[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5097-S5099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. PELL:
  S.J. Res. 55. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relative to the commencement of the 
terms of office of the President, Vice President, and Members of 
Congress; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


    presidential and congressional terms inauguration date advance 
                        constitutional amendment

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President. I offer a joint resolution to amend the 
Constitution to advance the Inauguration dates for the President and 
Members of Congress from January 20th and 3rd to December 10th and 1st 
respectively. In offering this resolution here in the 104th Congress, I 
note for my colleagues that this is an effort I first began in 1981 and 
with each succeeding set of national elections, I believe that the 
rationale and wisdom for changing these dates becomes more compelling.
  The current date for the Inauguration of the President was set by the 
20th amendment to the Constitution in 1933. Prior to that, the 
Inauguration date had not changed since being fixed by an act of the 
Continental Congress in 1788 commencing the proceeding of the 
Government of the United States under the newly ratified Constitution. 
Under that act, March 4th was chosen simply because it happened to be 
the first Wednesday in March of 1789 and it was thought at the time 
that that amount of time was needed for each State to appoint 
Presidential electors to the Electoral College and for them to meet and 
cast their ballots. Additionally, there were practical and controlling 
considerations over the difficulty and length of time it took to travel 
to and from the Capital City, the necessity for time to allow newly 
elected officials to tend to the long-term organization of their 
private affairs prior to their extended departure from home for 
Washington, and the lack of sophisticated means for the verification of 
polling results and for communication of news. Thus, in the founding 
days of our country, March 4th was seen as the earliest possible date 
by which the Government could, in an orderly and practical manner, 
bring about the will of the electors as expressed in congressional and 
Presidential balloting from the previous November.
  By 1933, however, it had become clear that it was no longer necessary 
to postpone the Inauguration of the President and Members of Congress 
until March 4th. Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska, the Champion of 
the 20th amendment to the Constitution which advanced the Presidential 
and congressional Inauguration dates to their current status, said on 
the Senate floor in 1932:

       When our Constitution was adopted, there was some reason 
     for such a long intervention of time between the election and 
     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.
       . . . 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. . . . In a government ``by the 
     people'' the wishes of a majority should be crystallized into 
     legislation as soon as possible after these wishes have been 
     made known. These mandates should be obeyed within a 
     reasonable time.

  Those words ring true today. With the further advancement in travel, 
communications, polling, and the ascertainment of election results 
since 1933, their remains no justification for the present lengthy 
hiatus between Election Day and Inauguration Day. We now know election 
results within minutes of the last closing of the polls, indeed, 
usually before they close through news projections, and travel to 
Washington is an affair that can be accomplished in a day. The 
Electoral College could easily complete its duties within a few days 
time and there is no impediment to the commencement of the terms of the 
Members of Congress by December 1st. necessary because of the role of 
the House of Representatives in the ratification of the results of the 
Electoral College. It is clear then that no structural or logistical 
justification exists for delaying the implementation of the decision of 
the voters made at the polls in early November.

  With no physical barriers to a more rapid installation of the 
President and Members of Congress, are there policy reasons for waiting 
2 months and more before swearing them into office? In my opinion, the 
typical arguments of preservation of tradition and the need for time 
for transition organization are less than compelling. Indeed, I believe 
that these justifications pale in comparison to the drawbacks of the 
current state of affairs.
  First and foremost, currently when a new President is elected, during 
the protracted transition period to a new administration that follows, 
it is unclear for almost 3 months who speaks for the United States on 
matters of national importance or crisis. As the undisputed leader in 
world affairs, and in a world ever more closely intertwined and 
influenced by daily events occurring throughout the international 
community, this is a needless peril into which we place ourselves. It 
is never wise not desirable for any country, particularly one with 
extensive power and influence such as ours, to tolerate any confusion 
or question about who runs and speaks for the affairs of State. Yet, 
whenever we elect a new President, we needlessly allow just such a 
situation to occur. We would substantially reduce the potential hazards 
of the current lengthy delay in the transition of our Government were 
this proposal adopted.
  Another pitfall of the current lengthy interregnum is that under the 
present system, the next fiscal year's proposed budget is submitted by 
the outgoing administration only to be subject to amendment and 
revision once the new administration takes office. This is a needless 
duplication of effort and inevitably results in an unnecessary delay of 
the budget process. Indeed, given the record of the current Congress 
with regard to the Federal budget, it is clear that any additional time 
or lack of either redundant or pointless effort would be welcome. If 
the new Congress were to be sworn in on December 1 and the President on 
December 10, the new administration would start with a clean slate with 
regard to the budget and the process would be off to a much smoother 
and more sensible start.
  Another clear benefit of an advance in the dates of inauguration for 
the President and Members of Congress would be that with the recently 
completed campaign season more fresh in the memories of the new 
administration and Congress, the opportunity would be greater to take 
quicker action on the proposals which collectively brought them to 
office. The populace, having listened to an extensive campaign and 
spoken their minds through the ballot box, deserve to have the views 
they supported formulated into legislation and acted upon in a 
reasonable and timely fashion. Waiting for 3 months to even begin the 
process seems to me to be simply too long.
  Other reasons for advancing the Inauguration of the President and 
Congress, while slightly more speculative, seem likely. For example, 
with the advance, the President would prudently be inclined to have a 
good idea of who he or she would choose for key positions in the 
Cabinet prior to the election. Indeed, the composition of the Cabinet 
could well become part of the preelection debate, something which I 
feel would be healthy given the enormous influence Cabinet members have 
over the day-to-day functions of the executive branch.
  Another potential benefit would be that given the much shorter period 
between Election Day and the commencement of the terms of the new 
Congress, the incentive or need to hold so-called lameduck sessions of 
Congress would be greatly reduced. This would produce the desirable 
result of discouraging the opportunity for Members who had lost at the 
polls to still meet, vote, and decide upon matters on behalf of the 
constituents who just turned them out. Again, in a democracy, it is the 
will of the people that should be afforded the greatest chance of being 
heard and reducing the likelihood of a lame-duck session of Congress 
would forward that goal.

  For all of these reasons, I again propose the constitutional 
amendment. For those unfamiliar with my earlier efforts to advance the 
Inauguration dates, a couple of points. First, there is

[[Page S5098]]

nothing magical about the dates of December 10th for the President and 
December 1st for Members of Congress. Indeed, when I first pursued this 
effort, I proposed earlier dates ranging from early to mid-November. 
However, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1984, 
there was a general feeling that perhaps that left too little time 
after the election for an orderly transition. Likewise, there was 
resistance to interference with the Thanksgiving holiday so early 
December presents itself as the earliest reasonable and desirable 
timeframe for setting these Inauguration dates. Incidentally, for those 
who wish to cling to tradition, establishing a swearing-in date of 
December 1st for Congress would be somewhat of a return to previous 
practice. The Constitution originally established the meeting day for 
Congress on the first Monday of December and this was the practice 
until the 20th amendment changed it in 1933. Thus, it was not until 
1934 that Congress began its sessions in early January. Under my 
proposal, Congress would resume the commencement of its sessions in 
early December.
  Thus, I offer my joint resolution to advance the Presidential and 
congressional Inauguration dates. This proposal is good government, it 
makes common sense, and is both feasible and practical. Furthermore, I 
believe that failing to change the dates needlessly risks confusion 
over who speaks for the national government, facilitates undesirable 
legislative scenarios such as the convening of lame-duck sessions of 
Congress, and unnecessarily delays the chance for those chosen by the 
electorate to take their rightful offices and act upon the issues of 
the day. I urge my colleagues to take the time to carefully consider 
this proposal and that they join me in this effort to make these 
straightforward and eminently reasonable changes in our governmental 
process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point a brief 
history of the 20th amendment as prepared for the Judiciary Committee 
in 1985 be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Amendments to the Constitution: A Brief Legislative History


                              amendment xx

                           Text of amendment

       ``Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President 
     shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms 
     of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d 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 begin.
       ``Sec. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in 
     every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d 
     day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different 
     day.
       ``Sec. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the 
     term of the President, the President elect shall have died, 
     the Vice President elect shall become President. If a 
     President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed 
     for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect 
     shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect 
     shall act as President until a President shall have 
     qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case 
     wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect 
     shall qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, 
     or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, 
     and such person shall act accordingly until a President or 
     Vice President shall have qualified.
       ``Sec. 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of 
     the death of any of the persons from whom the House of 
     Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of 
     choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the 
     death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a 
     Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have 
     devolved upon them.
       ``Sec. 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th 
     day of October following the ratification of this article.
       ``Sec. 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall 
     have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the 
     legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 
     seven years from the date of its submission.''

                               Background

       In accordance with the constitutional provisions written by 
     the Founding Fathers in 1787, the newly established U.S. 
     Government was to become effective when nine States ratified 
     the Constitution.\1\ After the ratification process was 
     completed in June of 1788, the existing Congress designated 
     March 4, 1789 as the official date when the Federal 
     Government, as outlined in the Constitution, would begin 
     operation. This date represented an estimate of the time 
     needed to appoint presidential electors in each State and 
     allow them to cast their ballots for President. In addition, 
     the States needed time to select both Representatives and 
     Senators to serve in the U.S. Congress. As mandated by the 
     Constitution, the President was to serve for 4 years, 
     Senators for 6, and Representatives for 2. All legislative 
     and executive offices, then and in the future, would commence 
     on March 4 and end in subsequent odd-numbered years on the 
     same date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The problem inherent in this system was that the 
     Constitution, under Article I, Section 4, Clause 2, 
     stipulated:
       ``The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, 
     and such a meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, 
     unless they shall by Law appoint a different day.''
       This meant that, although Congressmen were elected to 
     office in November of even-numbered years, they were not 
     entitled to take office until after the terms of their 
     predecessors expired the following March. Moreover, the new 
     Congressmen would not assemble until the following December. 
     This left a thirteen month lapse from the time of election 
     until the new Congress first convened. In the meantime, 
     defeated or retiring Congressmen would meet in their regular 
     session in December of the election year and continue to hold 
     office until their term expired on March 4 of the next year. 
     This short session of Congress, from December to March, was 
     nicknamed the ``lame-duck'' session, deriving its title from 
     the stock exchange term meaning ``one who was unable to meet 
     his obligations.'' \2\
       The ``lame-duck'' session of Congress was controversial for 
     a number of reasons. For instance, if the election of the 
     President were thrown into the House of Representatives, the 
     election would be decided not by recently elected 
     Congressmen, but by the ``lame-duck'' session. In addition, 
     should a session of Congress require more time to conduct its 
     business, the session could not be extended, since the terms 
     of many legislators expired on March 4. The pending business 
     would either have to be postponed until the following 
     December, or a special session of the new Congress would have 
     to be called. Consequently, the ``lame-duck'' session 
     provided parliamentary advantages for the majority party in 
     Congress. This is why constitutional amendments to eliminate 
     the ``lame-duck'' session continually faced opposition in 
     Congress.
       Objections to the ``lame-duck'' session were heard long 
     before proposals leading to the Twentieth Amendment were 
     introduced. On the opening day of Congress' first ``lame-
     duck'' session in March of 1795, Aaron Burr laid before the 
     Senate a motion introducing a constitutional amendment 
     extending the terms of Congressmen until the first day of 
     June.\3\ Again in 1840, Millard Fillmore introduced an 
     amendment that called for the elimination of the ``lame-
     duck'' session. Fillmore's resolution provided for the terms 
     of Congressmen to begin on the first day of December, rather 
     than fourth day of March.\4\ Several other amendments to the 
     Constitution, which would have altered the terms of office 
     and dates of congressional sessions, were introduced during 
     the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Each of them was 
     defeated.\5\
       In 1923, the first of several resolutions introduced by 
     Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska to eliminate the ``lame-
     duck'' session was reported by the Senate Committee on 
     Agriculture and Forestry.\6\ The measure, S.J. Res. 253, 
     easily passed the Senate on February 13, 63 to 6, 27 not 
     voting.\7\ However, as would be the case with several of 
     Norris' resolutions, the House of Representatives defeated 
     the proposal by delaying further action until Congress 
     adjourned in March. The same thing happened in 1924 with S.J. 
     Res. 22 (68th Cong.), and again in 1926 with S.J. Res. 9 
     (69th Cong.). In 1928, S.J. Res. 47 (70th Cong.) finally made 
     it to a vote in the House, where it gained a majority but 
     failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote, 209 to 157, 
     66 not voting and 2 answering ``present.'' \8\
       On June 8, 1929, another Norris amendment proposal, S.J. 
     Res. 3 (71st Cong.), passed in the Senate and was sent to the 
     House. Once in the House, the Resolution lay on the Speaker's 
     table until April 17, 1930, when it was finally referred 
     to a House committee. In the meantime, a similar House 
     Resolution, H.J. Res. 292 (7st Cong.), was introduced. 
     This proposal, as amended by Speaker of the House Nicholas 
     Longworth of Ohio, would have required the second session 
     of Congress, which convened in January, to adjourn by May 
     4 of even-numbered years.\9\ H.J. Res. 292 passed easily 
     in the House, 290 to 93, 47 not voting and 1 answering 
     ``present.'' \10\ In conference, representatives from the 
     House and the Senate failed to agree on a compromise 
     measure. As a result, hopes for an amendment to the 
     Constitution once again expired with the adjournment of 
     the 71st Congress.\11\

                          Legislative history

       The elections of 1930 resulted in a Democratic landslide in 
     the House. Unlike Longworth, the new Speaker, John N. Garner 
     of Texas, came out in active support of an amendment to 
     remedy the ``lame-duck'' problem. On January 6, 1932, the 
     sixth Norris Amendment, S.J. Res. 14 (72nd Cong.), was 
     reported in the Senate by the Committee on the Judiciary. 
     During floor consideration in the Senate on January 6, one 
     amendment to

[[Page S5099]]

     limit the second session of Congress was rejected before the 
     Resolution passed, 63 to 7, 25 not voting.\12\
       In the House, the Committee on Election of the President, 
     Vice President, and Representatives in Congress reported S.J. 
     Res. 14 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     measure.\13\ Among numerous suggested alterations, the 
     substitute proposed ending presidential terms on January 24 
     and congressional terms on January 4, providing for 
     succession in the event of the death or lack of qualification 
     of the President-elect or Vice President-elect, making 
     provision in case of the death of candidates from which 
     Congress might have to choose a President or Vice President, 
     and setting an effective date for the first two sections of 
     the amendment.
       The House began consideration of S.J. Res. 14 under an open 
     rule on February 12, 1932.\14\ On February 13, numerous 
     amendments to the committee substitute were offered, all of 
     which were either rejected or withdrawn. The two amendments 
     withdrawn by their sponsors would have required ratification 
     of the amendment within 7 years of its submission to the 
     States and provided that Congress could, by concurrent 
     resolution, set an assembly date other than January 4.\15\ 
     The rejected amendments called for ratification of the 
     Twentieth Amendment by State conventions, extension of 
     Representatives' terms to 4 years, and limitation of the 
     second session of Congress.
       After the House debate concluded, the Election Committee's 
     substitute was approved and recommitted to the committee, 
     with instructions to report it back with a new section 
     establishing a mandatory 7-year ratification period.\16\ Once 
     the Resolution was amended accordingly and again reported by 
     the Committee on Election, it passed the House 204 to 134, 43 
     not voting.\17\ Minor differences between the House and 
     Senate versions were quickly resolved in conference.\18\

                          Ratification history

       The Twentieth Amendment was sent to the States for 
     ratification in March of 1932; and within 1 year, all 48 
     States had ratified. Virginia was the first State to ratify, 
     on March 4, 1932; and on January 23, 1933, Utah became the 
     required 36th State to approve the Amendment. The 
     ratification dates of each of the States appear below:
       Virginia, Mar. 4, 1932.
       New York, Mar. 11, 1932.
       Mississippi, Mar. 16, 1932.
       Arkansas, Mar. 17, 1932.
       Kentucky, Mar. 17, 1932.
       New Jersey, Mar. 21, 1932.
       South Carolina, Mar. 25, 1932.
       Michigan, Mar. 31, 1932.
       Maine, Apr. 1, 1932.
       Rhode Island, Apr. 14, 1932.
       Illinois, Apr. 21, 1932.
       Louisiana, Jun. 22, 1932.
       West Virginia, Jul. 30, 1932.
       Pennsylvania, Aug. 11, 1932.
       Indiana, Aug. 15, 1932.
       Texas, Sep. 7, 1932.
       Alabama, Sep. 13, 1932.
       California, Jan. 4 1933.
       North Carolina, Jan. 5, 1933.
       North Dakota, Jan. 9, 1933.
       Minnesota, Jan. 12, 1933.
       Arizona, Jan. 13, 1933.
       Montana, Jan. 13, 1933.
       Nebraska, Jan. 13, 1933.
       Oklahoma, Jan. 13, 1933.
       Kansas, Jan. 16, 1933.
       Oregon, Jan. 16, 1933.
       Delaware, Jan. 19, 1933.
       Washington, Jan. 19, 1933.
       Wyoming, Jan. 19, 1933.
       Iowa, Jan. 20, 1933.
       South Dakota, Jan. 20, 1933.
       Tennessee, Jan. 20, 1933.
       Idaho, Jan. 21, 1933.
       New Mexico, Jan. 21, 1933.
       Georgia, Jan. 23, 1933.
       Missouri, Jan. 23, 1933.
       Ohio, Jan. 23, 1933.
       Utah, Jan. 23, 1933.
       Colorado, Jan. 24, 1933.
       Massachusetts, Jan. 24, 1933.
       Wisconsin, Jan. 24, 1933.
       Nevada, Jan. 26, 1933.
       Connecticut, Jan. 27, 1933.
       New Hampshire, Jan. 31, 1933.
       Vermont, Feb. 2, 1933.
       Maryland, Mar. 24, 1933.
       Florida, Apr. 26, 1933.
       With more than the necessary number of States having 
     ratified, the Twentieth Amendment was certified as part of 
     the Constitution on February 6, 1933, by Secretary of State 
     Henry L. Stimson. Section 5 of the Amendment provided that 
     Section 1 and 2 would become effective on October 15, 1933; 
     therefore, the terms of newly-elected Senators and 
     Representaties began on January 3, 1934, and the terms of the 
     President and Vice President began on January 20, 1937.\19\
       The Twentieth Amendment appears officially as 47 Stat. 
     2569.


                               footnotes

     \1\ United States Constitution, Article VII.
     \2\ Carl Brent Swisher, American Constitutional Development 
     (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, Co., 1943), 723.
     \3\ Annals of the Congress of the United States, 1795 
     (Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1849), 5: 853.
     \4\ Congressional Globe, 26th Congress, 2nd Session, 1840, 9: 
     44.
     \5\ Congressional Record, 70th Congress, 2nd Session, 1928-
     1929, 70; 1-8; H. Doc. 551.
     \6\ Congressional Record, 67th Congress, 4th, Session, 1932, 
     64, Pt. 4: 3505-3507.
     \7\ Ibid., 3540-3541.
     \8\ Ibid., 70th Congress, 1st Session, 1928, 69, Pt. 4: 4430.
     \9\ Ibid., 71st Congress, 3rd Session, 1931, 74, Part 6: 
     5906-5907.
     \10\ Ibid., 5907-5908.
     \11\ For a summary of these five proposals see: Congressional 
     Record, 72nd Congress, 1st Session, 1931-1932, 75.
     \12\ Congressional Record, 1372-1384.
     \13\ Ibid., 72nd Congress, 1st Session, 1932, 75.
     \14\ Ibid.
     \15\ Ibid., 3856-3857, 3875-3876.
     \16\ Ibid., 3857-78.
     \17\ 4059-60.
     \18\ Ibid.
     \19\Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, The 
     Constitution of the United States, (Richmond, 1965), 36-37.

                          ____________________