Now, isn't it dangerous to our philosophy to place in the hands of any group of men the proper determination of whether or not a man is in Congress? Going one step further, during the period of Woodrow Wilson, after he had a stroke in 1919 he was received by a group in the House and the Senate which were adverse to him. Now, if this group had been there, do you think they would

Mr. CHELF. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. All right; go ahead.

Mr. CHELF. Along that line, is it or isn't it true that the representation sent by the House and the Senate to interview the President were denied access to him?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I think

Mr. CHELF. Under the Wilson administration.

Mr. CURTIN. If I could interrupt, my understanding is that Mrs. Wilson wouldn't let them through the door.

Mr. CHELF. That is it. You wouldn't want to bring the women down on your backs.

Mr. ROGERS. But even then, if she wouldn't let them in, do you think this group should go ahead and act because the wife wouldn't let them in to see him?

Mr. CURTIN. Again it is a question of relativity. I presume we are saying that 535 men and women are better able to determine the question than a commission of 7 or 8, or whatever it is. It is a question of can 10 people do the job better than 7, can a hundred do it better than 10, can 535 do it better than a hundred?

You speak of the Johnson impeachment proceeding of the last century. Now, there you had this impeachment trial, and certainly the President didn't come up here to a completely impartial atmosphere. There was definitely high feeling involved.

Mr. ROGERS. That is the point that I am getting at.

Mr. CURTIN. That high feeling involved the whole Congress, so that conceivably a whole Congress could have definite opinions. It could not be completely impartial just as perhaps the Commission could not.

Now, I certainly would have no objection, and I am not trying to impose my thoughts on you, obviously, but I certainly would have no objection if you wanted the Congress to pass on the findings of the Commission. That would be perfectly all right with me, but somebody, somewhere along the line, has got to make a decision.

Mr. WHITENER. I think what Mr. Tenzer was trying to point out was that in the other proposals the Congress has the right to make the final decision because the Congress is in theory, at least, more representative of the people, and in this modern time I think that if the authority would not be adequate, if the President were accused by some group of being mentally incompetent, and the Congress made the decision, the Congress could then invite the man over here to speak to the Congress and appeal. It could be televised and the people of the Nation could look at it, and if the man was competent, and it was apparent that he was competent, it would not only be apparent to Members of the Congress but would be apparent to the Nation. There would be very few Members of Congress, no matter how politically motivated they were, who would stand up and say the man was mentally incompetent and otherwise unable to carry on his work if the millions of people in the Nation who looked on him on television as he spoke to the Congress decided he was all right.

It seems to me that is the danger of this system here, because you could have a star chamber session, and then build up a record and send it up to Congress, and if we only had appellate jurisdiction and the poor President didn't have a right to come up and present such evidence as he wanted before the Congress, it just wouldn't be much of a trial. You wouldn't even treat a common bootlegger that way in Pennsylvania.

Mr. CURTIN. There is merit to what you say, obviously, but I could call attention to the fact that I am sure you gentlemen all realize and I am not a physician, I am just an attorney-while I have practiced law I have seen occasions where people who were mentally ill, badly mentally ill, have appeared before courts and have scintillated for about a half hour or so, but, of course, as soon as they get tired their disability becomes apparent. However, they can make a very fine speech if they are just set up for it, so, therefore, the fact that someone appears before a group of men and makes a good speech doesn't mean that he is not mentally ill.

Mr. WHITENER. But you would let Congress have some authority in this resolution of yours, in this amendment, and then the Congress could say that the President would have a right to appear, but that if he did he would have to be submitted to interrogation by committees, Representatives of Congress, that this would have to be done in public. You could do many things, but your resolution wouldn't give Congress any right to do anything but sit up here and make speeches and say the Commission has done right or wrong.

Mr. TENZER. In any event, Congressman Curtin, this would be a period of emergency, and in a period of emergency it would not be best to have the Congress in session.

Mr. CURTIN. I would certainly agree to that, and I would have no objection to having the bill amended, if the committee, in its wisdom, feels it is a good approach. I certainly have no objection to having the resolution amended so that the findings of the Commission would be subject to the approval of the Congress. That would be perfectly all right with me. But somewhere along the line somebody has got to start it, and I think a commission is the way it should be started.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your contribution.

Mr. CURTIN. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. POFF. May I express my commendation to the gentleman for his contribution on the matter and to ask if I have correctly interpreted his testimony to mean that while he is first interested in the proposal he has made, you would be glad to see this committee act expeditiously upon what has come to be pretty much a consensus of an approach which is somewhat different from your own.

Mr. CURTIN. I certainly agree with that.

Mr. POFF. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CHELF. In other words, anything is better than nothing—and that is what we have right now.

Mr. CURTIN. Anything is better than what we have right now.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is our colleague from Ohio, a new member, and we certainly welcome him here, the Honorable Rodney M. Love.

Before he addresses the committee, Mr. McCulloch would like to say something.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I would like to welcome this man to the committee. Judge Love is the new Congressman from the Third District of Ohio. Facetiously I should like to say he comes from Dayton, which is the main suburb of the Fourth Congressional District of Ohio. STATEMENT OF HON. RODNEY M. LOVE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Love. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Congressman McCulloch, for those very kind remarks. For one thing, since I am a newcomer here, Mr. Chairman, and in view of the very fine resolutions you have before you, may I be permitted, sir, to submit my written statement, without taking up any further time of this committee? The CHAIRMAN. You have that permission. Mr. LOVE. Thank you so much.

(The prepared statement of Congressman Love reads as follows:) TESTIMONY OF REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY M. LOVE, OF OHIO, IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 236, PRESIDENTIAL DISABILITY AND SUCCESSION

Mr. Chairman, members of the Judiciary Committee, I decided to submit House Joint Resolution 236 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 Mr. Kennedy and there has been no procedure for filling it. In support of the American Bar Association and the national forum which it sponsored, Senator Birch E. Bayh, of Indiana, and Representative Emanuel Celler, of New York, chairman of this committee, I submitted a bill of my own. I know the people of my district would want me to speak out in favor of such an amendment to the Constitution.

In my written testimony, I make no reference to history. This has been most carefully documented and repetition is unnecessary. I merely want to emphasize that prudence requires this representative body to act, now, to submit to the State legislatures, an amendment correcting a defect known to us for many, many years.

In addition to supporting the overall effort, I want to point out what I consider to be a danger, in the event a President would transmit to the Congress his written declaration that no inability exists. The Bayh-Celler resolutions provide 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 is, 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 agree, 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 Congress, before the presumption in favor of the President's ability is restored.

To accomplish this, I have provided that the President shall resume the duties and powers 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 use 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.

I found no particular objection to the language that Congress shall immediately decide the issue, for it would seem to me that this means Congress

shall decide this important issue within a reasonable time. However, if this committee believes the word "immediately" is too uncertain, a 7- or 10-day provision certainly should not be objectionable, as provided in Mr. McCulloch's bill, House Joint Resolution 119.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I should further like to say that Congressman Love was an able probate judge of Montgomery County, Ohio, the county of the late James M. Cox.

Mr. Love. Thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Marion B. Folsom, Chairman of the Committee for Improvement of Management in Government, Committee for Economic Development. Is Mr. Folsom here?

Mr. CHELF. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest a 10-minute recess while we are waiting on the next witness? I understand he is in the House and it will take about 10 minutes for him to get here.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, the chairman will declare a 10-minute recess. (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will resume.

Our next witness is Mr. Marion B. Folsom, Chairman of the Special Committee on Presidential Inability of the Committee on Economic Development. Unfortunately he is delayed in the Senate, appearing over there before a committee, and is on his way here, I understand, but in the interim, Mr. Paul, who represents Mr. Folsom, will start reading his statement.

Will you give your full name and title to the stenographer, please?

Mr. PAUL. My name is R. Shale Paul. I am a professional staff member with the Committee of Economic Development, and with the Chair's permission I will read the statement exactly as Mr. Folsom has written it.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, sir.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, before the witness begins, may I ask if you would rather we reserve questions for Mr. Folsom, or are you prepared to respond to questions during the course of the reading?

Mr. PAUL. I can respond to questions, sir. I think it would be more appropriate, inasmuch as Mr. Folsom will be here in 5 or 10 minutes. if you could reserve questions for him. He is prepared to respond. I certainly could, but he perhaps would answer them better than I. Mr. POFF. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARION B. FOLSOM, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE FOR IMPROVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. PAUL. The statement reads as follows:

"Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives: My name is Marion B. Folsom. I am chairman of CED's 1 Committee for Improvement of Management in Government.

1

1 The Committee for Economic Development is composed of 200 businessmen and educators. Its purpose is to conduct objective economic research, to support and promote economic education, and to formulate and publish recommendations, on major economic problems, that will contribute to growth and stability in the American economy, higher living standards and increasing opportunities for all Americans, and to strengthening the institutions and concepts essential to progress in a free society.

"Your invitation to testify on the vital subject now before this committee is much appreciated. In this, I speak both for myself and for those associated with me in the Committee for Improvement of Management in Government, as well as for the trustees of our parent body, the Committee for Economic Development.

"I believe that you have seen our CED policy statement on 'Presidential Succession and Inability,' published last month. In that understanding, I propose to limit my comments at this point to three subjects: First, identification of the organization I represent and a brief description of its procedures; second, the basic principles or criteria that we believe must be recognized in finding the best solutions for these difficult problems; and, third, our conclusions concerning the major issues in dispute, and the reasoning leading to those conclusions. "The Committee for Economic Development was established in 1942. It consists of 200 trustees representing a broad spectrum of business and university leadership in the United States. These trustees have devoted much time and personal attention to the development of policy positions designed to encourage the economic wellbeing of the United States and of the free world. As a result, the policy statements they have produced-with the aid and advice of the best scholarly minds in the Nation-have been favorably received in influential quarters and have enjoyed broad public acceptance.

"About 2 years ago, several top officials and former officials of the Federal Government approached me and others active in CED, proposing that we apply the same approaches to improvement of our governmental institutions that we have used in formulating beneficial economic policies. On this basis, CED established the Committee for Improvement of Management in Government. The 25 CED trustees with most experience in government were appointed to it, and 10 additional members were added from outside CED to provide the broadest possible balance for our work. Four of our 35 members had served as heads of Cabinet departments, 5 had been Assistant or Under Secretaries, 13 chairmen or members of Federal regulatory or advisory commissions, and 13 were former bureau chiefs or directors, or special assistants to the President or to Cabinet members. In addition, we have benefited from the counsel of our Advisory Board of 15 members-men with wide experience in governmental affairs, as well as in university and business circles.

"The policy statement on 'Presidential Succession and Inability' is not a staff document, as such. It is the product of intensive analysis in a long series of discussions among our trustees and advisers, in which we were able to use the results of the American Bar Association studies and other excellent scholarly work to best advantage. In accordance with CED practice, the statement was then given thorough review by the CED Research and Policy Committee, which approved and issue it as the official CED position. Lists of both the Committee for Improvement of Management in Government and the Research and Policy Committee of CED are attached, together with our Advisory Board.

"I would emphasize the character of the organizations I represent; the care with which they have deliberated on the subjects that now

2 A complete recent list of CED trustees is found on pp. 42-44 of the policy statement on "Presidential Succession and Inability."