V. RESIDENT COMMISSIONERS (1) The first sentence of section 20 of the act entitled "An act to declare the purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political status of the people of the Philippine Islands, and to provide a more autonomous government for those islands," approved August 29, 1916: "SEC. 20. That at the first meeting of the Philippine Legislature created by this act and triennially thereafter there shall be chosen by the legislature two Resident Commissioners to the United States, who shall hold their office for a term of three years beginning with the fourth day of March following their election, and who shall be entitled to an official recognition as such by all departments upon presentation to the President of a certificate of election by the Governor General of said islands." (39 Stat. 552.) (2) The first two sentences of section 36 of the act entitled "An act to provide a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1917: "SEC. 36. That the qualified electors of Porto Rico shall at the next general election choose a Resident Commissioner to the United States, whose term of office shall begin on the date of the issuance of his certificate of election and shall continue until the fourth of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-one. At each subsequent election, beginning with the year nineteen hundred and twenty, the qualified electors of Porto Rico shall choose a Resident Commissioner to the United States, whose term of office shall be four years from the fourth of March following such general election, and who shall be entitled to receive official recognition as such Commissioner by all of the departments of the Government of the United States, upon presentation, through the Department of State, of a certificate of election of the Governor of Porto Rico." (39 Stat. 963.) [Note: The statutes relating to the election of a Delegate for the Territory of Alaska (37 Stat. 512, 517; 34 Stat. 169, 170), and a Delegate for the Territory of Hawaii (34 Stat. 550), do not prescribe a specific date for the beginning of the term.] STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES L. GIFFORD, CONGRESSIONAL MEMBER FROM MASSACHUSETTS Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter so familiar to you all that it is hard to know how to present it to you. I urge the presentation of this resolution to the House at this time because I believe there is a tremendous demand all over the country for it. I have been on this committee now some eight or nine years, and I would like to see it brought up for final settlement. Two years ago we had a large majority in the House in favor of this, but not the necessary two-thirds of the Members. That debate awakened the country to this legislation, and the editorial thought of the Nation, to my mind, must be over 90 per cent in favor of it. Congressman Luce is here and he is more familiar with that phase than I am, but I think I can say now that the time has come when we should settle this matter definitely. I am sorry this amendment is known as the "Lame duck amendment." I have sympathy with the people to whom it refers. I ask you to apply it to yourselves. From this point of view would not you feel much better if you did not have to come back to legislate for a constituency after you had been defeated? Anyone must feel slightly uncomfortable to have to do that. I have interviewed many who were defeated at the last election, and only one of them said he felt at ease. We certainly hear enough about lame-duck Congresses. A recent editorial-in fact it appeared in the Washington Post this morningmight be of interest to us at this time. That paper has been consistently against this matter for a long time, but I can not believe the claim which they present this morning, namely, that if there was not a lame-duck session, this relief matter would have been passed. I firmly believe the "relief" matter would not have passed had we abolished the lame-duck session, as I believe the House of Representatives would have been conservative. I do not believe the country is saved by a lame-duck Congress. The CHAIRMAN. Has your committee given any consideration this year as to placing some limitation on the adjournment on the second session of the Congress? Mr. GIFFORD. Yes, sir. As chairman of the committee, I favor limitation on the second session. But in looking over the debate in 1928, and considering the character of that debate and the vote overwhelmingly against the limitation, the committee reported this amendment with no limitation. I personally would be in favor of June 4. Mr. FORT. Has you committee ever considered the possibility of a fixed adjournment date? Mr. GIFFORD. We have. Now, we know that in order to count the votes for President, should the election be thrown into the House, if we fixed the date by legislation for March 4, a lame-duck Congress would count the votes for President and Vice President. Mr. SPROUL. Does not the gentleman think the lame ducks have as much interest in the welfare of the country as the men elected to succeed them and who come in from time to time? I am a lame duck. I came to this session the first day it opened and I have been on the floor every day except three days and I believe I have the interests of the country at heart just as much as if I had been reelected and came back on the 4th of March. And I think. there are many others just like myself. Mr. GIFFORD. I do not like designation of lame duck and never have I in debate on the floor indulged in or used this term if possible to avoid it. I can call to mind some Members whom I might think were indifferent to their services after defeat. But the number of those is relatively small. Mr. MICHENER. The people of the country have been listening to this debate for years, and they want this matter fixed. Mr. GIFFORD. I believe that. Mr. MICHENOR. Then, it is the question, as far as this committee is concerned, whether or not we want to give preferential standing to this amendment. That is all there is that is before the committee. It seems that debate before the committee is useless and only kills time. Mr. BANKHEAD. How about the provision that tenure of office should be four years, instead of two years, as at the present time? I would like very much to test the sentiment of the House on that proposal. Would the gentleman have any objection to the House voting on that matter? Mr. GIFFORD. Having in mind the interest of the gentlemen, I gave notice about one year ago, that when this matter came up this year that it might be amended or changed to include 4-year terms. The press of New England and elsewhere fairly blistered me with criticism. Mr. O'CONNOR. Then you are influenced by the newspapers? Mr. O'CONNOR. Are you particularly frightened at the attitude of the Springfield Republican? Mr. GIFFORD. No; I am not frightened at all. The Springfield Republican is an independent paper. [Laughter.] Mr. BANKHEAD. I imagine one thousand times I have been asked concerning congressional elections: Why don't you fix it so you can be elected for four years, the same term as the presidential administration? Well, the obvious answer to that is that there is a provision to the contrary in the Constitution of the United States. However, I know the common people are in favor of that change. I think the people of the country would ratify such a change of the Constitution. Mr. GIFFORD. This lame-duck question came before us some years ago and I said "If we amend the Constitution, why can not we take care of several other troublesome questions?" The succession idea is in my opinion, and in the opinion of Mr. Page, Clerk of the House, who appeared before the committee, the most important part of the amendment. If the President and Vice President should die after being elected in November, and before March 4, chaos would prevail. The amendment known as the Norris amendment was greatly changed. All sorts of contingencies might arise. If we are to have another amendment relating to the mechanics of elections we ought to remedy such a situation. The CHAIRMAN. Is this a unanimous report which you present from your committee? Mr. GIFFORD. It is a unanimous report which I am presenting from the committee. The CHAIRMAN. And no one on the committee is opposed to it? Mr. GIFFORD. No one on the committee is opposed to it. Mr. FORT. In your judgment is the resolution in such form that an amendment would be in order which forbids one House to recess for more than three days without the consent of the other House? Mr. GIFFORD. I do not think that would be in order. Many advocate that we should not let the legislatures ratify; that constitutional conventions should be called over the country to ratify this, that, or any other amendment. Well, the answer to that is: If you call constitutional conventions all over the country, they can not be confined to one question, but might open up the entire Constitution. And we certainly do not want to do that. But there is a provision in this amendment that at least one branch of the legislatures shall have been elected after this matter is presented. Mr. O'CONNOR. You have in here a very specific direction "the act of ratification shall be by legislatures." Now, if you believe the country is so unamimous in favor of this important amendment, why not submit it to conventions? I do not know of anyone who would claim the right to take up other subjects than such as were referred to the particular convention. Mr. GIFFORD. One may entertain that opinion, but I refer the gentleman back to 1803, when that was advocated, and they did not adopt the method as they said all sorts of wild proposals might be presented. Congressman Luce, of Massachusetts, has been very helpful to the committee; and Mr. Sloan, of Nebraska, has given much attention to this also, and both of those gentlemen are here. The CHAIRMAN. I do not know that it is necessary to hear all these gentlemen. The chairman of the committee represents, does he not, the views of these other gentlemen present? Mr. GIFFORD. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone who wishes to ask specific questions of the speaker? (No response.) If there is not, we will not hear any other persons at this time unless there is something specific that either of the gentlemen wants to add to the statement of Mr. Gifford. Mr. GIFFORD. Congressman Luce is absolutely convincing on this matter, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We will close on this bill now. (Thereupon the committee adjourned.) |