[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.