and the intrinsic merit of the program that the President was offering. The second area would be one that would be more personal and probably more practical. Senators and Congressmen have interests that involve their own States. At one time or another they are interested in flood-control projects, or they are interested in a new dam; they are interested possibly in a limitation of goods that come into the country or they are interested in an important appointment that would involve their State; they may be interested with either opening or closing defense bases in various States. All these matters come within the purview of a President of the United States.

If properly and legitimately used, these factors add to the strength and power of the President in putting through the programs which he thinks are in the best interests of the people.

Senator BAYH. And I gather from your testimony that you feel the ability to use these credits to provide leadership, which will be followed by the Congress, will be greater if the respective Congressmen and Senators feel that there is an open-ended, uncertain term rather than a longer, definite term of 6 years?

Mr. CLIFFORD. My own experience would lead me unequivocally to that conclusion. As a President begins to near the end of his term, his influence and his ability to accomplish his goals diminishes. I think it is very valuable, and exceedingly important, that there always be kept in existence, first, the possibility that he will serve a second term because that continues the President's power unabated through his first term. Then, during his second term, if we rid ourselves of the 22d amendment, these would still be the thoughts in the back of every man's mind that conditions might exist at the end of his second term that could lead him to serve a third term. I believe that this preserves his influence, and continues his full power through the end of the second term.

And it is possible, in the future, that he might be the man to serve a third term. So I would like to preserve those possibilities because it guarantees the President's strength and influence to carry out his program.

Senator BAYH. I note that you quote your former chief, President Truman, relative to his opposition to the 22d amendment to support your contention that that should be repealed.

I suppose observing the past Presidents is probably the only way you can be qualified to know just what the climate is other than those who have actually served as President and I must say I am impressed by the contrary view to yours that was expressed by the last President who you served, President Johnson, relative to the merits of the 6-year

term.

I have talked to him at length by telephone on this and don't feel privileged to divulge all of that conversation but at least part of it is dealt with in his book. The book deals with the ability of a President physically and mentally and psychologically to carry the burdens of the Presidency for an extended period of time.

(The passage from President Johnson's book referred to above. follows:)

STATEMENT OF LYNDON B. JOHNSON, THE VANTAGE POINT, PERSPECTIVES OF THE PERSPECTIVE (1971), p. 344 RELATING TO THE SIX-YEAR TERM OF THE PRESIDENT

The same overlapping is true of the federal government, and there are many ways in which the federal machinery could and should be strengthened. One way would be to extend the term of the Presidency from four years to six years and make the incumbent ineligible for reelection. This stipulation almost became a provision of our constitution when it was originally written. The case for it is even stronger in modern times. The growing burdens of the office exact an enormous physical toll on the man himself and place incredible demands on his time. Under these circumstances the old belief that a President can carry out the responsibilities of the office and at the same time undergo the rigors of campaigning is, in my opinion, no longer valid.

Senator BAYH. President Johnson apparently feels that it is possible for a good man to do a good job over 6 years as he says: "To play four quarters of a ballgame but you are in trouble if you ask him to play six or eight." I am wondering whether you have any opinion on that.

Endurance seems to be a fantastic gift that the Lord gives to some who serve as President but is there a limit beyond which a person cannot physically and psychologically carry this burden.

Mr. CLIFFORD. It is obvious that no one can know the answer to that question except a man who has actually filled the office of President of the United States.

So I would certainly respect President Johnson's judgment in that regard because he actually had the experience and obviously the best vantage point from which to view the problem.

What I say is that from the experience that I have with various Presidents, I have reached the opposite conclusion.

I think it is entirely possible that a man who aspires to the Presidency and who has served one term can be physically fit to serve a second term. There are enormous physical and psychological differences between men. That is one of the questions that the electorate would want to give attention to at the end of a President's first term. You may recall the consideration that was given to that question when President Franklin Roosevelt ran for a fourth term. It was one of the most important issues of the day. The question was whether he had the health and strength to serve the country for another 4 years.

I think that is merely another element that should be taken into consideration by the American people, but it should not exist as a prohibition against a man serving. We might get a younger man who would be in the best of health, and after 4 years he might have all the vigor and strength that he had at the beginning of his term. Then for us to say that at the end of 6 years you can't elect him again because his health is probably poor has no merit because his health might be excellent.

Senator BAYH. Your basic philosophy, as I understand it, is that the electorate should make the decision and we should not rely upon some arbitrary statement written into the law?

Mr. CLIFFORD. That is exactly what I feel and that is the basic defect of the 22d amendment. Why do we set ourselves up, those of us in Washington, as the judge of whom the American people wish elected as President? It is conceivable after 8 years that there might be one man who would be the best man qualified to lead the United States, but the 22d amendment says, "you can't elect that man." I think it is

undemocratic and, as I said, I believe it has a tendency to denigrate the whole concept of our democracy. Also we have this curious inequity. We say that the American people are qualified to choose from a number of men who have never served as President. But after a man has served for 6 years, and the people have observed him every day, we are not going to give them the chance to reelect that man, although they know everything about him and although they believe he is the man to serve. I think it offends what we all believe basically should be the democratic process and, that is, namely, the people should decide. Senator BAYH. One of the factors we are considering, as far as the relative merits of this legislation is how this limitation might interfere with the President's ability to work with Congress.

The "lame duck" aspect, one thing that President Johnson used in his conversation with me-I don't find it in the book but I think it is fair to relate this because we did investigate it, that there was a significant package of legislation passed in Congress after President Johnson made his announcement making himself a lame duck. I won't go through it all but there was a fantastic package of legislation ranging from the tax reform, the tax program, to drug abuse and crime, the Omnibus Crime bill, the Truth In Lending bill, the Juvenile Delinquency bill, the Federal Aid to Education Act, Vocational Education, Pipeline Safety; as I recall and there was a piece of legislation dealing with safety for meat, the Meat Inspection Act.

How does this compare with your feelings that a person has become a lame duck? You know, you are talking about a 6-year period of being a lame duck and here is a significant piece of legislation passed in a 9-month period. Doesn't that argue against the lame duck philosophy? Mr. CLIFFORD. I think the facts of the matter would confirm this. First, the legislation had been pending for a considerable period of time, the hearings had been held, the foundation had been laid. In many areas there was general acceptance of the merits of the legislation, and I think this comes under the first heading I mentioned a moment ago; that is, the merits or the moral basis for passing this type of legislation.

I think it was good legislation. I think there was general agreement that it be passed. Second, perhaps some have either forgotten or overlooked this, on March 31, 1968, President Johnson, in his telecast said, "I will not seek nor will I accept renomination for the Presidency again in November." The American people accepted that but if you will remember back, right up until the day before the Democratic Convention, there was still some possibility that events would transpire that might result in President Johnson changing his mind. This is purely my own opinion but I remember talking to some people who felt he might be persuaded. Keep in mind this was an announced decision of his and was not a constitutional prohibition. I draw a distinct difference between the two. A man can say "I don't choose to run," as Mr. Coolidge did, and then later, according to some historians, he was susceptable to being persuaded.

In other instances men have said they weren't going to run, but I think there is always a doubt that remains in peoples' minds. And I think it should remain there. What I object to is this positive constitutional prohibition against the people selecting a man again if they choose to.

Senator BAYH. Let me just ask your opinion, if you care to give it, on one other subject. It has been a matter of some publicity lately. In as much as we are trying to decide to how a President running for a second or third term determines what policy he will follow, would you care to give us your opinion, as one on the inside at the time of President's Johnson decision not to run for reelection, to what extent did the possibility of reelection affect our policy in Vietnam, to what extent was it Tet or other factors? How much of a factor was the President's decision not to run for reelection in determining what our Vietnam policy was?

Mr. CLIFFORD. I can accept only the word of President Johnson in that regard. He has stated to each one of us, and to the public generally, that he reached the conclusion that the divisions in the country were so deep at that time, particularly with reference to the war in Vietman, that he doubted that he as President could gain enough unity behind his policies to work out of the difficulty into which we had gotten.

That is what he offered as his major reason for choosing not to run again. I do not know all the processes that went through his mind, so I accept the reason that he gave because it seems reasonable.

Senator BAYH. Suppose instead of this being 1968, at the end of the term, it had been 1968 with 2 more years tacked onto it as a result of the 6-year term. Would you imagine the decision might have been different?

Mr. CLIFFORD. Obviously this requires a good deal of speculation. I do not know. I know only that a President must be very conscious of the attitudes of the people and the will of the people. And I think President Johnson was very conscious of the attitude of the country at the time. Now, obviously if his term had 3 years more to run, I am sure there would have been no announcement. I think very likely his policies would have continued to be affected by the will of the people. Turning again to the one-term concept, let me comment on what I consider to be the basic fallacy of the one 6-year term. We might elect a man President, and at the end of 6 months or the end of the first year, find out that we had made a mistake. It has happened before, it could happen again. We have no remedy. If, at the end of the first year, we find out he is the wrong man at the wrong time, we must labor with that difficulty for 5 more years. We don't have a parliamentary system in which an election can be called. He remains President for 6 years and it could be inimical to the best interests of the country, and we would have no remedy. I think it is much better, if we find out after a year that a man is not the right selection, then we have only another 3 years to wait until the people can make a change.

Senator FONG. Mr. Clifford, you have stated that a President who is not able to seek reelection will lose tremendous influence and will be less effective. Much of your statement has centered upon his effectiveness in dealing with Congress and with many of the people in government.

Now, how much weight would he lose in his ability to carry on negotiations with foreign governments if they knew that he would not or could not seek reelection or if he was not eligible for reelection?

You have some experience along that line. I would like to ask your

comments.

Mr. CLIFFORD. Yes; I might well have referred to that before because in some respects it might even be a more important facet of a President's abilities than the ones that I referred to as examples. I think that we learned that in the last year of President Johnson's term. I think he had plans then that he hoped to carry out which would have benefited our country greatly. Other countries sensed the fact that there might be another President and so there was a pulling back generally in our intercourse with foreign nations. I can foresee in the future, for we have seen it in the past, that as soon as a man begins to reach the end of his term, representatives of foreign governments become much more interested in who his successor is going to be then in carrying on talks with him. Most of the forwardlooking and progressive accomplishments with foreign governments take quite a while, and when another government sees that an American President is on his way out, then all the machinery tends to grind to a halt and they wait for the next 4 years.

Senator FONG. Several columnists seem to feel because there is a very good probability that President Nixon will be reelected is the reason the Chinese are willing to talk to him now. What would be your comment on that?

Mr. CLIFFORD. In the first place, Senator, I find it very difficult to come to any conclusion as to what the Chinese have in mind and, second, as a lifelong Democrat, I am unable to accept the first part of your question.

Senator FONG. I am presuming the same situation prevails insofar as the Soviets are concerned. They too have asked him to come over and visit.

Turning to another aspect, I have introduced a joint resolution asking for a constitutional amendment so that a naturalized citizen could be eligible for the Presidency. You have talked about the democratic process, you have talked about the good sense of our people, that our people should not be denied the right to select the best man they have. Now, the Supreme Court has struck down the restrictions against naturalized citizens and has put them on a par with native-born citizens. What would be your comment as to the elimination of the constitutional restriction prohibiting a naturalized citizen from seeking the Presidency?

Mr. CLIFFORD. In the first place, Senator, I have never understood why it was in our Constitution in the first place. It seems curious to me and it seems undemocratic, but our forefathers obviously had some concept in mind, after their differences for so long with George III. I don't know, I am not clear on that.

But it seems to me that as the history of our country progresses, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand it. The United States is regarded as the melting pot of the world and we have received a great deal of our strength from other peoples who came to us seeking democracy and seeking relief from persecution in their own country. Why we should have maintained this clause all of these years, I do not know. I am opposed to it. I would like to see it removed.

Senator FONG. Thank you.