[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 82 (Thursday, June 5, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5005-H5012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ESTABLISHING JOINT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW HOUSE AND SENATE MATTERS
ASSURING CONTINUING REPRESENTATION AND CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House
yesterday, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 190) to
establish a joint committee to review House and Senate rules, joint
rules, and other matters assuring continuing representation and
congressional operations for the American people, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of H. Con. Res. 190 is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 190
Whereas the Government must be able to function during
emergencies in a manner that gives confidence and security to
the American people; and
Whereas the Government must ensure the continuation of
congressional operations, including procedures for replacing
Members, in the aftermath of a catastrophic attack: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That (a) there is hereby established a joint
committee composed of 20 members as follows:
(1) 10 Members of the House of Representatives as follows:
5 from the majority party to be appointed by the Speaker of
the House, including the chairman of the Committee on Rules,
who shall serve as co-chairman, and 5 from the minority party
to be appointed by the Speaker of the House (after
consultation with the Minority Leader); and
(2) 10 Members of the Senate as follows: 5 from the
majority party, including the chairman of the Committee on
Rules and Administration, who shall serve as co-chairman, and
5 from the minority party, to be appointed by the Majority
Leader of the Senate (after consultation with the Minority
Leader).
A vacancy in the joint committee shall not affect the power
of the remaining members to execute the functions of the
joint committee, and shall be filled in the same manner as
the original selection.
(b)(1) The joint committee shall make a full study and
review of the procedures which should be adopted by the House
of Representatives, the Senate, and the Congress for the
purpose of (A) ensuring the continuity and authority of
Congress during times of crisis, (B) improving congressional
procedures necessary for the enactment of measures affecting
homeland security during times of crisis, and (C) enhancing
the ability of each chamber to cooperate effectively with the
other body on major and consequential issues related to
homeland security.
(2) No recommendation shall be made by the joint committee
except upon the majority vote of the members from each House,
respectively.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution,
any recommendation with respect to the rules and procedures
of one House that only affects matters related solely to that
House may only be made and voted on by members of the joint
committee from that House and, upon its adoption by a
majority of such members, shall be considered to have been
adopted by the full committee as a recommendation of the
joint committee.
(4) The joint committee shall submit to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and to the Majority Leader of the
Senate an interim report not later than January 31, 2004, and
a final report not later than May 31, 2004, of the results of
such study and review.
(c) The joint committee shall cease to exist no later than
May 31, 2004.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the order of the
House of Wednesday, June 4, 2003, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to Speaker
Hastert for his leadership on this very important issue of the
continuity of the Congress.
H. Con. Res. 190 creates a joint committee of the House and Senate
for systematic review of what congressional procedures, coordination,
devices and leadership are necessary to handle a time of national
crisis. Today, Mr. Speaker, we act to assure the American people that
there will be continuing representation and congressional operations in
the face of any catastrophe.
For a number of months, I have been considering the continuity of
Congress, homeland security, and what measures we need to have in place
to make sure that this institution functions in a time of crisis. I am
pleased today to bring before the House a measure which has been
sponsored by all 13 members of the Committee on Rules, Democrats and
Republicans.
{time} 1300
Mr. Speaker, only on a few occasions in the past have we acted to
establish bicameral, bipartisan panels to review the structure and the
functioning of this institution. The last time we did so was a decade
ago, back in 1993, and I was privileged to be a cochairman of
[[Page H5006]]
what was called the 1993 Joint Committee on the Organization of
Congress.
Now, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our
perception of national priorities clearly has gone through dramatic
changes. Congress's initial response to the act of terrorism included
establishing the Department of Homeland Security, our Select Committee
on Homeland Security; H. Con. Res. 1, which established the opportunity
for the Speaker to have an alternative place and designation for us to
meet; the task force that was put into place, led by the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost), and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox);
and, obviously, within the Committee on Appropriations, the
Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
Let me take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to praise the work of my friends,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), and the other Members who contributed to the thinking that went
into the continuity of Congress issue as well as the security of this
institution. I also want to extend my congratulations to the Continuity
of Government Commission on their work. But I do believe, Mr. Speaker,
that more needs to be done, and we need to take a close look at all of
those things that have been proposed from a wide range of different
sources.
The Presidency has been transferred in critical situations on
numerous occasions: war, assassination, and impeachment. But only two
or three times in our Nation's history have emergencies tested the
ability of the United States Congress to conduct its business under
extreme circumstances. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, Congress should
undertake a thorough review of House and Senate rules, joint rules, and
other related matters to ensure the functioning of Congress in the
event of any catastrophe.
Mr. Speaker, the two Chambers, of course, do have formal and informal
devices to bring Representatives and Senators together. We, of course,
have conference committees, we have bicameral leadership meetings, but
these mechanisms for bicameral organization are typically on an ad hoc
basis and they address the legislative and political dynamics of
questions that are out there. We have no formal structure in place to
jointly address how we would deal with things in the case of an
emergency.
Passage of H. Con. Res. 190 would inaugurate a special joint
committee study of the ways we can ensure that the structures,
procedures and lines of communication between the two Chambers are
effectively organized and coordinated so that the legislative branch
can fulfill its very important constitutional duties during times of
crisis. Specifically, the concurrent resolution establishes a committee
of 20 Members, equally divided by Chamber and party. The Speaker and
the Senate majority leader would appoint the cochairman of the joint
committee as well as the other Members after consultation with the
respective minority leaders. The joint committee is to issue an interim
report by January 31 of 2004 and a final report by May 31 of 2004,
roughly a year from now.
Among the specific topics the joint committee could consider are
continuity of Congress and joint processes and procedures for
consideration of homeland security legislation during times of national
crisis. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not wedded to any particular issue. If I
am selected to serve on the joint committee, I want to hear from other
chairmen and Members about their ideas, including what are we going to
be legislating on during a crisis, what do we need to have in place
procedurally to deal with this, do we have the proper funding
mechanisms in place, and how can we address special elections in order
to assure a quorum.
I would like to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to address the proposals
of a constitutional amendment that are out there. I want to say that we
had an interesting exchange yesterday in the Subcommittee on Technology
and the House of the Committee on Rules, chaired by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder), in which we discussed this. I know there are some
people who have come out strongly in favor of amending the
Constitution. I am one who is very hesitant to move in the direction of
an amendment to the Constitution. I will say that while I keep an open
mind, I have yet to be convinced that that is the right thing to do.
But I will listen and, clearly, be open to arguments that are there. I
do think it is only fair for me to let it be known that I do have
strong feelings about that issue myself.
Mr. Speaker, I do believe that it is time for us to step forward and
take this action. It has been nearly 2 years since September 11 of
2001. We have had a lot of input and a lot of recommendations. We just
had yesterday the report come forward from this commission. We
obviously will expend time and energy looking at that. So I think that
this, as the greatest deliberative body known to man, is now poised to
deliberate over these very, very serious, important questions that are
over our heads regarding the question of our governance during times of
crisis.
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, H. Con. Res. 190 creates a bipartisan and
bicameral committee to study what new rules, laws, regulations, or
constitutional remedies might be needed to assure the continuity of the
Congress in the event of a catastrophic event. This resolution moves
forward the discussions that began in the wake of the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks on this country. On that day, what had been
unthinkable happened. On that day, amidst the carnage in New York, at
the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania, the whole notion that
this country is immune from terrorist attacks was destroyed in a matter
of minutes.
One of the potential targets of the terrorists that day was this
building, the seat of our government and the greatest symbol of our
democracy. Had those enemies of democracy succeeded, our representative
democracy might have been thrown into chaos if a large number of
Members of the House of Representatives had been killed, injured, or
otherwise incapacitated. The simple fact is that the framers provided
only for direct election of House Members, and there is nothing in law
that would facilitate speedy replacement of Members of the House in the
eventuality of a catastrophic event.
September 11 provided a rude awakening in so many ways, but it is the
duty of this body to find a remedy for the aftermath of a potential
attack on this institution. This is a weighty matter, one that goes 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 wake
of such an attack. On the other hand, we should all understand the
importance of preserving the unique character of membership in the
House of Representatives, foundations that have not changed since the
adoption of the Constitution over 214 years ago.
In the last Congress, I cochaired, with the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox), a bipartisan working group which began serious discussions
on what remedies might be available to the House in the event that a
large number of Members were missing, killed, injured, or incapacitated
following an attack on this building or any other location where a
group of Members might be gathered. We had serious and thoughtful
discussions that resulted in three simple rules changes that would aid
the Speaker in convening this body in the event of a catastrophic
event. Those rules changes were made part of the rules of the House
last January.
But it is very important that every Member understand that we cannot
embark on these further discussions without an open mind on the issue
of whether or not a constitutional amendment is necessary in order to
allow this body to continue to function in the event that many, most,
or all of us are killed or missing or incapacitated. The Continuity of
Government Commission, cochaired by Lloyd Cutler and former Senator
Alan Simpson, yesterday released their report and in it recommended the
adoption of a constitutional amendment that would allow the Congress to
provide for these
[[Page H5007]]
eventualities by statute or other means.
We have to understand the simple fact that the framers intended for
this body to be the arm of the Federal Government closest to the
people. For that reason, this body is the only body that requires
direct election of all of its Members. As we all know, it takes a
number of months to conduct elections; and if this body has lost large
numbers of Members, I believe it is essential that the American public
have confidence that every part of its government is up to the task of
responding to a national emergency.
Let me state this in the strongest possible terms. It would be a
colossal waste of the time of the Congress if Members of this new joint
committee go into this process with a closed mind on the issue of a
constitutional amendment authorizing appointment or replacement of
Members in time of crisis. We must have every option on the table; and
we have to be willing, both on the joint committee and in this body, to
explore the issues, pose the questions, and find the answers. For the
sake of the country and for the sake of the stability of the people's
House, we must all be willing to undertake this task. Our work last
year was a positive first step; but we have a solemn responsibility to
make sure that every option is considered, and it is important that the
House work with the Senate to ensure that the entire Congress have a
plan to respond to a national emergency.
I want to commend Chairman Cox for his work on this issue in the
107th Congress and thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), for bringing the issue to the fore this year. This is a matter
of such importance and such gravity that we must all devote
considerable energies to it. We must be open, we must be nonpartisan,
and we must always have in mind that this democracy is resilient,
responsible, and ready to meet every challenge. So must we be.
I want to read from the resolution one section which underscores the
bipartisan nature of this undertaking. This is section (b)(2),
appearing on page 3: ``No recommendation shall be made by the joint
committee except upon the majority vote of the members from each House,
respectively.''
Now, Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? Well, there are five
Republicans from the House and five Democrats from the House on this
joint committee; five Republicans from the Senate and five Democrats
from the Senate. So that the five Republicans, acting on their own,
cannot make any recommendations in the House; and the five Democrats,
acting on their own, cannot make any recommendations. Each party has a
veto. And, quite frankly, that is exactly the way it should be, that
only upon agreement of a majority of the 10 Members from the House and
a majority of the 10 Members from the Senate will we be able to
recommend anything back to this body.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would
just like to say that again we looked at this modeling it after the
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress from 1993; and I want
to congratulate the now minority, then majority, for in fact putting
into place a structure whereby we would in fact ensure that in moving
ahead it must be done in a bipartisan way.
These issues that we are going to be addressing, Mr. Speaker, are of
such gravity that it is important that just as we are here to get total
agreement today with the establishment of this joint committee, that as
we come forward with our recommendations that we in the same way have
the kind of bipartisan agreement that will be necessary.
Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this is different from
the way we normally operate in the House of Representatives. Normally,
a simple majority, which can be constituted entirely on the majority's
side, on the Republican side, could prevail on any issue. We are
choosing to adopt a different set of rules for this proceeding, and
that is exactly the way we should be handling this matter to guarantee
that one party will not be able to dictate the outcome on matters of
this magnitude.
I want to thank the majority party for agreeing to that and for
moving forward with this very important resolution. This is a matter
that I personally have spent a lot of my time on over the last year,
but it would not be possible to move forward at this point had the
majority party not been willing to do so. And I thank them on behalf of
the minority, and I thank them on behalf of the country for their
willingness to do this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
express my appreciation to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), for his very kind and supportive words on this important issue
as we proceed with this very weighty matter. As I mentioned in my
opening remarks, we yesterday held a hearing of the Subcommittee on
Technology and the House, chaired very ably by our friend, the
gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
{time} 1315
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent
Resolution 190 to establish a joint committee to review House and
Senate rules, joint rules, and any additional issues of importance
pertaining to the continuity and security of congressional operations.
The Rules Subcommittee held a hearing yesterday to hear testimony from
the chairman of the Committee on Rules and our ranking minority member,
the sponsors of this proposed joint committee. It is a serious
proposal. It is timely, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) deserve great credit for their
leadership on this issue.
We are considering this kind of procedural proposal here today
because any review of our parliamentary rules and procedures must now
be evaluated in a post-September 11 atmosphere that incorporated once
implausible circumstances into how the legislative branch will operate.
Following the horrendous acts of terrorism perpetrated on the American
people on September 11, our Nation realized it had entered into a new
era in which liberty and freedom would be under attack from a new kind
of enemy. Those of us representing the American people in this Chamber
also rededicated ourselves to meet our obligation to act for the
protection of our citizens and the institutions that govern them.
As a result, it is imperative that the Federal Government be in the
most effective position to protect the American public, and the most
visible sign of our Nation meeting this obligation has revealed itself
in our efforts to find and eliminate enemies at home and abroad. It is
also our obligation to ensure that the continuity of our
representational government continues.
The House took action on the opening day of this Congress to
implement some appropriate institutional mechanisms in case of an
emergency. In light of the critical nature of the considerable
responsibilities of the United States Congress, the time is right to
continue to reevaluate our procedural requirements that affect the
manner in which our legislative duties will be conducted in the House
and Senate in an emergency.
Mr. Speaker, the mission of this joint committee will be to undertake
a comprehensive review of House and Senate procedures, one, to ensure
the continuity and authority of Congress during times of crisis; two,
to improve congressional procedures necessary for the enactment of
measures affecting homeland security during times of crisis; and,
three, to enhance the ability of each Chamber to cooperative
effectively with the other body on major and consequential issues
related to homeland security.
By passing this concurrent resolution today, we put the wheels in
motion for an internal assessment to help ensure the continuity and
security of congressional operations. This represents a serious step in
the right direction for modernizing congressional procedures, elevating
parliamentary preparedness, and having the House and Senate think about
what needs to be done to ensure
[[Page H5008]]
the legislative's branch continued viability in the face of any
emergency situation.
I thank the House leadership for recognizing the importance of these
security and continuity of operations matters and for swiftly advancing
this proposal to the House floor. I urge unanimous support for this
bipartisan proposal.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, people viewing this may be curious as to why it is
necessary that we consider this matter, other than the obvious that the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and I have stated.
Under the current precedents and under the current judicial
interpretation of the precedents of the House, a quorum is a majority
of those sworn and living. If we only have five Members survive, three
Members would be a quorum, and business could be conducted. The
difficulty of that would be whether the country would have any
confidence in legislation enacted by only five Members.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his
leadership on this issue and also the leadership of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
What we are about here is about as serious as it gets. We are
contemplating the possibility that everyone in this building and most
of the Federal Government officials in this city would be killed. It is
not pleasant to contemplate, but I view it as a sign of the strength of
this great democratic Republic that we are able to contemplate it
because what we are saying is this: We are proud to have been elected
and serve in this great body, but there is something bigger than us as
individuals. There is an institution that we love and hold dear called
the House of Representatives that assures the people of our States and
our districts that they will have a voice in the Federal Government as
it deliberates the most weighty matters that come before this Nation.
Should we all be killed and not have a mechanism to replace this
institution, we would leave this great Nation, indeed the world,
without the system that has served us so well, the system of checks and
balances to ensure that a self-appointed executive would not emerge
with no checks and balances, to ensure that an unelected Cabinet member
could not exercise extra constitutional powers without the checks of a
representative body. That is what we are about.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has done an outstanding job,
along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) on the working group.
Norm Ornstein is certainly to be credited, as is Tom Mann for the gift
they gave this body yesterday with the Commission on Continuity. But we
have important work to do. It is now almost 2 years since September 11
happened. We just lack a few months from that tragic date. In this
time, we have the opportunity to ensure the continuity of this great
body. I hope we will act on that.
The entire Constitution was written over the course of a few months
by very wise individuals who got together and, as this select committee
will do, set aside partisan differences. There were no parties at the
time. They simply said: What is good for this country? What will help
preserve our liberties? How can we establish a system that will learn
from the mistakes of the past and persevere through the challenges of
the future?
We have met new challenges, and we understand now we must adapt the
ways we do business. This committee will help us learn to do that and
will establish the procedures we need to move forward. I commend the
two leaders for setting this up.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express a few concerns that I have
regarding both the commission and the trend toward a constitutional
amendment that might solve some of the problems that people anticipate.
I certainly agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) that
this is a very serious issue; and this is to me not just a casual
appointment of a commission, but we are dealing with something that is,
in a constitutional sense, rather profound because we are talking about
amendments that are suggesting that our governors will appoint Members
of Congress for the first time in our history. That should be done with
a great deal of caution and clear understanding of what we are doing.
My concern, of course, with the commission is that we are moving
rather rapidly in that direction. Hopefully, that is not the case. We
had the commission report of the Continuity of Government Commission
yesterday, and that was released, and then we had a unanimous consent
agreement to bring this up, like we need to do this in a hurry.
Ordinarily, if we deal with constitutional amendments, quite
frequently we will have a constitutional amendment proposed, and then
we will hold hearings on that particular amendment. I think we could
handle it that way.
But I have another concern about the urgent need and the assumption
that the world ends if we are not here for a few days. There are times
when we are not here like in August and a few months we take off at
Christmas. Of course, we can be recalled, but the world does not end
because we're not here. In a way this need for a constitutional
amendment to appoint congressmen is assuming that life cannot go on
without us writing laws.
I would suggest that maybe the urgency is not quite as much as one
thinks. I want to quote Michael Barone who was trying to justify a
constitutional amendment that allows governors to appoint moc in a time
of crisis. He said, ``think of all the emergency legislation that
Congress passed in the weeks and months after September 11 authorizing
expanded police powers. None of this could have happened''. But now as
we look back at those emergency conditions, a lot of questions are
being asked about the PATRIOT Act and the attack on our fourth
amendment and civil liberties. I suggest there could be a slower
approach no harm will come of it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I appreciate the concerns that the gentleman has raised. Let me first
say that I was very pleased, and my colleagues on the Committee on
Rules will recall this, as we proceeded with implementation of the
PATRIOT Act I insisted that we have a sunset clause so that this
institution would be required to take another look at the ramifications
of the PATRIOT Act, and I know that there are wide-ranging concerns
that have been raised.
Second, on the issue of the constitutional amendment, I have stated
that I am very concerned about the prospect of moving ahead with a
constitutional amendment which would take this institution from being
the body of the people to becoming, as the other body was designed in
the Constitution, to be the body of the States, and make this the body
of the States again which I believe would make it the case if we were
to have governors appoint Members of the House of Representatives.
I think this joint committee is designed to look at these concerns,
look at the issues out there. We have all talked about the gravity of
it. We know it is a very, very serious matter. I will assure my friend
there is no way this committee, if it were to come forward with a
proposed constitutional amendment, would act without going through the
process of having the Committee on the Judiciary look at the prospect
of amending the Constitution, and we in the Committee on Rules would
address it again, and of course it would have to go through the
confirmation process.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am pleased to hear what
the gentleman has said, because there are some who see this just from
the outside, seeing what we are doing here today as nothing more than a
continuity of what was done yesterday. The gentleman from California
(Mr.
[[Page H5009]]
Dreier) suggests he does not see it that way, and that gives me some
reassurance, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to people who may be watching or
listening to this again why we are discussing this. There is a
historical aberration in our Constitution that provides that senators,
when they die or are killed, may be appointed, replacement Senators,
but there is no comparable provision for replacement of House Members.
That historical aberration arises from the fact that when our
Constitution was first passed all Senators were appointed. They were
appointed by their State legislatures. It was only much later in our
history that we went to the direct election of Senators.
When we did that, we retained the appointment power for the governors
of States to replace Senators who die or are killed while in office. No
such power was ever in the Constitution originally for the House of
Representatives, so we have a different situation currently as it
applies to the Senate and as it applies to the House.
Those of us who advocate a change in our Constitution are taking the
position that, since the Senate is already covered, since there already
is a way to replace Senators in our Constitution, there should be a
comparable provision for being able to replace House Members in the
event of a mass tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to echo the concerns of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and his desire and his belief that
we need to have an alternative mechanism for appointing Members to the
House in the event of a major catastrophe.
I would also like to thank and commend the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for their
outstanding leadership on this issue. It is a very difficult and in
many ways unpleasant subject to be dealing with but one that is very
necessary and could mean the survivability of this Republic in the
event of a catastrophe.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Cox-Frost working group in the 107th
Congress, I urged my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 190 so Congress
may continue to operate in the aftermath of a catastrophe that kills or
incapacitates a large number of its Members. I also thank the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for their leadership on
this very important issue.
The Constitution declares that Members of the House must be popularly
elected. However, the specter of terrorism, notably reports that the
Capitol was an intended target on September 11, as well as the
subsequent anthrax attacks, remind us that mass casualties in
Washington or elsewhere are a real possibility and could have a
detrimental effect on the House's ability to fulfill its duties.
{time} 1330
While the Cox-Frost group made some significant progress in resolving
these complicated problems in the last Congress, many questions still
remain. For example, I have been working with the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) to address the communications needs of
Members in emergency conditions. Yesterday, the Continuity of
Government Commission issued its first report with recommendations for
preserving Congress' ability to function in the wake of a terrorist
attack. It is Congress' responsibility to consider those
recommendations and develop a strategy to ensure that the people's
business will not be interrupted. Today's resolution will help us reach
that goal. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who very ably led, along with the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the effort to deal with the
continuity of Congress in the 107th Congress.
Mr. COX. I want to thank the Speaker, thank the chairman, and thank
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
Mr. Speaker, when in May 2002 the Speaker asked us, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Frost) and me, to cochair this working group, there was
not a Department of Homeland Security, there was not a House committee
to oversee the Department of Homeland Security; but now that I have
assumed that responsibility, I can say that I feel there is no issue
more integral to homeland security than the preservation and proper
functioning of our democratic institutions in time of national
emergency. I am very pleased that the next step that this body, and
indeed the other body, is taking this process is to institutionalize
through a bicameral group that will be chaired on this side by the
leaders of our Committee on Rules to take a further look at these
seemingly, in some cases, intractable problems and to solve them.
We have in our working group accomplished a great deal and with the
leadership of the Committee on Rules placed before this House at the
beginning of this Congress three changes to our rules that address
continuity issues that were solved in the working group. In addition,
the gentleman from Texas and I yesterday introduced legislation to deal
with the problems in the Presidential succession law created by these
catastrophic circumstances that we are now forced to imagine.
When we go back to those horrible images of September 11 which are
hard to purge from our memory, those video images we have all seen
countless times of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, imagine
this Capitol if the same images were seen here. Imagine what would be
the result, what would be the effect. Not only would Members have been
killed if Flight 93, which we now believe was headed for the Capitol,
had succeeded in its mission but Members would have been maimed and
disabled. The problems that arise under our rules and our laws are not
just those of how do you fill a vacancy after someone dies, but what
happens when that person has not died but is incapable of coming to
this Chamber and being part of a quorum? What happens when that occurs
100 times over? These are the kinds of problems that lack any immediate
solution and that therefore must be handed off to this more permanent
body that we are establishing by this resolution.
I want quickly to commend the other members of the working group for
their yearlong effort. They include, of course, cochairman Martin
Frost; chairman of the House Committee on Rules, David Dreier, who is
leading us on the floor today and will lead this effort henceforth;
chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Steve Chabot;
ranking member on the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Jerrold
Nadler; chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Bob Ney;
chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Steny Hoyer; chairman of the
House Republican Policy Subcommittee on Redesigning Government, David
Vitter; Representative Brian Baird from whom we have just heard;
Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee; Representative James Langevin, who
is also with us here today on the floor.
Ex officio members of the working group who were enormously important
to our efforts included the House Parliamentarian, Charles Johnson; the
Deputy House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan; former Clerk of the House,
Donn Anderson; House legislative counsel Pope Barrow; House general
counsel Michael Stern; and Congressional Research Service senior
specialist Walter Olesczek. From May to October of 2002, the working
group held eight very long meetings, hearing testimony from law
professors, constitutional scholars, members of the academic community,
think tank scholars and other experts. The working group considered, in
order, changes to the House rules, because they are the least
intrusive, most efficient means of solving these problems; next,
statutory solutions; and only lastly constitutional amendments.
I want to say with respect to this question of a constitutional
amendment because already during this debate we have heard concerns
raised about willy-nilly amending the Constitution or about overstating
the problems when Congress is, for example, out of town during the
August recess with regularity, it was unfortunately necessary for us in
this working
[[Page H5010]]
group to imagine some circumstances that we hope never arise when not
only the whole House but the President and the Vice President also were
lost. In that circumstance, there are significant questions of
legitimacy of both the institutions of the executive and the
legislative, but also even more trenchant concerns about the withdrawal
of the checks and balances that undergird our system and protect our
civil liberties.
If we imagine what America would be like after such a horrible attack
that killed the President, killed the Vice President, killed the
Speaker of the House, killed hundreds of Members of this Congress,
first we would have as President, this much would be certain, someone
who was unelected, someone who perhaps no one had ever heard of before,
and someone who might or might not be fit for the job. That person
would be vested with the immediate responsibility of presumably
determining whether to declare war, responsibility under article 1 of
this body which would not be able to function. That person also would
be asked to seek emergency appropriations to deal with this problem.
Yet there would be no Congress. And that person might want to suspend
habeas corpus and other civil liberties because of the emergency, and
there might be no legislative check against it. These are the
counterweight to the arguments that we should not rush into amending
the Constitution. These are the problems that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) is properly taking up with the other body, and
I hope they are soon solved.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the authors of this resolution
because they recognize how important it is to protect our
constitutional government, even from the possibility that perhaps
hundreds of Members of this Congress might be killed by a terrorist
act. We should, however, also take a look at the possibility that the
death of one, two, or three individuals in line to serve as President
could also undermine our constitutional government. We must protect
both branches of government from unfortunate acts or terrorist
aggression. That is why I strongly support this resolution and wish to
bring to the attention of my colleagues a letter that I sent out last
week urging them to become cosponsors of the Presidential Succession
Act of 2003.
The line of Presidential succession determines who becomes President
if both the President and Vice President have died or are unable to
fulfill their duties. That line should be as solid as the concrete
barriers that protect our Capitol grounds. Unfortunately, that line is
not. However, with a mere change in statute, not a constitutional
amendment, Congress can ensure the certainty in the line of succession
as well as the continuity of the Federal policies of the executive
branch.
Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution allows Congress to determine
the line of succession to the Presidency following the Vice President.
Congress last seriously addressed this issue when it passed the
Presidential Succession Act of 1947. Unfortunately, the 1947 act is
ambiguous and we cannot afford ambiguity as to the identity or the
legitimacy of the President of the United States, particularly at a
time of crisis. The 1947 act is further flawed because it allows the
Presidency to be shifted from one political party to the other during a
4-year term. This means that if the Vice Presidency is vacant, our
stock markets and our foreign enemies will wonder whether some
unfortunate event will cause a radical shift of our policies. A
terrorist might see an opportunity to radically shift our policies by
killing just one individual. And a partially or temporarily impaired
President would be highly unlikely to either take a leave of absence
under the 25th amendment or to resign permanently if that action would
vest control of the executive branch in the opposite political party.
Current law provides that if the office of Vice President is vacant,
the next in line is the Speaker of the House, followed by the President
pro tempore of the Senate. In the recent season finale of the ``West
Wing,'' the President was under extreme personal stress. There was no
Vice President serving. That President invoked the 25th amendment and
temporarily transferred control of the executive branch to the Speaker
of the House who happened to be of the opposite political party. Would
that happen in real life? I would hope so, because I would hope that a
President under extreme stress would take a leave of absence as
provided in the 25th amendment. But in real life, a President arguably
suffering from temporary impairment would hang on to the Presidency
with the same tenacity that my friend Strom Thurmond held on to his
Senate seat when he knew that if he resigned from the Senate he would
be replaced by the appointee of a Democratic Governor.
Speaking of my friend Strom Thurmond, we should remember that just a
few years ago, while Strom was in his late 90s, he was third in line to
succeed to the Presidency. Does this make sense in an era of suicide
assassins? In a document that I will append in the Record to my remarks
here, I will point out that under some scenarios, we could have five
individuals, each with a legitimate claim to be President. I will
summarize it by simply saying that if we did not have a Speaker of the
House, someone could claim to become President because they were
serving as temporary Speaker under House rule I, clause 8, subprovision
(3)(A). Someone who became Speaker of the House could then try to
displace someone who had been temporary Speaker, and then we could have
a President pro tem of the Senate all claiming. We could have even more
scenarios.
Some will say that Presidential succession has never gotten past a
Vice President, but that happened because Gerald Ford was confirmed
promptly, before Richard Nixon resigned. Furthermore, in April 1865,
John Wilkes Booth headed a partially successful conspiracy to
assassinate President Lincoln and those who were first, second and
third in line to succeed him. Are we sure that al Qaeda can do no
worse?
That is why I will put forward the Presidential Succession Act of
2003, which is similar to legislation I proposed in March 2001. Under
it, the President would file a document with the Clerk of this House
indicating whether third to succeed to the Presidency should be either
the Speaker of the House or the minority leader and whether the fourth
should be the Senate majority leader or the Senate minority leader.
And, of course, these could be changed if control of the House or the
Senate changed. More importantly, the bill would state that once
someone becomes President, they serve for the rest of the 4-year term
and cannot be pushed aside by someone who later becomes, say, Speaker
of the House and is higher in the list. Once they begin to serve a
Presidential term, they continue.
Today we will act to ensure the continuity of Congress. Later this
year we should act to ensure the continuity of the executive branch.
Our friends and enemies around the world and the investment community
should know that similar policies will continue throughout a 4-year
term and that the Presidency cannot be shifted to another party by a
tragic event. More importantly, it should be absolutely clear as to who
is legitimate President of the United States. We need to act this year.
[From the Roll Call, May 21, 2003]
Act Now To Ensure Smooth Succession to Presidency
(By Rep. Brad Sherman)
In the post-Sept. 11, 2001, reality, we have seen military
guards with M-16s patrol the Capitol and anti-aircraft
artillery stationed around national monuments. It is no
mystery that terrorists actively seek to interrupt our
constitutional democracy.
The line of presidential succession, which determines who
becomes president if both the president and vice president
have died or are otherwise unable to carry out their duties,
should be as solid as the concrete barriers lining the
Capitol grounds. It is not. However, with a change in
statute--not a constitutional amendment--Congress can ensure
certainty in the line of successors, as well as continuity of
federal policies.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution allows Congress
to determine the line of succession to the presidency
following the vice president. Congress last visited this
issue seriously when it passed the Presidential Succession
Act of 1947. Unfortunately, the 1947
[[Page H5011]]
act us ambiguous and we cannot afford ambiguity as to the
identity and legitimacy of the president, particularly at a
time of crisis.
The 1974 act is further flawed because it allows the
presidency to be shifted to an opposing political party. This
means if the vice presidency is vacant, our stock markets and
foreign enemies will wonder whether an unfortunate event will
result in a radical shift in policies; a terrorist might see
an ``opportunity'' to radically shift our policies; and a
partially or temporarily impaired president would think twice
about taking a leave of absence under the 25th Amendment, or
resigning, if either action would out the other party in
control of all executive departments. Finally, third in the
current line of successions is the President Pro Tem, a
ceremonial position normally held by the longest-serving
member of the Senate majority.
Current law provides that if the office of the vice
president is vacant, the next in line is the Speaker,
followed by the President Pro Tem. The recent ``West Wing''
season final demonstrated how a president, under extreme
duress could, at a time when there was no vice president,
invoke the 25th Amendment and temporarily transfer control of
the White House to a Speaker of the opposite political party.
In real life, it is more likely that a president arguably
suffering from temporary impairment would hang on to the
presidency with the same tenacity that former Sen. Strom
Thurmond (R-S.C.) held on to his seat at a time when his
resignation would have handed his seat to an appointee of a
Democratic governor.
Speaking of Thurmond, we should remember that just a few
years ago, while in his late 90s, he was third in line for
the presidency. Does this make sense in an era of suicide-
assassins?
Here is a hypothetical designed to illustrate all the
ambiguities of the 1947 act. The office of vice president,
Speaker and President Pro Tem are all vacant. The president
has nominated Ms. Smith to the new vice president, and he
awaits her confirmation hearings under the 25th Amendment.
The House and the Senate have adjourned for the year, though
Mr. Jones is serving as ``temporary House Speaker'' pursuant
to House rule 1, clause 8 (3)(A). Now, imagine that the
president dies.
Does Mr. Jones, the temporary Speaker, become president?
Probably not, but we're not sure. In all probability, the
secretary of State becomes acting president. But assume the
House then reconvenes and elects a Speaker. Does that new
Speaker then push aside the secretary of State and become the
new president? What if the Senate elects a new President Pro
Tem before the House elects a new Speaker? And what if Ms.
Smith makes it through her vice presidential confirmation
hearings--does she push aside whoever is then serving as
president? Under this scenario, and under the ambiguity of
the 1947 act, all five of the following could claim the
presidency: Ms. Smith, Mr. Jones, the President Pro Tem, the
newly elected Speaker and the secretary of State. Other, less
contrived scenarios could create three or four claimants to
the presidency. Even two plausible claimants to the White
House is one too many.
Some will say that presidential succession has never gotten
past a vice president, in part because Gerald Ford was
confirmed promptly, before Richard Nixon resigned. But Sept.
11 shows that what is unlikely to occur naturally may well
occur. In April 1865, John Wilkes Booth headed a partially
successful conspiracy to assassinate President Abraham
Lincoln and those who stood first, second and third in line
to succeed him. Are we sure that al Qaeda can do no worse?
Next month, I will introduce the Presidential Succession
Act of 2003, which is similar to legislation I introduced in
March 2001. Under this legislation, the president will file
an official document with the Clerk of the House designating,
after the vice president, the next person in line of
succession as either the Speaker or the House Minority
Leader. Similarly, the president would file instructions with
the Secretary of the Senate, designating the third in line as
either the Senate Majority Leader or Minority Leader. (These
designations can be revised if the majority becomes the
minority.) The bill will further ensure certainty in
presidential succession by clearly providing that if someone
succeeds to the presidency, that person shall continue to
serve until the end of the presidential term.
Our friends and enemies around the world, as well as the
investment community, should know that similar policies will
continue throughout a four-year term, and that the presidency
will not be shifted to the other party by a tragic event.
More importantly, the law should be absolutely clear so that
whoever serves as president, particularly at a time of
crisis, has unquestioned legitimacy. By acting now we can
accomplish these ends. Or, we can just put this off until a
problem arises.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Metairie, Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), who worked very hard
on the commission and was very actively involved in it.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Frost) for all of their work on this issue; and that
work, of course, must continue.
I rise in strong support of this resolution. I was honored and
privileged to work on the working group with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and so
many others.
{time} 1345
I think that working group did some very valuable work, laid an
important foundation, and in fact suggested and helped make very real
and important and fundamental changes in both our rules and some
statutes. We are continuing that work I believe today, and in the very
near future the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) will put into the
hopper another bill aimed at changing statutes to again fine tune some
of these issues with regard to presidential succession and related
matters. I am happy to coauthor that bill, and that is further
progress.
But just as clearly as we have met and gained consensus on some
issues and made important progress, big questions remain; and clearly
the biggest question which I believe must be tackled more adequately is
the possibility of mass deaths among House Members and how our
democratic institution of the House, our most democratic institution,
would continue to function under that circumstance of national
emergency. So that is why I think this resolution and the new joint
work between the House and the Senate led by the gentleman from
California (Chairman Dreier) and others is so very important.
I also want to join in the concerns that the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul) raised. They are very legitimate concerns that I and many
other people hold, but clearly there are ways to address those
concerns. Clearly, this new group is not headed in any specific
direction that the rules addressing those concerns adequately deal
with.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work on this issue with
others.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to one of the issues raised on the
other side, and that is the question of the adequacy of replacing
Members of the House through special elections.
Special elections, of course, are determined by State law; and the
laws vary from State to State. Some State laws have special elections
held rather promptly. Other States have special elections that extend
over a long period of time.
For example, in my home State of Texas, our former colleague, Mr.
Combest, shortly after the convening of this Congress, announced that
he was resigning, was leaving, and his successor, who was chosen in a
special election under Texas law which included a runoff, was sworn in
today, 6 months into the Congress. So there is a difficulty in citing
the remedy of special elections as a way of replacing Members in a
prompt way.
I am very sympathetic to the historical precedent that Members of the
House up until this point can only serve by election, but there are
extraordinary circumstances. We hope the extraordinary circumstances
never occur, but we do need to be ready, should anything like that ever
happen.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, this resolution is a very significant
development. Again, I want to thank the majority for the way this is
structured, for having the sides evenly divided, for requiring a
majority vote in each House of the members on this joint committee, and
I would urge that the Congress, that the House, promptly pass this
resolution. I would hope that the Senate, the other body, would do the
same thing, so the work of this joint committee could begin as soon as
possible.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have seen from today's debate that this
is an extraordinarily serious matter. This coming September 11 will
mark the second anniversary of one of the most tragic days in our
Nation's history. We all know of the terrible loss of life and we know
of the threat that existed on that date to this institution, this
building, which, as we all know, is a symbol not only to Americans but
around the world of freedom and democracy.
[[Page H5012]]
For that reason, after this nearly 2-year window of time when we have
taken a lot of action in response to September 11, it is important for
us to now step back and, in a deliberative manner, to very thoughtfully
look at the ways in which we can assure that we proceed with fair and
balanced representation to maintain a continuity of our Nation's
governance. I believe that we have in this resolution which will
establish this joint committee an opportunity to, in a bicameral way,
look at this very important question.
As I said earlier, exactly 10 years ago, in 1993, I was privileged to
be a cochairman of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress,
which looked at a lot of the institutional questions that both bodies
face. Now we will, in the wake of this very, very serious challenge
that we face, have the opportunity to look at those questions which
continue.
Obviously, it is important for us to recognize the disparity that
exists between the two bodies. The other body is one which has
different constituencies than ours, obviously different terms of office
and, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has pointed out, different
ways for succession.
This institution is known as the People's House. We are the only
federally elected officials who must be elected to have the opportunity
to serve in our positions. I feel it is very important for us to
maintain that status, as James Madison envisaged it over two centuries
ago; and I believe that, at the same time, we can, in working with our
colleagues in the other body, proceed with a very fair, bipartisan
process, which will allow us to address this.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, from having listened to the debate which
will simply put into place this joint committee, that there is
disagreement. But I believe that as we take the input that has been
provided by a wide range of individuals, academics, former colleagues,
people who spent a lot of time thinking about this, who will be
providing us with recommendations, I am convinced that the work of this
joint committee will be among the most important things that this 108th
Congress will be able to address.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge adoption of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the order of the
House of Wednesday, June 4, 2003, the concurrent resolution is
considered read for amendment and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________