April 13, 1965

Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee for its action, and I urge the House to adopt this constitutional amendment by the overwhelming vote it deserves.

Mr. TENZER. I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 1. I compliment the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking members of the minority who are managing this bill , for the excellence of the debate and clarity of the answers to the questions posed on this difficult and complex proposed amendment which fills a void left by the framers of our Constitution. The problem has legal, · political, and constitutional facets-all of which were considered by the House Judiciary Committee when hearings were held on the 32 separate proposals which were offered in the House during the opening days of this Congress.

Why is this day so important and why is this legislation so urgently needed?

Because 8 of our 35 Presidents have died in office. · On . 16 different occasions, for a total of more than 37 years, the office of Vice President has been vacant. Eight of our Vice Presidents succeeded to the Presidency, seven died during their terms of office, and one resigned. We have been singularly fortunate in that the offices of . President and Vice President have never been vacant simultaneously during a single 4-year elective span. Let us consider for a moment the foµr Presidents who preceded President Johnson. President Roosevelt and President Kennedy did not live out their terms; President Eisenhower suffered a serious heart attack; and President Truman was the object of an attempted assassination. These events show the importance . e of having a potential presidential successor available at all times-one who is fully acquainted with current policy in domestic and foreign affairs, and prepared to assume the Presidency on a moment's notice. Despite the urgent need for a solution-demonstrated dramatically and repeatedly in recent years-neither corrective legislation nor constitutional amendment have been adopted.

The office of President of the United States is the most difficult and most important job in the world. It has a unique concentration of powers and responsibilities · that in most other nations are shared by several officials. The President's active leadership is so essential to the effective operation of the Government that his death or serious illness not only constitutes a personal tragedy but creates the risk of national disaster. For this reason vacancies, disabilities, and transitions in this office are matters of the gravest concern to our country and to the world.

The Constitution is not clear as to what actually constitutes inability to discharge the powers and duties of the presidential office; nor is it clear as to who determines that such inability exists, or whether in the event of presidential inability, it is only the Powers and duties of the Presidency that devolve on the Vice President as distinguished from the office itself.

In May 1964, the American Bar Association held a national forum on the problem with representation from business, labor, agricultural, civic, patriotic, and welfare groups. The consensus favored submission to the States of a constitutional amendment. There appears to be a broad agreement at least in the following particulars:

First. That the need for prompt action is overwhelming, and failure to act would be recklessly gambling with the stability of our Government,

Second. That . t it was the intention of our Founding Fathers that in the event of presidential · disability the Vice President should be only Acting President and only during the period of the disability;

Third. That there is a need for deter- . mining when or whether a President is disabled from performing the duties of his office; that the Vice President should be able to take over with unquestioned authority for a temporary period when the President's disability ls not disputed; and that the President should be able to resume office once he has recovered. Fourth. That a constitutional amendment is needed to solve the problem.

The proposed constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution l, as amended, answers the questions raised by the experience of history.

We are asked to adopt and the States will be asked to approve a constitutional amendment containing a specific method for · determining when the President is unable to perform his duties, rather than a proposal merely giving the Congress the power to devise a method by statute, which in fact the Congress has failed to do in the past 10 years, since the first Eisenhower disability.

The inclusion of a specific procedure as provided would avoid the uncertainty and possible delay involved in leaving the problem for action by the Congress in the future. The time to agree on a methOd is now, while there is general interest in the subject of inability.

The Constitution is specific in its provisions dealing with removal of the President by impeachment, and it should also be specific with respect to his removal during periods of inability.

While the proposal under consideration provides a specific procedure which could be invoked promptly in the absence of congressional action, it would vest the Congress with the power to require concurrence by a body other than the Cabinet. In fact, the Congress could designate itself as the body to grant or withhold concurrence. Also, the Congress would have authority in the nature of a veto Power in the event a President declares that he is able to resume his duties but the Vice President, with the concurrence of the Cabinet or such other body as may be designated by law, declares that he is not able to do so.

Proposals for a legislative solution without a constitutional amendment are not free from constitutional doubt. We cannot afford to risk having a period of indecision and delay while the constitutionality of such a solution is being tested.

Selection by the President of a nominee to fill vacancies in the Vice-Presidency would follow the traditional practice of nominating conventions. Confirmation by a majority of the Congress would tend to create public confidence in the selection.

There has been for too long a time a vital need for a solution of the grave problems of presidential inability and vice-presidential vacancy. There have been extended discussions of these problems whenever history has dramatized the need for solutions. Indeed, no subject relating to our constitutional structure has received more study. The time has now come for action. ·

It is not necessary, as most distinguished experts agreed, that we find a solution free from all reasonable objection. It is unlikely that such a solution will ever be found, as the problems are inherently complex and difficult. I believe that the principles of House Joint Resolution 1, which are supported by a considerable body of the most knowledgeable scholars in the field, are sound and reasonable, and are consistent with the basic framework of our Government. In short , House Joint Resolution 1, is an acceptable solution to the grave problems of presidential inability and vice-presidential vacancy.

Our committee has studied the schedule of State legislatures and found that 47 of the 50 State legislatures meet in 1965. Thirty-eight States are required · to ratify an amendment to the Constitution. · Since the legislative sessions of many states are of limited duration, it is essential that an amendment be sent to the States promptly if · it is to be ratified this year or by early 1966. Each day's delay reduces the chances of early ratification. If the requisite number of States do not have an opportunity to act this year, it cannot be ratified until 1967.

A genuine service which the Members of the House can render to the Nation is to persuade the legislatures of their respective States to give approval to this proposed amendment to the Constitution and thus give reassurance of continuity in our Government.

Mr. WHITE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in the fall of 1964 160 million Americans were represented at the polls by many millions voting for a new President. For at least 3 hard months millions of dollars were spent carrying their message of the candidates to the American public. And now in the presidential succession constitutional amendment as now drawn, with a few strokes of a pen and within a few hours, even without the public ever knowing of the transition, you are providing for 7 men to change our Presidency.

With this amendment let us project ourselves 50 years from now, to a time with people none of us now know. One of these 7 men would be the Vice President, who countless times probably had dreamed of being President, and on this occasion would sit in judgment of the man he would replace. The other 6 are probably Cabinet officers, none elected by the people. I only assume they are Cabinet officers, because the constitutional amendment does not say who are the principal officers of the executive department, and in that alone is imperfectly drawn.

The House assumes that all men who would occupy the respective positions of responsibility will act infallibly and in the best interests of the United States of · America.

When we passed a proposed constitutional amendment to be sculptured immutably into our Constitution we are saying to the American public that we have considered every conceivable contingency and have found this measure safe.

In order to test its safety we are obliged to consider the worst than can happen in some future time, even beyond our own lines.

In this constitutional amendment in the name of good and with good motives we are perpetrating on some future generation a loophole that could allow a · usurpation of power by seven men without the sanction of the American people. Suppose we had a foreign enemy threatening our country. Suppose further the majority of the Cabinet believe the President of that time is too pusillanimous and that his policies endanger the survival of our country. With perfectly patriotic motives these six unelected Cabinet officers convince the Vice President than the removal of the President is imperative.

At a · time when the Congress is not in session the determined Vice President and the six unelected officers then transmit to the Speaker and the President pro tempore of the Senate that the President is unable to act as President. There is no requirement that a reason be given other than that the President is "unable" to act, nor is there a definition of "unable," whether it means mental or physical incapacity, or by the judgment of several laymen, nonmedical men, that for some other reason the President is "unable" to act.

At that point the President can transmit his own message to the Speaker and President pro tempore of the Senate and retain the Presidency.

But let us assume the worst, and assume a conspiracy for a genuine takeover. If the President is kidnaped while traveling abro-ad or in this country before he can transmit a message that he is able to serve, the Vice President remains acting President with all the constitutional powers and duties, powers that include movement of armies, foreign policy, use of nuclear power, and force.

Again, let us assume that the President is not kidnaped, and does transmit his message of ability to serve. Then, a determined Vice President and six Cabinet officers again transmit this message of inability of the President.

The Vice President then is Acting President of the United States for a minimum of 48 hours and possibly several days more during which time he could issue any number of Executive orders, including the irreversible first steps toward a preventive war. Even today there are a number of misguided people who believe that our survival depends on a preventive war now.

If we must look to past history, I point out that President Lincoln's Cabinet at one point opp . opposed his policies, and if this amendment had been existing then, and the Vice President had been convinced that the country was suffering by reason of the Presidential policies, President Lincoln might have been removed. I point out also that Vice President Aaron Burr was accused of treason and reportedly wanted to carve out an empire for himself.

I do not believe the scepter of power should ever be removed from the President until the Congress itself, after it convenes within 48 hours, should so remove this power. This is consistent with our present Constitution and the proper separation of officers.

Those who would take the mantle of authority from a President, even for 48 hours, argue that it would be dangerous to the country to have a disabled President even for 48 hours. I believe that the risks are far greater to chance a total change of government.

Our careful consideration on this vital issue is our heritage to our posterity. I favor a presidential succession amendment, but we must not, in the name of expediency, open the door to a greater future danger.

Mr. LOVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 1, as amended because I believe the U.S. Constitution is not only ambiguous, but defective, on the subject of presidential disability and that we, as a nation, have been extremely fortunate that our Presidents have been able to discharge their constitutional responsibilities. The office of Vice President was made vacant due to the tragic death of President Kennedy and there has been no procedure for filling it.

In support of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH], the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER], the American Bar Association and its affiliate, the National Forum, I submitted a bill of my own, House Joint Resolution 236, for not only does my bill support House Joint Resolution l, it calls attention to the problem relating to the period of time before a disabled President should resume the powers and duties of his office.

I know the people of my district would want me to speak out in favor of such an amendment to the Constitution because they are very aware of the problems created by the tragic death of President Kennedy. I was encouraged by the fact that my remarks--made at the many meetings throughout my district prior to my election-on the Senate resolution passed during the 88th Congress engendered much public interest and support.

In my testimony before the House Judiciary Committee I made no references to history. This had been most carefully documented and repetition is unnecessary. I merely wanted to emphasize that prudence requires this representative body to act now to submit to the State legislatures an amendment to correct a defect known to us for many, many years. In addition to supporting the overall effort, I wanted to point out to the committee what I considered to be a danger in the event a President would transmit to the Congress his written declaration that no inability exists. The aforementioned resolution originally provided that the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President, with the written concurrence of a majority of the heads of the executive department, or such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmits within 2 days to the Congress his written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

My question was: What could happen · within that 2-day period in the event an incompetent President resumed the duties of his office and issued orders affecting the security of the Nation? While I agreed that the President should be able to regain the powers and duties of his office easily when his inability ceases to exist, nevertheless, the Vice President should have time to file a written declaration with the Congress before the presumption in favor of the President's ability is restored.

' To accomplish this, I provided in my resolution that the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office on the third day following the transmittal of such declaration to the Congress unless, prior to the end of the third day, the Vice President, with the appropriate consent of executive department heads, transmits to the Congress his written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. I used 3 days on the theory that the President's written declaration could be submitted on Friday and Congress might not be in session over the weekend.

However, during the committee deliberations the majority adopted language, as set forth in section 4 of House Joint Resolution 1, which I find to be satisfactory and will correct for the most part that which my resolution points out as needing clarification.

I support this resolution and urge its passage.

Mr. SCHMIDHAUSER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my voice in support of House Joint Resolution 1. In my opinion, this proposal is the soundest means for providing for the orderly and democratic succession to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the United States in case of the death or disability of the President of the United States.

Further, this proposal would define within the framework of the Constitution, the powers and the duties of the Vice President upon the death or disability of a President. I also feel that this proposal adequately safeguards the return of the powers and duties of the Presidency to the President who has seen in his Bonner wisdom to relinquish these powers and duties due to a disability.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this Derwinski proposal would maintain the fine and traditional concept of our American system of government by providing for the Fraser recommendation of the Vice President by the President, and the approval of both Houses of the Congress if a vacancy were to occur in the Vice-Presidency.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

. Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress: .

"ARTICLE-

"SECTION 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

"SEC. 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

"SEC. 3. If the President declares in writing that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

"SEC. 4. If the President does not so declare, and the Vice President with the written concurrence of a majority of the heads of the executive departments or such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmits to the Congress his written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. "SEC. 5. Whenever the President transmits to the Congress his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President, with the written concurrence of a majority of the heads of the executive departments or such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmits within two days to the Congress his written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall immediately decide the issue. If the Congress determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.”

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Ninety Members are present, not a quorum. The Clerk will call the roll.

The Clerk called the roll and the following Members failed to answer to their names:

[Roll No. 73]

Ashley Gubser Pirnie Baldwin Hagen, Calif. Powell Belcher Harvey, Ind. Purcell

Holifield . Reifel

Clark Jennings Roosevelt Colmer Joelson Rostenkowski Dawson Jones, Ala. Scott

Kluczynski Sisk

Evins, Tenn. Leggett Smith, Va Farnum McFall Stalbaum Fino Martin, Mass. Toll

Michel Weltner

Fulton, Tenn. Nix Yates

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. FASCELL, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the resolution House Joint Resolution 1, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 397 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the J oumal.

The Committee resumed its sitting.

The CHAffiMAN. The Clerk will read the committee amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Committee amendment: Strike out all , after the enacting clause and insert:

"That the following article ls proposed al! an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

"'ARTICLE-

" 'SECTION 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

.u 'SEC. 2. Whenever there is a. vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

"'SEC. 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Represent- . atives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

" 'SEC. 4. Whenever 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 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 shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

"'Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his 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 two 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, immediately assembling for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within ten days after the receipt of the written declaration of the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments, or such other body as Congress may by law provide, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.' "

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PUCINSKI

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. PucINSKI to the committee amendment: On page 3, line 20, strike out section 2 on line 20 through line 23 and renumber the subsequent sections accordingly.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I regret the need for offering this amendment, because of my profound respect and admiration for the committee that is reporting out this bill. I think the bill is a good one and is one which we need in this country very urgently. It is my fear that the presence of section 2 in this proposed constitutional amendment will make it very difficult to get the ratification of the 38 States which is necessary. Certainly there has been enough discussion here and the case has been made out as to how urgently we need the inability provisions of this proposal. our history is replete with examples of the dilemma that the country finds itself in when a President is disabled. However, my amendment would strike from this proposed constitutional amendment that provision which would permit the Vice President, when he becomes President, to nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of the Congress. In the 6 years that I have been here I have never felt more keenly about any subject than about this particular provision. That is why I have taken the time to offer this amendment. It is my hope that the Congress is going to strike this language out of the bill.

This is a young country, as time goes. We are less than 200 years old. When we look at all of the other nations of the world and see the problems they have had and the violent changes in their governments, the juntas and the overthrow of governments, we certainly have a right to reflect on this proposal. I have the highest confidence in the man who will occupy the Presidency, regardless of the party that he belongs to, in the future, but I think this proposal in this bill does open the door at some future ti:tne---perhaps 50 years from now or 100 years from . now-t.o a phenomenon which has not bothered or plagued our country heretofore; namely, the problem of palace intrigue. The system we now have has the Speaker of the House succeeding to the Presidency. This succession is a good It was recommended in 1947, supported in 1947 by President Truman. I know for many, many years, the next in succession was the Secretary of State. The Congress quite properly changed this in 1947. I think we ought to stay with this. The committee explains that this retains the principle of succession for the Speaker of the House. I do not see it that way. As I read this language if the Vice President becomes President, he will then send to the Congress his nomination for a Vice President and the Congress is going to vote it up or down. As was mentioned here before by the gentleman from Maryland some day, in the days that follow a great tragedy when a President dies in office, there will not be very much discussion or debate. So it would appear to me that Congress would most probably, without too much debate, ratify the appointment made by the President. ·

It seems to me, as was mentioned earlier, that that invites all sorts of problems. I would strongly recommend that we proceed now with the inability provisions of this bill because this is extremely important and that we leave the succession as it has been up to now.

So far as I am concerned, I felt no great worry last year when the possibility arose that the Speaker might have to assume the Presidency. By his many years of experience, this House when it elects a Speaker, elects a man who ' is deeply rooted in the problems of our . government. Certainly he knows the problems of the country. I think the system we now have gives this whole matter of succession stability. The people know what they are confronted with. It seems to me that we are inviting a great deal of trouble when we propose this change by way of a constitutional amendment. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I hope my amendment is voted up.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

One day during Abraham Lincoln's administration somebody breathlessly ran into the President's office and said:

Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Lincoln­

What is it?

Senator Sumner on the :floor of the Senate this morning said he does not believe in the Bible.

And President Lincoln said:

Of course, he doesn't; he didn't write it. I fear me that the gentleman who just spoke did not write this bill and is off ering this amendment to a section which is one of the keystones thereof.

The coauthor of this bill with me in the Senate, Senator BAYH, said the following:

Whatever tragedy may befall our national leaders, the Nation must continue in stability, functioning to preserve the society in which freedom may prosper. The best way to insure this is to make certain that the Nation always has a Vice President as well as a President.

The provision that would be stricken by the amendment would provide for the selection of a vice president if a vacancy occurred in that office. For more than 37 years, over 20 percent of its history, this Nation has been without a Vice President. Eight Vice Presidents have succeeded to the Presidency upon the death of the incumbent. Seven Vice Presidents have died in office and one has resigned. No procedure has ever been provided whereby a vacancy in the Vice Presidency could be filled when it occurred.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we seek to do just that. When the vacancy occurs in the Vice-Presidency, we want that vacancy filled. No longer is a Vice President a mere figurehead. He works in close harness with the President. He is a member of the National Security Council. He is Chairman of the National Aeronautics and Space Council. He is the Chairman of the President's Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunity in Employment. He represents the President abroad.

He has many other functions which are highly important and I am sure that you would all agree that we must and should always · have a Vice President. We would not if the amendment which has been offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Puc1NsK1] prevails, and God forbid something happening to a Vice President.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I do earnestly hope that the amendment will not prevail.

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

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

Mr. POFF. I am sure that the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] would also want to call attention to the fact that the basic premise stated by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PucINSKI] may be faulty. Apparently the gentleman assumes that the adoption of section 2 would be the equivalent of a repeal of the present succession statute. This is a faulty premise. The succession statute would not be repealed.

Mr. CELLER. It would not. The gentleman is correct in his conclusion.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?

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

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, I would like to have the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. PoFF] further explain this: If I understood what the gentleman just said and if what he said is correct, then why do · we need this section 2? I do not understand how the gentleman arrives at the conclusion that the succession from the speakership will continue if you adopt section 2.

Mr. POFF. I would be glad to try to persuade the gentleman.

Mr. PUCINSKI. . I would be glad to hear the gentleman's explanation.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York yield to me at this point?

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

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is that the Constitution itself; namely, article II, section 1, clause 5, states that the Congress

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the language to which I refer makes it possible for the Congress to adopt a sucession statute only when there are vacancies in both the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency and this succession law enacted pursuant to that language would continue in full force and effect after the adoption of this constitutional amendment.

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

Mr. POFF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I must say that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER], in his opening statement here in opposing this amendment said that the gentleman from Illinois did not write the bill and therefore he did not support it. I must say that with the explanation we have now been offered by the gentleman from Virginia, it clearly makes it apparent that if the gentleman is correct in what he is saying, then we do not need section 2 of this resolution at all.

Under what circumstances would the Speaker of the House of Representatives assume the Presidency under the gentleman's concept?

Mr. POFF. Under the same circumstances that prevail today, which is, namely, a vacancy in both the Presi­ . dency and the Vice-Presidency.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Simultaneously?

Mr. POFF. Yes. That is the law today and that would still be the law after the adoption of the constitutional amendment.

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

Mr. POFF. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. MATHIAS. I agree completely with what the gentleman from Virginia said about the constitutional effect of this amendment, if adopted. I think the rules on constitutional interpretation would make it clear. However, I am going to offer an amendment shortly which I think will spell it out so that the ordinary layman can understand it as well as the constitutional lawyer.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the pending amendment.

Mr. Chai r man , I had not intended t,o speak on this piece of legislation, but I rise to strongly SUPPOrt t he amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois.

For a number of years, Mr. Chairman, we have had legislation on the books which provided an orderly and effective succession to the high Office of the Presidency of the United States.

Let nie point out that the legislation we larid. have before us today in the form of a constitutional amendment is in real effect a slap at the Members of the House · of Representatives, a slap at our elected leadership, and it in effect says that the Membership of the House of Representatives and our elected leadership are not capable to succeed to the high Office of the Presidency.

Let me rise to strongly point out to the Members of this body that this is not so. From the House of Representatives has come the most effective and able leadership that this Nation has ever had, and from the House of Representatives have come the kind of men who are well capable of assuming the reins of government in time of crisis.

I want to say to all the members of the Committee on the Judiciary who have brought this legislation to the floor that they brought a good bill in all particulars except one, and that is section 2. Let me point out that men like Sam Rayburn, the gentleman from Indiana, CHARLIE HALLECK, the gentleman from Massachusetts, JoE MARTIN, the gentleman from Michigan, GERRY FORD, and men like our present beloved Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts, JoHN M c CORMACK, are far more able to assume the high Office of the Presidency than were many of the people who had been selected by the electors of this Nation. They are more able to assume the high Office of the Presidency and to give eff ective leadership to this Nation than are many who can be selected by the hurdygurdy processes, and the hurly-burly processes of a convention and compaign. These are men who have proven their worth by long service to our country, by dency. their experience, by wise decisions in time of stress. These are the men who are most capable and most suited by training and temperament, and who have the respect of their peers, to give to the Government and to the Nation a good government.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? ·

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Would the gentleman agree if we permit a President to name his own Vice President you are in effect setting up a form of dynasty where your Vice President will run for President? Are you not going to run into that prob­

Mr. DINGELL. This is the second point I want to treat with.

The most precious qualification and test of democracy is the ability of the people to participate in the selection of their leaders. It is on this basis that we in the House of Representatives are shortly to have before us legislation which is intended to protect the rights of all our citizens to vote.

Let me point out to you that to permit anyone to have the right to appoint someone else to an elective office, particularly the high Office of the President of the United States, is to deny the country, deny the electors of this Nation the ability, the right and power to choose their public servants, . the privilege . to choose the highest officeholder in this Let me tell you, this is the reason section 2 is bad legislation. This is a device to permit a President to begin an orderly chain of successors through an appointive device, and to effectively deny the citizens of the Nation to decide who will serve in the highest office in the land.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. The gentleman realizes that before the President can pick a Vice President he must be confirmed by the Congress of the United States. It says when they are given that authority he does not become Vice President until he is confirmed by the House and Senate. That is the authority that you as a Member of the Congress can exercise.

Mr. DINGELL. Let me tell the gentleman this: We now have this right, we now confirm the selection and the successor to the Vice President. This is done under a law which has existed in this Nation since the time of President Truman. , It is one which has worked with the complete satisfaction of everyone. And, last of all, let me tell the gentleman not only has it worked well, but let me assure the gentleman it avoids the device of making the choice of President in times of stress under circumstances where all the tremendous pressures of politics and political pressures would come into play. We elect the Speaker in time of calm deliberation. He is the successor under present law. He and his successors are more than satisfactory to the needs of the PresiMr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have such profound respect for the Judiciary Committee that I feel a bit abashed as well as reluctant to take issue. But in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PucINSKI], I am moved by conscience and conviction to say that I did not run for Congress and go through eight campaigns to come down here and downgrade the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That is all I have to say. That is my argument. Section 2 as it now stands downgrades the high and elated office of Speaker of the House, and I did not come down · here to be a party to such an unjustified proceeding' and as long as I am here I shall uphold the dignity, the power, and the prestige of the House of Representatives, the Speaker of which is now and I believe al ways shall be the best qualified · person in all the land to meet the responsibilities of the Presidency should tragedy remove both the elected President and the elected Vice President. Mr. !CHORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to echo the words of the preceding speaker and the gentleman from Illinois. This is a constitutional amendment which the members of the Judiciary Committee have given much thought to and a lot of time. It is a good constitutional amendment if you are in favor of changing the line of succession to the Presidency of the United States, but I think it can be made a better constitutional amendment by adopting this amendment striking section 2.

It has been said, Mr. Chairman, that this joint resolution does not change the line of succession to the office of the Presidency, but as a practical matter it does change the line of succession. As a practical matter, the only times that the Speaker can succeed to the office of the President of the United States is when the President and the Vice President die simultaneously or the Vice President dies immediately after the President, before the machinery in this bill can go into operation, or if the President names the Speaker to be the next Vice President of the United States. I do not feel, Mr. Chairman, that we should change the line of succession. I feel that the holder of the office of Speaker, the principal officer of this House, should remain in the line of succession.

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think it would be most unwise if this amendment were adopted. I do not think it is necessary for this great body to be so politically insular that we should adopt an amendment out of subjective considerations that have no bearing or relevance whatsoever, under the guise of the pride of the Congress.

Gentlemen who have been speaking in behalf of this amendment discuss this subject as though we were living in the 19th century instead of the 20th. Their statements and arguments do not recognize the demands and the pressures and the speed of the last third of the 20th century. Congressionally speaking, I think it is an isolationist proposition that has been offered here under the heading of congressional importance that has nothing to do with the question. The author of the amendment suggested that the status quo has worked perfectly in the past and that there has never been any question raised before. Again, I submit this is irrelevant; but beyond this I do not think it is correct. Every time you have had this problem in the country, the question has been raised and the country has asked why something is not done about it. The chairman of the committee reminded us that eight Presidents have died in office and the office of the Vice-Presidency has been vacated either because of death, resignation ~r succession to the Presidency, 16 times. The odds show it is an even chance that ,a Vice-Presidential term will not be completed. Now when we are in a hydrogen age, when decisions have to be made within split seconds, when an executive branch person quite separate and apart from the Congress in terms of power and authority devotes full time to questions of international importance, that person ought to be prepared to take over the Presidency on a moment's notice. The argument that has been made for this amendment misses the point. The question is the creation of an orderly succession consistent with the dangers and speed of the 20th century. The bill recognizes the separation of powers. It understands that no person can assume the awful responsibilities of President of the United States and make decisions of life or death in a few moments time unless he has lived with those executive powers on a very intimate basis.

Everyone has applauded the fact that in modern times Presidents have been wise enough to bring their Vice Presidents into the business of executive decisions. A Vice President must be prepared. ·

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, it is apparent I think that the country is not content with the situation as it stands. People are quite aware of the danger of the gap in executive power in this modern day. Political scientists, universities and experts from all parts of the country have suggested to the Congress, certainly to the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, that this question should not lie around unanswered any longer.

I think it is to the great credit of the leadership of the Congress on both sides of the aisle that insular attitudes have been cast aside and this proposition brought before , ore the House of Representatives today.

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

Mr. LINDSAY. I yield to the gentle­

Mr. PUCINSKI. How does the gentleman intend to deal with this haste and speed in not losing a moment in this hydrogen age--how does the gentleman propose to deal with possible prolonged debates in the other body over the candidate who may be submitted by the President as his Vice President? There still remains the possibility for a prolonged filibuster.

Mr. LINDSAY. Obviously not-of course not. If the gentleman is so concerned about the shortcomings of the other body-which means the Congress as a whole-I wonder why he offered his amendment in the first place in the name of the pride of Congress. It seems to me it is very clear if that event should arise that then the monkey is on the back of the Congress to do its job.

The President does his job in the selection of a proper person to fill the office of the Vice-Presidency, and then Congress must answer to the country if it does not speedily perform its job.

Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last two words.

Mr. Chairman, I will not use 5 minutes, but I should like to have the attention of the chairman of the great Committee on the Judiciary and the ranking minority member.

I am opposed to this section as it is now written and am inclined to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, because I do not believe a Vice President should be appointed, even if confirmed by both Houses of Congress, to serve until the next general election. I wonder if the committee gave any consideration to a provision that in case of such appointment, it would be an interim one until a Vice President could be elected by the people of the country in a special election.

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

Mr. JONAS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CELLER. Did the gentleman make reference to a special election for a Vice President?

Mr. JONAS. I asked if the committee gave any consideration to permitting a Vice President who was appointed to serve on an interim basis until there could be an election.

Mr. CELLER. We considered a special election along the lines the gentleman suggested, and it was turned down by the committee.

Mr. JONAS. Was it turned down on its merits, or because of difficulty in spelling out the time, place, and procedures for the election?

Mr. CELLER. Yes. I wonder if the gentleman realizes, following along the line of the suggestion, that there are other provisions of the Constitution which likewise would have to be amended? This would not apply only to the amendment, but would affect other parts of the Constitution concerning the election of a President and a Vice President. For example, the 12th amendment and many other amendments of the Constitution concern the election of the Executive.

Mr. JONAS. I assume, from what the Chairman says, that the difficulties involved in amending several sections of the Constitution caused the rejection of the suggestion.

I believe it would be meritorious if we could do that. I should like for the people to have the right to . elect the President and Vice President, instead of having either one of them appointed, even if confirmed by both Houses of Congress. If the gentleman says that was considered and rejected because of the practical difficulties, I have nothing more to say. I will consider the merits of the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois in comparison with my objections to the language of the section as it is now written.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in part to take the onus off the three gentlemen-Mr. PucmsKI from Illinois, Mr. O'HARA from Illinois, and Mr. DINGELL from Michigan—whom the gentleman from New York inappropriately referred to as isolationists. The gentleman might call me an isolationist, I do not know; but I do not believe he should call those three gentlemen isolationists.

I agree with those gentlemen completely that we now have a clear line of succession, and I see no reason whatever for downgrading the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentle­

Mr. CELLER. I believe the gentleman is mistaken. I did not use the word "isolationist." My very distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. LINDSAY, used it.

Mr. GROSS. I am well aware of the fact that the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] did not so describe . his colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said, I see no reason for section 2 in the resolution, and I agree wholeheartedly with those who have spoken in behalf of the amendment t.o strike it out.

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

Mr. GROSS. I referred to the gentleman. I am glad to yield.

Mr. LINDSAY. The burden of my comments was that the line of approach taken by the distinguished gentlemen was politically insular.

Mr. GROSS. You also used the word "isolationists."

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have have not spoken before in order to save the time of the committee. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I should like to comment upon the proposal that an election be held to select a new Vice President. Such an election in the United States, in accordance with a quick computation which I just made, would cost somewhere between $25 million and $35 million. Mr. Chairman, if there were an election for a new Vice President, a member of the opposition party might be elected. We have had some strange and rapid changes in political opinion in America in my time.

I would like to comment on the statement that was made that we might be providing for a presidential dynasty. History does not indicate such danger. Now, Mr. Chairman, I took the floor not to downgrade my beloved Speaker, the great JOHN McCORMACK. Back where I come from he would be described as "the like of which there is no whicher." · Mr. Chairman, it was my good fortune to serve as speaker of the House in Ohio longer than any man who ever served, until the time of the present speaker. My friend, Speaker McCORMACK, I would rather be speaker of the House of Representatives in Ohi'O than Lieutenant Governor of that State, and I would rather be Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States than Vice President of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the amendment will be defeated.

Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words.

I would like to have the attention of the chairman of the committee and the distinguished ranking minority member in order to ask a question. Assuming · this amendment is agreed to and assuming that the President then dies, moving the Vice President up to the Presidency, what effect then would sections 3 and 4 of his bill have? Would the disability provisions then be out of the window insofar as the new President was concerned?

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

Mr. EDWARDS . of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CELLER. I do not think it would make any difference, but I want to say if, for example, we have no Vice President and the President would die, then the succession law would . come into play. The succession law applies when both the President and the Vice President no longer are in office. There is no Vice President. ·

Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. I think the distinguished chairman misses my point. Assuming that the Vice President becomes the President. Then we have no Vice President to initiate any proceedings to point out the disability of the President.

Mr. CELLER. Sections 3 and 4 would be inapplicable. It would have no force and effect because there would be no Vice President to operate under the terms of 3 and 4.

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

Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I may say that I agree with my distinguished chairman. I may suggest also that under the Constitution as it is today it is possible for the Congress to deal with that situation by statute, because in that situation, if I understood the question the gentleman posed, both the President and the Vice President would be in · a state of inability.

Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. Who would bring into play the provisions of sections 3 and 4?

Mr. POFF. I say that I agree with what the chairman said. In such a case as the gentleman proposes it would be possible for the Congress to deal with it by way of statute and sections 3 and 4 of this constitutional amendment would not be applicable.

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

Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. I yield.

Mr. CELLER. In my opinion, if the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois prevails and we strike out section 2, we would destroy the whole bill.

Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. I thank the gentleman.

The CHAffiMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. PucINSKI) there were-ayes 44, noes 140.

So the amendment was rejected.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MATHIAS

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MATHIAS, of Maryland: Strike out section 2 and substitute a new section:

"SEC. 2. The Congress may by law provide for the case of a vacancy in the office of Vice President and for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability both of the President and the Vice President, declare what official would then act as President and such official would act accordingly until disability be removed or a President would be elected."

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would do three things. It would do. all that the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois would do in removing the possibility an of appointive Vice President; and I am opposed to an appointive Vice President. The Presidency since the history of this Republic began has been an elective office and I think it should continue to be an elective office. I believe that we should not have an appointive Vice President who would become the heir apparent of the Presidency and potentially the President.

Second, this amendment would have one advantage over the amendment just disposed of by the House. It would not allow a vacancy in the office of the VicePresidency.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that in the 20th century there should not be a vacancy in that office. I believe it is highly desirable in order to carry out the many functions of the Government today we should always have a Vice President. Under the provisions of my amendment the Congress could, by law, provide for the method of selecting a Vice President in anticipation of the possibility that the office ever become vacant.

Third, this proposed amendment restates the existing language of the Constitution with respect to the situation when both the President or the Vice President have died or have been removed from office or are disabled. It gives to the Congress the power to provide a continuing succession, by specifically readopting the existing language on this subject.

Mr. Chairman, I agree completely with the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. POFF], who is an able constitutional lawyer, in his interpretation of the situation if this amendment should be adopted as originally proposed, that the present succession laws would probably still obtain. But that is a matter of interpretation which constitutional lawyers reached after long years of study in reading the Constitution in the light of judicial rulings and precedents.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that the Constitution of this country belongs to the people. I believe what we have to say about the succession to the Presidency should be stated in one place where every American can read it and understand it. I feel that although there is some danger that under the strict rules of interpretation this may be redundant, we should readopt the section granting the powers of the Congress in the case of the simultaneous death of both the President and the Vice President. All Americans can then be clear in their own minds with reference to i the course of Presidential succession by a simple reading of this basic document. Every citizen can then know exactly what is meant and intended and what will happen.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment because it does away with the appointed Vice President. It provides against a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-Presidency and it makes clear in one section of the Constitution exactly what our laws of succession and disability will be.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to oppose or even espouse amendments on the floor to a constitutional amendment because of the serious import of amendments.

It is very difficult to envisage what the repercussions of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland would Apparently, he would want the Congress, probably at some future time, to provide for the election of a Vice President in the event there is a vacancy. But the gentleman does not tell us how.

Now, under the Constitution, presently a Vice President is elected as a companion to the President. They are elected together.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that if we want to split them and elect the Vice President separately from the President, we have to again amend the Constitution. I do not see how we could do it otherwise.

The gentleman from Maryland does not tell us exactly how it shall be done. In some far-distant future he is going to do it by Congress.

Mr. Chairman, it is like a blind man looking for a black hat in a dark room. I do not know how a blind man will find that black hat.

It is very difficult to envisage what the gentleman is trying to do.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there has been complaint offered here to the effect that we should do this by statute. We have taken years and years to get to the point where we are going to provide for some constitutional amendment concerning this entire important matter.

' How long is it going to take before we reach what the gentleman wants with reference to the election of a Vice President? Beyond that, are we going to have the election of a Vice President by a special election? We answered that matter before when the interrogation was addressed to me about a special election. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCULLOCH] spoke of the enormous cost of a general election. I take it, therefore, because of the utter uncertainties involved in this amendment that we should vote it down. .

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MATHIAS].

The amendment was rejected.