January 6, 1932 (2)

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 14) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States fixing the commencement of the terms of President and Vice President and Members of Congress and fixing the time of the assembling of Congress.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, this joint resolution is in exactly the same form of language in which a similar measure passed the Senate in the last Congress. A like measure has passed the Senate prior to this time five times. On only two occasions was a vote reached in the House of Representatives. Once the vote, while a large majority, was not a two-thirds majority, and the joint resolution failed. In the last Congress it passed the House in a modified form and was sent to conference near the close of the short session of Congress. It died in conference, no agreement having been reached.

I do not care to take up the time of the Senate in explaining the joint resolution further, because I think all of us are perfectly familiar with the provisions. I ask unanimous consent, however, to include at this point, as a part of my remarks, the report of the committee.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection?

There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

[Senate Report No. 26, Seventy-second Congress, first session]

• FIXING THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE TERMS OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OP CONGRESS

Mr. Norris, from the Commttee on the Judiciary, submitted the following report (to accompany 8. J. Res. 14):

The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 14) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States fixing the commencement of the terms of President and Vice President and Members of Congress and fixing the time of the assembling of Congress, report the same to the Senate with the recommendation that the same do pass.

This resolution is in exactly the same form as it passed the Senate in the Seventy-first Congress and in practically the same form as it passed the Senate in five preceding Congresses. There is practically unanimous sentiment in the country in favor of this amendment. No logical objection has ever been made to the constitutional changes suggested, and its passage again by the Senate ~11 be only a response to a patriotic sentiment, country wide, for the proposed amendment.

In practically the same form as here reported this resolution passed the Senate the first time on February 13, 1923 (S. J . . Res. 253, 67th Cong.). On the 22d day of February, 1923, it received a favorable report from the House committee and was placed on the House Calendar. No action was taken by the House, and it died on the 4th day of March, 1923, because of the adjournment of Congress. It passed the Senate the second time on the 18th day of March, 1924 (S. J. Res. 22, 68th Cong.), and on the 15th day of April, 1924, it was favorably reported by the House committee. It remained on the calendar of the House, without any action being taken thereon, from the 15th day of April, 1924, until the expiration of the Sixty-eighth Congress on the 4th day of March, 1925. It again passed the Senate in the Sixty-ninth Congress (S. J. Res. 9) on February 15, 1926. It was again favorably reported by the House committee on the 24th day of February, 1926, and remained on the House Calendar, without any action thereon, from said date until the expiration of the Sixty-ninth Congress on the 4th day of March, 1927. In the Seventieth Congress the resolution (S. J. Res. 47) passed the senate on January 4, 1928, and was referred to the House committee, from which it received a favorable ;report. On March 9, 1928, the House acted on it, and, while it received a large majority of those voting, it failed to receive the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution. In ~e Seventy-first Congress, on June 7, 1929, the resolution (8. J. Res. 3), in exactly the same form as it is here reported, passed the Senate. On the next day, June 8, 1929, it was sent to the House of Representatives. However , it was not referred to a committee but remained on the Speaker's table until the 17th day of April, 1930. On that date the Speaker referred the joint resolution to the commit~ee having jurisdiction of the subject matter (Committee on th~ Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress). In the meantime , other resolutions similar to this one were introduced by Members of the . House of Representatives and referred to this committee for action, and on the 8th day of April, 1930, the committee report.ed one of these House resolutions (H. J. Res. 292) to the House of Representatives. After this had been done, the Senate reso l ution was taken from the Speaker's table and referred to the committee. No action was ever taken by the committee on the Senate resolution; but, on the 24th day of February, - 1931, the House of Representatives took up the House resolution (H. J. Res. 292) and, by unanimous consent, the Senate resolution (S. J. Res. 3) was taken from the committee and laid before the House, when it was amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting the . House resolution, which, in many respects, was practically the same as the Senate resolution. · In this form it passed the House of Representatives on the . same day, February 24, 1931. Conference committees were at once appointed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, but no agreement was reached and the resolution failed when the Seventy-first Congress ended on the 4th day of March, 1931.

The resolution proposes to amend the Constitution of the United States by fixing the beginning of the terms of President and Vice President at noon on the 15th day of January, and the · terms of Senators and · Representatives at noon on the 2d day of January following their election in the preceding November. Under existing conditions a new Congress does not actually convene in regular session until a year and one month after its · Members have been elected. When our Constitution was adopted there was some reason for such a. long intervention of time between the election and the actual commencement of work by the new Congress. we · had neither railroads nor telegraphic communication connecting the various States and communities of the country. Under present conditions, however, the result of elections is known all over the country within a few hours after the polls close, and the Capital City is within a few days' travel of the remotest portions of the country.

Originally, Senators were elected by the legislatures, and as a rule the legislatures of the various States did not convene until after the beginning of the new year, and it was difficult and sometimes impossible for Senators to be elected until February or March. Since the adoption of the seventeenth amendment to the Constitution, however, Senators have been elected by the people at the same election at which Members of the House are elected. There is no reason, therefore, why the Congress elected in November should not be sworn in and actually enter upon the duties of office at least as soon as the beginning of the new year following their election.

The only direct opportunity that the citizens of the country have to express their ideas and their wishes in regard to national legislation is the expression of their will through the election of their representatives at the general election in November. During the campaign that precedes this election the great questions demanding attention at the hands of the new Congress are discussed at length before the people and throughout the country, and it is only fair to presume that the Members cif Congress chosen at that election fairly represent the ideas of a majority of the people of the country as to what legislation is desirable. In a government "by the people" the wishes of a majority should be crys- . tallized into legislation as soon as possible after these wishes have been made known. These mandates should be obeyed within a reasonable time.

Under existing conditions, however, more than a year elapses before the will of the people expressed at the election can be put into statutory law. This condition of affairs is not only unfair to the citizenship at large, who have expressed their will as to what legislation they desire, but it is likewise unfair to their servants whom they have elected to carry out this will. It is true that it is within the power of the President to call an extraordinary session of Congress - at an earlier date than the one provided by law, but the new Congress can not be called into extraordinary - session until after the 4th · of March, which would not give the new Congress very much time for the consideration of important national questions before the summer heat in the Capital City makes even existence di11lcult and good work almost impossible. It is conceded by all that the best time for legislatures to do good work is during the winter months. Practically all the States of the Union recognize this fact and provide for the meeting of their legislatures near the 1st of January. Moreover, the wishes of the country having been expressed at an election should not be dependent for their carrying out upon the will of the . President alone. Provision. should be made by law so that the new Congress could begin the performance of its important duties as soon after election a.s possible and under conditions that are most favorable for good work. Under existing conditions a Member of the House of Representatives does not;. get started 1n his work until the time has arrived for renominations in his district. He has accomplished nothing and has not had an opportunity to accomplish anything because Congress had not been in session. He has made no record upon which to go before his people for election. It is unfair both to him and to the people of his district. In case of a contest over a seat in the House of Representatives, history has shown that the term of office has practically expired before the House is able to settle the question as to who is entitled to the contested seat. During all this time the occupant of the seat has been drawing the salary, and if it is decided in the end that the occupant was wrongfully seated, then the entire salary must again be paid to the person who has been unjustly deprived of his seat. Double pay is therefore drawn from the Treasury of the United States and the people of the district have not been represented by the Member whom they selected for that purpose. No reason has been given why a new Congress elected at a general election to translate into law the wishes of the people should not be installed into office practically as soon as the results of the election can be determined.

Another' effect of the amendment would be to abolish the socalled short session of Congress. If the terms of Members of Congress begin and end in January instead of on the 4th of March, as heretofore, and Congress convenes in January, there would be no such thing as a short session of Congress. Every other year, under our Constitution, the terms of Members of the _ House and one-third of the Members of the Senate expire on the 4th day of March. The session begins on the first Monday in December and because of the expiration of such terms it necessarily follows that the session must end not later than the 4th of March. Experience has shown that this brings about a very undesirable legislative condition. It is a physical impossibility during such a short session for Congress to give attention to much general legislation for the reason that it requires practically all of the time to dispose of the regular appropriation bills. The result is a congested calendar both in the House and the Senate. It is known in advance that Congress can give attention to but a very small portion of the bills reported from the committees. The result is a congested condition that brings about either no legislation or illy considered legislation. In the closing days of such a session bad laws get through and good laws are defeated on account of this condition and the want of time to give proper consideration to anything, and the result is dissatisfaction, not only on the part of Members of Congress but on the part of the people generally. Jokers sometimes get on the statutes because Members do not have an opportunity, for the want of time, to give them proper consideration. Mistakes of a serious nature creep into all kinds of statutes which often nullify the real intent of the lawmakers, and the result is disappointment throughout the country. Such a congested condition in the National Legislature can not bring about good results. However diligent and industrious Members of Congress may . be, it is a physical impossibility for them to do good work. Moreover, it enables a few Members of Congress to arbitrarily prevent the passage of laws simply by the consumption of time. In every way it brings about an undesirable legislative condition, and it is not surprising that results are so often disappointing.

There is another very important reason why this change should be made. Under the Constitution as it now stands, if it should happen that in the general election in November in presidential years no candidate for President had received a majority of all the electoral votes, the election o! a President would then be thrown into the House of Representatives and the membership of that House of Representatives called upon to elect a President would be the old Congress and not the new one just elected by the people. It might easily happen that the Members of the House of Representatives, upon whom devolved the solemn duty of electing a Chief Magistrate for four years, had themselves been repudiated at the election that had just occurred, and the country would be confronted with the fact that a repudiated House, defeated by the people themselves at the general election, would st111 have the power to elect a President who would be in control of the country for the next four years. It is quite apparent that such a power ought not to exist, and that the people having expressed themselves at the ballot box should through the Representatives then selected, be able to select the President for the ensuing term. If the amendment we have proposed is adopted and becomes a part of the Constitution, such a condition could not happen, and in such a case the new House of Representatives fresh from the people would be the one upon which would devolve the power to select the new President.

Section 3 of the proposed amendment gives Congress the power to provide by law who shall act as President in a case where the election of a President has been thrown into the House of Representatives and the House has failed to elect a President and the Senate has likewise failed to elect a Vice President. The importance of this can be understood when we realize that under the present Constitution if the election of President and Vice President should be thrown into Congress on account of a failure of the Electoral College to elect, and that the House should fail within the time specified in the Constitution to elect a President, and the Senate should likewise fail during such time to elect a Vice President, the country would be left entirely without a Chief Magistrate and without any means of selecting one. This condition has, 1t is true, never happened in the history of the country, and while it may never happen, it does seem very important that some constitutional provision be enacted by which this most dangerous emergency may be avoided. The present Constitution gives power to Congress to provide who shall act as President when there :is a vacancy both in the President's office and the Vice President's office caused by death, removal, or resignation, but there is no provision in the present Constitution that gives to Congress or any other authority the power to select an acting President in cases where the · election has been thrown into the House of Representatives and where the House of Representatives has failed to elect a President, and the Senate has likewise faneq. to elect a Vice President. If such a contingency should occur, and it is liable to occur after any presidential election, the country would find itself in a condition where it would be impossible for a Chief Magistrate to be selected. The committee has corrected this defect by giving to Congress in section 3 of the proposed amendment the authority to select the acting President in such an emergency.

The question is sometimes asked, Why is an amendment to the Constitution necessary to bring about this desirable change? The Constitution does not provide the date when the terms of Senators and Representatives shall begin. It does fix the term of Senators at six years and of Members of the House of Representatives a10 two years. The commencement of the terms of the first President and Vice President and of Senators and Representatives composing the First Congress was fixed by an act of Congress adopted September 13, 1788, and that act provided "that the first Wednesday in March next be the time for commencing proceedings under the Constitution." It happened that the first Wednesday in March was the 4th day of March, and hence the terms of the President and Vice President and Members of Congress begin on the 4th day of March. Since the Constitution provides that the term of Senators shall be six years and the term of Members of the House o! Representatives two years, it follows that this change can not be made without changing the terms of office of Senators and Representatives, which would in effect be a change of the Constitution . By another act (the act of March 1, 1792) Congress provided that the terms of President and Vice President should commence on the 4th day of :March after their election. It . seems clear, therefore. that an amendment to the Constitution is necessary to give relief from existing conditions.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, I want to call . the attention of the Senator to two verbal matters. In line 6, section 2, occurs the word "begin." It reads:

The Congress shall assemble at least once a year, and such meeting shall begin at noon.

I observe that in the original Constitution the word is " be " and not " begin "; that " such meeting shall be," and so forth.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, in the original Constitution there is no hour fixed. It merely fixes the day of the month. This fixes the hour, and it seems to me the word "begin" is proper. That is the form in which we have . always passed the joint resolution.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I could not see any reason at all for the change, because it does not make any difference whether we fix a definite hour or a definite day.

Mr. NORRIS. My own idea is that the word " begin " is more appropriate than " be." If it was to be a meeting which would exist for a moment and pass away, “be” would probably be the most appropriate word, but the session is to run possibly for some time, and this fixes the time of its beginning.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Let me call the attention of the Senator to the fact that the sentence begins "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting "-that is, the assembling, the coming together-" shall be at noon on the 2d day of January." That is the sense of the sentence, and it occurs to me the · language in the original Constitution is more appropriate.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, in my opinion it does not change the meaning at all, but it seems to me the meeting referred to is the session. It is going to be a session. First. they shall assemble, and the word "begin," it seems to me, when we are to fix a definite time, is more appropriate than to say, "The session shall be."

Mr. WALSH of Montana . The suggestion is not of such importance as to be debated. The sense is sufficiently apparent. I merely thought the Senator would like to follow the language of the original Constitution.

Let me pass on to another matter: Should not the word "they," the second word in line 11, be" it"? · :Mr. NORRIS. That is another instance where we are just reversed. There we follow the Constitution, and the · Senator's suggestion would not follow the Constitution.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. The Senator is quite wrong about that. The Constitution uses the word " they " always when it refers to the United States, but the word " they " is not used in this connection.

, Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, I am satisfied that this is a direct quotation from the Constitution of the United States. But let me say to the Senator that the senior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BINGHAM] is to make some remarks on the joint resolution, and if it is agreeable to the Senator from Montana, we will look this matter up while that Senator is proceeding.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President. I hope the constitutional lawyers will have opportunity to settle this matter before we have to vote on it. I propose to offer an amendment, which I think everyone will remember was offered in the House of Representatives by the late Speaker, · Mr. Longworth, who was a friend of all of us, revered by the House on both sides of the aisle. .

At the time when this matter was considered by the House of Representatives, Speaker Longworth offered an amendment to it, and he broke his almost universal practice by coming down on the floor and making a speech in favor of that amendment. The amendment is one which appeals very strongly to me and appeals to some of those who have generally supported the amendment to the Constitution which was offered by the Senator from Nebraska in repeated Congresses.

In order that those who are doing me the honor of listening to me may understand just what the amendment is, I will offer it and read it from the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. It was offered on February 24; 1931. The gentleman from Ohio tMr. Longworth] · offered the amendment, to strike out all of section 2. If Senators will turn to their copy of the pending joint resolution, they will find that section 2 relates to the fact that Congress shall assemble at least once in every year and that such meeting shall be on the 4th day ' of January unless they by law appoint a different day. In other words it permits a permanent session of the Congress. It would meet every year on the 4th of January and apparently continue until the Members get tired or the next session begins. · Speaker Longworth offered this amendment, to strike out all of section 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

SEC . 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year. In each . ch odd-numbered year-

In other words, the year following the presidential election- · - · such meeting shall be on th~ 4th day of January unless they shall by law appoint a different day. In each even-numbered year- ·· ·

In other . words, the year in which the election is heldsuch meeting shall be " on the . 4th day - ~~ J:anuary, arid th~ session shall not continue after noon on the 4th day of May.

In other words, instead of adjourning on the 4th of March, the Congress would continue for two months longer, until the 4th of May, when, as I think we will all appreCiate, many Members of the · House of Representatives and some Members of the Senate would like . to go home and start work on their pr,imaries, or on the election to - follow a few months later. . · · · - With the indulgence of the Senate . I should like to read what the distinguished Speaker said on ' that occasion. If'ls remarks are not very long, being only one · column of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. His speech is SO much better than anything I could say on this matter, I am sure, that as one of the few speeches Mr. Longworth made after he became Speaker, and the last important speech he made, it will be interesting to many Senators. I read:

Mr . LONGWORTH . Mr. Chairman, as you all know, I infrequently take the floor during the consideration of a bill or offer an amendment to a bill, but this is such an extremely important and vital ma t ter t ha t I think it is not only a privilege but a duty to offer this amendment. .

I do not intend to debate the mer i ts or demerits of this resolution. I desire, however, to call your attention to what, _ to my mind, 1s the fundamental objection to it in its present form. Under this resolution, as is obvious, it will be entirely possible for Congress to be in session perpetually from the time it _ convenes. The r e is no provision in the resolution for a termination either of the first session, or particularly of the second session. It seems to me obvious that great · and serious danger mfght follow a perpetual two years' session of the Congress.

I am not one of those who says · the country is better o1I when Congress goes home. I do not ttunk so, but I do think that the Congress and the country ought to have a breathing space at least once every two years.

The effect of this amendment is simply to provide that the second session of the Congress shall terminate upon the 4th day of May in the even-numbered years. That is a fair proposition. It will give at least one month more for the consideration of legislation in the second session than is given now. There will be a clear four months' period between the assembling of the Congress in the second sessi?n and its adjournment. Can there be a.ny real reason for oppositiOn to a proposal which will give the Congress four months during the second session and then having May, June, July, August, September, and October clear? Those are the years when we all come up for election. Those are the years-­ every four years--in which national conventions are held. It 1s not wise that Congress should be in session during the holding of national conventions. It is wise that men should have time in whi.ch to canvass their districts and prepare for election. · The history of this matter, in so far as I have been eoncerned with it, is this: Something over three years ago, just before this resolution came up in the House, I was invited by perhaps the strongest organized body of intellectuals in the country the American Bar Association, to give my views on this matter.' L gave my views and stated, as I state now, that with the adoption of this amendment, providing for the termination of the second session all my objections to this resolution would · be withqt'awn. Th~ committee of the Bar Association with which I conferred adopted my views. Having indorsed the resolution previously, they withdrew that indorsement and unanimously indorsed the resolution with the inclusion of a provision such as I am now offering.

It seems to me that from every point of view this amendment ought to be adopted. I will do anything I can to help the passage of this resolution provided this _ amendment is adopted. This afternoon I propose to _ even go farther than that. In the interest of the speedy passage of this resolution., with this amendment I will recognize a request that the Senate resolution, as amended by the House resolution, be considered in lieu of the House resolution. That will offer an opportunity to immediately send the bill to conference, and, under all the circumstances, is, I think, a proper courtesy to the Senate.

_ In reply to a question from Mr. MONTAGUE as to whether the amendment would interfere with the President calling an extra session, Mr. Longworth replied:

Not at all. This is precisely the provision that was in the original resolution three years ago . . In case of any emergency the President may call the Congress to meet on the 4th day of May and continue the session long enough to satisfy the emergency. The amendment would have no effect in that direction.

Gentlemen, I sincerely hope this amendment may be adopted. It was a matter of record that when the amendment was put to a vote · in the House a division was taken and there were 193 ayes and 125 noes.

Mr. President, · in the · report made by the Judiciary Committee I find the record of. the number of times the joint resolution has passed and a statement that by unanimous consent the Senate joint resolution in the last Congress was laid before the House, when it was amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and · inserting the House resolution, which, in many respects, was practically the same as the Senate resolution. In this form it passed the House of Representatives.

In view of the fact that it was in so many respects the same as the Senate joint resolution I hope that the distinguished chairman of the · Judiciary Committee and the author of the amendment will be willing to adopt the amendment originally proposed by former Speaker Longworth and which I now offer as an amendment to the pending joint resolution.

Mr. Dn.L. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LA FOLLETTE in the chair) . Does the Senator from Connecticut yield to the Senator from Washington?

Mr. BINGHAM. I yield.

Mr. DILL. I am in much sympathy with the purpose of the amendment of the Senator, but I want to ask the Senator whether he does not think a later date than that in the main resolution would be better? Does he not think it would be better to make the date June 15?

Mr. BINGHAM. Of course the Senator ' tor from Washington would not ask that if he were a member of the Republican Party, because the Republican Party meets in national convention on June 14 and not the 15th.

Mr. DILL. That happens to be so this year.

Mr. BINGHAM. If the Senator will support the amendment, I shall be glad to change it to June 2.

Mr. DILL. I shall do so. I may say to the Senator that it was my understanding that the House conferees that year were willing to advance the date to a later date. I think there is much to be said for the amendment if the date is made a later one.

Mr. BINGHAM. Would the Senator be willing to vote for it if the date ts made June 2?

Mr. DILL. I certainly will.

Mr. BINGHAM. Then I ask permission to change the Mr. BARKLEY. date and make it June 2.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, how many changes in the date will the Senator offer in order to get votes for his amendment?

Mr. BINGHAM. I have stated that the Republican national convention is to be held on the 14th of June, and it is suggestion -. not possible to postpone it. The Democrats, as the Senator well knows, meet at a later date.

Mr. BARKLEY. If this is merely a matter of barter and trade and the Senator is willing to put off for a month the final adjournment date in return for a vote, I wonder how much longer he would be willing to put it off for another vote?

Mr. BINGHAM. June 14 is a date which concerns quite a number of us.

Mr. BARKLEY. I think, so far as the country is concerned, that is going to be a very ineffective date, anyway; but be that as it may, does not that still leave with us the same proposition that always faces us in the short session of Congress, whose termination is fixed by the Constitution, when we are required to adjourn whether we have finished fix it. the business of Congress or not? Does it not quite emphasize the conviction that one session of Congress is less important than another? That is one of the vicious things, it seems to me, which has surrounded our whole legislative situation. We have had three months in which we were required to perform the duties of a whole session, and if we could not perform them by the 4th of March, we had to adjourn anyIn his amendment the Senator makes it the 4th day of a question? May, and he makes the assembling of Congress one month later so as to add only one month to the short session. I do not think there is any more wisdom in limiting one session of Congress than in limiting both sessions. Congress ought to be amenable to the peqple and responsive to their needs and will. I am not one of those who believe that the so-called short session is of any less importance than the so-called long session. One of them may be as important as the other. It may frequently happen, as it has in the past, that the short session is more important than the long session, depending on the questions which confront the people and the Congress.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BARKLEY] says this is only one month longer for the proposed short session than at present. It is two months longer.

Mr. BARKLEY. Oh, no.

Mr. SMITH. If we meet on the 4th of January, then we will have January, February, March, and April, which is four months; whereas under the present order of things we can practically discard December because the holidays intervene, and so we really have only two months of the short session. We would have practically four months of unbroken session under the proposal of the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. BARKLEY. That is true, in a sense; but I think in an important matter like amending the Constitution of the United States we ought not to take into account holidays or political conventions or primary elections. We ought to take into consideration the wisdom of an amendment to our fundamental law without regard to political conventions.

Mr. SMITH. Does not the Senator consider certain elections sometimes are more important than a _ session of Congress?

Mr. BARKLEY. In the minds of some people, especially candidates - for office, that is no doubt true.

Mr. SMITH. I am talking about parties. I am not talking about candidates for office. _,

Mr: BARKLEY. In the minds of the Am . erican people I doubt very much whether they consider the election of any particular person to any particular office more important than a full session of Congress.

Mr. SMITH. I am sorry the Senator did not get the significance of the very brilliant remark I made. That is due to my own dullness and not to the Senator.

Mr. SMITH. The point I was making was that there comes a time when a change of parties is more important than a session of Congress. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BINGHAM], I think, made a very appealing and sensible

Mr. BARKLEY. I am glad to hear the . Senator say that. It is such a rare thing that it ought to be acknowleged.

Mr. SMITH. Does the Senator mean it is rare in this body that anyone should have these accomplishments?

Mr. BARKLEY. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Be that as it may, I think that the Senator from Connecticut has just about the right idea about the situation. Four months of unbroken consideration of legislative matters,. coupled with an interminable session preceding it, seems to me to be the proper thing to have. I appreciate that under our present conditions. I never have been able to understand how our forefathers fixed a session just antedating the holidays.

Mr. BARKLEY. It was purely accidental. They did not

Mr. SMITH. No matter . how it came about, it was so fixed, and it means that all of December and practically the first week in January are lost. We can eliminate that period of time. But under the proposition of the · late Speaker of the House to give us each two years four months of unbroken consideration of legislation seems to me to be a very proper thing to do.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield further to the Senator from Kentucky?

Mr. SMITH. I yield.

Mr. BARKLEY. Does the - Senator think that this particular Congress is better qualified to fix an arbitrary date for the adjournment of every other session of Congress for 100 years than the Members of a future Congress will be at the time it is in session, confronted as it will be by the problems which will then be before it for consideration?

Mr. SMITH. I think even . under the cumbersome system we have now we have done fairly well. I do not know of any great harm that has befallen the country by virtue of any of our delays. I think we ought to have one year during a given term of Members of Congress with a statutory limitation for the final adjournment of Congress. I think we are just as competent to fix it as any subsequent Congress may be to determine adventitiously whether to adjourn or to keep on working. The Senator knows that it means, if we do not put a limitation somewhere within a given Congress, that we would never adjourn. He knows that to be true.

Mr. BARKLEY. No; I do not know that. On the contrary, the history of our whole legislative program for 100 years, and especially since the war and at any other time except when there is a great emergency on, shows that Congress is just as anxious to adjourn one year as it is another. We have adjourned here in May when we could have remained in session until December. We have adjourned in June when we could have remained in session until December. Congress can be depended upon, I think, each year to adjourn whenever it has concluded its business; but I do not believe there ought to be a stop watch placed upon a session of Congress, not only because we may not finish the business before us but because at an arbitrary date, when we are compelled to adjourn regardless of the state of the business, any Member of this body, as we all · know, can use that fact for the purpose of filibustering against legislation that ought to be enacted. We have to go no further back than last March when it was impossible for us to enact legislation needed in the country, because it was possible for one man to hold the floor until noon on the 4th day of March and that we could not transact any business as long as that situation existed. That would be true in April or in May or in June or July, or in any other month, if an arbitrary date were fixed in the amendment for the final adjournment of a session of Congress.

Mr. SMITH. But the Senator has had too much experience in life to know that we can legislate for exceptions. That was an exception.

Mr. BARKLEY. No; it was not an . exception. It has been the rule, at least in the last two years.

Mr. SMITH. I have been here a long time-

Mr. BARKLEY. I hope the Senator will remain . much longer.

Mr. SMITH. I do not recall any occasion except that, and I do not know that any very great harm was done even by the . incident to which the Senator refers. However, I do not believe that it is wise for us, especially in years when there is a national political campaign, to have any Member of Congress who is up for reelection handicapped by his duty here or perhaps handicapped by his duty at home.

Mr. BARKLEY. . Some of us could be reelected more readily by staying here than we_ could by leaving here and mixing with the people frequently.

Mr. SMITH. That is only another exception that proves the rule.

Mr. BARKLEY. Of course, I had no application to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. SMITH. P~haps the Senator is thinking of his own case. .

Mr. BARKLEY. I ~ee with the Senator from South Carolina that "charity begins a.t home."

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President-:-

The PRESIDllfG OFFICE . R. Does _ the Senator . from South Carolina yield to the Senator from Georgia?

Mr. SMITH. I yield.

Mr. GEORGE. I merely want to make this suggestion: It is not, of course, a reason why the Constitution should be amended, but it is a practical matter that ought to ~ taken into consideration.

From . time to time the question has arisen whether we would adopt a more stringent cloture rule of procedure in this body; from time to time we have had the threat of cloture; from time to time we have resisted it; and it s . eemed to be wise, in the judgment of the Senate, . not to put a limitation upon debate in this body, especially upon those great questions as to which it seemed wise to the Senate to deliberate. Whenever any date is fixed by the Constitution for the adjournment of the Congress, it necessarily makes possible a filibuster; it invites it. Necessarily, therefore, . it makes possible the continued agitation for stringent rules against filibustering, such rules as would restrict _ the freedom of speech and the freedom of debate in this body.

While the question I am now bringing to the Senator's attention is not fundamental, when we consider the responsible duty of amending the Federal . Constitution, nevertheless it is pertinent. It would be very much wiser, it seems to me. if we should place no limitation upon any session of Congress, and should leave the matter within the discretion of the sitting Congress. I think we are justified in reposing confidence in future Congresses, and I am quite sure that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. SMITH] would not be willing to limit or restrict debate in this body; but if we have the recurrence of filibustering here that he has observed during his term in the Senate, I am quite sure that ultimately we will have what we, now at least. agree are improper and undesirable restrictions upon debate.

There is no occasion for restriction upon debate if the definite date for the termination of the Congress shall not be fixed; but if that shall be done, the question of the restriction of debate will arise from time : to time and ultimately we shall have a limitation upon debate that ought not to be placed upon it.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. , President, the Senator from Georgia is thoroughly aware of the fact that as to any proposal which is so distasteful to a group that they will enter into a determilled filibuster, the probability of such a filibuster is scarcely enhanced by virtue of the imminence of the day .. of adjournment. Talking about putting restriction on debate, I desire to suggest that some of the most determined filibusters we have had in this body were not undertaken when the date of adjournment was imminent. We have modified the rules so that, while not arbitrarily cutting off debate, that object could be accomplished by the petition of a certain number of Senators.

Mr. GEORGE and Mr. BARKLEY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield; and if so, to whom?

Mr. lSMITH. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. GEORGE. The Senator from South Carolina is quite right about that; but the point is that when a definite date is fixed for adjournment a filibuster against relatively unimportant and trivial matters, over measures, let us say, that arise out of prejudice, more or less, may block all other legislation between the time when the filibuster begins and the absolute fixed date for adjournment. That sort of abuse would ultimately persuade the Senate to modify its rules under which freedom of debate is now indulged.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, every Member of this body knows that we have postponed important legislation for one reason or another until the very last hours of the short session of Congress, and in those last hours we have had once or twice a filibuster that jeopardized proper legislation. I maintain that under the amendinent proposed by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BINGHAM], with anything like diligence, we could in the untrammeled four months enact the necessary legislation; and I do not see why as to one session of a Congress there might not be a limitation placed on its duration.

Mr. BINGHAM and Mr. BARKLEY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield; and if so, - to whom? ·

Mr. SMITH. I yield first to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. BARKLEY. I desire merely to make this further sug· gestion, emphasizing what the Senator from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE] has said: While, as the Senator from South Carolina has stated, it is possible at any stage of any s · ession for one Member or a small group to organize a filibuster, the chance of its success or of effective damage being done by it is not nearly so great in the beginning or the middle of a long session as at the end of a short session, when Congress has got to quit on a certain day at a certain hour, regardless of the circumstances. The success of obstructive methods in the Senate, by and large, depends upori whether we are compelled to adjourn on a day certain, so that · Senators may hold the floor and prevent action on other measures, regardless of the situation. ·

Mr. SMITH. · The Senator from Kentucky knows that we have certain supply bills, certain appropriation bills, that are of vast importance; and we are compelled, under the present order of things, to dispose of them between January and March 4. We have merely that short time in which to act upon them. Under the proposition of the late Speaker of the House of Representatives, as presented now by the Senator from Connecticut, by continuing in session from the 4th of January to the 4th of May we should have four monthsand a month longer even if we should use December, which we do not now use-in which to pass the important bills and discharge our duty.

Mr. BINGHAM. May I say to the Senator that in accordance with the suggestion of the Senator from Washington [Mr. DILL] I have indicated a willingness to add one month more, making it · :five months in all, and extending the time to the 4th of June?

Mr. BORAH and Mr. DILL addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LA FoLLETTE in the chair) . Does the Senator from South Carolina yield; and if so, to whom?

Mr. SMITH. I have stated my position. I am through, unless the Senator desires to ask me a question.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, this 'is the proposition which was submitted to the conferees when the joint resolution was before them at the last session. The conferees upon the part of the Senate were unable to agree to this amendment. It seemed to those representing the Senate that it did not obviate one of the great evils which flows from fixing a day certain upon which adjournment must be taken. Against that day all the forces which want to defeat legislation can play. Notwithstanding the length of time a session may last, important-in fact, the most important-legislation may come up, as we know it often does, right at the close or before the close of a session, and any Senators or any combination of Senators desiring to prevent legislation have that day certain against which to play for time. The fixing of a day certain for adjournment is the father of filibusters in the Senate, and as we know, the occasion for a filibuster may arise upon the first day of June just as much as it may arise on the first day of March. So by fixing a date in June we would not be obviating the great evil of a fixed day for adjournment.

Mr. DILL. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Washington?

Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. DILL. Does not the fact the Senator .just mentioned, namely, that it is the day certain against which everything runs, involve a consideration that Senators have not thought about, namely, that if we do not fix a day certain on which to adjourn final adjournment will be almost indefinite, because there will always be many Senators and Members of the House of Representatives who want bills passed, and they will vote against final adjournment? At present, when there is no day fixed for adjournment of the long session every other - year, another session of the same Congress convenes the following December, and Senators and Members of the House have an opportunity to procure consideration of their bills during that session; but if we should provide no fixed date for the adjournment of the second session Senators and Members of the House will be disposed to keep the Congress here.

Mr. BORAH. The Senator from Washington, an experienced legislator, knows that there is never any difficulty in securing final adjournment of Congress.

Mr. DILL. I do not want to be understood as agreeing to that, because there has never been an occasion in the history of Congress when we did not have another session at which we could bring up our bills.

Mr. FESS. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. - Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Ohio? - Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. FESS. I think there is a great deal of force in what the Senator says about fixing a time in the Constitution. It does make possible filibusters. There is the possibility tlf filibustering, though, without it, because we always decide by resolution at what time we will adjourn, and, of course, we can hold such a resolution off until the very last.

Mr. BORAH. We decide, but we very rarely decide until the business of the session has practically been completed or it is certain that it will be completed. We do not adopt resolutions providing for a final adjournment when there is any business still pending and illldisposed of; and resolutions fixing a time certain for the two Houses to adjourn almost inevitably, so far as I know, follow the disposition of important business, because otherwise there would be serious objection to considering such a resolution. The more the Senator thinks about this matter the more readily will he see that the desire to get rid of the filibuster is entirely made futile if we fix a date certain for adjournment.

Mr. FESS. I admit that; that is obvious.

Mr. BORAH. But if the time for adjournment is within the discretion of the Congress, Congress can always exercise its judgment as to when it shall adjourn and, therefore, can always control the question of whether or not a particular _ time shall be fixed.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. If · the Senate desires to rid itself of the possibility of filibuster, it can easily accomplish that end by changing its rules. The fact that the filibuster has persisted in spite of prolonged and repeated efforts to modify the rules so as to enable a Senator to force the previous question or pursue some similar method of closing debate argues conclusively that the Senate is not ready to abandon the filibuster in extreme cases. In other words, we have preserved the filibuster and we will not eliminate the filibuster by adopting the constitutional amendment proposed by the Senator from Nebraska; we will still preserve it. If we want to get rid of the filibuster, we can do it by simply providing for changes in our rules that will make impossible the carrying on of such process.

Mr. BORAH. It is practically · impossible to adopt a rule which operates speedily enough to shut off a filibuster which may be organized in the last 48 hours of the session if there is a time fixed for final adjournment. The Senator has seen it happen here, and so have I, that a filibuster begins the night before the time fixed for adjournment. We have seen that happen three or four times, and it is practically impossible to get a rule to operate sufficiently speedily to prevent that kind of filibuster if there is a time certain fixed for adjournment.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I do not agree to that. If the Senate adopted the rule of the House of Representatives, or of other legislative bodies, it could easily conclude debate at any time; it could limit debate; it could provide for such lin:ti,tation on debate as to enable a Senator to take the floor at any time within a few hours of adjournment and move the previoUs question. Its rules c·ourd provide· for a vote without further debate and thus conclude a question even during the very expiring hours of a session.

I took the floor merely to point out the fact that there is something strange about an effort to justify an amendment to the Constitution to end filibusters when the filibuster exists only by virtue of the rules that we ourselves have established and perpetuated.

Mr. BORAH. I do not desire to see . any such rule as the Senator indicates adopted by this body; I would rather suffer the evils of the present provision of the Constitution. If the amendment to the Constitution fixing a day certain would superimpose upon us that kind of a rule I would much prefer to see the matter stand as it is. Only by the most rigid exacting rules, such as moving the previous question and other rules which would destroy the Senate as a deliberative body, could we preclude the possibility of a filibuster. I would not for one moment adopt any such rules if my vote were necessary to do so.

Mr. FESS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BORAH: Yes.

Mr. FESS. Would the Senator resist a rule that, say, during the last six days of the session no Senator shall speak more than once nor more than 30 minutes upon any question?

Mr. BORAH. I should want to reserve my discretion on a question of that kind.

Mr. FESS. That would end filibusters.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President--

Mr. BORAH. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. BARKLEY. I should like to ask for the Senator's comment on this suggestion: If there is any virtue in limiting, by statute or by constitutional provision, the length of the second session of any Congress in order to protect the country against unwise legislation, why deny them the boon of the same sort of protection at the first session? If the Congress can not be trusted to act with discretion and judgment and wisdom in the second session, by what sort of a miracle can we impute to them such patriotism and wisdom as that they can do it - in the first session without inflicting . irreparable damage upon the country?

Mr. BORAH. I agree with the Senator.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr . . President, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BINGHAM] offers the amendment that was offered by the late Speaker of the House of Representatives. I do not care to comment on the Speaker's speech, which has been read here, because, under existing circumstances, I think it probably would not be right to get the ideas or the opinions of a man who is no longer living mixed up in this debate.

In a general way let me say that this proposition comes from the enemies of the joint resolution, the enemies of the · amendment, men who have opposed it during most of the time it has been pending before the people of the United States. It is offered here by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BINGHAM], a man who has always opposed this joint resolution, who has always fought it.

I doubt whether I would be justified in telling the Senate what the impression made upon the conferees on the part of the Senate was at the time this matter was in conference; but the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH] is here, and the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BoRAH] sits here at my right. They know the controversy that went on there; and this proposal did not come to us until the very closing hours of the session, just a few days before we were compelled to adjourn on the 4th day of March. We met regularly every · day in that conference committee; and I think we were all impressed with the real thing that was behind this amendment-no compromise; nothing was possible, and we adjourned hopelessly divided.

Now, what is the proposition? It is for us to provide in the Constitution that no future Congress will be wise enough to know when to adjourn its second session. We are going to say here that a Congress that meets 40 years - from now must adjourn on a particular day. Do we know adjourn. enough to know when to quit? Maybe we ought to quit sometimes when we do not, but sometimes we have to quit when we ought not to be compelled to quit.

What is the objection to letting Congress determine when it shall adjourn? Then, too, as the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. BARKLEY] well said, you who are advocating this motion permit Congress in the first session to adjourn when it sees fit. Why not stop them then when they get up to a certain date in the calendar?

If you are going to limit a session, Senators, then you ought to limit the first session and not the last one. The last one is the more important of the two. If you want to limit a session, let me repeat, limit the first one and not the last one, because when the first one is limited you know that in that Congress there is still another session; but if you limit the second one, as far as that Congress is concerned, the last hope disappears and is gone.

I concede what the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINsoN] says, that we could change the rules . and stop all debate. By rule we could say · that we could pass a bill before it is printed, as we have been asked to do to-day. we have an illustration of it right before us now in the proposal to take up Senate bill No. 1, when even the committee that was considering the amendments did not have them printed before it. The committee print is brought in here before the bill is printed for the use of the Senate, and one Senator after another is told that with the terrible condition just ahead of U.s, with everything going to the bowwows, we ought to pass the bill to-day.

Suppose you adopt this amendment and fix the 4th day of June as the day when you have to adjourn, and you have a President in the White House like we have now who sends a message up here on the 3d day of June, saying, " The country is going to be disrupted 12 hours from now unless you pass this legislation that I send up here," and we all tumble over each other to pass it, and we wake up the next day to find that we have all been" gypped" and fooled question? and nobody understood what they were doing, and you give it no consideration. If that happens in the first session, if that is limited, you can remedy it at the next session; but you can not remedy it if it happens in the second session. The Congress is ended, and unless the President should call you in session you have no way to reassemble.

We do not have any trouble about adjourning in the long session, where it is not limited. We always have some controversy over it, it is true. Some . Members want to adjourn and some do not; but the majority d e termine the matter, and as a rule we adjourn early in June, sometimes in May. Sometimes, in case we have a tariff bill or some other very important legislation, we run through the summer months, or we take a recess and convene again. If you put this limitation on the second session, you can not do that, and you may want to do it. It may be that the very life of the country will be at stake at a time when you want to do it, but unless you have a President who will call you back you can not do it. We may be in the midst of a war, and the Congress may be in controversy with the White House; but when the gavel falls, even if you adopt this amendment, out you go, and there is no way for you to reassemble.

Why put that burden upon Congresses whose Members have not yet been born? Why not give them credit for having some sense? Let them decide when they will adjourn, as we decide in the long session now.

I want to tell you, Mr. President, that no filibuster ever made much headway unless it was in a session of Congress . where the date of adjournment was definitely fixed by law; and it does not have to occur right before the 4th of March, either. It may happen . in January or December, because every Senator and every Member of the House knows that every hour of the short session that is taken up, whether it is in December, January, February, or March, means that there is so much less time before the 4th of March; and if you start a filibuster in December its effect may be felt next March, when you come to the time to There is not any way to prevent things of that kind unless you let that Congress determine for itself when it shall adjourn, and that is a simple matter. Practically, with the exception of the short session, of course, we have always had that right. There may be a time in the history of the country, that may come next year or the year after that or 40 years from now, when to save its life Congress would not dare to adjourn, when the exigencies of the occasion would demand that they be in session. Let us not cripple those Congresses now by putting manacles upon their hands and upon their feet.