The problem of presidential disability is more serious than that of presidential succession because a President could be disabled and not admit it. President Garfield was disabled for over 2 months prior to his death from an assassin's bullet in 1881; President Wilson was disabled for 17 months from September 1919 to March 1921; President Eisenhower was disabled on two occasions. We have in the past been in the position of having to get along without decisive leadership from the Presidency due to illness. When President Garfield lay unconscious those 80 days, the Cabinet, without constitutional authority, ran the Government as best it could. Our country was actually without a President, even though the Constitution provides that when the President is unable to carry out his duties, the Vice President is to take over. But the Constitution does not say whether he is to become President or merely act as President; it does not say whether he is to take over until the end of the term or until the President becomes able. And the Constitution does not say who shall decide when such a disability begins and ends. The Constitution does not define what is a state of presidential disability. It does not specify how or by whom a declaration of presidential disability is to be initiated or declared, and it does not specify how and by whom it shall be decided when the period of presidential disability has ended. These omissions make it entirely possible for a President who has become incompetent-physically, or mentally, or both-to retain his powers until a successor is elected. And conceivably this period could last from the time he takes the oath of office until his 4-year term has ended. The only remedy the Constitution provides is the impeachment of the President on charges submitted by the House and Senate and sustained by twothirds of the Senate. House Joint Resolution 1 proposes a constitutional amendment to provide that if the President declares his inability in writing, the Vice President shall become Acting President until the President recovers; he assumes the duties and powers-not the office. If the President does not declare his own inability— if he is unconscious or too ill to do so-the Vice President, acting with the concurrence of the majority of the Cabinet, can determine the President to be disabled. If a dispute should arise between the President and the Vice President and the Cabinet, Congress would decide the issue. If the Congress determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. Mr. Chairman, I strongly recommend that the situation of presidential inability be clarified by constitutional amendment to avoid any confusion about when and to what extent the second in command should assume the duties of President. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution should be amended to provide that in the event of a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a successor. Our proposal here would give the President the power to nominate the Vice President, subject to congressional approval by a majority vote of both Houses. It is desirable that the President and the Vice President enjoy harmonious relations and mutual confidences, and that the President be granted the generally accepted prerogative of choosing his Vice President. On the other hand, this amendment would recognize the right of the people to have a choice in the Vice President's election through their elected representatives in Congress. Our traditional system dictates that the people, through their elected representatives have a voice in the selection of the Vice President. Under our Constitution, Congress could call for a special election. So far in our history, this has not been done. The time of great national tragedy when we have lost a President is hardly a time conducive to the well-reasoned selection by popular vote. Congress, on the other hand, is the body entrusted with making major decisions. Congress declares war; Congress may elect or remove Presidents under certain circumstances. I feel that Congress can best represent the wishes of the people and is, therefore, the proper body to elect a Vice President upon the nomination by the President. The office of Vice President has become one of great importance. It is no longer simply an honorary position. It carries specific and far-reaching responsibilities in the executive branch of the Government. It is essential that there always be a presidential successor fully conversant with domestic and world affairs and prepared to step into this high office on short notice and work harmoniously with the President. Vacancies in the office of Vice President have occurred on 16 different occasions for periods totaling more than 37 years. Seven Vice Presidents have died in office and one resigned; eight Vice Presidents have taken over the office of President upon the death of the incumbent President since 1841. Under our present law, where the Speaker of the House would take over the duties of the Presidency, it is conceivable that the successor would belong to a different political party from the deceased President. Such a change in the highest levels of the Government could hardly be conducive to the smooth and uninterrupted conduct of our country's affairs. Someone chosen for another office should not be elevated to the Vice-Presidency automatically. The office of Vice President is of such importance that we should have a man who is chosen for that specific purpose. He should not inherit this office because he happened to be chosen as the best man to fill another post. A man should be chosen who can work with the President, and he should be a member of the President's own political party. In a time of crisis, or any time, we should not have a quick change of philosophy or change of direction. During the Garfield, Wilson, and Eisenhower illnesses, we were fortunate that we did not have an extreme international crisis, although we did have many important problems during these disability periods. I am of the opinion that the best way to fill the the office of the Vice President in the case of a vacancy would be as proposed in our resolution to amend the Constitution to permit the President to nominate a new Vice President and the Congress to elect him. This is close to the present system in which we find the President of the United States having a definite voice in deciding who the vicepresidential candidate will be and I feel that the Congress should ratify the President's nominee because it best represents the wishes of the people. It is the body that comes closest to being able to determine what the people want. Without proper constitutional provision, we face the risk of a nation in danger of confusion and chaos in the event the President is removed by death or is incapacitated by illness of accident, and we are faced with a vacancy in the second highest office of our land. There is an urgent need for a constitutional amendment to permit the President and the Congress to fill the Vice-Presidency whenever it becomes vacant. I urge prompt approval of House Joint Resolution 1. STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN J. EDWARD ROUSH, OF INDIANA Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, within the past month our attention has been called again to the need for a clearly established policy relating to presidential disability. All of us are most gratified by the prompt recovery of President Johnson from his minor illness. But this should not minimize the importance or the urgency of the issue. The danger inherent in our failure to make this necessary revision to the Constitution are known to all of us. Even when the oceans provided buffers of time and space the need existed. The passage of the years has only served to emphasize this need. At the same time we make this revision we can also make certain the office of Vice President will be promptly filled if any vacancy should occur in the future. During the past two decades this office has been vacant for 5 years. During the history of our Nation the office has been vacant on 16 different occasions totaling more than 37 years. If we act promptly on this matter it is possible this most necessary amendment to our Constitution could be affected within this year. Forty-seven of our State legislatures are either in session or will be in session during 1965. I am certain the members of those legislative bodies also are aware of the urgency of the issue. If there are those who do not believe there is a need for such an amendment they have been silent. And I am certain those who share the belief there is such a need and are in a great majority. The problem is recognized. The solution is clear. Action is demanded. The time to net is upon us. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD R. ROYBAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as the sponsor of House Joint Resolution 312, an identical resolution to House Joint Resolution 1, I am most grateful for the opportunity you have afforded me to express by strong support for this proposal. The committee is to be congratulated on its fine work in taking up this important matter and for your commendable effort to clear up some 175 years of constitutional uncertainty. Nothing less than the safe and sure continuity of the legal government of the United States is at stake. This essential continuity has been endangered many times in the past, and in some instances only good fortune has prevented possible disaster. I am sure that the members of this committee fully realize that we can no longer afford, in this nuclear-space age, to leave the fate of or Government to the whims of chance. For more than a year after Lyndon Johnson became President, our national luck held out, and we were all witnesses to an impressive demonstration of the true inner strength of America's democratic traditions. After the tragic assassination of our beloved President John F. Kennedy, the new President firmly and quickly took up the reins of leadership, to assure continuity of the Government in the midst of a great constitutional crisis, to begin to heal the Nation's wounds, and to reinstill in our people a sense of unity and brotherhood and faith in the future. This experience has again focused public attention on the critical issue of Presidential and Vice-Presidential succession, as well as the related, and in some ways more difficult, problem of presidential disability. And I believe there has developed a strong national consensus in favor of resolving these issues in a positive way, so that there will be no doubt concerning the constitutional provisions for handling such problems in the future. As an affirmative response to the need for a solution to these problems, House Joint Resolution 312 proposes to amend the Constitution in three respects: First, it confirms the established custom that a Vice President, succeeding to a vacancy in the office of the President, becomes President instead of Acting President; second, it establishes a procedure for filling a vacancy in the office of Vice President; and third, it deals with the problem of presidential disability. Section 1 of the proposed amendment provides that in the case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Section 2 provides that in the event of a vice-presidential vacancy, the President can nominate a new Vice President, who will take office when he has been confirmed by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Section 3 enables a President to declare his own disability to exercise the powers and duties, of his office, thus voluntarily turning over those powers and duties, but not the office, to the Vice President who then becomes Acting President. In the absence of a Presidential declaration of disability, section 4 permits the Vice President to make such a declaration, and with the approval of a majority of the Cabinet. or such other group as Congress may indicate, assume the presidential responsibilities as Acting President. Section 5 permits the President to reassume the powers and duties of his office when he declares that no disability exists. It also provides for immediate congressional resolution of any dispute over the President's ability, by authorizing him to resume discharging the powers and duties of his office unless twothirds of both House and Senate agree with the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet (or such group as Congress designates) that the President is unable to perform those duties. This proposal, though not perfect, represents a sincere effort on the part of many persons who have studied the admittedly complicated issues involved to offer a workable means of solving difficult and delicate problems affecting the continuity and perhaps even the life of our Government. Several suggestions have been made to improve this proposed amendment. I trust the committee will give full and thorough consideration to all these suggestions. But I also urge the committee to act without unnecessary delay, for the subject is important to the future stability and peace of this Nation, and we cannot afford the risk of further delay in this vital matter." As President Johnson stated in his recent message, "Favorable action by the Congress on the measures here recommended will, I believe, assure the orderly continuity in the Presidency that is imperative to the success and stability of our system. "Action on these measures now will allay future anxiety among our people— and among the peoples of the world-in the event senseless tragedy or unforeseeable disability should strike again at either or both of the principal offices. of our constitutional system. "If we act now, without undue delay, we shall have moved closer to achieving perfection of the great constitutional document on which the strength and success of our system have rested for nearly two centuries." Thank you. STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT TENZER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK I submit for the record relevant correspondence on the problem which we have discussed in these hearings. Mr. NICHOLAS KATZENBACH, Attorney General, Department of Justice, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 10, 1965. DEAR MR. KATZENBACH: Due to limitation of time, I was unable to pose a question on the record at the House Judiciary Committee hearings on presidential succession and disability on Tuesday, February 9, 1965, when you appeared and testified. During the luncheon recess, I inquired of several members of the committee as to whether there was an executive policy or Secret Service requirement which prohibits the President and the Vice President from riding in the same plane or any other means of transportation. None of my colleagues with whom I consulted were aware of any such policy and suggested that I pose the question to you for the record. I would appreciate a reply to this question in order that your response may be made a part of the official record of the committee hearings. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Sincerely, HERBERT TENZER, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. HERBERT TENZER, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN TENZER: The Attorney General has referred to me your letter dated February 10, 1965, inquiring whether there is "an executive policy or Secret Service requirement which prohibits the President and Vice President from riding in the same plane or any other means of transportation." We are not aware of any such policy in the form of a statute, regulation, or formal order. Insofar as you wish to know whether there is any Secret Service "requirement" in this area, I have taken the liberty of referring your inquiry to the Secret Service. Sincerely, NORBERT A. SCHLEI, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, Washington, D.C., February 25, 1965. Hon. HERBERT TENZER, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. TENZER: As indicated in his letter of February 18, 1965, Norbert A. Schlei, Assistant Attorney General, has referred to this office your inquiry as to whether there is a Secret Service requirement which prohibits the President and the Vice President from riding in the same plane or any other means of transportation. The Secret Service, despite the lack of an executive policy or Secret Service requirement, has succeeded in preventing the President and Vice President from riding in the same airplane or helicopter on the infrequent occasions when such procedure was contemplated. The Secret Service made its objections known to the President and he has always agreed with our decision. The Secret Service has always discouraged the President and the Vice President from riding in the same automobile. On the occasion of any public function, our wishes have prevailed. However, there have been occasional off-therecord movements on which Presidents have spontaneously invited the Vice President to ride in the same car with no opportunity for objection on our part or where the objection would be impracticable or considered discourteous. There have also been instances where Presidents and Vice Presidents have been passengers aboard the same boat. Sincerely yours, JAMES J. ROWLEY. STATEMENT OF HON. HERMAN TOLL, REPRESENTATIVE FROM PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Chairman, my House Joint Resolution 240, proposing an amendment to the Constitution as above described, is designed to correct the longstanding and very serious constitutional gap on the problem of presidential inability. Provision is also made for the nomination by the President of a Vice President when a vacancy exists in that office. I believe that with the illness of President Eisenhower during a part of his presidential tenure, and the sudden, tragic death of President Kennedy, the American public has been increasingly alerted to some of the critical possibilities that could conceivably arise if the vagueness and the deficiencies of clause 6, section 1, of Article II of our Constitution are not soon remedied. It is high time that the delays and procrastination of many years on this vital subject be brought to an end. In these years and even days or hours of frequent domestic and foreign crises, it is increasingly unthinkable that the office of the Presidency should ever be left vacant even momentarily. For the same reason, our Nation should never be without a Vice President-whose office and duties have grown in importance with each passing year-hence section 2 of House Joint Resolution 240 provides for that contingency. We have now had the advantage of prolonged and valuable study, and intensive analysis, of this entire subject by numerous able and distinguished men and committees, both in Congress and in private industry, and by the American Bar Association. Every effort has been made to establish criteria and reach conclusions that will best protect our Nation and facilitate the most expeditious and capable functioning of the presidential and vice-presidential offices at all times and under any contingencies that might arise. I hope and believe that the provisions of House Joint Resolution 240, by seeking to establish, through constitutional amendment, practical methods of orderly transition in the case of presidential inability or a vice-presidential vacancy, will go a long way toward assuring the very essential "executive continuity" for our country. I very much hope that early action will be taken by the committee and by the Congress on this vitally important subject. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CELLER: The Chamber of Commerce of the United States supports adoption of a constitutional amendment setting up procedures for handling cases of presidential inability and for keeping the office of Vice President filled. The national chamber approves the method embodied in Senate Joint Resolution 1 and House Joint Resolution 1 and believes that any proposed constitutional amendment dealing with the above matters should clearly specify, as the |
