[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 2646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, like many people, I have noticed renewed 
interest in the 25th Amendment, as we have seen erratic behavior out of 
the White House, an inability of Donald Trump to even tell whether it 
rained on him during his inaugural speech, and repeating false 
statements that are demonstrably wrong.
  Last Friday, the mechanism to deal with Presidential incapacity, the 
25th Amendment, celebrated its 50th anniversary. I became intrigued 
with its history and application because it is clear, whether with 
Donald Trump or a future President, this mechanism is very important. 
Accidents can happen: President Reagan suffered from early onset 
Alzheimer's that concerned his staff. President Wilson was 
incapacitated by a stroke, and his wife, Edith, effectively governed 
the United States for months.
  It is only a matter of time before we face these challenges again. As 
I examined the amendment, it became clear that, in the case of mental 
or emotional incapacity, there is a glaring flaw. For a mentally 
unstable, paranoid, or delusional President, the 25th Amendment has no 
guarantee of its application. In fact, it is likely that it would fail.
  As written, the 25th Amendment requires the Vice President and a 
majority of the Cabinet to concur that the President is no longer 
capable of exercising authority. There are other safeguards. It would 
take time to process. Ultimately, two-thirds of both Houses of Congress 
must agree.
  But look at the current Cabinet. Even if one thinks that a group with 
no meaningful government experience, all approved in a heightened 
partisan context, most of whom don't even know the President 
personally, could objectively exercise the power should the President 
become mentally incapacitated, the larger question is whether they 
would ever be allowed to do so.
  A President who is paranoid or delusional is very unlikely to 
tolerate dissent within the ranks. He or she could simply fire any 
Cabinet member who would stand up to them.
  That is why we need to exercise the other part of the 25th Amendment 
that allows Congress to designate another body, instead of the Cabinet. 
Who could exercise that authority with the confidence of the American 
public and with the knowledge of what it takes to understand the 
personal and political stresses of the Presidency?
  I submit that the best failsafe to a President who is emotionally 
unstable would be to impanel our previous Presidents and Vice 
Presidents to make that determination.
  Think about how it would work. Currently, there are 10 bipartisan 
former distinguished Americans who, in most cases, enjoy even greater 
public support than when they left office. Most importantly, there is 
no group of people better suited to evaluate the evidence and the 
dynamics at work for the good of the country and the President who 
needs help.
  Now, we have made real progress with mental illness. We have made it 
easier to get care. We are taking away the stigma for the one in five 
Americans who suffer from mental health issues. We find people to be 
more open and candid and accepting of themselves and others. We are 
making real strides in terms of treatment and acceptance.
  But all of this requires access to help; and this drama should not 
play out with somebody whose fingers are on the nuclear buttons and 
whose every pronouncement can unsettle diplomatic conditions, affect 
war and peace, and the global economy.
  Having Congress establish this panel of former Presidents and Vice 
Presidents from both parties as a guardian and failsafe mechanism is 
important, and it needs to happen as soon as possible.
  We never know when catastrophe might strike. There is no good time to 
fix this problem. In today's world of alternative facts and fake news, 
in a sea of bitter partisan controversy, we need to have a mechanism 
that can be reliable, command public confidence, and be above politics.
  It is hard to think of a group that would collectively have more 
support and credibility than the distinguished Americans who have been 
in that position and, regardless of partisan differences, whose 
allegiance to America is unquestioned.
  We need to start now to protect the integrity of the most powerful 
position on the planet.

                          ____________________