February 6, 1947 (2)

For this reason, this Congress should take action now. Let us limit the length of time any President · may serve, regardless of party. Let us guarantee America th at dictatorship shall never place its yoke on this fa i r l and .

To make my record clear, I will read to you the Hall resolu ti on of 19 40 . I am so glad the House at t hi s time is to pass on e so similar to it.

House Joint Resolution 48 0

Joint res olution prohib it ing payment of c om ­ p ensation for P resident during his third term of office

R eso l ved, etc., Th a t no part of any appropr iatio n heretof o r e or hereafter mad e s ha ll be available to · pay compensation of any President for any period d u ring wh i c h he is execut i ng t hat office du rin g a third term.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Ch airma n, I ask unan i mous consent that debate on the pending amendment close in 10 m in u te s.

The CHAIRM A N. Is there obj ecti on o the request of the gentleman from Mic h igan?

There was no object i on.

Mr. RANKIN. M r. Ch a irman, I move to s tr ike out the la st word and a s k unanimous consent to revise . and extend my rem ar ks.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi?

There was no objection.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, of course, I cannot agree with the excited gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JENNINGS] about what was done back in 19 3 6; because at that time we were developing the Tennessee Valley Authority which has done more for that area than anything else that has ever been done py any State or the Federal Government. But I am delighted to see my Republic a n friends get around to re a ding the Confederate Constitution. You know, in 18 6 1 when the Confederate Constitutional Convention met, it was composed of the finest minds in Amer i ca. At that time we were on the verge of war. At that t i me we had Jefferson Davis, one of the ablest military men in history J.S President of t h e Confederacy. They wrote into the Constitu ti on of the Confederacy a cy a provision that , limited the Presidential term to 6 years, and provided that the President could not succeed himself.

At that time there had only been five men who h a d served 8 years as President-George Washington and four Democrats, Jeffer s on, Madison, Monr:oe, and Jack so n. Up un t il today t her e has been only one Republican Pres id ent who has ever served 8 ye ar s in the history of our country. That was Ulysses S. Grant. You have had two Republicans elected twice and both of them unfortunately were assassinated. They were L in coln and McKinley. Theodore Roo seve lt served out an unexp ir ed term, then was elected for a full term . Calvin Coolidge se r ved out an u nexpire d term and then was elected for a full term. But we have had, I believe, seven Democrats, including the four I have just mentioned, to serve as President 8 years each. Cleve­ · land served 8 year~?, not consecutively. wilson served 8 years consecu tivel y. Roosevelt was elected for 16 years but served a little over 12 years.

I am going to support this amendment providing it is not amended. I believe the American people have a right to pass on this proposition. I cannot see that it involves any partisan politics. I do not agree with these attacks on President Roosevelt at all. We might as wen attack Calvin Coolidge and say, .. What if be bad been elected for a third term ?'•

This is a matter that involves the future of this country, · and l believe the overwhelming majority of the American people would agree to this limitation. I would prefer to see it changed to some extent. but I would rather have it limited to two 4-year terms than to have it one 6-year term. I say that with all deference to those who wrote the Constitution of the Confederacy, which has been pro.­ nounced by some of the greatest constitutional students of all times as the greatest document of its kind ever written. It almost paralleled the Constitution of the United States, with this and a few other changes.

I make this statement because it is the only opportunity I have to express my views on it. If the people of the United States do not want to adopt it. that is · up to. them. But I think under the circumstances. since the matter is before ns, it is my duty to vote to submit it to the American people, unless it is altered to the point where I cannot afford to do so."

Therefore, if it is submitted finally in the form in which it came from the committ.ee-, I sbaH vote to submit it to the various States for approval or disapproval Then the American people will have the right to pass upon it. I do not think it wiJJ wreck the Republic: whether we pass it or whether we do not.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman · from Mississippi [Mr. RANKIN] has expired.

Mr. HARLESS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

In the situation here today, Mr. Chairman, we have the majority party starting out to limit the term of the President to two 4-year terms. It is strange that this should be the second piece of business before this House. It is evident to me that they are expressing their resentment for a man who has passed. They are permitting their feelings to override their judgment.

One of the previous speakers gave as a point in favor of his argument that in 1936 the people's money was used to win the election. At that time the late Franklin D. Roosevelt bad been in office only 4 years. That argument could not be used as a substantial one to support this contention here today.

I am not in favor of a 6-year term. because if a man is not good. for a second term why should he be · elected for 6 years? It is better to have him go before the people at the end of 4 years and have him meet the public than it is to have him serve out a 6-year term. Therefore, I shall vote against that particular amendment. . ent. Sooner or later it may be that the Republicans will have a President who will have served two full terms of 4 years each. and there might be a national emergency and the people of this country might want to call on that Republican to serve them for a third 4-year term. If you put the people in the position of not being able to exercise that prerogative, it would be unfair to this democracy. I say to you that this is not a proposal that will work for the benefit of the people. It is merely a. proposal to express resentment because a particular party had not been able to overcome a certain leader in this counI hope we will vote down the amendment and vote down the bill.

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

MY. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks a.t this point in the :REcoRD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman. I commend the leadership on both sides of the aisle in their endeavor to keep the resolution (H. J. Res. 21) now before the House above partisan politics. The attempt has been in vain, in my opinion. We ought to face the facts behind the resolution. As Republicans, it seems to me that we do not want to impose upon our country again one-man government such as we have had for the past 14 years, be he a Republican or a Democrat, be it Roosevelt or somebody else.

OUr Democratic friends argue that this resolution is aimed at the late President and, therefore. is loaded with venom toward his work a.nd his memory. Naturally - there has been some reference o him because he is the man who held the office and built up such political power during his many administra.tions. It will be necessary. in the next few years, to dissolve much of the power that he created because it is not to the best interest of our Republic. ·

Mr. Chairman, the oppOsition party has stressed the necessity for continued election of a.n individual in case of a great emergency. We have bad enough of man-made emergencies but it is easy to see the reason for the argument. It will require many years to eliminate the blight of new dealism. The idea that one man alone is able to run this Government in any emergency is repugnant tc my concept of constitutional government. If we rely on that theory then our Government is in a perilous situation. We do not accept that theory for it is fallacious and contrary to fact. When Mr. Roosevelt died. he was succeeded by Harry S. Truman, yet we have carried on. there has been no cessation of government. Woodrow Wilson said in 1912: "There is no indispensable man." And there is not. The great Thomas Jefferson likewise stated with much persuasiveness that no emergency should ~ permitted to break down the two-term tradition. AU of the outstanding Democrats. except Roosevelt, stood by t.he tradition.

Mr. Chairman, this is a matter that should be submitted to the people; it involves their welfare. Passage oi House Joint Resolution 27 will permit the people to decide. I urge its adoption by this House because it is in the public interest.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, I rise \n opposition to the pro forma amendment. The CHAffiMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for the remaining 5 minutes.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Committee today will defeat the proVision for one term of 6 years. It seems to me that if we are to keep both the Presidency an . d the legislative form of · our Government responsive to the people it is necessary that we have a. review of the first 4 years of any Presidential term. I was rather amazed during the remarks of the gentleman :from Texas to bear his statement about the demand of this country for the election in the emergency or the nomination in the emergency of the · late President Roosevelt for his third term in 1940. I remember quite clearly some of my distinguished Democratic friends coming back from the Democratic Convention in Chicago and advising of the fact that the closest man to Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Harry Hopkins, was in charge of his campaign for the demand for the t.hird term. As I think back to the events during the immediate time when we got into this war I remember there was one particular columnist in whose column I had a great deal of confidence. When. I got down to Washington I was very much surprised to :find that he was a registered agent for one of the particular foreign powers that was interested very much in getting us into this war.

Mr. JOHNSON of california. Mr. Chairman. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON oi California. Is it not a fact that Carter Glass, Jim Farley, and Jack Garner all broke with Roosevelt over the third-term issue?

Mr. O'HARA. That is correct. J want to call attention again to what the distinguished gentleman from Illinois lMr. DirKsEN] said so well. and to call attention to influences that enter into our everyday lives and elections today and yesterday as to who is to be President of the United States You have all these foreign countries attempting to influence who should be President of the United States. It is not just the people speaking. but many influences from foreign countries-people and factions interested in who is going to be the next President of the United States and in their interests and not of America's. Is it not a protection to the theory and tradition surrounding the Presidency that so far as possible e keep it controlled: by the people oi the United states and not these foreign influences that will come along and want the continuation o:f a particular party or particular individual as President? Surely we who are here today live so close to the shattered precedents of the past as to realize that if we lived in England, under English law, as a matter of the common law the President would be limited to two terms. Now. in this country let us do what the people want and pass this biU for this, Mr. Chairman. It is the only practical way the question can go. to the people and to the State legislatures. I sincerely hope this resolution will pass as reported by the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen t lem a n from M i nn e s o ta h a s expired; all time on this amendment has ex pi red. The que st ion is on the substitute offered by the gentl e m a n from New York [Mr. CELLER] for the committee amendment.

The substitute for the committee amendment was rejected.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, I move to stri k e out the last word of the committee amendment.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. · Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. MICHENER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer on page 1, lines 6 and 7. At what time will that amendment be in order?

The CHAIRMAN. After the committee amendment has been disposed of, the gentleman may submit his amendment.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to make reference to the commi t tee amendment. As chairman of the committee I assume I am ethically bound not to oppose the committee amendment which was agreed to by a very narrow margin in committee, but I have a feeling that the members of the committee who voted for that amendment would not vote for it if they had the oppor t unity to vote again in committee. I mate k e that statement because the langu ag e of a constitutional amendment is most im p ortant, more so than in the c a se of ordinary legi s lation. Every comma , every semicolon, every capital letter , every word means something in a constitutional amendment, and under these circumstances we should not lightly adopt l a n g uage in a con st itut i onal amendment that has not been thoroughly w ei ghed .

This amendment, and I am divulging nothing, was offered by a member · r of the committee who wrote it out with a pencil during the reading of the resolution for amendment. Grammatically, I am told by the expert draftsman of this House, the language is not the language that should be embodied in a constitutional amendment. Of course, I did not vote for the amendment, but I did vote to report the bill and I think I may be pardoned for this e x planation.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise consideration. in support of the committee amendment. · · Mr. Chairman, the amendment that was adopted by the Judiciary Committee, offered, incidentally, by a majority member of the committee, was the only language considered with any care by the committee. Why the distinguished chairman of the committee would state that in the event the members of the committee had an opportunity to vote aga i n the vote would be other than what it was is som e thing I cannot understand.

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

Mr. WAL T ER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. JENNINGS. I want to ag . agree with what the distinguished gentleman from Pe n nsylvania is now saying. We carefu fully, deliberately, thoughtfully considered the language that we adopted by a majority vote of the Committee on the Jud i ciary. It is c r ystal clear. I do not think that the critici s m is well founded or that it has any merit whatever.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the ge n tleman yield?

Mr. WALTER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. COX. I have had occasion to ex a mine the amendment. It is simply a change of verbiage which improves the grammar, that is all.

Mr. WALTER. There is no question about that. The gentleman who offered the amendment made a very careful analysis of the language contained in the resolution, then offered this amendment because in his judgment and in the judgment of a majority of the Committee on the Judiciary the language agreed upon improved the language originally proposed.

I do not think the chai r man of our great committee ought to come to the floor of the House and state that the committee would not have done what was done in the event it had another opportunity to vote on this particular amendment.

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

Mr. WALTER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. MICHENER. I do not want to be misunderstood. We considered the amendment for about 5 minutes, I th i nk the gentleman will agree. It was a pen- ciled memorandum, such as . an amendment that is offered on the floor. No at t ention was given at all to · the langu a ge, and that is what I meant. I am not saying that the intent of the amendment is not what was intended. I am saying that the language in the re s o l u­ tion was given very careful consideration.

Mr. WALTER. By whom was it . given con s ideration?

Mr. MICHENER. Why, at least, the he a rings in the Senate in 1940, the hearings in the House in 1945 and the hearings g s in the Senate in 1945 were cons i dered. I am not going to oppose it. I just want to be · on record, because I am confident that this language as now written in the amendment will not go into the Constitution after some of the people who did support it give it further

Mr. WALTER. I do not know where the gentleman gets his information from. All I know is that our committee considered this language very carefully and we, by majority vote, concluded that · it was an improvement over the language as originally written. ·

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

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

Mr. McCORMACK. The Committee of the Whole is now in the rather interesting position, as I see it, of this resolution being reported out only yesterday. The chairman of the committee says that if a majority of the committee had another opportunity to vote for this today, they would vote entirely different than they did only yesterday, and if I construe the remarks of my friend, the gentleman from Michigan [MF. MlcH-

ENER], he was in a backhanded way politely suggesting to the Committee of the Whole to defeat th · e committee amendment and adopt the original verbiage, and my good friend, the gentleman from T e nnessee [Mr. JENNINGS], at least supports the po s ition taken by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Now, where do e s that leave our friend , the gentle- m a n from Michigan [Mr. MICHENER]?

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

Mr. WALTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. ·

Mr. RAYBURN. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that after this confusion, more or less, it might be a good time to recommit this measure to the Committee Qn the Judiciary.

The CHAIRMAN. The tim ..: of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has expired. ·

The question is on the committee amendment.

The committee amendment was agr e ed to.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, I orfer amendments.

T h e C l e r k read as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. CoLMER:

Page 1, lines 6 and 7, af t er the word "by" str i ke out the words "the legislatures of" and in s ert in lieu thereof the following: "conven t ions in."

P a Page 2, line 11, strike out the words "the legislatures of" and insert the words "conventions in."

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment close in 10 minutes, includ i ng the 5 minutes tc which · the gentlem a n from M i ssissippi is entitled.

The CHA I RMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very simple. It is not subject to misconstruction. It simply provides that if the resolution is adopted it will be either ratified or not ratified, as the case may be, by conventions called in the several States for that purpose, rather than by the State legislatures. Of course the objective of the amendment is to give the people of the United States an opportunity to pass upon th i s momentous question without any extraneous matters entering into the discussion.

Article V of the Constitution provides: The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments 'to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of twothirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

In other words, it is up to this body to say which method shall be adopted. Mr. McCORMACK. . Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLMER. I yield to the gentleman from Mas s achusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. While I have taken a - position in opposition to any limitation, to two terms or to one term of 6 years, this is the nearest approach to having a question of this kind submitted to the people. We have heard continuously during the debate that this is going to be submitted to the people for · ratification. This is one way the people can act upon it, and the only way they can act.

Mr. COLMER. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

This is what we are up against. We know as a matter of common knowledge that the members of the S t ate legislatures are elected upon various issues upon whether or not, for instance, there shall be a tax on dogs, whether there shall be a better educational system, or what have you. Under this amendment. if adopted, the people would select their delegates to the State conventions upon the one issue of whether they wanted to adopt this amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, will the gen t leman yield?

Mr. COLMER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. O'HARA. Is it not true that the eighteenth amendment was submitted in the same manner as is sought to be done in this resolut i on?

Mr. COLMER. It is my understanding that the eighteenth amendment was handled through conventions rather than the State legislatures. ·

If you want to give the people who have the right to decide this question the opportu.nity to decide it, this amendment offers you the machir:ery to do it. What objection can there be by either those who are for or those who are against the princ i ple of limiting the Presidential tenure to adopting this amendment, thereby giving the people an opportunity to express themselves directly by the election of delegates to the conventions upon the one· and only issue involved, namely, whether or not the amendment to the Constitution shall be adopted? -

Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a very important matter. Our forefathers in framing that great document-the Constitution of the United S t ates-debated the question as to whether or not there should be a limitation upon the number of terms a man could serve as President of this great country. There were those who took the position that there might be those ambitious ones who wou l d desire to perpetuate themselves in office, and that the office of President was too powerful to be held by one man longer than two terms. There were o t hers who took the · position that this was a matter that the people could decide upon the merits of the time and the . man; that there might come a time when the 'COuntry was in the midst of a life-and-death battle with a foreign foe and that it might not be wise to change at such time. The result was that no prohibition against a man holding the office for more than a specified time was written into the Constitution. Personally, I am of the opinion that the powers and duties of this importa t office are of such transcending importance, and the duties of the office itself are so onerous and demanding-always resulting in seriouS impairment of the health of the occupant-that no mar . should o:ff-er himself for more than two terms. But that is my opinion. There are others who feel that there should be no limitation whatever and that a President should · have the right to offer himself as a candidate to the people of the country to succeed himself as often as he desired.

But, Mr. Chairman, this country is fundamentally a democracy, and because I am elected to the National Legislature does not qualify me to pass upon that question. Neither is . the representative from my county in the State legislature qualified to .Pass upon that question. My contention is that the people as a whole are · qualified to pass upon the quest i on, and that the best way-and, in 'fact, in my opinion, the only way-that they can directly pass upon the question under the Constitution is to elect the several delegates . from the several States to a convention where the only issue in the . selection of these delegates will be whether or not the Presidency should be limited to two terms as provided in the pending resolution. I repeat that . we all know as a matter of common knowledge that when a man is elected to the State legislature he is elected not upon this issue alone but upon many and varied issues, or upon his personality. This amendment offers the only vehicle through which we , can get a clear-cut and unequivocal decision of the people on the question before the House.

I had been very much in hopes that this matter could be decided upon a bipartisan issue and that party politics would not enter into it. The Republican Party. being the majority party here, is fostering this legislation. · If they believe that the people want this resolution passed, then why not adopt this amendment and give the people that opportunity?

Mr. Chairman, I am not laboring under any misapprehension. We might as well be candid and realistic . .If the Republican leadership are willing for the people to decide this issue, they will favor this amendment and it will be adopted because those on this side of the aisle will support the amendment. On the other h a nd, if the Republican leadership opposes this amendment, we all know that they have the votes to defeat it. I want to give the people an opportunity to decide it, and I want to vote for this resolution i on with this amendment written into it as assurance that the people will have that opportunity to pass upon it. I cannot vote for it otherwise.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. COLMER].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. CoLMER) there were--ayes 74, noes 134.

So the amendment was rejected.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few observations about some of the remarks made this afternoon. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. SP.RINGER] clearly indicated. that no President made any .contribution to the winning of any war and he referred to a remark made by Madison some years ago that we would always have a weak Executive.

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

Mr. McCORMACK. I yield.

Mr. SPRINGER. I think the gentleman must have misunderstood what I said. I said that no President had participated in winning a war by leading the armies. I said the Chiefs of S t aff, the · generals, and admirals are the ones who carry on the war. While they consult with the President, yet the P r es i dent is not the one who is responsible for the winning of a wa r in such an em e rgency. Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman then admits by his statement that my interpretation of what be originally said is correct, because certainly you have admitted it now in your own language, unless my powers of interpretation are wrong. You are going in a roundabout. way, but you come back to what I understood you to say originally.

Mr. SPRINGER. No; I am not going around Robin Hood's barn. The gentleman is going around Robin Hood ' s barn in respect to what I said.

Mr. McCORMACK. You are talking about Robin Hood's barn. If you want to get per s ona l , we will do that, too.

Mr. SPRINGER. I can engage in personalities, too.

Mr. McCORMACK. I am engaging in a discussion and not in personalities. I am giving the gentleman an opportunity to · explain if I have made any misunderstanding of his statement. Certainly there is nothing of a personal . nature involved in that

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Cha i rman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. McCORMACK. I y i eld.

Mr. SPRINGER. I made the statement that the President himself was not the leader of an army in an emergency, but that the generals, adm i rals, and Chiefs of Staff, and officers of our Army and Navy are the ones who carry out the war. I said, of course, they con s ulted with the President and he consults with them, but the President is not the one who is directly respons i ble for the winning of the war in case of an eme r gency. That is what I sa i d before and that is what I say now.

Mr. McCORMACK. The ge n tleman's statement elimi n ates the Pres i d e nt as a leader in war and as a contribu t ing factor in the determination of the ou t come of a war. Does the gentleman take that position?

Mr. SPRINGER. I did not s a y that , at all. I said he consults with the generals.

Mr. McCORMACK. Then the gentleman gives sole c r edit to the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Navy?

Mr. SPRINGER. I said they consulted , and they do consult, but the President does not lead the Army.

Mr. McCORMACK. In the history of our country we have had Presidents who have been strong factors and strong leaders in wartime.

Mr. SPRINGER. Not when they were sitting as President of the United States. Mr. McCORMACK. Of cou rs e we have.

Mr. SPRINGER. They consulted.

Mr. CHELF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman y i eld?

Mr. McCORMACK. tleman from Kentucky.

Mr. CHELF. Who was it that stepped up Eisenhower fourteen or fifteen points Brophy in order to make him Commander in Chief and win the war? , Who was responsible for Marshall being made Chief of Staff?

Mr. McCORMACK. Very well, let us go back to 1861 when a man by the name o f Abraham Lincoln was President and a great President. . Lincoln did not know whom he could trust of those around him. He did not know what generals he could tz · trust for a number of years until Grant came across the horizon. ·

According to hi-story, Abraham Lincoln Clason did not know what members of his Cabi- net he could trust · . Abraham Lincoln was the personality that led our country to victory in the War Between the States. If ever a President during wartime was a leader, not only of our civil government Cox but in time of war, it was Lincoln. It was not until 1863, or thereabouts, that Grant came across the horizon. Prior to that time and during the remainder of the War Between the States it was Lincoln who was the leader of the civil government and also the leader of the armed forces.

When the gentleman makes the statement he . does, making it in good faith ~ I give him back the lead · leadership of Abraham Lincoln during the War Between - the States. -

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCoRMACK] has expired.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the Committee will rise.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. WoLCOTT , Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the S t ate of the Union, reported that that Committee having had under consid-eration the resolution (H. J. Res. 25), pursuant to House Resolution 91, he reported the same back to the House with an amendment adopted in Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the Gillette previous question is ordered.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the resolution.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand . the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The ques t ion . was taken; and there were-yeas 285, nays 121, not voting 26, as follows:

[Roll No.4]

YEA&-285

Allen, Calif. Andrews, N . Y. Barrett Allen, Ill. Angell B e all Allen, La. Ar e nds Bell Ander s en, Arnold Bender

H. c a rl Auchincloss Ben n ett, Mich . Anders o n , Calif . B a k e well B e nne t t, Mo. Andre sen, B a n t a Bi s hop

August H. Barden Blackney

Boggs , Del. Harness, Ind. Pace Bolton Hart Patterson Boykin Hartley Philbin I yield to the gen­ Bradley, Calif. Hedrick Phillips, Calif. Bradley, Mich. Herter Phillips, Tenn. Brehm Heselton Ploeser Brooks He s s Plumley

. Hill Poa g e

Brown, Ohio Hinshaw Poulson Buck Hoeven Ramey Buffett Hoffman Rankin Burke Holmes Redden Busbey Hope Reed, Ill. Bu t ler Horan . Reed , N. Y. Byrnes, Wis. Howell Rees C a nfield Hull Reeves Carson Jackson, Calif. ' R i ch Case , N.J. Jarman Richards · Case, S. Dak. Javits Riehlman Chadw i ck Jenison Riley Chapman Jenkins, Ohio Rivers Chenoweth Jenkins, Pa. R i zley Ch i perfield Jennings Robertson Church Jensen Robsion

Johnson, · Calif . . Rockwell

Clevenger Johnson, Ill. Rogers , Fla. Clippinger Johnson, Ind. Rogers , Mass. Co:ffin Jones, N . C. Rohrbough Cole, Kans. Jones, Ohio Ross Cole, N.Y . Jones, Wash. Russell Corbett Jonkman Sadlak Cotton Judd St. George

Kean Sanborn

Crawford Kearney Sarbacher Crow Ke a rns Scl_lwabe, Mo. Cunningham Keating Schwabe, Okla. · Cole, Mo. · Curtis · Keefe Sco blick D a gue Kennedy Scott , Hardie D a vis, Ga. Kersten, Wis. Scott, Dawson, Utah Kilburn Hugh D : , Jr . Devitt -' Kilday Scrivner - . D ' Ew a rt Knut s on Seely-Brown Dirksen Kunkel Shafer Dolliver · Landis Short Domengeaux Larcade Simpson, Til. Dondero Latham SimpsG>n , Pa. Dorn Le a Smathers · Dou g hten LeCompte Smith, K a ns. Drewry LeFevre Smith, Maine E at on Lemke ' Smith , Ohio Elliott Lewis Smith , Va. Ellis Lodge Smi t h , Wis. Ellsworth Love Snyder Els a esser McConnell Springer Elston McCowen Stanley Engel, Mich. McDonough St e fan En g le , Calif. M,cDowell Stevenson Fellows McGarvey Stockman Fen t on McGregor Stratton · · Fi s her McMahon Sundstrom Fl e tcher McMillen, Til. T a ber Foote M a cKinnon Talle Fuller Macy T a ylor Fulton M a loney Thomas, N . J. G a llagher Mansfield, Tex. Tibbett Gamble M a rtin, Iowa Tollefson G at hings M a son Towe Gavin Mathews Twyman Gearhart Meade, Ky. Vail Gerl a ch Meade , Md . V a nZ a ndt G i ff o rd Me r row Vin s on

Meyer Vorys

Gillie Michener Vursell Goff Miller, Conn. W a d s worth Goodwin Miller, Md. Weichel Gos s ett Miller, Nebr. Welch Gr a ham Mitchell West Gr a nt , Ind. Morton Wheeler Griffiths Muhlenberg Whittington Gro s s Mundt Wigglesworth Gw i nn, N . Y. · Murr a y, Tenn. W il son, Ind. Gwynne, Iowa Murray, Wis. Wilson, Tex. }J a le Nixon Wolcott Hall , Nodar Wolverton Edwin Arthur Norblad W o od H a ll, Norman Woodruff

Leonard W. O'Hara Worley H a lleck O'Konski Youngblood Hand Owens

NAY&-121

Abernethy Burleson Delaney Albe r t Byrne, N.Y. Ding ell Almond C a mp Donohue And r ew s , Ala. C a nnon Douglas B at e s, K y . Celler Durham Beckworth Chelf Eberharter Bland Colmer Evins Blatnik Combs Fallon Bloom Cooley • Feighan Bog g s, La. Courtney Fernandez Bonner Cravens Flannagan Brown, Ga. Crosser Fogarty Bryson D'Alesandro Folger Buchanan Davis, Tenn. Forand Bulwinkle Deane Gary

Gordon Les i nski Pfeifer Gore Lucas P i . ckett Granger Lu s k Po w ell Grant, Ala. Ly l e Price , Fla. Gregory L y nch Pr i ce , Ill. Harless, Ariz. McCormack Priest Harris McMillan , S. C. Rab i n Harrison M a dden R ai ns H a venner M a hon R a yburn .H ay s Man a sco Rooney Hendricks Man s field, S a b a th Hobbs Mont. Sh e ppard Holifield M a rcantonio S ikes Huber Miller, Calif. Somers Jackson, Wash. Mills · Sp e nce Johnson, Okla. Monroney S tig ler Johnson, Tex. Morgan Te a gue Jones, Ala. Morris Thomas, Tex. K a rsten, Mo. Murdock Thomason Kee Norton Trimble Kefauver O'Brien Walter King O'Toole , Whitten Kirwan Pa ss man Williams Klein Pa t man Winstead Lane Peden . Zimmerman Lanham Peterson

NOT VOTING-26

Bates, Mass. Coudert . Kerr Battle Dawson, Til. · Morrison Br a mblett Gor s ki Norrell Buckley H ag en Potts Carroll Hardy . Preston Clark _ H e bert ,. Rayfiel C l ements H e ffernan Sadowski

Kelley Sa s scer

Co _ ~per . Keogh

· so (two-thirds having voted · in favor thereof) the joint resolution was passed. The Clerk announced the following pairs:

On this vote :

Mr. Hebert and Mr . Bramblett for, with Mr. C~ r roll against.

Mr : Cole o'f Missouri and Mr. Hagen for, with Mr. Kerr against.

General pairs until further notice:

Mr. Bates of Massachusetts with Mr. Gorski.

Mr . Potts with Mr. Keogh.

Mr . Coudert with Mr. Heffernan.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.