[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 11, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1204]
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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 5, 2003

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while may seem reasonable to establish a Joint 
Committee on the Continuity of Congress, I wish to bring to my 
colleagues' attention my concerns relative to certain proposals 
regarding continuity of government, which would fundamentally alter the 
structure of our government in a way detrimental to republican liberty.
  In particular, I hope this Committee does not endorse the proposal 
contained in ``Preserving our Institutions, The Continuity of 
Government Commission'' which recommends that state governors appoint 
new representatives. Appointing representatives flies in the face of 
the Founders' intention that the House of Representatives be the part 
of the federal government most directly accountable to the people. Even 
with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the 
House are elected every two years while Senators run for statewide 
office every six years, means members of the House of Representatives 
are still more accountable to the people than any other part of the 
federal government.
  Therefore, any action that abridges the people's constitutional 
authority to elect members of the House of Representatives abridges the 
people's ability to control their government. Supporters of this plan 
claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an 
emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be 
temporary. However, Mr. Speaker, the laws passed by these ``temporary'' 
representatives will be permanent.
  I would remind my colleagues that this country has faced the 
possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times 
throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people's 
right vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War 
of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the 
states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of 
Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring 
state of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers and members 
reside, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States 
Government, yet Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected 
persons serve in the House. Forty-two years ago, Americans wrestled 
with a hostile superpower that had placed nuclear weapons just 90 miles 
off the Florida coast, yet no one suggested we consider taking away the 
people's right to elect their representatives in order to ensure 
``continuity of government!''
  I have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to 
hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, isn't it in each state's 
interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington 
as soon as possible? Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that the 
power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and 
balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I 
agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional 
liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power 
in the Executive Branch is one of the most serious dangers to that 
liberty. However, I would ask my colleagues who is more likely to guard 
the people's liberties, representatives chosen by, and accountable to, 
the people, or representatives hand-picked by the executive of their 
state?
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to question the rush under which this 
bill is being brought to the floor. Until this morning, most members 
had no idea this bill would be considered today! The rules committee 
began its mark-up of the bill at 9:15 last night and by 9:31 the report 
was filed and the bill placed on the House Calendar. Then, after 
Congress had finished legislative business for the day and with only a 
handful of members on the floor, unanimous consent was obtained to 
consider this bill today.
  It is always disturbing when bills dealing with important subjects 
are rushed through the House before members have adequate time to 
consider all the implications of the measure. I hope this does not set 
a precedent for shutting members of Congress out of the debate on this 
important issue.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while there is no harm in considering 
ideas for continuity of Congress, I hope my colleagues will reject any 
proposal that takes away the people's right to elect their 
representatives in this chamber.

                          ____________________