[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.

                          ____________________