February 19, 1965 (5)

In this vote, the Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLER] is paired with the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE]. If present and voting, the Senator from Iowa would vote "yea," and the Senator from Oregon would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MoRTON] is paired with the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss]. If present and voting, the Senator from ~entucky would vote ''yea," and the Senator from Utah would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Idaho [Mr. JoRDAN] is paired with the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFFJ. If present and voting, the Senator from Idaho would vote "yea," and the Senator from Connecticut would yote "nay.''

On this vote, the Senator from California [Mr. KucHEL] is paired with the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON]. If present and voting, the Senator from California would vote "yea,'' and the Senator from Missouri would vote On this vote, the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. BuRDICK] is paired with the Senator from Ala~ka [Mr. GRUENINGJ. If present and votil:lg, the Senator from North Dakota would vote "yea," and the Senator from Alaska would vote "nay.'' Mr. DffiKSEN. I announce that the Senators from Kentucky [Mr. CooPER and Mr. MORTON], the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. JORDAN] and the Senator Mr. THURMOND. from Iowa [Mr. MILLER] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from California [Mr. KucHEL] is absent on official business. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK] is detained on official business.

On this vote, the Senator from Colorado T:'v!r. DoMINICK] is paired with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY]. If present and voting, the Senator from Colorado would vote "yea" and the Senator from Massachusetts would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Idaho [Mr. JORDAN] is paired with the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFFl. If present and voting, the Senator from Idaho would vote "yea" and the Senator from Connecticut would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from California [Mr. KucHEL] is paired with the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON]. If present and voting, the Senator from California would vote "yea" and the Senator from Missouri would vote "nay." On this vote, the Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLER] is paired with the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MoRsE]. If present and voting, the Senator from Iowa would vote "yea" and the Senator from Oregon would vote “nay.”

On this vote, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON] is paired with the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss]. If present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky would vote "yea" and the Senator from Utah would vote “nay.”

If present and noting, the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] would vote The result was announced-yeas 12, nays 60, as follows:

[No. 23 Leg.]

YEA&-12

Bennett Dirksen Smith Boggs Hickenlooper Thurmond Case Prouty Tower Cotton Scott Williams, Del.

NAYs--60

Aiken Harris Metcalf Allott Hart Monroney Bartlett Hartke Montoya Bass Hayden Mundt Bayh Hill Murphy Brewster Holland Pastore Byrd, Va. Hruska Pearson Byrd, W.Va. Inouye Pell Cannon Jackson Proxmire Carlson Kennedy, N.Y. Randolph Church Lausche Robertson Curtis Long, Mo. Saltonstall Dodd Long, La. Simpson Douglas Magnuson Sparkman Eastland Mansfield Stennis Ellender McClellan Talmadge Ervin McGee Tydings Fannin McGovern Yarborough . Fong Mcintyre Young, N. Dak• Fulbright McNamara Young, Ohio

NOT VOTING-28

Anderson Jordan, N.C. Muskie Bible Jordan, Idaho Nelson Burdick Kennedy, Mass. Neuberger Clark Kuchel Ribicoff Cooper McCarthy Russell Dominick Miller Smathers Gore Mondale Symington Gruening Morse Williams, N.J. Javits Morton Johnston Moss

So Mr. DIRKSEN's amendment was rejected.

AMENDMENT NO. 29

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 29 and ask unanimous consent that its reading be dispensed with, but that it be printed at this point in my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 29 is as follows:

On page 2, beginning with line 10, delete all down through and including line 16, and insert in lieu thereof the following, to wit: "SEcTION 1. If the office of President becomes vacant because of the death, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice President shall become President. If the office of Vice President becomes vacant because of the death, removal from office, or resignation of the Vice President or the death of a Vice-President-elect before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or because the Vice President or a Vice-President-elect has assumed the office of President by reason of the death, removal from office, or resignation of the President or the death of a President-elect before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, the electors who were chosen to cast ballots in the most recent election of President and Vice President shall meet in their respective States on the Monday of the third week beginning after the date on which the office of Vice President became vacant, and shall then vote by ballot for a new Vice President. They shall name in their ballots the person so voted for as Vice President, and shall make a list of all persons voted for as Vice President and the number of votes for each, which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate. The votes so cast shall then be counted, and a new Vice President shall be selected, in the manner prescribed by the twelfth article of amendment to this Constitution for the selection of a Vice President.

"SEC. 2. Electors for President and Vice President chosen in any State under this Constitution shall serve as such until the date on which electors are chosen for the next regular election of a President and a Vice President. Vacancies which may occur before that date in the membership of electors of any State because of death, removal from office, or resignation shall be filled by the selection of successors in the next regular election of that State in which members of the House of Representatives are chosen. In the event that a vacancy in the membership of electors of any State exists and a vote for a new Vice President occurs at a time prior to the next regular election of that State in which members of the House of Representatives are chosen, the remaining electors of such State shall choose a successor to serve until such next regular election.

"SEC. 3. If the Congress is not in session at a time at which a new Vice President is to be selected under this article, the person discharging the powers and duties of President shall convene the Senate and the House of Representatives in Joint session for that purpose.

"SEc. 4. A Vice President chosen under this article shall serve as such until the end of the term for which the Vice President or Vice-President-elect whom he succeeds was elected."

Renumber succeeding sections accordingly.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment proposes to delete sections 1 and 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1. The substance of section 1 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 which clearly states that the Vice President shall become President upon the death, resignation, or removal from office of the President is contained in the amendment which I propose. In addition, the present sections 3, 4, and 5 of Senate Joint Resolution 1, dealing with presidential inability, would remain unchanged if my amendment were adopted.

This amendment, Mr. President, contains the substance of Senate Joint Resolution 25, which I introduced in the Senate on January 15, 1965. There is one change, which I shall mention later. This amendment was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and subsequently to the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee, and it was available for consideration by that subcommittee during the hearings and executive sessions held in connection with this overall problem. I wrote a letter to the chairman of the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee, the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH], recommending the electoral college approach for the · selection of a new Vice President in the case of a vacancy in that office. This letter stated my general reasons for preferring the electoral college approach to the method contained in Senate Joint Resolution 1, which calls for the nomination of a new Vice President by the President and confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

At the outset, I would like to outline exactly what my amendment calls for. A vacancy in the office of Vice President may occur for any of the following reasons: death, removal from office, resignation, death of the Vice-President-elect before his term begins, or his assumption of the office of the President or Presidentelect for any reason. All of these contingencies are provided for in my amendment.

If for any of these reasons, a vacancy occurs in the office of the Vice President, the electors who were chosen in the most recent presidential election would meet in their respective States on the Monday of the third week beginning after the date on which the vacancy occurred. The electors would cast their ballot for a new Vice President, certify the result of their election, and transmit this certified list to the President pro tempore of the Senate. The President of the Senate then would proceed in accordance with the provisions of the 12th amendment to the Constitution to count the ballots and certify the election of a new Vice President. In the event that no candidate received a majority of all the electoral votes, then the Senate would choose a new Vice President in accord with the provisions of the 12th amendment to the Constitution.

Section 2 of this amendment provides for filling any vacancy among the electors of any State by election at the next regular election of that State in which Members of the House of Representatives are chosen. In the event that a vacancy exists among the electors of any State when it is necessary to elect a new Vice President, the vacancy would be filled by the remaining electors. This is to insure that the full vote to which any State is entitled would be cast. This latter provision is the only modification of Senate Joint Resolution 25 as I originally introduced it.

Section 3 of my amendment provides for the calling of a special joint session of Congress by the person discharging the powers and duties of the President in the event that Congress is not in session at the time a new Vice President is to be selected. Section 4 merely provides that the Vice President elected under the procedure provided for in that amendment would serve only during the term for which the Vice Fresident or VicePresident-elect whom he succeeds was elected.

Mr. President, I believe that the method of selecting a new Vice President provided for in my amendment is preferable to that provided in Senate Joint Resolution 1, for several reasons. First, it has the advantage of retaining the general election process which we all recognize as so necessary in a republican form of government. Second, the popularly elected body of the people, the electoral college, is the proper body to fill vacancies in the office of Vice President. Third, election by the electoral college would generate a greater degree of public confidence and a broader base of support for the individual chosen.

The only objections to this proposal which have come to my attention are that the electoral college is too cumbersome and time consuming to act quickly in emergencies, and that it is not equipped to conduct hearings on the qualifications of a candidate for the position. I do not believe that either of these objections has enough merit to outweigh the obvious advantages of the electoral college plan as compared with the presidential nomination plan. The election of a new Vice President would, under the terms of my amendment, take place on the Monday of the third week beginning after the vacancy occurred in the office of the Vice President. This would mean that the electoral college would have acted within a month after the vacancy occurred. This would provide a sufficient amount of time for all serious candidates for the office to make their positions clear, and yet it would be timely enough to avoid any crippling gap due to a longlasting vacancy in the office of Vice President. As to the contention that the electoral college is not equipped to hold hearings, I do not believe that formal hearings are necessary to the election of a new Vice President. After all, the views of any serious candidate will be well known, and everyone will have the opportunity of expressing their opinion and preferences.

As a practical matter, the individual chosen by either the method contained in my amendment, or the method contained in Senate Joint Resolution 1, would probably be the same. Undoubtedly, the President will make known his wishes as to the choice of a new Vice President. The electors in the individual States, having elected the President, would presumably elect his choice for a new Vice President. Therefore, I do not feel that the objections voiced to the electoral college method are sufficient to overcome its distinct advantages.

Section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 raises some very pertinent questions which are not answered in the Judiciary Committee's report· for example the amendment states: ' ' The President shall nominate a Vice President who is to take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Under this wording, it is not clear whether the Senate and House of Representatives are to meet in joint session and confirm the nominee of the President by a majority of the 535 of both Houses taken together, or whether they are to meet independently and have a majority of each House voting separately. This is a detail which easily could, and should, be clarified. However, no clarifying language on this point is contained in the committee's report.

One reason advanced in support of the presidential nomination procedure contained in Senate Joint Resolution 1 is that, in practice, it conforms with what occurs in the nominating conventions of the two major parties at the present time. It is true that the presidential nominee of both parties is given great latitude in choosing his vice-presidential running mate in the convention. However, I feel that there is a great deal of difference between choosing the man who is to run on the same ticket with the presidential candidate, subject to the vote of the people, and naming the man who would almost automatically become the new Vice President. This distinction may seem minor to some; however, to my mind, the proposal contained in my amendment is preferable.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?

Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the Senate is now exercising one of its greatest responsibilities, that of considering a proposal to amend the Constitution of this great Nation. And the specific proposal now before us, Senate Joint Resolution 1, is clearly one of the most important matters before the Congress. It is my privilege to cosponsor this resolution and to speak in its support today.

As all Members of the Senate know, Senate Joint Resolution 1 has three basic purposes: First, to provide that upon the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of the Presidency, the Vice President shall become President; second, to provide for the selection of a new Vice President in event of a vacancy in that office; and, third, to provide a method of determining when the Vice President shall serve as Acting President in the event of the inability of the President, and also to provide a method of determining wh.en the President is able to resume the "duties of his office. While there may be disagreement as to the specific proposals to resolve these issues, I believe that the provisions of Senate Joint Resolution 1 represents the best possible solution.

I do not believe it necessary to discuss each of these provisions in detail, because the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH] has done an outstanding job of presenting to the Senate both the need . I have. for this resolution and an explanation of its terms. He is to be highly commended for his diligent study of this problem and for his perseverance in mobilizing a national sentiment for immediate action .

Although the Senator from Indiana has performed such an excellent service in presenting this issue to the Senate, I do want to comment briefly on the major provisions of Senate Joint Resolution 1. Tlie question has been raised, for example, that this proposal is too detailed , and that it would be best to leave the determination of specific provisions up to the Congress. It is the consensus of legal authorities, however, that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to provide by legislation that the Vice President shall actually become President upon the occurrence of a vacancy in that office. Section 1 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 resolves this issue by simply providing that the Vice President shall become President in such an event. Surely no one can question the fact that a constitutional amendment is necessary in order to provide for: the selection of a new Vice President whenever there is a vacancy in that office. Congress would clearly be assuming authority not granted by the Constitution if it were to attempt to provide for - such a contingency by legislation. And yet, who can question the necessity of insuring that this Nation will never be without both a President and a Vice President? It has also been argued that sections 4 and 5 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 treat in too great detail the method of determining the factual questions of both the inability of the President and the removal of that inability. I submit, however, that a close consideration of these sections reveals that it is imperative that the method of resolving these issues be spelled out in the Constitution in the manner prescribed by Senate Joint Resolution 1. To provide any broader standards, such as simply giving Congress the authority to determine these questions by statute, would encroach on the authority of the executive branch and would constitute a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. In my opinion, sections 4 and 5 handle these problems effectively without writing , into the Constitution such great detail as to . destroy the necessary flexibility. '

Mr. President, in this modern age it is imperative that we not leave to chance any possible question of who shall exercise the powers and responsibilities of the most powerful office in the world. Congress, if it fails to act on this crucial national issue, will have refused to accept its responsibility. I believe that Senate Joint Resolution 1 presents the best possible answer to the problems of Presidential inability and succession. It represents a consensus of legal and · constitutional authorities. It provides a solution to an issue of such urgency, not only for our Nation, but also indeed for the whole world, that it is incumbent on the Congress to take immediate action. I strongly support this resolution and hope that the Senate will pass it by an overwhelming vote.

I yield back any additional time that

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I have said repeatedly in the Chamber that one of the main criteria, if not the main criterion, for the orderly transition of executive authority is acceptance by the people. With all due respect to the Senator from South Carolina, since we have been involved in this discussion, I have repeatedly consulted people in my State and other States that I have visited, who were the members of the electoral college from their State. To date, I have found one person who knew one member of the electoral college. ·

I believe that the people of the United States would accept a judgment made by 'this body and our colleagues in the House . I think they would wonder what in the world wa.S being perpetrated upon them if we brought in members of the electoral college whom they did not know from Adam.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the Senators yield back the remainder of their time?

Mr. BAYH. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. THURMOND. I yield back the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina.

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution is open to further amendment . The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 3, line 20, strike l out the word "two" and insert in lieu thereof the word "seven."

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, my amendment pertains to section 5, which involves a situation in which a President has been disabled and · a Vice President is performing the duties and assuming the powers of President as Acting President. ·

When the President declares in writing and sends to Congress his declaration that he has become restored to competence and ability once again, the bill as reported by the committee, provides a period of 2 days in which the Vice President, with the concurrence of a majority of the Cabinet members, can take issue with the President on the question of his ability.

Thereupon Congress shall immediately proceed to make a decision. The language of section 5 provides that "Thereupon Congress shall immediately proceed to decide the issue , "

It is my contention that the 2-day period is insufficient for the Vice President and members of the Cabinet to decide whether they want to raise the issue of the President's ability. In these days when much traveling is done by members of our Cabinet, and when on occasion the Vice President also travels frequently, if there would be such a declaration by the President in the absence of these parties the 48-hour period would obviously prove to be much too small.

Originally I had intended to make the period 10 days. However, I feel that 7 days would be an appropriate and adequate time for the members of the Cabinet to discuss the matter. They could inform themselves of the actual condition of the President, perhaps visit with him , perhaps visit with his personal physician. Then they could decide for themselves, on the basis of intelligent and full information, whether they should uphold the President's statement that he was again restored to capacity. For that reason my amendment provides that there shall be an increase in the permissible period of time from 2 to 7 days .

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. McCLELLAN].

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I shall vote for Senate Joint Resolution 1. I commend the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH], the principal sponsor and architect of this proposed constitutional amendment, for the dedicated work he has done in this vitally important field. One of the most important procedures in our democracy is the orderly transition of our Executive power, especially in time of crisis. Our system of government is perhaps most susceptible to forces of disruption during a period of Executive transition, and therefore we cannot afford a breakdown, or even a slowdown in such a changeover phase. While we may hope for the best, we must always be prepared for the worst. This was never more true than in today's nuclear age, when this morning's crisis is often relegated to the back pages of the afternoon newspapers headlining still another crisis.

This Nation recently survived a tragedy of the worst proportions that led to the ascendancy of our President, Lyndon Johnson. But then we were fortunate in having a Vice ' President, particularly one who had served in the forefront of our Government at its highest levels. At some future time we might not be so fortunate.

Now is the time to face the problem, .and now is the time to act, before the party. next crisis, so that we will be prepared should the need again arise. And we must act with extreme care, for we are dealing with a constitutional amendment, which by its nature bespeaks of permanency.

To cope with the problems of Presidential inability and vacancies in the Office of the Vice President, we must provide means for orderly transition of Executive power in a manner that respects the separation of powers concept, and maintains the safeguards of our traditional checks and balances system. Finally, any such provision must have the confidence and support of our people if it is to accomplish the desired results. I believe that the pending measure meets these tests.

So, Mr. President, I salute our able young colleague, Senator BIRCH BA YH, for meeting the challenge. He saw the need, and while others talked about it, he took the lead in working out a solution and then worked steadfastly for its adoption. I was privileged to join Senator BAYH as a cosponsor of this resolution and take this opportunity to commend the junior Senator from Indiana for his fine contribution in filling this gap in our Constitution that has plagued our Nation since its establishment.

Mr. BAYH. I thank the Senator from Arkansas, not only for his kind remarks, but for the significant contribution he has made, not only in his cosponsorship of the proposal, but in the enlightening debate which was had in the subcommittee.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes now to the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BASS].

Mr. BASS. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the Senator from Indiana for the outstanding contribution he has made and the diligent effort he has put forth in bringing this proposed constitutional amendment to the SenI had planned to offer an amendment to the proposed legislation, but I work under no misapprehension that my amendment would be accepted.

I would call to the attention of the Senate, however, some of the hazards involved in the legislation now pending. In section 2 it is provided:

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.

During our recent history I can recall two occasions, one when we had a situation of a President of one party having gone to that Office from the Vice-Presidency, and another when there was a vacancy in the Vice-Presidency of one party with both Houses of Congress under the control of the other party. Irefer to former President Harry Truman. It would be naive for us to argue that a Congress controlled by one party having in the Speaker's chair the No.2 man who would succeed to the Presidency in case of the death of the President, would immediately act on the recommendation for a new Vice President by the President then in power and in the opposite We all remember another recent occasion in which, during 6 years of the term of President Eisenhower, Congress sions. was controlled by the opposite party. Should the occasion have arisen at that time when Congress would be called upon to confirm the nomination of a Vice President nominated by the President of one party with an overwhelming majority of the Congress being composed of the opposite party, I could foresee the attempt to delay and stall the confirmation, because, after all, the prize of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is seldom given up without some fight or some desire to maintain its possession by any party. We all understand that.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BASS. I yield.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. To put the matter in context, if Richard Nixon had become President and had sent to Congress the nomination to make EvERETT DIRKSEN Vice President, the Democrats . in Congress would have been in a position to say, "After all, EvERETT is a wonderful fellow. I suppose if we have to have a Republican Vice President, we could not find a better man. But, if we can take our time, perhaps Sam Rayburn can become President."

Mr. BASS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. While the Senate would be cooperative, it would be reluctant to give up such a great advocate of free speech, and Senators in the majority party might say, "We might take our time about this matter. We have been working with Sam Rayburn, and if in the course of time something should happen to the new President, we would not be unhappy to have Sam Rayburn as our President."

Mr. BASS. The Senator is correct. This situation occurred a few short years ago, when Sam Rayburn was Speaker of the House. At that time there was a majority in the Democratic Party of 70 in the House of Representatives, with a Republican President. If Vice President Nixon had succeeded to the Office of the Presidency, his nomination, from my own experience in the House, would have been delayed and stalled, because Members of the House had a deep respect for Sam Rayburn. They felt at that time that he was as qualified to succeed to the Presidency of the United States as any man in America. They would have considered it a slap in the face to take up any recommendation to displace . Mr. Rayburn as the next possible President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes of the Senator from Tennessee have expired.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield . 1 additional minute to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. BASS. I expect to vote for the Senate joint resolution. The Senator from Indiana is to be commended for bringing it up. I hope it will be passed, but I hope it will be changed so that members of the President's party in the Congress would vote for the confirmation. If that is not possible, I think we should definitely impose a time limit so tha.t Congress would be forced to act immediately on such a recommendation, and not have the situation that we have had in the past few years. We have had this situation on three different occasions. Mr. President, I make these remarks only to point out some of the hazards we are facing in adopting the amendment. I hope that the Senator from Indiana will give consideration to adopting some of the recommendations which I have made.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. BAYH. I am glad to yield.

Mr. PASTORE. I do not mean to be facetious in asking this question, but does not the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Bass] feel that we should also take into account rule XXII of the Senate Rules, that a band of Senators could actually conduct a filibuster without any limitation as to time for debate and could defeat the very purpose of this constitutional amendment?

Mr. BASS. The Senator is correct. I did not point to the specific ways it might be stalled or delayed, but that is one of the methods by which it could become one of the hazards involved in adopting such an amendment.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, let me point out, in studying this situation carefully, that the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Rhode Island hit upon only two of the many possibilities, if we are to expand our wildest dreams. The specific point to which the Senator from Tennessee refers, I should like to point out, is very little different from the customary constitutional requirements of advise and consent which the Senate has had over Executive appointments; and that during the period to which the Senator referred, the President was of one party and the Congress was of another, there was very little discussion and refusal on the part of the legislative branch to accept the appointments of the President.

Mr. BASS. I believe that we would have much more of a problem il). confirming the recommendations of the President if we knew--or if we refused to confirm one of his recommendationsthat one of our own people would go to the job next. That question is involved.

Mr. BAYH. I have more faith in the Congress acting in an emergency in the white heat of publicity, with the American people looking on. The last thing Congress would dare to do would be to become involved in a purely political move.

Mr. BASS. The election of the President is just as political as anything can be, under our American system. With the next man in line sitting in the Speaker's chair, this becomes a political bomb. We are very political in choosing our President. I hope that situation will always remain. I believe that it should be that way ~ Under our system, it must be that way. ,

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield for a question and an observation?

Mr. BAYH. I yield.

Mr. PASTORE. I was looking at lines 22 to 24 on page 3 of the resolution, which read:

Thereupon Congress shall immediately proceed to describe the issue.

It shall transact no other business until this issue is decided. If we are talking about restoring the Presidency, it would occur to me that there should be a mandate upon Congress that once such an issue came before it involving the chief elective office of the United States, the man who has the trigger on the atomic bomb, Congress should not indulge in any other business until it has decided that issue. That should be a part of the section.

Mr. BAYH. This situation was discussed at great length in the committee, where two diametrically opposed points of view were developed, one of which was that a time limit was needed, as the Senator from Tennessee specifies, and as the Senator from Rhode Island urges immediacy; the other thought being that we did not wish to be pushed to a close limitation, that Members of this body and Members of the House of Representatives would not have sufficient time to call the doctors, or members of the Cabinet. If it is the wisdom of the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from Tennessee, and the majority of this body that they shall not discuss or--

Mr. PASTORE. Transact any other business.

Mr. BAYH. Transact any other business until this matter has been decided, if this ties us down, I shall be very happy to accept it, if the Senator will write it

Mr. BASS. I would agree with the Senator from Rhode Island. I believe that Congress should meet in joint session and conduct no other business until this particular issue is satisfied. That is only a thought on my part, but I believe that the suggestion of the Senator from Rhode Island is very good, but some limit should be put on it in some way, to make sure that stalling and delaying tactics cannot be carried out.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield?

Mr. BAYH. I yield.

Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from Indiana agree with me that the word "immediately" does exactly that? The words "immediately proceed" mean that we are going to do that and nothing will occur in between.

Mr. BAYH. That is exactly my feeling, as the Senator from North Carolina knows.

Does the Senator from North Carolina object, if it clarifies the point to some Senators, to including the reference that was made by the Senator from Rhode Island? The reason this was not tied down more specifically——.

Mr. ERVIN. I do not see the necessity for it, because that is what the word "immediately" means to me.

Mr. PASTORE. • It does not mean that to me.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, do I still have the floor?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana still has the floor.

Mr. BAYH. Let me suggest that the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from North Carolina might discuss this for a moment while I discuss the pending amendment, which is a different amendment, if I may return to it.

The amendment suggested by the able Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA], raising the number of days from 2 to 7 in which the Vice President and the Cabinet would have to deliberate on this important decision, would make it a better resolution, give time in which to study and review the evidence, and perhaps discuss it with the President. I shall be glad to accept the amendment. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time on the amendment.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time on the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA].

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President-­

The PRESIDING OFFICER.

Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE].

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I move to amend Senate Joint Resolution 1 by adding on page 3, line 24, after the word "issue," the following words: "and no other business shall be transacted until such issue is decided."

Mr. BASS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield?

Mr. BAYH. I yield.

Mr. BASS. My point has been that the amendment in section 2 should be on the election of a new Vice President. The Senator from Rhode Island is proceeding on the issue of Presidential inability. I am talking about the election of a new Vice President.

Mr. PASTORE. I am talking about Presidential inability.

Mr. BASS. What about the election of a new Vice President?

Mr. PASTORE. The Senator can submit that amendment for himself.

Mr. BASS. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to section 2--

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator wait until my amendment has been considered?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Put them both in together in line 16. ,

The PRESIDING OFFICER.

Senator from Rhode Island still has the floor.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be read.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, let me ask Senators to think about this issue for a moment. As has just been pointed out to me by the Senator from Nebraska, the difficulty of getting specific, precise language "immediately proceed to decide" means, to me, just what we are trying to accomplish, with one exception, that if it is necessary, as the Senator points out, to declare wa. or some other great national emergency should come upon us, there can be little question in the minds of anyone that it is mandatory and that we must discuss and decide. This, however, takes a little time. Does this proposal not preclude us from doing that?

Mr. PASTORE. The Senator from Indiana just finished saying that we must act as reasonable people. We are talking about restoring a President who is the rightful occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In the meantime, suppose we have a serious crisis on our hands. We may have to go to war. Do we not believe that Congress should act immediately and decide no other business until we find out who the President is going to be--that is, the man who will have his finger on the trigger of the atomic bomb? That is precisely the question that I am raising. Naturally, we are talking about the President of the United States, the one man who, above all others, is the only person who can decide whether a hydrogen or an atomic bomb will be dropped.

We are living in a sensitive and perilous world. All I am saying is that if this serious question ever comes before Congress-and God forbid that it ever will-but if for some reason we have a President who becomes incompetent and has been declared incompetent . and The the Vice President has taken over, and later the President comes forward and says, "I am restored to competency and health. I wish my powers back, the powers that were given to me by the people of the United States," I do not wish to Witness a filibuster. We could be in a filibuster. That is what is wrong with the proposed legislation. We are not getting to the root of the issuethe root of it being the rules of the Senate. The Senate is still subject to the rules of the Senate. Here we are. We are met with a crisis.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Rhode Island yield himself some time?

Mr. PASTORE. I do.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. PASTORE. May I finish, please? All that I am saying at this time is, if the words "immediately proceed to decide" mean exactly what I say they mean, then, of course, we are really arguing in a paper bag. I do not think the language is that explicit. I believe it should be clarified. What the Senator from Indiana has brought to the floor is a masterful piece of work. However, once this issue comes before Congress, these doors ought to be closed, and we The ought to stay here until we decide that question, even if we must sit around the clock, or around the calendar, because this problem involves the Presidency of the United States.

I would hope that we would not get ourselves "snafued" in a filibuster, ir1 which two people could say, "We want the Speaker of the House to be President." We do not want them to be able to say, "We do not want the man whose name has been submitted to be President." I would hope that we would think too much of the country and the welfare of the country and the peace of the world to indulge in that kind of antic.

However, we ought to write this provision into law, because it is a fundamental question, and we should decide nothing until that question is decided.

If the present language means that, I am satisfied. I have no pride of authorship. If it does not mean that, it ought to be corrected.

The PRESIDING difficulty is that the Senator's amendment is not at the desk.

Mr. PASTORE. I cannot write quite that fast. If I may have a moment, I shall be glad to write it out.

Mr. HARRIS. If the Senator will yield to me, he will have time to write it out.

Mr. PASTORE. I yield.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President--

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I should like to suggest that this is time which is being consumed on the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, which he is in process of inscribing in his fine hand.

Mr. PASTORE. I agree that it will be in a fine hand.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair so understands.

Mr. HARRIS. The Senator from Rhode Island has yielded to me.

Mr. PASTORE. from Oklahoma.

Mr. HARRIS. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Indiana a question. I have been discussing this matter • with a certain Senator, and he tells me that the word "immediately" deals with inability. He also tells me that if the amendment were adopted and the Vice President should become the President of the United States, . the Speaker of the House would no · longer be next in line. Is that correct?

Mr. BAYH. The Senator is correct.

Mr. HARRIS. What happens, and who becomes President if no nomination has been confirmed?

Mr. BAYH. The Speaker of the House.

Mr. HARRIS. I have just asked that question of the Senator.

Mr. BAYH. No; the Senator did not ask me that question. He has asked if the nominee whose name is before CongresS bec:omes Vice President, then who becomes President?

Mr. HARRIS. No. If Congress does not confirm, if no nomination is before Congress, is the Speaker of the House still in line for the Presidency?

Mr. BAYH. Yes.

Mr. HARRIS. Therefore, in section 2 of the joint resolution there is no time limit.

Mr. BAYH. Is the Senator addressing me? Does the Senator wish me to give an answer to that question, if it is a question?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes.

Mr. BAYH. I would be glad to tell the Senator the difference between the word "immediately" in section 5 and the word "immediately" in section 2.

Mr. HARRIS. There is no word "immediately" in section 2.

Mr. BAYH. I should like to explain it to the Senator.

Mr. HARRIS. I should like to · have an explanation.

Mr. BAYH. In section 5, which is being considered by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], we deal with the question: "Who is the President aside. of the United States?" That can be only one man.

In section 2 we are dealing with the selection of a Presidential replacement OFFICER. The when a vacancy exists.

Mr. HARRIS. I understand.

Mr. BAYH. There is a President who is able to conduct business and to carry on the affairs of our country. I should dislike to see everything that must be decided by Congress come to a stop in the event Congress becomes logjammed on this question. It is conceivable that the example the Senator from Tennessee cites could come to pass. However, I believe there is very little likelihood that it would.

However, we would have a President, if Congress should become involved in a dispute which could not be solved; and by adding the word "immediately" we are saying that Congress cannot discharge its duties while it is deciding on the Vice President. I do not attach the same importance to the decision with respect to the Vice President as I do with I yield to the Senator respect to the President.

Mr. HARRIS. The Senator may not attach the same importance to it, but we would have the situation that was described before if we did not impose a time limit within which action must be taken. If we had a President of one party and a Congress of another party, we would still encourage stalling and delay, and we could wind up for a period of 6 or 8 months or even 2 years in which Congress would not have to act in this situation, and we would still be in the same position of having the Speaker of the House the next man in line.

That situation should be changed. I agree with the Senator that Congress should elect the Vice President. I had hoped that it would be only by members of the President's own party. However, I will accept his amendment. At the same time, I wish to warn him that if he does not put some time limit in the amendment as to when Congress shall act on it, we shall find ourselves in the same situation; and if we do nothing, the Speaker of the House will be the next man in line. If the majority party in Congress is not the same as the party of the President, no action will be taken.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield myself sufficient time to address myself to the amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island.

I should like to say one word of explanation as to the intent of the word "immediately" on page 3 of the report. I quote:

Precedence for the use of the word "immediately" and the interpretation thereof may be found in the use of this same word "immediately" in the 12th amendment to the Constitution.

In the 12th amendment, as the Senator knows, in the event no candidate for President receives a majority of the electoral votes, it is the responsibility of the House to decide who the President shall be; in the case of the Vice President, it is the responsibility of the Senate.

We should have some sense of urgency in this situation and put all other things

Mr. PASTORE. Does not the Senator believe that it would take care of any ambiguity if we wrote that language into this provision? All that my amendment provides is, "No other business shall be transacted until such issue is decided."

That is very clear. It is not inimical to any other provision of the Constitution. It should be written in as a safeguard, so that the . re will be no question about it. If the Senator agrees with me that that is what we mean, we should put such language in the provision. We should not have the issue come up and have someone say, "Let us refer it to committee," because the committee could hold hearings, and we would accept that as immediate consideration. I want to keep Congress in continuous session on this point. I want 100 Senators on the floor and 435 Representatives on the floor in the House until they have decided this important question, because it is vitally important. I say we must not transact any other business until we have decided this question.

Mr. BAYH. I believe the record of the debate will make it abundantly clear that the Senator from Indiana agrees with the Senator from Rhode Island as to the urgency that is involved.

I would prefer not to use additional language. I do not believe there is any more urgency in deciding this problem than there is when the House and the Senate must decide the question of who the President and Vice President shall be under the terms of the 12th amendment.

Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator agree to take the amendment to conference? If it is necessary that it be eliminated in conference, I shall feel no offense. What harm can it do if we recodify it?

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

Mr. BAYH. I yield to the Senator from Michigan, who has the answer.

Mr. HART. The Senator from Michi- gan believes that the answer of the Senator from Indiana to what he has just said would be "no."

Mr. BAYH. I am sorry; I did not hear what the Senator said. ·

Mr. HART. The Senator from Rhode Island read language which would require us to conduct no other business until we resolved the question, which in the case of sections 4 and 5 would be: "Who is the President of the United States?" I agree that we would all be pretty responsible in attempting to answer the question as promptly as we could.

What we are talking about is a situation in which the Senate, irr the event of a cruel national crisis might find two men contending that each is the President of the United States.

Pray God that it never happens. If the Senate should adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, under the pressure · and heavy sense of responsibility that would be present, we would conduct no other business until we have answered the question as to who the President is. I know the ingrained traditions of the Senate with respect to unlimited debate. But why could we not add additionally the Ianguage--and I think a constitutional amendment would override the rules of the Senate--that we shall vote not later than 3 calendar days thereafter? If in 72 hours we cannot determine who is the President of the United States, the world will have passed us by, anyway. Why do we not pin down precisely when we shall vote on the question?

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I invite the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. - time? ERVIN] to speak to the specific point now · being discussed, because it was debated at great length in the committee.

Mr. ERVIN. I think the answer to the question is that we are attempting to deal with the question of the disability of the President. The problem may be one of mental disability, and evidence would have to be adduced. I presume Congress could appoint a committee to take care of that question. The testimony might not be completed in 3, 4, or 5 days. I believe that is the answer.

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

Mr. BAYH. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. HRUSKA. If we get into the process of amending a proposed constitutional amendment on the floor of the Senate, we shall be treading on dangerous ground. I say that the proposed amendment is difficult, and probably unnecessary, although I shall not oppose the amendment for the purpose of taking it to conference so that the conferees may consider it.

However, the subject was considered in the committee, as the chairman knows. Let us remember, that the issue is very serious. It could not be raised unless at least six members of the Cabinet, who would have been appointed by the President, should assert his inability, together with the transmittal of a message by the Vice President, to the Congress.

We considered the idea of a filibuster in the committee. But the difficulty is in respect to the period of time that would be allowed. Should we provide for a period of 10 days, 3 days, or 60 days? . Suppose the question should relate to the mental ability of the President. An examination would be necessary. Psychiatrists would not be able to go into the President's office, look him over, and say, "The man is insane," or, "the man is not insane." They would need time in which to observe and conduct tests. Congress would need time to hear the reasons why the members of the Cabinet had said, "Mr. President, you are not able to resume the duties and powers of your office." That process would take time. It was felt, in the committee, that the Congress would rise to the importance and urgency of the task at hand. How silly it would be of us to insert restricting language to the effect that while we might be waiting for the report of psychiatrists, we could transact no other business. I believe that such action would reflect upon the intelligence and the good faith of the Congress and would not be advisable in a constitutional amendment.

All of those points were taken into consideration before we agreed to leave the provision as it is.

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

Mr. BAYH. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island. ·

Mr. PASTORE. Is the Senator from Nebraska actually saying that the word "immediately" means that other business could be transacted in the mean­

Mr. HRUSKA. No.

Mr. PASTORE. That is what I thought the Senator was saying.

Mr. HRUSKA. It means that the Congress should address itself immediately to the question which we are discussing. Meanwhile collateral questions might arise; and while hearings were being conducted on that question, why should we tie our hands? An urgent situation of national import might arise.

Mr. PASTORE. Why should we tie our hands? As I have said many times before, we are living in a very sensitive world. The only man in the United States under our law who has the power to drop the atom bomb is the President. It is absolutely important to decide who that President shall be. God forbid that we should ever be placed in such a position. But I can conceive of nothing more important to the people of our country and the peace of the world than to determine the question as to who is the President of the United States. We ought to do nothing until we determine the answer to that question even if it should mean that we would be required to remain in the Senate Chamber around the clock.

I do not agree that the measure ought to be limited as to time because, after all, I do not know what the situation would be. All I am saying is that while such an important question-the most important question that could beset the people of our country-as determining who is the President. in a moment of crisis, is pending, we ought to determine that and nothing else.

We should include a restriction in the joint resolution that we would do nothing else but determine that question, and we would do so expeditiously. But if we should permit Senators to talk about what color the rose in the State of Rhode Island should be, or what flower we should adopt as our national flower, and have a morning hour to talk about pansies in the spring while we are trying to determine who the President of the United States should be-and there is sometimes a tendency to indulge in such things in moments of capriciousnesswe might face serious consequences. I say let us avoid that. Let us act correctly. We desire to amend the Constitution. I say that when there is a question as to who should be the President of the United States, w~ should do nothing else until we make a · decision on that question. Such a provision ought to be in the law.

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

Mr. BAYH. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. MANSFIELD. It is my understanding that both the Senator in charge of the joint resolution and the ranking minority member of the committee have stated that they will accept the amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island and take it to conference.

Mr. PASTORE. Oh, no. They have not said that yet. I am waiting for them to say it.

Mr. HRUSKA. I have so indicated.

Mr. PASTORE. But the Senator in charge of the bill has not said that he would accept it.

Mr. HRUSKA. I would not join in writing in such an amendment, but I have said that I would not object to the amendment being accepted and taken to conference. I do say that the sense of urgency and importance which has been described so eloquently by the Senator from Rhode Island would seem to make it the type of problem to which the Congress will react in a proper fashion. That was the considered judgment of the committee after lengthy discussion. I make that statement now because the subject will be considered in conference, and the conferees should have the reasons for the committee's action.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, it seems to me that we are unanimous in our intention. Our dispute is with respect to what words would adequately express our intention.

Mr. PASTORE. That is correct.

M . r. BAYH. I should like to ask the Senator from Rhode Island a question. Does the Senator feel that we would decide a different question in relation to section 5 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 than would be decided under the provisions of the 12th amendment of the Constitution, in the event this body were required to decide who the Vice President would be, and the House were required to decide who the President would be, where the use of the word "immediately" is present? We have precedent for that. It means "immediately," "get going," "dispense with everything else!'

Mr. PASTORE . I agreed with everything that the Senator · from Indiana said until the Senator from Nebraska asked, "Do you mean to say that while this matter is being considered we would not be able to transact any business?"

That questio;n would imply, under the proposed language, that we could transact other business.

Mr. HRUSKA. We certainly could and we might want to.

Mr. PASTORE. The Senator from Rhode Island is trying to avoid thatand I am being very explicit about itby saying, "Write a provision in the joint resolution to the effect that we could not transact any other business until the question discussed had been decided."

If that is what the Senator desires, what would be the harm?

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has the floor.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I should like to yield to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. BASS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Indiana yield for that purpose?

Mr. BAYH. I yield for a parliamentary inquiry. . The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BASS. Does the amendment now pending, offered by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, include language that mentions section 2 of the bill, which relates to the election of a new Vice President?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment.

The LEGISATIVE CLERK. On page 21 line 16, after "Congress," it is proposed to add: "and no other business shall be transacted until such issue is decided."

Mr. BASS. The Chair, then, would have to answer my inquiry in the affirmative; is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from North Carolina has the floor. Has he yielded the floor?

Mr. ERVIN. Yes.

Mr. HART. Mr .' President, on the Pastore amendment, may I have a moment?

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, how much time have I remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 20 minutes remaining.

Mr. PASTORE. I yield to the Senator from Michigan as much time as he requires.

Mr. HART. It was I who inquired why there ought not, in effect, be a time certain. I suggested that the action be taken within 3 days. I heard the Senator from Rhode Island reply that he would not go that far; that he could not see a capricious person holding the floor and talking about the color of the rose in Rhode Island, and so on. What concerns me-

Mr. PASTORE. No; I said I could see such a person.

Mr. HART. If the Senator could see one, I should think it would be desirable that some time limit be set. But even if he could not see such a person, I can .see-and I ask Senators if they might not see--35 sincere men in a time of intense danger and high emotional crisis saying that a Vice President who would not put missiles somewhere was a better man than a President, who wanted to come back and would put missiles somewhere. Such a debate could continue for a long time. Would we be better off leaving the question unresolved? Basically, that is the problem.

Mr. ERVIN. If we cannot trust Members of the Senate and House to exercise intelligence and patriotism in a time of national crisis, we might as well not do anything. We might · as well not try to improve · the situation. I think we should pass a constitutional amendment and leave the action to be taken under that constitutional amendment to those who are in office at the time such action must be . taken. I think we shall have to indulge the assumption that those persons will love their country as much as we do; that they will not jeopardize their country by holding up the consideration of matters of that kind .

This is essentially a subject, as I said before, which will require the taking of testimony. We cannot put a time limit on the search for truth, especially when it concerns the intelligence of the President.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island would not jeopardize the situation in that way. I see no objection to his amendment. But to try to set a time limit because it · is feared that the action of those who would be controlled by this condition would be delaying, requires us to assume that they would not be patriotic and intelligent and would not act reasonably.

Mr. HART. The patriotism of the 35 Senators who would not wish to put missiles down is not in question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from MichiMr. BAYH. I will yield time.

Mr. HART. I presume that the patriotism of the 35 Senators who would have at heart the interests of their children is not in question. I presume that 35 Senators who would not be under a cloud would also be patriotically motivated, and thus the debate could go on forever.

Mr . ERVIN. Has not the Senator's own language overcome the conclusion that the 35 Senators would not perform their duties but would determine the physical state or mental state of the President, instead of concerning themselves with where the missiles shall be placed?

Mr. HART. I would hope that each of us would attempt to be objective in his review of the medical testimony. But I greatly fear that if there were a deep conviction harbored by 35, there would be tragedy compounded, and the result would be the bringing back of a man whose policy would be to bring back missiles that would create havoc, and we would confuse medical testimony with our obligation.

I think the roll should be called at some precise time, and I suggest 3 days.

Mr. BAYH. The situation to which the Senator from Michigan refers is one that has not gone unnoticed by the Senator from Indiana. Before this circumstance arose, the Vice President, a majority of the President's Cabinet, and two-thirds of the House of Representatives, which does not have unlimited debate, would have to support the contention of the Vice President. As soon as one less than two-thirds of the House cast their votes, the issue would become moot, and the question would be "out of court."

Mr. HART. Would not the Senate have a voice in that decision?

Mr. BAYH. It would take two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House to sustain the position of the Vice President.

I think the record is abundantly clear that the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Indiana see eye to eye. The record is written.

Mr. PASTORE. Do I correctly understand that the Senator from Indiana will a-ccept my amendment?

Mr. BAYH. , I was under the impression that the Senator from Rhode Island did not think it was necessary.

Mr. PASTORE. I did not say that at all. I never said that.

Mr. BAYH. I see no objection to taking the amendment with one proviso. I should like . to drop the last word; I do not think it is necessary.

Mr. PASTORE. Very well; if the Senator does not believe it is necessary, I shall drop it .

Mr. BASS. Mr. President, what is the situation now?

Mr. BAYH. The amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island would then read as follows: "and no other business shall be transacted until such issue is decided."

Mr. PASTORE. That is correct.