January 6, 1932 (2)

We can not foresee what is in the future; and therefore it seems to me we ought to let future Congresses have the right that we have had, to fix their own date of adjournment.

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

Mr. NORRIS. Yes.

Mr. FESS. The Senator knows that I have always sup- ' ported this joint resolution whenever it came up.

Mr. NORRIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. FESS. But I have some sympathy with the suggestion of making a limit to one of the sessions, if it is not too short. I thought five months probably would be better than to make it unlimited. Has the Senator made any investigation as to why the States have limited the tenure of their legislatures? Our State does) and a great number of States do.

Mr. NORRIS. Yes; a great many States do, and I will say to my friend from Ohio that I would not have any particular objection to it in a State. The Congress of the United States, however, may have in its hands the very salvation and life of the country, as it has had in the past many times; and to say that at such a time we shall be compelled by the Constitution of the United States to adjourn, it seems to me, might turn out to be almost national suicide.

Mr. FESS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to a

Mr. NORRIS. Yes.

Mr. FESS. I assume that the object in fixing the second day of January rather than the first Monday in January was to . avoid the possibility of meeting on New Year's Day.

Mr. NORRIS. Let me say to the Senator that in the various forms which this joint resolution has gone through March? since it was introduced, a great many years ago, there have been some changes in the dates. As I introduced the joint resolution originally, I 'think it provided for the first Monday, or the first Tuesday after the first Monday, something of that kind, to avoid Congress meeting on the Sabbath day, as it will occasionally. The House committee at various times took it up, and while the joint resolution never got through the House in that form I had a great many informal discussions with Members of the House about this matter, and they were objecting to fixing a day of the week, and wanted to have a particular date named. Afterward we changed it here, and the last two or three times we passed it, I think, we have had a definite date.

It is true that there would come times when we would have to convene on Sunday; but it is true now that we are in session on Sunday every time the 4th of March comes on Sunday. That is a common thing; and, as far as I know, it has not interfered particularly with the Congress, nor has it affected anyone's conscientious convictions, so far as I know. Personally I would a little rather it would not be on the Sabbath day, but l think it is better to have a definite For instance, the Constitution says the term · of a Senator shall be six years. You would have to have Congress convene on a different date from the time he actually took office in order to have him serve exactly six years. You avoid all that by fixing a definite date.

I will say to the Senator, however, that the exact date, and whether it shall be a week day or a day of the month, are, of course, matters that do not go to the fundamental principles involved in the legislation; but this amendment does, in my judgment. So I am surprised that Senators of long experience should want, by a definite constitutional arrangement, to fix a positive date when Congress must -cease work.

I say to Senators that they do not realize what that might mean. In my judgment, there is no occasion for it. I think we are competent to fix a definite date for final adjournment, as well as to fix a date to adjourn over the holidays.

Mr. DILL. Mr. President, all the Congresses which have ever assembled have been under the compulsion referred to. They have been compelled to terminate their short sessions · on the 4th of March, and the country has not suffered greatly by that, as I see it.

Mr. NORRIS. The country has suffered a good many times, in my judgment. I have seen legislation defeated by a filibuster which nearly everybody wanted to see passed. I have seen much other legislation passed without due consideration, because everybody had something else he wanted to get through, and little time could be taken in analyzing a bill, in going through it, in debating it and discussing it, and asking questions about it; every moment was precious, and Senators would let an elephant go through in order to have enacted before the gavel fell at noon on the 4th day of March something they felt to be vital. It has meant injury to the country. ·

There are other changes in the Constitution of which I might speak, in anSwering the Senator's question as to whether we have not lived so long and nothing has hurt us. That may be true, but we do not know what is going to happen in the future. We can not tell.

I implore Senators to think of this deeply before they vote in favor of a proposition which, in my judgment, has no merit, and, secondly, has been . an instrumentality of the enemies of this kind of legislation from the beginning.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? money every year.

Mr. NORRIS. I yield. · Mr. BARKLEY. How can anyone tell with any degree of certainty that the country has not been damaged or injured because we have been living a century and a half rmder a system which we are now trying to change? · How can anybody say how much better off the country would have been if the conditions had been different, if we had not been required to adjourn every other year on the 4th of

Mr. NORRIS. Of course.

Mr. BARKLEY. How can anybody be dogmatic about it?

Mr. NORRIS. I do not think anybodY can be, I will say to the Senator. But in addition to that, in the early history of this country the importance of this kind of an amendment would not have been observed. There was a very small House of Representatives, a small Senate, and a small country, and the legislators had all the time they needed. But the country has been growing by leaps and bounds. Everybody knows now that it is impossible for us to complete the business of a session before the 4th of March. Even if the time should be extended a few months, there would probably come a time when we could not transact all the business of a session within the limits then in force, and there would have to be another change. Let Senators answer the question if they can, Why fix a date? Why not have faith enough in the Congresses which shall follow to believe that they will be able to fix their own date and fix it correctly? ,

Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I will detain the Senate but a moment. I am very heartily in favor of the pending joint resolution as it is drawn.

There is one matter in connection with it to which I want to call the attention of Senators. Under the present provision we really do not have time to consider appropriation bills in the short sessions of the Congress.

Last year we appropriated $5,252,000,000 in about two months' time. I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and I say to Senators that I believe every man on that committee did conscientious work, rendered faithful service in passing on those vast appropriations; but the bills passed on by the committee could not be properly considered by that committee, or by any committee, or by the Congress, or by either branch of it, for the reason that we did not have time. We were under terrific pressure every moment of the time after Congress convened.

When appropriation bills are brought over to the · senate from the House, the usual rule is that amendments only are really considered. We do not have time to go through the various provisions of the bills, either in subcommittee or in the full committee, or in the Senate or in the House.

The bill making appropriations for a particular department will be sent to Congress. If the House wants to add amendments, they are printed in italics. If the Senate wants to add amendments, they are printed in italics; and we consider only the amendments. In the Senate the bills are read for amendment. Bills carrying millions and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars are passed by the two bodies without any consideration of the various items

The junior Senator from Utah [Mr. KING], who does not happen to be in the Chamber at the moment, has constantly inveighed against that method of legislation. It is an imperfect method; but as long as we have a 3-mont.h session or a 4-month session, or even if we shall have a 5-month session, we are gomg to have the same trouble.

Therefore I say to the Senate that, in my judgment, if we consider no other reason, this joint resolution should be agreed to. I think the other reasons advanced are splendid. It is urged, first, that if his amendment were put into the Constitution there would be no further filibusters. That furnishes a perfectly valid reason for adopting the amendment. The right of every Congress to say when it wants to adjourn is another valid reason. But one of the most important reasons to the people of this country is that Congress should have time to pass upon the great appropriation bills, appropriating billions of dollars of the people's I believe that at the last short session, if the Senate Committee on Appropriations, composed of perfectly splendid men, patriotic men, men who are seeking to do their duty by their Government and by their country, had had ample time, we would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in the appropriation of the people's money. There were many items in those bills passed over without a word, which, if they had ever been debated, either in committee or in the Senate, would not have passed. So, if we want to have an economical Government, if we want to cut appropriations to such figures as they ought to be cut to, we should have more time.

The Senator from Nebraska said just a moment ago that we have a very different Government now from what we had when it was founded. Our forefathers, as farseeing as they were-and they were the most farseeing set of men who ever lived-did not realize that the time might come when the Congress would have to appropriate as much as $5,000,000,000 in one year.

Mr. President, it seems to me that this joint resolution ought to be passed, not only for the reasons which have already been advanced but for this additional reason, that the Congress should have time each session properly to pass upon the appropriations which are made. We have not that time now. If the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut should be adopted, we would not have time properly to do the work.

Five billion dollars is an immense amount of money. It ought not to be treated lightly. We frequently pass appropriation bills as a matter of course. I have known of appropriation bills carrying $100,000,000 being passed in an afternoon session. That should not be. It would not be done if we had the time in the short session to discuss the measures as they ought to be discussed.

Mr. President, I am heartily in favor of this joint resolution. The Senate has shown time and again that it is in favor of this amendment to the Constitution, and I believe that it ought to be passed, and that it ought to be passed at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Senator from Tennessee has said. Like him, I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and I have often been filled with regret at the haste with which we had to consider bills · . _

! would like to call his attention to the fact that, notwithstanding the fact that we have no constitutional necessity for adjourning early in June at the present time, we practically always do adjourn early in June, except in time of war. It is always possible, in time of great emergency, for the President to call an extra session. It is possible under the Constitution for the Congress itself to fix an earlier day of meeting. It would have been possible for Congress last March, before it adjourned, to decide to meet on the 1st of September, had it so chosen. But it did not so choose.

Under the amendment which I have proposed, which is slightly at variance with that proposed by Speaker Longworth, because it gives an additional month, instead of there being only two active months-namely, January and February-in the short sessions, for the consideration of appropriation bills, we would get five active months, January, February, March , April, and May, until the 4th day of June. dered. From my observation in the last few years, I am convinced that that would provide abundant time for the consideration of appropriation bills. Therefore, it seems to me, that that argument does not hold. . Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BINGHAM. I yield

Mr. McKELLAR. The Senator makes the statement that Congress usually adjourns by June. I have been a Member of the congress, counting my service in both Houses, for a little more than 20 years. There may have been another, but I do not recall more than one session of the long Congress in that long pe 1 period of time when we adjourned by June, and never, so far as I can now recall, have we adjourned prior to that in the long session of Congress. The truth of the matter is that the sessions have extended to the latter part of July, sometimes until August, and, as Champ Clark used to say, until usually about the time the snow begins to fly. · Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, of course the Senator from Tennessee has taken advantage of the fact that I have been here for only 7 years while he has been here 20 or more, and his memory goes back much further than mine. I do not remember any Congress, except in war times, when we sat until the snow began to fly. We seldom have snow in Washington in July or August. I remember that three years ago we adjourned early in June. We have adjourned, in my recollection, about the 3d of July. But, after all, it would seem as though five months were a sufficient length of time to handle appropriation bills.

As the Senator from Nebraska has said, and in his report has mentioned, this proposed amendment to the Constitution has aroused great · interest in the country. A, g r eat many newspaper editorials have appeared · in favor of the so-called Norris "lame-duck" amendment. I have read a great many of those editorials. So far as I can recollect all of them refer to the fact that a Congressman elected in November of one year does not take his seat until December of the following year, and they are in favor of a Congressman taking his seat sooner after election. That is the point in which the country has been interested. But nothing has been said about that here to-day. In the amendment which I have proposed no change is made in that. There is merely a provision to prevent the continuous sitting of Congress for one reason or another.

It was pointed out in the debate in the House last year by Mr. GLOVER, of Arkansas, who spoke in favor of the Longworth amendment, that not only should congress have a breathing spell, and the Members of congress have a . breathing spell, but "if we have a given task to be performed in a given time we will devote ourselves to that." He goes on to say: -' Another argument made by the Senator, I think, is worth being emphasized, and that is the fact that in presidential election years, regardless of whatever party is in power, politics would enter; 1f we were in power, of course, we would make it hard for you, and 1f you were in power you would do the same thing to us. In other words, politics would be played in Congress that ought not to be played. I believe we can finish our business in the presidential year by the time specified in this resolution , and that we can accomplish our purpose, and that we can go out and have a little rest ourselves and give the people one.

Mr. President, it has been pointed out by no less a distinguished person that Prof. Everett S. Brown, of the University of Michigan, in the American Political Science Review that-

In public discussions of the proposed Norris "lame-duck" amendment, and in demands by Members of Congress for special sessions to meet temporary emergencies, the fact is often ~:_~o~fk~~ :-eae\~~ngress itself has the power to regulate the Then he goes on to point out the fact that these statements are not the result of theoretical speculation, but that prior to 1821 no fewer than 18 acts were passed by Congress appointing a different day for its meeting from that stipulated in the Constitution. I ask unanimous consent that his complete statement may be printed ill the RECORD at the close of my remarks.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so or- (See Exhibit A.)

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, I regret the argument used by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. NoRRIS] that Members of the Senate should vote against my amendment because forsooth I introduced it · , who was opposed and one of the very few persons opposed to the joint resolution as introduced by the Senator from Nebraska. That argumentum ad hominem, if I may be permitted to refer to something out of the old logic book which I once studied, is one which I think should not apply to an amendment to the Constitution. Either it should stand on its own merits or not. The fact that I introduced it ought not to count against it or in its favor.

It was adopted at length in the House and adopted by a very considerable majority. I think it is a reasonable amendment. It provides a five months' short ses­ . sion instead of what .is at the present time practically a two months' short sessiOn. It m no way affects the lameduck" amendment. It in no way affects the curious situa­ 1 tion whereby a Congressman elected in November does not take his seat until a. year from the following December. I hope very much that it may stand on its merits and that something may be done to prevent the things pointed out by former Speaker Longworth and by Mr. GLOVER.

As a matter of fact, if my recollection serves me--it has been called in question by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKELLAR] and therefore I am a little bit afraid to refer to it-there was a filibuster conducted by the distinguished Senators from Arizona [Mr. AsHURST and Mr. HAYDEN] on behalf of their State during a long session of Congress in which we had many daily sessions devoted to the consideration of the Boulder Dam question. There are times - when there is no way m which a small state or a small group of States can protect what they . believe to be their rights in connection with undesirable legislation other than by an effort to talk it to death, by taking up a lot of time and, in other words, conducting a filibuster. Once the Senate decides that that is an undesirable proceeding, it can be changed by rule. Under Rule XXII, once two-thirds of the Senate believe any legislation should be passed without further talk, it can be done and no great harm done.

Mr. President, I very much hope the amendment may be adopted.

ExHIBIT A

The time of meetings of Congress: In public discussions of the proposed Norris " lam . “lame-duck” " amendment and in demands by Members of Congress for special sessions to meet temporary emergencies, the f.act is often overlooked that Congress itself has the power to regulate the time of its meeting. The fourth section of Article IV of the Constitution provides: " The Con.:,aress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day." Under this provision the much-criticized rush of bills in the short session could easily be averted by an act con­ _ vening Congress at an earlier date than the first Monday in December. So, too, a Congress whose final session was coming to a close could provide that its successor should meet immediately, instead of waiting until the following December. A Congress de­ . sirous of a special' session on a problem like unemployment could call such a session irrespective of lack of action by the President, provided it could command a majority sufficient to override a possibLe presidential veto. Of course such action could be taken only while Congress was in session, because, under the provisions of the Constitution, the President is the only person who, between sessions, is empowered to call special sessions.

These statements are not the result of theoretical speculation, but rest firmly on the facts of our legisLative history. Prior to 1821 no fewer than 18 acts were passed by Congress appointing a different day for its meetings from that stipulated in the Constitution. Before referring to these acts more in detail, it would perhaps clarify matters somewhat to recall to mind how March 4 was decided upon as a limit of presidential and congressional terms. Article VII of the Constitution provided that the instrument should go into effect when ratified by nine States. This was accomplished on June 21, 1788. In a resolution of September 13, 1788, the Congress of the Confederation, after providing dates for the choice of electors and the election of a President, set the first Wednesday in the following March as the time " for commencing the proceedings under said Constitution." The first Wednesday .in March, 1789, fell on March 4. Lack of a quorum until April 6 prevented the counting of the electoral vote, and it was not until April 30 that Washington was inaugurated President. However, Congress decided that both congressional and presidential terms had begun on March 4, 1789, and by act of March 1, 1792, set March 4, 1793, as the date for the beginning of the next presidential term.

The First Congress adjourned its first session on September 29, 1789, but before doing so passed an act setting January 4, 1790, as the date of the beginning of its next session. This session ended on August 12, and, no further action being taken, the third session commenced on December 6, 1790, in accordance with the constitutional provision. A number of bilLs were introduced in the session with respect to the next meeting of Congress, a.nd eventually !ly act of March 2, 1791, the date was set for the fourth Monday in October, 1791, more than a month before the date provided for in the Constitution. The precedent here established was followed with considerable frequency. The favorite date was the first Monday in November, no less than 10 of the 18 laws passed prior to 1821 selecting that day. The second, third, and fourth Mondays in November were also chosen, as were the fourth and last Mondays in October. Twice during this period-in 1809 and in 1813-the beginning of the short session was set by law for the fourth Monday in May. It is also worthy of note that nearly halt o~ the acts passed by Congress related to the long session, emphaSlZing the fact that Congress was concerned not merely with the brevity of the short session . The calling of the first session of a Congress at an earlier date than that set by the Constitution shortened the period between the election of members and their active participation in legislation, thus meeting much of the criticism made against that situation.

Several questions of constitutional interpretation arose tn connection with these laws. For example, the act of March 3, 1797, had fixed as the date of the meeting of the Fifth Congress the first Monday in November, 1797. But President John Adams called a special session for May 15. When this Congress met the question was raised whether the act passed at the last session fixing the date of the next meeting of Congress as the first Monday in November had not been superseded by the calling of the special session. Opponents of this interpretation held that although the President had power to call extra sessions, it was the business of Congress to fix the dates of annual meetings, and, therefore, the two powers could not be allowed to infringe upon each other. However, in order to avoid any misunderstanding on the subject a new law was passed fixing the meeting of Congress on the second Monday in November, with a clause repealing the former act. Many Members of Congress did not believe the new act was necessary and opposed it on the ground that to take such action would give the President the power to repeal a law and to do away with the provisions of the Constitution of this subject.

The special session called by President Adams met on May 15 and adjourned on July 10, 1797, and the regular session met on November 13, in accordance with the act passed by Congress. But what would happen if a special session called by the President had not completed its business prior to the date set for the next annual session? It was not long before th is contingency arose. By the act of March 3, 1803, Congress provided that the next meeting should be on the first Monday of the following November. President Jefferson, however, called the Eighth Congress into spe- ' cial session on October 17, and Congress remained in session until March 27, 1804, thus continuing without a break through November 7, the date set by Congress, and through Monday, December 5, the day appointed by the Constitution for the regular annual session.

Nor was this a solitary instance. The first meeting of the Tenth Congress was convened by proclamation of President Jefferson on October 26, 1807, and remained in session until April 2, 1808, without any interruption on Monday, December 7, the constitutional day of meeting. The same was true of the Twelfth Congress, which was convened by proclamation of President Madison on November 4, 1811, and continued in session until July 6, 1812. Again, at the second session of the Thirteenth Congress a law was passed and approved April 18, 1814, setting the last Monday in November of that year for the next meeting of Congress. But a special session was called by President Madison for September 19, 1814, and it, too, continued through the day appointed by law and by the Constitution for the beginning of the session. The reports of proceedings in · Congress fail to disclose any discussions of constitutional problems here involved. If there were any questions in the minds of Members concerning distinctions between regular sessions of Congress and special ones called by presidential proclamation, presumably they were not raised.

This practice, however, was not allowed to continue, and it was later estabLished that a special session. whether convened by law or by proclamation, ends with the day set by the Constitution for the annual meeting. During the quarrel between Congress and President Johnson Congress passed an act, approved by the President on January 22, 1867, because he realized his veto would be futile, providing that "in addition to the present regular times of meeting of Congress there shall be a meeting of the Fortieth Congress of the United States and <Jf each succeeding Congress thereafter at 12 o'clock meridian on the 4th day of March, the day on which the term begins for which the Congress is elected. The Fortieth Congress, convened under this law, was still in session when the day approached . for the regular annual meeting. A resolution was passed by both Houses that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House should adjourn their respective Houses without day on Monday, December 2, at 12 o'clock. In accordance with this concurrent resolution, on Monday, December 2, the presiding officers of the two Houses declared the Houses adjourned sine die. Immediately thereafter the Houses were called to order in the second session. The act of January 22, 1867, which applied to three Congresses-the Fortieth, Forty-first, and Forty-second-was repealed April 20, 1871.

On October 15, 1877, the Forty-fifth Congress met in special ses- _ sion on the call of President Hayes, and it remained in session until December 3, the day appointed by the Constitution for the regular meeting of Congress. During the morning session on December 3, by concurrent resolution it was resolved to be the judgment of the two Houses that the current session of Congress expired by operation of law at 12 o'clock meridian on that day. The two Houses then agreed to the usual resolution authorizing the appointment of a joint committee to wait on the President and inform him of the adjournment. At 12 o'clock the new session was called.

The precedent here established was followed in later sessions. In the Fifty-eighth Congress President Roosevelt called a special session for November 9, 1903. The House adjourned on Saturday, December 6, but the Senate was still in session on Monday, December 7. At 12 o'clock on that day the President pro tempore of the Senate announced that the hour provided by law for the meeting of the first regular session of the Fifty-eighth Congress had arrived and declared the extraordinary session adjourned sine die. Immediately the Senate was called to order in regular session, as was also the House, and the second session of the Fiftyeighth Congress commenced. Almost identical action was taken by the Sixty-third Congress, when called into special session by President Wilson on. April 7. ~he session continuing to Monday, J December 1. when 1t was adJourned in order that the regular session might commence.

The stand here taken by Congress 1s an important one in the mai;nte na nce of the theory of the separation of powers in our National Government. If no distinction were made .between speCial sessions called by the President and regular sessiOns provided by the Constitution, and if special se s sions were to extend over the da t e set for r e gular meetings, the President would be able to exert undue pressure on the le gis lative branch of the Government. On the other hand, the act i on of Congress in its conflict · with P r esident Johnson illustrates the extent of its power to meet pract i cally continuously, provided it has sufficient strength to override the presidential veto .

An attempt of the Twenty-fourth Congress, in 1836, to fix t:t;te date of the annual meeting of Congress on the first Monday m November in every ye a r was vetoed by President Jackson because the same act cont a ined a provision fixing the second Monday of May as the day of adjournment of the first session of all succeeding g Congresses. Jackson admitted without question the power of Congress to fix, by law, a day for its regular annual session. But the att e mpt to set a definite date for the adjournment of all succeed i ng Congresses he regarded as unconstitutional.

It is interesting . to note that, in contrast with ~he frequent acts of Congress prior to 1821 changing the dates of its meetings, only one law for that purpose has been passed since 1821. This was the act of January 22. 1867, which, as already noted, grew out of Congress ' distrust of President Johnson. In recent years Congress has seemed content to let the President call special sessions rather than exercise its power to change the date of its meetings. Undoubtedly the development of the party system and of the party leadersh i p of the President has had much to do with the pre s ent situation. But tile fact remains that Congress has ~~e A ~ct~~.ge lt~~:-t~~fi~~t~~~~rr!e~t 1 ~sd~~:on~!~a~ to en ab le a newly elected Congress to meet for its first session on. or immediately after, March 4 following its election or to enable ~F~~~esi~~u.,~!t~:a~~\~~ a;:-~i~e~~sst~~! t~ec~~T~~~h~f ~~= terms of Congressmen would require a constitutional amendment. and _ it is, perhaps. the combination of these provisions with the sessions ~f Congress in the Norris proposals which has obscured somewha~.~ meetings. the real power of Congress ov.er the time of its own

EVERETT s. BRowN.

UNIVERSITY OF MlcmGAN,

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I have no desire to detain the Senate more than a few moments. In the first place, I doubt very seriously whether the framers of our Constitution ever contemplated what we know as the short session of Congress. While in the original document they provided that Congress should meet on the first Monday in December every year, they likewise provided that the Government of the United States which was to be formed under that Constitution should not begin operation until certain preliminary things had occurred that enabled it to be represented not only in its legislative branches but in its executive department likewise.

The Constitution which had been framed by the Philadelphia convention had to be submitted to all the States, and there was no way to know how long it would require to secure its adoption. It provided that 9 of the 13 States should adopt it or ratify it before it could become effective. There was no way to foresee when the ratification by the ninth State would transpire. Then it provided for a series of events that should occur after the final ratification, including the election of Members of Congress and including the selection of members of the Electoral College who were to elect a President, all of whom had to be elected before the Government could begin operation. It so happened that the last date fell on the 4th day of March. There is nothing in the Constitution about the 4th day of March. There is nothing in the Constitution about a short session. After reading the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and the amendments and motions offered by members of it, it is my conclusion, and the conclusion, I think, also of many able writers on the Constitution, that the convention really meant that the first session which should be held after the adoption of the Constitution and inauguration of the Government should be in the December following the November election, instead of the December, 13 months later.

But in view of the fact that a series of accidental occurrences brought the date for the beginning of the Government over to the 4th day of March, which was nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. and therefore, by long practice and finally by consummation of statute, the 4th day of March was fixed as the date h t h ld b · e W en new terms s ou begin, not only for the President of the Un i ted Sta t es but for Members of Congress, it transpired that Members el e cted in November did not take their seats until the followin'"' March, and, therefore, the first session of Con gr ess which could be held after that date necessarily h a d to be the following December which was · 13 months a'fter they we r e elected I d 0 t b li 1 •t th · t t·

• no e. ev~ was ever e In en 10n of the framers of the Constitution that there should be any leg a l distinction between the first and second sessions of the Congress of the United States. So much for that.

Ml'. President, m VIew of the fact that It was not, m my judgment, the intention of the framers of the Constitu ti on to limit any session of Congress by fixing an arbitrary date of adjournment 1 ·t seems to me that 1 ·t would be pre s umpt i ·on on our part that we possess mo r e wisdom th a n any future Congress can possibly possess with reference to the date when it ought to adjourn. I do not believe we possess any ~ea er WISdom than Congresses that may meet hereafter will possess. I do not believe it is within our province, nor is it within our duty or our wisdom or our ability to foresee the future events of our country and say to an fu' t c _ Y ure on gress that they shall stay in session three months or four months or five months or any other limited time. We ought to leave it to them. I think the chances are they will have as much vision as we have. I think the chances are fair that they will be as intelligent as we are.

I certainly think, in view of the changing exigencies of our country, the .multiplication of. t~~ duties of. Congress, the vast ramificatiOns of all the activities With which we are compelled to deal, that it is certainly unwise to say to any Congress that may meet 100 years from now: "Whether you have finished your b usmess · or no t you must a dj ourn on th e 4th day of some March," because forsooth we desire to get out early in the year of election in order that we may devote ourselves to our campaign for reelection. It is not a matter of any importance, in my judgment, compared to the fundamental law of our country with reference to the fixing of dates for sessions of Congress to begin or terms of office to begin. Therefore I hope the amendment will be defeated and that we will at least leave it to the discretion and judgment and wisdom of Congresses which are to meet in the years to come to determine when they shall finish their duties, and allow them to leave it to their constituents as to whether they have acted wisely or unwiselY' . Mr. DilL. Mr. · President, I notice that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. NoRRIS], in speaking against the amendment, suggested that it was an amendment presented by enemies of the measure. I want to say that if there is anyone in - the Senate who is anxious to see this joint resolution become a part of the Constitution it is myself. But that does not preclude me, I hope, as a friend of constitutional government, from supporting an amendment that is wise, even though it may come from those who may have opposed the resolution in the past. If my memory serves me correctly, the resolution as reported to the Senate some years ago contained a limitation as to the time when the second session should adjourn. I may be wrong in that, but that is my recollection of the matter. The friends of the measure then, as I recall, did not feel that it was so terribly dangerous.

I believe Senators do not consider what it will mean to bring a Congress to a close when there is no opportunity to / pass upon bills in which they are interested after they have voted for final adjournment. In every instance in the past when Congress adjourned voluntarily there has always been the next session of Congress at which the bills may be considered. It is only because the Constitution itself compels adjournment on the 4th of March that we have had to adjourn on that date.

I recognize the objections to filibusters. I recognize, it is possible that there will be filibusters even if the sessions run for five months. But I believe that an orderly government should not have the legislative body in session continuously. I believe there ought to be a time ' when the work of the legislative body would come to a close in the year in which politics is uppermost in the minds of both the executive and the legislative branches of the Government. I think when we allow an unliniited time for the first session and allow approximately five months for the second session we are not endangering the country, as the Senator from Nebraska suggests.

Let me say also that I believe the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut will hasten the submission of the constitutional amendment to the States by the House of Representatives. I recall that in the last session, when the House voted for the resolution and the matter went to conference, I stated then that I hoped the Senate would reach a compromise. I believe in the proposal as a matter of principle, and I believe the custom forced upon us by the present system of Congressmen and Senators not WATSON] taking their seats and beginning their duties for 13 months after election is so hurtful to . the working of popular government that this is a matter of not such great importance in comparison.

I believe, therefore, that if the amendment limiting the time to June 4 shall be adopted, the joint resolution will go through the House without any amendment whatsoever; that it will be submitted to the States and ratified probably more quickly than any amendment that has ever been submitted. On the other hand, if we do not adopt it, the House of Representatives will probably do what it did before and we shall find ourselves tied up in another conference jam, with no resolution Submitted to the states, and the present "nay." objectionable situation continued.

Personally I am not worried about filibusters. I have seen a number of filibusters and I have read of a good many others . . It has been my observation that very little legisla­ "nay.'' tion that the country really wanted and especially that the country really needed has been prevented of passage by filibuster. Any important legislation that has been prevented by the closing of the Congress on the 4th of March or by a filibuster has been very properly and quickly passed by the Congress that met in the following Decembe1·. The fact of the matter is the country has been saved much legis .. lation from which, in my judgment, it should have been saved by the fact that the Congress was compelled to adjourn on the 4th day of March.

It sounds very well for Senators to say that Congress has so much judgment that it may be depended upon always to adjourn when the best interests of the country demand, but our his~ory does not seem to justify that statement.

Furthermore, when we allow five months from the meeting of the second session during which Congress may legislate we have not hampered it in the matter of time. For that reason, I intend to support the amendment proposed by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BINGHAMJ. and, of course, if it shall be defeated, I shall support the joint resolution, and I hope that it will be passed by the House of Representatives at an early date.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BINGHAM].

Mr. BINGHAM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McNARY. Let us have the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGHAM. Very welL I withdraw the suggestion.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The suggestion of the absence of Copeland a quorum is withdrawn, and the yeas and nays are demanded. Is the demand seconded?

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BINGHAM (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the junior Senator from Virginia. [Mr. GLAss]. I understand, however, that on this vote I am Byrnes . released from that pair. Therefore I am permitted to vote, and vote "yea."

Mr. KENDRICK (when Mr. CAREY's name was called). On this vote my colleague [Mr. CAREY], who is unavoidably absent, is paired with the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BuLKLEY].

Mr. HASTINGS (when his name was called). I have a pair with the junior Senator from Alabama [Mr. BANKHEAD]. Not knowing how he would vote, I withhold my vote.

Mr. JONES (when hfs name was caned). As previously announced, I am paired for the day with the senior Senator from Virginia [Mr. SwANSON]. I do not know how he would vote on this question. If I were at h'berty to vote, I should vote" nay.''

Mr. MOSES (when his name was called) . . I have a general pair with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. BROUSSARD]. He being absent, and not knowing how he would vote, and being unable to secure a transfer, I withhold my vote .

Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana (when his name was called). I have a pair with the junior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STEPHENS]. In his absence, and not knowing how he would vote on this question, I withhold my vote.

Mr. SMITH (when his name was called). On this question I have a pair with the Senator from Indiana [Mrc and therefore withhold my vote. If permitted to vote, I should vote " yea.”

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. JONES. I find that on this question I can transfer my pair with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. SWANSON] to the junior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HowELL]. I do so and will vote. I vote " nay.”

Mr. KING. On this vote I am paired with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. ScHALL]. Not knowing how he would vote, I withhold my vote.

Mr. BARKLEY. I have a pair with the senior Senator from Colorado LMr. WATERMAN], which I transfer to the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WALSH], and vote

Mr. BYRNES. I have a general pair with the junior Senator from Nevada [Mr. ODDIEL Not knowing how he would vote, I withhold my vote. If permitted to vote, I should vote Mr. McKELLAR (after having voted in the negative). I have a pair with the junior Senator from Delaware [Mr. ToWNSEND], who, it seems, is not present. I transfer that pair to the junior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BAILEY] and allow my vote to stand.

While I am on my feet, I desire to announce that the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON] is unavoid­ . ably absent and is paired with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. REED].

Mr. MOSES. I find that I may transfer my pair with the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. BRoussARD J to the junior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. WALCOTT]. I make that transfer and vote " yea.''

The result was announced-yeas 18, nays 47, as follows:

YEAS--18

Austin Fess Kean Patterson Barbour Glenn Keyes Tydings Bingham Goldsborough Lewis White Dickinson Hale Metcalf Dill Hebert Moses

NAYS-47

Ba.Pkley Couzens Hull Norris Blaine Cutting Johnson Nye Borah Dale Jones Sheppard Bratton Davis Kendrick Shipstead Brookhart Fletcher La. Follette Shortridge Bulow Frazier Logan Steiwer Capper George McGill Thomas, Idaho Caraway Gore McKellar Thomas, Okla. Connally Harris McNary Wagner Coolidge Hatfield Morrison Walsh, Mont.

Hawes Neely Wheeler

Costigan Hayden Norbeck

NOT VOTING

Ashurst Glass Robinson, Ark. Trammell Bailey Harrison Robinson, Ind. Vandenberg Bankhead Hastings Schall Walcott Black Howell Smith Walsh, Mass. Broussard King Smoot Waterman Bulkley Oddie Stephens Watson

Pittman Swanson

Carey Reed Townsend

So Mr. BINGHAM's amendment was rejected.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The joint resolution is before the Senate and open to amendment. If there be no further amendment, the joint resolution will be ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and read the third time:

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and read the - third time.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?

Mr. NORRIS and Mr. McKELLAR called for the yeas and Norris nays, and they were ordered.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BINGHAM (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the junior Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLAss]. In his absence, and being unable to obtain a transfer, I withhold my vote. If permitted to vote, I should vote

Mr. BYRNES (when his name was called). I have a pair with the junior Senator from Nevada [Mr. ODDIE]. I understand that if present he would vote "yea." As I intend to vote the same way, I feel at liberty to vote and vote" yea."

Mr. KENDRICK (when I\111'. CAREY's name was called). Once more I desire to announce the unavoidable absence of my colleague [Mr. CAREY] and to say that he is paired with the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BULKLEY].

Mr. HASTINGS (when his name was called). I am paired with the junior Senator from Alabama [Mr. BANKHEAD]. Not knowing how he would vote, I withhold my vote.

Mr. JONES (when his name was called). I understand that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. SwANsoN], with whom I am paired for the day, would vote as I shall vote. Therefore I am at liberty to vote. I vote "yea."

Mr. KING (when his name was called). I have a pair with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. ScHALLJ. Not know­ begin. ing how he would vote, I withhold my vote. If I were at liberty to vote, I should vote "nay."

Mr. McKELLAR (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the junior Senator from Delaware [Mr. TowNSEND], which I transfer to the junior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BAILEY], and will vote. I vote "yea."

Mr. MOSES (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. BRoussARD J As he is absent, I withhold my vote.

Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the junior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STEPHENS], who is detained at his home by illness. I understand that if he were present he would vote as I expect to vote. Therefore I am free to vote. I vote The roll call was concluded.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas (after having voted in the affirmative). I have a general pair with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. REEDJ. I understand that if present he would vote as I have voted, and I therefore allow my vote to stand. ,

Mr. NORRIS. I desire to announce the unavoidable absence of my colleague [Mr. HowELLJ. If he were present, he would vote " yea " on this question.

Mr. BINGHAM. The junior Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLASS], with whom I have a general pair, is detained on business of the Senate and is unable to be present. If he were present, he would vote" yea."

Mr. BARKLEY. I transfer the pair which I have heretofore announced with the senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. WATERMAN] to the senior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. HARRISON] and will vote. I vote "yea."

Mr. SHEPPARD. I desire to announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. BLACK], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. SWANSON], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Harrison], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLASS], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BuLKLEY], and the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BAILEY] are necessarily detained on official business. The result was announced-yeas 63, nays 7, as follows:

YEAS--63

Ashurst Caraway Fletcher Johnson Austin Connally Frazier Jones Barbour Coolidge George Kean Barkley Copeland Glenn Kendrick Blaine Costigan Gore Keyes Borah Couzens Hale La Follette Bratton Cutting Harris Lewis Brookhart Davis Hatfield Logan Bulow Dickinson Hawes McGill Byrnes Dill Hayden McKellar Capper Fess Hull McNary

Morrison Robinson, Ark. Thomas, Idaho Walsh, Mass. Neely Robinson, Ind. Thomas, Okla. Walsh, Mont. Norbeck Sheppard Tydings Wheeler

Ship stead Vandenberg White

Nye Steiwer Wagner

NAYS--7

Dale Hebert Patterson Watson Goldsborough Metcalf Smith

NOT VOTING-25

Bailey Glass Pittman Townsend Bankhead Harrison Reed Trammell Bingham Hastings Schall Walcott Black Howell Shortridge Waterman Broussard King Smoot Bulkley Moses Stephens Carey Oddie Swanson

The VICE PRESIDENT. On this question the yeas are 63, the nays are 7. More than two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution is passed. _

The joint resolution as passed is as follows:

Resolved, etc., That the following amendment of the Constitution be, and hereby is, proposed to the States, to become valid as a part of said Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of the several States as provided by the Constitution:

"ARTICLE-

" SECTION 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 15th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 2d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then "SEc. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once 1n every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 2d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

"SEc. 3. If the House of Representatives has not chosen a President, whenever the right of choice devolves upon them, before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional . disability of the President. The Congress shall by law provide for the case of the failure to choose the Vice President before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly until the House of Representatives chooses a President or until the Senate chooses a Vice President.

" SEc. 4. This amendment shall take effect on the 15th day of October after its ratification."