[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18919-18927]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      EXPEDITED SPECIAL ELECTIONS

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
September 26, 2002, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 559) expressing 
the sense of the House of Representatives that each State should 
examine its existing statutes, practices, and procedures governing 
special elections so that, in the event of a catastrophe, vacancies in 
the House of Representatives may be filled in a timely fashion, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of House Resolution 559 is as follows:

                              H. Res. 559

       Whereas the death or disability of hundreds of Members of 
     Congress would deprive millions of Americans of 
     representation in Congress, possibly for a period of months 
     until special elections to fill the vacancies could be 
     conducted;
       Whereas such a catastrophe would severely impair the 
     functioning of the House and effectively disrupt the 
     legislative branch for an extended period;
       Whereas the only method prescribed by the Constitution to 
     fill a vacant seat in the House of Representatives is through 
     election by the people;
       Whereas article I, section 4 of the Constitution of the 
     United States provides that ``The Times, Places and Manner of 
     holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be 
     prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the 
     Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such 
     Regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.'';
       Whereas section 26 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States (2 U.S.C. 8) provides that ``The time for holding 
     elections in any State, District or Territory for a 
     Representative or Delegate to fill a vacancy, whether such 
     vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time 
     prescribed by law, or by the death, resignation, or 
     incapacity of a person elected, may be prescribed by the laws 
     of the several States and Territories respectively;''; and
       Whereas it is in the interest of each State to ensure that 
     the people maintain their full rights to representation in 
     the House: Now therefore, be it
       Resolved, That--
       (1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
     each State should examine its existing statutes, practices, 
     and procedures governing special elections so that, in the 
     event of a catastrophe, vacancies in the House of 
     Representatives may be filled in a timely fashion; and
       (2) the Clerk of the House shall send a copy of this 
     resolution to the chief executive official of each State.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, September 26, 2002, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) each will control 22\1/
2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the subject of this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in May of this year, the Speaker and minority leader 
formed the Continuity of Congress Bipartisan Working Group to study 
government continuity issues. The working group is cochaired by House 
Policy Committee Chairman Christopher Cox and Democratic Caucus 
Chairman Martin Frost. I want to thank both gentlemen for their efforts 
on this very important piece of work, as well as all participants in 
the working group on both sides of the aisle and the cosponsors of this 
resolution.
  The purpose of the working group is to study ways to ensure that the 
U.S. House of Representatives continues to function in the event of a 
terrorist attack or other catastrophe that kills or incapacitates a 
large number of Members and, when appropriate, to make recommendations 
to the leadership on ways to resolve these issues. I know we do not 
really particularly want to talk about the demise of a lot of Members, 
but it is something that has to be spoken about on the floor in order 
to continue to have our energetic give and take of public debate in the 
freest body on planet Earth. That is why we are here.
  On September 26, 2002, Chairmen Cox and Frost, joined by all members 
of the working group as well as 98 other Members of the Congress, 
including Majority Whip Tom DeLay and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, 
introduced this resolution calling upon States to study their existing 
special election statutes and procedures to ensure that if a large 
number of Members of Congress were unable to serve as a result of a 
catastrophic event, the States could quickly elect Members to their 
congressional delegations through expedited special elections.
  The problems the House would encounter in the face of such an attack 
are unique. In the Senate, Governors would quickly fill vacancies by 
appointment, but in the House it could take months, perhaps up to half 
a year, for some States to hold special elections to elect Members to 
their congressional delegations.
  Because article 1, section 4 of the Constitution prescribes that the 
States control the times, places and manner of holding elections, this 
resolution is a critically important step toward getting the States to 
focus on what would be their critical role in replenishing the Federal 
legislature by ensuring that special elections are held as quickly as 
possible.
  In conclusion, I want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and all the members of the Committee on House 
Administration. We have dealt with a series of more than unique issues 
that have affected the body of this floor and also affected the staff 
of the U.S. House and the other body in the sense of anthrax, how to 
deal with issues we never even really thought of before. I want to 
thank the gentleman from Maryland for the working relationship we have 
had on that and just say this is another piece and component, I think, 
to making sure that those who want to hurt us will not infringe upon 
our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) control the balance of my time.

[[Page 18920]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise in strong support of this resolution, which was developed by the 
Committee on House Administration and the Bipartisan Working Group on 
Continuity of Government led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). It urges the States to 
examine their laws regarding the conduct of special elections to the 
House.
  The purpose of the resolution as has been said, is to ensure that in 
the event of a catastrophe, the States will conduct special elections 
as expeditiously as possible. The two cochairmen of the bipartisan 
working group, the gentleman from California and the gentleman from 
Texas, introduced the measure currently before us. H. Res. 559 was 
referred to the committee which has jurisdiction over congressional 
elections, the Committee on House Administration.
  Mr. Speaker, article 1, section 2 of the Constitution provides: ``The 
House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every 
second year by people of the several States.''
  That is, of course, the only way to become a Member of this body. 
That requirement of popular election may be unusual in a leglislative 
body, because most legislatures can have appointed Members, at least 
for a time.
  A variety of distinguished former Members of the House and scholarly 
observers of the Congress have proposed other ideas, ranging from 
filling vacancies through gubernatorial appointment to choosing 
replacement Members from lists submitted in advance by sitting Members. 
Without discussing the merits of either of these ideas, it suffices to 
say that they are clearly unconstitutional.

                              {time}  1215

  It would require a constitutional amendment to fill a House seat in 
any manner other than by direct election. The resolution before us 
today is intended to facilitate the use of the existing constitutional 
framework. We must make the special election process work better, and 
work faster.
  H. Res. 559 would request the States to re-examine their laws 
governing the conduct of special elections to the House. It does not 
require them to do so. It does not force them to change their laws, but 
it is intended to remind them of the potential disadvantages of their 
failure to do so--the loss of representation in the House for an 
extended period of time in the event of a future national catastrophe.
  Special elections to the House are normally conducted pursuant to 
provisions of State law and regulations. We have not made uniform 
statutory requirements for special elections, preferring to leave it to 
the States to choose methods which reflect their unique politics and 
culture. One size does not necessarily fit all.
  However, the preamble of H. Res. 559 notes the ultimate 
constitutional authority of the Congress over the conduct of all 
congressional elections. The provisions of article 1, section 4 state 
that `` . . . the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such 
regulations.''
  Congress does have the power to pass a national statute governing the 
conduct of special elections. Such a statute would not be easy to 
draft, however, and might be opposed by States which prefer to use 
their own approaches. We would like to avoid this option, if possible, 
but it remains on the table.
  Congress also has the power to pass and send to the States for 
ratification a constitutional amendment providing for some different 
method of filling vacancies. The problem with this approach is that it 
is extremely difficult and time-consuming and could take years, and 
there is no consensus on which method of filling vacancies to use in 
any such amendment.
  While special elections are conducted by States, this is clearly a 
national problem and challenge. If enough States fail to elect new 
Representatives quickly, the House might find itself controlled for a 
time by a much smaller group of Members, unrepresentative perhaps 
geographically or ideologically of the American people.
  The disruption to the legitimacy of the Congress and to the political 
and legislative process would be extraordinary.
  The average time for the filling of a vacant House seat in the event 
of a Member's death, according to the Commission on Continuity in 
Government of the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise 
Institute, is approximately 125 days. In my own case, having been 
elected to the House in a special election in 1981, it was 89 days. In 
some States the process of replacing a deceased or resigned Member can 
take as long as 6 months.
  In the event of a catastrophe resulting in the deaths of many Members 
of House, it will be essential to replenish this body as soon as 
practicable to ensure that the House remains a body representative of, 
and responsive to, the American people. We simply cannot wait for 
States to react using existing laws which have not been seriously 
examined in decades, and which, of course, were never intended to be 
used in a time of emergency. The result of such laws will be that some 
States will remain unrepresented as the House, the Senate, the 
President, and the country take necessary actions to respond to, and to 
move beyond, such a future crisis.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly in the interest of the States to 
ensure their full and continued representation as quickly as possible, 
just as it is in the interest of the House to move as quickly as 
possible back to a full complement of Members deliberating once again 
with the broadest possible range of views.
  I believe that it would be appropriate for the committee with 
jurisdiction over congressional elections, the House Administration 
Committee, to hold hearings on this subject during the next Congress.
  We can then evaluate any actions taken by the States in response to 
the 9/11 crisis, and to this resolution, and get a broader picture of 
the actual mechanics involved in conducting such elections.
  We need to remind ourselves that, in the event special elections 
occur in large numbers, whether under current laws or new ones, that 
they may not be occurring under ideal circumstances at some future 
time.
  There may be problems printing the ballots, setting up the polls, or 
completing many other steps incident to the proper conduct of an 
election which are complicated enough during normal times, as we have 
seen yet again recently in the state of Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution sounds an alarm to the States that they 
have a pivotal role to play in ensuring the stability of our 
constitutional system. I urge all Members to support it, and all States 
to respond favorably to it.
  I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for their leadership on this issue. I 
believe that the States will be responsive and will come up with ideas 
that hopefully will accomplish the objective of ensuring that in the 
event of a catastrophe we can replace Members of the House lost in such 
a catastrophe so that the people's business can be done in this, the 
people's House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) may control the 
remainder of the time allotted to me, and that he may yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, because 
as I turned around, I saw the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. 
Baird), and it was an oversight that I did not mention his 
extraordinary leadership in bringing this matter to not only the 
attention of all the Members and pressing for attention of this matter, 
but

[[Page 18921]]

also to the country. And I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird) for his singular focus on this critical issue.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
for raising the point, because it is a good one. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for his foresight and quick 
action on this problem as well.
  It is appropriate at the outset of this discussion to explain to our 
colleagues why our thanks are in order for the hard work that is being 
done, because the hard work is being done behind closed doors for good 
reason. This is a grizzly topic, number one. Nobody likes to think 
about the destruction of the Capitol and the loss of hundreds of 
Members of Congress, Senators and Representatives, in some horrible 
catastrophe. Second, the work is very detailed, involved, legalistic 
and consequential. So a good job has to be done, a careful job has to 
be done, a thoughtful job has to be done, but there is not much profit 
in laying it out before the House every day.
  We are necessarily here on the floor today because we are going to 
ask in the most formal way that we possess, through a resolution of 
this body, the cooperation of the States in this effort. We are made up 
of elected Representatives from States whose election laws interweave 
with our own Federal rules for eligibility and service in the United 
States House of Representatives. Some of the rules and procedures are 
House rules and are Federal rules. Some of them are State rules. In 
particular, the rules governing elections within the several States 
under our constitutional system are State rules.
  The resolution we are bringing forward today respects that aspect of 
our federalism, but urgently asks every Governor and every State 
legislator to examine their election laws and amend them with a view 
toward solving a very serious problem that we have in the House, and 
that is if many Members are killed, there is no quick way to 
reconstitute the Congress of the United States. A special election is 
required. Only election under our Constitution is prescribed as the 
means of filling a vacancy, and as a result, where the Senate can have 
its Members appointed by Governors, replacement Members, and be 
reconstituted, there would be no House, no functioning House, perhaps 
no majority, no quorum and thus no Senate, because we are a bicameral 
body, and they could produce no legislation on their own, thus no 
legislative branch in time of urgent crisis by definition in the United 
States.
  When after an attack on our Nation, the Commander in Chief, whoever 
that might be, because the attack might kill simultaneously the 
President, Vice President, Secretary of State perhaps, as well as the 
Speaker of the House, who is third in line, we do not even know who the 
President would be in that circumstance. So the operation of our 
legislative check and balance against executive power would be of vital 
importance. We might lack it. And something as workaday and ordinary 
and mechanical in procedure, therefore, as the State election laws 
becomes of vital importance, and we are asking in this resolution for 
the States to address that problem.
  This is one and only one of several issues that have arisen as a 
result of a study by the working group established by the Speaker of 
House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); and the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader, the minority 
leader. Both Speaker Hastert and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) have shown extraordinary leadership by putting together a 
high-level leadership task force that has as its contributors not only 
the chairman and the ranking member of the House Committee on Rules, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who is also the chairman of the 
Democratic Caucus, my cochairman of this working group; but also, as we 
have seen, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on House 
Administration, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who were just here on the floor; and also 
the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary 
and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, which is very involved in 
these issues.
  The members of the working group include, besides myself and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the subcommittee 
chairman on the Committee on the Judiciary responsible for the 
Constitution; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking 
member on that subcommittee; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney); and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird), to whom we just referred for his efforts; the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), who is the chairman of the policy subcommittee 
on reform; the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); and the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Throughout several months and nearly a score of meetings, we have 
covered the waterfront on these issues.
  I will return to further discussion on the specifics of this 
resolution, but I have several speakers on our side who wish to be 
recognized.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California (Mr. Cox) 
for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him and the gentleman 
from Texas and others who bring this very important bill forward.
  Ours is the oldest written Constitution in the world. The Founding 
Fathers with great wisdom crafted a government of enduring stability, 
with the flexibility to survive the shocks and strains of 226 years. It 
would have been impossible for them to foresee the events of last 
September with passenger jets full of fuel smashing into skyscrapers. 
It was simply impossible in their day for so much to be destroyed by so 
few so quickly. And so the prospect of a large number of seats in the 
House of Representatives becoming simultaneously vacant was probably 
not one they entertained.
  And yet in their wisdom the Founders provided us with all we need to 
confront such a possibility. Article 1, section 4 of the Constitution 
gives the States the power to govern the times, place, and manner of 
holding elections for the House. This recognizes the appropriateness of 
the people deciding through their State governments how best to choose 
the representatives in this House. However, the Constitution also 
allows Congress at any time by law to make or alter such regulations 
except as to the place of choosing Senators. This recognizes the right 
of Congress to ensure that the States live up to their responsibility 
to ensure that their citizens are represented in the Federal 
Government.
  This resolution is in perfect keeping with the Constitution and the 
Founders' intent. It preserves the rights of the States to determine 
their own interests in determining procedures for electing 
representatives. It also reminds the States that this House will 
continue to take an interest in ensuring that these procedures are 
sufficient to ensure the survival of this body and the welfare of our 
Republic in the event of a major attack on the Capitol.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution sponsored by my 
friends and colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) which expresses a sense of the U.S. 
House of Representatives that all 50 States should examine their laws 
governing special elections to fill vacancies in the House with an eye 
toward developing expedited procedures for such elections in the case 
of such a catastrophe.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States of America learned many lessons about 
need for enhanced homeland security from the tragic events of September 
11, 2001. Given that it is widely believed that the United Airlines 
Flight 93 was headed for the U.S. Capitol that Tuesday morning, we can 
only imagine the

[[Page 18922]]

damage that would have been done to the legislative branch of our 
Federal Government but for the truly remarkable bravery of Flight 93's 
passengers.
  Their heroic actions have, however, given us a chance to make 
contingency plans for the future. In the case of another attempt to 
disrupt or destroy our democratic system of government, we should be 
prepared, and that is why a prompt and overwhelming passage of H. Res. 
559 is so important today. The U.S. House of Representatives is urging 
the States to take whatever steps they deem appropriate to modify, 
change, or update their laws governing special elections to fill 
vacancies in the House such that a catastrophic event would not unduly 
hinder the ability of the U.S. Congress to conduct its business in the 
future.
  I am pleased to serve as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Technology and the House of the Committee on Rules. Among the matters 
under my subcommittee's jurisdiction are the rules of the House.

                              {time}  1230

  As has been noted by some, the House rules do not speak to how this 
institution would conduct its business in the event of a catastrophic 
disaster, and that is an issue that I fully expect we will explore in 
the 108th Congress next year.
  In the meantime, I know that my colleagues, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), are 
currently chairing a commission of distinguished individuals, including 
former House Speakers Gingrich and Foley, who are looking into this 
matter in greater detail with the hope of bringing forward other 
recommendations for how best to deal with the myriad of questions 
involving ensuring the continuity of Congress. In this respect, I look 
forward to working closely with the Cox-Frost Commission and other 
Members of the House on both sides of the aisle in the next 
congressional session. Nothing less than the future stability of the 
U.S. Congress, the Federal Government's legislative branch, and the 
rule of law are at stake.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
think it is important to add to the list of people whom it is necessary 
to thank for their efforts on this thus far: the Parliamentarian and 
his office and his staff, Charles Johnson, who has contributed 
extraordinary expertise and hard work on this initiative; also, the 
American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution who, in 
addition to their scholarly studies on these subjects, have convened a 
commission on the continuity of government, which has been an 
extraordinary resource to this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past several months, Democrats and Republicans 
on the Bipartisan Working Group on the Continuity of Congress have 
worked together to think the unthinkable: to consider how Congress 
would function in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.
  This is not an idle question, Mr. Speaker.
  September 11 made clear once and for all just how vulnerable the U.S. 
Congress is to such an attack. For the past year, many of us in 
Washington have believed that if not for the courage of the passengers 
of United Flight 93, the fourth hijacked plane may well have hit the 
U.S. Capitol. Well, just weeks ago, our suspicions may have been 
confirmed by an al-Jazeera interview with the man suspected to be the 
twentieth September 11 hijacker, who said that Flight 93 was indeed 
headed for the Capitol, code-named ``The Faculty of Law.''
  Obviously, Mr. Speaker, if Flight 93 had reached the Capitol on 
September 11, countless lives would have been lost. Additionally, the 
legislative branch of the United States Congress would have been 
crippled.
  This is a very dangerous possibility, Mr. Speaker; and I am glad the 
Committee on House Administration, the Capitol Police, and others have 
worked so hard since September 11 to increase the security of all of 
the staff and Members who work here in the Capitol complex.
  But the Congress is the branch of government closest to the people; 
and all of us, I believe, want it to remain as open as possible. For 
that reason, the Congress will always be somewhat vulnerable to those 
who might wish to strike at the United States through the Capitol, the 
symbol and the seat of our democracy.
  That means that we have to prepare for what used to be unthinkable 
and we have to answer the question, How would the House function in the 
aftermath of such an attack?
  Personally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be critical for the 
American public to have secure representation in Congress in a time of 
national emergency. But this is a weighty matter, one that gets to the 
heart of representative democracy in this country. On the one hand, we 
want to ensure the stability of the legislative branch in the aftermath 
of a catastrophe. On the other hand, we all understand the importance 
of preserving the unique function of the House of Representatives that 
it has served in the American system of government for more than 200 
years.
  This bipartisan working group was formed to study the very important, 
very complicated, and very difficult series of questions raised by this 
situation.
  We have benefited, and are still enjoying, the tremendous expertise 
of all of the members who have participated. We have received 
tremendous assistance from the committees of jurisdiction and their 
staff; and as the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) mentioned, I 
want to personally recognize the Parliamentarian, Charlie Johnson, as 
well as his staff. After serving on the House Committee on Rules for 
more than 20 years, I have known for a long time what fine 
professionals they are.
  This process could have never started without the support of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our Democratic leader. Most 
importantly, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my colleagues on the 
working group, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot), as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), and the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Of course, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox) and his staff have been a pleasure to work with on this project.
  Mr. Speaker, the working group is examining proposed changes to the 
House Rules regarding quorum requirements and succession of House 
officers, amendments to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, and 
constitutional amendments. But our primary goal has been to examine the 
law to ensure that Congress can function in the event of an attack or a 
catastrophe.
  That is what House Resolution 559 addresses today. It encourages the 
States to examine their existing statutes, practices, and procedures 
governing special elections; and it urges Governors and State 
representatives to amend their election laws so that in the event of a 
catastrophe, vacancies in the House of Representatives could be filled 
in a timely fashion.
  As we can see, Mr. Speaker, this is an ongoing process, and the 
resolution on the floor today does not solve all of the problems we 
face; but it takes a sensible, bipartisan step toward addressing one of 
them. So I urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan working group and 
passing it overwhelmingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird), the Member of the House who really first raised this issue.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, and I 
want to thank also the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his 
outstanding

[[Page 18923]]

leadership. In the time I have been privileged to serve here, I have 
never had such great satisfaction from working with a group of 
talented, bright, dedicated individuals. The Parliamentarian, the staff 
of the Committee on the Judiciary have been outstanding. Hopefully, we 
will never need this legislation; but if it is ever needed, it may be 
one of the most important things we will ever do in our lifetime and 
during our service to this Congress.
  This is a start. This is an effort to say to the States that you too 
need to think about what we have come to have to face on a daily basis, 
almost: the prospect that some terrorist organization could strike 
suddenly, without warning, and eliminate this body that we hold so 
dear; and we must have preparations to replace us in the event that 
that should happen.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), 
as well as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), for their valuable and invaluable 
contributions to this process.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the start in working with the States to make 
sure that they have a mechanism for replacing us if the time arises, 
but we also have other tasks before us. We are addressing some 
ambiguities in the Presidential succession law that are important to 
close certain ambiguities there. We are looking at the House rules, 
particularly what would constitute a quorum and how this body would 
reconvene in the event of a catastrophe. We are also looking at 
mechanisms for possibly replacing Members in the short term, pending 
the outcome of special elections. Every one of us in this body holds 
very dear and proud the tradition of direct elections, but we also hold 
dear and proud to the principle of election and representation by our 
States in this great body, and the principle of checks and balances on 
the executive. So we are working on a host of fronts.
  A year or so ago, my father passed away. Before he died, he sat my 
sister and brother and I down and walked through all of his files. He 
said, Son and daughter, when I die, this is what you need to know 
about, how to carry on the finances, how to deal with my estate, et 
cetera. Because of his forethought, his death, regardless of how 
tremendously painful it was, was nevertheless handled in a manner that 
allowed us to go on, taking care of his affairs responsibly and in an 
efficient manner.
  We owe it to this Nation to show no less forethought. We owe it to 
this Nation to make sure that if something horrific happens to us, the 
business of this great Republic will carry on, uninterrupted, 
unimpeded. We need to tell our adversaries that even if they destroy us 
and kill every one of us, others will rise up, carry that torch of 
liberty forward, and the Republic will stand and will persevere.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank again the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for their leadership.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Cox-Frost Continuity of Congress 
Working Group and an original cosponsor of this legislation, I strongly 
urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 559 to address problems 
with our method of filling vacancies in the House of Representatives.
  The Constitution declares that Members of the House must be popularly 
elected. However, the specter of terrorism, notably, reports that the 
Capitol was a targeted Capitol on September 11, reminds us that mass 
casualties in Washington or elsewhere could have a detrimental effect 
on the representative nature of the House and its ability to fulfill 
its duties. As a former Secretary of State, I know that States have 
vastly different methods and time lines for filling vacant House seats, 
which could pose a serious problem in the event of a catastrophe. For 
example, Rhode Island general laws state simply: ``The Governor shall 
immediately issue a writ of election ordering a new election as early 
as possible.'' Today's resolution would address such problems by 
encouraging States to review their special elections procedures to fill 
House vacancies as expeditiously as possible.
  This resolution is the first recommendation of the Continuity of 
Congress Working Group, which has been tackling the complicated issues 
of how government would function in the wake of a catastrophe. I would 
like to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird), who has helped raise the profile and 
understanding of these complex problems while leading the effort to 
find solutions. I also commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for devoting so much of their 
time and effort to this topic and making it a priority for Congress.
  Another area I feel worthy of discussion is the ability of Congress 
to communicate and possibly even conduct legislative operations 
remotely in the event of a major disruption. The Committee on House 
Administration has held hearings on the feasibility of establishing an 
e-Congress for emergency situations, and I have introduced legislation 
to study this matter. At this time I would like to commend and 
recognize the efforts of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
House Administration, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and also my 
colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
for their outstanding efforts and leadership on this issue.
  While several of my colleagues have expressed discomfort with this 
and other related topics, it is our duty to prepare the legislative 
branch for any kind of disaster. We must never allow the people's 
business to be interrupted.
  Today's resolution is an important first step in addressing complex 
questions about our government's ability to function in the age of 
terrorism, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I heard a commentator make the statement 
that somehow Congress is dragging their feet on these issues because we 
cannot face the possibility of our own demise. I do not agree with that 
statement at all. I think that Members of Congress are very much aware 
of the potential risks and threats out there, but that it is a 
complicated topic. One of the complications is that we work in a 
Federal system with both State responsibilities and Federal 
responsibilities.
  To me, the number one issue is how in all of this do we protect the 
essence of democracy; and to me, the essence of democracy is the right 
of a free people to be governed, to be governed by those whom they 
elect and have the right to vote on. We summarize that by calling this 
``The People's House,'' and I do not think in any way should we be 
supportive of any kind of constitutional amendment that would turn the 
people's House into the ``Appointeds' House.'' That would be a very 
tragic outcome to September 11.
  The Federal issue here is that elections are State responsibilities, 
and we know that there is a tremendous amount of variety from State to 
State and also that there is too much time in an emergency situation in 
some, in a lot, of the State laws. Patsy Mink has been referred to, our 
colleague who tragically passed away over the weekend; and it is my 
understanding that it may take three special elections to finally 
replace her. Also, Oregon does their elections by mail, and every State 
deals with the issue of absentee ballots overseas and locally 
differently. There is a lot of complexity to this.
  Our message to the States today is please look at your election laws 
and figure out a way that you can be responsive should this terrible 
tragedy occur.
  To me, there are two scenarios that States ought to look at. The 
first one is what has been talked about today by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) and others: What if we had a massive loss of life 
of Members of the U.S.

[[Page 18924]]

House here? That is what has driven this issue. But there also is a 
second issue that States ought to look at. In Arkansas, we have four 
House Members and two Senators, and it is not uncommon for us to be all 
in the same place or on the same plane. States ought to look at what 
should happen if an individual State lost its entire congressional 
delegation, should that trigger some kind of expedited special 
elections process. These are not easy questions; they are complicated 
questions. But they fall under the area of State responsibility, and 
the resolution today is sending a message to the States that we will be 
glad to work with you and hope that you will work on these very 
important issues of expediting special elections at a time of massive 
loss of life in the U.S. House.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Policy and 
Election Reform.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Working Group on 
Continuity of Congress, I rise in strong support of this resolution. As 
has been said, it is a simple, straightforward, bipartisan, but very 
important measure to urge all of the States, with the utmost 
seriousness and focus, to look at their election laws and ensure that 
special elections would happen as expeditiously as possible, 
particularly in the event of a disaster that killed many House Members 
at once.
  Of course, this resolution today highlights one of the many issues 
that our working group has been focused on, and, in fact, the central 
one, which is how do we replenish the House of Representatives quickly 
in such a horrible catastrophe.
  As has been said, the U.S. Constitution is very clear: House 
vacancies can only be filled, under the present constitutional terms, 
by an election. Sometimes, as has also been said, in different States 
where State law applies, that can take a very long time, maybe up to 6 
months; so we want all of the State legislatures, all of the Governors, 
to look at their State law very clearly, in a very focused way, and 
move as quickly as possible to make sure their State law makes that 
happen as quickly as possible, particularly in the event of mass 
deaths.
  In considering this, I ask all of my colleagues and, in fact, all of 
the State legislators and Governors around the country to think of all 
of the work we had to do, and I believe we did do, after September 11: 
The Committee on the Judiciary moved to protect us here and abroad; the 
Committee on Appropriations addressed critical emergency funding; the 
Committee on Armed Services examined our military response.
  All of that was actually done in a matter of just a couple of weeks 
beginning with September 11. Nearly every House committee did 
significant work on the war that was at its infancy planning stage 
then, or homeland security, or related issues.
  If we also remember Flight 93 downed in Pennsylvania, brought about 
by brave passengers, all of that work may have only been possible 
because of their bravery and the luxury we were afforded by not having 
an attack on the Capitol.
  Of course, all of us hope there is never a next time. All of us pray 
that there will not be a next time. But if there is, we may not be so 
lucky; so all of that work we did in the very few weeks after September 
11, and the specter of Flight 93, makes it clear why we need to think 
about this issue, and why State legislatures need to act to make sure 
that the House is replenished as quickly as possible.
  In closing, I want to say that this is a very important step, but I 
hope it is a first step, because our working group is thinking about 
other key issues, quorum issues, incapacity issues, that can be dealt 
with under rules. These issues are very significant, which I believe 
can be addressed under our House rules. There are Presidential 
succession issues, which are significant and related to this, which 
could clearly be addressed under statute.
  And, yes, although it would be very difficult politically, I also 
think we need to debate and think carefully about proposed 
constitutional amendments.
  So I think this is a very important, very responsible step, but I am 
hopeful it will be a first step. I know the working group is continuing 
its work in a very focused, careful way.
  I want to particularly thank the chairman of that, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox), and also the cochairman, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost), for all of their work; the other Members of the working 
group; the House Parliamentarians; the CRS researchers; other staff who 
have given us invaluable information in our deliberations.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of our colleagues to vote for this 
resolution.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana makes a fine point in 
commending the Congressional Research Service, and I was remiss in not 
mentioning this earlier. Walter Oleszek and others from CRS have been 
an enormous and very, very professional resource for us in our work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention two people who were 
tremendously helpful: the Pierce County auditor Cathy Pearsall-Stipek, 
and the Cowlitz County auditor Chris Swanstron. These folks helped us 
understand that even in optimal circumstances, a special election would 
probably take at least 60 days, or more like 90.
  In Washington State, for example, we mail our ballots out 3 weeks 
before the election. If we are going to get an election done in 2 
months, we have essentially got about a week to run for office, and 
then the ballots would have to be printed, distributed, counted, there 
would be one more week to run for office after the primary, and then we 
would have to have the special election.
  I want to follow up on something my colleague, the gentleman from 
Louisiana, said. He has offered such great, thoughtful insights to 
this. This is a first step, but we need to make sure, I believe, that 
there is a mechanism for quick replacement in some fashion to occupy 
the position in the House of Representatives and get the body's work 
done in the interim while these special elections are conducted. We 
simply cannot say that there will be no House of Representatives for 
the period of 60 days or more while special elections take place.
  Declarations of war, appropriations of funds, approval of Vice-
Presidential nominees, election of the Speaker of the House and a host 
of other tasks must be accomplished, and we must have the 
representation of the States in that process, and we must have the 
constitutional checks and balances which are so critical.
  In a time of catastrophe, it is indeed, I believe, likely that the 
Presidential position would be occupied by a Cabinet member who was 
never elected; which is fine, that is under the Succession Act, and we 
accept that; but for an unelected Cabinet member to serve as the 
President of the United States with no checks and balances by the 
legislative branch as represented through the House of Representatives 
I believe imperils a fundamental principle of the Constitution.
  So while I absolutely and unequivocally urge strong sponsoring of 
this legislation and recognize its importance, it is indeed a first 
step, and we must move forward, as the working group will do, and as I 
hope and trust all my colleagues will do, to consider further 
mechanisms to make sure this great body and the Constitution it 
represents will continue to function.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.

[[Page 18925]]

  I want to commend my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), for their leadership on this very 
important issue. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support House 
Resolution 559.
  In the event of an emergency that leaves large numbers of seats of 
the House vacant, the House of Representatives will have lost much of 
its representative character. There are, however, statutory solutions 
to this problem. The Constitution leaves it to the States in the first 
instance to enact such solutions.
  Article 1, section 1, clause 1 of the United States Constitution 
states that: ``The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for 
Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the 
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or 
alter such Regulations. . . .''
  While Congress has the constitutional authority to make or alter 
State special election laws, Congress extends great deference to State 
solutions to the problem of vacant House seats in times of emergency. 
This congressional deference to State action is codified in 2 U.S.C. 
Section 8, which provides that ``The time for holding elections in any 
State, District, or Territory for a Representative or Delegate to fill 
a vacancy, whether such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the 
time prescribed by law, or by the death, resignation, or incapacity of 
a person elected, may be prescribed by the laws of the several States 
and Territories respectively.''
  Article 1, section 2, clause 4 of the Constitution further provides 
that ``When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the 
Executive Authority thereof (the Governor) shall issue Writs of 
Election to fill such vacancies,'' and such elections will be held in 
accordance with the State law, absent congressional action otherwise.
  This resolution constitutes congressional due diligence by putting 
the States on formal notice that it is within their constitutional 
power, and also their constitutional duty, to revise State laws to 
allow for the conducting of expedited special elections in cases of 
emergency in which the seats of district representation are suddenly 
left vacant, and constituents are suddenly left without a voice in the 
House of Representatives.
  The uninterrupted House tradition is that only duly elected 
representatives should have the final say in legislation passed by the 
House. This resolution expresses Congress's strong support for States' 
efforts to strengthen that tradition by providing for the filling of 
vacant House seats quickly, fairly, and efficiently in emergency 
circumstances.
  I urge strong bipartisan passage of this common-sense resolution.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution. I have no 
further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have heard thus far this afternoon should be 
very sobering to all of us. We are asking the States in this resolution 
to join in a thorough examination of their role, what they can do to 
help us with these problems.
  But the problems are manifold. It is not simply a question of solving 
the special election problem, it is not simply a question of solving 
the Presidential succession problem; we have other equally serious 
problems, and, in combination, they multiply into virtual paralysis of 
our government at a time when we would need our government to be 
functioning at its peak efficiency: a time of crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here, of course, because of September 11. In 
working with my colleagues and our expert staff in this working group 
over several months, we have all been heartened to draw upon such a 
long and rich tradition in our Congress, in our democracy. There is 
barely a question that can come before us about the governance of this 
House or about the election of Members or about the relationship of the 
States to the Federal Government that has not been considered in other 
contexts; so we are not without precedent, far from it.
  Yet there is something unprecedented to what we are doing here. Were 
it not for September 11, I do not think any of us doubts we would not 
be here today, because on September 11 we were forced to confront a 
different kind of danger, qualitatively different, and we hope not 
quantitatively different than what we have seen thus far: a disastrous, 
horrible, apocalyptic future in which the unthinkable becomes reality.
  None of us here wishes that ever to occur. We are taking every 
national security step elsewhere, separate from this measure, to stave 
that off, to avoid it, to make our world and the rest of the world 
safe. But if these things happen, if loose nukes become a threat to our 
domestic security, if chemical warfare or the spread of biological 
toxins become our future, and if these attacks are directed against the 
Capitol, then we simply have to imagine that contingency. So that is 
what the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Frost) and I and our working 
group have been focused upon.
  The fact that, according to al-Jazeera Television, we now know that 
Flight 93 was directed towards the United States Capitol makes this all 
too real. Had Flight 93 hit the Capitol, many Members of Congress, we 
do not know how many, would have been killed. Had a joint session been 
attacked, the worst case, we can imagine not only a heavy toll, a 
nearly complete toll among Members of the House and Senate, but also 
the executive branch, including the President and the Vice President.
  The remaining Members of the House of Representatives would have had 
to try to muster a quorum. If none of them objected on the ground that 
a quorum was not present, then even 10 Members could have kept the 
House going. If, on the other hand, someone objected, then there would 
have to be somehow a quorum.

                              {time}  1300

  And a quorum of 435 Members being 218, if more Members than that were 
killed or injured and unable to function in the attack, then Congress 
itself would be unable to function and unable to get a quorum. We are 
working in this working group on rules changes to address this, but 
ultimately we have got to have Members of Congress back in this body, 
real live Members. Because even if we can, through changing the rules 
or through unanimous consent of those remaining 10 Members, get those 
10 Members to function as the House of Representatives, who would not 
question the legitimacy of Congress in those circumstances? Indeed, 
there might be court challenges.
  If the President of the United States, no longer the President that 
we elected but some replacement under the Presidential Succession Act 
is now acting in the teeth of an attack on our Nation so severe that 
the Congress itself has been wasted in that attack, is that not the 
time when the legislative branch should be operating in full force as a 
check against excess of executive power because the Nation itself would 
be tempted at that point to all manner of revenge, some of it perhaps 
not cool-headed, not wise, not in our national security interest? The 
checks and balances system itself would not be functioning.
  As has been mentioned several times, because of the historical 
evolution of United States Senate from an appointed body originally in 
the Constitution, members were not elected in the Senate, and then 
subsequently by Constitutional amendment, we got direct election of 
Senators. Still a vestige of that earlier appointment regime is that 
vacancies in the Senate are filled even in the 21st century by 
appointment, not so for the House. We have got to have the cooperation 
of the States to at least speed up special elections so that the time 
during which Congress cannot function is not needlessly protracted.
  This resolution, as has been mentioned, is serious. It is also very 
short and to the point. It has only one purpose and that is to provoke 
action in

[[Page 18926]]

the State legislatures. The resolution is an important first step, as 
my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), has described 
it, toward focusing the attention of the States on what is their 
critical role in replenishing the Federal legislature by ensuring that 
special elections are held as expeditiously as possible.
  Article one, section four of the Constitution, with which many 
Americans became familiar during our last electoral crisis, if we can 
call it that, sets forth the authority of the States to determine the 
time, places and manner for holding elections for Congress. This 
creates a symbiotic relationship between the States, who the founders 
believed and who we still believe today were the sovereigns in their 
own right; a symbiotic relationship between the States, on the one 
hand, and the Republic in total, on the other hand, ultimately supreme 
over the States in all matters encompassed by the Constitution. That is 
the supremacy clause. And, of course, Congress as the institution 
representing that sovereignty, that Federal sovereignty, must remain 
strong and invulnerable.
  Our strength is drawn from every Member representing every State in 
the Union. This is something about which all of the Members of our 
working group agree. Some are focused on a constitutional amendment to 
try and ensure that we can get Members back here from the States. 
Others are focused on the absolute necessity of ensuring that the 
device for returning Members from the States is some form of election. 
But at essence, the very important thing is we have Members back here 
and we not have a distinct minority abnormally representing only 
portions of the country and disproportionately representing certain 
interests against other interests, defiling the whole basis of our 
governance by the people.
  Our strength is drawn from every Member representing every State in 
the Union who daily appears in this Chamber to conduct America's 
business on behalf of each of our States and each of our constituents.
  Our vulnerability is a result of the independence that each of our 
States has in deciding how and when it will hold elections. So quite 
simply, as an institution, we are designed as an instrument of the 
people of each State and ultimately they, not us, control our fate.
  The proper place, of course, to discuss this and debate it is on the 
floor of House; but the proper place to solve this problem is in the 
legislatures of the various States.
  This is, as my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), 
said a moment ago, the people's House. And it is my opinion it is 
totally appropriate for the people working through their respective 
States to decide how best to populate this House with their 
representatives.
  The founders in their profound wisdom in perhaps glimpsing into the 
future, as they seem to have done so many times, did not leave us 
without recourse. Where the first clause of the first paragraph of 
article one, section four gives the States the power to govern every 
aspect of electing their Federal representatives, there is a second 
clause. If Congress so decides, Congress has the ultimate authority to 
take that power away from the States. The second clause in article one, 
section four reads as follows: The Congress may at any time by law make 
or alter such regulations, that is the regulations of the States, 
except as to the places of choosing Senators.
  So this Congress could, as any Congress before it could have, preempt 
every State election law, every State election law in the country 
governing the election of Representatives either in times of 
catastrophe or any other time for that matter. But of course just 
because we have the power to do these things does not mean we should 
exercise this power, and in this resolution we have chosen a different 
course. We are going to the States and asking them to act.
  What we are doing today is precisely what we ought to be doing, no 
more, no less. It is the measured response that continues to respect 
the rights of the States to govern their own elections but highlights 
to them their critical role in our Federal legislature and emphasizes 
their responsibility to ensure that their representation in Congress is 
never long diminished. It is, after all, in the best interest of each 
State to ensure that it can quickly replenish its congressional 
delegation, lest it be left out, unrepresented during what could be one 
of the most crucial moments in our Nation's history.
  Therefore, we should, before we do anything more, give the States the 
opportunity to act in their best interest and in a way that suits each 
State's own unique needs, and that is precisely what this resolution 
does.
  Our working group has also been examining possible amendments to the 
Presidential Succession Act of 1947 because the Speaker of the House 
stands third in line to the Presidency; and any attack on this body 
that decimates it, that deprives of it of Members, could take away the 
Speaker as well, indeed, take away other potential successor Speakers. 
We want to be sure that the line of Presidential succession is clear 
and uninterrupted.
  Virtually ever proposed solution to every issue the working group has 
addressed, including this one over the past four months, whether it be 
a change in the rules of the House, passing a new law, amending an old 
one, or changing our Constitution by altering its language, presents 
very serious legal issues requiring careful thought and deliberation.
  We are not the first to grapple with these issues. The very first 
Congress, meeting at the site where Federal Hall in New York stands 
today and where this Congress gathered just a few weeks ago, grappled 
with the issue of Presidential succession. One can hardly image a 
Congress more in touch with the sentiments and intentions of the 
founders than that very first Congress; and one can hardly imagine a 
government more tentative and fragile and in need of the stability a 
well-defined and certain line of Presidential succession would provide. 
Yet the first Congress was unable to agree on a Presidential succession 
law, and they went without one.
  It was left to the second Congress to finally pass the first 
Presidential Succession Act in 1792. This act stated that in the event 
of a vacancy in the office of President and Vice President, succession 
will pass first to the President pro tem of the Senate and second to 
the Speaker of the House.
  The act has been amended in all of the years intervening since 1792 
only twice since then: first following the assassination of President 
James Garfield in 1881 and the death of Vice President Thomas Hendrix 
in 1886, when concerns were raised because at the time of their deaths 
Congress had not yet convened, leaving the office of President pro tem 
and Speaker of the House vacant. As a result, in 1886 Congress removed 
the Speaker and the President pro tem from the line of Presidential 
succession.
  Fast forward to 1945. President Truman urged Congress to restore the 
Speaker and President pro tem to the line of Presidential succession. 
Two years later in 1947, Congress did so. This time putting the Speaker 
first and then the President pro tem of the Senate second. This brief 
history demonstrates the time and deliberation that have gone into the 
very few changes that have been made to our Presidential succession 
laws since the inception of the Republic. Therefore, those of us on 
this working group tasked with finding a solution to these problems of 
congressional continuity, of the line of Presidential succession should 
take comfort in a history where thoughtful deliberations has been the 
rule, not the exception.
  Mr. Speaker, it is exactly that kind of deliberation, thoughtful and 
measured, that has gone into the proposals that the working group has 
put forward to the Committee on the Judiciary on statutory changes, for 
example, to the Presidential Succession Act, put forward to the 
Committee on Rules, changes to our quorum requirements in the manner of 
recognizing the death of a Member, particularly when mass death occurs, 
and on this question of the special election of Members after a death 
of a Member.

[[Page 18927]]

  This resolution is the first step towards ensuring that this body 
will endure no matter what, no matter what our enemies do to us. I 
encourage every Member to join the 11 Members of the bipartisan working 
group in supporting this resolution, this important first step to 
ensuring the continuity of this great institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by thanking in particular the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and his superb staff for the time, 
energy and effort they have put into these matters. We have much work 
ahead of us. We cannot congratulate ourselves too much for work half 
done, but we will be after this year and next year. And as I mentioned, 
given this long history, we cannot be concerned that we are not moving 
too precipitously fast. We are moving very fast, I think. We have 
gotten a lot done, but we will have sometime before us. So I look 
forward toward to working further with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost).
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken on this very 
important topic today. I apologize to those who were concerned with 
raising such grizzly topics. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope we can put 
ourselves and our minds back to other workday matters more important to 
we, the living, than this horrible-to-contemplate future contingency. I 
urge the adoption of this resolution by all the Members of this House, 
and I urge action of the States in furtherance of this resolution, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, September 26, 2002, 
the resolution is considered read for amendment and the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________