Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Given that no Member in the history of this body has ever taken the oath of office without first having been elected by the people, the group focused on what might have been done within the law or with statutory amendments to replenish the House in the event of a catastrophe. We had on a bipartisan basis serious and thoughtful discussions. We made modest but important changes to the rules of House that aid the Speaker in the event of a catastrophe. We passed a resolution that called on the States to put into place procedures by which expedited elections might be conducted in the event that a large number of Members are killed. But the members of the working group grappled with much larger issues, that of incapacitation, if it would be possible to skirt the constitutional requirements for election through statutory changes, the judicial review of decisions made by a House composed of only a few Members. We soon realized that those Members as well as many others needed to be addressed by the committees of jurisdiction. We had high hopes of a thoughtful, serious, nonpartisan debate and serious issues. What we got instead was a poorly thought out and wholly inadequate response to the questions we raised 2 years ago. I know the Chair of the committee will want to seek recognition in a moment, and I will acknowledge that the Chair said yesterday that the Committee on the Judiciary will mark up a constitutional amendment in the immediate future, and for that we are very grateful. Unfortunately, that amendment is not here on the floor, and we do not know when that amendment will actually have the opportunity to be voted on upon the floor.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the issue is of serious magnitude. While the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has indicated he will mark up a constitutional amendment, we have no assurance that that amendment will be considered on the floor by this body in a timely manner this year. Let me, if I may, address comments not just to the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, but to all the Members of this House. The reason that some of us and many of us feel that this legislative approach is inadequate, and that a constitutional approach is the only one that can serve this country, is that if a number of Members were killed in a common disaster, the period of time that would pass before this House could be reconstituted under the bill that is being voted on today is unacceptable. We would find ourselves without a functioning Congress perhaps for months under this bill. Now, there is an historical anomaly in our Constitution that provides that Members of the Senate when they die can be replaced by an appointment of a Governor, and there is no such procedure in the Constitution for Members of the House. The reason for, the gentleman will have plenty of time, the reason for this historical anomaly is that when the Constitution was originally drafted, Members of the Senate were chosen by appointment. They were appointed by their State legislatures, and when we went from an appointed Senate to direct election of the Senate, the power of Governors to replace Senators was continued. There was no such provision for Members of the House. That does not mean that in this 21st century today that there should not be such a procedure. The fear is that if a large number of Members were to be killed in a common disaster, that the Congress could not function in a timely manner when the country would most need a Congress. Now, there is a second unfortunate aspect of current law. Under current law, a quorum of the House of Representatives is a majority of those Members living and sworn into office, sworn and living, so that if, of the 435 Members of the House, if, for sake of argument, 400 were to be killed in a common disaster, and 5 survived because they were not present in the Chamber at the time of the disaster or for whatever reason, 3 Members of those remaining 5 would constitute a quorum. And you could say, well, then the Congress could continue to function with those 5 Members. The question that I would pose is would decisions made by three individuals be respected by the country at a time of crisis? We have to provide for continuity in our government, and for us to pretend that a terrible disaster like this could never happen, and we all hope that it never happens and trust that it never happens, but for us to pretend that it could not happen, and that if it did happen, oh, we would have a leisurely pace of months to replace Congress during that time does a disservice to our form of government and to the people that we represent. Now, there are disputes and concerns on the type of constitutional amendments, on how you provide for the prompt, orderly replacements of Members. People have different views on that. Some people feel that the Governor should be able to appoint their replacements just as the Governor can appoint a Senator. Others feel that the Members in advance should be able to put a list, put together a list and designate who their successor would be, or perhaps have a list and the Governor chooses from that list. There are a lot of provisions that could be considered. What we are saying is that this House now, not a couple of months from now or a couple of years from now, should face up to this hard decision, should consider a constitutional amendment on this issue, submit it to the people so that if, God forbid, there were a disaster in which all or substantially all the Members of the House were killed in a terrorist attack, that our government would go on. If we do not do this, then we will cede total power and authority to the executive branch, if there is an executive branch at the end of a common disaster, and presumably there would be in some form, and there would be no functioning legislative branch for a period of months. That is why many of us, and I will complete my statement, the other side has plenty of time to make their points, that is why many of us feel this legislation is inadequate and is a poorly thought out response to a situation that, while we hope never happens, could put this country and our form of government in serious jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, this is as serious a matter as we could have before the House. We run the risk of becoming a herd of ostriches in putting our heads in the sand. This is not the 18th century. This is not the 19th century. It is not even the 20th century anymore. It is the 21st century. No one in the 18th century or the 19th century could have contemplated the type of terrorist act that could potentially eliminate at one time all or virtually all the elected Members of this House. We hope that never occurs, but for us to ignore the possibility that it could occur in the 21st century does a great disservice to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson). (Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the matter we are about to consider today, how to keep the House of Representatives functioning in the event of catastrophe, is one of the most serious and important issues we will ever consider. When I cochaired the Continuity of Congress Working Group in 2002, Members from both parties took a nonpartisan approach to the issue and kept an open mind as to how we could achieve a solution. How times have changed. The open-minded, nonpartisan spirit we had when we began discussing this issue has completely disappeared. The restrictive rule that the Committee on Rules reported out last night has completely convinced me that this House is now putting partisanship ahead of its institutional duties. Mr. Speaker, a number of very intelligent people have devoted a lot of time and effort considering this question. I think it is a tragedy that their ideas will not be debated today. That is why I am urging a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes H.R. 2844, it will take up the bill of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), H.J. Res. 83, under a comprehensive and thorough debate process that this issue deserves. The Baird bill would amend the Constitution to provide for an emergency procedure to keep the House of Representatives working should a significant majority of this House be killed or incapacitated. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I would like to point out that in the Committee on Rules, and I understand Members want to revise and extend their remarks on the rule and submit all kinds of material, but I would point out when this rule was being considered by the committee, we asked for an additional hour of debate on the bill itself and we were denied that by a rollcall vote. That vote was Committee on Rules record vote No. 247, three ``yeses'' and six ``noes.'' I will not object to Members being able to revise and extend their remarks, but I wish we had provided for additional debate time on this very important piece of legislation. That was a reasonable proposal that was made in the Committee on Rules and was rejected by the other side. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, and pay my respects to the innocent people who died at the brutal hand of the Holocaust. An anniversary like this is often filled with mixed messages of hope and sorrow, pain and promise. While these words contradict each other on paper, they live together in our hearts and minds on a day like today. The emotions of sorrow and pain are easy to feel. By the time World War lI was finished, 6 million Jews died for no reason. Countless families had been torn apart, Europe was virtually demolished, and the horrors of the Nazi regime were scarred into the minds of the entire civilized world. Looking at this tragedy, it is easy to see only bad things. It is easy to view the worst in people. But, it was difficult, impossible in fact, to stop the world from denouncing these atrocities, and saying, ``Never Again.'' Human-kind had the hope and promise to try to make this world better--to try to make this world more understanding and open. The world has come a long way since the darkness of the 30's and 40's. In the almost 60 years since the Holocaust ended, we have become a more open and understanding society. But, our quest for a better world is constantly battling hate, discrimination and anti-Semitism. We all know the violence that is carried out by those who hate. But, I also know that if our ancestors could get through World War II and the Holocaust, we can survive our own battle against hate and terror, and make the world safer for our children. Mr. Speaker, Yom Hashoah serves as a memorial to those who both survived and lost their lives from the Holocaust. Let it also be a day to reaffirm our commitment to the values that won . . . love, honor and respect.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I attended the 10th Annual Awards Luncheon of the Senior Source, formerly known as Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas. At that event, the Senior Source presented its Spirit of Generations Award to Julie and Jim Turner, two highly respected citizens of Dallas. Jim Turner, an internationally recognized leader in the soft drink industry, is CEO/President of the Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Group in Dallas. Over the years, Jim Turner and his company have been good corporate citizens and have made many contributions to the betterment of Dallas. I would like to insert in the Record at this point the description of Julie and Jim Turner that appeared in the program marking the occasion of the presentation of the Generations Award. Julie and Jim Turner Julie and Jim Turner work tirelessly to improve the well being of the community in which they live and conduct business. Throughout their 35 years of marriage, they have given and received their energy from family, faith, and friends. And they have generously extended that strength to others. They have taken an active part in numerous nonprofit and corporate boards and are the force behind Dr Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Group's outstanding role as a corporate citizen. In recognition of Julie and Jim Turner's contributions to the greater Dallas community, The Senior Source is pleased to honor them with the 10th Annual Spirit of Generations Award. Jim Turner, an internationally recognized leader in the soft drink industry, is part owner and CEO/President of the Dr Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Group. He has been recognized with the two most coveted awards in the beverage industry: Man of the Year from Beverage Industry and Beverage World's Hall of Fame. He has also received the nationally prestigious Horatio Alger Award, as well as the Russell H. Perry Free Enterprise Award, the Baylor University Distinguished Alumni Award, and has been inducted into the Baylor Sports Hall of Fame. He serves on the board of Baylor Health Care System, Boy Scouts of America Circle Ten Council, and Alzheimer's Association, among other local and national organizations. Like her husband, Julie Turner is involved in the business affairs of the company and actively supports many local organizations. She serves on the boards of the Baylor Health Care System Foundation, Dallas Historical Society, is Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Dallas Baptist University, and is a member of the Crystal Charity Ball Committee. A former teacher, she has served as PTA President and was awarded Life-time Membership in the Texas PTA She is committed to a number of local causes including, among others, American Heart Association, Kidney Texas, Inc., AWARE, and Dallas Symphony Association. The Turners are members of Park Cities Baptist Church and enjoy family time with their daughters, Jenna and Amy, Amy's husband, Brent, and their new pride and joy, grandson Turner. With the Spirit of Generations Award, The Senior Source is honoring this extraordinary couple for their selfless work throughout the greater Dallas area.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, throughout my 25 years of service in this House, I have always worked hard to ensure a bright economic future and a good quality of life for the people I represent. That is why I have consistently made transportation priorities of North Texas my own priorities here in Congress. I have always supported the Federal highway and transit bills that have come before the House, because I knew they would directly benefit the people of my area. In 1998, for example, I voted in favor of TEA 21, the last transportation reauthorization bill passed by Congress. That bill widened a major thoroughfare in North Texas, Interstate 30, from six to eight and ten lanes, easing congestion in Dallas-Fort Worth and the surrounding areas. TEA 21 also included important funding to expand DART, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit System. As one of DART's original supporters, I knew that by reducing motor vehicle traffic on our already-overcrowded roads, the system would significantly reduce air pollution and ease the commute of thousands of Dallas residents. An important byproduct of both these projects were the many, many good jobs created for our community. So for me it has always been an easy decision to vote for the transportation bills in this House, and that is why today I am proud to rise in strong support of this year's transportation authorization bill, TEA LU. TEA LU will be one of the most important bills we pass in Congress this year, and the reason is simple: Transportation projects stimulate economic activity in our home communities. Quite simply, this bill is good for our Nation's economy. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration reports that for every $1 billion in Federal funds invested in highway infrastructure, it creates 47,500 new jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. So whenever Congress passes its transportation reauthorization bill, we do not simply reduce congestion and air pollution, we create jobs, good jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, and we create huge opportunities for our constituents by bringing the government, the private sector and the general public together to help grow the economy so that those good jobs stay here at home in our own communities. There is no doubt that for far too many Americans, the U.S. economy is in bad shape. Over 8 million people are currently unemployed, the average length of unemployment has risen to 20.3 weeks, the longest duration since 1984, and no new private sector jobs were created last month. So, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is especially critical that we pass the transportation bill today. The bill before us today continues to provide benefits for North Texas. It is my understanding that the bill contains $35 million in funding that I requested from the committee to replace Interstate 30 and Interstate 35 Trinity River bridges in Dallas and for the improvements to I-635 in Dallas. The bill also authorizes four new rail lines to expand DART in Dallas, including construction of a Northwest/ Southeast extension that will add 60,000 daily riders to the rail system. So, by passing TEA LU, we will not only be reducing air pollution and easing congestion throughout the metropolitan area, we will be creating new jobs and a brighter economic future for North Texas. Mr. Speaker, highway and transportation funding must never be subject to partisan politics. There is too much at stake for the American people, and there is too much at stake for the economy. I know that my colleagues all want the same thing for their constituents as I want for mine: clean air, better roads and good jobs. The bill before us today can set us on that path. I hope that today Members will set aside politics as usual and vote to pass TEA LU for the good of our communities and our entire Nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge a yea vote on the rule and on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the bill before us today will ease congestion, reduce pollution, and create good jobs across America. Most Members of this House, myself included, will vote to pass TEA LU. But I think we are missing out on a unique opportunity to further strengthen our economy. Last night the Committee on Rules and this morning considered the Davis-Menendez-Blumenauer-Baird amendment to strengthen investment in our Nation's highway and transit infrastructure by increasing funding in the bill to the Senate-passed level of $318 billion. However, in a move that denies the House the opportunity to fully debate the transportation needs of this country, as is usually the case when Democrats offer thoughtful alternatives in the Committee on Rules, the Republican majority defeated the amendment on a straight party-line vote. So today I hope to offer Members another chance to vote on this important proposal. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will give the House the opportunity to debate and vote on the Davis substitute. Mr. Speaker, although I hope to see more legislation to help the economy come before this House, the transportation bill before us today will be our best chance to spur job creation this year. And the Davis substitute will create nearly 1.8 million additional jobs over the bill we have on the floor today, with 120,000 new jobs in my home State of Texas alone, and create $235 billion worth of economic activity. Mr. Speaker, when you consider the 8.2 million people in this country that are currently unemployed, I do not see how you can vote against a measure that will create 1.8 million new jobs. So I urge my colleagues today to vote in favor of a job creation and economic development package by voting ``no'' on the previous question. We only reauthorize the transportation bill once every 6 years. Let us not squander this unique opportunity to create jobs and strengthen the economy by giving in to politics as usual. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that the quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.