[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 127 (Wednesday, October 2, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6941-H6948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPEDITED SPECIAL ELECTIONS
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday,
September 26, 2002, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 559) expressing
the sense of the House of Representatives that each State should
examine its existing statutes, practices, and procedures governing
special elections so that, in the event of a catastrophe, vacancies in
the House of Representatives may be filled in a timely fashion, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of House Resolution 559 is as follows:
H. Res. 559
Whereas the death or disability of hundreds of Members of
Congress would deprive millions of Americans of
representation in Congress, possibly for a period of months
until special elections to fill the vacancies could be
conducted;
Whereas such a catastrophe would severely impair the
functioning of the House and effectively disrupt the
legislative branch for an extended period;
Whereas the only method prescribed by the Constitution to
fill a vacant seat in the House of Representatives is through
election by the people;
Whereas article I, section 4 of the Constitution of the
United States provides that ``The Times, Places and Manner of
holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be
prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the
Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such
Regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators.'';
Whereas section 26 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States (2 U.S.C. 8) provides that ``The time for holding
elections in any State, District or Territory for a
Representative or Delegate to fill a vacancy, whether such
vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time
prescribed by law, or by the death, resignation, or
incapacity of a person elected, may be prescribed by the laws
of the several States and Territories respectively;''; and
Whereas it is in the interest of each State to ensure that
the people maintain their full rights to representation in
the House: Now therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that
each State should examine its existing statutes, practices,
and procedures governing special elections so that, in the
event of a catastrophe, vacancies in the House of
Representatives may be filled in a timely fashion; and
(2) the Clerk of the House shall send a copy of this
resolution to the chief executive official of each State.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, September 26, 2002, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) each will control 22\1/
2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
General Leave
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the subject of this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in May of this year, the Speaker and minority leader
formed the Continuity of Congress Bipartisan Working Group to study
government continuity issues. The working group is cochaired by House
Policy Committee Chairman Christopher Cox and Democratic Caucus
Chairman Martin Frost. I want to thank both gentlemen for their efforts
on this very important piece of work, as well as all participants in
the working group on both sides of the aisle and the cosponsors of this
resolution.
The purpose of the working group is to study ways to ensure that the
U.S. House of Representatives continues to function in the event of a
terrorist attack or other catastrophe that kills or incapacitates a
large number of Members and, when appropriate, to make recommendations
to the leadership on ways to resolve these issues. I know we do not
really particularly want to talk about the demise of a lot of Members,
but it is something that has to be spoken about on the floor in order
to continue to have our energetic give and take of public debate in the
freest body on planet Earth. That is why we are here.
On September 26, 2002, Chairmen Cox and Frost, joined by all members
of the working group as well as 98 other Members of the Congress,
including Majority Whip Tom DeLay and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt,
introduced this resolution calling upon States to study their existing
special election statutes and procedures to ensure that if a large
number of Members of Congress were unable to serve as a result of a
catastrophic event, the States could quickly elect Members to their
congressional delegations through expedited special elections.
The problems the House would encounter in the face of such an attack
are unique. In the Senate, Governors would quickly fill vacancies by
appointment, but in the House it could take months, perhaps up to half
a year, for some States to hold special elections to elect Members to
their congressional delegations.
Because article 1, section 4 of the Constitution prescribes that the
States control the times, places and manner of holding elections, this
resolution is a critically important step toward getting the States to
focus on what would be their critical role in replenishing the Federal
legislature by ensuring that special elections are held as quickly as
possible.
In conclusion, I want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and all the members of the Committee on House
Administration. We have dealt with a series of more than unique issues
that have affected the body of this floor and also affected the staff
of the U.S. House and the other body in the sense of anthrax, how to
deal with issues we never even really thought of before. I want to
thank the gentleman from Maryland for the working relationship we have
had on that and just say this is another piece and component, I think,
to making sure that those who want to hurt us will not infringe upon
our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) control the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
rise in strong support of this resolution, which was developed by the
Committee on House Administration and the Bipartisan Working Group on
Continuity of Government led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). It urges the States to
examine their laws regarding the conduct of special elections to the
House.
The purpose of the resolution as has been said, is to ensure that in
the event of a catastrophe, the States will conduct special elections
as expeditiously as possible. The two cochairmen of the bipartisan
working group, the gentleman from California and the gentleman from
Texas, introduced the measure currently before us. H. Res. 559 was
referred to the committee which has jurisdiction over congressional
elections, the Committee on House Administration.
Mr. Speaker, article 1, section 2 of the Constitution provides: ``The
House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
second year by people of the several States.''
That is, of course, the only way to become a Member of this body.
That requirement of popular election may be unusual in a leglislative
body, because most legislatures can have appointed Members, at least
for a time.
A variety of distinguished former Members of the House and scholarly
observers of the Congress have proposed other ideas, ranging from
filling vacancies through gubernatorial appointment to choosing
replacement
[[Page H6942]]
Members from lists submitted in advance by sitting Members. Without
discussing the merits of either of these ideas, it suffices to say that
they are clearly unconstitutional.
{time} 1215
It would require a constitutional amendment to fill a House seat in
any manner other than by direct election. The resolution before us
today is intended to facilitate the use of the existing constitutional
framework. We must make the special election process work better, and
work faster.
H. Res. 559 would request the States to re-examine their laws
governing the conduct of special elections to the House. It does not
require them to do so. It does not force them to change their laws, but
it is intended to remind them of the potential disadvantages of their
failure to do so--the loss of representation in the House for an
extended period of time in the event of a future national catastrophe.
Special elections to the House are normally conducted pursuant to
provisions of State law and regulations. We have not made uniform
statutory requirements for special elections, preferring to leave it to
the States to choose methods which reflect their unique politics and
culture. One size does not necessarily fit all.
However, the preamble of H. Res. 559 notes the ultimate
constitutional authority of the Congress over the conduct of all
congressional elections. The provisions of article 1, section 4 state
that `` . . . the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such
regulations.''
Congress does have the power to pass a national statute governing the
conduct of special elections. Such a statute would not be easy to
draft, however, and might be opposed by States which prefer to use
their own approaches. We would like to avoid this option, if possible,
but it remains on the table.
Congress also has the power to pass and send to the States for
ratification a constitutional amendment providing for some different
method of filling vacancies. The problem with this approach is that it
is extremely difficult and time-consuming and could take years, and
there is no consensus on which method of filling vacancies to use in
any such amendment.
While special elections are conducted by States, this is clearly a
national problem and challenge. If enough States fail to elect new
Representatives quickly, the House might find itself controlled for a
time by a much smaller group of Members, unrepresentative perhaps
geographically or ideologically of the American people.
The disruption to the legitimacy of the Congress and to the political
and legislative process would be extraordinary.
The average time for the filling of a vacant House seat in the event
of a Member's death, according to the Commission on Continuity in
Government of the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise
Institute, is approximately 125 days. In my own case, having been
elected to the House in a special election in 1981, it was 89 days. In
some States the process of replacing a deceased or resigned Member can
take as long as 6 months.
In the event of a catastrophe resulting in the deaths of many Members
of House, it will be essential to replenish this body as soon as
practicable to ensure that the House remains a body representative of,
and responsive to, the American people. We simply cannot wait for
States to react using existing laws which have not been seriously
examined in decades, and which, of course, were never intended to be
used in a time of emergency. The result of such laws will be that some
States will remain unrepresented as the House, the Senate, the
President, and the country take necessary actions to respond to, and to
move beyond, such a future crisis.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly in the interest of the States to
ensure their full and continued representation as quickly as possible,
just as it is in the interest of the House to move as quickly as
possible back to a full complement of Members deliberating once again
with the broadest possible range of views.
I believe that it would be appropriate for the committee with
jurisdiction over congressional elections, the House Administration
Committee, to hold hearings on this subject during the next Congress.
We can then evaluate any actions taken by the States in response to
the 9/11 crisis, and to this resolution, and get a broader picture of
the actual mechanics involved in conducting such elections.
We need to remind ourselves that, in the event special elections
occur in large numbers, whether under current laws or new ones, that
they may not be occurring under ideal circumstances at some future
time.
There may be problems printing the ballots, setting up the polls, or
completing many other steps incident to the proper conduct of an
election which are complicated enough during normal times, as we have
seen yet again recently in the state of Florida.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution sounds an alarm to the States that they
have a pivotal role to play in ensuring the stability of our
constitutional system. I urge all Members to support it, and all States
to respond favorably to it.
I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for their leadership on this issue. I
believe that the States will be responsive and will come up with ideas
that hopefully will accomplish the objective of ensuring that in the
event of a catastrophe we can replace Members of the House lost in such
a catastrophe so that the people's business can be done in this, the
people's House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) may control the
remainder of the time allotted to me, and that he may yield time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, because
as I turned around, I saw the gentleman from Washington State (Mr.
Baird), and it was an oversight that I did not mention his
extraordinary leadership in bringing this matter to not only the
attention of all the Members and pressing for attention of this matter,
but also to the country. And I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird) for his singular focus on this critical issue.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
for raising the point, because it is a good one. I want to thank the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for his foresight and quick
action on this problem as well.
It is appropriate at the outset of this discussion to explain to our
colleagues why our thanks are in order for the hard work that is being
done, because the hard work is being done behind closed doors for good
reason. This is a grizzly topic, number one. Nobody likes to think
about the destruction of the Capitol and the loss of hundreds of
Members of Congress, Senators and Representatives, in some horrible
catastrophe. Second, the work is very detailed, involved, legalistic
and consequential. So a good job has to be done, a careful job has to
be done, a thoughtful job has to be done, but there is not much profit
in laying it out before the House every day.
We are necessarily here on the floor today because we are going to
ask in the most formal way that we possess, through a resolution of
this body, the cooperation of the States in this effort. We are made up
of elected Representatives from States whose election laws interweave
with our own Federal rules for eligibility and service in the United
States House of Representatives. Some of the rules and procedures are
House rules and are Federal rules. Some of them are State rules. In
particular, the rules governing elections within the several States
under our constitutional system are State rules.
The resolution we are bringing forward today respects that aspect of
our federalism, but urgently asks every Governor and every State
legislator to examine their election laws and amend them with a view
toward solving a very serious problem that we have in the House, and
that is if many Members are killed, there is no quick way to
reconstitute the Congress of the United
[[Page H6943]]
States. A special election is required. Only election under our
Constitution is prescribed as the means of filling a vacancy, and as a
result, where the Senate can have its Members appointed by Governors,
replacement Members, and be reconstituted, there would be no House, no
functioning House, perhaps no majority, no quorum and thus no Senate,
because we are a bicameral body, and they could produce no legislation
on their own, thus no legislative branch in time of urgent crisis by
definition in the United States.
When after an attack on our Nation, the Commander in Chief, whoever
that might be, because the attack might kill simultaneously the
President, Vice President, Secretary of State perhaps, as well as the
Speaker of the House, who is third in line, we do not even know who the
President would be in that circumstance. So the operation of our
legislative check and balance against executive power would be of vital
importance. We might lack it. And something as workaday and ordinary
and mechanical in procedure, therefore, as the State election laws
becomes of vital importance, and we are asking in this resolution for
the States to address that problem.
This is one and only one of several issues that have arisen as a
result of a study by the working group established by the Speaker of
House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); and the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader, the minority
leader. Both Speaker Hastert and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt) have shown extraordinary leadership by putting together a
high-level leadership task force that has as its contributors not only
the chairman and the ranking member of the House Committee on Rules,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who is also the chairman of the
Democratic Caucus, my cochairman of this working group; but also, as we
have seen, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on House
Administration, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who were just here on the floor; and also
the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary
and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, which is very involved in
these issues.
The members of the working group include, besides myself and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the subcommittee
chairman on the Committee on the Judiciary responsible for the
Constitution; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking
member on that subcommittee; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney); and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird), to whom we just referred for his efforts; the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), who is the chairman of the policy subcommittee
on reform; the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); and the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Throughout several months and nearly a score of meetings, we have
covered the waterfront on these issues.
I will return to further discussion on the specifics of this
resolution, but I have several speakers on our side who wish to be
recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cantor).
(Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California (Mr. Cox)
for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him and the gentleman
from Texas and others who bring this very important bill forward.
Ours is the oldest written Constitution in the world. The Founding
Fathers with great wisdom crafted a government of enduring stability,
with the flexibility to survive the shocks and strains of 226 years. It
would have been impossible for them to foresee the events of last
September with passenger jets full of fuel smashing into skyscrapers.
It was simply impossible in their day for so much to be destroyed by so
few so quickly. And so the prospect of a large number of seats in the
House of Representatives becoming simultaneously vacant was probably
not one they entertained.
And yet in their wisdom the Founders provided us with all we need to
confront such a possibility. Article 1, section 4 of the Constitution
gives the States the power to govern the times, place, and manner of
holding elections for the House. This recognizes the appropriateness of
the people deciding through their State governments how best to choose
the representatives in this House. However, the Constitution also
allows Congress at any time by law to make or alter such regulations
except as to the place of choosing Senators. This recognizes the right
of Congress to ensure that the States live up to their responsibility
to ensure that their citizens are represented in the Federal
Government.
This resolution is in perfect keeping with the Constitution and the
Founders' intent. It preserves the rights of the States to determine
their own interests in determining procedures for electing
representatives. It also reminds the States that this House will
continue to take an interest in ensuring that these procedures are
sufficient to ensure the survival of this body and the welfare of our
Republic in the event of a major attack on the Capitol.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution sponsored by my
friends and colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) which expresses a sense of the U.S.
House of Representatives that all 50 States should examine their laws
governing special elections to fill vacancies in the House with an eye
toward developing expedited procedures for such elections in the case
of such a catastrophe.
Mr. Speaker, the United States of America learned many lessons about
need for enhanced homeland security from the tragic events of September
11, 2001. Given that it is widely believed that the United Airlines
Flight 93 was headed for the U.S. Capitol that Tuesday morning, we can
only imagine the damage that would have been done to the legislative
branch of our Federal Government but for the truly remarkable bravery
of Flight 93's passengers.
Their heroic actions have, however, given us a chance to make
contingency plans for the future. In the case of another attempt to
disrupt or destroy our democratic system of government, we should be
prepared, and that is why a prompt and overwhelming passage of H. Res.
559 is so important today. The U.S. House of Representatives is urging
the States to take whatever steps they deem appropriate to modify,
change, or update their laws governing special elections to fill
vacancies in the House such that a catastrophic event would not unduly
hinder the ability of the U.S. Congress to conduct its business in the
future.
I am pleased to serve as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Technology and the House of the Committee on Rules. Among the matters
under my subcommittee's jurisdiction are the rules of the House.
{time} 1230
As has been noted by some, the House rules do not speak to how this
institution would conduct its business in the event of a catastrophic
disaster, and that is an issue that I fully expect we will explore in
the 108th Congress next year.
In the meantime, I know that my colleagues, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), are
currently chairing a commission of distinguished individuals, including
former House Speakers Gingrich and Foley, who are looking into this
matter in greater detail with the hope of bringing forward other
recommendations for how best to deal with the myriad of questions
involving ensuring the continuity of Congress. In this respect, I look
forward to working closely with the Cox-Frost Commission and other
Members of the House on both sides of the aisle in the next
congressional session. Nothing less than the future stability of the
U.S. Congress, the Federal Government's legislative branch, and the
rule of law are at stake.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
think it
[[Page H6944]]
is important to add to the list of people whom it is necessary to thank
for their efforts on this thus far: the Parliamentarian and his office
and his staff, Charles Johnson, who has contributed extraordinary
expertise and hard work on this initiative; also, the American
Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution who, in addition to
their scholarly studies on these subjects, have convened a commission
on the continuity of government, which has been an extraordinary
resource to this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, over the past several months, Democrats and
Republicans on the Bipartisan Working Group on the Continuity of
Congress have worked together to think the unthinkable: to consider how
Congress would function in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.
This is not an idle question, Mr. Speaker.
September 11 made clear once and for all just how vulnerable the U.S.
Congress is to such an attack. For the past year, many of us in
Washington have believed that if not for the courage of the passengers
of United Flight 93, the fourth hijacked plane may well have hit the
U.S. Capitol. Well, just weeks ago, our suspicions may have been
confirmed by an al-Jazeera interview with the man suspected to be the
twentieth September 11 hijacker, who said that Flight 93 was indeed
headed for the Capitol, code-named ``The Faculty of Law.''
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, if Flight 93 had reached the Capitol on
September 11, countless lives would have been lost. Additionally, the
legislative branch of the United States Congress would have been
crippled.
This is a very dangerous possibility, Mr. Speaker; and I am glad the
Committee on House Administration, the Capitol Police, and others have
worked so hard since September 11 to increase the security of all of
the staff and Members who work here in the Capitol complex.
But the Congress is the branch of government closest to the people;
and all of us, I believe, want it to remain as open as possible. For
that reason, the Congress will always be somewhat vulnerable to those
who might wish to strike at the United States through the Capitol, the
symbol and the seat of our democracy.
That means that we have to prepare for what used to be unthinkable
and we have to answer the question, How would the House function in the
aftermath of such an attack?
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be critical for the
American public to have secure representation in Congress in a time of
national emergency. But this is a weighty matter, one that gets to the
heart of representative democracy in this country. On the one hand, we
want to ensure the stability of the legislative branch in the aftermath
of a catastrophe. On the other hand, we all understand the importance
of preserving the unique function of the House of Representatives that
it has served in the American system of government for more than 200
years.
This bipartisan working group was formed to study the very important,
very complicated, and very difficult series of questions raised by this
situation.
We have benefited, and are still enjoying, the tremendous expertise
of all of the members who have participated. We have received
tremendous assistance from the committees of jurisdiction and their
staff; and as the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) mentioned, I
want to personally recognize the Parliamentarian, Charlie Johnson, as
well as his staff. After serving on the House Committee on Rules for
more than 20 years, I have known for a long time what fine
professionals they are.
This process could have never started without the support of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, and
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our Democratic leader. Most
importantly, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my colleagues on the
working group, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot), as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), and the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Of course, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox) and his staff have been a pleasure to work with on this project.
Mr. Speaker, the working group is examining proposed changes to the
House Rules regarding quorum requirements and succession of House
officers, amendments to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, and
constitutional amendments. But our primary goal has been to examine the
law to ensure that Congress can function in the event of an attack or a
catastrophe.
That is what House Resolution 559 addresses today. It encourages the
States to examine their existing statutes, practices, and procedures
governing special elections; and it urges Governors and State
representatives to amend their election laws so that in the event of a
catastrophe, vacancies in the House of Representatives could be filled
in a timely fashion.
As we can see, Mr. Speaker, this is an ongoing process, and the
resolution on the floor today does not solve all of the problems we
face; but it takes a sensible, bipartisan step toward addressing one of
them. So I urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan working group and
passing it overwhelmingly.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird), the Member of the House who really first raised this issue.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, and I
want to thank also the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his
outstanding leadership. In the time I have been privileged to serve
here, I have never had such great satisfaction from working with a
group of talented, bright, dedicated individuals. The Parliamentarian,
the staff of the Committee on the Judiciary have been outstanding.
Hopefully, we will never need this legislation; but if it is ever
needed, it may be one of the most important things we will ever do in
our lifetime and during our service to this Congress.
This is a start. This is an effort to say to the States that you too
need to think about what we have come to have to face on a daily basis,
almost: the prospect that some terrorist organization could strike
suddenly, without warning, and eliminate this body that we hold so
dear; and we must have preparations to replace us in the event that
that should happen.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin),
as well as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), for their valuable and invaluable
contributions to this process.
Mr. Speaker, this is the start in working with the States to make
sure that they have a mechanism for replacing us if the time arises,
but we also have other tasks before us. We are addressing some
ambiguities in the Presidential succession law that are important to
close certain ambiguities there. We are looking at the House rules,
particularly what would constitute a quorum and how this body would
reconvene in the event of a catastrophe. We are also looking at
mechanisms for possibly replacing Members in the short term, pending
the outcome of special elections. Every one of us in this body holds
very dear and proud the tradition of direct elections, but we also hold
dear and proud to the principle of election and representation by our
States in this great body, and the principle of checks and balances on
the executive. So we are working on a host of fronts.
A year or so ago, my father passed away. Before he died, he sat my
sister and brother and I down and walked through all of his files. He
said, Son and daughter, when I die, this is what you need to know
about, how to carry on the finances, how to deal with my estate, et
cetera. Because of his forethought, his death, regardless of how
tremendously painful it was, was nevertheless handled in a manner that
allowed us to go on, taking care of his affairs responsibly and in an
efficient manner.
[[Page H6945]]
We owe it to this Nation to show no less forethought. We owe it to
this Nation to make sure that if something horrific happens to us, the
business of this great Republic will carry on, uninterrupted,
unimpeded. We need to tell our adversaries that even if they destroy us
and kill every one of us, others will rise up, carry that torch of
liberty forward, and the Republic will stand and will persevere.
Mr. Speaker, I thank again the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for their leadership.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Cox-Frost Continuity of
Congress Working Group and an original cosponsor of this legislation, I
strongly urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 559 to address
problems with our method of filling vacancies in the House of
Representatives.
The Constitution declares that Members of the House must be popularly
elected. However, the specter of terrorism, notably, reports that the
Capitol was a targeted Capitol on September 11, reminds us that mass
casualties in Washington or elsewhere could have a detrimental effect
on the representative nature of the House and its ability to fulfill
its duties. As a former Secretary of State, I know that States have
vastly different methods and time lines for filling vacant House seats,
which could pose a serious problem in the event of a catastrophe. For
example, Rhode Island general laws state simply: ``The Governor shall
immediately issue a writ of election ordering a new election as early
as possible.'' Today's resolution would address such problems by
encouraging States to review their special elections procedures to fill
House vacancies as expeditiously as possible.
This resolution is the first recommendation of the Continuity of
Congress Working Group, which has been tackling the complicated issues
of how government would function in the wake of a catastrophe. I would
like to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird), who has helped raise the profile and
understanding of these complex problems while leading the effort to
find solutions. I also commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for devoting so much of their
time and effort to this topic and making it a priority for Congress.
Another area I feel worthy of discussion is the ability of Congress
to communicate and possibly even conduct legislative operations
remotely in the event of a major disruption. The Committee on House
Administration has held hearings on the feasibility of establishing an
e-Congress for emergency situations, and I have introduced legislation
to study this matter. At this time I would like to commend and
recognize the efforts of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
House Administration, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and also my
colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer),
for their outstanding efforts and leadership on this issue.
While several of my colleagues have expressed discomfort with this
and other related topics, it is our duty to prepare the legislative
branch for any kind of disaster. We must never allow the people's
business to be interrupted.
Today's resolution is an important first step in addressing complex
questions about our government's ability to function in the age of
terrorism, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I heard a commentator make the statement
that somehow Congress is dragging their feet on these issues because we
cannot face the possibility of our own demise. I do not agree with that
statement at all. I think that Members of Congress are very much aware
of the potential risks and threats out there, but that it is a
complicated topic. One of the complications is that we work in a
Federal system with both State responsibilities and Federal
responsibilities.
To me, the number one issue is how in all of this do we protect the
essence of democracy; and to me, the essence of democracy is the right
of a free people to be governed, to be governed by those whom they
elect and have the right to vote on. We summarize that by calling this
``The People's House,'' and I do not think in any way should we be
supportive of any kind of constitutional amendment that would turn the
people's House into the ``Appointeds' House.'' That would be a very
tragic outcome to September 11.
The Federal issue here is that elections are State responsibilities,
and we know that there is a tremendous amount of variety from State to
State and also that there is too much time in an emergency situation in
some, in a lot, of the State laws. Patsy Mink has been referred to, our
colleague who tragically passed away over the weekend; and it is my
understanding that it may take three special elections to finally
replace her. Also, Oregon does their elections by mail, and every State
deals with the issue of absentee ballots overseas and locally
differently. There is a lot of complexity to this.
Our message to the States today is please look at your election laws
and figure out a way that you can be responsive should this terrible
tragedy occur.
To me, there are two scenarios that States ought to look at. The
first one is what has been talked about today by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) and others: What if we had a massive loss of life
of Members of the U.S. House here? That is what has driven this issue.
But there also is a second issue that States ought to look at. In
Arkansas, we have four House Members and two Senators, and it is not
uncommon for us to be all in the same place or on the same plane.
States ought to look at what should happen if an individual State lost
its entire congressional delegation, should that trigger some kind of
expedited special elections process. These are not easy questions; they
are complicated questions. But they fall under the area of State
responsibility, and the resolution today is sending a message to the
States that we will be glad to work with you and hope that you will
work on these very important issues of expediting special elections at
a time of massive loss of life in the U.S. House.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Policy and
Election Reform.
{time} 1245
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Working Group on
Continuity of Congress, I rise in strong support of this resolution. As
has been said, it is a simple, straightforward, bipartisan, but very
important measure to urge all of the States, with the utmost
seriousness and focus, to look at their election laws and ensure that
special elections would happen as expeditiously as possible,
particularly in the event of a disaster that killed many House Members
at once.
Of course, this resolution today highlights one of the many issues
that our working group has been focused on, and, in fact, the central
one, which is how do we replenish the House of Representatives quickly
in such a horrible catastrophe.
As has been said, the U.S. Constitution is very clear: House
vacancies can only be filled, under the present constitutional terms,
by an election. Sometimes, as has also been said, in different States
where State law applies, that can take a very long time, maybe up to 6
months; so we want all of the State legislatures, all of the Governors,
to look at their State law very clearly, in a very focused way, and
move as quickly as possible to make sure their State law makes that
happen as quickly as possible, particularly in the event of mass
deaths.
In considering this, I ask all of my colleagues and, in fact, all of
the State legislators and Governors around the country to think of all
of the work we had to do, and I believe we did do, after September 11:
The Committee on the Judiciary moved to protect us here and abroad; the
Committee on Appropriations addressed critical emergency funding; the
Committee on Armed Services examined our military response.
[[Page H6946]]
All of that was actually done in a matter of just a couple of weeks
beginning with September 11. Nearly every House committee did
significant work on the war that was at its infancy planning stage
then, or homeland security, or related issues.
If we also remember Flight 93 downed in Pennsylvania, brought about
by brave passengers, all of that work may have only been possible
because of their bravery and the luxury we were afforded by not having
an attack on the Capitol.
Of course, all of us hope there is never a next time. All of us pray
that there will not be a next time. But if there is, we may not be so
lucky; so all of that work we did in the very few weeks after September
11, and the specter of Flight 93, makes it clear why we need to think
about this issue, and why State legislatures need to act to make sure
that the House is replenished as quickly as possible.
In closing, I want to say that this is a very important step, but I
hope it is a first step, because our working group is thinking about
other key issues, quorum issues, incapacity issues, that can be dealt
with under rules. These issues are very significant, which I believe
can be addressed under our House rules. There are Presidential
succession issues, which are significant and related to this, which
could clearly be addressed under statute.
And, yes, although it would be very difficult politically, I also
think we need to debate and think carefully about proposed
constitutional amendments.
So I think this is a very important, very responsible step, but I am
hopeful it will be a first step. I know the working group is continuing
its work in a very focused, careful way.
I want to particularly thank the chairman of that, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox), and also the cochairman, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost), for all of their work; the other Members of the working
group; the House Parliamentarians; the CRS researchers; other staff who
have given us invaluable information in our deliberations.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of our colleagues to vote for this
resolution.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana makes a fine point in
commending the Congressional Research Service, and I was remiss in not
mentioning this earlier. Walter Oleszek and others from CRS have been
an enormous and very, very professional resource for us in our work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention two people who were
tremendously helpful: the Pierce County auditor Cathy Pearsall-Stipek,
and the Cowlitz County auditor Chris Swanstron. These folks helped us
understand that even in optimal circumstances, a special election would
probably take at least 60 days, or more like 90.
In Washington State, for example, we mail our ballots out 3 weeks
before the election. If we are going to get an election done in 2
months, we have essentially got about a week to run for office, and
then the ballots would have to be printed, distributed, counted, there
would be one more week to run for office after the primary, and then we
would have to have the special election.
I want to follow up on something my colleague, the gentleman from
Louisiana, said. He has offered such great, thoughtful insights to
this. This is a first step, but we need to make sure, I believe, that
there is a mechanism for quick replacement in some fashion to occupy
the position in the House of Representatives and get the body's work
done in the interim while these special elections are conducted. We
simply cannot say that there will be no House of Representatives for
the period of 60 days or more while special elections take place.
Declarations of war, appropriations of funds, approval of Vice-
Presidential nominees, election of the Speaker of the House and a host
of other tasks must be accomplished, and we must have the
representation of the States in that process, and we must have the
constitutional checks and balances which are so critical.
In a time of catastrophe, it is indeed, I believe, likely that the
Presidential position would be occupied by a Cabinet member who was
never elected; which is fine, that is under the Succession Act, and we
accept that; but for an unelected Cabinet member to serve as the
President of the United States with no checks and balances by the
legislative branch as represented through the House of Representatives
I believe imperils a fundamental principle of the Constitution.
So while I absolutely and unequivocally urge strong sponsoring of
this legislation and recognize its importance, it is indeed a first
step, and we must move forward, as the working group will do, and as I
hope and trust all my colleagues will do, to consider further
mechanisms to make sure this great body and the Constitution it
represents will continue to function.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I want to commend my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), for their leadership on this very
important issue. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support House
Resolution 559.
In the event of an emergency that leaves large numbers of seats of
the House vacant, the House of Representatives will have lost much of
its representative character. There are, however, statutory solutions
to this problem. The Constitution leaves it to the States in the first
instance to enact such solutions.
Article 1, section 1, clause 1 of the United States Constitution
states that: ``The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for
Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or
alter such Regulations. . . .''
While Congress has the constitutional authority to make or alter
State special election laws, Congress extends great deference to State
solutions to the problem of vacant House seats in times of emergency.
This congressional deference to State action is codified in 2 U.S.C.
Section 8, which provides that ``The time for holding elections in any
State, District, or Territory for a Representative or Delegate to fill
a vacancy, whether such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the
time prescribed by law, or by the death, resignation, or incapacity of
a person elected, may be prescribed by the laws of the several States
and Territories respectively.''
Article 1, section 2, clause 4 of the Constitution further provides
that ``When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the
Executive Authority thereof (the Governor) shall issue Writs of
Election to fill such vacancies,'' and such elections will be held in
accordance with the State law, absent congressional action otherwise.
This resolution constitutes congressional due diligence by putting
the States on formal notice that it is within their constitutional
power, and also their constitutional duty, to revise State laws to
allow for the conducting of expedited special elections in cases of
emergency in which the seats of district representation are suddenly
left vacant, and constituents are suddenly left without a voice in the
House of Representatives.
The uninterrupted House tradition is that only duly elected
representatives should have the final say in legislation passed by the
House. This resolution expresses Congress's strong support for States'
efforts to strengthen that tradition by providing for the filling of
vacant House seats quickly, fairly, and efficiently in emergency
circumstances.
I urge strong bipartisan passage of this common-sense resolution.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution. I have no
further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H6947]]
Mr. Speaker, what we have heard thus far this afternoon should be
very sobering to all of us. We are asking the States in this resolution
to join in a thorough examination of their role, what they can do to
help us with these problems.
But the problems are manifold. It is not simply a question of solving
the special election problem, it is not simply a question of solving
the Presidential succession problem; we have other equally serious
problems, and, in combination, they multiply into virtual paralysis of
our government at a time when we would need our government to be
functioning at its peak efficiency: a time of crisis.
Mr. Speaker, we are here, of course, because of September 11. In
working with my colleagues and our expert staff in this working group
over several months, we have all been heartened to draw upon such a
long and rich tradition in our Congress, in our democracy. There is
barely a question that can come before us about the governance of this
House or about the election of Members or about the relationship of the
States to the Federal Government that has not been considered in other
contexts; so we are not without precedent, far from it.
Yet there is something unprecedented to what we are doing here. Were
it not for September 11, I do not think any of us doubts we would not
be here today, because on September 11 we were forced to confront a
different kind of danger, qualitatively different, and we hope not
quantitatively different than what we have seen thus far: a disastrous,
horrible, apocalyptic future in which the unthinkable becomes reality.
None of us here wishes that ever to occur. We are taking every
national security step elsewhere, separate from this measure, to stave
that off, to avoid it, to make our world and the rest of the world
safe. But if these things happen, if loose nukes become a threat to our
domestic security, if chemical warfare or the spread of biological
toxins become our future, and if these attacks are directed against the
Capitol, then we simply have to imagine that contingency. So that is
what the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Frost) and I and our working
group have been focused upon.
The fact that, according to al-Jazeera Television, we now know that
Flight 93 was directed towards the United States Capitol makes this all
too real. Had Flight 93 hit the Capitol, many Members of Congress, we
do not know how many, would have been killed. Had a joint session been
attacked, the worst case, we can imagine not only a heavy toll, a
nearly complete toll among Members of the House and Senate, but also
the executive branch, including the President and the Vice President.
The remaining Members of the House of Representatives would have had
to try to muster a quorum. If none of them objected on the ground that
a quorum was not present, then even 10 Members could have kept the
House going. If, on the other hand, someone objected, then there would
have to be somehow a quorum.
{time} 1300
And a quorum of 435 Members being 218, if more Members than that were
killed or injured and unable to function in the attack, then Congress
itself would be unable to function and unable to get a quorum. We are
working in this working group on rules changes to address this, but
ultimately we have got to have Members of Congress back in this body,
real live Members. Because even if we can, through changing the rules
or through unanimous consent of those remaining 10 Members, get those
10 Members to function as the House of Representatives, who would not
question the legitimacy of Congress in those circumstances? Indeed,
there might be court challenges.
If the President of the United States, no longer the President that
we elected but some replacement under the Presidential Succession Act
is now acting in the teeth of an attack on our Nation so severe that
the Congress itself has been wasted in that attack, is that not the
time when the legislative branch should be operating in full force as a
check against excess of executive power because the Nation itself would
be tempted at that point to all manner of revenge, some of it perhaps
not cool-headed, not wise, not in our national security interest? The
checks and balances system itself would not be functioning.
As has been mentioned several times, because of the historical
evolution of United States Senate from an appointed body originally in
the Constitution, members were not elected in the Senate, and then
subsequently by Constitutional amendment, we got direct election of
Senators. Still a vestige of that earlier appointment regime is that
vacancies in the Senate are filled even in the 21st century by
appointment, not so for the House. We have got to have the cooperation
of the States to at least speed up special elections so that the time
during which Congress cannot function is not needlessly protracted.
This resolution, as has been mentioned, is serious. It is also very
short and to the point. It has only one purpose and that is to provoke
action in the State legislatures. The resolution is an important first
step, as my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), has
described it, toward focusing the attention of the States on what is
their critical role in replenishing the Federal legislature by ensuring
that special elections are held as expeditiously as possible.
Article one, section four of the Constitution, with which many
Americans became familiar during our last electoral crisis, if we can
call it that, sets forth the authority of the States to determine the
time, places and manner for holding elections for Congress. This
creates a symbiotic relationship between the States, who the founders
believed and who we still believe today were the sovereigns in their
own right; a symbiotic relationship between the States, on the one
hand, and the Republic in total, on the other hand, ultimately supreme
over the States in all matters encompassed by the Constitution. That is
the supremacy clause. And, of course, Congress as the institution
representing that sovereignty, that Federal sovereignty, must remain
strong and invulnerable.
Our strength is drawn from every Member representing every State in
the Union. This is something about which all of the Members of our
working group agree. Some are focused on a constitutional amendment to
try and ensure that we can get Members back here from the States.
Others are focused on the absolute necessity of ensuring that the
device for returning Members from the States is some form of election.
But at essence, the very important thing is we have Members back here
and we not have a distinct minority abnormally representing only
portions of the country and disproportionately representing certain
interests against other interests, defiling the whole basis of our
governance by the people.
Our strength is drawn from every Member representing every State in
the Union who daily appears in this Chamber to conduct America's
business on behalf of each of our States and each of our constituents.
Our vulnerability is a result of the independence that each of our
States has in deciding how and when it will hold elections. So quite
simply, as an institution, we are designed as an instrument of the
people of each State and ultimately they, not us, control our fate.
The proper place, of course, to discuss this and debate it is on the
floor of House; but the proper place to solve this problem is in the
legislatures of the various States.
This is, as my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder),
said a moment ago, the people's House. And it is my opinion it is
totally appropriate for the people working through their respective
States to decide how best to populate this House with their
representatives.
The founders in their profound wisdom in perhaps glimpsing into the
future, as they seem to have done so many times, did not leave us
without recourse. Where the first clause of the first paragraph of
article one, section four gives the States the power to govern every
aspect of electing their Federal representatives, there is a second
clause. If Congress so decides, Congress has the ultimate authority to
take that power away from the States. The second clause in article one,
section four reads as follows: The Congress may at any time by law make
or alter
[[Page H6948]]
such regulations, that is the regulations of the States, except as to
the places of choosing Senators.
So this Congress could, as any Congress before it could have, preempt
every State election law, every State election law in the country
governing the election of Representatives either in times of
catastrophe or any other time for that matter. But of course just
because we have the power to do these things does not mean we should
exercise this power, and in this resolution we have chosen a different
course. We are going to the States and asking them to act.
What we are doing today is precisely what we ought to be doing, no
more, no less. It is the measured response that continues to respect
the rights of the States to govern their own elections but highlights
to them their critical role in our Federal legislature and emphasizes
their responsibility to ensure that their representation in Congress is
never long diminished. It is, after all, in the best interest of each
State to ensure that it can quickly replenish its congressional
delegation, lest it be left out, unrepresented during what could be one
of the most crucial moments in our Nation's history.
Therefore, we should, before we do anything more, give the States the
opportunity to act in their best interest and in a way that suits each
State's own unique needs, and that is precisely what this resolution
does.
Our working group has also been examining possible amendments to the
Presidential Succession Act of 1947 because the Speaker of the House
stands third in line to the Presidency; and any attack on this body
that decimates it, that deprives of it of Members, could take away the
Speaker as well, indeed, take away other potential successor Speakers.
We want to be sure that the line of Presidential succession is clear
and uninterrupted.
Virtually ever proposed solution to every issue the working group has
addressed, including this one over the past four months, whether it be
a change in the rules of the House, passing a new law, amending an old
one, or changing our Constitution by altering its language, presents
very serious legal issues requiring careful thought and deliberation.
We are not the first to grapple with these issues. The very first
Congress, meeting at the site where Federal Hall in New York stands
today and where this Congress gathered just a few weeks ago, grappled
with the issue of Presidential succession. One can hardly image a
Congress more in touch with the sentiments and intentions of the
founders than that very first Congress; and one can hardly imagine a
government more tentative and fragile and in need of the stability a
well-defined and certain line of Presidential succession would provide.
Yet the first Congress was unable to agree on a Presidential succession
law, and they went without one.
It was left to the second Congress to finally pass the first
Presidential Succession Act in 1792. This act stated that in the event
of a vacancy in the office of President and Vice President, succession
will pass first to the President pro tem of the Senate and second to
the Speaker of the House.
The act has been amended in all of the years intervening since 1792
only twice since then: first following the assassination of President
James Garfield in 1881 and the death of Vice President Thomas Hendrix
in 1886, when concerns were raised because at the time of their deaths
Congress had not yet convened, leaving the office of President pro tem
and Speaker of the House vacant. As a result, in 1886 Congress removed
the Speaker and the President pro tem from the line of Presidential
succession.
Fast forward to 1945. President Truman urged Congress to restore the
Speaker and President pro tem to the line of Presidential succession.
Two years later in 1947, Congress did so. This time putting the Speaker
first and then the President pro tem of the Senate second. This brief
history demonstrates the time and deliberation that have gone into the
very few changes that have been made to our Presidential succession
laws since the inception of the Republic. Therefore, those of us on
this working group tasked with finding a solution to these problems of
congressional continuity, of the line of Presidential succession should
take comfort in a history where thoughtful deliberations has been the
rule, not the exception.
Mr. Speaker, it is exactly that kind of deliberation, thoughtful and
measured, that has gone into the proposals that the working group has
put forward to the Committee on the Judiciary on statutory changes, for
example, to the Presidential Succession Act, put forward to the
Committee on Rules, changes to our quorum requirements in the manner of
recognizing the death of a Member, particularly when mass death occurs,
and on this question of the special election of Members after a death
of a Member.
This resolution is the first step towards ensuring that this body
will endure no matter what, no matter what our enemies do to us. I
encourage every Member to join the 11 Members of the bipartisan working
group in supporting this resolution, this important first step to
ensuring the continuity of this great institution.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by thanking in particular the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and his superb staff for the time,
energy and effort they have put into these matters. We have much work
ahead of us. We cannot congratulate ourselves too much for work half
done, but we will be after this year and next year. And as I mentioned,
given this long history, we cannot be concerned that we are not moving
too precipitously fast. We are moving very fast, I think. We have
gotten a lot done, but we will have sometime before us. So I look
forward toward to working further with the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken on this very
important topic today. I apologize to those who were concerned with
raising such grizzly topics. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope we can put
ourselves and our minds back to other workday matters more important to
we, the living, than this horrible-to-contemplate future contingency. I
urge the adoption of this resolution by all the Members of this House,
and I urge action of the States in furtherance of this resolution, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, September 26, 2002,
the resolution is considered read for amendment and the previous
question is ordered.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________