[House Report 108-141]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
 1st Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 108-141
======================================================================
 
  HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 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

                                _______
                                

June 4, 2003.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Dreier, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                    [To accompany H. Con. Res. 190]

    The Committee on Rules, to whom was referred 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, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon, without amendment, and recommend that the 
concurrent resolution be agreed to.

                       PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION

    The purpose of H. Con. Res. 190 is 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.

                       SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION

    H. Con. Res. 190 creates a joint committee to (1) ensure 
the continuity and authority of Congress during times of 
crisis, (2) improve congressional procedures necessary for the 
enactment of measures affecting homeland security during times 
of crisis, and (3) enhance the ability of each chamber to 
cooperate effectively with the other body on major and 
consequential issues related to homeland security.

                 BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE RESOLUTION

    Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the 
Nation's perception of our national priorities has changed 
dramatically. Terrorist attacks on our homeland and the 
anthrax-laced letters still under investigation introduced a 
new sense of vulnerability to Americans and gave Congress a new 
imperative to act for the protection of the American people.
    Congress' initial response to the acts of terrorism 
included passage of landmark legislation establishing a new 
Department of Homeland Security, the most significant 
governmental reorganization in over fifty years, which 
President George W. Bush signed into law on November 25, 2002. 
When the 108th Congress convened, the House created the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security to oversee the work of the new 
Department, and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 
have reassigned jurisdictions among their subcommittees to 
allow focus on homeland security issues.
    In addition, both the House and the Senate adopted H. Con. 
Res. 1 which states that the Speaker and the Senate Majority 
Leader, or their designees, in consultation with the respective 
minority leaders, ``may notify the Members of the House and 
Senate, respectively, to assemble at a place outside the 
District of Columbia whenever, in their opinion, the public 
interest shall warrant it.'' The purpose of H. Con. Res. 1 is 
to ensure that someone in each chamber has the authority to 
convene the House or Senate outside of the District of Columbia 
in the event of a national catastrophe.
    The response of the President and the Congress to terrorism 
has been substantial and positive. Together, we have provided 
public officials with a framework for preserving the functions 
of government, while helping to assure the general public that 
representative government will continue to function despite 
terrorist actions. However, more needs to be done.
    While the power of the Presidency has been transferred in 
critical situations on numerous occasions--ranging from war to 
assassination to impeachement--only two or three times in our 
nation's history have crises tested the ability of Congress to 
assemble and conduct its business under extreme circumstances. 
There is still uncertainty about Congress' ability to act 
decisively to maintain homeland security while preserving the 
democratic and representative fabric of our society. 
Accordingly, 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. H. Con. Res. 190 provides for this review through 
the establishment of a joint committee that will study how to 
ensure that the structures, rules and procedures, devices, and 
lines of communication between the two chambers are effectively 
organized and coordinated.
    The primary goals of the Joint Committee are twofold: (a) 
to preserve the co-equal stature of the legislative branch so 
that our nation's representative form of government can perform 
its constitutional duties during any catastrophe or emergency; 
and (b) to promote bipartisan and bicameral dialogue about the 
necessity for rules, joint rules, or other processes to permit 
timely consideration of vital homeland security matters during 
times of crisis.
    The House and Senate are distinctive bodies, as the Framers 
intended. They differ in size, constituency, term of office, 
procedural rules, constitutional prerogatives, and more. Under 
the Constitution, each chamber has the absolute right to 
establish its own rules. The joint committee established in 
this concurrent resolution would not affect this Constitutional 
prerogative of each chamber. However, it is vitally important 
for the general welfare of our nation that the House and Senate 
can work together in an effective and decisive manner during 
times of catastrophe--when even the existence of the national 
government may be at stake. House Concurrent Resolution 190 is 
an important step toward achieving that goal.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier and Rules Committee 
Ranking Minority Member Martin Frost introduced House 
Concurrent Resolution 190 on May 22, 2003. The measure was 
subsequently referred to the Committee on Rules.
    On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, the Rules Subcommittee on 
Technology and the House held a hearing on House Concurrent 
Resolution 190 and received testimony from: Hon. David Dreier, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Hon. Martin Frost, 
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Rules.
    On Wednesday, June 4, the Committee on Rules held a markup 
of the concurrent resolution. The Committee favorably reported 
House Concurrent Resolution 190 by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present. During the markup, no amendments were considered.
             Written Testimony of Congressman David Dreier

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to testify before 
the Subcommittee today on this historic matter. Only a few 
times in the past have the House and Senate established 
bipartisan, bicameral panels to review the structure and 
functioning of the Congress. Today's hearing is an important 
step forward because it begins the process for fulfilling one 
of our most important duties; assuring continuing 
representation and congressional operations for the American 
people during times of crisis. Since the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001, our perception of national priorities has 
changed dramatically. Terrorist attacks on our homeland and the 
anthrax-laced letters still under investigation introduced a 
new sense of vulnerability to Americans and gave Congress a new 
imperative to act for the protection of the American people.
    Congress' initial response to the acts of terrorism 
included passage of landmark legislation establishing a new 
Department of Homeland Security, the most significant 
governmental reorganization in over fifty years, which 
President Bush signed into law on November 25, 2002. When the 
108th Congress convened, the House created the Select Committee 
on Homeland Security to oversee the work of the new Department, 
and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have 
reassigned jurisdictions among their subcommittees.
    Both chambers adopted H. Con. Res. 1 which states that the 
Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader, or their designees, in 
consultation with the respective minority leaders, ``may notify 
the Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to assemble 
at a place outside the District of Columbia whenever, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.'' The purpose of 
H. Con. Res. 1 is to ensure that someone in each chamber has 
the authority to convene the House or Senate outside of the 
District of Columbia in the event of a national catastrophe.
    The response of the President and the Congress to terrorism 
has been substantial and positive. Together, we have provided 
public officials with a framework for preserving the functions 
of government in times of crisis. In addition, our actions have 
helped to assure the general public that representative 
government will continue to function despite terrorist actions. 
But more needs to be done.
    While the power of the Presidency has been transferred in 
critical situations on numerous occasions--ranging from war to 
assassination to impeachment--only two or three times in our 
nation's history have crises tested the ability of Congress to 
assemble and conduct its business under extreme circumstances. 
The fact is we are still unsure of our ability to act 
decisively to maintain homeland security while preserving the 
democratic and representative fabric of our society. 
Accordingly, 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 a 
catastrophe.

  II. JOINT COMMITTEES' ROLE IN STRENGTHENING CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

    The two chambers, of course, do have formal and informal 
devices to bring Representatives and Senators together, such as 
conference committees and bicameral leadership meetings. 
However, these mechanisms for bicameral coordination are 
typically ad hoc and utilized on an occasional basis, often to 
address legislative or political dynamics at the time. Congress 
has no defined structure or formal mechanisms for addressing 
joint emergency procedures in the aftermath of a catastrophic 
event.
    Passage of this legislation would inaugurate a special 
joint committee study of ways to ensure that the structures, 
rules, procedures, and lines of communications between the two 
chambers are effectively organized and coordinated so the 
legislative branch can fulfill its important constitutional 
duties during times of crisis. Specifically, House Concurrent 
Resolution 190 establishes a committee of 20 members, equally 
divided by chamber and party. The Speaker and the Senate 
Majority Leader would appoint the co-chairmen 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, 2004 and a final 
report by May 31, 2004.
    It is not unusual for Congress to create joint committees 
to inquire into significant matters of legislative organization 
and operations. By their very nature, joint panels bring 
together an array of legislative expertise and experience found 
in few other congressional settings. A table summarizing major 
joint committees established during the post-1946 era of 
Congress is attached to this testimony in Appendix A.
    On three prior occasions, Congress has established 
bipartisan, bicameral panels to conduct comprehensive reviews 
of its operations. Among the topics considered by these joint 
panels were the committee system, floor deliberation and 
scheduling, and cooperation between the House and Senate. These 
reviews included:
    (1) The 1945 Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress. The 1945 Joint Committee consisted of 12 members (six 
Senators and six Representatives, equally divided by party) and 
was formed to take testimony and make recommendations 
concerning the structure of congressional committees and other 
matters. The enormous changes underway at that time--
Roosevelt's New Deal policies and the emerging global role of 
the United States following World War II--precipitated interest 
in reviewing and strengthening the Congress. The joint 
committee held three months of hearings and reported nine 
months later with a wide-ranging listof 37 specific 
recommendations to improve the structure and efficiency of Congress,\1\ 
many of which were incorporated into the 1946 Legislative 
Reorganization Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ H. Rept. 1675, 79th Congress, 2nd Session (1946).
    \2\ Act of August 2, 1946, 60 Stat. 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (2) The 1965 Joint Committee on the Organization of the 
Congress. The 1965 Joint Committee also had 12 members (six 
Senators and six Representatives, equally divided by party). 
Its mandate was to make recommendations for strengthening 
congressional operations and improving Congress' relationship 
with the other branches of government. After 40 hearings, the 
joint committee reported ten months later with 120 recommended 
changes for the operation of Congress.\3\ Eventually, many of 
these proposals were included in the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1970.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ S. Rept. 1414, 98th Congress, 2nd Session (1966).
    \4\ Public Law 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (3) The 1993 Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress, on which I served as co-chairman, was composed of 28 
members (14 from the Senate and 14 from the House, equally 
divided by party). It was formed, in part, to address concerns 
inside and outside the House and Senate about the effectiveness 
and public perception of Congress. The scope of its inquiry 
included:

        the organization and operation of each House of the 
        Congress, and the structure of, and the relationships 
        between, the various standing, special, and select 
        committees of the Congress, the relationship between 
        the two Houses of Congress, and * * * [other matters 
        relating] to the ability of the Senate and the House of 
        Representatives to perform their legislative 
        activities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ H. Con. Res. 192, 102nd Congress, 2nd Session (1992).

The 1993 joint committee held six months of hearings, organized 
four symposiums on relevant topics, collected extensive survey 
data from Members and staff, and reviewed over 1,000 letters 
from citizens written in response to an op-ed article by its 
co-chairs. Although the 103rd Congress did not act on the joint 
committee's recommendations, many of its proposals were 
subsequently adopted by the Republican majority when they 
assumed control of the House of Representatives in the 104th 
Congress.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ For the rules adopted at the start of the 104th Congress, see 
Congressional Record, Daily Edition, January 4, 1996, pp. H23-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the Congress created the Joint Study Committee 
on Budget Control in 1972. The Joint Study Committee reviewed 
congressional budgetary processes\7\ and laid the groundwork 
for what eventually became the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ H. Rept. No. 93-147, 93rd Congress, 1st session (1973).
    \8\ Public Law 93-344, 88 Stat. 297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 III. THE ``JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS AND SECURITY''

    The Joint Committee proposed by this legislation is an 
appropriate mechanism to conduct a systematic review of what 
Congressional procedures, communications, coordination, 
devices, and leadership are necessary and appropriate to handle 
national crises. The primary goals of the Joint Committee are 
twofold: (1) to preserve the co-equal stature of the 
legislative branch so that our representative form of 
government can perform its constitutional duties during 
emergencies; and (2) to promote a bipartisan and bicameral 
dialogue about the necessity of rules, joint rules, or other 
processes to permit timely consideration of vital homeland 
security legislation during times of crisis.
    Among the specific topics that the Joint Committee could 
consider are the following:

Continuity of Congress

    On September 11th, a group of heroes on board Flight 93 
said, ``Let's Roll!,'' stormed the cockpit, and kept the Al-
Qaeda terrorists from crashing the aircraft into the Capitol. 
While that attack was thwarted, the threat to Congress and its 
leadership, who are in the line of presidential succession, 
remains very real. Al-Qaeda's failed attempt highlights the 
importance of planning for the continuity of Congress in the 
event of a catastrophe. If a major terrorist attack succeededin 
killing or incapacitating a large number of Representatives or 
Senators, it could eliminate the ability of the Congress to act at the 
very time in which the Nation needs its lawmakers the most.
    Under existing legal interpretations, an attack that killed 
large numbers of House members would present difficult issues 
regarding what constitutes a legitimate quorum to act and how 
those deceased members would be replaced in a timely manner. 
Moreover, an attack that left a large number of members 
severely injured, but not dead, would raise concerns because no 
provision in the House or Senate rules, public laws, or the 
Constitution defines ``incapacitation'' of Representatives or 
Senators--or the procedures for their temporary replacement.
    These examples are but a few of the many issues which 
underscore the need for this joint committee. It is of great 
importance that Congress examine its need for extraordinary 
rules, procedures, and processes to ensure its continuity and 
survival in a time of national emergency. To be sure, potential 
procedural transformations suggested by such a review could be 
major or minor. However, let me caution those who favor a quick 
passage of a constitutional amendment on quorums and the 
replacement of members. As I have discussed with Mr. Robert 
Michel, our former House Republican Leader and a current member 
of the Continuity of Government Commission, a constitutional 
amendment should be a last resort. A Constitutional amendment 
would be premature until Congress determines that there are no 
other ways to resolve these issues through procedures, rules, 
joint rules, or public law. Moreover, I am concerned about the 
length of time it would take to ratify a Constitutional 
amendment given the threats that we face. Constitutional 
amendments require the approval of two-thirds of both the House 
and the Senate as well as ratification by three-quarters of the 
states, a process that typically takes a number of years.

Joint rules

    From the very first Congress, joint rules have helped 
govern House and Senate procedures in matters requiring 
concurrent action. They were printed and distributed in early 
House and Senate manuals, and, while their formal adoption 
lapsed in the 1870's because of a dispute involving the 
counting of electoral ballots,\9\ they continue to facilitate 
much of the work we do today. For example, while the 
Constitution accords each chamber power over its rules, it 
requires bills to be passed in identical form by both chambers 
prior to enactment without specifying a process. The first 
joint rule, adopted in 1789, addressed this issue by providing 
that the chambers could appoint delegations to meet in a 
conference committee. Fortunately, conference committees 
continue to be available to us to expedite resolution of our 
differences on legislation despite the lack of a formally 
adopted joint rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ History of the United States House of Representatives, 1789-
1994, pp. 271-274 (GPO, 1994). In 1876, a question arose in the Senate 
on whether the joint rules continued automatically from Congress to 
Congress or required the concurrence of both chambers at the start of 
each Congress. The formal adoption of joint rules lapsed then because 
of member concerns about Joint Rule 22 during the controversial Hayes-
Tilden presidential election. Joint Rule 22 contained procedures for 
counting electoral votes that could have allowed either the House or 
the Senate to throw out the votes of any state. Although adoption 
lapsed in 1876, the Congress continued to follow most joint rules. 
Indeed, for many years after, the House and Senate guides to 
parliamentary procedure continued to print the joint rules. E.g., Henry 
H. Smith, Digest and Manual of the Rules and Practice of the House 
(GPO, 1884) and W.J. McDonald, Constitution of the United States (GPO, 
1881).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some of the other joint rules that continue in customary 
practice of today's Congress include:
          (1) ``While bills are on their passage between the 
        two Houses they shall be on paper and under the 
        signature of the Secretary of the Clerk of each House, 
        respectively'';
          (2) ``After a bill shall have passed both Houses, it 
        shall be duly enrolled on parchment by the Clerk of the 
        House of Representatives or the Secretary of the 
        Senate, as the bill may have originated in the one or 
        other House, before it shall be represented to the 
        President of the United States''; and
          (3) ``After examination and report, each bill shall 
        be signed in the respective Houses, first by the 
        Speaker of the House of Representatives, then by the 
        President of the Senate.''.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Asher Hinds, Hinds' Precedents, vol. 4, Sec. 3430, p. 311-12 
(GPO, 1907); Hinds', vol. 5 Sec. 6592 (GPO, 1907).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beyond these more prosaic elements of bicameral 
cooperation, however, joint rules also have contained 
provisions to expedite legislative procedure during national 
crises. In 1862, for example, a joint rule was established 
during the Civil War to allow for the immediate and secret 
consideration of measures at the request of President Lincoln. 
More recently, joint rules have been incorporated into key 
resolutions and important statutes passed by the Congress. 
TheHouse and Senate adopt a joint rule each time they pass the budget 
resolution. Additionally, a joint rule of the House and Senate is 
adopted with the passage of each concurrent resolution to adjourn the 
Congress for more than three days. Both chambers also operate under a 
joint rule when they count electoral votes.\11\ In addition, Congress 
has passed a number of statutes that have the status of rules of the 
House and the Senate.\12\ The joint committee, if established, should 
consider whether joint rules or other joint mechanisms can be a useful 
means during times of crisis for managing inter-chamber relationships 
and the promotion of bicameral coordination, communication, and 
consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Lewis Deschler, Procedure in the U.S. House of 
Representatives, 97th Congress (GPO, 1982), p. 81.
    \12\ See House Manual, p. 1017 et seq. and Congressional 
disapproval provisions in the Executive Reorganization Act, 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 902, the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1544-46, and 
the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of homeland security measures in times of crisis

    While a framework for the executive branch's response to 
terrorism has been put in place with the creation of the 
Department of Homeland Security and the enactment of other 
measures, many important issues need to be reviewed with 
respect to how the Congress would deal with homeland security 
issues during a catastrophe. The American people do not 
consider the rules and procedures of the House and the Senate 
foremost among the factors essential to their security; rather, 
they simply expect that the Congress will have the foresight to 
plan and the ability to act decisively in the face of any 
crisis. Instead of risking that previously unanticipated gaps 
or procedural obstacles in bicameral relationships might impede 
decisive yet responsible action, we should begin a careful 
study of House and Senate rules and procedures to ensure that 
we are prepared to act quickly in any emergency.
    For example, if an attack prevents Congress from enacting 
all or some of the appropriations measures by the start of the 
fiscal year, we may want to consider whether it makes sense to 
have a short-term automatic funding mechanism for government 
agencies. Similarly, if Congress would need to act from an 
``undisclosed location,'' we might want to ensure in advance 
that special procedures are in place to craft emergency 
legislation. Finally, while the Senate, as a continuing body, 
has rules that endure from one Congress to the next unless they 
are changed or modified, the House has to adopt its rules anew 
at the start of each new Congress. This requirement may present 
issues that should be considered by the joint committee, for if 
a catastrophe occurs prior to the convening of a new Congress, 
the House might not be able to organize, vote, or to adopt 
rules of procedure for some time.
    I am not wedded to any specific ideas or solutions. Rather, 
I am committed to trying to work with all members, regardless 
of party affiliation, to work out the proper mechanisms to have 
in place should disaster strike.

                             IV. CONCLUSION

    The House and Senate are distinctive bodies, as the Framers 
intended. They differ in size, constituency, term of office, 
procedural rules, constitutional prerogatives, and more. Under 
the Constitution, each chamber has the absolute right to 
establish its own rules. The joint committee, if established, 
would not affect this Constitutional prerogative of each 
chamber. However, it is vitally important for the general 
welfare of our nation that the House and Senate can work 
together in an effective manner during times of catastrophe, 
when even the existence of the national government may be at 
stake. H. Con. Res. 190 is an important step toward achieving 
that goal.
    In conclusion, this effort can only succeed if it is both 
bicameral and bipartisan. I look forward to working with 
members and leaders of each chamber to ensure its passage.



                     Statement of Hon. Martin Frost

    Mr. Chairman and Mr. McGovern, I appreciate your calling 
this meeting of the Subcommittee today so that we can begin the 
process of creating a Joint Committee on the Continuity of 
Congress. I am pleased to join with Chairman Dreier in 
sponsoring this resolution because I believe this is a very 
serious matter. In the event that a catastrophic attack was 
successfully launched against the Capitol or any other location 
where a large number of Members of the House of Representatives 
were gathered, the ability to assure the continuity of our 
government could affect the effective functioning of the 
government but might well affect the stability of the United 
States and its citizens.
    September 11, 2001 made clear just how vulnerable this 
country is to terrorist attacks. In the ensuing months, there 
have been significant changes to the security procedures in the 
Capitol complex all in the hope that the increased security 
will protect the staff and Members who work here, as well as 
the thousands of visitors who every year come to our offices 
and to the Capitol itself. But in spite of this increased 
security, we are still vulnerable--if only because this 
building is seen as the symbol and seat of our democracy to the 
rest of the world.
    That means we have to prepare for the unthinkable. We have 
to answer the question: How would the House function in the 
aftermath of such an attack?
    Last May, Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Gephardt 
asked Chris Cox and me to co-chair a bipartisan Continuity of 
Congress Working Group which was charged with the 
responsibility of finding ways that the legislative branch--
specifically the House of Representatives--could continue to 
function in the event that a terrorist attack or other 
catastrophe might kill or incapacitate a large number of 
Members.
    Over a period of six months, the Working Group held eight 
meetings. At those meetings we discussed--on a non-partisan and 
collegial basis--the remedies that might exist or would need to 
be created to allow the House to continue to function in just 
such a situation. These discussions were substantive. We called 
on the Parliamentarian of the House, Charles Johnson and his 
staff, on former staff--including the Committee's staff 
director, Mr. Pitts, on the Congressional Research Service, 
other Members, and outside experts on constitutional law and 
the functioning of Congress. We reviewed proposed 
Constitutional amendments. We did not, however, recommend any 
Constitutional changes because we felt it was necessary for the 
Committee of jurisdiction to take up the complex issues 
relating to amending the Constitution to provide for the 
continuity of Congress.
    We did recommend three simple changes to the Rules of the 
House that will go a long way to resolving some of the problems 
relating to a diminished number of Representatives who might 
present themselves to the Speaker following a catastrophic 
event. They were included in the Rules package for the 108th 
Congress. Those amendments provided:
          (1) Codification of the process by which the Speaker 
        certifies the death of a House Member in order to 
        reduce the whole number of the House for purposes of 
        establishing a quorum;
          (2) Allowing the Speaker to accelerate or postpone 
        the convening of the House in the event of a declared 
        emergency; and
          (3) Authorization of an individual other than the 
        Speaker to reconvene the House in the event of a 
        catastrophe resulting in the death of the Speaker.
    We understood that the complexity of the issues surrounding 
the continued functioning of the House in such an instance 
required more study and more substantive discussion. Every time 
we thought we had come to the end of the discussion of ``what 
ifs'', we found one more question that led us to rethink many 
of the conclusions we had reached. The fact is, there are no 
easy answers because we are talking about the possibility of an 
event that the founding fathers could never have imagined. They 
created the House of Representatives as the arm of the 
government that is closest to the people; and in doing so, they 
provided for direct election. To change that is an undoing of 
over 200 years of history and precedent and to do so requires 
careful and thoughtful discussion and deliberation.
    The Joint Committee we have proposed will continue the 
discussion of the Cox-Frost Working Group. We have included the 
Senate in this resolution in order to assure that any changes 
we make will mesh with the rules and regulations of the Senate. 
This is about Continuity of Government--not just the House. I 
believe the House's ability to reconstitute itself is the 
thorniest problem in this mix, but it is also important that 
what we do is coordinated with the Senate to assure that there 
will indeed be continuity of Congress.
    In closing, I would like to add that this is not a partisan 
issue. This is an issue that affects each and every American 
and should be handled in a serious way, a way that avoids 
partisan rancor. We did that last year and I pledge that my 
participation in this Joint Committee, if the House and Senate 
agree to create it, will be nonpartisan--I will participate as 
an American who wishes to ensure that our Democracy--the beacon 
of freedom to the rest of the world--will continue to function 
effectively on behalf of the American people.

                  Statement of Congressman John Linder

    I am pleased to convene this hearing of the Subcommittee on 
Technology and the House. We are here to receive testimony from 
the sponsors of a proposal to establish a joint committee to 
review House and Senate rules, joint rules, and additional 
issues of importance pertaining to the continuity and security 
of congressional operations.
    This Subcommittee in the past has held hearings on the 
deliberative nature of the Congress, congressional oversight of 
the executive branch and issues of internal procedures 
affecting legislative cooperation. While these previous 
hearings all focused on processes and procedures of the House 
of Representatives, any review of our parliamentary rules and 
procedures must now be evaluated in a post-September 11th 
atmosphere that incorporates once implausible circumstances 
into how the legislative branch will operate.
    Following the horrendous acts of terrorism that were 
perpetrated on the American people on September 11, America 
demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that terrorism would 
not undermine liberty and freedom. Our nation also realized 
that it had entered a new era in which liberty and freedom 
would be under attack from a new kind of enemy, and that we 
would have an obligation to act for the protection of our 
citizens and the institutions that govern them.
    John Jay in Federalist No. 3 stated that, ``Among the many 
objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to 
direct their attention, that of providing for their safety 
seems to be the first.'' In terms of providing for the safety 
of the nation, this obligation must include continuity of 
operations. The executive branch has made contingency plans so 
that, in a dire emergency, it would be able to continue 
functioning on behalf of the American people. This is the 
prudent thing to do. The House in its opening day rules package 
included significant positive rules changes stemming from the 
recommendations made by the bipartisan Continuity of Congress 
Task Force. These first efforts were designed to help ensure 
that appropriate institutional mechanisms were in place to 
respond to an emergency situation. The legislative branch is 
now continuing to devote its time and energy in a joint effort 
between the two chambers to making contingency plans for the 
continuity of its own operations in the event of a catastrophic 
disaster.
    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. But it is also our obligation at home to ensure the 
continuity of our representational government. With that 
objective as our goal, this Subcommittee and the Committee on 
Rules intends to assess the rules, joint rules, and processes 
and procedures to ensure that they have been adapted to deal 
with any contingency that could affect the continuity and 
security of Congressional operations during a time of crisis.
    The Constitution of the United States declares that the 
legislative branch has the responsibility to appropriate funds 
to keep the government running properly, declare war against 
hostile adversaries, elect a Speaker of the House and confirm 
Cabinet nominees and Supreme Court nominees. These comprise 
just a few of the powers within the framework of our 
representative government that has worked so well for over two 
hundred years. But in light of the critical nature of these 
considerable responsibilities, the time is right to reevaluate 
how procedural requirements could affect the manner in which 
these legislative duties would be conducted in the House and 
Senate in an emergency situation.
    The Rules Committee members before us today--the Chairman 
of the Committee on Rules and our Ranking Minority Member--will 
present the Subcommittee with a proposal that could put the 
wheels in motion for an internal assessment to help ensure the 
continuity and security of congressional operations. This 
proposal for a joint committee represents a serious step in the 
right direction for modernizing Congressional procedures and 
elevating parliamentary preparedness, and having the House and 
Senate think about what needs to be done to ensure the 
legislative branch's continued viability in the face of any 
emergency situation.
             SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE RESOLUTION

    1. Whereases.
    2. Section (a) of H. Con. Res. 190 establishes who will 
constitute the joint committee, with 10 Members of the House 
and 10 Members of the Senate.
    3. Section (b) of H. Con. Res. 190 discusses the scope of 
inquiry for the joint committee as:
          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 or each chamber to cooperate 
        effectively with the other body on major and 
        consequential issues related to homeland security.
    4. Section (b) of H. Con. Res. 190 also sets parameters on 
the recommendation(s) of the joint committee, including:
          a. No recommendation may be made without a majority 
        vote of members;
          b. Any recommendation that affects only the House or 
        the Senate shall be voted upon only by members from 
        that body, and, if adopted by those members, it shall 
        be considered to be adopted by the entire joint 
        committee;
          c. Reports of the joint committee will go to the 
        Speaker and Senate Majority Leader, with an interim 
        report due by Jan. 31, 2004 and final by May 31, 2004.
    5. Section (c) terminates the joint committee after its 
final report on May 31, 2004.

             MATTERS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE

Committee votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for 
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter 
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter, the 
total number of votes for and against, and the names of the 
Members voting for and against. No rollcall votes were 
requested during consideration of H. Con. Res. 190.

Congressional Budget Office estimates

    Clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII requires each committee to 
include a estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is 
timely submitted. No estimate and comparison was received from 
the Congressional Budget Office.

Oversight findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

General performance goals

    In accordance with clause (3)(c)(4) of House Rule XIII, the 
goal of H. Con. Res. 190 is to thoroughly assess, study, 
analyze and review the rules, joint rules, other matters 
assuring continuing representation and congressional operations 
for the American people. H. Con. Res. 190 requires the joint 
committee to issue an interim report on the results of its 
study and review by no later than January 31, 2004 and a final 
report on the same by not later than May 31, 2004.

Views of committee members

    Clause 2(l) of rule XI requires each committee to afford a 
two day opportunity for members of the committee to file 
additional, minority, or dissenting views and to include the 
views in its report. Although this requirement does not apply 
to the Committee, the Committee always makes the maximum effort 
to provide its members with such an opportunity. At the time of 
approval of the concurrent resolution no member of the 
committee gave notice of intent to file supplemental, minority 
or additional views for inclusion in the report.

                                
