CE L LER. He would be prohibited.

Mr. ABERNETHY. In other words, he could only serve the remainder of that term?

Mr. CELLER. The remainder of that Presidential term.

We all know that the last year and a half of the first term of a President is primarily given over to the coming campaign. No President, it matters not how wise or sagacious he may be, can adequately and successfully conduct a campaign for reelection and act for the welfare of his country as President of the United States. Just as oil will not mix with water, those two functions cannot properly mix. We know also that it is not very edifying for the President to descend to the political arena and to indulge in the mud slinging and in the hurly-burly of a political campaign. The Pres i dent should be above the rough and tumble of a campaign for reelection. The President would, therefore, do a better job because there would not be the hope of reelection. He would not have to cater to se l fish groups. The amendment, I think, would make for more statesmanship, more courage in the Presidency because votes would not be in the balance.

Under the two-term rule, the last 18 months of the first term are primarily given over to the coming campaign. A President cannot do both and do both well; that is, conduct a successful campa i gn for reelection and at the same time conduct the a ff airs of the Chief Executive for the good of all.

S i x years may be too long for a medi­ . ocre President. Remember no plan is perfect. Six years, however, is long enough for even the best President.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I happened to have been on the subcommittee which heard the evidence submitted at the hearings held on this particular piece of legislation. We had before . us every theory which is here proposed. We had those who did not believe in any change or the submission of any kind of a proposal tq the people. We had further the pro p osal providing for a 6-year term without any right of reelection. Then we also had bills which proposed two terms of office of 4 years each.

After hearing all of the evidence and hearing all of the statements of witnesses-and may I say there were 16 or 18 of them who submitted their views upon these questions-we came to a conclusion, and I think that conclusion is borne out entirely by statements made by some of our forefathers in their observations with respect to the tenure of the office of President of the United States. We must remember that the people think in the term that a President is elected for 4 years. They have never thought in terms of a President being elected for 6 years and, as some of our forefathers said-Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, and others-if we get a bad man, under the theory of a 6-year term, there is no way in the world you can get rid of him within a shorter term. But under the plan of two terms of 4 years each, at the end of 4 years the people have the right and they have the power at the ballot box to . terminate the term . of office of that official who has not measured up to the standards.

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

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to my colleague the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HALLECK. Is it not true that what we are doing here today is simply writing into the Constitution, if the States adopt the proposal, the so-called two-term tradition that has grown up in our country throughout the years?

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman is entirely correct and I wish · to thank him for that observation. We are merely proposing to submit by way of this resolution that which has become a custom in this country.

Mr. HALLECK. I just wish to say further that I trust this amendment will be defeated and that we may proceed with the proposal as submitted by the committee.

Mr. SPRINGER. As the gentleman has so well - said, there has developed a custom in this Nation of ours. We have heard what these various Presidents have had to say upon this question. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge all have spoken. It did not make any difference who they were or with what party they were affiliated. They were thinking what was best for our country. As was said by Calvin Coolidge-and that is the most recent expression we have on the subject, and that is nearer our day, when we have re ache d the period at which we have airplanes, when vie have radios and when we have all the modern inventions of the It is difficult to conceive how any one man can successfully serve the country for a term of more than 8 years.

That is all we have before us in this resolution. We are offering to propose this resolution to the legislatures of the several States to determine whether or not they concur in this two-term custom that we have known throughout the Ohio? years.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, referring again to the Constitutional Convention, it is well for us to keep in mind that it was necessary for that august body to determine the relative periods of time of service. They first determined that the Members of the legislative branch should be elected every 2 years. They first held that the term of President should be 7 years and he should be ineligible for reelection. TheY next fixed the term of United States Senator at 6 years, and that it would be a continuing body with one-third elected every 2 years, divided into classes. When the Committee on Revision of Uncompleted Matters in the Constitution made its report originally on September 4, which was debated through the 6th, 8th, and 12th, and finally, when the Committee on Style wrote up the last draft of the Constitution as we have it today, they then fixed the term at 4 years.

The first question that presents itself is this: Why did they fix 2 years for the House of Representatives? Why did they fiX 6 years for the Senate? Why did they fix 4 years for the President? The natural answer is this: The Senate , was . to represent the States. The House of Representatives was to represent the people. The President, as originally proposed in the electoral college, was elected from the States. Consequently, those men felt that there ought to be a balance all the way and all through this argument there must be kept in mind our system of checks and balances: 2 years, 4 years, and 6 years; so much for that phase of it. The second thing is this: This matter has been repeatedly presented. Since I first spoke, I have been in touch with the Congressional Library. Since 1929 to date, 60 additional amendments have been offered affecting the tenure of office of the President of ' the · United States: All told, there have been 270 amendments affecting the tenure of office of the President of the United States since the adop- . tion of the Constitution .' So it is nothing ;new. In 1889 it was offered; in 1893, in 1908, in 1909, and 1912. These five amendments were all submitted with the idea of limiting the tenure of the President to a single term. In 1894, William J. Bryan introduced three amendments providing for a single-term President, and another one making the President ineligible to succeed himself.

If you will read James Bryce's American Commonwealth, you will find on page 42 that he states that the two-term tenure of the Presidential office has grown into "an unwritten law." Of course, Mr. Bryce's great volume was written before a certain President . came into his ascendency about the year 1932, when this "unwritten law" was broken; nevertheless, what has happened can happen again, and we have seen the evils of it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, for the rea­ sons stated, I am in opposition to this substitute amendment.

Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAffiMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from There was no objection.

Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the · observation that the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER], speaking a few moments ago, made the best argument in favor of limiting the tenure of Presidential office that I have so far heard made during this debate.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. CE LLER] was speaking in favor of his amendment of limiting the term to one 6-year period, and in the course of his remarks he stated, in substance, that it was well known to everyone that any President who knew that he would be running for reelection spent at least 18 month~ of his present term in order to campaign for the next term, and because of that fact that he was inefficient in his capacity as the Chief Executive for a period of 18 months.

In making this statement the gentleman from New York has practically admitted that our late President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was inefficient as the President of the United States for at least 4% years. If it is true, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. CE LLER] stated, that the President then in office which, in this case, was Mr. Roosevelt, is inefficient during the last 18 months of his term in office, then Mr. Roosevelt was inefficient for 18 months at the close of his first term, 18 months at the close of his second term, and 18 months at the close of his third term, making 4 :Y2 years in . all in which he was inefficient.

Following this line of reasoning, and cru : carried to its ultimate conclusion, one can readily see that if a person was perpetuated in office long enough that it would soon develop that for a good many years we would practically be without a President ~ I was somewhat surprised to hear the gentleman make the assertion that Mr. Roosevelt was inefficient as the Chief Executive for at least 4% years of his 12 years and 4 months' tenure.

Therefore, I repeat that the gentleman from New York has offered concrete and substantial evidence as to why the term of office of the President of the United States should be limited.

Based on this same line of reasoning, would not one be safe in saying that a person who is elected to serve two 4-year terms in the White House does in reality only serve 5 years, since 18 months off of each term to campaign equals 3 years ~ in which he is not efficient.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I favor the passage of House Joint Resolution 27 proposing a submission to the people of the question whether there should be an amendment to the Constitution to limit the tenure of the President to two terms, and am opposed to the proposed amendment which has been offered to limit the term to one of 6 years.

If we were legislating in a vacuum, there would be much force and logic behind the suggestion of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and others, that the voters should have a free and untram- elled choice to - name the same man to this high office as often as they might wish. Indeed, it is with some reluctance that I reach the conclusion in my own mind that the threat to our democratic processes from the abuses o · f autocracy and, therefore, the consummate evil in permitting complete freedom of choice to de s ign a te the same person for · this office ag a in and again and again transcends in importance and seriousness wh a t I am also prepared to concede is an evil in limiting the freedom of choice of a f r ee people.

The r efore, I hold the view that some restraint upon the tenure of the President is desirable.

It seems to me that the voters of this cou n try are entitled to express their views as to who shall be its Chief Executive oftener than once in 6 years. The point is made that if a President is elected for 6 years, and knows that he can serve no longer, he will be entirely divorced from "politics" and will be able to serve his country without one eye cocked toward the next Presidential election. This argument is not without force. But it seems to me largely a question of the caliber of the man, not the length of his tenure which will determine whether he puts politics or the welfare of his country first.

Mr. REED of New Yo r k. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KEATING. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. REED of New York. Is it not a fact that this Government of ours is the only Government in the world where the ' people have created a supreme law to save themselves from themselves?

Mr. KEATING. I think so.

Furthermore, it is submitted that "politics" is a much maligned and misunderstood expression.

If it means that he will keep his ear to the ground, remain ever mindful of the wishes of a majority of the people of this co 1m try, and, eschewing blind subservience to such majority opinion, yet always weigh carefully the expressed desires and aspirations of the greatest number in arriving at his final conclusions, then, to my way of thinking, that - kind of "politics" is more to be encouraged than condemned.

A President who holds himself aloof in an "ivory tower" for 6 years will not . do the best job for the country. It is highly desirable, it seems to me, to require him to go to the people after serving for 4 years, tell them what he has done, and ask them for support for the · continuance of those policies for another 4 years.

The distinguished gentleman from Alabama has made the point that one of the most important jobs for any President is to select a C a binet of capable men to carry on the important duties entrusted to them. He argues that a President is less likely to make selections dictated by political cons i derat i ons and more likely to name to these high offices men of outstanding ability in their field · u he knows that he is serving for one term and cannot serve again.

Here, too, it seems to me, the nub of ' the problem is not the machinery, but the man. One can conceive of a situation where just the opposite to the picture painted by the gentleman from Alabama would be true, where a President, not actuated by the high motives which should gu i de him, might feel · : "Here is my chance, at long last. I can name my cronies to office and fill my Cabinet with my friends from my own S ta te, and nothing can ever be done about it. I am sitt i ng here · for 6 years. At last I have a ch a nce to reward my friends, and nobody can throw me out."

On the other hand, if the President knows that at the end of one term, if he seeks reelection, as seems to be the habit of Presidents, he will have to justify before the bar of public opinion the selection of teammates which he has made, he will be more, not less, apt to name men of high caliber to those positions.

I have one final thought for the serious consideration of this body. Most of us feel, as I have said, that events have demonstrated the need for some limita-: tion of tenure. That seems to me the paramount objective. While I differ with those who favor a single 6-year term, I would shed no tears over that eventual result.

It seems to me there is a very practical consideration here in accomplishing what I have described as "our paramount objective." The 4-year term of President is firmly embedded in the finest traditions of our great country. It is no small task to secure the approval of the legislatures of three-quarters of the States. It is my considered judgment that there is a very much greater likelihood that the people, when they finally pass upon this question through their elected representatives on their home grounds, will support a limitation which retains the 4-year tradition and also gives them a more frequent voice in the selection of their President than is likely to be the case if the 6-year proposition is submitted to them.

Mr. THOMASON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I think my very able and distinguished friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. REED] has just announced the real principle that lies back of this proposed legislation which is being so actively supported by those on his side of the aisle. If I understood him correctly, his pronouncement is that it is sometimes necessary that Congress pass legislation like this in order to help the people to save themselves.

Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMASON; I yield.

Mr. REED of New York. That was also laid down in the fundamental law, and here we are proposing to let the peo­ · ple decide whether or not they want to save themselves from what they have gone through during the last 12 years.

Mr. THOMASON. I still think I understand what my distinguished- friend said, which is, in substance, that the Congress must do something to help the people save themselves from themselves. That is genuine Republican doctrine. I just want to make it plain for the REcORD before it is closed today that that is not my political faith and I do not subscribe to that viewpoint. I believe everybody agrees that one of the greatest men this country ever produced ot that the world ever knew was George Washington. I quote verbatim his words when he decide~ that he did not want to be elected to a third term. He said he "saw no propriety in precluding ourselves from the services of any man who in some emergency shall be deemed most capable of serving the public." I believe I can show with facts and figures that the people have spoken very defini t ely on this very subject. They d i d it in 1940 and again in 1944. The timing of this legislation is quite interesting and in some respects a little suspicious to me. My friend, the gentleman from Michig a n [Mr. MICHENER], new cha i rman of the great Committee on the Judiciary, made some predictions about the ultimate outcome of this bill; so if predict i ons are in order, I make the prediction that regardless of wh a t form this bill takes when the time comes for a roll call on the bill every man on the Republican side is going to · vote for this legislation. The skids are greased and the Republicans will follow their leaders. I make one reservation. If some Member in an unguarded moment should offer an amendment here which would include Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, you will witness more running for cover than ever happened in this historic hall. In that event, I cannot predict the outcome. But I do not anticipate anything like that. I was here in the days of Mr. Hoover; and I remember a good many things that happened in the days of Mr. Harding and Mr. Coolidge.

During the last 14 years under the Democratic administration I have never known or heard of any such enthusiasm for - this rush legislation until the convening of this new Congress, of which the Republicans comprise such an overwhelming majority. You have come fresh from the people who in the exercise of their calm, deliberate, political judgment elected you. Yet, you now announce the astounding principle that you cannot trust the people. I am not dealing in personalities, but I remember back in the dark days of 1932, under the Hoover administration, 8,000 banks closed and 15,000,000 people were unem­ ' ployed. We were on the verge of internal revolution. The people, these same persons you are not now willing to · trust, elected a new President. Fear was banished, new hope was inspired, and peace, employment, and prosperity started its slow march back up the hill. The country had a new leader and Commander in Chief in whom they had confidence. In that election Franklin D. Roosevelt received 22 , 821,837 votes. H i s opponent, Mr. Hoover, received 15 , 761 , 841 votes. Mr. Roosevelt received 472 votes in the electoral college and Mr. Hoover received In 1933 and 1934 the chaos that had prevailed for 3 or 4 years prior ' thereto was converted into prosperity and confidence.

' The CHAffiMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. THOMASON] has expired.

Mr. THOMASON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes.

The CHAffiMAN. Is there objec t ion to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

Mr. THOMASON. Mr. Ch air man, I re " repeat, t hat prosperity and int erna l peace came back to the country. . And in 1936 the same Mr: Roosevelt was reelected and re ceived 27,4 7 6 , 673 votes. And . Mr. Landon received 16,679,583 votes. Mr. · Roosevelt received 523 votes in the electoral college and Mr. Landon received 8. I rep eat 8. · T h at was the people speaking in a free honest, democratic election. The Republicans have said on this :floor today we must have a check on the people le st they destroy themselves. I am one of those who believe in a free democratic government, and I would give the · people mo r e ra th er than less power. I do not fear the majority of the sovereign peop l e, and the votes of a free people cast at an honest election, with an honest count. No per s on or political p a rty has ever raised any que st ion about the honesty t y and fairne s s of our national elections. The proponents of the bill say tures. that they want the people to speak. I contend the people spoke on this very question in no uncertain terms in 1940 and again in 19 4 4. The Republicans say we must send the question back to some log r olling S tate leg isl atures. In the election of 1 9 40, when Roosevelt was up for the third term, that was the one big issue of the R epub licans and a few Democrats who opposed Roosevelt.

In that election Mr. Roosevelt received 27,243,466 votes and Mr. Willkie received 22 , 304,755 votes. Mr. Roosevelt received 449 electoral votes and Mr. Willkie received 82.

That is the situation to which George Washington referred away back in the early days of the Republic.

The war clouds were getting lower and lower every day in Europe and the people realized that we had a leader in whom the American people, the common people of this country as well as liberty-loving people of all the world, had confidence. So the people sent Franklin Delano Roosevelt back to the White House. I think, if possible, they might have risen up and demanded his reelection even if this resolution had then been the law. Some of my Republican friends talk as if they fear resurrection.

In 1944, while our boys by the million .were scattered all over the world in a war where our very life and liberty were at stake, the people rose up again-not Mr. Roosevelt-but the people rose up again for even a fourth term, and gave him 25,603,152 votes and they gave Mr. Dewey 2 . 2,006,616 votes. Mr. Roosevelt received _ 432 electoral votes and Mr. Dewey 99 : An interesting fact is that when you add all of the electoral votes cast in all four of the last elections, all four Republican candidates received 248 electoral votes, which was 18 short of the necessary number for election. That, my friends, is . democracy in action. That is a free people exercising their right of franchise. - A great many predictions have been made here today. I will venture one more. In view of the history of that record, where the sovereign people of a free nation were speaking, I venture another prediction-and I thank God no such situation prevailed-but if that terrible World War II were still raging today and Franklin :0. Roosevelt were still alive, and in good health, I predict the people .of this country would again - elect him in 19 48 . He was a great leader. He h a d h is fa ul ts and made his mistakes, but he whipped a depre ssi on when our people were in despair and he was our gallant .le ader in winning the most cruel war in h uma n his t o r y. ·

I join with you in hoping and trusting that no emergency will ever arise in the future that will make nec essar y either a th ir d or fourth term. We still live in a sick world. Enduring pe ac e is not yet assured. Atom i c bombs m a y get i n the hands of potential enemies. If an emerge ncy such as George Wa shi n gto n predicted, or such as we faced in 19 4 1 , should eve r arise ag ai n, I want the P r es iden t, be he D em ocrat or Republican, to fi nis h the job if he possesses unusual quali tie s of l ead ership. A n yway, I will trust the · people more than a polit i cally minded Co ngr ess and some meek State legislatures. Constitution has been amended 21 times. It was always to in c rea se and to enlarge the power of the people. With me, the people are sovereign, and can do whatever they wish. They make few mistakes in elections and are qu ic k to co rr ect those they do make. I want th e m to have more rather than less po we r.

It is passing strange the haste with wh i ch t hi s bill was reported. I understand the committee considered it for 2 days and we can debate it for only 2 hours. It bears all the earmarks of politics. Some people just cannot forget. Some like to nurse grudges even after death. Why not take reasonable time for such an important matter as amending the Constitution? How about some of the promises made last fall to reduce taxes, stop strikes, and shoot the Comm u nists? We have been in session 6 weeks. We have only voted on one bill to retain excise taxes, which the Republicans voted for after their leaders had sa i d they would repeal it.

This resolution ought to be recommitted for careful study, and let us take up some important matters that mean so much for the happiness and prosperity of our people.

I shall vote against the resolution and all amendments .

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

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, we have heard many appeals to · leave this ques­ _ tion . to the people. The only way in which the people- can express · themselves on this subject, is for their representatives in Congress to propose by constitutional means that their representatives in the S t ates vote on whether they want to make the unwritten law of the third term part of the written law of the Constitution. Now, when this can be done as a matter of principle, divorced from personalities and partisan politics. The best way in which the idolators of our late President could insure the special place they feel he should occupy in our history would be to join in breaking the mold that made the third and fourth terms possible and thus have him hold forever a unique place in American hi st ory.

Without going into past history, however, which has been sa exhaustively brought before this body today, I want to call attention to co ntemporar y world h istor y. All over the world co nstitu ­ tio na l re presentativ e d emocracy, re ­ publican government, is under attack. There are those all over the world who ar e saying that representative democracy is decadent , that politicians who ar e elected to public office c annot be trusted to act in the public interest for fear they will be defeated, and who are therefore at tempting a perpetuation in power of ind ividua l leaders in personal dict at orships. By the two- term proposal which the commit tee has made we answer these attacks on o u r form of government t ha t co m e from all over the world. It is bec aus e of this aspect of the two-term propo siti on that, I who originally supported the 6-y ea r idea, , am now opposed to the C e ller 6-ye ar amendment. By the p r opo sa l made by the committee for one term, with a possibility reelec­ of tion to a second term, we say to the world th at we do not think that the whole history of America is wrong, and that a President who is a possible cand i date for reelec ti on cannot be trus te d to act with patriotism, wisdom, or e ffic iency . . Every President since the founding of the Republic has been a possible candidate for reelection. We do not think this sullied the se r vice of every one of them. That is the implication of the single-term proposal. The average tenure of our Presidents has been about 5 years. The type of politics whereby the President continues to be responsive to the views of the people and to public opinion is not a bad thing. We think that part of representative democracy is a good thing.

On the other hand, we recognize the dangers involved in perpetuation in office which finally amounts to personal dictatorship, the sort of perpetuation which Thomas Jefferson described as monocracy. He used that te r m as something different from monarchy, monocracy being power concentrated in one elected official. We recognize that after 8 years, with the patronage, with the other powers that rest in the hands of a modern President, we may have a tendency toward perpetuation in power of one man. Therefore, the Congress, by this proposal to the people today, does not say that we think that tlle...Eresiden and the Members of the two bodies of Congress cannot be trusted - to act wisely, if they are candidates to succeed themselves. By this logic if mere candidacy for public office automatically unfits a man to serve in public . office, then this vice applies to a new man as well as to an incumbent, and the President and all public officials should be appointed; by whom, would be a puzzle under this logic, as election would automatically. unfit anyone for exercising the appointing power. This iS the sort of logic that leads to dictatorship, to fascism, to communism . We say that the old way of the Republic is a good way, but we are going to propose that the people through their representatives can put into the Constitution a bar against perpetuation in office which is such a danger to free govern- ment all over · the world, a danger which has become more increasingly apparent every qay ..

There is another consideration I want to call to the attention of the Members of the House. The 6-year proposal elimi­ terms. nates automatically many possible candidates for President because of age. If you check on the ages of many of our Presidents and many of our prospective candidates, you will realize that they may be acceptable candidates for a 4-year term, but they would be too old to be considered for a 6-year term. This is a delicate subject. A 6-year term might eliminate certain of our leaders who will be elder statesmen in 1948 and at other times in the future, although they might otherwise be extremely available. I do not believe in indispensable men, but we make more men available by a 4-year term than by a 6- year term.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the pending amendment will be defeated.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last four words ~ Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time of the gentleman be extended 5 minutes.

The CHAffiMAN. Is there objection to the request ·of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I am not going to object at this time, the Members who have been speaking held themselves to the 5-minute rule. There is no desire over here to be unreasonable. The gentleman from Texas had 10 minutes. But we do want to move along as expeditiously as we can. I am · not going to object to this request but hereafter I shall have to object.

Mr . McCORMACK. I think the gentleman's observation is a fair one except in the case of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER]. He is a member of the committee and was attending important official duties elsewhere during general debate.

The CHAffiMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VORYS] has made two of what he terms strong points in favor of the resolution. Anyway, they are the points upon which Le rests his argument. The first is that the only way the people can express themselves on this proposition is by passing the pending resolution and submitting the matter to the legislatures of the various States. We all know there is a difference between people expressing · themselves on a matter and the legislatures of the various States passing on the question. As far as I am concerned, I am willing to let the people by a majority vote decide every 4 years whether they want to continue a man in the office of Presidency and not let the legislatures which are not the people decide whether the people should have that right. The Colmer amendment requiring submission to conventions in the States for a vote on the proposal is more der ... locratic than the legislative method. I certainly believe it is more democratic to let the people of the future generations, in view of the facts submitted to them and with which they may be ocnfronted at that time, decide for them.;. selves whether they want a President to carry on for one term, two terms, or three The second allegedly strong point the gentleman from Ohio made was that all over the world constitutional democracy is under attack. Well, it is under attack here in the House of Representatives this afternoon also. Throughout . the history of our democracy, throughout the history of our Government, we have seen the citizens assume one responsibility after another. The democratic processes have been enlarged, :first, by the adoption of the amendment to elect Senators direct instead of through the legislatures. We have even gotten away, for all practical purposes, from the idea in the Constitution that the people have no real choice in the election of the President, that t-he electors elect the President. So that is another responsibility assumed by the people. Then by appropriate amendments a large section of our population has been given citizenship and the right of franchise. This also is an enlargement of the democratic processes.

Another extension is that we have made it possible to collect tax incomes according to the ability of the people to pay. We have passed the lame-duck amendment, which is still another enlargement of our democratic process. Then, by an appropriate amendment, we gave the right of franchise to the women of this Nation. All of these are enlargements of the democratic process showing that the people of the United States felt that additional people were capable of citizenship and of exercise of the franchise; that they should have a larger hand in the selection of their officials; that more people should have the right to vote. Yet, the gentleman from Ohio says that if we fail to pass this amendment we will be saying to the people of the world that we do not trust the democratic process. I say just the opposite is true.

I regret that the majority party in this Congress as its very first move should show distrust of the majority of the people and of future generations to govern themselves. I regret that they feel that they were bridled and put in a strait-jacket.

Mr: CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. ·

Mr. CORBETT. I would like to ask the gentleman if he is in favor of the substitute amendment?

Mr. KEFAUVER. If the gentleman would read the report he would see that I am not for any of the limitations.

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

Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. COOLEY. This proposed amendment could also be initiated by twothirds of the State legislatures calling a constitutional convention, could it not?

Mr. KEFAUVER. That is quite right. That is one nf the ways of proposing an amendment, and I have not heard of any legislature going on record as favoring this one. ·

Mr. Chairman. it seems very strange to me that during the time that President Grant was - considering running for a third time, when the Republican Party was in charge of both Houses of Congress, that no one espoused any constitutional amendment to prohibit the President from serving a third term. After he made his great tour of the world and came back, he came within 50 votes of getting nominated, or of getting enough votes in the Republican Con- vention to run for a third term.

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

Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. On 36 ballots in that convention he received 303 votes. The highest he got was 313, a majority on every ballot, with 3'78 votes necessary-and the third term was not what defeated him.

Mr. KEFAUVER. No. Another very interesting thing is that both Houses of Congress were under the control of the Republican Party in 1927 and 1928, when President Coolidge was considering running for a third term. D i d the Republican Party at that time espouse any amendment to . prevent him from doing so? Let it be said also that President Coolidge would not have supported this amendment. I have here his statement. He said that to prohibit a President from serving a third term, where he served two full terms, might be in the public . interest, but that should not apply where he served only one term and a part of another. He was protecting himself. What have the people of America done · to all of a sudden cause a majority party in Congress to say that it does not have confidence in the integrity and the wisdom of the people? The only thing they have done is to elect Franklin Roosevelt for a third term. Yet, are you gentlemen going to contend that the people of 45 States were misled and ignorant, that they did not know what they were doing, and that they need your protection from ever again getting the services of a great leader in time of a crisis? You know it is. a very strange thing that the majority party is getting away from the idea of its founders. Alexander Hamilton made the strongest arguments against this amendment that I have ever read. He stated in a very straightforward way five good reasons why it should not be adopted.

They have gotten away from the concepts of their leaders. James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, Ro-ger Sherman, and many other members of the Constitutional Convention had very strong ideas about it. They were opposed to a restriction of tenure. George Washington did not mention the matter once in the debate. He voted for the Constitution and later, in a letter to Lafayette, stated that he did not join those who stated that the nations should not be able to avail themselves of the services of any man no matter for how many terms. Sa I cannot see any situation that would require the passage of this resolution, unless we want to admit that we do not think the majority of the people have the judgment ·to steer their own political · destiny in the future.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mrs Chairman, will th e gentleman yield?

Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield to the gentl eman from A r izona.

Mr. MURDO C K. The gentleman has made an admirable st atem ent showing how du ring the course of our history we have travel ed in the di rectio n of greater de mocrati c control. Would not the a d o ption of this resolution in any form be a rever sa l of that tre nd ?

Mr. KEFAUVER. It would be giving no tic e to the world that the House of Re presentative s of the United S tate s feit that the g r eat democr ati c people of America did not have enough judgment to select the official they wanted in the years to come. · I think it would be a reflection. It wou l d be an argument against other na ti ons adopting the democr ati c process, rather than an argument for it .

Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, , I am somewhat perturbed at the distressed way in which my distinguished colleague from Tennessee has s t u c k in the bark here tod a y and duck e d the question. He says that when we vote to submit this proposal to the legislatures of the States we have denied the people the r i ght to determine this question. The opponents of this measure are the men who are afraid of the people. We pro pos e to submit it to the legislatures of the States and let three-fourths of the States, spe a king through their legislatures, elected by the people, ratify this amendment. Until then, of course, it is not a part of the Constitution.

We are in the cold, gray dawn of the morning after the night before. We have had four terms of the gentleman word. around whom th i s debate revolves. I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life eternal, but know nothing in anybody's theology that indicates that F. D. R. will ever rise from the dead and run again for President, so it could not be aim e d at him.

For a long time the people of this country w er e told . what the New Deal had done for them. They are finally aware of what it has done to them. Our friends are now saying to this Congress and to the people that the New Deal has gotten us into such a heck of a shape that we cannot reduce taxes, we cannot lower the budget, , we cannot cut Federal employm ent , we c an not pay anything on the n ati onal debt; we just h a ve to go on and be ground between the upper and the ne th er millstones from now on. It is to prevent a repetition of that sort of thing, , from which the people on November 5, 1946 , freed themselves, that this resolu ti on was introduced. It will take a long t im e to cure this evil.

Mr. · HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JENNINGS. _ I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. ·

Mr. HALLECK. I think it should be noted that undoubtedly the people on the other side of the ai s le think that in 1948 their candidate will win - the Presidency, and on our side of the aisle we have some very high hopes that our cand id~te will w i n. We are not looking to the past, we are looking to the future. The adoption of th is resolution, if lt ulti mat ely is approved by enough of the S tate s to make it e ffecti ve, is cer tai nly not directed against any one side in an y p artisa n sense at all, but is rather, as I have said before, simp l y a writing into the Constitution of what has grown up to be in the minds of the people a good p ractic e and tradition. It is not, as I view i t, any reflec tio n on anybody, an d c ertainl y no reflection on the c apacit y of the people to undertake to de termi ne for themselves what they want: to do.

Mr. JENNINGs. - Of course no t .

Mr. HALLECK. It will be as effective ag ain st a Republican President or a D emo c r atic Pre si dent who m igh t be in o ffice if the proposal is written into the Cons tit ution.

Mr. JENNINGS. There is no question about t hat . I wa s a ske d his morning about certain elections that took place in my S t ate. The highest tidal wave reached by the New D ea l was in 19 3 6. That ought to be known as the great relief year. Down in my State they had relief that ranged all the way from money to grapefru i t and hams. · There was such an abundance of it that it broke down the warehouses where it was sto r ed. In other words, we had a manifestation of the power of a national adm i nistration when it is held together by the cohesive power of . public plunder and when they can take the money of the people and finance their campaigns. We do not want that to happen again in this country.

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

Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last Mr. Chairman, during the Seventysixth Congress, on Mary 4, 1940, I introduced the first bill limiting the President of the United S t ates to two terms. I took this step 7 years ago because I thought the policy of serving only two terms, which was inaugurated by George Washington, our first President, ought to be set forth in the Constitution. I think so today.

You will recall in 1940, the · dictators of Europe were on the march. The war clouds hung low and the world was in turmoil, Abhorring as I always have, the centralization of power, I d i d not want anyone to assume such authority here in our own land.

I therefore introduced the following resolution which is almost identical to the measure which the comm itt ee has brought on the floor today. I urge the Congress to pass it so we can assu r e the Amer i can people that no one man can ever pe r pe t uate himself in the White House forever.

Our Constitution cannot be abided by wi t h concentrated authority in the hands of the executive branch. The . natural love for power that men in high pl a ces often have is increased the longer they remain at the helm. They tend to shape the destiny of a whole people accord i ng to their own single mind if allowed to go unchecked.