[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CONTINUITY OF CONGRESS: PREPARING FOR
THE FUTURE BY LEARNING FROM THE PAST
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 18, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
www.cha.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-814 WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia Ranking Member
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma NORMA TORRES, California
MIKE CAREY, Ohio DEREK KILMER, Washington
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida
Mike Platt, Staff Director
Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma, Chair
MIKE CAREY, Ohio DEREK KILMER, Washington,
Ranking Member
JOSEPH MORELLE, New York
Derek Harley, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statements
Chairwoman Stephanie Bice, Representative from the State of
Oklahoma....................................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Stephanie Bice.............. 3
Ranking Member Derek Kilmer, Representative from the State of
Washington..................................................... 4
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Derek Kilmer............ 6
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on House Administration Joseph
Morelle, Representative from the State of New York............. 7
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle.......... 8
Statements
Brad R. Wenstrup, Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio........................................................... 9
Prepared statement of Brad R. Wenstrup....................... 11
Witnesses
Eric Petersen, specialist in American National Government,
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress............ 16
Prepared statement of Eric Petersen.......................... 19
Thomas Wickham, Jr., private citizen............................. 39
Prepared statement of Thomas Wickham, Jr..................... 41
Rebecca Gambler, director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S.
Government Accountability Office............................... 42
Prepared statement of Rebecca Gambler........................ 44
Questions for the Record
Eric Petersen answers to submitted questions..................... 68
Thomas Wickham, Jr., answers to submitted questions.............. 72
Rebecca Gambler answers to submitted questions................... 74
CONTINUITY OF CONGRESS: PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE BY LEARNING FROM THE
PAST
----------
September 18, 2024
Subcommittee on Modernization,
Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12 p.m., in
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Bice
[chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bice, Carey, Kilmer, and Morelle.
Also present: Representatives Timmons and Lee.
Staff present: Annemarie Cake, Professional Staff and
Deputy Clerk; Marian Currinder, Senior Professional Staff;
Alexander Deise, Parliamentarian; Derek Harley, Senior Advisor;
Kristen Monterroso, Director of Operations and Legislative
Clerk; Michael Platt, Staff Director; Jordan Wilson, Director
of Member Services; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff
Director, Chief Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director;
Heather Painter, Minority Legislative Director; Owen Reilly,
Minority Professional Staff; and Sean Wright, Minority Chief
Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE BICE, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
OKLAHOMA
Chairwoman Bice. The Subcommittee on Modernization will
come to order. I note that a quorum is present.
Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any
time.
The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days
so Members may submit any materials they wish to be included
therein.
Normally the Modernization Subcommittee holds its hearings
in a roundtable format, but because so many of our colleagues
have expressed an interest in joining today, we have moved up
to the dais to make sure that there is enough room for
everyone.
I want to start by saying, even though we are seated up
here on the dais, we will stick with our usual discussion-
oriented format to encourage more cohesive exchange of ideas
and thoughts.
Today's hearing is about an incredibly important issue that
most of us have avoided talking about, and there are good
reasons for that. None of us want to think about disasters or
catastrophic attacks, much less imagine ourselves as targets.
Anyone who has written a will knows that planning for the
future that does not include you is a very tough exercise. When
it comes to Congress, we tend to take comfort in the fact that
the institution has survived for over 200 years despite a Civil
War, two devastating pandemics, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and
countless other threats.
It is easy to assume that, if Congress has lasted this
long, the chances are it will continue to endure. As Members of
Congress, we have a responsibility to examine and discuss these
issues to make sure that we are not leaving things to chance.
Last Wednesday was the 23d anniversary of 9/11, and today
we will look at the steps Congress took following the 9/11
attacks. Back then, Congress faced the extremely difficult task
of addressing the question of continuity right on the heels of
an unforeseen and devastating attack. The solutions they landed
on were a thoughtful, good faith effort to thread a very
complicated political and procedural needle.
As we all know, the threat environment has changed
significantly since 9/11, and the margins between parties have
become increasingly narrow. These and other factors suggest a
need to discuss and better understand the actions Congress took
after 9/11 to ensure they adequately protect Congress today.
Ranking Member Kilmer has spent a lot of time studying the
issue and knows it better than most. I want to thank him for
the work he has done to raise awareness and to encourage the
Subcommittee on holding this hearing.
I think it is safe to say that most Members care deeply
about the issue and that we would all benefit from reexamining
what has changed since 9/11 and thinking through how to address
the vulnerabilities that remain. I view this hearing as an
opportunity to learn. There are different approaches to
addressing the challenge of continuity, a constitutional
amendment being one of them. As we all know, passing an
amendment is a heavy lift that can take years and sometimes
decades.
According to CRS, 40 constitutional amendments on the
subject of continuity have been introduced since 1945, and none
of them have passed. This track record in part explains why
Congress landed where it did after 9/11. Given the very real
challenges of passing an amendment, they opted to find another
path forward.
This is not to say that we should not consider it, but I
think it makes sense to also consider what we can do in the
near term to help safeguard continuity. I am looking forward to
learning more about some of those options today.
The bottom line is that everyone's tolerance for risk is
different, and that is a big factor in whether and how we plan
for the unthinkable. When it comes to planning for the
unthinkable where Congress is concerned, we should be guided by
our obligation to act in the best interests of the American
people. In other words, our focus should be on Congress, not on
ourselves as Members of Congress. Our role in this exercise is
to ensure that the institution is capable of carrying out its
constitutional obligations no matter the circumstances.
This is particularly important because Congress was created
to speak for the American people. Article I of the Constitution
establishes that the legislative branch is first among the co-
equal branches for this very reason. If disaster strikes and
Congress is unprepared, we should expect that the executive
branch will step in to fill the void. This would leave our
constituents without a direct voice in Government in a time of
crisis. While that is not a scenario any of us want to imagine,
it is one that deserves thoughtful consideration, and I hope
that this hearing today serves that purpose.
At this time, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member
for the purpose of providing an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bice follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE BICE, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION
Normally the Modernization Subcommittee holds its hearings
in a roundtable format, but because so many of our colleagues
have expressed an interest in joining today, we have moved up
to the dais to make sure that there is enough room for
everyone.
I want to start by saying, even though we are seated up
here on the dais, we will stick with our usual discussion-
oriented format to encourage more cohesive exchange of ideas
and thoughts.
Today's hearing is about an incredibly important issue that
most of us have avoided talking about, and there are good
reasons for that. None of us want to think about disasters or
catastrophic attacks, much less imagine ourselves as targets.
Anyone who has written a will knows that planning for the
future that does not include you is a very tough exercise. When
it comes to Congress, we tend to take comfort in the fact that
the institution has survived for over 200 years despite a Civil
War, two devastating pandemics, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and
countless other threats.
It is easy to assume that, if Congress has lasted this
long, the chances are it will continue to endure. As Members of
Congress, we have a responsibility to examine and discuss these
issues to make sure that we are not leaving things to chance.
Last Wednesday was the 23d anniversary of 9/11, and today
we will look at the steps Congress took following the 9/11
attacks. Back then, Congress faced the extremely difficult task
of addressing the question of continuity right on the heels of
an unforeseen and devastating attack. The solutions they landed
on were a thoughtful, good faith effort to thread a very
complicated political and procedural needle.
As we all know, the threat environment has changed
significantly since 9/11, and the margins between parties have
become increasingly narrow. These and other factors suggest a
need to discuss and better understand the actions Congress took
after 9/11 to ensure they adequately protect Congress today.
Ranking Member Kilmer has spent a lot of time studying the
issue and knows it better than most. I want to thank him for
the work he has done to raise awareness and to encourage the
Subcommittee on holding this hearing.
I think it is safe to say that most Members care deeply
about the issue and that we would all benefit from reexamining
what has changed since 9/11 and thinking through how to address
the vulnerabilities that remain. I view this hearing as an
opportunity to learn. There are different approaches to
addressing the challenge of continuity, a constitutional
amendment being one of them. As we all know, passing an
amendment is a heavy lift that can take years and sometimes
decades.
According to CRS, 40 constitutional amendments on the
subject of continuity have been introduced since 1945, and none
of them have passed. This track record in part explains why
Congress landed where it did after 9/11. Given the very real
challenges of passing an amendment, they opted to find another
path forward.
This is not to say that we should not consider it, but I
think it makes sense to also consider what we can do in the
near term to help safeguard continuity. I am looking forward to
learning more about some of those options today.
The bottom line is that everyone's tolerance for risk is
different, and that is a big factor in whether and how we plan
for the unthinkable. When it comes to planning for the
unthinkable where Congress is concerned, we should be guided by
our obligation to act in the best interests of the American
people. In other words, our focus should be on Congress, not on
ourselves as Members of Congress. Our role in this exercise is
to ensure that the institution is capable of carrying out its
constitutional obligations no matter the circumstances.
This is particularly important because Congress was created
to speak for the American people. Article I of the Constitution
establishes that the legislative branch is first among the co-
equal branches for this very reason. If disaster strikes and
Congress is unprepared, we should expect that the executive
branch will step in to fill the void. This would leave our
constituents without a direct voice in Government in a time of
crisis. While that is not a scenario any of us want to imagine,
it is one that deserves thoughtful consideration, and I hope
that this hearing today serves that purpose.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEREK KILMER, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WASHINGTON
Mr. Kilmer. All right. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks for
hosting this hearing, and for our colleagues both on the
Modernization Subcommittee and some who may be joining us from
off of it, I appreciate their participation.
I also want to extend my sincere appreciation to all of our
witnesses for taking the time to prepare and to join us for
today.
In this role, I often ask my constituents what keeps you up
at night, and there is plenty as Members that can keep us up at
night, but one that certainly keeps me up at night is political
violence and Congress' vulnerability to it. We explored this
issue previously when I chaired the select committee on the
Modernization of Congress, but we did not finish the job on
this topic.
Part of our job is to think about the unthinkable. I want
you to imagine another shooting at a Congressional Baseball
Game practice or a bomb at the State of the Union or a party
retreat or even if a plane goes down carrying a full State's
delegation to a funeral. I know this is not a fun topic, but I
also know that it is increasingly a necessary topic.
Just this past weekend, we experienced yet another credible
attempt on former President Trump's life following the
assassination attempt targeting him just a mere month ago. Last
year, we learned that the U.S. Capitol Police tracked a 300
percent increase in threats against Members of Congress over
the past 7 years.
The White House and the Senate have continuity plans. They
are prepared because the Constitution was twice amended to
ensure governing can continue if the President or Senators are
killed or otherwise die while in office, as much as we pray
that does not happen. Prayer is not a good strategy for
continuity. The U.S. House of Representatives is not prepared.
Today we will learn more about how the House would function
if a tragic event of this kind were to happen. In a nutshell,
it would not. I am grateful to my colleague and friend,
Congressman Brad Wenstrup, for serving on our first panel
today. He has, unfortunately, had to think about this issue
more than most. As many of you know, Brad was at the 2017
Congressional Baseball Game practice where a politically
motivated gunman shot four people, including our colleague,
Majority Leader Steve Scalise. A trained doctor, Brad rendered
heroic medical assistance that day. I want to thank you for
your leadership that day and for being here to share a Member's
perspective on this important topic.
On our second panel, we will hear from former House
Parliamentarian Tom Wickham. Tom was here during 9/11, where
flight 93 was headed for the United States Capitol, thwarted by
the heroic actions of those aboard.
That was the last time the House adopted continuity
measures which included a quorum change and a requirement that
States hold expeditious special elections within 49 days
following a mass casualty event. Many election officials have
indicated they would struggle to meet the 49-day requirement, a
sentiment we heard echoed again last week at the elections
hearing by our full Committee. In the event of many Members of
Congress losing their lives, even 49 days is a really long time
to have Americans without representation.
We will hear from Ms. Rebecca Gambler with the GAO who has
been leading a related report as a result of a bipartisan
request letter from our Committee and can speak to this aspect
in greater detail.
Finally, I want to thank Eric Petersen with the
Congressional Research Service for being here today, especially
because he has been under the weather. Eric has near
encyclopedic knowledge of the history of continuity efforts of
our vulnerabilities as an institution and the various
approaches to address this and the pros and cons dating from
the atomic era into the modern era.
This hearing would have been incomplete without you, sir. I
am glad you are here.
I am convinced that there are both constitutional and
operational insufficiencies with the status quo. The status quo
also creates a perverse incentive for political violence
through targeted killings designed to switch the majority party
in the House. This vulnerability is especially acute in the
narrow majority margins we have seen in recent years. 8 years
ago, there were 24 Members of Congress at the baseball
practice; 24 is more than double the number needed to change
the current majority composition of the U.S. House.
The select committee previously made an open recommendation
to establish a joint committee to review House and Senate rules
and other matters, assuring continuing representation and
congressional operations for the American people. There are
some who believe that this issue needs more study. Personally I
do not think that. If that is the best we can do, let us at
least do that, though.
As most of you know, I have introduced, along with
Congressman Wenstrup, a bipartisan constitutional amendment to
ensure the continuity of Congress. The amendment would require
that House Members submit a list of five potential replacements
when they are sworn in, one of whom would be appointed by the
State's Governor if a sitting Member dies or is killed during
their term to then serve temporarily just until a special
election can be held.
I want to thank Brad and my former co-chair of the select
committee, current co-chair of the Fixed Congress Caucus,
William Timmons, who I think will be joining us today, and
select committee alum Emanuel Cleaver for their participation
on this effort.
Our amendment addresses two critical concerns. One, it
ensures the continuity of the legislative branch during times
of unprecedented crisis. If, God forbid, we saw a mass casualty
event, it would be a national crisis. That would be a terrible
time to see prolonged vacancies in the House. It would be a
time when the House would have to act, and in our proposal, you
would have temporary replacements who could do that.
Second, our amendment reduces the incentive for political
violence, as temporary replacements would likely come from the
same party as the original Representative.
If Congress fails to enact a sufficient continuity plan,
the American people will be left wondering why in the world's
leading democracy there was no plan to protect our most sacred
democratic institutions.
Now, just a few days after the 23d anniversary of September
11 and now in the face of increasing threats on Members and
ourselves, I am glad we are holding this hearing today and look
forward to a productive discussion. My hope is through our work
today we can better protect the U.S. House of Representatives
against unspeakable threats and ensure the continuity of this
great American experiment.
Thank you. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Kilmer follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
MODERNIZATION DEREK KILMER
In this role, I often ask my constituents what keeps you up
at night, and there is plenty as Members that can keep us up at
night, but one that certainly keeps me up at night is political
violence and Congress' vulnerability to it. We explored this
issue previously when I chaired the select committee on the
Modernization of Congress, but we did not finish the job on
this topic.
Part of our job is to think about the unthinkable. I want
you to imagine another shooting at a Congressional Baseball
Game practice or a bomb at the State of the Union or a party
retreat or even if a plane goes down carrying a full State's
delegation to a funeral. I know this is not a fun topic, but I
also know that it is increasingly a necessary topic.
Just this past weekend, we experienced yet another credible
attempt on former President Trump's life following the
assassination attempt targeting him just a mere month ago. Last
year, we learned that the U.S. Capitol Police tracked a 300
percent increase in threats against Members of Congress over
the past 7 years.
The White House and the Senate have continuity plans. They
are prepared because the Constitution was twice amended to
ensure governing can continue if the President or Senators are
killed or otherwise die while in office, as much as we pray
that does not happen. Prayer is not a good strategy for
continuity. The U.S. House of Representatives is not prepared.
Today we will learn more about how the House would function
if a tragic event of this kind were to happen. In a nutshell,
it would not. I am grateful to my colleague and friend,
Congressman Brad Wenstrup, for serving on our first panel
today. He has, unfortunately, had to think about this issue
more than most. As many of you know, Brad was at the 2017
Congressional Baseball Game practice where a politically
motivated gunman shot four people, including our colleague,
Majority Leader Steve Scalise. A trained doctor, Brad rendered
heroic medical assistance that day. I want to thank you for
your leadership that day and for being here to share a Member's
perspective on this important topic.
On our second panel, we will hear from former House
Parliamentarian Tom Wickham. Tom was here during 9/11, where
flight 93 was headed for the United States Capitol, thwarted by
the heroic actions of those aboard.
That was the last time the House adopted continuity
measures which included a quorum change and a requirement that
States hold expeditious special elections within 49 days
following a mass casualty event. Many election officials have
indicated they would struggle to meet the 49-day requirement, a
sentiment we heard echoed again last week at the elections
hearing by our full Committee. In the event of many Members of
Congress losing their lives, even 49 days is a really long time
to have Americans without representation.
We will hear from Ms. Rebecca Gambler with the GAO who has
been leading a related report as a result of a bipartisan
request letter from our Committee and can speak to this aspect
in greater detail.
Finally, I want to thank Eric Petersen with the
Congressional Research Service for being here today, especially
because he has been under the weather. Eric has near
encyclopedic knowledge of the history of continuity efforts of
our vulnerabilities as an institution and the various
approaches to address this and the pros and cons dating from
the atomic era into the modern era.
This hearing would have been incomplete without you, sir. I
am glad you are here.
I am convinced that there are both constitutional and
operational insufficiencies with the status quo. The status quo
also creates a perverse incentive for political violence
through targeted killings designed to switch the majority party
in the House. This vulnerability is especially acute in the
narrow majority margins we have seen in recent years. 8 years
ago, there were 24 Members of Congress at the baseball
practice; 24 is more than double the number needed to change
the current majority composition of the U.S. House.
The select committee previously made an open recommendation
to establish a joint committee to review House and Senate rules
and other matters, assuring continuing representation and
congressional operations for the American people. There are
some who believe that this issue needs more study. Personally I
do not think that. If that is the best we can do, let us at
least do that, though.
As most of you know, I have introduced, along with
Congressman Wenstrup, a bipartisan constitutional amendment to
ensure the continuity of Congress. The amendment would require
that House Members submit a list of five potential replacements
when they are sworn in, one of whom would be appointed by the
State's Governor if a sitting Member dies or is killed during
their term to then serve temporarily just until a special
election can be held.
I want to thank Brad and my former co-chair of the select
committee, current co-chair of the Fixed Congress Caucus,
William Timmons, who I think will be joining us today, and
select committee alum Emanuel Cleaver for their participation
on this effort.
Our amendment addresses two critical concerns. One, it
ensures the continuity of the legislative branch during times
of unprecedented crisis. If, God forbid, we saw a mass casualty
event, it would be a national crisis. That would be a terrible
time to see prolonged vacancies in the House. It would be a
time when the House would have to act, and in our proposal, you
would have temporary replacements who could do that.
Second, our amendment reduces the incentive for political
violence, as temporary replacements would likely come from the
same party as the original Representative.
If Congress fails to enact a sufficient continuity plan,
the American people will be left wondering why in the world's
leading democracy there was no plan to protect our most sacred
democratic institutions.
Now, just a few days after the 23d anniversary of September
11 and now in the face of increasing threats on Members and
ourselves, I am glad we are holding this hearing today and look
forward to a productive discussion. My hope is through our work
today we can better protect the U.S. House of Representatives
against unspeakable threats and ensure the continuity of this
great American experiment.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize the Ranking Member of the full
Committee on House Administration, Mr. Morelle, for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEW YORK
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Like you, I want to thank my colleague and dear friend on
our Subcommittee, Ranking Member Derek Kilmer, for his work,
his leadership on the important topic, continuity. Thank our
witnesses, certainly Representative Wenstrup and all the folks
that Mr. Kilmer identified. Thanks.
I know imagining disaster scenarios targeting our
colleagues and ourselves is hard, bombs at the State of the
Union or party conventions, assassins targeting just enough
Members of the majority party to put them in the minority, and
yet I think all of us, and certainly as the Ranking Member of
this Committee that ensures--is intended to ensure that the
House operates, and we need to be prepared to ensure that
Congress, our democracy can function in the face of all of the
disasters we prefer not to think about.
Right now vacancies in Congress, as everyone knows, under
the Constitution are filled through special elections. It is
one of the remarkable things about the history of this House
that everybody who has ever served in the House of
Representatives owes that seat to an election by the people in
their district.
Obviously, this would create some changes, which makes it
somewhat, you know, challenging to think about it. The notion
of mass casualty events or disasters led several bipartisan
Members of this Committee to write a letter to the Government
Accountability Office requesting they examine how quickly
States will be able to hold special elections following a mass
casualty event. As Ranking Member Kilmer suggested, some local
election officials have real concerns about how quickly they
can do all of this.
The full Committee also voted unanimously for an amendment
earlier this Congress directing the study that was talked
about, and I think that is a positive bipartisan step to become
better informed about the topic and to raise the specter of
what we do.
As I understand, the previous select committee made a
related recommendation to establish a joint committee of
Members to ensure continuity in the face of the next
potentially unforeseen crisis, modeled after prior legislation
that was never enacted.
Convening today is really important. I want to again thank
the Subcommittee chair for bringing us together and to think
about this and to force us to really sort of spend some time. I
look forward to discussion of the bipartisan constitutional
amendment, H.J. Res. 118 as well, as one of the possible ways
of addressing it.
Ensuring we get this right matters for a whole host of
reasons. We need to maintain an uninterrupted legislative
capacity during times of crisis as my friend, Mr. Kilmer, has
talked about, especially if Congress is needed to address
funding bills, to war authorizations, or other emergency
legislation that we would need to respond to a crisis. The
Constitution establishes the balance of power between the three
branches. It is hard to imagine our Government functioning with
one of those three branches incapacitated.
All of this, I think, and all Americans deserve
representation as quickly as possible, even in emergency
situations. It is a tough topic. It is also one that I suspect
our Founders had never really seriously considered in their day
and age, but it is one in the modern era we do have to consider
as distasteful as it is. I think we can make important strides,
and I think this conversation is certainly a way to do that.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Kilmer for his long commitment
to this subject and, again, to the chair for bringing us
together and continuing a dialog on an important subject.
Thank you all. With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE
I know imagining disaster scenarios targeting our
colleagues and ourselves is hard, bombs at the State of the
Union or party conventions, assassins targeting just enough
Members of the majority party to put them in the minority, and
yet I think all of us, and certainly as the Ranking Member of
this Committee that ensures--is intended to ensure that the
House operates, and we need to be prepared to ensure that
Congress, our democracy can function in the face of all of the
disasters we prefer not to think about.
Right now vacancies in Congress, as everyone knows, under
the Constitution are filled through special elections. It is
one of the remarkable things about the history of this House
that everybody who has ever served in the House of
Representatives owes that seat to an election by the people in
their district.
Obviously, this would create some changes, which makes it
somewhat, you know, challenging to think about it. The notion
of mass casualty events or disasters led several bipartisan
Members of this Committee to write a letter to the Government
Accountability Office requesting they examine how quickly
States will be able to hold special elections following a mass
casualty event. As Ranking Member Kilmer suggested, some local
election officials have real concerns about how quickly they
can do all of this.
The full Committee also voted unanimously for an amendment
earlier this Congress directing the study that was talked
about, and I think that is a positive bipartisan step to become
better informed about the topic and to raise the specter of
what we do.
As I understand, the previous select committee made a
related recommendation to establish a joint committee of
Members to ensure continuity in the face of the next
potentially unforeseen crisis, modeled after prior legislation
that was never enacted.
Convening today is really important. I want to again thank
the Subcommittee chair for bringing us together and to think
about this and to force us to really sort of spend some time. I
look forward to discussion of the bipartisan constitutional
amendment, H.J. Res. 118 as well, as one of the possible ways
of addressing it.
Ensuring we get this right matters for a whole host of
reasons. We need to maintain an uninterrupted legislative
capacity during times of crisis as my friend, Mr. Kilmer, has
talked about, especially if Congress is needed to address
funding bills, to war authorizations, or other emergency
legislation that we would need to respond to a crisis. The
Constitution establishes the balance of power between the three
branches. It is hard to imagine our Government functioning with
one of those three branches incapacitated.
All of this, I think, and all Americans deserve
representation as quickly as possible, even in emergency
situations. It is a tough topic. It is also one that I suspect
our Founders had never really seriously considered in their day
and age, but it is one in the modern era we do have to consider
as distasteful as it is. I think we can make important strides,
and I think this conversation is certainly a way to do that.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Kilmer for his long commitment
to this subject and, again, to the chair for bringing us
together and continuing a dialog on an important subject.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
At this time, it is my delight to welcome our colleague,
Dr. Brad Wenstrup, who has graciously agreed to join us today
to share his experiences and thoughts about the topic of
continuity, as he has experienced it firsthand.
With that, Dr. Wenstrup, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRAD R. WENSTRUP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you very much, Chairwoman Bice,
Ranking Member Kilmer, the whole House Administration Committee
for having me here today to testify and have the discussion, as
you described it that way, on the topic of congressional
continuity.
I am really grateful for this serious approach that this
Committee has taken. If it takes a Committee to appoint a
Committee to make a study to eventually get something done, let
us do it now. Let us do it now because we have to. As has been
said, it is not a pleasant topic to think about. It is
incredibly serious, and it is serious and so important for the
country.
You know, it has been 7 years since the shooting at the
baseball field. You know, I have thought about this problem for
some time, and I brought it up here and there during certain
opportunities. I am really grateful that this is happening now.
This is really important because not only, as it has been
mentioned, can we take away the incentive for someone to act in
a nefarious way, we are going to preserve the idea that all
Americans will have a voice here in Congress virtually at all
times.
I have always thought that, out of everything bad that
happens, there is a chance to do something good, and I think
that that opportunity is here and now. Again, I am very
grateful for what is being done here by this Committee and that
we are taking the time to deliberate and hopefully move forward
to find the best response in case the unthinkable ever happens
or the unthinkable that has happened has some success, some
negative success.
This is not just a hypothetical situation we are dealing
with today. You know, I first came to Congress, you know--since
I came here, there has been a real up-tick in political
violence against fellow Americans, against elected officials,
increase in violent political rhetoric from elected and
nonelected people and social media. You know, let us face it,
we always talk about the increase of mental health needs in our
country. We have a problem. Someone who may have mental health
needs does not need to be incentivized toward taking bad
action.
In recent years, we have seen the shooting of Congresswoman
Gabby Giffords, anti-Semitic incidents sky rocket,
assassination attempts on President Trump. According to a
recent TIME article, one-third of Americans believe that
violent action against the Government can be justified. John
Lewis, a colleague, great American, he used to say ``good
trouble.'' He did not have this in mind. This is not what he
was talking about.
You know, June 14, 2017, I was on the baseball field with
my colleagues practicing for the baseball game. A violent
domestic terrorist attempted to assassinate Republican Members
of Congress. He had names in his pocket, descriptions in his
pocket. This was a clear assassination attempt, and he decided
to use murder or assassination as a tool for a political
change. He wanted to wipe out the Republican majority and
change the balance of power in our Congress.
136 rounds were fired on that field at that confrontation.
Sitting Members of Congress and their staff were seriously
injured and required immediate medical intervention. What would
have happened if Capitol Police were not there? He could have
killed sitting Members. If he had achieved his goal and there
were enough Members to tip the balance of power in one
direction or another, he succeeded.
Let us take that opportunity away. He could have killed--
you know, if someone is killed or incapacitated beyond the
ability to serve, that is a problem.
There are too many what-if's in a situation like this
because Congress has not fully considered the implications of a
mass casualty event affecting Members and the impact it would
have on the ability of our Congress to function in a time of
need.
I think we need to take some next steps, a process that is
a deterrent of a disaster, and I think that we can all stand
resolute on this and clearly in a bipartisan fashion.
You know, we have plans in place for a President. We have
seen that happen in the United States of America, but there is
a plan in place for succession, and especially if there are
multiple leaders that are killed or incapacitated beyond repair
basically.
I am really proud to join Representatives Kilmer, Timmons,
Cleaver in leading a proposed constitutional amendment that
would establish a congressional continuity plan by requiring
each newly elected Member to provide a list of at least five
individuals who are qualified to serve in the Member's place in
the event of that Member's death during the term, and if they
were to pass away, the Governor of the State must select a
replacement from that list within 10 days. We heard how long it
takes for a special election.
I will just finish with this because I know my time has
expired, and I appreciate it. You know, we heard it said, you
know, hope is wonderful, but it is not a plan. Prayer is great,
but it is not a plan. I just want people to think about,
besides the baseball field and the other events, what would we
have done on 9/11/2001 if the fourth plane hit the Capitol? We
were in session that day.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wenstrup follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRAD R. WENSTRUP
Well, thank you very much, Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member
Kilmer, the whole House Administration Committee for having me
here today to testify and have the discussion, as you described
it that way, on the topic of congressional continuity.
I am really grateful for this serious approach that this
Committee has taken. If it takes a Committee to appoint a
Committee to make a study to eventually get something done, let
us do it now. Let us do it now because we have to. As has been
said, it is not a pleasant topic to think about. It is
incredibly serious, and it is serious and so important for the
country.
You know, it has been 7 years since the shooting at the
baseball field. You know, I have thought about this problem for
some time, and I brought it up here and there during certain
opportunities. I am really grateful that this is happening now.
This is really important because not only, as it has been
mentioned, can we take away the incentive for someone to act in
a nefarious way, we are going to preserve the idea that all
Americans will have a voice here in Congress virtually at all
times.
I have always thought that, out of everything bad that
happens, there is a chance to do something good, and I think
that that opportunity is here and now. Again, I am very
grateful for what is being done here by this Committee and that
we are taking the time to deliberate and hopefully move forward
to find the best response in case the unthinkable ever happens
or the unthinkable that has happened has some success, some
negative success.
This is not just a hypothetical situation we are dealing
with today. You know, I first came to Congress, you know--since
I came here, there has been a real up-tick in political
violence against fellow Americans, against elected officials,
increase in violent political rhetoric from elected and
nonelected people and social media. You know, let us face it,
we always talk about the increase of mental health needs in our
country. We have a problem. Someone who may have mental health
needs does not need to be incentivized toward taking bad
action.
In recent years, we have seen the shooting of Congresswoman
Gabby Giffords, anti-Semitic incidents sky rocket,
assassination attempts on President Trump. According to a
recent TIME article, one-third of Americans believe that
violent action against the Government can be justified. John
Lewis, a colleague, great American, he used to say ``good
trouble.'' He did not have this in mind. This is not what he
was talking about.
You know, June 14, 2017, I was on the baseball field with
my colleagues practicing for the baseball game. A violent
domestic terrorist attempted to assassinate Republican Members
of Congress. He had names in his pocket, descriptions in his
pocket. This was a clear assassination attempt, and he decided
to use murder or assassination as a tool for a political
change. He wanted to wipe out the Republican majority and
change the balance of power in our Congress.
136 rounds were fired on that field at that confrontation.
Sitting Members of Congress and their staff were seriously
injured and required immediate medical intervention. What would
have happened if Capitol Police were not there? He could have
killed sitting Members. If he had achieved his goal and there
were enough Members to tip the balance of power in one
direction or another, he succeeded.
Let us take that opportunity away. He could have killed--
you know, if someone is killed or incapacitated beyond the
ability to serve, that is a problem.
There are too many what-if's in a situation like this
because Congress has not fully considered the implications of a
mass casualty event affecting Members and the impact it would
have on the ability of our Congress to function in a time of
need.
I think we need to take some next steps, a process that is
a deterrent of a disaster, and I think that we can all stand
resolute on this and clearly in a bipartisan fashion.
You know, we have plans in place for a President. We have
seen that happen in the United States of America, but there is
a plan in place for succession, and especially if there are
multiple leaders that are killed or incapacitated beyond repair
basically.
I am really proud to join Representatives Kilmer, Timmons,
Cleaver in leading a proposed constitutional amendment that
would establish a congressional continuity plan by requiring
each newly elected Member to provide a list of at least five
individuals who are qualified to serve in the Member's place in
the event of that Member's death during the term, and if they
were to pass away, the Governor of the State must select a
replacement from that list within 10 days. We heard how long it
takes for a special election.
I will just finish with this because I know my time has
expired, and I appreciate it. You know, we heard it said, you
know, hope is wonderful, but it is not a plan. Prayer is great,
but it is not a plan. I just want people to think about,
besides the baseball field and the other events, what would we
have done on 9/11/2001 if the fourth plane hit the Capitol? We
were in session that day.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Wenstrup.
I also want to take a moment to express gratitude for your
heroic efforts on the baseball field that day. There were
Members of the Republican Conference that likely may not be
with us today if it were not for the heroic efforts that you
provided on the field. I want to show gratitude for that.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Chairwoman Bice. At this time, I will begin by recognizing
myself for the purpose of asking a question and then recognize
the Ranking Member and then our colleagues who might also have
additional questions.
Let me begin, in 2018, a chartered train carrying
Republican lawmakers collided with a garbage truck in Virginia,
killing one person.
In 2020, the COVID pandemic forced Congress to go virtual.
My classmate, Congressman-elect Luke Letlow, the late husband
of Julia Letlow, died from complications before he was actually
seated as a Member of Congress.
How do these events, in addition to more recent events like
the recent assassination attempts of President Trump, put
continuity in a new light?
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, you know, you saw so many people with
COVID dying, and, at first, we did not know who was dying and
why they were dying necessarily. We have gradually learned who
was more vulnerable than others, but at the same time, you
know, we have people here with a lot of different medical
conditions and different ages. We saw, with COVID, that those
were reasons for people to be affected and not necessarily
live. We fared fairly well, fortunately, in Congress, but,
there again, that is another situation where we could find
ourselves with a huge, huge absence.
The train wreck, I can tell you, being on that as well,
where we had a large number of Members of the House and Senate,
if we had hit that truck in a different way, we would have
derailed. We were fortunate we hit the back end of the truck,
and it went spinning. Again, we lucked out. If we derailed, who
knows how many people might have died.
You have to take all of these things in mind, and not only
is it important how we posture ourselves and protect ourselves
when we gather, and even individually, we have to think of what
happens afterwards.
You know, as I look at the baseball field, if Capitol
Police were not there, I mean, Steve Scalise took a bullet for
all of us because that is the reason Capitol Police were there.
If they were not there, this guy, I am telling you, walks into
this field, he kills 20 or 30 Members of Congress and their
staff in one morning changing the balance of power in the House
of Representatives. I would contend that is an insurrection by
one person, by one person.
You know what, we try to protect ourselves as best we can,
and we have made changes, and we have tried to increase our
security, but bad things happen. You can have all the security
you want, that does not stop a pandemic.
Chairwoman Bice. Dr. Wenstrup, in my opening statement, I
mentioned that there have been 45 proposed constitutional
amendments to address the continuity issue and that none of
them have actually been successful.
In your opinion, why is a constitutional amendment the sort
of only option that you feel like would address this issue?
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, our Founders made constitutional
amendments tough for good reason, that it would take the will
of a large group of people. I really do not know why all the
other opportunities have not come together, but I cannot think
of a time in history where the continuity of Government has
been as threatened as it is today. I think that--I would hope
that the American people and all Members of Congress, Senate,
and the White House would have an understanding as to why this
needs to take place, and we probably should not dawdle. I
consider not having something in place a national security
threat.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you for that.
I would say Civil War times may have also been a time where
there was certainly concern about continuity given, you know,
the engagement, but I appreciate your comments there.
At this time, I want to--or now I am going to recognize the
Ranking Member Kilmer for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
I really thank you for being here. I want to thank you for
showing up.
You just spoke to two situations that could have been a
whole lot worse, right. The train derailment could have flipped
the majority in the House for months and months. You know, you
mentioned the baseball field, you know, only because Leader
Scalise was a Member of leadership was Capitol Police even
present that day, and but for their presence, that could have
been much worse.
I just think the perspective you bring to this conversation
is really important, and I want to thank you for sharing that.
I also want to thank you for co-leading the constitutional
amendment. I just want to give you a little bit of an
opportunity to talk about why you decided to sign onto that
proposal and what you see the benefits of it as.
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, you know, as I reflected on in my
opening statement, this concern of mine has been there since
the shooting at the baseball field for sure. I mention it here
for this Committee or that Committee and just in passing and,
you know, I kind of kick myself for not taking action. I am
extremely grateful to you for coming to me. You know, we know
each other, and I think you know it would mean a lot to me that
we take some action here.
As someone who is--well, I guess we both are retiring from
Congress after this term, and so maybe this can be our swan
song where we do something good for the sake of the Nation, for
the sake of this body, and for national security, and to maybe
deter bad actors.
Mr. Kilmer. I know the Chairwoman asked you about the
choice of pursuing a constitutional amendment, and I think
obviously one of the challenges is, you know, we are restricted
by the current language of the Constitution to only replace
Members through election. That automatically runs us into
challenges with--and, again, we will hear from Secretaries of
State or from the GAO who have talked to Secretaries of State
that it just takes time to hold an election, right. You have to
have people register as candidates. You have to print ballots.
You know, when we talked as a full Committee last week, you
know, do you want military members to be able to vote? Well, I
do, right. That takes time.
I am just curious your take on the benefit of the
constitutional amendment approach vis-a-vis other approaches.
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, one, it really locks it in, and then
also it shows that it has had very much bipartisan support. You
know, one of the things I said too is, you know, we have a
succession plan for the President and you go down to the
Secretaries and everything else. They were not elected either,
but they were someone that was selected by the sitting
President who was elected, and that is what we are asking to do
in the amendment. I think that was pretty thoughtful, is that
the person that was elected is likely choosing someone similar
to them, which would be representative of the people that
elected the Member.
I think that is an important component, and I think that is
why it is important to have that list in place. You know, we do
it for the Speaker. We do it, you know, in other areas too, but
what we are doing is saying, ``This is a stop gap.'' We are not
saying, ``You have that seat for the rest of the term,'' or
anything else. It is just until the special election goes
through its ordinary process. We constitutionally are not
trying to change the way States operate their elections, but at
the same time, we are letting that State or that district have
representation.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks so much.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Carey for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Carey. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for the
opportunity.
Doctor, you know, I think Ohioans know your service.
Obviously, you and Derek both leaving this institution, you
know, really shows in a bipartisan way how the institutional
knowledge of this body will lose a lot of the institutional
knowledge.
I just want to--I appreciate all of your years of service
and everything that you have done, not just from your time in
Congress and your heroic efforts on the baseball field, but
your military service and your commitment to take care of your
young family. I do appreciate that.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Mr. Carey. I just want to say, you know, this is an issue--
you know, most people see many of us on TV shouting at the
rain, but we are a body that can come together in a bipartisan
way to get things done. I think what you see in this
Subcommittee and I think what you see in the House Admin
Committee, you see that we can work together to deliver
solutions to the American public. I just wish that, on both
sides, our colleagues would recognize that we can get along,
and we can do the right things for the American public.
I do want to ask you a couple questions. What are your
views on the select committee's recommendation for the joint
committee to investigate these issues more fully and make
recommendations on what we are doing and what we are speaking
about today?
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, beyond recommendation--I am pleased
that you are doing it as I have said. I mean, this is
fantastic, probably long overdue, but I am seeing serious
conversations about a serious matter coming from both sides of
the aisle, and I want you to drive on and keep going with this
that I hope can result in a change in how our laws read, how
our Constitution reads so that we are better able to serve the
American people.
You know, we do not want someone to be able to take away
the voice of Americans here in this body, you know. We are a
democratic republic. We represent the people. They have
selected us. If there is something that happens, then someone
that we recommend should be able to fill in temporarily until
the normal State process can take place.
Mr. Carey. I think it is also important to--you know, I
came in in a special election, and I know the process that it
took. We had to have a primary. We had to have a general. Our
primary was--I think the Congressman that had my seat before
resigned, I believe it was the first part of the year--I am not
sure when it was that Steve resigned. Our primary was done in
August, and our general was done in November. We are able to do
those. I know Ohio is not that way, but I think nationally we
definitely need to do that.
Again, I just want to say thank you for being here today.
Madam Chair and Derek, thank you for having this Committee.
This is an important issue and one that is thoughtful, one that
I think we are going to get bipartisan support with.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Wenstrup. I think you are doing great.
Mr. Carey. Thank you, Brad.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Chairwoman Bice. Dr. Wenstrup, we appreciate your time this
afternoon.
With that, we will introduce the second panel of witnesses.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
For our second panel of witnesses, our first witness is
Eric Petersen. Mr. Petersen is a specialist in American
National Government in the Government and Finance Division of
the Congressional Research Service, where he has worked for two
decades.
In addition to continuity of Congress, his research areas
include congressional administration and staffing, constituent
service management, congressional executive relations, and
Government contingency planning.
Welcome.
Our next witness is Tom Wickham. Mr. Wickham is the former
House Parliamentarian and served as a nonpartisan House
official for over 25 years.
In leading an office that reviewed every measure that came
before the House, Mr. Wickham has command of a broad range of
subject matters covering all aspects of Government policy.
During numerous high-profile legislative events, he counseled
Speakers of the House, Vice Presidents, and countless Members
and Senators on their constitutional and statutory authorities.
Our final witness is Rebecca Gambler. Ms. Gambler is the
director of Homeland Security and Justice at the Government
Accountability Office. In addition to other issues, she leads
GAO's work on a range of election issues, including voting
equipment and voter registration and waiting times at polling
places.
I want to say thank you to our second panel of witnesses
for being with us today.
Please remember to press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that the green light is on. When you begin to
speak, the timer in front of you will turn green. After 4
minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes
on, your 5 minutes has expired, and we would ask that you
please kindly wrap up quickly.
At this time, I now recognize Mr. Petersen for 5 minutes of
opening statements.
STATEMENTS OF ERIC PETERSEN, SPECIALIST IN AMERICAN NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, LIBRARY OF
CONGRESS; THOMAS WICKHAM, JR., PRIVATE CITIZEN; AND REBECCA
GAMBLER, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE.
STATEMENT OF ERIC PETERSEN
Mr. Petersen. Chair Bice, Ranking Member Kilmer, and
Members of the Subcommittee. Apologies for the audio----
Chairwoman Bice. Can you make sure that your microphone is
on?
Mr. Petersen. OK. Is this better?
Chairwoman Bice. Much better. Thank you.
Mr. Petersen. Chair Bice, Ranking Member Kilmer, Members of
the Subcommittee, with apologies for the audio, thank you for
inviting me to testify today on behalf of CRS.
The continuity of Congress, the ability of the national
legislature to carry out its constitutional and
representational roles in the face of a wide variety of
potential interruptions of those activities has been a subject
of concern for almost 80 years. Particular attention has been
given to solutions at the dawn of the atomic age from 1945 to
the early 1960's and again in the years following the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001.
Focusing on that latter period, there have been several
changes in light of continuity concerns. In my written
testimony, there are discussions of House and Senate efforts to
enhance existing emergency response capacities, House authority
to install an acting Speaker pro tem if the Office of Speaker
is vacant, and changes to recess and convening authorities in
the House and Senate.
My oral remarks center on the challenges of Member
availability. It may be the case that, following an incident in
which Members of Congress are killed, incapacitated, or
missing, a delay in seating new Members or identifying sitting
Members who can continue to serve could adversely affect the
ability of Congress to carry out its constitutional
responsibilities.
The rapid identification of Members killed, incapacitated,
or missing and the implementation of established procedures to
ensure a quorum of Members is available in each Chamber are
lynch pins in any effort by either Chamber to recover and
reconstitute following a mass casualty or other incident
affecting Members.
While procedures regarding the death of individual Members
are well established, matters relating to the capacity or
availability of a Member to serve have been addressed by the
House and Senate only on an ad hoc case-by-case basis.
Despite post-9/11 efforts, there remains a perceived lack
of widely accepted solutions that are viewed as reliable and
sufficient to ensure that the House and Senate can continue to
carry out their constitutional responsibilities.
This is due in part to competing ideas of the practicality
of arrangements to replace House Members by special elections
following a substantial loss of Members as well as concern
about the constitutionality of current House provisional quorum
procedures.
Some note that a mass death incident would affect House
operations more significantly than it would Senate operations
since the House requires election of all of its Members, while
the Senate can appoint Senators. Five States require special
elections to fill Senate vacancies, accounting for 10 percent
of its Membership, and an incident resulting in substantial
incapacitation or disappearance could have similar effects on
either Chamber.
Finally, constitutional proposals offered during the cold
war and after 9/11 may overemphasize solutions to congressional
vacancies while underestimating the challenges of seats where
the incumbents may be missing or unable to carry out their
duties while still remaining sitting Members.
A fulsome consideration of policy approaches to addressing
incapacity or disappearance might have the effect of producing
incomplete policy--my mistake. The continued absence of a
fulsome policy approach to addressing incapacity and
disappearance issues might have the effect of producing
incomplete policy responses.
In the event of a substantial number of missing or
incapacitated Members following an interruption, the House may
be and Senate may be left with no more effective a path to
reconstituting their Chambers and returning to more normal
operations than that which is currently available. To better
ensure the continuity of Congress, reconsideration of existing
provision may need to occur.
I am a bit out of time, so I am just going to skip to the
conclusions.
It appears, without regards to the consideration of the
continuity of Congress, existing procedures and processes as
well as proposals to amend the Constitution may be insufficient
to address a mass casualty event affecting Members in the
House.
Moving forward, Congress might consider replacing Members
in what undoubtedly would be one of the most trying times for
the institution and the Republic could be extraordinarily
challenging. Incomplete processes that do not provide a quorate
House or that do so through means seen as illegitimate or
otherwise suspect by voters or others could delay a routine
return to operations and could call any actions of Congress
following reconstitution.
There is more I will be happy to get to in the questions.
For now, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Petersen follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC PETERSEN
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Petersen.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Wickham for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS WICKHAM, JR.
Mr. Wickham. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for having me
here today.
My name is Tom Wickham, and I served in the Office of the
House Parliamentarian from 1995 to 2021, including as
Parliamentarian from 2012 to 2020.
I am honored to discuss the reflections on the rules
changes that occurred following the terrorist attacks of 9/11
and the challenges and continuity of Government that face the
House today. As a retired Parliamentarian of the House, I
approach this topic not as an advocate or an academic but
instead as a former practitioner sharing a perspective of an
office dedicated to advising and guiding this institution. In
terms of this narrow but critical vantage point, there is no
better substitute for the guidance of the current
Parliamentarian of the House, Jason Smith, and that wonderful
team as the House seeks to engage on this important topic.
The House is fortunate to have a comprehensive history of
the House's procedural action in response to 9/11 transcribed
in the testimony of George R. Rogers before the select
committee on Modernization on April 6, 2022, and the 2006
College of William and Mary Law Review article on the
provisional quorum rule by John B. Williams.
The institutional mindset of the House after 9/11 was
focused on preventing and preparing for another terrorist
attack, and the institutional offices in the House carried out
related operational and legislative activities. These
activities ranged from the assignment of individual rubble
whistles, like this one I have right here, the assignment of
flashlights, gas masks to Members and staff, to mammoth
investigative efforts by the 9/11 Commission, and legislative
efforts to establish a Department of Homeland Security, which
would be the largest Government reorganization since the
National Security Act of 1947.
The central procedural organizing force in the House was
the Continuity Task Force headed by Representative Chris Cox
and Representative Martin Frost. Despite the weight of 9/11 and
the urgency to ensure a continuity in preparation for another
attack, the task force was not myopic or rushed and deliberated
for 6 months on other historic catastrophic circumstances,
including the House's response to the Civil War and to the flu
epidemic of 1918.
The greatest challenge for that task force was the lack of
a procedural foundation from which we could build upon with
very scant procedural tools such as a single statement glued
into Jefferson's manual that said that, due to the inherent
authority of the chair, that a recess could be declared in the
event of danger or a handshake agreement that no Members would
raise a point of no quorum during an emergency because a quorum
would be presumed.
With bipartisan spirit driving the task force, it became
clear that the most difficult issue was that to deal with the
constitutional quorum requirement in the event of a large
amount of deaths or incapacitations. The Cox-Frost
recommendations were divided, the first submission being the
least constitutionally intrusive group of recommendations. This
foreshadowed the quorum requirement as a more constitutionally
intrusive change that was worthy of greater scrutiny and not
the basis of a recommendation from Cox-Frost.
What followed was a hearing, a rare hearing of the
Committee on Rules with testimony from sitting the
Parliamentarian, one of only three occurrences that I can
remember, where the issue of the procedural provisional quorum
was dived into.
Commenting and fast-forwarding today, in the sake of
brevity, the House is fortunate that there is a stronger
foundation for action than there was on the days immediately
following 9/11.
As the House continues looking at this issue into 2025 and
beyond, I hope we will be able to grasp the experience of the
pandemic when looking at modern communication abilities or the
decades of experience in the Homeland Security Department when
defining catastrophic circumstances.
I will wrap up my testimony there and take questions at the
appropriate time.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wickham follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS WICKHAM, JR.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Wickham.
Finally we have Rebecca Gambler with the GAO.
Ms. Gambler, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA GAMBLER
Ms. Gambler. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Bice, Ranking
Member Kilmer, and Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing
to discuss preliminary observations from GAO's ongoing work on
State capabilities to hold special elections in the event of
mass vacancies in the U.S. House of Representatives.
All levels of Government share a responsibility in the U.S.
election process, and the election system is highly
decentralized. States are responsible for the administration of
their own elections, as well as Federal elections. States
regulate various aspects of elections, including registration
procedures, absentee and early voting requirements, and
election day procedures. They support local jurisdictions in
administering elections.
The process for holding elections includes activities like
registering voters, recruiting and training poll workers,
selecting polling locations, transmitting absentee and vote-by-
mail ballots, and setting up voting machines and voting booths.
In 2005, Congress passed a law that addresses holding
special elections when the Speaker of the House announces that
there are more than 100 vacancies in State Representation in
the House. In such extraordinary circumstances, the law
requires that States in which vacancies exist do several
things, including holding a special election within 49 days.
Today I will summarize our preliminary observations on,
one, State laws related to holding special elections to fill
House vacancies and how they compare with the Federal law to
hold such elections; and, two, the perspectives of State
election officials on the capabilities of and challenges facing
States in holding special elections to fill House vacancies.
First, our preliminary analysis has identified nine States
that have laws for holding special elections to fill House
vacancies that adopt aspects of the Federal law for the State,
such as those related to the 49-day timeframe. Our preliminary
analysis also shows that 41 States do not appear to have laws
that adopt the Federal law for their State.
Almost all of these States have provisions in State law
that address holding special elections to fill vacancies in
their Representation in the House.
Examples of the types of timing provisions in these laws
include specifying the number of days within which States are
required to hold the election or giving the Governor discretion
to order an election within a specific timeframe.
Second, we surveyed State election officials in all 50
States to obtain their perspectives on holding special
elections consistent with the Federal law. As of the beginning
of this month, 27 States have responded to the survey. Based on
our preliminary analysis of the survey results, 15 of the 27
officials who responded to the survey reported that they were
not aware of the Federal law prior to hearing about our study.
In addition, in responding to our survey, State election
officials identified a range of challenges related to holding
special elections consistent with the Federal law.
For example, officials reported that it would be difficult
to select candidates within the timeframes required by the law.
Officials also noted challenges related to preparing and
printing ballots, identifying polling places and poll works,
and transmitting absentee ballots to military and overseas
voters.
Officials also reported to us that the challenges they
identified could affect the accuracy and availability of
ballots, pamphlets, and other voting materials, public
perceptions of the election, and voting access, such as whether
voters have sufficient time to request absentee ballots.
However, based on our preliminary analysis, many State
election officials reported to us that they believe they could
hold a special election consistent with the requirements in the
Federal law.
Additionally, they identified State practices that may help
them hold such elections, such as some States assigning
responsibility for candidate selection to political parties,
which could be done relatively quickly under a special
election.
We also heard that vote centers could help give State
election officials flexibility in conducting an election on
short notice. These are locations where ballots for all
precincts in a local jurisdiction are available to all voters
so that they can vote at any center of their choosing.
In closing, we are continuing our review of these topics.
We plan to issue a final report in the coming months.
This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions Members may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gambler follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REBECCA GAMBLER
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you very much, Ms. Gambler.
We will now open it up for questions with the witnesses,
beginning with myself and followed by Ranking Member Kilmer.
Then we will alternate between Members.
Any Member wishing to be recognized should signal to the
chair their interest in asking a question.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I want to start, Ms. Gambler, the GAO report that was
presented preliminary was eye-opening to say the least,
recognizing that there are States that did not even know that
this 49-day requirement existed and the majority--the vast
majority of States being unable to meet that requirement.
I want to talk about--there are nine States that have met
the requirement. Can you talk a little bit about what they have
done to ensure that they are meeting the Federal regulations
that have been put forward? Are there special things that they
did, any of them, individually?
Ms. Gambler. Sure. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman.
As I mentioned, there are nine States that we have
preliminarily identified have integrated aspects of the Federal
law 2 U.S.C. 8(b) into their State law. Many of those nine
States have incorporated that timeframe provision, the 49-day
timeframe provision.
Some of the States also incorporated other aspects of the
law related to, example, transmission of ballots to military
and overseas voters, as well as what is specified in 2 U.S.C.
8(b) regarding candidate selection.
There is a little bit of variability across the nine
States, but there are nine States that address some aspect of
the provision of Federal law that we are talking about in their
State laws.
Chairwoman Bice. With so many States not--either not having
knowledge of the Federal law or not adhering to it, what is the
GAO doing to educate those States or encourage them to consider
making changes to meet the 49-day requirement?
Ms. Gambler. Sure. Absolutely. One step we have taken, I
have mentioned in my oral statement, is we have sent a survey
to election officials in all 50 States to get their
perspectives on both the challenges that would--that they might
face in holding a special election----
Chairwoman Bice. We only received 27 responses. Is that
right?
Ms. Gambler. We have received 27 responses thus far, and we
will be continuing our work in this area, you know, going
forward. We are hopeful at least on our part that our work in
this area can help with that awareness piece.
Chairwoman Bice. Are you aware if any engagement by the
Election Assistance Commission in doing some education and
outreach on this law; is that something you may have discussed
with them?
Ms. Gambler. Sure. We did meet with the Election Assistance
Commission, the EAC, regarding our review. Certainly the EAC is
a Federal entity that--whose mission is to provide resources to
the election community, to States and local election
jurisdictions, to help address all aspects of election
administration. Certainly this could be an area for the EAC to
help provide resources on.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
Mr. Wickham, do you remember why the House has proposed
temporary joint committee to study continuity issues and make
recommendations, which was considered and passed in the House
in 2003, did not get any tracks in the Senate?
Mr. Wickham. I do not recall that specifically with regard
to that piece of legislation. It has been challenging in the
past to schedule joint exercises, joint continuity exercises in
the past because of the different schedules of the bodies, the
different makeups of the bodies, and different plans for
continuity.
It is not confined to that one specific piece of
legislation, but joint efforts have been difficult.
Chairwoman Bice. Do you think it potentially could be
because the Senate does have a continuity plan in place in a
different manner, and it may not be as important to them to
actually address this issue as it is for the House? Could that
be one reason?
Mr. Wickham. It certainly could be one reason, and both
Houses could have in place their own plans that they are
confident in their feasibility.
Chairwoman Bice. Do you see that idea, which is the select
committee--which the select committee recommended, as a punt or
perhaps a potential way to examine these issues
comprehensively? You know, we have not pushed forward with a
constitutional amendment on this issue, more of an examination.
Do you feel like we are sort of abdicating the
responsibilities?
Mr. Wickham. No, I think it is the latter, that both bodies
could benefit from a fresh review of these circumstances. As I
said, the intensity following 9/11 was quite strong, and we
worked 6 months with great intensity. A similar view with
heightened intensity would benefit both Houses.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
I recognize Ranking Member Kilmer for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Mr. Wickham, I am going to stick with you.
You heard Dr. Wenstrup's testimony about his concerns about
either a mass casualty incident or an incident affecting a
smaller number of Members but big enough to flip a majority.
Looking back 20 years now with hindsight, do you feel that
the solutions that were offered back then fix the problem? Do
you think they are sufficient, both operationally and
constitutionally?
Mr. Wickham. The House, from a procedural perspective,
judges the sufficiency in terms of Constitution by its debate
and its vote on a specific rules change. In this case, that was
the determination after 9/11 to put in place the quorum rules
change and has been subsequently adopted. There is a notion of
advisability that comes with those individual votes.
As I just said, it would behoove both the House and Senate
to look at all their procedures and rules to deal with the
changes in circumstances, especially the issue of increased
political violence.
Mr. Kilmer. OK. One thing I am struck by is, you know, you
hear Ms. Gambler's comment. Even if the States could fill the--
do a special election in 49 days, 49 days is a long time in the
face of a national crisis, you know. You could reset the
quorum. We pulled up from James Madison's notes--the initial
requirement that a majority constitute a quorum to do business
was because, and this was his quote, ``It would be a pleasing
ground of confidence to the people that no law or burden could
be imposed on them by a few men.''
Article I, section 2, of the Constitution sets out three
basic requirements for the House, including that it consist of
elected Representatives that meet age, citizenship, and
residency requirements and that Representatives be apportioned
among the States based on their populations.
That makes it hard for me to accept that a House
compromised of a much smaller number that may have an entire
State without Representation would be fitting under the
Founders' vision. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Wickham. I would just say that you are not alone in
your concerns. From the very outset, the reason why the quorum
change was not dealt with by the initial Cox-Frost Task Force
was the challenges, the concerns about its constitutionality,
one, and then, second, about where the line would be drawn with
regard to the amount of Members that would carry on the House
in the event of catastrophic condition.
This has been raised by a number of internal actors,
Members of the House such as your predecessor, Mr. Baird, as
well as outside groups.
Those are concerns that a number of parties have raised and
ones that were considered by that Cox-Frost Task Force.
Mr. Kilmer. Mr. Petersen, I am hoping you can weigh in
here. You know, because you have studied this issue, you have
talked to other experts on this topic, what are the biggest
concerns that experts have raised about Congress' ability to
function in either of the circumstance of a mass casualty event
or in a circumstance where fewer Members are killed or die but
in a way that might flip a majority? What are we hearing from
experts on that?
Mr. Petersen. The question of switching majorities is
relatively new in the continuity space. It is relatively new in
terms of public consideration. I will say that, since about
2001, I have been getting questions from congressional offices,
wondering what happens if a Member, you know, enough Members
change to--change the majority.
In practice, we do not have a lot of precedent. We have
conjecture of variable quality, and it is probably one of those
things that needs to be considered more systematically.
If you could remind me of the first part of your question.
Mr. Kilmer. Just the potential either for a mass casualty
event or flipping the majority.
Mr. Petersen. The potential for a mass casualty event has
grown as an idea from something where lots of Members are dead
or injured or incapacitated to one where just a few are. It is
critical because the majorities are narrow, because it is
difficult to have a vote, and things like this.
There, again, there is not anything greatly systematic in
that discussion beyond the idea that it is a potential problem.
We do not know the boundaries of it. It is governed, in part,
by how robust majorities have or have not been in the past
several years, but still no decision because we have not gotten
to a point where----
Chairwoman Bice. Mr. Petersen----
Mr. Petersen [continuing]. it is necessary.
Chairwoman Bice.--if you could just try to wrap up, you are
over time here. We want to be mindful of that.
Mr. Petersen. I am done.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Bice. OK.
Mr. Kilmer. I yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize Ms. Lee for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Chairwoman Bice and Ranking Member
Kilmer, for holding this important hearing.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing here today.
Ensuring the continuity of Congress in a time of crisis is
a sobering but critical task for us. In contrast to the Senate,
as we have discussed today, the Constitution requires the House
vacancies to be filled through special elections, thereby
ensuring that the people decide who their elected
Representatives are.
As chair of the Subcommittee on Elections, I am interested
in ensuring that States are equipped and prepared to smoothly
and expeditiously fill House vacancies through special
elections in the event of the unthinkable.
Ms. Gambler I would like to return to your testimony. Thank
you for the preliminary insights that you have shared with us
from the GAO's ongoing review of State capabilities for holding
special elections for House vacancies.
I would like to go back to the input you got from the
survey from State election officials. Nine States have passed
laws concerning special elections that mirror the Federal 49-
day requirement, but it sounds like some of the States have
been more successful there than others.
Would you explain, elaborate a little bit more on the types
of procedures that the nine States who do mirror Federal law
have adopted? What aspects of those laws have they been able to
successfully implement?
Ms. Gambler. Absolutely, Congresswoman. Thank you for the
question.
There is little bit of variation across those nine States.
Generally, most of them have adopted into their State laws
provisions addressing the 49-day timeframe that specified in 2
U.S.C. 8(b).
A few of the States have also addressed other aspects of 2
U.S.C. 8(b) which is the Federal law we are talking about, and
those include provisions related to the candidate selection
process and the transmission of ballots for military and
overseas voters.
Ms. Lee. If you would, share with us the candidate
selection process and how they have modified qualifying. You
touched in your statement earlier on using political parties to
help identify who the candidates are going to be.
Elaborate for us on how that candidate qualifying process
has been adjusted in these nine States so that they can meet
the 49-day timeline.
Ms. Gambler. Yes, thank you for the question.
We have not looked in detail at the--what the specific
procedures would be for candidate selection in those nine
States in particular. What I can say is that, for some of those
nine States, they have particularly adopted the timeframes that
are specified in the Federal law that we are discussing related
to identifying candidates.
It is really the timeframe piece that we are speaking
about.
Ms. Lee. The other thing that you brought up specifically
is the UOCAVA, our overseas voters, our overseas military
voters. There are also provisions in Federal law that tell
elections officials when those ballots need to be mailed, how
long they need to be out there.
Did you discover that some of those provisions are
inconsistent with a requirement that we fill these seats in 49
days?
Ms. Gambler. Yes, thank you. I think that is an important
point. There are differences in the timeframes for the
transmission of ballots to military and overseas voters between
what is specified in 2 U.S.C. 8(b) and what is in UOCAVA.
2 U.S.C. 8(b) specifies that States are to transmit, to the
greatest extent practicable, ballots to military and overseas
citizens voters within 15 days of Speakers' announcements. In
comparison to UOCAVA, the requirement is to transmit those
absentee ballots within 45 days of election day.
There is a difference there between those two Federal
requirements, and we did hear from the State election officials
that responded to our survey that that could be a point of
challenge for them in holding a special election.
Ms. Lee. You also mentioned some of the procurement and
logistics issues that were raised in these surveys related to
ballot preparation, ballot printing. Can you share with us a
little bit more about the other logistical challenges that were
identified for you?
Ms. Gambler. Absolutely. There is, of course, a
relationship between candidate selection and ballot
preparation. We heard in doing our work that the selection of
candidates is obviously important so that ballots can then be
printed and prepared.
We did hear from States that it could be challenging to
prepare and print ballots on a compressed timeframe because of
what their existing State laws and procedures are related to
ballot preparation but then also issues related to things
lining the availability of ballot paper, paper stock which is
used for ballots. That was an area of concern identified as
well.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Kilmer for 5 minutes for
questions--I am sorry--Mr. Carey for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Carey. Both Irish names, I guess, right?
Mr. Wickham, you are obviously still with the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce?
Mr. Wickham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carey. I know you have a new colleague there, Rodney
Davis.
Mr. Wickham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carey. Tell him the next time that the chamber comes
before the Committee, we welcome him back to this Committee. We
would love to have him here.
Mr. Wickham. I am sure he would love that also.
Mr. Carey. I am not sure about that.
Because you have been in the position to advise Members in
the past, what advice would you give to Members? I would ask
the same thing from Rodney. What advice would you give to
Members who want to move on this issue and do it? What can we
be doing to get other Members excited about understanding about
this issue?
This is not an issue that, believe me, I am letting my--you
know, I am not letting my 5-year-old know that we are talking
about this type of stuff. I mean, how can we convince other
Members to get on board?
Mr. Wickham. I think some of the basic necessities of--I
like to call it just a basic necessity of running one's life.
Mr. Carey. Yes.
Mr. Wickham. Having a will, having a plan for
contingencies, emergencies, that that is one way to appeal to
other Members.
The second is to think about the issue in a way that is
larger than themselves----
Mr. Carey. Yes.
Mr. Wickham [continuing]. that they are Representatives of
these constituents and those constituents deserve to have this
part of that Representative responsibility filled.
Mr. Carey. You know, it is something else that, you know, I
was thinking about as we were--I was listening to everybody
testify.
Thank you all for being here.
Mr. Petersen, I promise you I am not going to make you
speak for 3 minutes on this.
One of the things that I thought about as we were talking
about Members of Congress, but we all have State legislatures
that are kind enough the same both. Hopefully this type of
legislation can be the model, you know, for our State
legislative bodies because, you know, in Ohio we have a full-
time legislature. Very much, you know, this could be the same
problem there, as well.
One other thing and this is really for all of you. What are
some of the pros and cons of the approach that allows Members
to be involved in the same way in choosing their own temporary
replacements, you know, should something happen, what do you
think, versus an approach where each State simply applies its
procedures for temporarily replacing them?
What do you think are the pros and cons in that? Anybody?
If not, I will have to pick one of you.
Why do not we let Mr. Petersen talk?
Mr. Petersen. A pro is there is some assurance that there
is someone back there if the--if the suddenly unavailable
Member is--needs replacement.
A con is that this person is likely unknown to the
electorate in that district, is maybe not fully up to speed if
they get here in trying circumstances, and may not be seen as a
fully fledged Member if they are here by indirect selection, as
opposed to direct election, and would need to get up to speed
fairly quickly with how the institution works.
I am sure all of you are--have lived the experience of the
rather steep learning curve around here. One or two Members per
Congress coming in and enduring that in a nonconvening
election, that is OK; a hundred or more, you are probably
looking at slowing down the institution a bit.
Mr. Carey. You know, and I will tell you--I mean, as
somebody that won a special election in a very short timeframe
and then had to live through redistricting and had to represent
75 percent different constituency than I represented in first
time I ran for office, it--there is, you know, there is a
challenge to get out there and meet the voters, and I do--but
anybody else, pros or cons? I only have 16 seconds.
If not, I yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Carey.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Timmons, the former Ranking
Member of the Select Committee on Modernization of Congress,
for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate you
let meeting waive on, especially since I was not here at the
beginning.
My team has prepared a remarkably good thing for me to
read, and I am not going to read any of it.
We have been working on this for years, and I guess my
first question to each of you is: Do you believe that a
constitutional amendment is necessary to fully address the
shortcomings of the current preparation the House has regarding
continuity of Congress?
Let us start with Ms. Gambler.
Ms. Gambler. Thank you for the question.
GAO, within the scope of our current review, has not looked
at this issue more broadly.
What we would say is that we hope our preliminary
observations, as well as our ongoing work, can help inform
Congress as you consider this issue.
Mr. Timmons. I anticipated that.
Mr. Wickham.
Mr. Wickham. I would just say that the constitutional
amendment would provide the certainty in an area that has been
filled with debate from its very beginning with regard to the
quorum rule.
Mr. Timmons. I am unaware of an alternative solution. I
tried to come up with some, and they involved court challenges
to test untested theories. At the end of the day, it seems that
this is the only solution in my mind.
Can you come up with a different solution to address our
shortcomings as it relates to reconstituting Congress in the
case of a mass casualty event, or is a constitutional amendment
arguably the only path forward?
Mr. Wickham. I would not say it is the only path forward.
As my predecessor, Mr. Johnson, advised that it is better, at
least preferable, to have a response in place in advance of a
crisis and that a more long-term solution with greater
certainty, such as a constitutional amendment, could also be
worked on at the same time.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
Mr. Petersen, do you believe a constitutional amendment is
necessary to address this challenge?
Mr. Petersen. CRS does not take a position on that.
What I would suggest is that a constitutional amendment
that focuses only on vacancies, that is, Members who have
expired and are subject to special election, may not be
sufficient if it does not include consideration for missing and
incapacitated Members and some kind of policy and procedure for
addressing those absences that may impair the quorum just as
strongly as vacancies.
Mr. Timmons. My friend, Ranking Member Kilmer, and I worked
on this at length, and we worked with Congressman Cleaver and
Congressman Wenstrup. We have provided what we believe is--it
threads the needle to address the concerns on a temporary
basis. It, if adopted, would solve this problem. Maybe there is
other ways to do it.
You know, a lot of things that we talked about was just the
uncertainty surrounding this issue in and of itself creates an
incentive structure or, you know, we live the crazy times.
President Trump has been attempted to assassinated--to be
assassinated twice, and I just heard reports that they found
explosives at his rally.
I mean, you know, this is getting out of hand. Obviously,
Leader Scalise knows, as well as anybody, that political
violence can change Congress severely. I do think this is
something that we need to take seriously and address.
Mr. Wickham, do you believe that the constitutional
amendment as proposed would remove the uncertainty surrounding
this and create a pathway to resolving, should such chaos ever
occur?
Mr. Wickham. The two issues that were present from the very
beginning were the constitutional arguments against the
provisional quorum rule and the legitimacy that came from
operating with less than a quorum, perhaps a very, some have
argued, a very small number.
A constitutional amendment would by its very nature through
completion----
Mr. Timmons. Solve the problem.
Mr. Wickham [continuing]. address that issue, and then,
after that, it would just be a debate on the merits of the
constitutional amendment.
Mr. Timmons. Last question. If adopted, functionally how it
would work? You would get sworn in. Then you would give--who
would you give--the Clerk's Office, the Parliamentarian--the
list of Members to choose from in the event the triggering
circumstances? I guess that is something that would have to be
worked out.
Mr. Wickham. I will leave that to my successor, Mr. Smith,
and his team.
Mr. Timmons. Fair enough.
Well, I appreciate you-all taking your time to come and
discuss this very important issues.
Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate you letting me waive on.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
I want to say thank you for the witnesses for being with us
this afternoon to discuss what I think is an incredibly
important topic.
Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for you and we ask that if you are provided those,
you please respond in writing to those questions.
If there is no further business, I thank the Members for
their participation this afternoon.
Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]