Senator FONG. If he was born a naturalized citizen, then that was all right.

Mr. CORCORAN. I mean, for some reason there was a question. But I agree with you, we'd better believe in American democracy or we won't survive.

Senator FONG. We shouldn't have one class of citizenship and a second-class citizen.

Mr. CORCORAN. I agree with you.

Senator BAYH. I also wanted to make sure.

I believe you are talking about Governor Rockefeller and the question was whether the provision in the Constitution which said that you have to be born in the United States to be President applies to a man who was a citizen at birth. His parents were both citizens and Senator Fong would broaden that to say that you needn't be a natural-born American citizen, you could be a Hungarian or whatever, just as long as you became a citizen.

Mr. CORCORAN. You know, that somehow applies to the sequel of the Bay of Pigs mistake after we said we were going to protect people. To meet our promise we took in about 400,000 Cubans. Senator Fong, I wonder what will happen if as a result of our new policy with the Taiwan Chinese, we are under a similar obligation to take in the 212 million Chinese in Formosa. If things aren't as sweet as they are supposed to become between us and the Chinese, we could have the same situation as we had with the Cubans with the Bay of Pigs.

And I hear that the Chinese make good citizens, there are no Chinese on welfare. We might have a real change in the genetic constitution of this country which will require a new look at the rights of naturalized citizens.

I was in Japan in connection with Okinawa-and this is off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

Mr. CORCORAN. Excuse me that was off the record.

What I am saying is we may very well have a real influx of many new naturalized citizens and we might as well look at the fact that the country is genetically changing and if we don't treat all citizens alike, we are going to have a lot of trouble.

Senator FONG. You know in some countries, though the person is born in that country, they don't get citizenship and they have to go through elaborate practices and spend a tremendous amount of money before they can secure citizenship and in this type of society the people are not happy.

Here in America you forward to equal citizenship regardless of race and nationality.

Senator BAYH. Could you give us a little thinking as to why at the time the decision was made to seek a third term, why was that decision made contrary to the very strong precedent of every other President? What thoughts were going through the President's mind?

Mr. CORCORAN. I am not saying what was going through the President's mind because I wouldn't presume to know. Mr. Roosevelt was a complicated person.

But I do think that when they really got down to thinking about it, the American people themselves wanted him to run again for the third term and he sensed it.

All that was important was to stop the process of them thinking it was not possible. You notice that started by a statement by one of your predecessors, Senator Guffy, and time after time it was just put to the American people that this insurmountable tradition was only something that hadn't been thought about. And then the clouds gathered and the necessity of strong leadership in foreign affairs came about and the American people, who up to that time thought it was unthinkable suddenly decided it wasn't so unthinkable at all.

Senator BAYH. At what time was that decision made?

Mr. CORCORAN. Senator, I really don't know. I can't tell you, Senator. I think if you will note Senator Guffy's speech in which he first testified that maybe it wasn't unthinkable, you would know around what time that was but I don't exactly remember when it was.

Senator BAYH. Well, we can look that up.

I was just trying to determine the proximity of World War II to this decision. You say it was because of a feeling of the need for strong leadership in foreign affairs. I thought it might have been because the President didn't feel his domestic program had been successful.

Mr. CORCORAN. Oh, no. I mean, after all, the President is the captain of the ship but the seas control the captain. I think the idea was growing that we were in difficulty in foreign policy and we needed an experienced man to handle it. We couldn't afford, as Lincoln said, to switch horses in the stream at that particular time. I think the American people, not President Roosevelt, asked for a third term.

I say the only thing that happened was that they were conditioned into thinking about the unthinkable. And in thinking about the unthinkable, they found that it was thinkable and possible.

Senator BAYH. Is it thinkable that we should repeal the 22d amend

ment?

Mr. CORCORAN. As I said, it has been my experience that they are hard to repeal. But if you think you can repeal the 22d amendment, I wouldn't see anything wrong with repealing the 22d amendment.

I think we are going into some difficult trouble in the days ahead, the kind of trouble which we have never had before. The peace we are going to purchase for a generation is going to be at the expense of the American overseas power.

We are going to make everybody love us ultimately by giving up what we have and that is going to be a very difficult transition both outside the country and inside the country.

Probably never more than now in the history of our "empire" have we needed leadership, and I am not speaking about anybody in particular. But I wouldn't mind repealing the 22d amendment. The thing that bothers me is this will be hard to do because there are a lot of people who don't want you to repeal the 22d amendment because they have a vested interest in their own careers.

Again, two things impressed me very early in my life. One was Warren Harding in the trial I participated in against his AttorneyGeneral, Harry Daugherty. The other was how long it took us to get rid of the 18th amendment, once it was there because, you see, there were vested interests against the repeal of the 18th amendment. A lot of people were making an awful lot of money on it.

Senator BAYH. We have what, 25 or 26 and only one was repealed?

Mr. CORCORAN. It took a depression to repeal the 18th and I am sure you and I are glad it was repealed.

Senator BAYH. Are there any other amendments to the Constitution that you would repeal?

Mr. CORCORAN. Well, now that I am beginning to make money I would like to get rid of the 16th, income tax, but I think that would be very difficult.

Senator BAYH. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your taking the time to testify before us.

STATEMENT OF JAMES MacGREGOR BURNS, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT WILLIAMS COLLEGE; BIOGRAPHER OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT

Senator BAYH. Our next witness is Professor James Burns, who was the biographer of President Roosevelt, and has written extensively on presidential politics in Government and is now professor of political science at Williams College and has testified before this committee before and has contributed extensively to the government processes.

We appreciate the special effort you have made to be with us this morning.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, you have probably heard a good deal of repetitious testimony and if you would prefer, I would be happy either to read my relatively brief statement, or to read the summary and conclusion of the statement and to ask for more time for dialog.

Senator BAYH. Your statement is rather short, why don't you just go ahead and read it.

You can proceed in whatever way you wish. I certainly don't feel the statement is too long to read if you want.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, the basic concept behind this proposal is somehow to remove the President from politics, or at least from party politics. But politics-especially bipartisan politics-is at the very heart of a democratic system. Our goal should be not to suppress party politics but to make the battle between parties and between candidates as clear-cut, honest, visible, extensive, and responsible as possible.

It is curious that Senators who are themselves politicians-partisan politicians—and who frequently and sincerely celebrate "government by the people" should seek to snap the links of Presidential responsibility to the people, should seek to let the President soar over the heads of the people, with no accountability to the voters at the next election. Proponents of this resolution want Presidents to "act like statesmen." But who decides whether a President is acting like a statesman? Should we leave it up to the historians? That is putting a pretty heavy burden on the professionals! And even if the historians reached agreement, their verdict would come too late to help the people decide who was an ineffective, unsuccessful President.

Should we have suffered 6 years of Buchanan or Harding, without appeal to the people, only to be told years later that they were not statesmen? As a historian, I would argue that only the people can decide who is a statesman, and only if the politicians present themselves and their parties to the people in fair, open, and regular elections.

The effort to "de-politicize" the Presidency is especially distressing today. For this is a time when we are seeking out ways of stabilizing

and controlling presidential power without unduly crippling the Chief Executive in dealing with crisis situations at home and abroad. We are discovering that it is very difficult to devise mechanical or institutional methods of controlling the President-that a device that might work in one situation might be a grave handicap in another. The strongest, most ever-ready, most popular control on the President is his concern about the judgment the people will pass on him at the next election.

If the threat of popular repudiation is abolished by a proposal such as this joint resolution, not only is the bond of accountability broken between people and President, but no mechanical or institutional restraint on the President can take its place. I do not see how any Senator who is concerned about presidential power today can support a proposal that would make it less accountable and responsible.

No democratic process in the Nation, in short, makes for greater accountability than one in which an incumbent President after 4 years in office proudly presents his record to the voters and is opposed by a presidential candidate and party that claim they can do better. Extensive analysis by political scientists has proved over and again that such contests bring out the geratest number of voters to the polls, on the most informed basis, for the most clear-cut and meaningful kind of choice.

The two practical arguments advanced for this joint resolution are that a 6-year term would give the President an extra 2 years to learn his job and to accomplish his program. History and logic argue against these propositions. Any man who needs 2 years of on-the-job training in the White House should not run for the Presidency in the first place. As for their programs, most of the more effective Presidents in this century have put their main proposals through during their first 2 years. Woodrow Wilson is a conspicuous example.

They become less effective in later years because the midterm congressional elections usually go against them, and because they lose influence as rival politicians see the President's political influence dwindling because of his lameduck status. Eligibility of the President for a second term enables him to gain a renewed mandate from the people, on the basis of which he can press ahead with his program. To summarize and conclude: Democracy is based on the proposition, among others, that it is the people who decide who are the statesmen. A statesman is a successful politician-by the people's decision. Our goal must be to subject competing politicians to the most meaningful judgment we can gain from the voters as a whole. The voters make the wisest decisions when presented with clear, meaningful alternatives. They perform at their best in choosing between two parties that offer definite alternatives.

Rather than removing the President from his central position of responsibility, he and all our elected leaders should face the voters in elections every 4 years as members of one or the other party teams, collectively responsible to the electorate. This means that Members of Congress should share accountability and responsibility jointly with the President at election time, just as they do in running the Government.

Mr. Chairman, the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate has a distinguished record in confronting some of the toughest problems

facing a people insisting on governing themselves as effectively as possible. On the premises I have advanced above, I urge you to reject Senate Joint Resolution 17, and then to hold hearings and endorse the following constitutional amendments:

First, repeal the 22d amendment and thus prevent automatic second term lameduck Presidents constitutionally barred from presenting themselves and their records to the people.

Second, shorten Senators' 6-year terms to 4 years, all terms to run concurrently with the presidential term.

Third, lengthen Representatives' 2-year terms, to run concurrently with the presidential term.

Mr. Chairman, I realize it may sound presumptuous of me to come to Washington and urge as drastic a set of proposals as I just have, but may I just say that in my judgment this decade will be full of crises, as the decade of the 1960's was full of crises, and unless we are willing to consider basic changes that will modernize the Constitution of the United States, this country by late in the 1970's will face crises that will be even greater than the kind of experience that we have all been going through during the last few years.

Thank you for allowing me the chance to be here.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Professor Burns.

Let me just pose some questions to get further thinking on this matter, I'll play devil's advocate if I may. To what extent do you believe a 6-year term, without reelection or without the change of referendum after 4 years in office, lessens the responsiveness of the President to a constituency or lessens the chance of the constituency to express itself and see that expression felt on national policy?

Does that play a significant part in your thinking in opposition to it?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, to some degree. I would guess that a president who did not have to face the problem of reelection would feel himself responsible to some national constituency and this is exactly what I fear. What is the national constituency? I think it is impossible to represent the national constituency except in a deep crisis where we know exactly what we want to do, as in World War II.

But this proposal reflects the idea that somehow or other our divisions in this country are going to be jammed into the closet and we will be able to shut the door on them. But the divisions of this Nation are the glory of this Nation.

We should revel in the presidential contests and in Presidents who don't try to represent all of the people, the Presidents who will say "I was elected on the basis of a Republican conservative constituency in this country," for example. Perhaps the constituency that Mr. Goldwater tried to represent in 1964, or that Mr. Nixon to some extent tried to represent in 1968-perhaps that constituency's views on what will be good for the country ought to be given a chance.

Then let the other side, the liberal or moderate side, try to become the majority party in the next presidential race. I think, incidentally, not only the Nation suffered by this effort to represent some kind of false consensus but the Presidents-even the Presidents who thought they represented all of the people and consequently evoked the name of "all of the people"-have found in the end that their backing was turning into water that was running out in all directions, and it would