‘One pistol clip can change the balance of power’: Congress is wholly unprepared for a mass casualty event
Leaders from both parties have disregarded calls for preparation.
TroibNews 
Over the past 15 years, members of Congress have faced two serious shootings, a train crash involving numerous legislators, and a Capitol riot that left many lawmakers fearing for their safety.
Despite these alarming events, Congress remains ill-equipped to manage a catastrophic incident that could result in the deaths or incapacitation of multiple members — a scenario that could drastically change which party holds the majority in either the House or Senate.
In response, some congressional members have suggested various solutions to mitigate the chaos a mass casualty could create. These suggestions include a constitutional amendment permitting members to designate successors and straightforward rule changes aimed at preventing violence from shifting party power. Yet, a PMG review indicates that neither Republican nor Democratic leadership, including chairs of essential committees, has made significant progress on any of these proposals since the 2017 mass shooting at a GOP baseball practice. This inaction stems largely from a reluctance to confront the issue and a general resistance to altering Congressional rules.
Many legislators find such inaction troubling.
“The number of rounds in one pistol clip can change the balance of power of the House or the Senate,” said former Rep. Brian Baird, who addressed this issue in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, particularly when a hijacked plane came alarmingly close to the Capitol.
Lawmakers and their staff confront real threats of political violence on a daily basis. The Capitol Police recorded 8,008 cases in 2023 to investigate threats against lawmakers, representing a 100 percent increase since 2017. The assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump serve as stark reminders of the continual dangers facing public officials.
The lack of a strategy to cope with a mass casualty situation is particularly pronounced in the House. It does not have a process for swiftly filling unexpected vacancies, even temporarily. Instead, a special election is needed, which can take several months.
During this period, the House would have to function with significantly reduced representation, potentially leaving vast regions of the country without adequate representation. This situation could render any congressional actions liable to legal challenges.
This raises further concerns: What if the current slim margins in Congress incentivize a politically motivated act of violence aimed at shifting control from one party to another?
“Part of the problem right now is someone with bad intentions could flip a majority for four months. And that's horrifying,” remarked Rep. Derek Kilmer, referring to the time it would take to fill vacancies through special elections instead of immediate appointments. “And our reaction can't be, ‘Well, that'll never happen.’ Or, ‘Well, we'll deal with that when the time comes.’ Because once the time comes, it’s too late.”
After multiple potentially lethal situations, leadership from both parties in the House has largely deprioritized or ignored this issue. No Speaker since 9/11 — including Mike Johnson and his predecessors, Kevin McCarthy and Nancy Pelosi — has leveraged their political influence to advance proposals aimed at preparing the legislature for such emergencies.
The lack of high-level backing has caused plans to improve the legislature’s preparedness for mass casualty events to fall victim to jurisdictional disputes and legislative bickering.
Currently, the predominant proposal involves a constitutional amendment requiring House members to submit a list of at least five potential successors to be appointed in the event of a member's death. In such a case, the state’s governor would select someone from this list to temporarily serve until a special election is held for a permanent replacement.
Kilmer and Rep. Brad Wenstrup are advocating for this proposal, asserting that it would reduce the incentive for political violence and help maintain Congress’s legitimacy during a crisis. Wenstrup, who was present on the baseball field in Virginia during the 2017 attack, used his military and medical training to assist then-GOP Whip Steve Scalise until emergency services arrived.
“There were 136 rounds fired that morning, and he had names of Republicans and descriptions in his pocket,” Wenstrup said. “The idea is for us to have a situation in place where no one can get away with doing that as far as changing the balance of power.”
“I worry that my friends in the Democratic caucus think I'm the angel of death,” Kilmer admitted. “Because we'd be on a bus to a retreat, and I'd say, ‘Does anyone know what happens if we die? Or if something happens to the bus?’ And they’re like ‘Kilmer? Enough already.’”
Although passing a constitutional amendment is notably challenging, requiring two-thirds support in each congressional chamber and ratification from three-fourths of state legislatures, there is a historical example: the 17th Amendment, enacted over a century ago, established a succession plan for Senate vacancies and empowered 45 states to allow governors to appoint temporary replacements until an election occurs. Five states still mandate special elections without appointment options.
If a constitutional amendment proves unattainable, the House could explore alternative solutions. Some members have considered rule changes to prevent a mass casualty from transferring control of the chamber to the opposing party mid-session. Another proposal would enforce quick special elections through strict mandates upon the occurrence of mass vacancies.
However, advocates caution against a fragmented approach. Some in Congress view post-9/11 reforms as merely superficial fixes to a larger issue.
Presently, the House can only fill vacancies through special elections, which take an average of 136 days to conduct. In the event of a crisis, this could severely hinder Congress's role as a check on the executive branch at a moment when the federal government may be most in need of decisive action.
Opportunities to tackle the issue — referred to in congressional terms as “continuity of government” — have come and gone over the past 25 years. Crises such as the 2001 terrorist attacks and the baseball practice shooting, in which six individuals were wounded, highlighted the need. In 2018, a train carrying Republican lawmakers to a retreat crashed into a truck, resulting in fatalities.
Yet, after each event, urgency subsided. The most extensive investigation occurred post-9/11, though proposals for succession faced stiff opposition from Republican Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner and David Dreier, who led the Judiciary and Rules committees, respectively. The aftermath of the terrorist attacks, from the Patriot Act to military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, drew focus away from succession planning.
In light of more recent threats, the House has increased funding for Capitol Police and augmented their authority to enhance individual members’ security, but parallel efforts to protect the House’s functionality remain absent.
Federal law mandates that special elections be conducted within seven weeks of a mass vacancy defined as creating 100 vacancies. However, adhering to this timeline in the wake of a crisis may prove impossible.
Forty-one states lack adequate laws to comply with this federal requirement for timely special elections. Additionally, 15 of 27 state election officials surveyed in a 2024 Government Accountability Office study reported they were unaware of the federal law governing expedited elections following mass casualty events.
Doug Lewis, a certified election registration administrator and former executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors, informed lawmakers at a public hearing in 2022 that fulfilling this timeline could extend at least to 60 days, possibly longer.
Since 2020, Kilmer, who chaired the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, has been evaluating how Congress might function in the event of a deadly crisis. His endeavors included closed-door meetings and listening sessions with experts, culminating in a public hearing in 2022.
In December 2022, the panel recommended creating a joint House-Senate committee tasked with examining methods to ensure “continuing representation and congressional operations” during a catastrophe. This suggestion, however, has seemingly been overlooked, as no such committee has been established.
Instead, the matter currently lies under the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee, known for its intense partisan infighting.
In May 2023, Kilmer sought bipartisan support for the issue and met with Johnson, then chair of the Judiciary Committee’s Constitution Subcommittee.
“He basically said that this seems like a legitimate problem and asked me to keep him abreast as I continued the effort,” Kilmer noted.
However, Kilmer has not approached Johnson since he ascended to the speakership, feeling that Johnson has “99 problems” and that he doesn’t want to add to them.
Johnson’s office did not respond to inquiries regarding his support for the constitutional amendment proposal.
Rep. Bob Latta, who served on the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, contends that filling mass vacancies with temporary appointments contradicts the founding vision for the House.
“You want to make sure you have a body that's always elected directly by the people,” Latta stated. “That's what they call it ‘The People's House.’ It's the closest to the people.”
Having first been elected through a special election three months and six days after his predecessor's death, Latta argued that each state’s electoral system should expedite special elections if necessary.
His stance mirrors previous opponents of an appointment-based system, including former Rep. Sensenbrenner, whose leadership roles during the post-9/11 period provided him with an influential platform to reject succession proposals.
Despite a lack of significant advancements over the years, there is some indication of progress. The House Administration Committee’s subpanel on modernization held a hearing on continuity in mid-September.
This open forum is precisely what Kilmer has advocated, even if it leads to changes in the appointment approach he and Wenstrup have proposed.
“I haven't heard a good argument for not doing this. And I haven't heard a better proposal to solve these problems,” Kilmer remarked. “I'm not sure I love this solution, but I can't come up with a better one.”
Members of Congress have been hesitant to entertain this kind of planning not only because of the concern regarding party control but also due to a reluctance to confront their own mortality. The idea of losing their power or their life is daunting.
“It's hard work to contemplate your own death,” commented Baird, who is also a clinical psychologist.
One notable rule change implemented after the 9/11 attacks was the establishment of a “catastrophic quorum.” Under this rule, if a significant number of House members are absent, incapacitated, or unable to attend proceedings, the remaining members would constitute the House.
Over the last two decades, the House has adopted this rule at the start of every Congress. Attempts to contest it, based on the argument that it would deprive a significant portion of the nation of representation, have been largely unsuccessful. Key staffers for House leadership, as well as members of the GOP-led House Rules Committee, viewed the quorum rules as sufficient protections, according to multiple aides and lawmakers from both parties.
However, many legislators who advocate for reform express concern that the quorum rules merely serve as a superficial remedy, providing a false sense of security and potentially being unconstitutional. A national crisis resulting in a significantly diminished House population would immediately undermine the legitimacy of decisions made within the chamber.
Rep. William Timmons of South Carolina, who co-chaired the modernization panel alongside Kilmer, cautioned that the emergency quorum rule might “potentially create additional legal challenges” and call into question the legitimacy of all House actions taken during such a scenario.
“I think there is sometimes a tendency for people to not want to reflect. … It's like, well, it wasn’t me, right?” Wenstrup added. “But now with this, we've seen pretty clearly: It really can be me. This isn't a one-off.”
Lucas Dupont for TROIB News
Despite these alarming events, Congress remains ill-equipped to manage a catastrophic incident that could result in the deaths or incapacitation of multiple members — a scenario that could drastically change which party holds the majority in either the House or Senate.
In response, some congressional members have suggested various solutions to mitigate the chaos a mass casualty could create. These suggestions include a constitutional amendment permitting members to designate successors and straightforward rule changes aimed at preventing violence from shifting party power. Yet, a PMG review indicates that neither Republican nor Democratic leadership, including chairs of essential committees, has made significant progress on any of these proposals since the 2017 mass shooting at a GOP baseball practice. This inaction stems largely from a reluctance to confront the issue and a general resistance to altering Congressional rules.
Many legislators find such inaction troubling.
“The number of rounds in one pistol clip can change the balance of power of the House or the Senate,” said former Rep. Brian Baird, who addressed this issue in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, particularly when a hijacked plane came alarmingly close to the Capitol.
Lawmakers and their staff confront real threats of political violence on a daily basis. The Capitol Police recorded 8,008 cases in 2023 to investigate threats against lawmakers, representing a 100 percent increase since 2017. The assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump serve as stark reminders of the continual dangers facing public officials.
The lack of a strategy to cope with a mass casualty situation is particularly pronounced in the House. It does not have a process for swiftly filling unexpected vacancies, even temporarily. Instead, a special election is needed, which can take several months.
During this period, the House would have to function with significantly reduced representation, potentially leaving vast regions of the country without adequate representation. This situation could render any congressional actions liable to legal challenges.
This raises further concerns: What if the current slim margins in Congress incentivize a politically motivated act of violence aimed at shifting control from one party to another?
“Part of the problem right now is someone with bad intentions could flip a majority for four months. And that's horrifying,” remarked Rep. Derek Kilmer, referring to the time it would take to fill vacancies through special elections instead of immediate appointments. “And our reaction can't be, ‘Well, that'll never happen.’ Or, ‘Well, we'll deal with that when the time comes.’ Because once the time comes, it’s too late.”
After multiple potentially lethal situations, leadership from both parties in the House has largely deprioritized or ignored this issue. No Speaker since 9/11 — including Mike Johnson and his predecessors, Kevin McCarthy and Nancy Pelosi — has leveraged their political influence to advance proposals aimed at preparing the legislature for such emergencies.
The lack of high-level backing has caused plans to improve the legislature’s preparedness for mass casualty events to fall victim to jurisdictional disputes and legislative bickering.
Currently, the predominant proposal involves a constitutional amendment requiring House members to submit a list of at least five potential successors to be appointed in the event of a member's death. In such a case, the state’s governor would select someone from this list to temporarily serve until a special election is held for a permanent replacement.
Kilmer and Rep. Brad Wenstrup are advocating for this proposal, asserting that it would reduce the incentive for political violence and help maintain Congress’s legitimacy during a crisis. Wenstrup, who was present on the baseball field in Virginia during the 2017 attack, used his military and medical training to assist then-GOP Whip Steve Scalise until emergency services arrived.
“There were 136 rounds fired that morning, and he had names of Republicans and descriptions in his pocket,” Wenstrup said. “The idea is for us to have a situation in place where no one can get away with doing that as far as changing the balance of power.”
“I worry that my friends in the Democratic caucus think I'm the angel of death,” Kilmer admitted. “Because we'd be on a bus to a retreat, and I'd say, ‘Does anyone know what happens if we die? Or if something happens to the bus?’ And they’re like ‘Kilmer? Enough already.’”
Although passing a constitutional amendment is notably challenging, requiring two-thirds support in each congressional chamber and ratification from three-fourths of state legislatures, there is a historical example: the 17th Amendment, enacted over a century ago, established a succession plan for Senate vacancies and empowered 45 states to allow governors to appoint temporary replacements until an election occurs. Five states still mandate special elections without appointment options.
If a constitutional amendment proves unattainable, the House could explore alternative solutions. Some members have considered rule changes to prevent a mass casualty from transferring control of the chamber to the opposing party mid-session. Another proposal would enforce quick special elections through strict mandates upon the occurrence of mass vacancies.
However, advocates caution against a fragmented approach. Some in Congress view post-9/11 reforms as merely superficial fixes to a larger issue.
Presently, the House can only fill vacancies through special elections, which take an average of 136 days to conduct. In the event of a crisis, this could severely hinder Congress's role as a check on the executive branch at a moment when the federal government may be most in need of decisive action.
Opportunities to tackle the issue — referred to in congressional terms as “continuity of government” — have come and gone over the past 25 years. Crises such as the 2001 terrorist attacks and the baseball practice shooting, in which six individuals were wounded, highlighted the need. In 2018, a train carrying Republican lawmakers to a retreat crashed into a truck, resulting in fatalities.
Yet, after each event, urgency subsided. The most extensive investigation occurred post-9/11, though proposals for succession faced stiff opposition from Republican Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner and David Dreier, who led the Judiciary and Rules committees, respectively. The aftermath of the terrorist attacks, from the Patriot Act to military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, drew focus away from succession planning.
In light of more recent threats, the House has increased funding for Capitol Police and augmented their authority to enhance individual members’ security, but parallel efforts to protect the House’s functionality remain absent.
Federal law mandates that special elections be conducted within seven weeks of a mass vacancy defined as creating 100 vacancies. However, adhering to this timeline in the wake of a crisis may prove impossible.
Forty-one states lack adequate laws to comply with this federal requirement for timely special elections. Additionally, 15 of 27 state election officials surveyed in a 2024 Government Accountability Office study reported they were unaware of the federal law governing expedited elections following mass casualty events.
Doug Lewis, a certified election registration administrator and former executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors, informed lawmakers at a public hearing in 2022 that fulfilling this timeline could extend at least to 60 days, possibly longer.
Since 2020, Kilmer, who chaired the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, has been evaluating how Congress might function in the event of a deadly crisis. His endeavors included closed-door meetings and listening sessions with experts, culminating in a public hearing in 2022.
In December 2022, the panel recommended creating a joint House-Senate committee tasked with examining methods to ensure “continuing representation and congressional operations” during a catastrophe. This suggestion, however, has seemingly been overlooked, as no such committee has been established.
Instead, the matter currently lies under the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee, known for its intense partisan infighting.
In May 2023, Kilmer sought bipartisan support for the issue and met with Johnson, then chair of the Judiciary Committee’s Constitution Subcommittee.
“He basically said that this seems like a legitimate problem and asked me to keep him abreast as I continued the effort,” Kilmer noted.
However, Kilmer has not approached Johnson since he ascended to the speakership, feeling that Johnson has “99 problems” and that he doesn’t want to add to them.
Johnson’s office did not respond to inquiries regarding his support for the constitutional amendment proposal.
Rep. Bob Latta, who served on the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, contends that filling mass vacancies with temporary appointments contradicts the founding vision for the House.
“You want to make sure you have a body that's always elected directly by the people,” Latta stated. “That's what they call it ‘The People's House.’ It's the closest to the people.”
Having first been elected through a special election three months and six days after his predecessor's death, Latta argued that each state’s electoral system should expedite special elections if necessary.
His stance mirrors previous opponents of an appointment-based system, including former Rep. Sensenbrenner, whose leadership roles during the post-9/11 period provided him with an influential platform to reject succession proposals.
Despite a lack of significant advancements over the years, there is some indication of progress. The House Administration Committee’s subpanel on modernization held a hearing on continuity in mid-September.
This open forum is precisely what Kilmer has advocated, even if it leads to changes in the appointment approach he and Wenstrup have proposed.
“I haven't heard a good argument for not doing this. And I haven't heard a better proposal to solve these problems,” Kilmer remarked. “I'm not sure I love this solution, but I can't come up with a better one.”
Members of Congress have been hesitant to entertain this kind of planning not only because of the concern regarding party control but also due to a reluctance to confront their own mortality. The idea of losing their power or their life is daunting.
“It's hard work to contemplate your own death,” commented Baird, who is also a clinical psychologist.
One notable rule change implemented after the 9/11 attacks was the establishment of a “catastrophic quorum.” Under this rule, if a significant number of House members are absent, incapacitated, or unable to attend proceedings, the remaining members would constitute the House.
Over the last two decades, the House has adopted this rule at the start of every Congress. Attempts to contest it, based on the argument that it would deprive a significant portion of the nation of representation, have been largely unsuccessful. Key staffers for House leadership, as well as members of the GOP-led House Rules Committee, viewed the quorum rules as sufficient protections, according to multiple aides and lawmakers from both parties.
However, many legislators who advocate for reform express concern that the quorum rules merely serve as a superficial remedy, providing a false sense of security and potentially being unconstitutional. A national crisis resulting in a significantly diminished House population would immediately undermine the legitimacy of decisions made within the chamber.
Rep. William Timmons of South Carolina, who co-chaired the modernization panel alongside Kilmer, cautioned that the emergency quorum rule might “potentially create additional legal challenges” and call into question the legitimacy of all House actions taken during such a scenario.
“I think there is sometimes a tendency for people to not want to reflect. … It's like, well, it wasn’t me, right?” Wenstrup added. “But now with this, we've seen pretty clearly: It really can be me. This isn't a one-off.”
Lucas Dupont for TROIB News
