Subcommittee on the Constitution

Oversight Hearing on the Presidential Succession Act

Wednesday, October 6, 9:30 a.m. in Room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building

Chairman Steve Chabot

Opening Statement

            The purpose of this hearing is to explore the need for changes to the Presidential Succession Act, the federal statute that governs presidential succession in the event there is a simultaneous vacancy in the offices of the presidency and the vice-presidency. 

            I’d like to thank our witnesses for being here today. In particular, I’d like to recognize my colleague Mr. Sherman, who has remained steadfast in his pursuit to ensure that all aspects are prepared for a catastrophic event.

            The House has already acted to address continuity in its Chamber by passing H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, which would require expedited special elections in the event there were over 100 vacancies in the House. That legislation passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, by a vote of 306 - 97, approximately five months ago, on April 22. The Senate has not yet acted on the bill.

            Today, we turn our attention to continuity in government issues in the presidency.

            Article II, Section 1, clause 6 of the Constitution – the “Succession Clause” -- specifies that in the event of simultaneous vacancies in the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, or the simultaneous “inability” of those officers to act, Congress may by law specify what “Officer” shall “act as President ... until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.” If a statutory successor is serving as Acting President, Congress may – but is not required to -- call a new presidential election.

            Congress has exercised its power to designate statutory presidential successors three times in U.S. history.

            In 1792, Congress designated two congressional officers as statutory presidential successors after the Vice President: first the President pro tempore of the Senate, and then the Speaker of the House. The 1792 Act provided that these officers were to “act” as President pending a special presidential election, which the 1792 Act provided for.

            Then, in 1885, Democratic President Grover Cleveland’s Vice President, John Hendricks, died in office. Because Congress was out of session, there were no statutory successors to “act” as President in the event the President died or was otherwise unable to discharge his duties. After Congress reconvened, the Presidential Succession Act was amended to provide that after the Vice President, the line of succession would begin with the Secretary of State and would continue through the cabinet department heads in the order of the departments’ creation. The amendments took the President pro tempore along with the House Speaker out of the line of succession and replaced them with the President’s cabinet. The 1886 Act also provided that a statutory successor would immediately convene Congress, if it were not already in session, which could then decide whether to call a special presidential election.

            Seventy years later, President Truman believed that if he and his vice president were unable to complete Franklin Roosevelt’s last term, an elected official rather than the unelected Secretary of State should act as President. Within a few months of taking office in 1945, Truman proposed legislation providing for the House Speaker and President pro tempore of the Senate – in that order -- to again be placed in the statutory line of succession, this time ahead of the cabinet officers. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is the applicable law today.

            In the event neither a House Speaker nor a President pro tempore of the Senate decides to accept the Acting Presidency, Section 19(d) of the Act provides that the cabinet member who is highest on the specified list shall act as President, provided that the cabinet member has been confirmed by the Senate. The order of succession proceeds down this list in the event that a cabinet position is vacant or its incumbent is unable or unwilling to assume the Acting Presidency.

            However, a cabinet successor serving as Acting President is subject to dismissal and replacement at will by either the Speaker or the President pro tempore if the latter – who both have special status under the 1947 Act -- decide at any time to assume the Acting Presidency themselves.

            Commentators have pointed out that the certain problems exist with the Presidential Succession Act – in its current form– should there ever be a simultaneous vacancy in the presidency and the vice-presidency. For example, the Act as currently written does not place anyone in the line of succession who is not based in the D.C. metro area much of the time. The Act as written also poses a risk of change in party control of the Presidency should its provisions be triggered.

            Similar to our consideration of H.R. 2844, I believe it is worth noting that one of the most effective ways we can fight back against terrorism is to demonstrate that our system of government will continue both consistently and legitimately. But, we must be certain that the provisions in place to address such situations are consistent with our Constitution and democratic principles.

            The subcommittee looks forward to exploring these issues, other questions, and potential remedies during the hearing today.