OFFICE OF DEPUTY PRESIDENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300240002-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: March 4, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

1964 -
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300240002-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
SEC. 352. (a) The Service may prepare for
its own use any product described in section
351 and any product necessary to carrying
out any of the purposes of section 301.
(b) The Service may prepare any product
described in section 351 for the use of other
Federal departments or agencies, and pub-
lic or private agencies and individuals en-
gaged in work in the field of medicine when
such product is not available from establish-
ments licensed under such section.
Mr. President, section 351 is broad in
its scope, covering "any virus, therapeu-
tic serum, toxin, antitoxin, or analogous
product, or arsphenamine or its deriva-
tives, or any other trivalent organic ar-
senic compound, applicable to the
prevention, treatment or cure of diseases
or injuries of man."
This is the section which gives the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare licensing and inspection authority
over the manufacture of all these bio-
logicals. The Secretary exercises this
authority through the Public Health
Service. The Service, therefore,- has a
long history of intimate connection with
the preparation of these biologicals.
Section 301 directs the Surgeon Gen-
eral to conduct a wide range of research
and investigation and to provide funds
and information to others to enable
them to engage in research on matters
affecting the public health.
I am, therefore, calling on the Sur-
geon General to prepare a program of
production and stockpiling for critical
biologicals.
The Surgeon General should call a
conference of all manufacturers of bio-
logical products. He should explore
with industry the potential peak require-
ments for each antitoxin, vaccine, tox-
oid, antivenin, and, so forth, And the
commercial supply which can be counted
on.
Naturally, he should urge the manu-
facturers to shoulder the responsibility
for the slow-moving items. The indus-
try's 'spokesmen have stressed, in testi-
mony before the Antitrust and Monopoly
Subcommittee, the necessity for great
profit margins on the popular drugs to
make up for losses on drugs of only occa-
sional use. Here is an opportunity for
the pharmaceutical industry to justify
some of those statements.
Da the event, however, that the indus-
try does not elect to furnish the required
biologicals, the Surgeon General must
act upon his own statutory responsibili-
ties. With the powers and funds at the
disposal of the Public Health Service, it
is essential that life-saving but unprofit-
able drugs be provided by the Govern-
ment, if the industry fails to do so.
Mr. President, the expenditure of pub-
lic funds to protect against a potential
threat to the public health is analogous
to paying insurance premiums. So,
also, is the expenditure of $40 to $50
billion a year for defense. We make the
expenditure which we can afford, to pro-
tect against a cataclysm which we can-
not afford to face unarmed.
I submit that out of all the hundreds
of millions of dollars annually appropri-
ated to the Public Health Service?in-
cluding the National -Institutes of
Health?we can well afford to spend a
fraction of that amount to have all the
biologicals we need ready in case of a
major natural?or even enemy?attack.
I ask unanimous consent to have my
letter to the Surgeon General printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MARCH 4, 1964.
H011./ LUTHER TERRY,
Surgeon General of the United States, Public
Health Service, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Washington,
D.C.
DEAR DR. TERRY: The outbreaks of botu-
lism last year and the inability af the phar-
maceutical industry to provide the anti-
toxin required for treatment have been most
disturbing to me.
Certainly the Public Health Service and
yourself are to be commended for the prompt
action taken to insure that deaths from
botulism need not occur in the future. But
what really bothers me is that such a catas-
trophe is needed to stimulate corrective
measures.
May I suggest that a conference of manu-
facturers of biologicals, be called to devise
ways and means of assuring that supplies of
antitoxins will be adequate to meet any
likely emergency for other rare diseases. To-
ward this end, the U.S. Public Health Service
could conduct a survey of the potential re-
quirements for biologicals that may be
needed on a once-in-a-year basis. Commit-
ment should be obtained from biologicals
manufacturers to produce and maintain ade-
quate supplies of usable vaccines. Some
means of providing "fair compensation" to
cover the actual cost of producing and
storing little used biologicals could also be
devised.
In the event firm commitments by the in-
dustry are below your estimate of essential
minimums, the Public Health Service could
produce, or have manufactured for it, the
needed supplies. As you know, of course,
you are specifically authorized by section
352 of the Public Health Service Act to pre-
pare biological products for use of the Serv-
ice; and for use of other medical agencies
and individuals when such products are not
available from commercial producers.
Also, under your research and investiga-
tion authorization, section 301, you can
cause to have carried on research in im-
proved methods of preserving such biolog-
icals (as for example freeze-drying and
storing in vacuum or inert gases at very low
temperatures) so as to reduce the costs of
storing and to increase the possibility of
stockpiling significant quantities.
We spend billions stockpiling for defense.
Should we not spend a fraction of this
amount stockpiling for health? It seems
to me that the American people have a right
to expect that antitoxins be available for
even the rarest of diseases. I know that
Government and industry working together
under your leadership can provide this as-
surance.
Sincerely, .2C41"7
PHILIP A. HART,
Chairman.
OFFICE OF DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I in-
troduce, for appropriate reference, a bill
to establish the Office of Deputy Presi-
dent, to provide for the continuous dis-
charge of the powers and duties of the
Office of President, and for other pur-
poses.
The Office of Vice President has been
vacant on 16 occasions in our history-
8 times because the Vice President suc-
ceeded to, the Presidency, 7 times
4219
through the death of the Vice President,
and once following resignation of the
Vice President. No President has at-
tained office under any of the succession
laws, but even if the possibility of suc-
cession is remote, we should carefully
consider adjustments in procedures
which might better protect the national
interest in case of succession.
The bill which I have introduced
would create a new Office of Deputy
President. The Office would be filled
only in the event the Office of Vice Presi-
dent is vacant. Nomination to the posi-
tion would be made by the President
within 30 days following the vacancy in
the Office of the Vice President, and con-
firmation by the Senate would be re-
quired according to the- regular proce-
dure. I would prefer that the approval
of both the House of Representatives and
the Senate be required for confirmation
of the Deputy President, if this can be
provided without a constitutional ob-
stacle. If further study shows this can
be done, I will move to amend my bill to
provide it.
The bill designates the Deputy Presi-
dent as first in line of succession to the
Presidency in event of the death or dis-
ability of the President. It removes the
Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the President of the Senate from
the line of succession, but in other re-
spects it follows the succession law of
1947 in providing for succession through
the members of the Cabinet, in case the
Office of Deputy President is vacant.
The proposal incorporated in my bill
does not require a constitutional amend-
ment. I am not absolutely opposed to
adoption of a constitutional amendment
to provide a more detailed system, but I
believe there is advantage in retaining
the flexibility which now exists.
The Constitution provides sufficient -
authority to enable Congress to act by
statute. Article II, section 1, paragraph
5, of the Constitution states:
In case of the removal of the President
from office, or of his death, resignation, or
inability to discharge the powers and duties
of the said office, the same shall devolve on
the Vice President, and the Congress may
by law, provide for the case of removal,
death, resignation, or inability, both of the
President and Vice President, declaring what
officer shall then act as President, and such
officer shall act accordingly, until the dis-
ability be removed, or a President shall be
elected.
In addition to this direct grant of au-
thority, the responsibility of Congress
was set forth in the original section 1,
paragraph 3, of article II, of the Consti-
tution. This placed the right to elect
the President with the House of Repre-
sentatives, in the event the electoral
college failed to elect.
This procedure was reaffirmed by the
12th amendment which was ratified in
1804. The 20th amendment in 1933 fur-
ther extended the right of Congress by
providing for congressional action when
neither the President-elect or the Vice
President-elect shall have qualified. All
these powers taken together clearly indi-
cate the importance of Congress in ex-
traordinary occasions involving the Pres-
idency.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300240002-2
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300240002-2
4220 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE klarch 4
Congress has exercised its responsi-
bility for succession by law in 1792, 1886,
and 1947. The law of 1792 designated
the President pro tempore of the Sen-
ate as first in line for succession, followed
by the Speaker of the House. The act
of 1886 placed succession in the Presi-
dent's Cabinet, starting with the Secre-
tary of State. The law of 1947 returned
to Congress but this time the Speaker of
the House was designated first in line,
followed by the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the members of the
Cabinet.
These laws have protected the basic
national interest, but conditions change,
and I believe we should again examine
the succession law to see if it can be im-
proved. ,\
The responsibilities of the President
have increased greatly in recent years,
and so has the need for the official next
in line of succession to be experienced and
well informed about the duties he may
be called upon to assume.
The President cannot share his re-
sponsibilities or information fully, but it
is possible for the officer next in line to
have daily familiarity with the opera-
tions and policies of the administration
which he may be called upon to head,
and with the executive personnel with
whom he must work.
The creation of the Office of -Deputy
President would provide an officer who
could give full-time assistance to the
President and who would gain practical
experience with the responsibilities of
the Presidency. Neither the Speaker of
the House, as under the present law, nor
the Secretary of State, as once pro-
vided, can as adequately fulfill this two-
fold responsibility. These are very im-
portant positions in their own right.
They require the full attention of those
_holding them. On the other hand, their
responsibilities are specialized.
The President has need of a Vice Pres-
ident, or equivalent "officer, to assist him
in the performance of his duties; and
the Nation should have the assurance
that the Vice President, or other officer,
is prepared to assume the office if it
becomes necessary.
In effect, my proposal returns the suc-
cession policy to the procedure provided
from 1886 to 1947. During this time the
Secretary of State, a Presidential ap-
pointee confirmed by the Senate, was
next in line.
A major advantage of creating the
new Office of Deputy President, which
would be filled only in case the Office
of Vice President was vacant, is that the
choice of the Deputy President would
be made under politically realistic condi-
tions. A weakness of our succession laws
has been that the designated successor
often attained his position for reasons
and considerations quite apart from the
possibility of succession.
Under the terms of the bill I have in-
troduced, the choice of the Deputy Pres-
ident will be made with the full under-
standing that he would have the right
of succession.
The bill provides that the President
shall nominate from among those ex-
perienced in Government: the members
of the Cabinet, the Members of Congress,
the Justices of the Supreme Court, and
the Governors of the States. The Dep-
uty President would be required to re-
sign this office on assuming his duties.
Finally, the proposal would guarantee
continuation of leadership by the polit-
ical party which won the previous elec-
tion. In 8 of the past 18 years, the
Speaker of the House has been a member
of a different party from the President.
In the event of a double vacancy, a
complete change of administration would
have followed. The succession law
should respect the mandate of the peo-
ple, who vote not only fora man but also,
in a broad way, for his party and its pro-
gram. The elevation of a leader of an-
other party in midterm is undesirable
in principle and could have most unfor-
tunate practical effects.
There might be difficulty in getting a
Member of Congress -to resign his office
to fill an abbreviated term as Deputy
President, but the choice is somewhat
similar to that which one must make
when he, in anticipation of election, ac-
cepts the nomination for Vice President.
The procedure would present no difficulty
at all if the President nominated a mem-
ber of the Cabinet as Deputy President.
In any case, we can be confident that
when the President asked a man to help
him and the Nation meet this serious
problem, well-qualified men would be
available.
The law which I propose would not be-
come effective until January 20, 1965, in-
asmuch as President Johnson and
Speaker McCoRmAcK have already made
arrangements for keeping the Speaker
informed and for action in the event of
Presidential disability.
I hope that the succession law will be
unused in the future as during the past
170 years, but the responsibilities of the
President have become too great not to
develop the most effective procedure pos-
sible in the event it is n'eeded. I believe
the creation of the Office of Deputy
President will accomplish this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be received and appropriately re-
ferred.
The bill (S. 2597) to establish the Office
of Deputy President, to provide for the
continuous discharge of the powers and
duties of the Office of President, and for
other purposes, introduced by Mr. Mc-
CARTHY, was received, read twice by its
title, and referred to the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. HRUSKA. I should like to com-
mend the Senator from Minnesota for
the interest he has taken in this sub-
ject and the study he has given it. The
concern of the Senator from Minnesota
in this field is one which is widely felt,
particularly because of the tragic events
of last fall. Neverthelesg, even the in-
terest which is expressed now has from
time to time been expressed by many peo-
ple. This has been expressly emphasized
during the course of the first installment
of hearings of the Judiciary Committee
on a presidential succession and dis-
ability act.
It will be with a great deal of interest
that I personally shall want to study the
proposal of the Senator from Minnesota.
In the meantime I again commend him
for the study he has given it and the in-
terest he has expressed in it.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sena-
tor from Nebraska for his interest in the
proposal.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. McGEE. I join in -commending
the Senator from Minnesota on his in-
terest expressed in the central question
involved; namely, presidential succes-
sion. The record of the Senator as a
scholar ,and professor, and as a theore-
tician of is implemented by
his many years of leadership in Govern-
ment itself. I wonder if I correctly un-
derstood the Senator to say that the
real reason focused on the succession act
now in lieu of the existing bill is one of
protecting the will of the people, so to
speak, in the most recent - presidential
election, whenever that might be, in the
event of a vacancy.
Mr. McCARTHY. This consideration
must be of primary concern.
Mr. McGEE. Under the present or-
ganization, then, it would be possible for
the party which lost the presidential
election to end in the 'White House in
the w'ake of a tragedy.
Mr. McCARTHY. It is quite possible.
In the 8 years of the Eisenhower ad-
ministration, there were only 2 years
during which the Speaker of the House
was of the same party as the President.
Mr. McGEE. Is it also the judgment
of the Senator from Minnesota that a
person closely identified with the ad-
ministration in the White House would
be more responsive to the feelings and
the policies of the President than the
President pro tempore of the Senate or
the Speaker of the House, even though
they were of the same party?
Mr. McCARTHY. I should think so,
since the office of Speaker of the House
is a very demanding office in itself, and
the responsibility in a general way runs
through a different area in terms of sub-
stance. It is a more limited area, and
certainly the effects are very different in
terms of procedure and the methods by
which the House of Representatives op-
erates, in contrast to the executive
branch of the Government.
The office of Speaker of the House is
of such importance in the whole struc-
ture of American democracy and Ameri-
can constitutional government that I
think we ought to leave the House as free
as possible to choose a person to fill that
particular office, because of his qualities
and not force it to take into account
that it must select a person who could
fill the office of President. It might find
a person with the qualities combined in
both offices, but the chances of that
would be slight because the demands
made upon a person by each office are so
great. We ought not to place upon the
House the burden of conditioning its
judgment and consideration to their fear
and anticipated that this person might
have to succeed to the office of President.
Mr. McGEE. If I correctly understand
the Senator, there is a factor of con-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300240002-2
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300240002-2
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
siderable importance; namely, the sepa-
ration of powers or division of powers in
our constitutional framework, that sug-
gests that there is an executive respon-
sibility that ought not to be blended too
completely with the legislative arm of
the Government, as the existing situa-
tion would, in fact, require.
Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator is quite
correct. There is one other point re-
garding the Speaker. If the President
were to determine that the Speaker was
the man whose nomination he would
want to submit to the Senate for con-
firmation, the man whom he would want
to succeed him, there would be no ob-
stacle to the President's nominating the
Speaker of the House and submitting his
name for confirmation by the Senate.
. In that case, the Speaker of the House
would resign his office as Speaker and
assume, not really the Vice-Presidency,
but the Deputy Presidency, because it is
not intended to pass on to a man holding
that office the full constitutional powers
of the Vice President, which includes the
right to vote in case of a tie. That would
be the only power that would be denied
the Deputy President, except the power
to preside over the Senate, which the
Senate, by separate action, could extend
to him or could extend to anyone else
whom it saw fit to have preside.
Mr. McGEE. Do I correctly under-
stand the reason for returning to the
1947 arrangement for succession to be
that in the event of a larger catastrophe,
there would be an order of succession?
Mr. McCARTHY. If time intervened
until the point at which the Deputy
President succeeded to the Presidency,
he in turn could submit the nomination
of a successor for confirmation by the
Senate. If there were no time for that?
if there were a serious catastrophe, or if
the time were too short?I would pro-
pose a reversion to the right of succes-
sion that was in effect for approximately
150 years, in which the Secretary of
State would then take over the office of
President. It would be for a short period
of time.
Mr. McGEE. And the following order
of succession would be the order in which
the Cabinet positions were created?
Mr. McCARTHY. Yes, the old order.
Mr. McGEE. That would supply
stability. But would the succession pre-
scribe that the Deputy President, pro-
posed by the Senator in his bill, would
take precedence over the Secretary of
State?
Mr. McCARTHY. It would.
Mr. McGEE. Under all circum-
stances?
Mr. McCARTHY. Under all circum-
stances.
Mr. McGEE. If he were physically
able to do so. That was the point that
was not clear to me.
I thank the Senator for his recom-
mendations.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sena-
tor from Wyoming for his support and
comments.
THE 200TH ANNIVERSARY OF CHAR-
TER OF BROWN UNIVERSITY
Mr. PASTORE. - Mr. President, on
Monday, March 2, Brown University,
at Providence, observed one of a series
of ceremonies marking the 200th anni-
versary of its charter. A plaque com-
memorating the occasion was accepted
in behalf of Brown by John Nicholas
Brown of the board of fellows of the uni-
versity.
It was in 1764 that the General As-
sembly of the Governor and Company
of the English Colony of Rhode Island
and the Providence Plantations granted
the . college charter for the purpose of
"preserving in the community a succes-
sion of men duly qualified for discharg-
ing the offices of life with usefulness and
reputation.",
An editorial in the Newport Daily News
of Friday, February 28, 1964, is evidence
of the statewide?and, indeed, nation-
wide?appreciation in which the univer-
sity is held. The editorial suggests some-
thing of the intracolony competition to
provide a permanent side for the col-
lege. ?As a historical contribution, I ask
unanimous consent that the editorial be
included at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Brown, 200 years old in March of 1964,
marks the 200th anniversary of the grant-
ing by the colonial legislature of the char-
ter of Brown Univer'sity which originally
was known as Rhode Island College.
The founding of this college was not with-
out acrimony. The charter, finally granted
at a sitting of the legislature in what is
now Kent County Courthouse in East Green-
wich, was the subject of much dispute.
John Nicholas Brown will have meaty ma-
terial to include in his discourse on Monday,
at the opening of the bicentennial celebra-
tion when he speaks on the origin and evolu-
tion of the university charter.
Brown University, the Nation's seventh
oldest college, taught its first students in
Warren but the site of its permanent home
was not finally decided until after Newport,
Providence, Warren, and East Greenwich had
each sought the honor. It was a matter of
subscriptions that finally upset the balance
in favor of Providence. Newport though
came close to being chosen.
Just as Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations were founded on the premise
of full liberty in religious concernments so
was Brown University, whose charter was
one of 'the most liberal of its kind written
in the 18th century. It declared that: "All
the members hereof shall forever enjoy full,
free, absolute, and uninterrupted liberty of
conscience."
Brown University, while it was founded
under Baptist control, through subsequent
amendments to the charter lost all denom-
inational ,restrictions on membership on the
corporation and faculty.
From a small colonial English college it
has developed, in 200 years, into a distinctive
"university 'college." Next Monday's cere-
monies will be only the first of successive
observances of this important anniversary
in the history of this university, to which
Newport has sent so many sons and daugh-
ters who have graduated with distinction.
It was in the atmosphere indicated by the
editorial that the seventh oldest college in
America and the third oldest in New England
was established. Starting with a student
body of one and a faculty of one at Warren,
R.I., by the time of its first graduation in 1769,
Providence had won out over Newport as
the permanent site of the school: and in
1770 the college located on the very hill it
at present adorns.
In 1804 the school adopted the name of
Brown University in recognition of the gen-
erosity of Nicholas Brown of the class of
1786, a son of one of the founders of the
college.
4221
During the American Revolution the col-
lege was closed, as its faculty and students
fought in the colonial forces. Its great build-
ing became a barracks and hospital for the
French soldiers of ROchambeau.
In August of 1790 President George Wash-
ington, and his Secretary of State, Thomas
Jefferson, came to Providence. Upon being
awarded the honorary degree of doctor of
laws, President Washington gave his promise,
"You may rely on whatever protection I am
able to afford in so important an object as
the education of our youth."
Another President, Abraham Lincoln, had
a Brown man, John Hay, as his secretary.
He was later Secretary of State, as was Rich-
ard Olney, of Brown. Just a few other names
in the university's two centuries of "useful-
ness and reputation" are Charles Evans
Hughes, Theodore Francis Green, and John D.
Rockefeller, Jr.
The 20th century for IfroWn has been a
time of change and growth and challenge.
They are the eras of President Faunce, Presi-
dent Wriston, and President Keeney.
The growing pains of the college are evi-
denced by a current $15 million matching
fund campaign to meet a challenge grant
Of $7,500,000 from the Ford Foundation.
This follows upon a successful $15,100,000
capital funds drive. All these are dedicated
dollars?dedicated to the most far reaching
development program in Brown's history.
All that I have said is the heritage, too,
of Pembroke College in Brown University,
the separate woman's college which has been
receiving its degrees from Brown University
for just 70 years.
All?of both colleges, of both faculties,
student bodies?all share in this time of
challenge that reaches from College Hill to
the home of every alumnus and alumna.
I am sure my colleagues of the Senate join
me in this salute?salute to the two centuries
of Brown University?success to the cen-
turies of Service that lie ahead, service to
America in providing men and women with
lives of usefulness and reputation.
TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE
BUSINESS
By unanimous consent, the following
routine business was transacted:
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the House
had passed, without amendment, the bill
(S. 2455) to amend further the Peace
Corps Act (75 Stat. 612), as amended.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees
were submitted:
By Mr. YARBOROUGH, from the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service, with
amendments:
H.R. 7381. An act to simplify, modernize,
and consolidate the laws relating to the em-
ployment of civilians-in more than one posi-
tion and the laws concerning the civilian
employment of retired members of the uni-
formed services, and for other purposes
(Rept. No. 935).
REPORT ENTITLED "THE MIGRA-
TORY FARM LABOR PROBLEM IN
THE UNITED STATES"?REPORT
OF A COMMITTEE (S. REPT. NO.
934)
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr.
President, from the Committee on Labor
and Public Welfare, I submit a report
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300240002-2