|
Chairwoman Bice's full opening statement as prepared for delivery:
Today’s hearing is about an incredibly important issue that most of us have avoided talking about.
And there are good reasons for that. None of us want to think about disasters or catastrophic attacks, much less imagine ourselves as targets.
Anyone who has written a will knows that planning for a future that does not include you is a very tough exercise.
When it comes to Congress, we tend to take comfort in the fact that the institution has survived for over 200 years despite a Civil War, two devastating pandemics, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and countless other threats. It’s easy to assume that if Congress has lasted this long, chances are it will continue to endure.
But as Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to examine and discuss these issues to make sure that we are not leaving things to chance.
Last Wednesday was the 23rd anniversary of 9/11, and today we’ll take a look at the steps Congress took following the 9/11 attacks.
Back then, Congress faced the extremely difficult task of addressing the question of continuity right on the heels of an unforeseen and devastating attack. The solutions they landed on were a thoughtful, good-faith effort to thread a very complicated political and procedural needle.
As we all know, the threat environment has changed significantly since 9/11 and the margins between parties have become increasingly narrow. These and other factors suggest a need to discuss and better understand the actions Congress took after 9/11 to ensure they adequately protect Congress today.
Ranking Member Kilmer has spent a lot of time studying this issue and knows it better than most. I want to thank him for the work he’s done to raise awareness and to encourage the Subcommittee to hold this hearing.
I think it’s safe to say that most Members care deeply about this issue and that we’d all benefit from reexamining what’s changed since 9/11 and thinking through how to address any vulnerabilities that may remain.
And so I view this hearing as an opportunity to learn.
There are different approaches to addressing the challenge of continuity, a constitutional amendment being one.
But as we all know, passing an amendment is a heavy lift that can take years and sometime decades.
According to CRS, 40 constitutional amendments on the subject of continuity have been introduced since 1945 and none have passed. This track record in part explains why Congress landed where it did after 9/11 – given the very real challenges of passing an amendment, they opted to find another path forward.
This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t consider an amendment, but I think it makes sense to also consider what we can do in the near-term to help safeguard continuity.
I’m looking forward to learning more about some of those options today.
The bottom line is that everyone’s tolerance for risk is different and that’s a big factor in whether and how we plan for the unthinkable.
But when it comes to planning for the unthinkable where Congress is concerned, we should be guided by our obligation to act in the best interest of the American people.
In other words, our focus should be on Congress, not on ourselves as Members of Congress. Our role in this exercise is to ensure that the institution is capable of carrying out its constitutional obligations, no matter the circumstances.
This is particularly important because Congress was created to speak for the American people. Article I of the Constitution establishes that the legislative branch is first among co-equal branches for this very reason.
If disaster strikes and Congress is unprepared, we should expect that the executive branch will step in to fill the void.
This would leave our constituents without a direct voice in government in a time of crisis. While that’s not a scenario any of us want to imagine, it’s one that deserves our thoughtful consideration, and I hope this hearing serves that purpose.
###
|
|
