April 13, 1965

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 314 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read as follows:

HOUSE RESOLUTION 314

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to succession to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency and to cases where the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. After general debate, which shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue not to exceed four hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of such consideration the Committee shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the resolution or committee substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. After the passage of H.J. Res. 1, the Committee on the Judiciary shall be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 1 and it shall then be in order in the House to move to strike out all after the resolving clause of said Senate joint resolution and to insert the provisions of H.J. Res. as pass . ed by the House.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN], pending which I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 314 provides for consideration of House Joint Resolution l, a. joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to succession to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency and to cases where the President is unable to discharge , the powers and duties of his office. The resolution provides an open rule with 4 hours of general debate. After passage of House Joint Resolution l, the Committee on the Judiciary shall be discharged from further consideration of Senate Joint Resolution l, and it shall be in order to move to strike out all after the resolving clause of said Senate joint resolution and to insert • the provisions of House Joint Resolution 1 as passed by the House.

Article II, section 1, clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States contains provisions relating to the continuity of the executive power at times of dea t h, resignation, inability, or removal of a President. No replacement provision is made in the Constitution where a vacancy occurs in the office of the Vice President.

The clause couples the contingencies of a permanent nature such as death, resignation, or removal from office, with inability, a contingency which may be temporary. It does not clearly commit the determination of ina,bility to any individual or group, nor does it define inability so that the existence of such a status may be open and notorious. It leaves uncertain the capacity in which the Vice President acts during a period of inability of the President. It fails to define the period during which the Vice President serves. It does not specify that a recovered President may regain the prerogatives of his office if he has relinquished them. It fails to provide any mechanism for determining whether a President has in fact recovered from his inability, nor does it indicate how a President, who sought to recover his prerogatives while still disabled, might be prevented from doing so.

The purpose of House Joint Resolution 1, as amended, is to provide for continuity in the office of the Chief Executive in the event that the President becomes unable to exercise the powers and duties of the office and, further, to provide for the filling of vacancies in the office of the Vice President whenever such vacancies may occur.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Resolution 314.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. I should like to express my appreciation to the gentleman for the fact that the Committee on Rules has finally brought us legislation under an open rule, so that we can amend it and otherwise work our will on it.

Mr. YOUNG. I appreciate the gentleman's observation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may desire. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas, my colleague on the Rules Committee, has explained, this rule makes 1n order, with 4 hours of general debate, House Joint Resolution l, which in turn would · amend the Constitution of the United States and put into • the Constitution certain arrangements or procedures in connection with the line of succession to the Presidency and the filling of any vacancy , that might occur in the office of the Vice President.

In order for this resolution to be adopted by the Congress, a two-thirds or a two-to-one vote in favor of the House Joint Resolution is required. I do not oppose the rule. I am opposed to the House Joint Resolution because I believe it is unwise and unnecessary, and is legislation that should not be enacted.

I notice, as we look at the report concerning House Joint Resolution No. 1, there has been some divergence of view and the original author of the bill, or someone on the committee saw fit to strike out a great deal of the original House Joint Resolution and rewrite it, bringing in a new resolution. There must have been some disagreement among those very able lawyers, 35 I believe, who make up the House Judiciary Committee. The report also has some minority or divergent views expressed. If this joint resolution is approved by a two-to-one vote in both the House and Senate, the question of amending the Constitution will be submitted to the States, and will require a three-fourths vote, or 38 States, to ratify the amendment. I hope there will be enough judgment, sound judgment, in a sufficient number of legislatures in the several States of our Union to ensure that this amendment will never become a part of the Constitution.

I am not setting myself up as a constitutional lawyer, more able and wise than those who serve on the distinguished Judiciary Committee.

Yet, I am not unmindful of the fact that the Constitution itself-and it is still a rather important document, although it seemingly has lost some caste in the minds . of some people here in the Capital City-which sets up the office of the Presidency, provides that the responsibility o~ fixing the line of succession and of filling any vacancy which may exist in the office of the Presidency rests entirely with the Congress of the United States.

I direct your attention to article II: In case of the removal of the President from office, or at his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The Congress, by statute, has provided for a line of succession in the office of the Presidency. That statute still is 1n existence. In my opinion, it is a grave mistake to freeze into the Constitution another provision because conditions can change. It is a grave mistake to authorize another provision and not meet our own responsibility in fixing a line of succession by statutory enactment.

Let me remind you that this resolution also provides that the President shall, in case of a vacancy in the office of Vice President, appoint a Vice President subject to the approval of the Congress. In other words, we could disapprove. I made a statement when this bill was before the Committee on Rules, and I stand on that statement today. Under certain conditions and certain circumstances, a vacancy could exist in the Vice-Presidency and a President could name a billy goat as Vice President and some Congresses would approve of that nominations and that selection.

I think that inasmuch as the Constitution itself provides that the House of Representatives shall have the responsibility of electing a President, in case an electoral college cannot select a President , that it might be wiser to provide by statute or constitutional amendment, that in case there is a vacancy in the office of Vice President, that the vice-presidency shall be filled by a vote of the House of Representatives just as the Presidency is filled by a vote of the House of Representatives under Article II of the Constitution. What is the difference? Why should we agree here and write into the Constitution that which the Founding Fathers refused to do-that the President can in his wisdom name his own successor? If you will read the constitutional debates held when this Nation was founded, you will see that there were delegates to the Constitutional Convention who believed that George Washington should be named a monarch and that there be a line of succession from him. The Convention decided otherwise and I think wisely so, and provided that the people should elect their President and Vice President through the electoral college and, if the college could not agree on a President, the House of Representatives should elect a President, and the line of succession should be fixed by statutory enactment of the Congress. That is exactly what has been done. Why change it now?

Why go back to the theory and idea that the President can name whomever he pleases as Vice President and put his choice in a position to succeed him if he wishes to resign the next day as President? The man named Vice President could be an individual who was never elected to any public office. Congress in the line of succession statutes now provides that those who have been electedthe Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate-shall succeed to power and authority as President.

In my opinion, we will be making a grave mistake if we adopt this resolution in the House today. Oh, I know, the way is pretty well greased for it. It has the support of some very able individuals. But I have a right to stand here and differ with them, because they may be wrong. When one is wrong in amending the Constitution, it is a difficult wrong to correct. Members have learned this by hard experience in the last few decades.

When we amend the Constitution, to fix in the document itself, certain things that should be done by statute, we are doing something dangerous and something we may regret in future years. Too often we have to try to interpret, either ourselves or through the courts, exactly what the provisions mean. Some of the testimony heard before the Rules Committee indicates that under certain circumstances even the members of the committee who sponsored this resolution are not certain of the answers to the problems which could arise.

Why shackle ourselves? Why say that we, as the representatives of the people, will vote away our own responsibilities and write into basic law something that cannot be corrected easily if we make a mistake?

Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio . I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DEVINE. When the committee appeared before the Rules Committee on this legislation, does the gentleman know whether any consideration was given to a possible constitutional amendment to permit the people to select a first Vice President and a second Vice President, rather than to leave the choice up to the President in case of a vacancy? There was some talk at one time that perhaps if there were a first and second Vice President, in the event of a vacancy in the Presidency, each would move up and we would not face the problem of a vacancy in the office of Vice President. Does the gentleman know whether that was considered?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I cannot say what may have been considered by the Judiciary Committee. I do not believe that matter was discussed in the Rules Committee.

Mr. DEVINE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I remind my distinguished colleague from Ohio of the fact that we do provide, under the line of succession, that the Speaker of the House, elected by the people of his district and in turn elected to his high position by a vote of the majority of this House, shall succeed to the Presidency. That was the situation until last January 20, and had been for over 1 year. In my opinion, it was a very safe situation. I was not concerned about the welfare of my country so long as I knew that the Speaker of the House would succeed to the Presidency if it became necessary. Nor was I concerned by those who followed him under the statutory line of succession.

I believe that perhaps in our desire to meet every condition which might possibly arise as a result of past history, or some of the things that frighten us a bit, we have gone overboard.

Mr. !CHORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. !CHORD. This resolution has some very meritorious provisions in respect to the inability of the President, but I have been quite concerned about the change in the line of succession. Now the Speaker of the House is second in the line of succession. This would not completely remove the Speaker of the House from the line of succession but, as a practical matter, would it not remove the Speaker?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Not if the President, who might have been the Vice President and is President, wished to name the Speaker.

Mr. !CHORD. Does the gentleman consider this measure as diminishing the prestige of the House?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Certainly. It takes away from the House a constitutional right it now has to select a President. How can anyone justify the idea that the House of Representatives can be trusted to select a President but cannot be trusted to select a Vice President? Now I want to answer the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. IcHoRnl, further about this disability situation. Our Founding Fathers had pretty good foresight themselves. The Constitution itself says that:

The Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and the Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected.

We have the complete constitutional right and authority, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of most lawyers, to fix by statute the line of succession and to provide for filling any vacancies that may occur because of disability, temporary or otherwise, of the President and the Vice President of the United States. I say to you it is simply a foolish thing to consider, enact, and approve legislation like this.

I hope that if we do not realize now how foolish it is, that before 38 States will ratify such a constitutional amendment someone will say, "No, no. This is not good commonsense and ought not to be done."

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. .

Mr. PUCINSKI. It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the gentleman, but in this instance I must congratulate him for his statement. I agree. The observation that the gentleman made is a very serious one. I had no discomfort last year or any great fears when the Speaker of this House was next in line in succession for the Presidency had the occasion required. Is it possible that under the language as now proposed conceivably at some future date in the history of this country you might have a person recommended to be Vice President under certain circumstances who had never run for public office and who had never had any experience in the Government and who knew nothing about the problems and, invariably, since the President becomes the leader of his party, it is rather difficult to conceive of the majority party wanting to go against the wishes of the President.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Certainly. The gentleman is just as right as he can be. And, to convince this House that you are right, let me point out one situation to prove the correctness of the facts that you and I have expressed. Lyndon B. Johnson became President. He was Vice President but he became President when President Kennedy was assassinated. That created a vacancy in the office of Vice President of the United States. If this resolution had been a part of the Constitution _ at that time, President Johnson could have appointed any individual he wished as Vice President and nominated him subject to the final approval of the Congress. The Congress could disapprove, but do you think they would under those circumstances? That individual would not have needed to have any qualifications or background as a public official. He could have been any neighbor or friend of the President, or any individual he might have selected. I am not saying he would make a bad selection, but I am saying that when you write into the Constitution and fix into the basic law of the land certain rules and regulations that are not flexible, as statutory law is, anything can and may happen.

That is what they are trying to meet here, situations we fear might happen. Why not do it the sensible way, by statute, instead of by constitutional amendment?

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The point is this. We are a young country. The question in my mind is this-perhaps the gentleman may want to comment on it-assuming, for some reason or other, the Congress does not respond to the President's recommendation. There is a great deal of debate and furor in the Congress. What have we resolved? We have a built-in delay in the succession of our Government that is not there now, when the Speaker would automatically succeed to the Presidency when the need arises.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The committee is trying to meet that by provisions of this resolution. That will have to be explained by members of the committee. Under certain circumstances, 1f the Congress does not act within a certain time, certain results will follow. If anyone will ask these distinguished constitutional lawyers, perhaps some of them can explain. There seems to be some difference of opinion as to how this would work in the case of the very situation the gentleman from Illinois has described. That, again, is a danger. It can be corrected by statute. It cannot be corrected quickly by constitutional amendment. For that reason I am opposed to writing into the Constitution all of these complicated provisions.

This resolution has been amended, and when you see how much of the resolution has been stricken out and rewritten you can realize that even lawyers sometimes may agree among themselves that they may have made a mistake. Let us hope that all the mistakes, 1f there were any in connection with this resolution, have been in writing the resolution, and not in what goes into the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITH].

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, to include extraneous matter, 1 and to speak out of order.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?

There was no objection.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, for the past decade the Congress and the country have been kept in a constant political turmoil over Federal legislation and judicial decisions of the Federal courts concerning the question of civil rights, culminating in the demonstrations, riots and disorders in Selma and other parts of Alabama. We have seen thousands of people from all over the country flocking to Alabama to indulge in demonstrations to pressure the Congress into passing another so-called voting rights bill. We have seen invasion by persons posing as tourists, staging a sitdown strike in the White House itself and permitted to remain there for hours before they had to be forcibly ejected.

We have seen similar invasion of the Capitol of the United States by demonstrators who remained until they were dragged down the Capitol steps and placed under arrest. We have seen picketing and demonstrations day after day at the White House, and sitdown demonstrations obstructing Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, at the very time when the administration had acceded to their demands and was actually and feverishly preparing the legislation which they demanded. Such organized demonstrations have not occurred in the past and do not occur spontaneously. There must be some deep-seated plan, well organized and well :financed behind the movement. In the beginning it may have been well meaning, well intended, with a righteous purpose of seeing that all American citizens enjoy their civil rights.

But when it reaches the crescendo o!f this movement, which is even called by some of its leaders a revolution, it is time to look into its background and to review what has gone before and what remedies have been taken to correct the alleged evils.

Now that the hysteria has partially subsided and the mob spirit of Selma has temporarily abated, and the captains and the king of the mob have departed from the scene, it would seem timely for people in a calmer mood to begin to inquire and think about what, if any, ulterior motives may be building up behind the scenes.

Many good, well-meaning, Christian people have been drawn into the movement with the best of motives and thus have served to clothe the mobs with an air of respectability. It is time for these good people to consider whether they are maybe playing with :fire. There can be no doubt that many Communists, subversives, fellow travelers, and others of doubtful loyalty to their country, have attached themselves to this movement. Many of them, whose past subversive activities are known in Government circles, were present at Selma during the demonstrations. It is time for wellmeaning Christians and loyal citizens to calm down and take stock of whether they are being led, and what is the ultimate objective of their leader.

They have adopted the slogan, "We shall overcome.”

I pose the question, "Whom and what do they aim to overcome?"

How many of the mob that traveled hundreds and thousands of miles to Selma know what sort of company they were keeping and how many subversive and disloyal persons were there to incite violence and law violations?

I am the author of the Smith Act of 1939 that became so effective in the Truman administration in apprehending, prosecuting, and convicting leading Communists. The constitutionality of that act, when the late, great Chief Justice Vinson presided, was tested and sustained in the famous Dennis case. Thereafter, during the Truman administration, many Communists, subversives, and disloyal people were prosecuted, convicted, and sent to jail.

As a Member of Congress in the midthirties, I helped establish the Dies committee that did a magnificent job of exposing communism, and was succeeded by the present permanent Un-American Activities Committee. During those years I have learned much of the methods of subversives and Communists.

Where there is strife and organized disorder, there is the seedbed for subversive activity. There a few disloyal agitators, well planted and concealed, sow their poisonous doctrines. The more respectable the movement and the more prominent the participants, the more eager are their efforts.

I am sure that a great many wellmeaning people who went to Selma would be humiliated and distressed to find themselves in that sort of company. I ask again, whom · and what are the leaders of the "we shall overcomers" aiming to overcome?

Let us review what has been done by the courts and the Congress in the past 12 years for the cause of civil rights.

Let us recall that in 1954 the present Supreme Court changed the constitutional meaning of the 14th amendment that had been in effect for 50 years and thus has brought about integration in the public schools.

Remember that in 1957 the Congress passed by a large majority, and the President signed, the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That act established a Commission on Civil Rights as an executive branch of the Government with elaborate powers to investigate, hold hearings at any place, at any time, with the power to subpena witnesses and report to the President any violations of the civil rights of any person.

That act of 1957 further provided full Federal protection of the right of citizens to vote to be enforced upon the application of the Attorney General by the Federal District Courts of the United States by permanent or temporary injunction or other order, and by criminal procedure of contempt for any disobedience. This act, which established the Civil Rights Commission, gave that Commission the power to investigate and report any violation of the constitutional right to vote, after which the Attorney General was authorized to go into the district court, and seek an injunction to prevent interference with any voter's rights. The court could issue the necessary order to enforce those rights and send the State officials to jail for contempt of court if they did not obey.

That is what the agitators asked for, that is what they got. That law is still on the books. If there were any wrongs, why did they not correct them through legal processes instead of stirring up more mobs. But following the act of 1957, they immediately began to agitate for more legislation instead of using what they had asked for. And 3 years later, the same groups of civil rights agitators urged the Congress to pass another Civil Rights Act, and Congress passed, and the President on May 6 signed, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and in that act, among other things, at the instance of the same groups of agitators in the atmosphere of an approaching national election and using all of the political persuasion and threats they could command, induced the Congress to pass a second Federal voting law.

The Civil Rights Voting Act of 1960, under the political pressure of the civil rights groups, enacted provision for the appointment by the courts of Federal voting referees in event of violation of any constitutional voting rights of any citizen. I quote the act:

The court may appoint one or more persons who are qualified voters in the judicial district, to be known as voting referees, • • • to serve for such period as the court shall determine, to receive such applications and to take evidence and report to the court findings as to whether or not at any election or elections ( 1) any such applicant is qualified under State law to vote, and (2) he has since the finding by the court heretofore specified been (a) deprived of or denied under color of law the opportunity to register to vote or otherwise to qualify to vote, or (b) found not qualified to vote by any person acting under color of law.

That was what they asked for; that is what they got.

Under that act, Federal registrars were appointed in certain places. The agitators got what they asked for with full power in the Federal courts to enforce registration and voting through the Federal referees at the behest of the Attorney General. Although the machinery was set up at that time, so few people applied for Federal registration that it has been rarely used.

I ask you again, What do the "we shall overcomers" really seek to accomplish? Is it the vote, or the constant effort to create strife and turmoil and revolution? The agitators, demonstrators, and rioters got from the Congress the law they asked for in 1957. They got from Congress what they asked for in the law of 1960. They got the Federal voting referees that they asked for in 1960.

They got what they asked for and they had at every step of the way, the full cooperation and all the powers of the Federal Government to see that the law was enforced and no effort was spared.

Were they satisfied? What happened next?

They immediately started building up other demonstrations, other mobs, other ' agitations, other political pressures, until the Congress passed and the President signed on July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Political threats are more potent and political pressures are more effective in a presidential election year, and so the latter part of 1963 and the early part of 1964, the demonstrators began to demonstrate, the mobs began to mobilize, and the furor was renewed with a vehe­ · mence culminating in the march on the Capital just as if no Civil Rights Act had ever been passed by the Congress before.

Again there was a big chapter in the bill entitled, "Voting Rights." That provision gave the Attorney General the authority to ask the courts to establish what was termed a "pattern or practice of discrimination." It also deprived the States of their constitutional duty and power to establish qualifications of voters and substituted a Federal provision making anyone competent who had completed the sixth grade in the public schools.

Just last year the Congress passed the third Civil Rights Act in 7 years, and the President signed it, and it became the law of the land with the President's signature on July 2, 1964.

Still complaining, agitating, and rioting, the ink was barely dry on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before the · country was thrown into the present turmoil of demonstrations, sitdowns, riots, law violations, and hysteria, . ostensibly to force the Congress to pass the "we shall overcome" Civil Rights Act of 1965.

This bill, if passed, will completely abolish the constitutional power and duty of the States to fix the qualifications of voters.

And the Congress, yielding again to the menace of the howling mobs, are preparing to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1965, in the framing of which the Attorney General has apparently thrown all respect for the Constitution to the four winds, and proposes to reduce the sovereign States of the Union to mere puppets of the Federal Government, prescribing heavy criminal penalties and making guilt or innocence of sovereign States dependent upon the number of votes cast in the last presidential election, and imposing penalties on whole States and individuals in direct violation of the ex post facto prohibition in the Constitution for acts done long before the bill was ever conceived.

Now, will the act of 1965, if passed, allay the mob spirit? Will it satisfy Martin Luther King? Of course not. The history of the movement for more and more and more legislation demonstrates that more than legislation is sought. They had no soon ' er been assured by the administration in no uncertain terms of the passage of the fourth drastic Civil Rights Act in 7 years, than their leader, Martin Luther King, in order to keep alive the agitation, disorder, and promote his revolution, has already announced his next program with an arrogance that smacks of outright rebellion.

First, he has publicly announced that he will defy and violate any law of the land that he disagrees with. This is the language of rebellion and anarchy.

He has even admonished all citizens to violate any law · of the land which they consider as "morally wrong." Is this the kind of leadership that loyal American citizens are ready to follow?

Second, he has publicly announced that he is · conspiring with his leader's to inaugurate an economic boycott, of doubtful legality, against the whole people of Alabama, friends and foes alike. He has demanded that the U.S. Government remove all installations, moneys and economic benefits from their State. He must know this . would cause untold suffering and unemployment to the people he claims to aid, and are least able to bear it.

He has negotiated with Hoffa's Teamsters Union to refuse to transport goods to and from the State of Alabama.

The notorious Harry Bridges has entered his conspiracy with the promise that his Maritime Union will refuse to load and unload ships destined to or from Alabama. Who is Harry Bridges? An alien, former Communist, who has been twice ordered deported from the United States. Is that the kind of leadership that loyal America · n citizens are ready to follow?

And when Martin Luther King was asked would he call off his proposed boycott of Alabama, if appealed to do so by the President of the United States, his reply was an unequivocal "No."

Before we pass any more "we shall overcome" voting laws, I ask again, what is the ultimate object of the “we shall overcomers" who even now, before their proposed fifth civil rights law is passed, are laying the foundation and making their boasts of what they will do to the country. Even since King has been assured by the President and the Congress of the passage of the thoroughly unconstitutional legislation now pending, he is sending out throughout the country letters soliciting funds for the support and continuation of his movement, whatever its objects may be. So widespread are these solicitations mailed out in March 1965 that they are being received by people well known to oppose the King revolution.

In conclusion, I insert a thoughtful warning published in the Washington Sunday Star on the date of March 28, by a wise, courageous clergyman who has had .an unusually close and intimate opportunity to observe public affairs, Dr. Frederick Brown Harris, Chaplain of the U.S. Senate. [From the Washington Star, Mar. 28, 1965]

WHO SPEAKS FOR THE CHURCH?

(By Dr. Frederick Brown Harris, Chaplain,

U.S. Senate)

A fear-haunted question is raised in a recent letter from a highly intelligent lifelong friend, prominent in the affairs of a great eastern city. He poses an agonizing query growing out of the disruption and dislocation in contemporary yea.sty humanity. He asks , "Into what kind of a world are our grandchildren headed?" An influential Communist, who is a Judas to his United States citizenship, answered in the dedication of a book he wrote some years ago--"To my great-grandson , J.W.K., who will live in a Communist United States." That would mean that he would live under a coercive government where the vote is not denied to just a tiny minority but in a system in which no one is allowed to vote except where the · ballot is stamped by a dictator.

Concerning the right to vote in our land, this is a time of seething emotion bordering on hysteria. In some demonstrations dunce caps and martyr halos are strangely mixed.

In such a time it needs to be said, especially to the churchmen who are so aroused, that in facing squarely domestic adjustments to meet the tests of true government by the people , the unpardonable sin is for Americans out of zeal to redress any national flaws, to ' allow themselves, unknowingly, to be used by a sinister world conspiracy against human dignity. This blasphemous system is engaged in a lying world campaign to utterly distort the true image of this Nation of our pride and prayer. The hate America propaganda, whose poison is being blown around the planet, is born of communism's fear complex that the United States of America, with its material and · moral might, is the one and only power that can thunder to this scourge of fetters-"You shall not pass." Never in history has there been such a colossal campaign to peddle lies about any country. Lenin's directions are now in full operation that any distortion or prevarication is permissible if it advances the cause he fathered.

For instance, one of the charges being made about "imperialistic America" is that the one-tenth of its population belonging to the Negro race, the descendants of slaves snatched from the savage tribes of Africa, are here treated with contempt, denied all opportunities for advancement, and in spite of the Emancipation Proclamation held in virtual subjection. American Negroes thousands of miles from home , members of Joey Adams entertainment group touring the world, nailed . down that lie at a public question and answer period in a foreign country. They were being taunted by communistic ~tooges about the place of their race in America. One of the quartet indignantly answered for them all. Glaring at the questioners he said: "Listen, pals, outside of heaven there is only one place I want to be and that's the United States of America. Sure, we got problems, but we've got laws, and we've got courts, and we've got millions of Americans of all races and creeds and all colors, who are willing to lay down their lives to make possible the freedom of a man called Abraham Lincoln. We ' ve got it made in our country." This black man was exposing the fiction of the communistic line. Let no one in America, now deeply concerned about voting rights for some groups belonging to one-tenth of our population, be so naive as to be oblivious to the ugly fact that the communistic conspiracy which is out to deny the , sacred right of the vote for everybody . is using the present agitation in America to advance · their own evil cause. There is more back of that statement than can be put in this article.

The question we are raising here, with no condemnation for religious leaders who are marching today in a cause that grips their conscience, is: Have these same leaders any vivid realization of What is ip. store for all Americans if the world objectives of that blasphemous, godless system , are attained? And , make no mistake about it, it is so far on its way as to blanch our faces with fear. But with this menace hanging like a Damocles sword over the fragile thread of our liberties, are these same religious leaders so vociferous now as they deal with growing pains of a democracy, equally vocal as they face the most dastardly system the ages have known? It is a tragic fact that the answer to that question must be "No." Among those who are assuming national and world leadership among the churches, it must be admitted that so far as communism is concerned, there is, to use a scriptural phrase , "A silence that could be heard in heaven." One of these leaders has said, "Let us quit µioralizing about communism and to communism." His word for that conspiracy, and that of many of his colleagues, is accommodation, coexistence, cooperation. We are speaking now - of Protestant leadership. Thank God the Roman Catholics are arrayed against religion's most malignant foe. Would to God that in every church in America the perils of this Godless force were being poured into the minds of the youngand, of the older. Would that every church, as its bounden duty, would have its entire membership familiar with every chapter of J. Edgar Hoover's "Masters of Deceit." There could be no more effective antidote to the tragically mistaken attitude of some church leaders as they encourage the coming generation to stroke the ferocious leopard (which has not changed its spots) and to murmur, "pretty pussy."

It is high time for religious people of every name or sign to raise the question in this time of dire crisis, "Who speaks for the church?"

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to sµc­ cession to the Presidency and Vice Presidency and to cases where the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

The motion was agreed to.

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, with Mr. FASCELL in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

By unanimous consent, the first reading of the joint resolution was dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] will be recognized for 2 hours and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCULLOCH] will be recognized for 2 hours. ·

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER].

Mr: CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr . Chairman, this resolution, House Joint Resolution 1, has bipartisan support. I particularly off er praise to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCULLOCH] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. PoFF] who participated in the fashioning and polishing of this resolution. They did so most wisely and painstakingly. They immersed themselves into the intracacies of the legislation. Their help was immeasurable. By naming them, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to detract from the constructive work done by most of the members of our committee, Democrats, and Republicans alike. I want to point out particularly likewise in that J. regard the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. ROGERS], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. RODINO], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BROOKS], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DONOHUE], gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. KASTENMEIER], the gentleman from California [Mr. CORMAN], the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER]. To them I, indeed, offer an accolade of distinction for genuine service.

This is by no means, ladies and gentleman, a perfect bill. No bill can be perfect. Even the sun has its spots. The world of actuality permits us to attain no perfection. Admirable as is our own Constitution, it had to be amended 24 times. But nonetheless, this bill has a minimum of drawbacks. It is well-rounded, sensible, and efficient approach toward a solution of a perplexing problem-a problem that has baffled us for over 100 years.

As to attaining perfection, let me call your attention to a very pertinent remark made by Walter Lippmann in the New York Herald Tribune of June 9, 1964, when he referred to this proposed amendment. He said:

It 1!.; a great deal better than an endless search for the absolutely perfect solution, which will never be found and, indeed, is not necess a ry.

As was said by the distinguished former Attorney General of the United States, the honorable Herbert Brownell-I commend his words indeed to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN]-speaking for himself and speaking for the American Bar Association:

Certainty and prompt action are • • * built into this proposal-namely, House Joint Hesolution 1. • • • During the 10- year debate on Presidential disability • • • many plans have been advanced to have the existence of disability decided by different types of commissions or medical experts, by the Supreme Court, or by other complicated ad hoc procedures. But upon analysis, • • • they a.H have the same fatal fl.aw, * • • they would be time consuming and divisive.

We triea to avoid freighting down this amendment with too much detail. We leave that to supplementing, implementing legislation. We make the provisions as simple yet as comprehensive as possible.

This i :s certain: we have trifled with fate long enough on this question of Presidential inability. We in the United States have been lucky, but luck does not last forever. The one sure thing about luck is that it is bound to change.

Sir Thomas Brown once said:

Court not felicity too far and weary not the favorable hand of fortune.

We can no longer delay. Delay is the art of keeping up with yesterday. We must keep abreast of tomorrow. Let us st-op playing Presidential inability roulette. Let us pass this measure, which has the approval of the American Bar Association and the American Association of Law Schools. This measure has the approval of 36 State bar associations, including, incidentally, the bar association of the distinguished gentleman on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN].

Let me read the roster of State bar associations which have approved this measure. The bar associations of Arithe zona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri-one of the gentlemen from that distinguished State had some doubts about it, according to his question, but his bar association approved this measure-New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

If I were perplexed and baffled over a legal question, I would not be likely to go to the gentleman from Ohio. More than likely I would go to a lawyer. The gentleman from Ohio is not a lawyer. This is a constitutional legal question. I would not go to Attorney General Brown; I would go to Attorney General Brownell. What did Mr. Brownell have to say on this subject, as to the need for a constitutional amendment and the fact that it would be dangerous to off er a mere statute? Mr. Brownell said:

The number of respected constitutional authorities have argued that there can be no temporary devolution of Presidential power on the Vice President during periods of Presidential inability.

And whatever we InaY think of that argument, I think a statute would not protect the Nation adequately with the doubts that have been raised, which have been raised too persistently. As long as there is doubt, lingering doubt, concerning the constitutionality of the statute, as long as there is a question concerning the disabled President's constitutional stature after the re- . covery, I do not believe any inability, as a practical matter, however severe it Inay be, would be recognized lest recognition of that disability would oust the disabled President from office. Moreover, if the Pres , President’s inability were severe and prolonged, you should note that devolution of the Presidential power on the Vice President would be somewhat of a crisis itself.

Beyond that, the present Attorney General, a very erudite scholar and a very practical Attorney General, similarly before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate gave eloquent testimony as to the need for a constitutional amendment. I shall not burden you at this moment with his words but shall insert them in the RECORD.

A host of city bar associations all over the country have asked for this bill. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chambers of commerce throughout the Nation have likewise asked for this bill in the form of a constitutional amendment and not a statute. When this body is asked to adopt a constitutional amendment, the recommending committee must establish an imperative need for such action. Everyone will agree that amending the basic document, the charter, if you will, of our Nation is not a task to be undertaken lightly. Today, however, we are faced with filling a gap which has existed since our beginnings, and this gap. becomes more threatening as the complexity of the domestic and foreign policy grows . .

Article II, section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution reads:

In case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Now, even a cursory reading reveals that it raises a host of questions. How do we distinguish between temporary and permanent vacancies? Who determines the inability? In what capacity does the Vice President act in the event of a temporary inability? No distinction is made or -even intimated between a voluntary and involuntary inability of the President to discharge the powers and duties of his office. In the event · of an inability which a President refuses to acknowledge, who shall declare such inability and, once declared, how does the President recover Executive authority if he be fit to do so? Precedent itself answered the question of the capacity in which a Vice President acts when the President dies. John Tyler took the oath as President of the United States when President William Henry Harrison died, and so it has been ever since because of this precedent that Presidents have been reluctant to declare a temporary inability since it has been feared, and rightly so, that a Vice President might take the oath of office as President . even though the inability were of a temporary nature. On the other hand, Vice Presidents have been reluctant to move forward without precise definition from Congress to undertake the powers and duties of the Office when a President has been temporarily incapacitated lest he, the Vice President, be accused of unwarranted seizure of power. That was the case, you may remember, after .the assassination of President Garfield°. Vice President Arthur was most reluctant to assume the powers of the Presidency because he feared he might be deemed a rogue, he might be deemed a usurper, and therefore was most hesitant and reluctant to assume that power.

And so it was with the lingering illness, after the stroke that laid low President Wilson, when Vice President Marshall likewise was very reluctant to go forward. In the meanwhile, what? We had no President, we had no Acting President, and things went into the doldrums, as it were, from an executive standpoint. Foreign potentates came to this country and could not be received and many bills became law without the signature of the President. Many other inadequacies developed because of that lack which we now seek to fill.

House Joint Resolution 1 answers as many questions as it is humanly possible in drafting a proposal to meet contingencies as yet unforeseen. We cannot meet every conceivable contingency. That is impossible, because sometimes if you try to meet some improbable contingency you open, as it were, a can of worms and you create more difficulties and inequities than you create equities. Therefore it is most difficult even for my colleagues on the committee, wise as they are, to be able to envisage every conceivable eventuality that might be conjured up by the imagination of man. We do not propose to do that. We are simply trying to meet the practical human problems with reference to Presidential inability. Foreseen contingencies have, in my opinion, been succinctly and adequately covered. The language is clear, the procedures sharply in focus.

House Joint Resolution 1 also fills another vacuum. It makes provision for a Vice President in the event there is a vacancy in that office.

Sixteen times the United States has been without a Vice President; or, to put it another way, 37 years of our existence have seen the Office of Vice President vacant. Now · the Office of Vice President is assuming more and more importance in this atomic age and in this age of jet planes and spaceships. The Vice President is part of the official family of the President. He is involved with the National Aeronautics and Space Agency; he is involved with the Fair Employment Practices Commission; he is involved in many other activities of the President, including the National Security Council. He attends Cabinet meetings. He represents the President in many functions. He is essential, I would say, in presentday government. He is no longer a "Throttlebottom." He is an important personage. We dare not longer trifle with this situation by neglect. If there is a vacancy, the vacancy must and should be filled.

How the course of history was changed when, for example, as I said before, President Garfield died after lingering for so many days we shall never know.

Again, when President Wilson suffered the severe stroke in 1919, when he was laid low for many months, no effort was made to insure the stability of government. We had petticoat government then. I say that with all due respect to the ladies, because Mrs. Wilson sought to run the show at that time. I do not know how well she ran it. I do not know whether the show was run at all. It was a dangerous situation. We dare not let that happen again.

So, Mr. Chairman, again a negative factor made affirmative history.

On three occasions during the Eisenhower administration there was temporary incapacity on the part of the President. And, to President Eisenhower's credit, he attempted to minimize the danger of executive lapse by means of a private agreement with Vice President Nixon. Such private agreements, we can all agree, are hardly adequate to meet the situation. There C'an be as many private agreements as there are differences in the varying temperaments of Presidents and Vice Presidents.

Mr. Chairman, as I said on the opening day of our hearings on Presidential inability on February 9, 1963:

I for one have had a deep and probing interest in solving the problem which arises from the vague language of article II of section 1, clause 5, of the Constitution relating to Presidential inability.

In 1955 the chairman of the Judiciary Committee ordered a staff study into this problem and I appointed a special subcommittee of the ranking members to further the study. This study sought out the views of a select group of leading constitutional law professors and leading political scientists by way of a questionnaire. These answers and analysis were published by this committee in 1957. While that study and the subsequent hearings did not result in a definite legislative proposal, I am convinced that it laid a sound groundwork for the future congressional activities which have taken place in this field.

As a result also of the activity of the press and the public and professional groups, the public has been educated to the seriousness of the situation. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind that this Nation cannot permit the Office of the President to be vacant even for a moment. Opposition of world leadership demands that we avoid the terrible crisis which would result if a vacancy existed in the Office of President for even a short time. The President stands for the sovereignty and unity of the American people. He leads the national administration and he is the Commander in Chief of all the Armed Forces. In this nuclear age his finger rests upon the trigger. He is the sculptor, the administrator of our foreign policy. One would have to be blind not to see and acknowledge the danger and the risk we are faced with at this very moment, lacking a constitutional procedure for the smooth transition of the successor to the office and to the powers and duties of the President.

Fate has been most kind to Americans, but we should not continue to tempt it. I believe that the provisions of House Joint Resolution 1 are classic in their simplicity, classic in their clarity.

First. In case of the removal of the President from office by death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of the Congress. .

The President selects his vice-presidential running mate before the convention. He should have the right to do so after the convention, and after the election. In the event there is no Vice President he can fill that vacancy.

There has been some talk about the degrading of Congress, that Congress does not play a part. Congress does play a part because the President cannot select anyone to become Vice President without the consent of both Houses of the Congress. It has been said we should let the Congress, the Members of Congress, select the Vice President. We would have a Donnybrook affair then, indeed. We would have a kind of wheeling and dealing. How would you select a man to be Vice President? The whole Congress? No. He would be chosen by a few select Members of Congress, and a few select Members of the Senate, convening in a caucus, either a Republican caucus or a Democratic caucus. Our method is more democratic. We would have to put the seal of approval upon the man who is selected by the President. The whole Congress does that, not a mere select few, not the elite, I may put it, of either the House or the Senate.

Second. Section 3 deals with a situation where the President voluntarily declares his inability. When the President transmits his written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, such powers and duties are to be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President until the President so transmits in a written declaration to the contrary. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio, where in the Constitution is there a provision, the present wording of the Constitution, any kind of provision, that would permit an Acting President? The term is never used. The statute would be utterly worthless, as worthless as a 2-foot yardstick. We must have a constitutional amendment in that regard. This provision removes the reluctance of both the President and Vice President to move when necessity so dictates. The President is assured of his return to office. The Vice President, as Acting President, will not face the charge that he is usurping the ffice of President. We are thus assured of the continuity of Executive authority, which is highly important, the continuity of Executive authority. Once the President says "I am cured, I am able to function again," he goes back to his former position and assumes all of the powers and duties of the President which temporarily devolved upon the Vice President.

Section 4, as distinguished from section 3. This is a situation where the President is unwilling or unable to declare his inability. In that event the Vice President, plus the majority of the principal officers the of executive departments, act. We name them executive departments rather than Cabinet for safety's sake, because the word "Cabinet" is never used in the Constitution. In the event that the Vice President, plus a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President immediately assumes the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

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

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle­ a short while. man from Louisiana.

Mr. WAGGONNER. I thank the chairman for yielding.

Although the term used in the amendment is "principal officers of the executive departments," it is intended that reference is made here specifically to the 10 Cabinet positions which presently exist as well as future Cabinet positions which might be created, is it not?

Mr. CELLER. · That is correct.

Mr. WAGGONNER. I thank the gen- · tleman.

Mr. CELLER. Again, I emphasize the words "Acting President." I should remark that this is action in concert-the Vice President plus a majority of the Cabinet. However, should such inability, though undeclared by the President, be of temporary nature, hospitalization, perhaps a sudden illness leading totemporary unconsciousness or temporary paralysis, leaving the President bereft of speech or sight-these are only two examples--and the President then recover in his judgment to the extent to where he can carry on the powers and duties of his office, the President sends a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that he is no longer unable to carry on. He then resumes the powers and duties of his office without further to do. So it remains, unless the Vice President, together with a majority of the Cabinet, transmits within 2 days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the duties and the powers of his office. Here, of course, we have the nature of a dispute. Such being the case, it is necessary for the Congress to act quickly so that stability of Government may be assured. Once the Vice President along with a majority of the Cabinet disputes the recovery of the President, Congress shall immediately assemble to decide that issue. Here unless the Congress within 10 days after receipt of such written designation determines by a twothirds vote of both Houses that the Vice President is wrong, the Vice President continues in office as Acting President. The burden is on the Vice President to obtain concurrence of the Congress by a two-thirds vote that the President is still incapacitated. If no such determination is made, then the President resumes the powers and duties of his office. Throughout all these sections are thrown in that if there is any doubt the President is favored without doubt. The resolution shall always be in favor of the President because he is the elected representative of the people, the first officer of the land, and he shall be favored without doubt. In other words, if there is a dispute, as I stated, in the interest of continuity of executive power and stability, the Vice President takes over and remains in the office as Acting President until Congress acts. If Congress does not act and a twothirds vote is not obtained in both Houses within 10 days, the President resumes the powers and duties of his office as President. Thus we escape the danger of a disabled President carrying on for even Thus we would remove the danger of a disabled President carrying on even for a short while.

The time limit is necessary to resolve the question. It must be remembered that in this revolutionary and atomic age, time is always of the essence.

It is interesting to note that the other body passed this resolution, or this constitutional amendment by a vote of 72 to 0-not a single vote was registered in the other body against the amendment.

Finally-and I probably have spoken unduly long and I am sorry-I, therefore, ur g e the Members of this House to accept this p r o p os al les t a a c tastrophe find us unprepa r ed once again.

The responsibility to act in this area has always leaned heavily on the Congress, but until now we have had no con- . sensus on that approach which would answer almost all of the questions. Now a consensus has been reached. Evasion would, indeed, be irresponsible.

The Senate and House versions are very close together - except for the matter of the time limit. We of the committee believe that the time limitation is necessary for reasons which I have already stated. - I, for one, would not want to be held accountable should the country face a period of crisis with no Executive firmly in charge.

I have every confidence that this · Chamber will act as responsively as did the other body.

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

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle­

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your statement. I am one of those who is anxious to see correct and proper legislation enacted in order to fill this void. I notice in the hearings and in the committee report that the distinguished committee which the gentleman chairs has had exhaustive hearings and has called on many people from many walks of life. I am addressing myself particularly to the question of Presidential inability or disability. I would say, sir, that in direct proPortion to the complexity of life that you have so often and so well referred to today, there is also the difficulty of determining inability or disability of the human being to function. This strikes me as something, as a man who has practiced medicine, that is increasingly difficult in this complicated age to determine. I see no evidence in the hearings of any statement by either · any White House physician, past or pres .. ent, o~ any of Surgeons General Qf our civilian or uniformed branches, or civilian consultants available to the Government, such as the American Medical Association; some or all of whom are usually called on in such extremes for determination of these questions. I wonder, although fully realizing the need for a judicial determination---or a legislative determination---of the fact, if such opinion was sought. I am not able to find it here. I wonder if those who ordinarily determine inability or disability were consulted or called for hearings; or if they were excluded purposely, or if it is simply presumed by the chairman that this type of advice will be sought in time of such an exigency.

Mr. CELLER. For the very reason that the gentleman explained, which indicated the difficulty of definition, we did not specifically speak of medical experts or of a commission of those with expertise on subjects of this sort. But we did say the following: We said-"or such other body as Congress may by law provide." In other words, Congress may, by passing legislation implementing this, set up, if it wishes, some other body or some group of experts who would give advice and counsel instead of the members of the Cabinet. The members of the Cabinet, the members of the President's executive family, usually are the ones who are intimate with the President. They know his idiooyncrasies. They know a good deal about his health and they probably could tell a great deal concerning his physical condition. But, if we in the Congress feel that more is desired, we could appoint another body.

Mr. HALL. I thank the chairman. I understand, and have no particular flaw to pick on the question of the President's Cabinet with the Vice President making the determination or seeking two-thirds of the votes of Congress in determining lack of ability. I am not quite sure that this Congress would ever, as a matter of practical procedure, set up, for example, the five Surgeons General to determine ability. At the same time, I am certainly not convinced that, wise as the members of the Cabinet may be about the President's personality traits and about deviation away from the norm thereof, that they could physically determine when association pathways of the human brain and mind, or even the emotions, were bereft of ordinary and expected continuity on the part of the President to the Point of constituting disability.

This disability and inability as determined nowadays for even such simple things as employment or disability compensation and rights thereunto, has become a question which fills books.

I am not saying that we should write such a provision into this law. It is to be implemented further, I understand. It seems to me we might well, in the future implementing by law of the amended Constitution, provide such a procedure or a consultant to a Cabinet group or the Vice President--then acting or installed as the President.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, will my chairman · an yield so that I may respond to the gentleman's question?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. POFF. I appreciate the concern the gentleman expresses and I am in sympathy with the point he makes. I believe I can throw some light on his question by quoting from an opinion of Attorney General Kennedy, August 2, 1961, in which he undertakes to decribe what transpired when President Eisenhower su:tf ered a disability:

The problem of succession to the Presidency was considered immediately after former President Eisenhower's heart attack in September 1956. Congress was not in session, and there was no immediate international crisis. On the basis of medical opinions and a survey of the urgent problems demanding Presidential action immediately or in the near future, Attorney General Brownell orally advised the Cabinet and the Vice President that the existing situation did not require the Vice President to exercise the powers and duties of the President under article II of the Constitution.

I suggest that a similar thing could normally and reasonably be expected in the event this constitutional amendment is adopted, and ratified by the States. Surely, the decisionmakers, whoever they may be, would not undertake so critical a decision without first consulting the experts in the field, namely the gentlemen of the medical profession.

Mr. HALL. I thank the gentleman. I certainly believe it is important, not necessarily that it be spelled out in this resolution we are considering today, but that a legislative record be made here today with respect to such a complex and difficult-of-determination area. In the enabling legislation, which I understand will subsequently follow this amendment to the Constitution, we might indeed spell out what is to be involved.

I speak for no particular group--not for the White House physicians, not for the Surgeons General in convention assembled, and not for the highest medical organization which happens to be extant in the land : at this or that time; but for someone skilled in the expertise in the determination of this very difficult area of inability and disability.

Mr. MACGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, will the chairman yield further for an additional comment in connection with the question of the distinguished gentleman from Missouri?

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

Mr. MACGREGOR. May I add to the very excellent answer given by the gentleman from Virginia, an historical note which may give further comfort to the gentleman from Missouri.

At the time of the severe stroke which occurred to Woodrow Wilson, the Secretary of State at the time suggested that the Vice President step in and exercise the powers and duties of the Presidency. This was not taken with good grace by the President, and when he recovered his ability, the Secretary of State soon found himself without a job. I believe with that historical precedent facing the Members of the Cabinet they would not take the step jointly with the Vice President to certify, in their judgment, the President's inability to the appropriate officers of the Congress without a consultation with the very finest medical brains which were available to them here in the Nation's Capital.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? ·

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle­

Mr. HALL. I appreciate that remark, and I think it is historically interesting. I would like to believe that the gentleman is adding to the legislative record which I am trying to establish to that ultimate end, but what we are trying to do here is to prevent historical incidents such as that from recurring. It is to that end that I rise and I think the point has been well made.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle­ Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. I have asked the chairman to yield in order to direct your attention to page 4, section 4, and ask a question about what seems to me to be an ambiguity and, if it is one that ought to be cleared up, I think, in a colloquy here on the floor of the House. The second paragraph of section 4 provides that if the President shall recover and he sends to the Congress a written declaration that no inability exists, "he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments, or such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within 2 days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

My question, sir, is, is there not a 2- day period when we may be in a state of ambiguity, not knowing whether the President, having recovered, has the powers and duties of the office or whether the Vice President is the Acting President of the United States?

Mr. CELLER. It is the Acting President, that is, the Vice President, who is Acting President. He is in control unless the President, and so forth, does something or something happens. So, it is the Vice President that is in the saddle, but to make assurance doubly sure I will read you a communication that I received from the Attorney General, dated April 13, 1965, which letter reads as follows:

DEAR MR. CHAmMAN: The question has been raised as to whether, under section 6 of House Joint Resolution 1, as amended by the House Judiciary Committee on March 16 and 17, 1965, the Acting President would continue to discharge the powers and duties of the Office of President during the 2-day period within which the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments may transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his Office.

As I have previously indicated to you, it seems to me entirely clear that the Acting President would continue to exercise the powers and duties of the Office during this period. The same is true of the period of up to 10 days thereafter during which, under section 6 as it now reads, the Congress would be required to resolve the issue.

Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for another question?

Mr. CELLER. Yes; I will.

Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. In the event that the -letter is not written by the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments, then who actually has the powers of the President during the 48-hour period following the transmittal by the President of his declaration to reassume the office?

Mr. CELLER. The Acting President would-and I use that term again-be in the saddle unless he agrees the President is fully restored. of Oregon. So the intent of this section of this resolution is that the Acting President--and let us assume it is the Vice President--will continue to discharge the duties of that office until the expiration of all necessary time intervals or until the Congress shall take such action as may be necessary?

Mr. CELLER. The Vice President during that period could agree that the President is no longer disabled and the President will resume his powers.

Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. He can then take affirmative action?