[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 53 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2301-H2332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                CONTINUITY IN REPRESENTATION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 602 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2844) to require States to hold special 
     elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives 
     not later than 21 days after the vacancy is announced by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives in extraordinary 
     circumstances, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 
     3(c)(4) of rule XIII are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed 60 minutes, with 40 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to 
     that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only 
     in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 602 is a 
structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2844, the 
Continuity in Representation Act of 2004. The rule provides 60 minutes 
of general debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
Administration and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII requiring the 
inclusion of general performance goals and objectives in a committee 
report.
  The unanimous consent request just agreed to provides that the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment which shall be considered as 
read.
  The original text for purpose of the amendment will not include the 
text of part A of the Committee on Rules report. The unanimous consent 
agreement also makes in order the bipartisan amendment of the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), 
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in lieu of the 
Skeleton-Maloney amendment printed in part B of the Committee on Rules 
report.
  The rule provides that the amendments made in order shall be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the whole House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments 
printed in the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, made clear 
that, as much as we might wish otherwise, at some point in the future 
it may be necessary to replace a large number of Members of this body 
killed in some type of a terrorist attack.
  As my colleagues know, the Constitution has always required that the 
vacancies in the House, no matter how many or what their cause, be 
filled only by popular election of the people. The timing of such 
special elections is set on a state-by-state basis. Some States require 
that congressional vacancies be filled relatively quickly

[[Page H2302]]

while others it takes quite a few months before a special election is 
held.
  Such disparities are little cause for concern when vacancies are few 
and far between, as has thankfully been the case throughout the long 
history of this body. In those cases, only the citizens of a district 
temporarily left without representation are adversely affected until 
that vacancy is filled.
  However, Mr. Speaker, we face a grim new reality today. The reality 
is that so many vacancies might suddenly occur in the House that our 
ability to function and to be confident that the decisions made in this 
Chamber reflect the broad desires of the American people, as expressed 
by their ballots, could be severely impaired.
  That harsh new reality must be faced squarely. This, after all, is a 
national government and we are the Nation's legislature exercising 
national responsibilities. We must be able to act in the best interest 
of the Nation, and never more so than following a major catastrophe. No 
longer, Mr. Speaker, do we have the luxury of leaving it to the 50 
States to decide when it would be possible to fully reconstitute the 
people's House in the wake of a deadly tragedy.
  My colleagues will recall that after the attacks of September 11 the 
House passed H. Res. 559 expressing the sense of the House that each 
State should examine its existing statutes, practices, and procedures 
governing special elections so that in the event of catastrophic 
vacancies in the House, those vacancies might be filled in a timely 
fashion. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, only one State, the State of 
California, has responded to that request and changed its election laws 
to provide for expedited special elections in the wake of a 
catastrophe.
  I should note also, Mr. Speaker, that the impetus for that resolution 
was in part work done by a bipartisan task force chaired by the House 
Republican Policy Committee chairman, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox), and my colleague across the aisle, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost), who then served as the chairman of the Democratic Policy 
Committee. The Cox-Frost task force met regularly during the 107th 
Congress to consider a wide range of issues following under the 
umbrella of the ``continuity of Congress.'' Since then I am pleased 
that a number of Members on both sides of the aisle have continued this 
important dialogue, seeking neither personal gain nor partisan 
advantage. After all, surely no Member's election will be won or lost 
over this issue, nor should it.
  The bill we will consider today represents but one part of a 
comprehensive strategy for preparing for the unthinkable. For that is 
what we are doing, preparing for the unthinkable. And prepare we must. 
H.R. 2844 is a key element of that strategy. We simply must make it 
possible for the people to reconstitute the people's House as quickly 
as possible if a large portion of this body is suddenly deceased.
  To be sure, there are other equally important continuity issues still 
to be addressed. We must, for example, consider appropriate responses 
in the event that a large number of Members are incapacitated rather 
than killed. Certainly in a time of chemical, biological, and 
radiological weapons, that is a potential scenario that cannot be 
ignored.
  In order to act, the Constitution requires the House to achieve a 
quorum of Members, a quorum of a majority of all Members living and 
sworn. When a Member dies or resigns, the Speaker under the rules 
adjusts the quorum. However, the Framers never contemplated and made no 
provision for the need to adjust the required quorum when a large 
number of Members are still living but unable to carry out, temporarily 
or otherwise, the duties of the office. Simply put, under current law, 
if more than half the House were to become incapacitated, yet not 
deceased, the House would be unable to act at a time when the need to 
do so could hardly be greater.

  Therefore, I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to advise my colleagues that 
this complex issue of incapacitation will be the subject of a hearing 
to be held next week by the House Committee on Rules under the 
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), whose personal 
involvement and leadership on these issues, frankly, has gone largely 
unreported, but has contributed immeasurably to this important 
continuity in Congress effort.
  Indeed, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee 
on the Judiciary chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), are the principal authors of the bill which will 
shortly be before us, the Continuity Representation Act of 2004.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2844, which was reported favorably by both the 
Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary, 
provides for the expedited special election of new members to fill 
seats left vacant due to extraordinary circumstances. Such 
circumstances would be deemed to exist when the Speaker announces that 
vacancies in the House exceed 100 Members, in other words, more than 
100 Members of this body have been killed. When such extraordinary 
circumstances occur, a special election must be held within 45 days 
unless a regularly scheduled election is to occur within 75 days.
  The bill provides political parties with a 10-day window in which to 
nominate candidates and sets forth judicial review procedures for 
announcements by the Speaker regarding those vacancies.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 2844 would have 
no significant impact on the Federal budget. Although the bill does 
contain an unfunded mandate, this mandate does not exceed the threshold 
amount established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me acknowledge that there are some 
Members in this Chamber who believe that we should amend the 
Constitution to permit the immediate appointment of replacements in the 
event that a tragedy as I described should occur. That is not my 
position, Mr. Speaker, for I share the framers' love for their ideal of 
a House of Representatives of the people, for the people, and elected 
by the people.
  But I do sincerely believe that our colleagues who support the 
constitutional amendment deserve an opportunity for consideration of 
the merits of that approach. Many Members will be pleased to learn that 
we have been assured that such an opportunity will take place in the 
very near future.
  At the same time, I think equally important would be to provide 
supporters of expedited special elections an opportunity to consider 
their legislation. Those who disagree should bear in mind that enacting 
this bill that we are going to take up today will do little or nothing 
to affect the odds of a constitutional amendment of continuity being 
adopted and eventually ratified.
  And, for at least several years, neither approach precludes the 
other. Because let us be completely honest about this: even if 
successful, under the best circumstances, it takes several years to 
amend the Constitution. So in the meantime does it not make sense to do 
the work that we can within our existing constitutional framework to 
prepare for the worst?
  Mr. Speaker, that is the question that can only be answered by the 
entire House. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the rule for 
the consideration of H.R. 2844 so that the important debate may begin.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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, it has been over 2\1/2\ years since 
terrorists commandeered four airplanes and killed 3,000 people in New 
York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. The events of September 11, 2001, 
made it abundantly clear that the United States is not immune from 
attack. But I am deeply concerned that for most Members of the House 
that day did not make a deep enough impression about what might happen 
if this institution or its Members were successfully targeted by 
terrorists or other enemies of our democracy. United Flight 93 was 
headed here. Had it not been for the brave souls on that plane who 
fought the terrorists who took over their flight, this very building 
could have been destroyed. Had Flight 93 not been taken down in the 
field in Pennsylvania, a

[[Page H2303]]

large number of Members might have been killed.
  On September 11, 2001, we did not have a procedure in place to 
reconstitute this body. And on April 22, 2004, we still lack such a 
plan. I am sad to say, Mr. Speaker, that the bill before us today does 
not give us a viable plan. And the manner in which this bill is being 
brought to the floor does a disservice to the very serious issue of 
continuity of government.
  The very fact that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has 
chosen to push this remedy to the exclusion of any other idea shows 
that the leadership of this House has chosen to make this a partisan 
issue. And the stability of our government and its institutions should 
not now, or ever, become a partisan issue.
  In the spring of 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and I 
co-chaired a bipartisan working group that sought to examine the issues 
in play. No Member in the history of this body has ever taken the oath 
of office without first having been elected by the people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I wanted to 
clarify one point that my friend was making.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
will have time. I need to finish my statement, but then I will be glad 
to yield.

                              {time}  1130

  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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me clarify again the statement that I 
made when this question came forward.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is here on the floor, 
and, as you know, in the past couple of weeks he and I have been 
discussing and I have shared those conversations, and the chairman has 
indicated his willingness to at the next markup the Committee on the 
Judiciary holds, they will mark up the constitutional amendments that 
you all put forward.
  And I think it is also very important for us to note that we have 
been seeking, having worked with the task force that the gentleman and 
my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), shared to work 
in a bipartisan way on this, and I know from having had discussions 
with friends on the gentleman's side of the aisle that there is, in 
fact, bipartisan support for the effort that we are proceeding with 
here. And that is one of reasons that as we look at the structure of 
this rule, we did make in order amendments offered by Democrats.
  I see my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), here 
who has a thoughtful one. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird) has been working on this issue as well. I will say to my 
friends, bipartisanship is something that we have been seeking on this, 
and I hope at the end of the day we will be able to find that.
  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

[[Page H2304]]

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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, a gentleman who has 
worked extremely hard on this continuity issue.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
I appreciate his very, very thoughtful opening statement.
  I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary with whom I have been privileged to work with on this; the 
whip; I mentioned my friends, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and 
my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) who in the last 
Congress chaired a task force on this. I know the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) 
are very thoughtful Members who have spent a great deal of time 
contemplating this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, September 11 of 2001, as we all know, was a devastating 
day for our Nation. It really launched the global war on terrorism. It 
changed all of our lives. And many of us had not pondered the thought 
of this Capitol being under attack. I was, in fact, the last person to 
leave this building on September 11 of 2001, and I did so when one of 
the guards said that there was a plane they had lost contact with, and 
it was headed right towards this building, and it ended up being the 
plane that was very courageously taken down by those passengers into 
the ground in Pennsylvania.
  Since that time, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been done focusing on 
this issue of what would happen if we were to see a tremendous loss of 
life of Members of the House of Representatives.
  We know that almost immediately the Speaker of the House took some 
steps. He established the ability to adjourn to an alternative place 
and to declare an emergency recess, the ability to effect a joint 
leadership recall from a period of adjournment through designees, and 
requires the Speaker to submit to the Clerk a list of designees to act 
in the case of a vacancy in the office of the Speaker.
  These are actions that the Speaker has taken codifying a number of 
important things, including the quorum provision, which does allow us 
to continue our work.
  As I listen to the remarks by my friend from Dallas (Mr. Frost), the 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, I do think it is 
important to note that we do have a bicameral Legislature, and the 
United States House of Representatives does not operate unilaterally. 
So there would, even if we went through a period of time, and I would 
say it would not be months. Our legislation that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I have calls for special elections to 
be held within 45 days following that disaster.
  Let me say that the legislation that we do have addresses a number of 
very important issues, but I want to get to this issue of service here, 
representation, and what our framers went through on this question.
  When I was an undergraduate, I had a professor, with whom I spoke 
last night, who pounded the Federalist Papers into me. It was after 
that great Constitutional Convention, and I remember when we marked the 
bicentennial of the Connecticut Compromise, and the House of 
Representatives convened in Philadelphia on July 16 of 1987 to mark 
that. It was the Connecticut Compromise that established this bicameral 
Legislature, which is a very, very important thing for us to note.
  And what I did last night is I went through and I started rereading 
the Federalist, and I went to some of the items that were mentioned, 
Federalists 52 through 57, where James Madison talked at length about 
this institution. And some of the things that I believe are important 
for us to note on this as we look at the work of James Madison is that 
he talked about as he was justifying the Constitution this importance 
of the institution being elected, and a couple of items that he raised.
  He said in Federalist number 53, ``Where elections end tyranny 
begins.''
  As my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), pointed 
out, it was very clear that this House is the only Federal office where 
no one has ever served without having first been elected. And they 
talked about the fact that this is the body of the people. The other 
body is the body of the States. Madison in Federalist 52 wrote, ``It is 
essential to liberty that the government in general should have a 
common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that 
the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate 
dependence on and an intimate sympathy with the people. Frequent 
elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence 
and sympathy can be effectually secured.''
  He went on in Federalist 57 to write, ``Who are to be the electors of 
the Federal representatives? Not the rich more than the poor, not the 
learned more than the ignorant, not the haughty airs of distinguished 
names more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. 
The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United 
States.''
  And Madison rejected the idea that appointment of Members is 
acceptable to the American public. He said, ``The right of suffrage is 
certainly one of the fundamental articles of democratic government and 
ought not be regulated by the Legislature. A gradual abridgement of 
this right has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built on 
the ruin of popular reforms.''
  I think it is very important for us to understand that there have 
been times in our Nation's history where we have faced even greater 
difficulty than we do today, and that was the Civil War. If we think 
back to the time of the Civil War, this Capital was surrounded by 
troops who were threatening our very being. And yet President Abraham 
Lincoln proceeded with elections, understanding how critically 
important that is for our Republic's survival.

                              {time}  1145

  That is why when we look at some of these options, the stand-in 
provision, whereby Members of the House would actually select their 
successors if they were to lose their life, we ask about the challenges 
that would be before us. Will stand-ins be responsible for passing 
laws, declaring war, or suspending habeas corpus or perhaps both? Will 
stand-ins be running for office in special elections? Would those 
follow soon after their appointments? What incentive does someone who 
has gotten into this House by appointment have to, in fact, be 
responsible to the people? Is it possible that we could, through 
intrigue or cabal, see some make an attempt to prevent the prospect of 
elections in the future?
  I just believe that when we take this very, very unique institution, 
the people's House, where no one has served without having been elected 
and move in that direction away from elections, we threaten the very 
basis on which this institution is founded. So that is why, as we look 
at this tough challenge, this legislation is the most responsible way 
to deal with it.
  If we look at the loss of more than 100 Members, the idea of having 
the States hold special elections in that 45-day period is something 
that is doable. My State of California went through last year an 
unprecedented time. We had the recall of a Governor; and with the 
election that took place, it was 55 days after we saw certification, 
and it was not a single congressional district where 644,000 people 
reside and there are two to three candidates. We had 125 candidates on 
the ballot, and we have a State of 35 million people; and I am happy to 
say that that election came

[[Page H2305]]

off without a hitch. Many people had predicted doom and the fact that 
it could not work; and that is why I believe that for us to deal with 
this situation, if we do see tremendous loss of Members of Congress, 
this country will have suffered greatly.
  I am convinced as we look at the struggles taking place in Iraq today 
that the building of a democratic institution is something that is very 
important; and I am convinced, too, that following a tragedy, after 
people are feeding their families and getting a roof over their head, 
choosing their leader is a very important key to success and proceeding 
and survival; and that is why I believe that this legislation would, in 
fact, provide us an opportunity to do that.
  We are going to have a great chance for rigorous debate today, and I 
will say that it is because I believe that Members of the minority who 
are proponents of the amendment to the Constitution, that I did get in 
contact with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and asked 
him to do this, and he agreed very readily to at his next markup, as I 
just said, report out the constitutional amendment.
  While I am not in a position to guarantee, I would say to my friend 
from Dallas, to say exactly when this would be scheduled, we are trying 
to have a full debate on the constitutional amendment on the floor, but 
as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) said in his opening 
remarks, it seems to me to be very important for us to use the 
structure that exists for us today, and that is, the legislative 
structure, to deal with this.
  This legislation may not be the panacea, but I think that it is so 
important to realize again, Madison said, ``When elections end, tyranny 
begins,'' we should do everything we possibly can to make sure that we 
keep the very precious election process.
  I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has time, but 
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's reference to 
Madison. I have spent a fair bit of time studying Mr. Madison as well.
  My question would be, where in the Federalist Papers or in the entire 
body of information from the Constitutional Convention do we see 
provisions for how this body should deal with the complete elimination 
of its Members or for how the executive branch should function in the 
absence of a constitutional quorum within the Congress?
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, what I would say is that the 
Civil War was a time when this Republic faced its greatest threat, 
greater than the threat that we face today, and the answer that was 
provided at that point by President Lincoln was to proceed with 
elections, and so, of course, there was tremendous uncertainty at the 
founding. We saw all kinds of challenges, but Madison continued to go 
back time and time again.
  He argued at first for annual elections and then they ended up with 
this issue of biennial elections, and so we have had the Speaker 
establish this quorum requirement.
  My friend says it is true that it is possible that very few Members 
could be serving here in the House; but within 45 days, those special 
elections would be held under the structure that we have, and there 
would be a chance for us to deal with those issues.
  I would say that I somewhat rhetorically ask what issues would we be 
dealing with here in the House of Representatives? Health care? a tax 
issue? No, we would be dealing with the crisis that would be before us 
at that time, and that is why I am convinced that the best way to do 
that is to have the people's representatives make that decision, and I 
am convinced that that could happen within a short period of time.
  I thank my friend for his contribution, and let me again compliment 
him for all the time and energy he has put in the effort.
  I thank my friend for yielding this time, and I look forward to our 
debate.
  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. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the 
gentleman from Texas and associate myself with his remarks.
  I rise to reject, without prejudice or malice, the previous question, 
the rule, and the underlying bill. As has been mentioned, this is not 
partisan disagreement because the issue does not advantage or 
disadvantage either party. This is a disagreement on the wisdom of the 
proposed policy. I am against the bill because it fails to correct the 
most egregious problems caused by forcing all States to conduct 
elections within 45 days of the Speaker's announcement of mass Member 
fatalities.
  Regardless of how one feels about a constitutional amendment to 
address congressional continuity, we should defeat this bill because it 
will not work in practice and does not address the need to ``stand up'' 
the Congress immediately following a disaster. It does not support the 
immediate restoration of representative democracy, a key element in the 
Connecticut Compromise, noting that as important as it is that the 
people elect representatives, it is equally important to note that the 
people they send here represent the States.
  I want the Members in this body, because this is a difficult and 
complex issue, to understand its complexity; and the best way that I 
have seen to relate this to Members is to evoke two images in their 
mind.
  The first image is that of Members of this body, huddled in the 
Capitol Police office, waiting to hear word of what happened from our 
leaders who were somewhere, and who later that afternoon conveyed to us 
over the phone what had transpired and what happened and asked that 
this body not return here to the Capitol, out of concerns for safety. 
The Members there rejected that overwhelmingly, and came en masse--and 
in one of the most remarkable and memorable moments in our history--
stood on the steps of the House--united. It is a moment I will always 
cherish and remember, and I want my colleagues to reflect on that, it 
was an important symbol that we sent out to our people. Immediately 
standing there, Democrat and Republican, Senate and House, all united.
  The other image is this: not too long after that event, we convened 
in this House, a joint caucus called by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman from Missouri (Minority Leader 
Gephardt). The issue was different. It dealt with anthrax. There were 
concerns, purportedly a deal had been agreed to, signed off by the 
President and the Senate, that because of concerns as they related to 
safety, that we would close down this Chamber, and people would go 
home.
  It was not met agreeably amongst the caucus. But our leaders appealed 
to our better angels, and we agreed to go home. The Senate did not. 
Recall, if you will, how you and your colleagues felt viscerally when 
the papers reported that the Senate was here, and the House had gone 
home.
  I asked the Committee on Rules to make four amendments in order. The 
Committee on Rules only made two in order. My two proposed amendments, 
which were taken prisoner by the committee, would have allowed States 
to use their regular means of selecting candidates, and would have 
avoided trampling on 40 years of voting rights laws.
  Under this bill, political parties must select candidates within 10 
days of the Speaker's declaration, or give up their place on the 
ballot. So much for the

[[Page H2306]]

participatory process of candidate selection.
  In my heart, and I thought it was great discussion in front of the 
Committee on Rules, I agree with what the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) had to say. He suggested in the Committee on Rules that 
this issue is of such gravity, and such importance, that it actually 
transcends the normal committee processes, and that, in a joint 
committee, much like the one that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) called, we 
should discuss this issue amongst ourselves.
  These are complex issues that require us to examine them throughly, 
but I do not believe the underlying bill provides that. Some of the 
things eloquently addressed by the gentlemen who are proposing the 
underlying bill, do protect, do promote, and do give great glory to 
this body and its grand tradition.
  Others have spoken equally eloquently on that issue as well, in 
talking about the need for representative democracy to be promptly 
installed, while making sure that in fulfilling the mission of having 
people duly elected, we do not trample on the democratic rights and the 
processes by not allowing enough time.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, there may be differences on this bill, but 
the issue I want to raise is one I am pleased to say there are no 
differences on.
  I appreciate this debate and the country appreciates it. I have 
already raised the matter with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner). I appreciate the way in which he received the fact that 
the District of Columbia and the four territories are technically not 
included in this bill because it authorizes the States to hold a 
special election.
  I come to the floor only before the local press and the national 
press raise it with me. The District of Columbia, of course, is likely 
to be a preeminent target. The other territories might well be. It 
might be easier to get to them than to us. I can understand how such an 
oversight would occur because we do not have the vote on the floor. We 
all have the vote in committee.
  In any case, I know the House would want everybody to be represented 
in case there was a catastrophe of any kind, and I want to give my 
thanks once again to the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for receiving this issue which he has assured me will be 
corrected.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
not only for yielding me this time, but for his leadership on this 
issue. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox) for his work, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), all of whom, I 
think, have proposed innovative and real solutions to this problem.
  It is the night of the State of the Union Address. The President of 
the United States is here addressing the assembled body of the House 
and Senate. Behind him sits the Vice President of the United States in 
his capacity as President of the Senate. The Speaker of the House sits 
next to him. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are here, the diplomatic corps, 
and the judges of the Supreme Court.
  In midspeech, the television screens and radios across this country 
go blank. No one knows what has happened. A few moments later, one 
station reemerges on the air and says, ``Ladies and gentlemen, we have 
received word that a nuclear weapon has been detonated in our Nation's 
Capital. It apparently was set off very near the Capitol itself. We 
have no preliminary word, but it is quite possible that all Members of 
the House and the Senate and the President and his Cabinet, save one 
Member, have perished.''
  At that moment someone must tell our Nation and must tell the world 
what happens next. The bill before us answers that question with the 
words chaos and uncertainty. There are provisions put forward that 
would give a constitutionally valid mechanism of rapidly reconstituting 
this body, of assuring the Article I checks and balances that were so 
important to Mr. Madison, to that individual, Mr. Washington, and to 
the Constitutional Convention. But, Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ years after 
September 11, we have not been allowed to debate those measures that 
are true solutions before this body.
  We have argued here, and we have heard eloquent arguments that 
elections are important, and let me be clear about something: Not one 
proposal that requires or provides for a temporary amendment, not one, 
would eliminate elections. We all share that conviction, all of us do, 
and it is duplicitous to suggest otherwise.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And, Mr. 
Speaker, I in no way said that people are trying to avoid elections. 
What I am arguing is, if we do move in the direction of appointments, 
we create the opportunity for Members of this institution who would 
serve here by appointment to potentially move in that direction.
  Mr. BAIRD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding 
the gentleman from California and the Chair of the Committee on the 
Judiciary have sent a letter to our colleagues suggesting that people 
have attempted to ban elections. If the gentleman would wish to retract 
that, I would welcome that opportunity, because it is false, and the 
gentleman knows it. I believe it was circulated under the gentleman's 
signature.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would just say that I have not seen the letter, and I do not believe 
that we are seeking to ban elections, so I want to make that clear.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
  It is absolutely true. Not one proposal seeks to ban elections. What 
do we seek? Checks and balances. We seek to ensure that the Article I 
responsibilities of declarations of war, appropriating funds, 
impeaching a President, and all the other things that this body is 
tasked for in Article I, not the executive branch, are preserved, and 
the bill before us today does none of that. Does none of that.
  It leaves this country and the world with an unelected person serving 
in the executive branch and claiming extraordinary unconstitutional 
powers, and that is perilous for a republic, not simply a democratic 
republic, but a republic where representatives carry the voice of the 
people to this Capitol.
  Let me tell you what I think is wrong with the bill beyond that. In 
providing for a 45-day election, let me, first of all, say that many 
experts in this country have said a 45-day period is insufficient time 
for a genuine election, and that includes the head of the Elections 
Board of the State of Wisconsin, who said a minimum of 62 days would be 
necessary. It includes our own Member of this House, the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former secretary of state, who has 
conducted elections. It is not enough time.
  Furthermore, what happens if a State cannot conduct its election in 
45 days? What happens? A nuclear weapon is not only detonated here, 
but, in a quite plausible scenario, it is detonated also in New York 
City and in San Francisco, California. Are they to conduct elections in 
45 days in those circumstances? Will the Members subsequently elected 
not be seated? What happens to the structure of this body if a few 
Members survive, and then more Members come as one election is held? 
Who is the Speaker of the House?
  And by the way, let me clarify something. The Constitution is 
absolutely

[[Page H2307]]

clear that a quorum is not a majority of those chosen, sworn and 
living, it is a majority of the membership. This notion that three or 
four people would be enough to have a House of Representatives flies so 
in the face of what the Framers intended.
  The first official act of the first Congress was to adjourn for lack 
of a quorum. They did not believe for a moment that a handful of people 
should be present and maybe make decisions to take this country into 
war, or impeach a President, or levy taxes, or appropriate funds. A 
majority must be present. What happens until that majority comes back 
under this rule? Again, chaos and uncertainty.
  We have an opportunity to discuss real solutions. A bipartisan, 
nonpartisan commission made up of scholars and distinguished statesmen, 
people like Alan Simpson from Wyoming, hardly, hardly a liberal 
Democrat, hardly a partisan, a true statesman, joined together and said 
let us look at this issue. To a person, that commission to a person 
began and said, we do not want to solve this by amending the 
Constitution. And yet after a year of study and review, to a person 
they agreed that that is the solution, with great regret, that we must 
resort to.
  And, no, it does not take away your right to elect a Representative, 
but it preserves your right to have a Representative here when we 
decide how to respond to that attack. And it says you shall have the 
opportunity to have an election to replace that person as promptly as 
possible, through a real election, not a sham, expedited election that 
disenfranchises independent voters, as the bill does today. To a person 
these statesmen started with saying we do not want an amendment, and 
they reached the conclusion that we have to.
  Let me close with this. On September 11, on flight 83, those 
passengers gave their lives to give us a second chance. That fourth 
plane was heading here with the full intent to kill everybody in this 
building if it possibly could. We know that our adversaries would seek 
nuclear weapons. We know nuclear materials are available. We know if 
they get one, they will set it off, and they will do so in this 
Capitol. We have been given a second chance.
  The September 11 Commission has shown what happened to this country 
and to the world when advanced warnings were not heeded and action was 
not taken. Shame on us, eternal shame on us, if we do not take action 
to protect the Article I responsibilities of this body. Protect the 
right to elect Representatives, but protect the right to have a 
Representative and protect the checks and balances and separation of 
powers that have preserved this great Republic.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, at 9:50 in the morning on September 
11, 2001, I was standing in this Chamber waiting to bring up three 
bills that had come out of the Committee on the Judiciary. At that time 
the Sergeant at Arms told Speaker Hastert that another plane had been 
unaccounted for; that it was heading in the direction of Washington, 
D.C., and the Speaker promptly ordered the evacuation of the Capitol 
and told me to run for my life.
  Had that plane not left the gate at the Newark, New Jersey, airport, 
I would not be standing here today, nor would this building be standing 
here today. I think that gave me pause to think of what would happen to 
preserve this unique representative government should there be a 
disaster that wiped out the entire Congress. And the debate today goes 
basically to the issue of whether the reconstituted House should 
preserve the tradition that the House of Representatives has always 
consisted of Members that were first elected by the people, or whether 
we should have appointed Representatives, appointed by the Governor, 
appointed by the legislature, or appointed by ourselves before we 
passed away.
  Now, if Armageddon should take place and a disaster should happen, we 
can have an executive branch that is headed by an appointed Cabinet 
Secretary under the Presidential succession law. We could have a Senate 
of 100 Members appointed by the Governor of the respective States. And 
if we should amend the Constitution to allow the appointment of Members 
of the House of Representatives, then we would have an appointed House. 
Is that what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind, an appointed 
President, an appointed Senate, and an appointed House of 
Representatives? No way. And the comments of James Madison in the 
Federalist Papers are right on target.
  So the issue today is whether we should amend the Constitution to 
allow for the appointment of interim Representatives or figure out a 
way to elect replacement Representatives who would come to Washington, 
D.C., or wherever the Congress would be meeting, with a mandate from 
the people at the time of the most severe crisis in the history of this 
country. And this bill attempts to set up a mechanism so that we can 
have prompt special elections.
  Now, no election is perfectly run. We have sure found that out 4 
years ago in the Presidential election. But I am here to tell you that 
elections, no matter how imperfect they are, are much better than 
having an appointed House of Representatives where the loyalty would be 
nowhere but to whomever made the appointment.
  Now, I have heard a lot of complaints from my friends on the other 
side of the aisle that I am stonewalling consideration of a 
constitutional amendment. That is not true. We had a hearing last year 
on the constitutional amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird). It did not get very much support. But at the 
first markup of the Committee on the Judiciary that we will have, we 
will take up his constitutional amendment and send it to the floor. I 
will vigorously oppose it on the principle that I am opposed to having 
appointed Members sit in this House of Representatives. But we ought to 
have a debate on this, and we ought to see who wants to have our 
replacements be elected or our replacements be appointed should we be 
wiped out.
  Then I hear the complaints that 45 days is too quick to be able to 
organize a fair election. That is not true. In Virginia, when there is 
a vacancy in the Virginia General Assembly due to a death or a 
resignation, there have been special elections that have been held 
within 12 days after that vacancy occurred, and nobody has complained 
that the successor Representative was unfairly elected.
  During World War II, the British House of Commons, which, like the 
House of Representatives, has entirely consisted of people who have 
been elected by the people since 1215 A.D., they were able to have 
special elections within 42 days after a vacancy occurred. 
Notwithstanding the point that the Nazis were bombing Britain every 
night incessantly, they still were able to stand up and preserve the 
notion that people should come to the House of Commons with a mandate 
from the people and not be appointed by anybody else.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has properly framed 
the debate that we should be having to date as a choice between this 
bill and the options of having constitutional amendments. What he 
failed to indicate was that the rule does not make in order that 
debate, and it is for that reason that I rise in opposition to the rule 
itself, because this is not an issue about which there is a right or 
wrong answer. There are a number of different alternative solutions to 
the problem that present themselves if a number of people are wiped out 
in this body.
  What we ought to be doing is having a serious debate about each one 
of those options so that each Member of this Congress can make a 
reasoned evaluation of what way to go. So I think we should defeat the 
rule, go back to the drawing board, and let us bring all the options to 
the body for debate.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for indicating he would 
bring my proposed amendment up; but I would also

[[Page H2308]]

like to underscore that my belief is we should not simply bring my 
amendment up. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has a 
proposed amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has a 
proposed amendment, as do several other Members.
  I proposed a rule that would allow for multiple possible amendments 
to be considered, plus ample time for debate and amendment of those 
amendments until we move toward two-thirds vote for final passage.
  Last night on this floor I met with many Members of this body, and I 
asked them if they knew enough about this bill today to vote on it in 
an informed way. The collective answer was, no. Because of that, we 
should defeat the rule before us today, give this issue adequate time, 
as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) said, and make sure 
that all opportunities are discussed.
  I am pleased that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
wants to address amendments, but I would respectfully ask the gentleman 
to not just simply consider mine; consider others so various approaches 
may be debated and this body has a chance to choose the true and best 
solution.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, but in 
opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 2844. This is a very serious 
issue, and we have heard two sides of the debate. One emphasizes making 
appointments, and the other emphasizes having expedited elections.
  I have a constitutional amendment proposed, H.J. Res. 92, which 
satisfies both of these objectives and would permit Members when they 
are being elected by the public to designate a successor in case they 
are incapacitated or killed during the time they are in office. This 
would permit the public to vote on someone's successor as well as the 
person running for office. It seems to me this is the best approach.
  The current approach that we are being offered today in H.R. 2844, I 
do not believe is the best way to go because it would leave the party 
leaders to nominate who the choices are for the public. In essence, the 
party hacks are going to control who the public can vote on. Let us 
give the public a chance to really vote in an ordinary election and 
oppose H.R. 2844.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, but in opposition to 
the underlying bill, H.R. 2844.
   Continuity of representation in Congress is a very serious matter. 
On one side of this debate we will hear that we must have temporary 
replacements as quickly as possible in a national emergency. On the 
other side, we will hear that to be legitimate, any replacement House 
Members need to be chosen through the electoral process.
   I happen to think both sides are right in their stated principles, 
and that's why I've introduced a congressional succession 
constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 92, which I believe satisfies the 
core objectives of each side.
   Under my proposal, each general election candidate for the House and 
Senate would be authorized to appoint, in ranked order, 3 to 5 
potential temporary successors. For these appointments to be valid, the 
successful candidate would have to have submitted them in publicly 
available form at least 60 days prior to the election. In the case of 
the elected legislator's death or incapacity, the highest ranked person 
on the list of successors would become the Acting Senator or 
Representative. Determination of incapacity in my proposal generally 
follows the precedent of the 25th Amendment, under which the President 
either declares his own incapacity, or people he has appointed do so.
   The legitimacy of a successor designated under H.J. Res. 92 
temporarily succeeding a deceased or incapacitated Representative or 
Senator is similar to that of a Vice President succeeding a deceased or 
incapacitated President--not separately elected, but chosen by the 
principal and known well in advance of the election. Primarily to 
provide the incentive for incumbent and non-incumbent candidates to 
submit successor lists, state governors would be empowered to appoint 
temporary replacements only if no such list is submitted, or if no one 
listed is able to serve.
   Continuity of representation, I think we would all agree, means that 
the death or incapacity of Senators and Representatives should cause as 
little change in the composition of Congress as possible, which means 
that replacements should be politically as much like the deceased or 
incapacitated Member as possible. Who better to determine who fits that 
bill than the elected official him- or herself?
   There is no reason to limit a satisfactory solution to the 
``continuity of representation'' problem to a situation horrible enough 
to kill or incapacitate a quarter or more of the House. Even 50 or 20 
Representatives being killed or incapacitated could make a profound 
change in the direction and control of the House. And the death or 
incapacity of even one Representative deprives 600,000 U.S. citizens of 
representation for the several months it typically takes for the 
vacancy to be filled. Also, the legitimacy of a congressional 
succession plan is more likely to be accepted in a national emergency 
if it has previously worked in smaller tragedies.

  When State governors use their current power under the 17th Amendment 
to appoint temporary Senators, they naturally appoint someone who is 
politically like themselves, even if that appointee is the complete 
political opposite of the deceased Senator.
  We saw this played out most recently in the aftermath of the tragic 
death of Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) when control of the Senate was 
in the hands of the third-party governor of Minnesota.
  Also, during the last Congress there was a constant theme of 
speculation about the fact that the death in office of the aged and 
ailing Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) would allow the Democratic 
governor of South Carolina to change party control of the senate for up 
to 2 years.
  There is also clearly a democratic problem with the status quo in the 
House in which we allow death or incapacity to leave the seat vacant 
and the district unrepresented for months.
  But H.R. 2844 in some ways would actually make the democratic problem 
worse. Although replacement would be sooner than the status quo, the 
replacement would be someone whose nomination was decided by party 
bosses, not by a vote of the people. For all the talk about ensuring 
that this House of Representatives stays ``the people's house,'' that 
is just not a democratic way of filling vacancies.
  By contrast, H.J. Res. 92 gets an immediate replacement already 
vetted by the voters, and then allows States to get a regularly elected 
replacement who is both nominated and elected by the voters. It is 
obvious to me that H.J. Res. 92 is better for both the continuity of 
Congress and for democracy than H.R. 2844.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat H.R. 2844, and support my congressional 
succession constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 92.
  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.

[[Page H2309]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as evidenced by the remarks, this is a very important 
issue. I want to remind Members, in my opening remarks I mentioned that 
there are several things that need to be taken up. One, obviously, is a 
quick way to try to get the elected representatives back here. The 
other is the issue of incapacitation, which will be taken up next week 
in the Committee on Rules, and also the issue of a constitutional 
amendment of the various types that are floating around. That was 
confirmed by the chairman. There will be more debate on the issue. This 
is the first step, however. We ought to pass this rule, pass this bill, 
and continue our discussion on the other issues.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 602.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to have more debate on this important issue 
of continuity in Congress. We will have several more opportunities, and 
I suspect we will have plenty of time to have that debate. I certainly 
hope we will.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I thank 
my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Doc Hastings, for 
yielding me this time.
  H. Res. 602 is a fair, structured rule, which House members on both 
sides of the aisle should strongly support. It makes in order a total 
of four amendments, all of them offered by members of the Minority 
Party. Debating these amendments will allow the House to work its will 
on some of the key issues raised by H.R. 2844.
  I also rise in support of the underlying legislation, H.R. 2844. In 
his Second Treatise on Government, John Locke wrote ``the first and 
fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of 
legislative power. Itself is the preservation of the society and of 
every person in it.''
  Today, we examine whether the current mechanisms by which our 
government is created and maintained sufficiently provides for the 
continuation of representation in the event of a horrific disaster. Our 
efforts should answer the question of whether we are, in modern times, 
prepared to provide a rapid governmental response if and when disaster 
strikes that very government.
  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 a 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.
  Today, with the consideration of H.R. 2844, the U.S. House of 
Representatives begins to put in place a new system for ensuring the 
continuity of the Congress in the aftermath of a catastrophic event.
  H.R. 2844 provides that, if more than 100 House Members are killed, 
the Speaker of the House can declare that ``extraordinary 
circumstances'' exist. Such a declaration would trigger expedited 
special elections in those districts whose Members have been killed 
within 45 days. The political parties are given 10 days within which to 
nominate candidates for these elections.
  The important constitutional principle that this bill upholds is the 
unique nature of the People's House. The government should neither 
exist nor change but with the express will of the people by whom and 
for whom it was created. Without an elected House, legislation could be 
passed by a Federal Government composed entirely of the unelected. We 
must continue the tradition of the People's House, and H.R. 2844 does 
so.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this important rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 2. On the next legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, the House shall resolve 
     into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
     Union for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
     83) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States regarding the appointment of individuals to fill 
     vacancies in the House of Representatives. The first reading 
     of the joint resolution shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the joint resolution are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the joint 
     resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by Representative Baird of Washington and the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the joint resolution shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule in accordance with sections 3 and 
     4. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment to the joint resolution, or to the joint resolution 
     as perfected by an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     finally adopted, shall be in order except as specified in 
     this resolution. Clause 6(g) of rule XVIII shall not apply 
     with respect to a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment.
       Sec. 3. (a) Before consideration of any other amendment, it 
     shall be in order to consider the amendments in the nature of 
     a substitute specified in subsection (b). Each such amendment 
     may be offered only if the Member has caused the amendment to 
     be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII, may be 
     offered only in the order specified, may be offered only by 
     the Member designated or a designee of such Member, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in 
     section 4. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived (except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI). If 
     more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     specified in subsection (b) is adopted, then only the one 
     receiving the greater number of affirmative votes shall be 
     considered as finally adopted in the House and in the 
     Committee of the Whole. In the case of a tie for the greater 
     number of affirmative votes, then only the last amendment to 
     receive that number of affirmative votes shall be considered 
     as finally adopted in the House and in the Committee of the 
     Whole.
       (b) The amendments in the nature of a substitute referred 
     to in subsection (a) are as follows:
       (1) Any amendment offered by any member (other than any 
     amendment described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4)).
       (2) An amendment offered by the ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary.
       (3) An amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
       (4) An amendment offered by Representative Baird of 
     Washington.
       Sec. 4. (a) After disposition of the amendments in the 
     nature of a substitute specified in section 3(b), the 
     Committee of the Whole shall rise. On the fourth legislative 
     day which follows the legislative day on which the Committee 
     rises under this section, immediately after the third daily 
     order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, the House shall 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the joint resolution. After an additional 
     period of general debate, which shall be confined to the 
     joint resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by Representative Baird of Washington 
     and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
     provisions of the joint resolution, or the provisions of the 
     joint resolution as perfected by an amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute finally adopted, shall be considered as an 
     original joint resolution for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule, subject to subsection 
     (b). Each such further amendment shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent (except as 
     provided in subsection (c)), shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole.

[[Page H2310]]

       (b) No further amendment may be offered pursuant to this 
     section except for the following, each of which (other than 
     the amendment described in paragraph (7)) may be offered only 
     if the Member has caused the amendment to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII:
       (1) If an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 
     joint resolution is finally adopted (in accordance with 
     section 3), two amendments offered by the sponsor thereof.
       (2) One amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
       (3) One amendment offered by the ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary.
       (4) Two amendments offered by the majority leader.
       (5) Two amendments offered by the minority leader.
       (6) Two amendments offered by Representative Baird of 
     Washington.
       (7) The amendment referred to in subsection (c).
       (c) After disposition of the amendments described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (b), it shall be in 
     order to consider an amendment offered by the sponsor of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute to the joint 
     resolution finally adopted (in accordance with section 3) or 
     his designee, or if no such amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute is so adopted, an amendment offered by 
     Representative Baird of Washington or his designee. All 
     points of order against such amendment are waived (except 
     those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI). The amendment 
     shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 5. If at any time during the consideration of the 
     joint resolution the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the joint resolution, 
     then on the next legislative day (except as provided in 
     section 4), immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, the House shall resolve 
     into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of 
     the joint resolution.
       Sec. 6. At the conclusion of consideration of the joint 
     resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the joint resolution, or the joint resolution as perfected by 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute finally adopted, 
     to the House with such further amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any further amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the joint resolution as perfected by an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute finally adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 7. It shall be in order to take from the Speaker's 
     table H.J. Res. 83, with any Senate amendment thereto, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order (except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI), a 
     motion offered by the sponsor of the amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute to the joint resolution finally adopted (in 
     accordance with section 3) or his designee, or if no such 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute is so adopted, 
     offered by Representative Baird of Washington or his 
     designee, to dispose of any such Senate amendment. The Senate 
     amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to 
     final adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
     division of the question.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210, 
nays 198, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 126]

                               YEAS--210

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Carter
     Davis, Tom
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Greenwood
     Hall
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lucas (KY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Shuster
     Tauzin
     Toomey


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

[[Page H2311]]

                              {time}  1245

  Messrs. ROTHMAN, JOHN, CARSON of Oklahoma, DEUTSCH, CASE, CONYERS, 
MCNULTY, MARSHALL, and LIPINSKI changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. NUSSLE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212, 
noes 197, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 127]

                               AYES--212

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Cannon
     Carter
     Davis, Tom
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Forbes
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Greenwood
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lucas (KY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Shuster
     Strickland
     Tauzin
     Toomey


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1254

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 602 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2844.

                              {time}  1254


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2844) to require States to hold special elections to fill 
vacancies in the House of Representatives not later than 21 days after 
the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
in extraordinary circumstances, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) each will control 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2844, the 
Continuity in Representation Act of 2003. This important legislation 
furthers the important objective of ensuring that the House of 
Representatives, the people's House, continues to function effectively 
during times of national emergency.
  Mr. Chairman, it has now been over 2 years since the horrific events 
of September 11, 2001, a day in which terrorist enemies of the United 
States murdered thousands of innocent American citizens in cold blood 
and struck devastating blows against symbols of our country's economic 
and military power. These lethal attacks served as a very painful 
reminder of the destructive intent of our terrorist enemies, as well as 
the increasingly sophisticated and devastating methods by which they 
carry out their deadly work.
  Since that grim day, we have been forced to contemplate the dreadful 
possibility of a terrorist attack aimed at the heart of our Nation's 
government here in Washington, D.C., possibly carried out with nuclear, 
chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. Such an attack 
could potentially annihilate substantial portions of our Federal 
Government and kill or maim hundreds of Members of Congress. This is 
not a comfortable scenario for any of us to confront, as it forces us 
to contemplate the possibility of our own demise at the hands of our 
terrorist enemies.
  Nevertheless, if such an attack were ever to occur, the presence of 
strong

[[Page H2312]]

national leadership would be more important than ever. The American 
people would be desperately seeking reassurance that their government 
remained intact and capable of acting vigorously in the Nation's 
defense.
  In the aftermath of a catastrophic attack, it would be imperative 
that a functioning Congress be in place with the ability to operate 
with legitimacy as soon as possible. How best to ensure the continuity 
of the House of Representatives in the wake of a terrorist attack is a 
complex and difficult question that defies a simple solution.
  When drafting the Federal Constitution, our Founding Fathers designed 
the House to be the branch of government closest to the people. They 
believed the only way this objective could be accomplished was through 
frequent elections. Consequently, the Constitution, Article I, Section 
2, Clause 4, provides that vacancies in the House may be filled only 
through special elections. As a result, no Member has ever served in 
this House who was not first elected by the people he or she 
represents.
  Last September, the Committee on House Administration, which I chair, 
along with our ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson), and Members from both sides of the aisle, conducted a hearing 
on H.R. 2844 to allow leading thinkers on the issue of congressional 
continuity to provide insight on the many different aspects of this 
important issue. That hearing revealed that the debate on this subject 
essentially divides into two camps: Those who view a quick 
reconstitution of the House as the most important consideration, and, 
thus, support a constitutional amendment allowing for the appointment 
of temporary replacements to fill vacant House seats; or, the second 
camp, those who believe retaining the House's elected character is 
paramount and, therefore, support expedited special elections as the 
exclusive means for reconstituting the House of Representatives. The 
second camp I described is what this bill of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) does.
  Though the two sides in this debate disagree on many fundamental 
issues, both agree that expedited elections should be part of the 
solution to this complex and difficult question. For this reason the 
Committee on House Administration marked up and passed out of committee 
H.R. 2844, which establishes a framework for conducting expedited 
special elections to fill House vacancies resulting from a catastrophic 
terrorist attack. The goal of this legislation is to ensure the 
continuing operation of the House during times of national crisis, 
while at the same time protecting the character of the House as truly 
an elected body.
  The Continuity in Representation Act requires that expedited special 
elections be held within 45 days of the Speaker of the House announcing 
that more than 100 vacancies exist in the House. The political parties 
authorized by State law to make nominations would then have up to 10 
days after the Speaker's announcement to nominate a candidate. However, 
a State would have to hold an expedited special election if a regularly 
scheduled general election were to be held within 75 days after the 
Speaker's announcement, thus basically providing a 30-day extension for 
such States.
  We are under no illusion that holding expedited special elections 
would be challenge-free for the States. We know that. When we have 
regular course of order, it is a challenge, as we all know. Even under 
the best circumstances, conducting an election presents many logistical 
hurdles. Nevertheless, a number of States already require House 
vacancies to be filled via the special election within 45 days or less.
  In addition, the majority opinion of the Nation's chief election 
officials, one of whom testified, appears to be that 45 days would 
provide sufficient time to plan and prepare for an expedited special 
election. Again, they did not say it would be easy, but they thought it 
would provide enough time.

                              {time}  1300

  Therefore, I believe H.R. 2844 strikes the proper balance between the 
demand to fill House vacancies through special elections in as short a 
time frame as possible and the need for election officials and the 
voting public to have the time necessary to get ready for the elections 
to make informed choices.
  In conclusion, as Members of Congress we owe a duty to the people 
whom we represent to contemplate and devise response to worst case 
scenarios, which we all hope never happens; but we have to again be 
ready and be able to respond to those scenarios to ensure that no 
terrorist attack will ever cripple the ability of the people's House to 
function effectively.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for 
bringing this bill through the process. I also want to thank our 
ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson). I thought 
we had a very good look at the different issues in the Committee on 
House Administration and a very healthy debate on those issues. And I 
urge the support of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, also I want to thank our whip, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), for his work on this issue also.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin also by thanking my distinguished 
colleague from Ohio. Throughout this debate and discussion, clearly 
when there was an opportunity where issues were non-germane because of 
the importance and gravity of this issue, the chairman saw fit to make 
sure that this discussion was able to flow in our committee.
  I further want to thank the Speaker of the House and the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), as well, for their intercessions and 
understanding of the importance and significance of this issue. And as 
was mentioned by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) earlier as well, their 
willingness to bring a constitutional proposal before their committees, 
which I think is an important step in this process.
  The continuity of Congress, as was pointed out by the distinguished 
chairman, apparently means different things to different people. But in 
reality, it comes down to one question: Can the legislative branch be 
fully functional in the immediate aftermath of a disaster which affects 
some or all of its Members? Can it ``stand up'' immediately in the wake 
of a catastrophe? For that kind of thing to take place, I turn to 
``Justice,'' or more appropriately Judge Learned Hand, whose name I 
think is among the great names in history. But more importantly, what 
Judge Learned Hand said is ``The spirit of liberty is the spirit which 
is not too sure that it is right.''
  As we approach this debate today, and understanding the complexity of 
the issues involved, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) 
said earlier, neither side should be claiming that it is ``right,'' but 
both sides should be citing the principles that they are adhering to in 
trying to put them forward in the current context.
  In my remarks before the Committee on Rules, I cited a couple of 
images that are seared in my memory, and I think the minds of most 
people here--the image of us all united on the steps of the Capitol 
immediately following the attacks on September 11, together and 
unified. And then also, not too long afterward, another situation that 
arose with respect to anthrax that moved the Speaker and then-Minority 
Leader Gephardt to convene a joint caucus. In that joint caucus we also 
discussed very important issues.
  And at that time, because of the safety concerns around this 
building, our leaders argued that we had to shut down the legislative 
process, shut down the building for safety reasons, in what was thought 
to be an agreement with both the President and the other body. 
Appealing to our better angels, even though the Membership itself did 
not want to go home, we did, only to read in the papers that while the 
House was at home, the Senate was doing its duty. We know what the 
reality of that situation is.
  I raise these symbolic images because of the message it sends out to 
the American people. And as was pointed out by the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio, I think it directly points to the differences that 
we have with regard to this bill. And they are important distinctions.

[[Page H2313]]

  Earlier debate on the rule highlights the fact that there are really 
two convergent remedies before us today. Under immediate consideration 
is a statutory scheme to quickly fill House vacancies in the wake of 
mass casualties. Like it or not, even these expedited elections, which 
maintain the elective character of the House, cannot satisfactorily 
fill the potential power vacuum created in the wake of a catastrophic 
event, and do not address the issue at all with respect to incapacity.
  It is important because, if either the House or the Senate cannot 
operate, or their actions are subject to questions of legitimacy, our 
systems of checks and balances fails, and our democracy is in jeopardy. 
These questions of legitimacy were raised most notably in my research 
by Estes Kefauver, when he said, having nobly served in this House, 
that no one enters into this Chamber who has not--as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) eloquently said--been duly elected by the 
people. That is a powerful and unique statement to make. But Kefauver 
went on to say that there is an important concern about the 
representative nature of this democracy--that while we are, in fact, 
elected by people, we are sent here by the States. And a catastrophe 
that could prevent whole States from not being represented for 45 days 
goes to the heart of my concern about the underlying bill.
  So I have some questions that I pose to the House today, for our 
consideration as we debate this bill.
  First, in the wake of a disaster, is the House able to reconstitute 
itself so that its actions are viewed by the American people as 
legitimate and representative under the Constitution? And legitimacy 
here is very important. Unless representatives from nearly all the 50 
States are present to debate and deliberate, then the answer is ``No.'' 
Although, arguably, the House could function under parliamentary rules 
with as few as three Members, would the action of three Members have 
the legitimacy that it needs?
  We all know and have heard from earlier debate that the Senate could 
immediately reconstitute itself. And there is a process for succession 
for the President. The smaller the number of Members, and the fewer the 
number of States represented, the greater the question of legitimacy.
  Unless fully constituted with all 50 States participating, through 
some form of representation, there is no ``representative'' body for 
the people of various States, and House actions would lack the 
legitimacy of national ``majority rule'' under the Constitution.
  Second, if immediate legislative authority is necessary to validate 
and support executive branch functions, and I believe it would be, or 
to hold them in check, will that legislative authority be there? If 
not, will the executive branch feel constrained to wait for a 
reconstituted legislative branch to work its legislative will? In a 
crisis, will we be governed by the rule of law, or by the will of men?
  No one I have ever talked to about this scenario believes that the 
executive branch will put its functions on ``hold'' while the House is 
being reconstituted. If there is a national threat, or a natural 
disaster, the executive branch will respond however it chooses, perhaps 
extralegally, because of the absence of checks and balances from a 
functioning legislative branch. In other countries, this type of 
executive branch action would be called ``martial law.''
  Third, is it necessary to squeeze the lifeblood out of our 
democracy's electoral process in the name of expedited elections? 
Clearly, that is not the intent of the proponents of this bill--I 
understand that. But unintended consequences happen in these 
situations.
  Presumably state-chosen representatives, could save temporarily, 
while awaiting permanent replacements which are the result of 
legitimate popular elections conducted in the 50 States under their own 
election processes. This bill Federalizes State election procedures in 
these circumstances, and its timetable, unfortunately, tramples all 
over essential elements of our democracy, squeezing out most States' 
candidate eligibility and the selection procedures, voter registration 
opportunities and voter choice. It also tramples on 40 years of civil 
rights and voting rights laws. Is this really necessary?
  Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record the following letters and 
documents.
                                           Secretary of the State,


                                                  Connecticut,

                                   Hartford, CT, December 11, 2003
     Hon. John B. Larson,
     Longworth HOB,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Larson: As the Chief Elections Official 
     for the State of Connecticut, I am writing to express my 
     concern over H.R. 2844 currently being debated in Congress 
     that would require states to hold special elections to fill 
     vacancies in the House of Representatives not later than 45 
     days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives in extraordinary circumstances.
       While Connecticut General Statutes under Section 9-215 
     already allows for a special election for state 
     representatives and state senator in 45 days, a special 
     election for a member of Congress would represent a much 
     larger geographic and electoral population. In Connecticut, 
     for example, a congressional seat can be 50 times the size of 
     a state representative or a state senate district.
       A 45 day special election in a Connecticut congressional 
     district would not only be unworkable but runs counter to a 
     fair and democratic process. Specifically, such a short time 
     frame would not give voters the opportunity to make an 
     informed decision about any of the candidates running for 
     office or about the issues being discussed. In addition, a 45 
     day special election for Congress would not allow the 
     opportunity for a primary. This would essentially force 
     Connecticut back to a closed election process after the 
     General Assembly recently opened up our democratic primary 
     system this past legislative session.
       In addition, pursuant to State and Federal law, the State 
     of Connecticut has 45 days to issue overseas ballots. These 
     ballots contain the names of candidates for federal office 
     only and are available 45 days before any election where the 
     names of candidates for federal office appear. Holding a 
     special election for Representative in Congress 45 days after 
     the vacancy would create a timeline too short to comply with 
     the State and Federal laws requiring the availability of the 
     45 day overseas ballots.
       Thank you for your consideration of my comments and I 
     commend you on all of your hard work as you co0ntinue to 
     debate this very important issue in Congress. Please do not 
     hesitate to contact me or my Deputy Secretary of the State, 
     Maria Greenslade, if you have any questions or if I can be of 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
     Susan Bysiewicz.
                                  ____

                                               State of Wisconsin,


                                              Elections Board,

                                   Madison, WI, September 5, 2003.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senator, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on the 
         Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, U.S. 
         Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: Thank you for the opportunity to 
     comment regarding the proposals pending before the 
     Subcommittee which would require special elections to be held 
     to fill multiple congressional vacancies resulting from the a 
     catastrophic event. I am the chief state election official 
     for Wisconsin. I will endeavor to respond to your inquiries.
       Twenty-one days would not be enough time to conduct an 
     expedited special election in a crisis situation. Election 
     preparation requires securing polling places, retaining poll 
     workers, qualifying candidates, preparing ballots, delivering 
     absentee ballots, setting up voting equipment and conducting 
     the election. Candidate qualification requires a notice and 
     filing process that will take at least 6 days, the current 
     minimum under Wisconsin law. Ballot preparation, voting 
     equipment programming and set up would take at least 1 week.
       This leaves a week for absentee voting. This would 
     effectively eviscerate the absentee voting privilege. The 
     primary effect would be felt by military and overseas 
     electors.
       Twenty-one days would not be enough time to time to ensure 
     the integrity of the democratic process. Candidate 
     qualification would be so abbreviated that candidates would 
     not have the time to meet qualification requirements, even if 
     these requirements were loosened to expedite the process. In 
     a crisis situation the focus of candidates and voters will 
     likely be on the crisis and its daily impact. There would be 
     no time for effectively winnowing the field through a 
     primary, so the winner will likely have a small plurality of 
     the vote.
       Twenty-one days would effectively disenfranchise many 
     voters. Overseas and military electors generally need 45 days 
     of ballot transit time. Voters would have very little 
     opportunity to learn about the qualifications of the 
     candidates, the time of voting and location of the polling 
     place. Voters with disability would likely have a more 
     difficult time participating in the proposed timeframe.
       Sixty-two days is the minimum time necessary to ensure 
     proper mechanical operation of an expedited special election, 
     consistent with democratic integrity and offering all voters 
     the opportunity a meaningful opportunity to vote.

[[Page H2314]]

       An expedited special election would likely cost the state 
     of Wisconsin and local government at least $2 million dollars 
     in out of pocket costs for notices, ballots, postage, poll 
     worker salary, voting equipment vendor support and supplies. 
     The cost of state and local election officials salaries and 
     fringe benefits would be increased for overtime and other 
     work would be set aside for the conduct of the expedited 
     special election.
       A 21 day schedule for special elections has the potential 
     to undermine public confidence in the election process just 
     when this confidence would be needed most. Na expedited 
     election process needs to be put in place, but it should not 
     be so abbreviated that individuals elected under the process 
     lose credibility.
       If you need additional information please contact me.
                                                 Kevin J. Kennedy,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                  August 22, 1961.
     Hon. Emanuel Celler,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request for 
     the views of the Department of Justice on House Joint 
     Resolution 91, a resolution to amend the Constitution to 
     authorize Governors to fill temporary vacancies in the House 
     of Representatives.
       The Constitution, as amended by article XVII, provides that 
     the Senate of the United States ``shall be composed of two 
     Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof . . . 
     When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in 
     the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue 
     writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the 
     legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to 
     make temporary appointments until the people fill the 
     vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.''
       However, with respect to Representatives, the Constitution 
     provides in article I, section 2: ``The House of 
     Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every 
     second Year by the People of the several States . . .'' 
     Section 2 also provides that ``When vacancies happen in the 
     Representation from any State, the Executive Authority 
     thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such 
     Vacancies.''
       The proposed amendment to the Constitution would provide 
     that whenever the total vacancies in the House of 
     Representatives exceed one-half of the authorized membership, 
     for a period of 60 days thereafter the executive authority of 
     each State shall have the power to make temporary 
     appointments to fill any vacancies in the representation from 
     his State in the House of Representatives. The amendment also 
     provides that such appointee shall serve temporarily until 
     the vacancy has been filled by an election as provided for by 
     article I, section 2, of the Constitution.
       While the Constitution has provision for dealing with 
     vacancies in the Senate, other than through the time-
     consuming election process, there is no such provision with 
     respect to vacancies in the House. The Supreme Court in 
     United States v. Classic (313 U.S. 299), made it clear that 
     elections are required for Members of the House of 
     Representatives. The need for this amendment, especially 
     during a period of national emergency or disaster, is pointed 
     up by the critical world conditions today, and the ability of 
     some nations, through the use of atomic and hydrogen devices, 
     to wreak mass destruction in target areas.
       The committee may wish to consider whether the power to 
     fill vacancies should be operative only when more than one-
     half of the membership is vacant. It is noteworthy that 
     similar proposals have been considered by past Congresses 
     which provided for vacancies to be filled when the total 
     number exceeded 145, or approximately one-third of the 
     authorized membership.
       The Department of Justice does not object to the enactment 
     of this resolution, although it might be desirable to include 
     a provision which would establish a procedure for officially 
     notifying the Governors of the States, perhaps through 
     Presidential proclamation, as to when they are authorized to 
     make such temporary appointments.
       The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no 
     objection to the submission of this report from the 
     standpoint of the administration's program.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Byron R. White,
     Deputy Attorney General.
                                  ____


                  Statement of Senator Estes Kefauver

       Mr. Chairman, as a former member of this distinguished body 
     where I was also a member of this particular committee, it is 
     a real pleasure and privilege for me to have this opportunity 
     to express to it my opinions on a subject of vital importance 
     of the House of Representatives and the entire Nation.
       I know from personal experience that the House of 
     Representatives is properly proud of its historical role as 
     representing the will of the people of the United States. No 
     Member has ever entered this body except by the mandate and 
     popular vote of his constituents. The Founding Fathers were 
     determined that Members of the House should be responsible 
     directly to the people. For this reason, they established a 
     2-year term of office and provided that vacancies should be 
     filled in all events by special election. However, the 
     framers of the Constitution could not foresee the stark 
     realities of the mid-20th century when weapons of war which 
     can wreak mass destruction almost instantaneously would come 
     into the hands of hostile world powers.
       Of course, the Senate, too, has since become a body elected 
     by direct popular vote and although Members of the Senate are 
     not required to submit themselves to the elective process so 
     often, I believe that its Members are also keenly conscious 
     of the fact that they are elected by, and are responsible to, 
     the people.
       In order that constitutional representative government may 
     be continued in all events. I believe it is of vital 
     importance to take precautionary steps so that some disaster 
     could not prevent the legislative branch of our Federal 
     Government from continuing to function in a fully 
     representative capacity. As you know, presidential succession 
     is assured by law. Vacancies in the judicial branch can be 
     filled by Executive appointments. When the Constitution was 
     amended to provide for direct election of Senators, provision 
     was also made for temporary appointments by State governors 
     to fill vacancies. Thus, if some nuclear disaster fell upon 
     the Capitol, the executive and judicial branches and the 
     Senate could be speedily reconstituted, but special elections 
     would be required to fill vacancies in the House of 
     Representatives. The delay in such a time could paralyze the 
     functioning of the Federal government.
       I do not say that it would necessarily be constitutionally 
     impossible for the House of Representatives to function with 
     but a fraction of its Members. I am informed that present 
     parliamentary precedents indicate that the House can operate 
     with a quorum of its living Members. But any disaster which 
     killed one-half of one-third of the Representatives might 
     well disable or isolate so many others that quorum of the 
     survivors could not be mustered. Also, if this occurred 
     before a new Congress had organized and adopted its rules, a 
     point of order might well be sustained that a quorum consists 
     of a majority of all Members chosen. In any event, it would 
     be important at such a time that the representative character 
     of the House be preserved, and that the delegations of the 
     people of all the States be substantially intact for the 
     urgent legislative action which would be taken. The President 
     should have that degree of support and national unity which 
     only a fully constituted Congress could give him.
       For this reason, I have favored for a number of years an 
     amendment to the Constitution which would authorize the 
     Governors of the various States to make temporary 
     appointments to the House of Representatives whenever some 
     disaster substantially reduced its membership. I believe such 
     appointments should be as temporary as conditions will permit 
     and that the appointees should serve only until successors 
     can be elected. However, in normal times, special elections 
     require from 60 to 90 days, and in times of national 
     emergency and disaster it could well be much longer before 
     elections could properly be held.
       Former Senator William Knowland of California was one of 
     the earliest to become concerned about the continuity of 
     constitutional representative government in the event of 
     nuclear attack. In September of 1949, it was learned that the 
     Soviet Union had exploded an atomic bomb. In the 81st 
     Congress, Senator Knowland then introduced Senate Joint 
     Resolution 145 on January 18, 1950. It set the number of 
     vacancies which would authorize temporary appointments at 
     one-half of the authorized membership of the House and set 
     forth a detailed provision for a proclamation to inform the 
     State Governors that their appointive power had arisen. In 
     the 82d Congress, Senator Knowland introduced Senate Joint 
     Resolution 59, which reduced the operative number of 
     vacancies to 145 and also contained notification provisions. 
     The Senate hearings held in the 81st and 82d Congresses 
     indicate that it was thought that a majority of the 
     authorized membership of the House was necessary for a 
     quorum, and this may partially explain why Senator Knowland 
     changed the operative number of vacancies from one-half to 
     one-third in his proposal. It was developed in the course of 
     hearings in the 84th Congress that parliamentary precedents 
     required for a quorum only a majority of the Members of the 
     House who are duly chosen, sworn, and living. Neither figure, 
     therefore, has any particular constitutional or parliamentary 
     significance. In my opinion, the operative number of 
     vacancies should be determined by the point at which the 
     representative character and legislative efficiency of the 
     House might become so impaired as to require temporary 
     appointments.
       In the 83d Congress, Senator Knowland introduced Senate 
     Joint Resolution 39, which again specified one-third and 
     contained proclamation provisions. This resolution was 
     approved by the Senate by a vote of 70 to 1 on June 4, 1954.
       In the 84th Congress, as chairman of the Senate 
     Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, I became 
     interested in this subject and introduced Senate Joint 
     Resolution 8, which set the number of vacancies at one-half 
     and did not contain a proclamation provision. I felt then and 
     feel now that the operation of the authority granted by such 
     an amendment should not depend upon the following of some 
     detailed notification procedure. There are many pitfalls in 
     attempting to deal constitutionally with all the unforseeable 
     difficulties which might prevent a specified mode of 
     notification from

[[Page H2315]]

     being carried out. This resolution was approved by the Senate 
     by a vote of 76 to 3 on May 19, 1955. In the 85th Congress, I 
     introduced Senate Joint Resolution 157 along the same lines. 
     In the 86th Congress, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 39 
     and it was approved by the Senate by a vote of 70 to 18 
     despite the fact that two additional and separate articles of 
     amendment were added to it on the Senate floor.
       From this background, I believe it is safe to say that if 
     the House of Representatives approves a constitutional 
     amendment on this subject, the chances are very good that the 
     Senate will also approve it.
       Early in this Congress, I introduced Senate Joint 
     Resolution 18, which set the operative number of vacancies at 
     one-half. From discussion in the Subcommittee on 
     Constitutional Amendments, I have concluded that one-third is 
     a more suitable basis than one-half, although any choice is 
     necessarily somewhat arbitrary. In considering the possible 
     effects of the type of disaster which we should guard 
     against, I think it is most likely that any disaster which 
     killed one-third of the membership of the House would 
     incapacitate so many of the survivors that the House would 
     probably be left with substantially less than one-half of its 
     membership available for the transaction of business. A 
     strong argument can be made that the operative number of 
     vacancies should be even less. Indeed, I doubt if the average 
     citizen is conscious of any valid reason why individual 
     vacancies in the House and Senate are treated differently by 
     the Constitution with respect to temporary appointments.
       Senator Kenneth B. Keating, also a former Member of the 
     House of Representatives, and I have, therefore, introduced 
     Senate Joint Resolution 123, which specifies one-third. It 
     also authorizes Congress to enforce the article by 
     legislation, leaving the way open to provide statutory 
     procedures for determining when the requisite number of 
     vacancies exist and notifying the State Chief Executives 
     of this fact. Of course, the House will continue to be the 
     constitutional judge of the qualifications of its own 
     Members, in case unforeseen difficulties arise in the 
     exercise of this grant of authority.
       I know that the Department of Justice and the Office of 
     Civil and Defense Mobilization are very much in favor of some 
     amendments along these lines, and I understand that 
     representatives of these agencies will appear personally at 
     these hearings. At a time when we are preparing ourselves 
     militarily for the possibility of World War III and we are 
     calling upon our citizens for personal sacrifice to the point 
     of urging construction of personal fallout shelters, I feel 
     very strongly that it is the height of folly to leave a 
     constitutional gap which might prevent the continuation of 
     orderly representative government. The time is now singularly 
     appropriate for approval of an amendment of this sort. It 
     would demonstrate to Mr. Khrushchev that we are preparing 
     governmentally, as well as militarily, if the enemies of 
     freedom chose to precipitate World War III.
       Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your committee for going 
     into this subject at this time. I am not wedded to any 
     particular form which the amendment should take, but I 
     believe strongly that some amendment along these lines should 
     be approved promptly by the Congress. I know that you will 
     give this problem full and careful consideration and I am 
     confident that the result will be a solution which serves the 
     interests of all the American people, protects the integrity 
     of this great legislative body, and insures the continuation 
     of democratic government. Thank you for your courtesy and 
     consideration.
                                  ____

       (The statement referred to is as follows:)

           Statement by Representative Charles E. Chamberlain

       Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the committee for this 
     opportunity to appear in support of House Joint Resolution 
     508. Although I think that the purpose of and the very real 
     need of this constitutional amendment are self-evident and 
     require no elaborate dissertation to prove their validity, I 
     am pleased to present to the committee the reasons which have 
     influenced my thinking and convinced me of its merit. I make 
     no claims with respect to the authorship of this proposal to 
     provide for the effective operation of Congress in the event 
     of a national emergency or disaster, but I wholeheartedly 
     favor it because I have been concerned, for several years, 
     about the future of representative government during a period 
     of hostilities of the devastating proportions that can be 
     expected should the cold war become a hot war.
       Mr. Chairman, I think we have all heard talk of the 
     extensive plans to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of 
     the essential agencies of the executive branch in the event 
     of a nuclear attack on Washington . . . and this is, 
     certainly, as it should be. But the question remains as to 
     what would happen to the legislative branch under the same 
     situation. As things now stand, should there be such an 
     attack in which a large segment of the membership of the 
     House of Representatives was lost, Congress would be unable 
     to exercise all its constitutional powers and prerogatives 
     until elections could be held. In the meantime we would have, 
     for all intents and purposes, government by the executive 
     branch. In addition, should Congress not be able to function, 
     the morale of the Nation would be dealt a serious 
     psychological shock which would only accentuate the chaos and 
     confusion that would follow such an attack. Clearly, while we 
     are acting to beef up our defenses, both at home and abroad, 
     and while we are finally beginning to pay more attention to 
     civil defense, this is a most opportune time to focus 
     attention on this problem of how our system of government 
     would function in such an eventually. Clearly, it is a time 
     to anticipate every contingency and to act accordingly.
       House Joint Resolution 508 provides for an amendment to 
     article 1, section 2, clause 4, of the Constitution, which 
     reads, ``When vacancies happen in the Representation from any 
     State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of 
     Election to file such Vacancies.'' The purpose of the 
     amendment is to make it possible for the Governor of each 
     State to fill immediately by appointment any vacancies 
     resulting from an emergency or disaster. This would be 
     effected when the Speaker, or in his stead some other duly 
     empowered officer of the House, had certified to the 
     President that over 145 vacancies existed in the membership, 
     and when the President had then issued a proclamation 
     permitting the Governor of each State affected to appoint new 
     Members within 90 days. All other vacancies after this 90-day 
     period would be filled in accordance with the customary 
     procedures under clause 4 as it now reads.
       I believe that is essential that we safeguard our form of 
     government as well as our populations from the disorder and 
     devastation that such an attack would precipitate. Consider 
     if you will the possible effect if the legislative system of 
     the leading Nation of the free world were suddenly paralyzed? 
     In such a circumstance the very essence of representative 
     government . . . so often unjustly attacked as being 
     inefficient and incapable of functioning effectively in times 
     of crisis . . . is challenged. In past years the failure of 
     such institutions to meet the demands of the times has had a 
     marked impact. The inability of representative government in 
     Germany in the 1920's and 1930's to prevent the rise of 
     nazism should indicate to us the need for sustaining strong 
     representative institutions. Our system of government 
     successfully met the Nazi challenge, but today it is 
     threatened the world over by communism . . . which attempts 
     to justify itself under the misleadingly innocent name of 
     democratic centralism, which makes a mockery of true 
     representative principles. Certainly we cannot permit to 
     exist any foreseeable situation where our response to this 
     threat might falter.
       In addition, many of the newer nations, whose peoples are 
     not sufficiently prepared to maintain representative 
     institutions, have resorted to various types of authoritarian 
     government for the espoused purpose of preparing the people 
     for democracy. The example we set in this country might well 
     influence, that is, to encourage or discourage, the final 
     adoption of representative government in these new nations. 
     As the leading legislative body of the free world, we 
     cannot afford to overlook any contingency that might 
     possibly reflect upon our constitutional system that has 
     served us so well and brought us to our position of 
     leadership in the free world.
       I trust that the committee will not see any partisan 
     feelings motivating my concern in this area out of fear of 
     powers that the present administration would assume in the 
     event of such a national catastrophe. My feelings with 
     respect to this problem have no relationship to the party 
     affiliation of the President of the United States. As I have 
     just said, my concern is more with the reputation and 
     preservation of representative government. But we should also 
     keep in mind that the period in American history since the 
     Second World War has been characterized by the dramatic 
     ascendency of the supremacy of the executive branch in our 
     system of separated powers. And there are many students of 
     politics and history who view this tendency with considerable 
     apprehension. Whatever the validity of this viewpoint, it is 
     irrefutable that we must keep our representative institutions 
     in constant repair, and never fail, tacitly or otherwise to 
     defend them against all dangers, imminent and potential.
       Mr. Chairman, those of us whose job it is to make the 
     representative system work, too infrequently take time to 
     consider the longer view and to speculate upon the probable 
     future of our political institutions. Whatever the nature of 
     future developments and the possible impact that such an 
     attack might have on them. I do no believe that there can be 
     any doubt as to the practical wisdom or this proposal. It is 
     my understanding that the Judiciary Committee of the other 
     Chamber is prepared to consider a similar proposal. This is 
     encouraging. However, it seems to me that too much time has 
     already been gambled and that we should act on this proposal 
     immediately. . . particularly in view of the usually time 
     consuming ratification process required. May I suggest to the 
     committee that we never know how late the hour is . . . how 
     close we may be to another Pearl Harbor. Naturally we hope 
     that it will be prevented, but we should always be prepared.
       Certainly as we meet our responsibilities of national 
     security we must not overlook the Congress itself and our 
     responsibility to insure the continuance of representative 
     government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, the

[[Page H2316]]

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), for recognizing me and for the hard work 
that he has done on this bill.
  I also want to say sitting here and listening to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Chairman Ney) and my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson), talk about this bill shows the heartfelt thought that has gone 
into this.
  This is a circumstance that we would all hope and pray that we would 
never have to exercise, whatever we do today or may do in the future. 
It is a moment that deserves some time and consideration. As we talk 
about lofty constitutional principles, I am reminded, though I would 
have to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, who, after the Constitutional 
Convention said that he had had other ideas when he came to 
Philadelphia. And while he was not totally satisfied with the product 
yet, he was not sure that he would not sometime come to believe that it 
was not the best possible thing that could be done and should be done. 
That is the spirit of the debate we need to have here today.
  I certainly appreciate the work the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) has done, the willingness he has to go beyond 
this and look at constitutional solutions as they are presented. I 
appreciate our friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), and 
his immediate approach to me back shortly after September 11 on the 
floor and his immediate concern for this issue.
  I am more than happy to see a constitutional debate occur on an 
amendment at a later time. I do not know that there is an amendment out 
there that satisfies my concerns. In fact, I personally have become 
persuaded as I thought about this by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and others who 
have taken a scholarly look at this that the elected character of the 
House is the unique and vibrant thing about the House. And if it is at 
all possible to come up with a solution that maintains that character 
of this as the only body that the only way you can get here is to be 
elected, we should try to do that. But we can continue to have that 
discussion.
  I would suggest to my good friends on the other side of this debate 
that even if that happened, the proposal before us today could be seen 
as an appropriate interim step. Even if we were to find an amendment to 
the Constitution that would satisfy the broad concerns and the 
character of the institution, to have that on the floor, to have two-
thirds of the Members of both Houses supportive of it, to then go to 
the States and have the States ratify would take a considerable amount 
of time.
  I hope we have a considerable amount of time before this ever 
matters. I, in fact, hope that the work we do here today is never 
tested one way or another. But if we do not have a considerable amount 
of time to come up with an approach that solves the immediate problem 
with a solution that is clearly workable and brought to this floor in 
good faith that would reconstitute the body that would allow us to 
continue to have that greater discussion, in the interim we have at 
least taken a step to do what we could to see that the House was 
reconstituted as soon as possible.
  I also hope that our friends will work with us, and the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I have talked about that, this is the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney); and I have to 
look at the rules and see if another interim thing in the rules 
themselves can be done on the issue of capacity.
  It is certainly possible that we would have Members who did not 
vacate their seats because of death, but were not able to serve for 
some period of time in the kind of circumstance we are anticipating 
today. Is there some way, again, either as a short or a final solution, 
we can deal with that at some point between now and the beginning of 
the next Congress in terms of the rules?

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Chairman, I am for this bill. I think it is a great step in the 
right direction. It may be the final step, it may be an interim step, 
but it is a step that this body needs to take; and I encourage our 
colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of this legislation, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this very, very important bill.
  This bill really reflects our willingness, I think, to think about 
what to do in regards to the United States House of Representatives if 
the unthinkable were to happen. We need to have a mechanism in place to 
ensure that our government remains strong, remains stable in the events 
of a catastrophic attack.
  Article I, Section 2 of our Constitution states that when vacancies 
happen in the representation of any State, the executive authority 
thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. Here the 
operative phrase is clearly ``elections.'' And so we know that our 
Founding Fathers intended for any Member of the United States House to 
only serve after being elected. And this House, the people's House, has 
fulfilled that intention, and I think this legislation will continue 
that tradition.
  Before coming to Congress, I was very honored to serve as Michigan's 
secretary of state with the principal responsibility of serving as the 
chief elections officer. So let me direct a few of my remarks to the 
actual mechanics of holding an election within the framework of this 
legislation.
  When we first proposed this bill, many of my former colleagues in the 
elections community expressed reservations over our original mandate 
for election to be held within 21 days. The bill we consider today has 
extended that deadline to 45 days. And the individuals who I rely on as 
expert within this field say that they could conduct an election 
certainly within that time frame.
  In regards to election administration functions such as programming, 
testing, hiring election workers and preparing polling places, most 
polling places are relatively stable, so much so that in most States 
they are actually listed on the voter identification cards.
  If tragedy required this legislation to be acted upon, we need to 
remember that the ballot would only contain names for a single office, 
which would dramatically ease printing, programming and testing. It 
should also be noted that since Congress has passed the Help America 
Vote Act, most States are embracing the election reform such as 
following the model in Michigan of a statewide computerized voter 
registration file which is constantly updated by local election clerks, 
motor vehicle departments as well, thereby allowing an up-to-date, 
clean file to be printed at any time and provide it to all the polling 
places.
  Also, all of the States are rapidly moving toward a uniform system of 
voting equipment. Michigan, for example, will soon have all of our 
5,300 precincts using optical scan voting equipment, which would allow 
for the vendor to always have a camera-ready ballot, and then all you 
have to do is fill in the names of the candidates for Congress and go 
to print.
  These elections obviously would not take place in optimal conditions, 
but it has been my observation that elections officials will always 
rise to the occasion to complete the required work, especially in time 
of a national emergency. This legislation will ensure the integrity of 
the elections process. And while I recognize that there are various 
ideas about how we should approach the situation of mass vacancies, it 
is my personal belief that under no circumstances should we deviate 
from the direct election of Members of the people's House. Clearly it 
is incumbent upon us to find a solution to this issue which honors the 
wishes and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers that no individual will 
serve in this Chamber without being first elected by the people.
  This legislation, under the guidance of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) is a remarkable achievement and 
certainly deserves bipartisan support.

[[Page H2317]]

  It has often been said that the price of freedom is being ever 
vigilant. The enemies of freedom will find that America is.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and for his wonderful leadership on this profoundly important 
legislation.
  I would also commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his 
work on this bill, and to no lesser extent the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird), who has, I think, singularly brought this issue 
to the attention of our colleagues in the days immediately following 
September 11.
  I want to rise in strong support of the Continuity in Representation 
Act. Thinking of that ancient text that says, Teach us to number our 
days aright, that we might gain a heart of wisdom. I think it is about 
that, as the majority whip said, it is about that in that spirit that 
we gather here today.
  I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, this topic is not theoretical to me or 
my family or to anyone who was here on September 11. I stood on the 
Capitol lawn that morning and saw the smoke rising from the Pentagon, 
and scarcely 1 month later I was informed by security officials that 
the anthrax bacillus was on my desk, exposed to my staff and my family.
  While I pray that our Nation and this Congress will never experience 
any similar events with greater catastrophic effect on this 
institution, we must prepare for the eventuality. This legislation does 
that. By ensuring the continuity of this Congress, we will ensure that 
the people's House will be available to meet the people's needs in 
their most troubled hour.
  The House of Representatives is truly a unique facet of the American 
Government. It has been called the people's House. In fact, in the 
Federalist Papers' James Madison said that elections, as this 
legislation dictates, elections would be ``unquestionably the only 
policy'' by which the House can have ``intimate sympathy with the 
people.''
  Madison also wrote that ``the definition of the right of suffrage is 
very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government 
. . . to have it left open for the occasional regulation of the 
Congress would have been improper.''
  Our Founders knew it. This legislation contemplates it. We must 
preserve the right and the obligation to be elected to serve in the 
House while we prepare necessarily for that dark day that we hope and 
pray shall never come.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on the Judiciary favorably reported H.R. 
2844, but we actually had a rather narrow jurisdiction on this bill. In 
fact, our review was limited to the review by the three-judge panel of 
the announcement by the Speaker that a sufficient number of vacancies 
existed to trigger the special election requirements of the bill. I 
think that actually skirts the more fundamental question that faces us 
as an institution.
  As we know, the Constitution, through its 17th Amendment, permits 
State Governors to appoint Senators to vacant seats, but there is no 
comparable provision for the prompt replacement of the Members of the 
House of Representatives. In fact, Article I, Section 2, Clause 4 of 
the Constitution requires the executive authority of the State in which 
a vacancy occurs in the House to order a special election to fill the 
vacancy. And the bill before us accelerates the time in which an 
election would be held.
  The bill itself, I think, does raise some questions. We have concerns 
about whether the fine history of voter protection would be, in terms 
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Accessibility for the 
Elderly and Handicapped Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen 
Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the 
Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
could be fully adhered to in the time frame outlined in the bill. 
Further, we worry whether the preclearance requirements outlined in 
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act could be met in the time frame 
outlined in the bill before us.
  However, there is a more fundamental issue, which is what happens, 
should this bill become law, in the 45 days between a disaster that 
eliminates the House of Representatives and the holding of an election. 
Now, I have heard and I agree with Members who have quoted our Founding 
Fathers with some affection about the need to have this body be the 
people's House. It is this body where every one of us who serves walks 
through this door knowing that we have been elected, selected by the 
voters of our respective districts. That is unique and important in our 
system of government. But there is another fundamental and important 
aspect to our system of government, and that is the necessity of checks 
and balances.
  When we think back to 9/11 and that great tragedy that befell our 
country, we are well aware that action was required by the Congress in 
the 45 days that followed that attack on the United States. We needed 
to implement the War Powers Act. Only Congress can appropriate funds. 
And if we do not have a House of Representatives, we do not have a 
Congress; and if we do not have a Congress, whoever is the chief 
executive, when a disaster of the magnitude that eliminates the House 
occurs, must of necessity assume dictatorial powers in contradiction of 
the Constitution. And I think that specter of dictatorial powers 
contradicting the checks and balances needs to be weighed when we 
consider replacing the election on a temporary, short-term basis, 
perhaps even just a few weeks, 45 days, so that we would have a 
functioning Congress in the event of a disaster.
  To do that we need to have a constitutional amendment, and I am 
hopeful that we will be about soon, the consideration of the 
constitutional amendments that have been so far introduced. And, 
frankly, I have authored one of them. I think it is a starting point. 
There are others. This is a complex issue, and none of the amendments, 
I think, are quite ready for our approval, but they do command our 
attention.
  I would note that the Continuity of Government Commission, which was 
a joint project of the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings 
Institute, sort of the odd fellows of political institutes, came up 
with the conclusion that it was a constitutional amendment that was 
required to address mass vacancies in the Congress. When Jimmy Carter 
and Gerald Ford, Lloyd Cutler and Alan Simpson, Newt Gingrich and Tom 
Foley can agree on that, I am hopeful that in the end all of us will 
reach that same conclusion.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) will control the time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 5 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor I am very pleased to support 
H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act.
  H.R. 2844 provides a practical and constitutional way to ensure that 
the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that 
more than 100 Members are killed. H.R. 2844 thus protects the people's 
right to choose their Representative at a time when such a right may be 
most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.
  The version of H.R. 2844 before Congress today was drafted with input

[[Page H2318]]

from the State election commissioners to make sure it sets realistic 
goals and will not unduly burden State governments.
  Mr. Chairman, there are those who say the power of appointment is 
necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and prevent an abuse 
of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that is 
a very important point to carefully guard against and protect our 
constitutional liberties, and that an overcentralization of power in 
the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to our 
liberties. However, during a time of crisis, it is all the more 
important to have Representatives accountable to the people.
  Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of 
government to infringe on the people's liberties at such a time.
  Supporters of amending the constitution claim that the appointment 
power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the 
appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws 
passed by these ``temporary'' representatives will be permanent.
  The Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems 
of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution's 
primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton 
explains in Federalist 59, the ``time, place, and manner'' clause was 
specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary 
circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. 
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2844, the 
Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can 
continue to operate in the event of an emergency.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in 
Representation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague, House 
Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner. H.R. 2844 provides a 
practical and Constitutional way to ensure that the House of 
Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 
members are killed, H.R. 2844 thus protects the people's right to 
choose their representatives at the time when such a right may be most 
important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.
  Article I Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants state 
governors the authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in 
the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution 
gives Congress the authority to designate the time, place, and manner 
of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously 
following a national emergency. Alexander Hamilton, who played a major 
role in the drafting and ratification of the United States 
Constitution, characterized authority over federal elections as shared 
between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the 
process entirely. H.R. 2844 exercises Congress's power to regulate the 
time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of 
special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker 
declares 100 members of the House have been killed.
  I have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to 
hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, it is in each state's 
interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in 
Washington. The version of H.R. 2844 before Congress today was drafted 
with input from state elections commissioners to make sure it sets 
realistic goals and will not unduly burden state governments.
  I am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible 
approach of H.R. 2844 and instead support amending the Constitution to 
allow appointed members to serve in this body. Allowing appointed 
members to serve in ``the people's house'' will fundamentally alter the 
nature of this institution and sever the people's most direct 
connection with their government.
  Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of 
the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide 
office every 6 years means that members of the House of Representatives 
are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part 
of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot 
be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton 
eloquently made this point in Federalist 52: ``As it is essential to 
liberty that the government in general should have a common interest 
with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it 
under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an 
intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are 
unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy 
can be effectually secured.''
  Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment 
is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent 
an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree 
that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional 
liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power 
in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that 
liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the 
more important to have representatives accountable to the people. 
Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of 
Government to infringe on the people's liberties at such a time. I 
would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering 
reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns 
that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. 
Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.
  Supporters of amending the constitution claim that the appointment 
power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the 
appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws 
passed by these ``temporary'' representatives will be permanent.
  Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to 
the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one 
suggested removing the people's right to vote for members of Congress. 
For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of 
Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack 
of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During 
the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many 
Capitol Hill staffers reside and many members stay while Congress is in 
session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States 
Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected 
persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the 
people the ability to choose their own representatives would let the 
terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican 
institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting 
H.R. 2844 in favor of a Constitutional amendment will question the 
wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican 
government.
  As noted above, the Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to 
address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising 
this institution's primary function as a representative body. In fact, 
as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the ``time, place, and manner'' 
clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary 
circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. 
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2844, the 
Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can 
continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the 
Drafters of the Constitution intended. Furthermore, passage of H.R. 
2844 sends a strong message to terrorists that they cannot alter our 
republican government.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, we have 
reserved our time, but who will close and in what order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) will be 
first, then the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and then the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), who as has been pointed out by 
several others, has done extraordinary work on behalf of this 
institution and this body to bring this very important issue before us.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for 
the time, and I thank my friends on the other side.
  Let us start with where we agree. Everyone who has spoken has said 
that the ideal way to replace Members permanently is through elections. 
People have suggested that this is somehow a covert way or a slippery 
slope to do away with elections for Members of the House. It is not 
true. There will not be a single voice in the record of this discussion 
that argues that it is true. We all agree on that. Let us ask if we 
agree on some other things.
  Do we agree that article I functions of the Congress should not be 
usurped by the executive branch? I think we should because we have 
sworn an oath to that Constitution; but if we do not act to ensure that 
there is a legislative

[[Page H2319]]

branch, what alternative is left but for the executive to usurp those 
responsibilities, and if they so choose, what vehicle and what body is 
left to rein them in from that usurpation?
  I submitted an amendment to this very bill which was not ruled in 
order that would have at least had the Congress of the United States on 
record affirming that the executive, in time of crisis, should not 
usurp our authority; but it was ruled out of order. I find it frankly 
astonishing that my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who is 
such an adamant defender of the Constitution, is apparently willing to 
abrogate all of our article I until we can have special elections and 
an unelected executive could run the entire country.
  Ask yourselves, would the Framers really have let two or three people 
constitute a House of Representatives when they themselves adjourned? 
Would they really have believed that two or three survivors or no 
survivors should allow an executive to take this Nation into war? Ask 
your constituents. Go back home. Ask your constituents: If your 
representatives in Congress are all killed, and a Cabinet member who 
you never chose and do not know who they are, have no information about 
their background, emerges one day and says I am now the President of 
the United States of America, should they have 45 days carte blanche to 
take this country into war, take away your civil rights and you will 
have no one here to express your concerns?
  This notion that we are going to somehow appoint people who are 
totally unresponsive to the American people boggles my mind. We have 
been entrusted with our constituents, with impeachment of Presidents, 
with taking our country into war, with levying taxes and all the other 
article I duties; and yet somehow we are not capable of choosing 
people, former statesmen, former stateswomen who would serve this 
Nation well in time of crisis. Somehow that escapes our capacity. To 
create straw men as convenient vehicles for rhetorical argument, that 
would leave our country without a functioning Congress, is not a 
service to the people who wrote this Constitution.
  There are two portraits of this gentleman in this hall that I revere. 
First of all, Washington's presence right here because he looks over us 
and reminds us to take our job seriously; but in the rotunda of this 
building there is a portrait in which Washington is giving back his 
commission as Commander in Chief of the Army to a republican form of 
representative government. He is not saying, I won the war, now I as 
chief executive want to run the country. He is saying there must be a 
Congress that runs this country; representatives of the people must run 
this country.
  We agree that you must have special elections, but my friends have 
not made provisions for what else to do in the interim; and in the time 
in which there would be elections, they have created a vehicle which is 
laden with problems.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I simply would like to ask my friend, as we have been discussing this 
issue of a constitutional amendment, the one question that I have is 
that it is my sense that in this House there is not a two-thirds vote 
that would, in fact, allow for the process of the constitutional 
amendment to begin.
  Mr. BAIRD. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman cannot filibuster me.
  We have waited 2\1/2\ years since we watched 3,000 of our fellow 
citizens die, and this body has not acted. They now give us 2 hours. We 
have not given this body time to debate. Ask my colleagues, as I did 
yesterday, have they had sufficient time to study this matter of this 
magnitude before we vote on it. They will tell you, no, sir, I have 
not. They will vote party line, as we far too often do here; but they 
will not vote conscience because their conscience has not grappled with 
this. I will not yield because this matters, and we have not been given 
sufficient time.
  Give us time for real debate, not in a committee chaired by someone 
who is antithetically opposed to it. Give us time in this great body 
because it is our entire future that is at stake, not the future of the 
Committee on the Judiciary or the Committee on House Administration. It 
is the future of this body. Give us time; give the people time for real 
debate.
  How can my colleagues say that elected representatives are sacrosanct 
and then not give those elected representatives time to debate a matter 
that concerns the very existence of this body? That, if for no other 
reason, is reason enough to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  ``The right of suffrage is certainly one of the'' most ``fundamental 
articles of republican government, and ought not to be regulated by the 
legislature. A gradual abridgment of this right has been the mode in 
which aristocracies have been built on the ruins of popular forms.'' 
That was said by James Madison on August 7, 1787, to the Constitutional 
Convention; and the very proposal that is offered by opponents of this 
bill, a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to require that 
vacant House seats be filled by appointment, even temporarily, was 
explicitly rejected by the founders as antithetical to republican 
government.
  My committee had a hearing in 2002 on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). There was not very much support 
for it; and I imagine that when this House debates the Baird amendment, 
it will be voted down. It will go far short of the two-thirds necessary 
to propose a constitutional amendment because there are enough Members 
of this House that believe that the principle of having an elected 
House of Representatives is paramount.
  I will get my colleague his vote and his debate for him with the 
cooperation of my friend from California, the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, who is the cosponsor of my bill; but what I would like to 
know is those of my colleagues who criticize the Sensenbrenner-Dreier 
bill, what is their alternative if the constitutional amendment gets 
voted down? They have not stated what alternative they have, and that 
is why this bill is important.
  On September 11, 2001, the fourth hijacked plane was headed for this 
building. If it had not been for the heroic actions of the passengers 
of United Flight 93 who forced the plane down over Pennsylvania, 
Congress' ability to function may have been severely disrupted. While 
the 17th amendment allows Governors immediately to appoint replacement 
Senators, currently there are no mechanisms to quickly replace House 
Members. However, we can act today to enact such a mechanism through 
the legislative process, just as the founders intended. The Continuity 
of Representation Act of 2004 will, unlike other proposals, preserve 
the people's constitutional right to elect directly their 
representatives.
  The bill provides for the expedited special election of new Members 
to fill seats left vacant in extraordinary circumstances, which the 
bill defines as occurring when the Speaker announces that there are 
more than 100 vacancies in the representation from the States. Within 
10 days after such an announcement, the political parties of the States 
with House vacancies, as provided by State law, may nominate candidates 
to run in a special election to be held within 45 days.
  While some may argue for the adoption of a constitutional amendment 
allowing the appointment of replacement House Members if a terrorist 
attack leaves large numbers of vacancies, such an amendment would 
destroy the uninterrupted tradition that only Members duly and directly 
elected by their local constituents should serve in the House, while 
ignoring the current mechanism for preserving continuity in government, 
the founders, in their wisdom, included in the Constitution and which 
is the basis for this bill.
  Madison used the strongest terms when stating the House must be 
composed of only those elected by the people. Madison wrote in the 
Federalist Papers that direct elections are ``unquestionably the only 
policy'' by which the House can have ``an intimate sympathy with the 
people.''
  The House, uniquely among all branches and bodies of the entire 
Federal Government, is rooted in democratic principles, and those 
principles

[[Page H2320]]

must be preserved at all costs. Current Federal law allows the 
Presidency and the Senate to consist entirely of the unelected. Without 
an elected House, the entire Federal Government would be run without a 
single branch reflecting the popular will. Think about it. If we have 
an appointed House and an appointed Senate and an appointed President, 
our democracy will end up being run by appointed people. That is not 
what James Madison and the others who were in that convention 
envisioned ever happening.
  Congress has the clear constitutional authority to enact H.R. 2844 
under article I, section 4, of the Constitution, which states that 
``the Congress may at any time by law make or alter'' State election 
laws. Consistent with the right to chosen representation, the founders 
explicitly considered Congress' power to require expedited special 
elections the solution to potential discontinuity in government in 
extraordinary situations. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist 
Papers, the Constitution gives the Congress ``a right to interpose'' 
its special election rules on the States ``whenever extraordinary 
circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its 
safety.'' The Supreme Court has unanimously approved such clear-cut 
constitutional authority.
  While some take a pessimistic view of the resiliency of the electoral 
process following an attack on the Nation's Capitol, I have a different 
view.
  In England during the Second World War, many members of the House of 
Commons were killed in battle. Our friends across the Atlantic never 
devolved to appointed rule, and special elections were held within 42 
days after the date of death to fill the vast majority of seats left 
vacant, even when the Nazis were bombing England during the Blitz. I 
have no doubt that here today in the United States the boundless spirit 
of the American people will ensure that democracy prevails in the most 
pressing conditions. Just as the recovery of the Pentagon and the World 
Trade Center sites were accomplished far quicker than imagined, I have 
the greatest confidence in the people of this great country that State 
and local election authorities would expeditiously work to restore the 
people's House in time of emergency.
  R. Doug Lewis, executive director of the Elections Center, a 
nonpartisan organization representing the Nation's election officials, 
has testified that elections administrators from combined responses 
nationwide feel that they can conduct an election in as few as 45 days. 
While others assert that it would be too burdensome for special 
elections to be required within 45 days of a catastrophic attack, 10 
States, as the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out, already 
require special elections within 45 days in normal, nonemergency 
situations. Vacancies in the Virginia General Assembly during the 
session have been filled in as few as 12 days after the vacancy has 
occurred, and no one has complained that those elections were unfair or 
unrepresentative.
  One does not have to look far for examples of the resiliency of the 
voting process and our State and local election officials' dedication 
to the cause of democracy. Take, for example, last year's gubernatorial 
recall election in California that involved 135 candidates and an 
election that was certified 54 days after the certificate was issued. 
Voters were also asked to consider two constitutional amendment 
propositions. The election proceeded smoothly amidst unprecedentedly 
high voter turnout and 10,000 fewer polling places in the State of 
California than normal.
  While some imagine horrific scenarios regarding catastrophic attacks 
on the Capitol, more inspiring scenarios can be imagined that resonate 
more closely with the American spirit. Should such a terrible situation 
occur, millions of people around the country might fill schools and 
gymnasiums, churches and meeting halls and freely exercise, in the wake 
of a vigorous attack by haters of freedom and democracy, their right to 
directly chosen representation, a right that has served uninterrupted 
in the history of our country.

                              {time}  1345

  Indeed, while some argue that adopting an amendment to the 
Constitution authorizing appointed Members is necessary in the light of 
a potential terrorist attack, the very adoption of such an amendment 
itself would accomplish what no terrorist could ever do, namely 
striking a fatal blow to what otherwise has been called the people's 
House. H.R. 2844, on the other hand, is founded on clear, existing 
constitutional authority that preserves the vital, time-tested 
constitutional value of directly elected representation that has made 
this country the most successful experiment in representative 
government the world has ever known.
  The issue here in this debate has been if there is a catastrophe 
whether this House should stay elected or whether we should amend the 
Constitution to allow successors to be appointed in some manner or 
another. It is vitally important that in a time of crisis, whomever 
enters the doors to the Chambers where the House of Representatives 
meet enters the door with a mandate from the people, because if an 
appointed representative enters this door, the mandate would come from 
whomever appointed them.
  Pass the bill. Do the right thing.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think there is broad agreement in this House, more than one might 
know from listening to the debate, that we all value an elected House 
of Representatives, but we are talking about a worst-case scenario 
here.
  The chairman mentioned what if we had appointed Senators and 
appointed House Members and an appointed President. That would surely 
be a catastrophic event that would yield that situation where no one 
who was elected was left living to run the American Government. In that 
case I would argue it would be better to have appointed people rather 
than a single appointed person to run the government, because the issue 
really is between dictatorship and a tripartite form of government 
between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches.
  The chairman asks what is our alternative to his bill for expedited 
elections? And I would ask what is the alternative for the 45 days that 
leaves a vacancy, a void that the adoption of this bill would provide? 
I worry that we have not begun the work on this constitutional 
amendment.
  I introduced a constitutional amendment in December of 2001 
contemplating a worst case. It may be that that amendment needs 
additional work. Frankly, I think it does. But that work needs to be in 
a bipartisan effort in the Committee on the Judiciary and later here on 
the floor. I would urge we begin that as soon as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who has also been in the 
forefront of this issue, and I thank him for his comments.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and for his fine work on this important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation and am 
disappointed that we are not able to discuss the matter of continuity 
in the thoughtful, thorough, and nonpartisan manner it deserves. Many 
of my colleagues, including the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson), have tried to encourage dialogue on this 
matter, but this bill does not address many of the concerns raised by 
Members of this House and outside experts during the last 2\1/2\ years.
  Under H.R. 2844, if the House experienced the deaths of more than 100 
Members, the Speaker could direct States to conduct special elections 
within 45 days. Well, as a former secretary of state, I know how to run 
elections, and the 45-day time frame in this bill would severely limit 
election officials' ability to prepare ballots, train poll workers, 
select polling locations, and inform the voting public about the 
process. The short time frame would also disenfranchise our military 
and citizens living abroad, as well as certain elderly and disabled 
citizens who would not be able to apply for, receive,

[[Page H2321]]

and return their absentee ballots by mail. All of these things and many 
more would clearly undermine the process and the outcome of such a 
special election.
  Now, while 45 days is not enough time to conduct special elections, 
it is certainly too long for Congress to remain inactive. In the 6 
weeks after the attacks of September 11, Congress passed legislation 
authorizing the use of military force, an airline assistance measure, 
an economic stimulus bill, the Defense Authorization Act, numerous 
appropriation bills, the farm bill, and legislation pertaining to 
bioterrorism, victims assistance, and going after terrorism financing. 
H.R. 2844 would leave important decisions to a greatly diminished and 
possibly an unrepresentative House. In the case of widespread 
incapacitation, the House would be unable to achieve a quorum and 
become inoperative during a time of crisis.
  I am disappointed that H.R. 2844 does not address these important 
issues and ignores a priority of mine, deciding how Congress could 
communicate and function if terrorist acts prevented it from meeting in 
one location. These matters warrant greater discussion than the limited 
bill before us, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has 
introduced a discharge petition for a full and fair debate on 
continuity, which I have signed.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2844 and to 
sign the Baird discharge petition.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There has been a lot of serious discussion here on the floor today, 
and I think some wonderful things have been said, but a few things that 
have come to my mind in listening to them. Certainly Madison's 
wonderful discussion about the elected nature of this body is important 
to all of us, but also we must recall those words were said at a time 
when the United States Senate was totally appointed.
  Now, of course, the Senate is elected, but not a one of us would 
argue, I think, that Senator Murkowski is not a real Senator. She is. 
And just as would the temporary House Members be, if the worst-case 
disaster came and all the House Members were killed, if we had 
temporaries until an accelerated election system allowed for 
replacement by elected people.
  I worried on September 11 that if the terrorists really understood 
our system of government, they would know that the easiest way to turn 
the American democracy into a dictatorship would be to kill the Members 
of the House, because that is our weak link in terms of our American 
democracy. I think if we can provide for the continuity of the 
legislative branch of government, we will do a wonderful thing for our 
country, because we will preserve the American democracy, and we will 
do something else: We will make the legislative branch safer from 
attack. If terrorists cannot destroy the American democracy by killing 
the Members of the House, it is a lot more less attractive to kill the 
Members of the House.
  I would like to say something else. We have talked about the 
dictatorship that would be necessary if Congress could not function. 
There is another aspect, which is the element of the confidence of the 
people in the legislative branch. For example, and I mentioned this at 
the Committee on Rules hearing last night, how would the American 
people feel if the terrorists went out to the Republican Conference 
retreat and they killed all the Republican Members, and only the House 
Democrats were left? Would that feel comfortable for the country as a 
whole, for a country that is almost evenly divided in terms of party 
representation? I think not.
  What if all the Members on the east coast were killed, and only the 
west coast Members survived to run the country? Would that really lead 
to confidence on the part of the American people?
  We need to make sure that this branch of government survives on a 
temporary basis while these accelerated elections can be held. I 
personally think that the 45 days may be a bit too aggressive. I know 
my own State of California has suggested a slightly longer time frame 
to actually hold an election that will work. And I know that there will 
be an amendment offered to extend the amount of time by a small amount 
that hopefully might gain some favor from Members on both sides of the 
aisle. But I do think whatever we do with the accelerated election bill 
before us today, we will have let down our country if we do not address 
the constitutional issues required to really save the American 
democracy from the worst case that the terrorists might throw out.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Following the horrific attacks on September 11, it became evident 
that Congress had to act in case there was a catastrophic event that 
literally jeopardized the ongoing government. We handled this in many 
different ways. There was a working group. We held a hearing in my 
subcommittee, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, should we go the 
constitutional amendment route or statute. I became convinced the 
statute was the best way to go to ensure directly elected 
representatives in this body.
  I would urge my colleagues to continue to make this the people's 
House, where we are all elected by the people, and nobody is appointed 
by Governors or anybody else.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's 
yielding me this time.
  I support the Continuity In Representation Act of 2004. This 
legislation preserves the right of the people of the United States to 
elect their own representatives, even after a deadly attack. One of the 
cornerstones of our Constitution is the right of the people to govern 
themselves through elected representation. This right should be upheld 
and, in fact, continued.
  H.R. 2844 provides for the expedited special election of new Members 
of Congress if more than 100 seats are vacant. This is designed to 
address a situation in which our country is attacked and significant 
numbers of Members of Congress are killed.
  Mr. Chairman, in the wake of such an attack on our country, Americans 
need to be assured that their government is legitimate, and citizens 
need to feel that actions undertaken by Congress at a time of disaster 
or war are also legitimate. By allowing for the election of 
Representatives rather than for their appointment, Americans can be 
reassured that our government is continuing to function in a truly 
representative fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for moving legislation that guarantees our government 
would survive. It has been over 2 years since September 11. This issue 
must be addressed today in a democratic fashion.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressional succession is one of the 
most timely--yet challenging--issues facing this body. In order to 
successfully resolve this issue, we must craft a solution that will 
ensure that the legislative branch of government remains fully 
functional; while also guaranteeing that the will of the people is 
constantly reflected. Along the way, of course, we must also guarantee 
that all of the civil rights laws--currently on the books--remain 
unaffected.
  I initially agreed to serve as an original cosponsor of the 
legislation before us because I generally believe that we should avoid 
amending the Constitution, when a statutory response is available. Such 
an approach is quicker, more likely to be passed into law, and avoids 
amending our most sacred national charter. While recognizing that this 
bill is far from perfect, I considered it to be a good first step--
something we could build upon in a bipartisan way.
  Unfortunately, several serious concerns remain unaddressed. For 
example, it has been suggested that the 45 day time-frame may be

[[Page H2322]]

insufficient to conduct expedited elections, and lead to the 
disenfranchisement of many of our men and women in the armed services. 
It also has been brought to my attention that the bill contains several 
unfunded mandates and is completely silent on the issue of Member 
disability or incapacity.
  However, the aspect of the bill that I am most deeply troubled by 
relates to its possible impact on our civil rights laws--laws that I 
have fought long and hard to protect throughout the tenure of my 
career. Namely, the impact that the legislation would have on the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and 
Handicapped Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 
Act, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the American with 
Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973--just to 
name a few.
  The expedited timeframe that some seek to establish in this bill 
could substantially undermine the pre-clearance requirements outlined 
in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Needless to say, this is an 
extreme provision of the Act. It remains a bedrock principle of the 
law.
  The current bill before us could also lead to the disenfranchisement 
of countless handicapped and elderly voters--if due to the expedited 
timeframe--election authorities are forced to use polling places that 
are not wheelchair accessible. Or, if individuals with disabilities 
failed to receive the required 30 day notice with respect to polling 
place information--as required under the ADA.
  To address these obvious deficiencies, Ranking Member Larson of the 
House Administration committee submitted an amendment to the Rules 
committee that would have made clear that nothing within this bill 
would be construed to affect the application of the numerous civil 
rights and voting laws I just mentioned. It is worth pointing out that 
similar language was included in the Help America Vote Act, recently 
passed by this body. Unfortunately, it was the wisdom of some to object 
to making that amendment in order.
  It was my sincere hope that we could have worked together today on a 
bipartisan basis to reach agreement on these difficult issues. This 
should not have been an issue that necessitated a partisan debate.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, how much I have appreciated the debate this 
afternoon on this important issue. I want to go back, because of the 
focus of this debate, to comments made by Estes Kefauver. This is not 
an issue that is new to this Chamber. It has been raised in the past, 
and I think Kefauver cuts to the core of this issue.
  He said, ``I do not say that it would be necessarily impossible for 
the House of Representatives to function with but a fraction of its 
Members. I am informed that present parliamentary precedents indicate 
that the House can operate with a quorum of its living Members. But any 
disaster which killed one-half or one-third of the Representatives 
might well disable or isolate so many others that a quorum of survivors 
could not be mustered.
  ``Also, if this occurred before a new Congress had organized and 
adopted its rules, a point of order might well be sustained that a 
quorum consists of a majority of all Members chosen. In any event, it 
would be important at such time that the representative character of 
the House be preserved. And that the delegations of the people of all 
States be substantially intact for the urgent legislative action which 
could be taken.''

                              {time}  1400

  The representative character of the House is equally as 
constitutionally compelling as is being duly elected here, because as 
so often quoted today, the Connecticut Compromise focused on the 
representation of States, and if a disaster did occur, I cannot imagine 
a body or this democracy would be able to proceed in a legitimate 
fashion with the potential of States, many States, not even being 
represented.
  Kefauver went on to say the President should have the degree of 
support and national unity which only a fully constituted Congress can 
give him. Think back to those images I talked about earlier and how 
important it was as a symbol for this country. I think that cuts to the 
heart of how strongly people feel about this issue.
  Mr. Chamberlain of Michigan shared a similar concern. His concern was 
that this body, its representative nature, without being legitimate, 
could force us into a situation that would not be reflective of this 
great institution and this great body.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost) for the commission they headed up. But most of 
all, I want to thank the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who cares about the institution and helped with 
this piece of legislation.
  This legislation falls in line with what we have always done in the 
entire history of our country, which is to elect Members. It is a good 
bill. Also, let us have some faith in the American people. If a crisis 
happens, which we hope it does not, the American people are resilient. 
The American people will continue with their democracy and will 
exercise the purest form of democracy, which is to vote. I support the 
bill.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, today, this House passed important 
legislation that will help ensure elected representation in the House 
of Representatives in the event that there is a tragic and catastrophic 
loss of life amongst the membership of this body. It is important that, 
should such a tragedy occur, that the people's House remain a body of 
elected officials, and H.R. 2844 would protect this character of the 
House of Representatives. H.R. 2844 would ensure that, in the event of 
a national tragedy and an extraordinary loss of life in this House, our 
government would continue to operate in a timely and effective manner 
that upholds the rights and ideals afforded to every American in our 
Constitution.
  Had I not had a previous commitment in my home State of Georgia, I 
would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 129, a vote on amendment 
No. 2 offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut to H.R. 2844; and I would 
have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Vote No. 130, a vote on passage for H.R. 
2844, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2004.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the committee on the 
Judiciary took this bill up in a markup in January of this year, and I 
expressed my reservations with its provisions as drafted on the 
Committee record. This bill has major flaws that require the attention 
of Members of both sides of the aisle. Since one of the pillars of our 
government is the principle of due process as set forth in the 5th and 
14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, it is critical that a piece 
of legislation such as this that deals with the mechanics of electing 
leaders in emergency situations be crafted with full respect for those 
principles. The 45-day deadline for State special elections set forth 
in this bill, as drafted, will not alleviate the fact that States won't 
have sufficient time to hold primary elections. Furthermore, such a 
short amount of preparation time could arguably favor candidates who 
are wealthy or well-backed because only these candidates would have the 
resources and ability to prepare such a quick election campaign.
  Therefore, I have proposed amendments that are geared toward the 
maintenance of our due process guarantees with respect to the emergency 
special election process that would be triggered under this Act.
  The first potion of this amendment, JACKSO.173, reads as follows:

       In section 26(b)(4)(C)(i) of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, strike 
     ``2 days'' and insert ``7 days.''

  This change would amend the section of the bill that deals with the 
time in which a person(s) may file a lawsuit arising out of the Speaker 
of the House's announcement of vacancies in the House of 
Representatives in excess of 100. This change would amend paragraph 
(4), subparagraph (B)(i) and expand the ability of an aggrieved party 
to file suit for either declaratory or injunctive relief from just two 
(2) days to seven (7) days.
  Because not every State has a Capital Beltway or even a superhighway 
system, and because information travels at a different rate in every 
location, it is important that we establish a fair standard for a 
filing rule that affects every State in the country. The principle of 
procedural due process dictates that every citizen be given a realistic 
opportunity to obtain legal relief through our Judicial Branch.

  The second portion of this proposal speaks even more to the issue of 
due process for all citizens. Its test reads as follows:

       In section 26(b)(4)(C)(iii) of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, insert 
     after ``the action'' the following: ``(taking into account an 
     opportunity for an expedited appeal of the initial 
     decision).''

  Because the 45-day deadline for special State elections already 
places significant constraints on the electoral process and on the 
citizens represented due to its brevity, taking away the right to an 
appeal from the U.S. District Court would excessively curtail the 
procedural due process rights enjoyed by citizens. Given that the time 
in which a Federal judge has to compose an order disposing of these 
matters is provided in this bill, an equally expeditious appeals 
process should be provided

[[Page H2323]]

so as to maintain consistency with the U.S. Constitution and the 
commitment to both the 5th and 14th Amendments.
  Thirdly, the amendment reads as follows:

       In section 26(b)(4)(C)(iv) of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, insert 
     after ``vacant'' the following: ``any citizen of the district 
     and any political party of the State.''

  This proposal is very important to protect the interests of all 
citizens in the various congressional districts in the midst of party 
politics. As the bill is drafted, Section 2, paragraph (4), 
subparagraph (iv) would confer the right to sue in the event of a 
vacancy announcement by the Speaker of the House solely to the 
``executive authority,'' in Houston's case, the Governor. Such very 
limited language almost certainly threatens to deprive the citizens of 
a right that they should enjoy in the event that the Governor chooses 
not to participate in a suit for declaratory or injunctive relief 
pursuant to a vacancy announcement made by the Speaker of the House. In 
order to protect the rights of every person who truly has an interest 
in a call for a special election under this Act, this provision must be 
amended to allow citizens and political party representatives to sue 
for relief.
  As legislators charged with the duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution, 
the principles of democracy call for an expansion of the rights of 
citizens rather than a diminution. H.R. 2844, as drafted, totally 
leaves the citizens and constituents out of the democratic process. Our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have fervently argued that 
this bill gives the people their constitutional right to participate in 
the electoral process. However, the truth of the matter is that our 
colleagues' arguments are misguided and serve to avert the ``meat and 
potatoes'' of the bill. Key to the operant provisions of H.R. 2844 is 
the ability to file suit with respect to the announcement of a vacancy 
or vacancies in the House to the extent that no quorum exists in 
addition to the provision of time in which to file such an action. As 
drafted, the bill not only provides an unrealistic period in which to 
file an action and it gives standing to do so exclusively to the 
Governor of a State. This is not democratic. This is not truly 
representative. Because this legislation fails to do what it purports 
to do, I cannot support it.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2844.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have concerns and reservations 
about this bill--but I will vote for it.
  I will vote for it because I think we need to recognize and respond 
to the risk that a terrorist attack or some similar event might kill or 
disable enough of our colleagues that it would be impossible for the 
House of Representatives to play its vital role in our constitutional 
government. And this bill does take a first step in addressing this 
problem.
  However, I think it would have been better for the House to have had 
more time to fully debate the measure, and that it should have been 
taken up under a less-restrictive procedure that would have allowed 
consideration of more amendments.
  Elections are central to our political system. They are essential to 
assure that our government is based on the will and the preferences of 
the American people. But the conduct of elections can be as difficult 
as it is important--ask any State official with responsibility in this 
area. So, we need to proceed carefully and thoughtfully when we 
legislate on this subject--more carefully and with more opportunity for 
considering revisions than was permitted under the procedures 
established by the Republican leadership for today's debate.
  As that debate made clear, some of our colleagues--including some for 
whom I have the highest respect--think it would be better to go further 
than this bill, or any simple statutory change, can go. They would 
prefer to address the problem through a constitutional amendment.
  While I am very reluctant to consider changing the Constitution, I do 
think that on this subject, the possibility of a constitutional 
amendment should not be ruled out. However, in the meantime I think we 
need to do what can be done short of such a fundamental change. That is 
what this bill does, and that is why I will vote for it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the legislation 
before us today. The loss of a large number of Members of the House of 
Representatives is an important institutional issue to which we should 
devote a substantial amount of consideration. This issue deserves an 
open rule to allow every Member time to express his or her opinion and 
offer their ideas. It is outrageous that we are only being offered one 
choice to decide how the entire House of Representatives will be 
governed in a time of national crisis. Should tragedy strike the House, 
this legislation could give unprecedented power to the executive branch 
or a few Members of Congress who were elected by just a small sliver of 
the country. We have not had adequate time to review this legislation, 
nor have we been allowed to bring sufficient amendments to the floor 
for debate. Once again, we are considering legislation without ample 
debate time and without alternatives. I oppose this bill and encourage 
my colleagues to do the same.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment and, pursuant to the rule, shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2844

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Continuity in Representation 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIRING SPECIAL ELECTIONS TO BE HELD TO FILL 
                   VACANCIES IN HOUSE IN EXTRAORDINARY 
                   CIRCUMSTANCES.

       Section 26 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 
     U.S.C. 8) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The time'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the time''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Special Rules in Extraordinary Circumstances.--
       ``(1) In general.--In extraordinary circumstances, the 
     executive authority of any State in which a vacancy exists in 
     its representation in the House of Representatives shall 
     issue a writ of election to fill such vacancy by special 
     election.
       ``(2) Timing of special election.--A special election held 
     under this subsection to fill a vacancy shall take place not 
     later than 45 days after the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives announces that the vacancy exists, unless a 
     regularly scheduled general election for the office involved 
     is to be held at any time during the 75-day period which 
     begins on the date of the announcement of the vacancy.
       ``(3) Nominations by parties.--If a special election is to 
     be held under this subsection, not later than 10 days after 
     the Speaker announces that the vacancy exists, the political 
     parties of the State that are authorized to nominate 
     candidates by State law may each nominate one candidate to 
     run in the election.
       ``(4) Extraordinary circumstances.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this subsection, `extraordinary 
     circumstances' occur when the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives announces that vacancies in the 
     representation from the States in the House exceed 100.
       ``(B) Judicial review.--If any action is brought for 
     declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge an announcement 
     made under subparagraph (A), the following rules shall apply:
       ``(i) Not later than 2 days after the announcement, the 
     action shall be filed in the United States District Court 
     having jurisdiction in the district of the Member of the 
     House of Representatives whose seat has been announced to be 
     vacant and shall be heard by a 3-judge court convened 
     pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code.
       ``(ii) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly 
     to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
       ``(iii) A final decision in the action shall be made within 
     3 days of the filing of such action and shall not be 
     reviewable.
       ``(iv) The executive authority of the State that contains 
     the district of the Member of the House of Representatives 
     whose seat has been announced to be vacant shall have the 
     right to intervene either in support of or opposition to the 
     position of a party to the case regarding the announcement of 
     such vacancy.
       ``(5) Deadline for transmittal of absentee ballots for 
     absent military and over-seas voters.--In conducting a 
     special election held under this subsection to fill a vacancy 
     in its representation, the State shall ensure to the greatest 
     extent practicable (including through the use of electronic 
     means) that absentee ballots for the election are transmitted 
     to absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters (as 
     such terms are defined in the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 
     Absentee Voting Act) not later than 15 days after the Speaker 
     of the House of Representatives announces that the vacancy 
     exists.''.
  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute is in order except the amendments printed in part B of 
the report and the amendment designated in the previous order of the 
House. Each amendment may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to 
amendment and shall not be

[[Page H2324]]

subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part B of 
House Report 108-466.


          Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut:
       In section 26(b)(2) of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States, as proposed to be added by the bill, strike ``45 
     days'' and insert ``75 days''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 602, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the two amendments I have been restricted to offering 
today during this truncated debate will attempt to restore to the bill 
some of the elements which the American people associate with true 
democracy and legitimate elections, elections which allow the public to 
make a reasoned choice from among candidates who have had a fair chance 
to present themselves and to conduct campaigns, and elections which 
allow the American people to feel secure that their officials are 
representative of the diversity of their views.
  That is, after all, the essence of our democracy. That is what this 
arbitrarily crafted legislation would strip away from all of us at a 
time when the stability of our political system will be under more 
stress than at any point since the Civil War.
  One basic element of elections is the time required by our political 
system to conduct them. Supporters of expedited special elections, or 
in the case of this bill would be better called ``rushed'' special 
elections, would no doubt say that time is of the essence in replacing 
deceased Members of the House, and I agree. But the essence of 
democracy is choice, and the practices to facilitate that choice.
  Meaningful democratic elections provide time for candidates to choose 
to run, time for political parties to choose among them through 
primaries and other methods, time for minor parties and independent 
candidates to qualify for the ballot, time for voters to register to 
vote, time to secure polling places, time to train poll workers, print 
ballots and mail out and receive back absentee ballots.
  My first amendment today addresses the bill's short overall time 
frame. It would increase the maximum time allowed to conduct special 
elections to 75 days, up from 45 days. There is nothing in this 
amendment which prevents any State from holding expedited special 
elections in a shorter time should they wish to do so and should they 
be capable of doing so. H.R. 2844, as introduced, contained a 21-day 
deadline for the conduct of special elections, which could not possibly 
have worked, but which demonstrated, in my view, the urgency to ``stand 
up'' a democracy that has been debated previously on the bill.
  The amended version approved by the Committee on House Administration 
at the behest of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
specified 45 days. This number is, I believe, too low, although a 
number of State laws provide for special elections within such a time 
frame. But most States, including my own State of Connecticut, as well 
as the State of Wisconsin, do not.
  Conducting elections is difficult. It is time-consuming work, and it 
must be done correctly or the rights of the people will be violated, 
and the legitimacy of election winners will be questioned.
  This amendment would alleviate a number of serious problems in the 
bill, better maintain the stability of our political process, and 
enhance the role of States in making decisions about the process they 
value most in conducting truncated special elections.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), our distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and both chairmen for 
bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. I rise in 
opposition to the amendment. It seems 75 days may be necessary to run a 
special election, but our experience in Texas is we can run a special 
election in less than 30 days. Ours is 36 days. I guarantee Members, 
when people get fired up to do an election, they can do it quite 
quickly, particularly with everybody interested in winning that 
election. I think 75 days is way too long to allow this body to sit and 
wait for something to happen.
  I want to talk now about something even more fundamental. I carry the 
Constitution around with me in my pocket in order to constantly remind 
myself when I get dressed in the morning there still is a Constitution 
in this country. I know some, particularly those on the other side of 
the aisle, call this a living document, it does not mean a whole lot, 
and they are willing to change it and not even consider the unintended 
consequences or consider why the genius of our Founding Fathers 
understood what it took to build a democracy and what it took to 
maintain a democracy.
  That is why we have checks and balances. That is why we do not place 
all of the power into one person or even one branch. It is vitally 
important for this body to be elected, and there is a reason for that. 
The reason is this is the people's House. We have to be elected in 
order to reflect the will of the people at the moment.
  The other body is set up in our Constitution to slow us down, but we 
are set up to reflect the will of the people at the moment. We cannot 
do that if we put all of the power, particularly after a catastrophe, 
in the hands of one or two people to make the appointments. The 
appointees, the people who would come here to serve, would have no 
allegiance to the American people. They would not care about what the 
American people did because they were not elected by the American 
people. They were appointed by some big power broker back in their 
State or in their district, or even in their local counties. That is 
not the way to continue this democracy.
  We cannot have a democracy if we have a body sitting here in judgment 
of what is good for this country by appointed people. I heard a Member 
from the other side of the aisle earlier say, well, we changed the 
Constitution in 1913, and we now elect Senators. I am willing to have a 
debate that electing Senators by popular vote has had a very real 
negative impact on this country.
  I am prepared to say why in the world would anybody want to take away 
the will of the people to have their own House, the United States House 
of Representatives, by election and not by some power-broker-type 
appointment.
  I am opposed to those who have suggested that we ought to appoint our 
successors. That is the worst thing we could do is for us to announce, 
once we get elected, who is going to succeed us. That would create all 
kinds of havoc. Who is the leader in the congressional district, the 
elected Member of Congress or the heir-apparent appointed by that 
Member of Congress?
  It is important in order for the continuity of this government and 
the continuity of freedom in this country to understand the genius of 
our Founding Fathers and the genius that put it together and not change 
it and not change the way this country works. We have to pass this 
bill. We have to elect this House. This is the people's House.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), as the majority leader of this body, 
if the other party were in power and this body were eliminated, would 
the gentleman be perfectly comfortable, under his constitutional 
fealty, in letting the executive branch rule this country, take this 
country into war, and do all of the other things reserved under that 
Constitution with no checks and balances?
  Again, it is a false straw man to say that anybody here wants to do 
away with elections. The issue is do we do

[[Page H2325]]

away with the entire Congress temporarily until we can hold elections? 
We need those checks and balances. And they are not the only ones 
standing up for this Constitution who are opposing the alternatives of 
temporary appointments. We, too, are standing up for it. We are 
standing up for checks and balances, separation of powers, and all of 
the Article I provisions that are ensured in the Constitution.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) cuts directly against every 
argument he has made up to now.
  What the gentleman's amendment does is delay for another 30 days the 
right of the people to elect their own replacement Representatives. We 
either can reconstitute the House quickly or reconstitute the House 
slowly, and this amendment makes it happen slower.
  The gentleman also brings up the issue that in Wisconsin we need 62 
days. We have primary elections and special elections in Wisconsin. 
This bill says there should be no primary elections, and that cuts it 
down to 34 days. So Wisconsin runs a primary election 34 days after the 
vacancy occurs. We would have no problem replacing me or any of my 
colleagues from Wisconsin within the 45-day period of time.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Throughout history States have often been the engines of political 
diversity and experimentation. The reason I chose the 75-day time frame 
was to allow more of those elements to be sustained. The 45-day time 
frame is far shorter than the special election time frames in a 
majority of States. The Commission on the Continuity of Government, the 
Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, estimate 
that the average length of vacancies over the last nine Congresses has 
been more than 120 days. A 75-day time frame thus provides a process 
significantly faster than the norm in many instances, while avoiding 
some of the more jarring effects of the bill's far more drastic 
limitation.

                              {time}  1415

  That was the rationale in crafting this legislation. That was the 
rationale where others have suggested 60, or even 90, days. I felt 75 
days guaranteed the cherished rights that we all seek to protect under 
any proposal. The 75-day proposal, I will admit, is arbitrary, like the 
21-day, or the 45-day period selected previously by the sponsors, but 
the entire bill is constructed around arbitrary numbers which we are 
only permitted to amend in a limited way.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me state that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is 
arbitrary about the 45-day period. The State of New York has a maximum 
of 40 days, and we know that it has worked very well in the State of 
New York. And I think it is also important to note that there are three 
former Secretaries of State, I know at least on our side of the aisle, 
who serve here; and we fashioned this legislation in consultation with 
Secretaries of State in seeking the amount of time that would, in fact, 
address the concern that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has 
raised that we as quickly as possible make sure that this institution 
is reconstituted. So I think it is important just to note that we have 
not been arbitrary in the selection of this 45 days. A lot of research 
went into this.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is 
no doubt in my mind of the great effort and the intellect and the able 
people that they have put behind this. The CBO reports that more than 
40 States are going to have a problem with this mandate, and will be 
forced to go well beyond their means. In hearing from my own State of 
Connecticut--from my Secretary of State--about all the underlying 
concerns that are raised, especially as it relates to voting rights 
acts, she said she would not feel comfortable unless there was a 60-day 
period.
  Can it be accomplished in 45 days? Perhaps. But as I indicated 
earlier, as Judge Learned Hand said, this is a question that leaves us 
``not too sure that we are right,'' and with all due respect, I would 
rather err on the side of making sure that people were guaranteed those 
rights.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I briefly mentioned during the debate on 
the rule what happened out in California. We know that each 
congressional district has about 650,000, fewer than 650,000 people. We 
might have two or three candidates in those races. In California, we 
had 125 candidates and we had a total of 55 days; and the prediction of 
doom, I was frankly suspicious about the prospect of seeing us put 
together in a 55-day period with 35 million Californians this special 
election when in fact we found that we were able to do it in that 
period of time for a State of 35 million people. I think in the 
congressional districts that are a fraction of that size, 45 days is a 
reasonable period.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just 
wanted to close by saying that this has been an extraordinary 
afternoon, and I deeply appreciate the hard work and effort that has 
gone into this proposal on all sides. I simply disagree in principle 
with terms of the bill itself, notwithstanding my own position on the 
need for a constitutional amendment; but I do not think the bill before 
us gets the job done, and I think it imperils the very democratic 
processes that we all cherish so much, that allows a person to walk in 
here as a duly elected representative of his constituents.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to weigh in with a couple of comments. I think probably 
enough has been said about this issue, but I wanted to dovetail on some 
of the comments made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, who put a lot of time 
and effort and testified at the Committee on House Administration on 
this issue.
  An election conducted within the 45-day time frame, I would be the 
first to admit, and I said it earlier, would undoubtedly present 
challenges and would present some difficulties for State and local 
election officials more so than would an election conducted under 
certain normal circumstances; and in a perfect world we would like to 
provide as much time as necessary for election officials to prepare for 
an election and the electorate to make informed choices about 
candidates. Election officials all over this country on both side of 
the aisle work very hard. I think all of us have viewed on election day 
the activities of these officials. They are hard workers, and I believe 
that under a crisis situation they will step up, they will perform, but 
again, I state, in a crisis situation.
  In the unique situation where large numbers of House Members have 
been killed in a terrorist attack, the desire for extensive election 
preparation time has to be weighed, has to be weighed against the 
urgent need to fill House vacancies with elected Members as quickly as 
is reasonable under the circumstances.
  Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, a national 
nonprofit organization serving the elections and voter registration 
profession, testified before the Committee on House Administration last 
year that the majority of our country's chief election officials 
believe that 45 days would provide sufficient time to plan and prepare 
for an expedited special election. And I believe that Doug Lewis had 
done a polling throughout his organization, and I should tell the 
Members that Doug Lewis and his organization have credibility. They are 
on the forefront of the Help America Vote Act, and they work and 
represent the people who are right in the trenches that deal with this 
every single election period. At present there are 10 States, including 
Minnesota, Texas, New York, and Georgia that require the filling of 
House vacancies within 45 days. Thus I believe if they can do it, we 
can do it nationally; and I believe 45 days is a reasonable

[[Page H2326]]

time frame for conducting a fair, open, and meaningful election.
  So for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in part B of 
House Report 108-466.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut:
       Amend paragraph (3) of section 26(b) of the Revised 
     Statutes of the United States, as proposed to be added by the 
     bill, to read as follows:
       ``(3) Eligibility of candidates.--
       ``(A) In general.--A candidate shall be eligible to run in 
     a special election held in a State under this subsection if 
     the candidate meets such requirements as may apply under 
     State law.
       ``(B) Extension of deadline for election.--A State may 
     extend the deadline provided under paragraph (2) for a 
     special election to the extent the State considers necessary 
     to prepare balloting materials and distribute absentee 
     ballots which include the names of all eligible candidates, 
     and to otherwise ensure that all eligible candidates are 
     given sufficient time to prepare for and participate in the 
     election.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 602, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore democratic protections to 
candidates who wish to run in expedited special elections under H.R. 
2844, and would enhance the voters' electoral choices, which the bill, 
I believe, needlessly seeks to limit. It would also give to the States, 
who are our first responders in elections, greater flexibility to 
respond to problems raised by a potential catastrophe or terrorist 
attack.
  The amendment accomplishes several major improvements in the bill. 
First, it would eliminate the bill's perhaps most outrageous defect, 
the ban on primary elections in the great number of States which use 
them in special elections. The bill does this indirectly by requiring 
political parties in the States to select their nominees within 10 days 
of the Speaker's announcement of vacancies. The amendment strikes out 
that provision while adding entirely different language enhancing 
candidate eligibility, voters' electoral choices, and State flexibility 
in election administration.
  The use of primaries was one of the great reforms in American 
politics which distinguishes us from many forms of parliamentary 
government. There is no way States could conduct primaries under the 
10-day restriction. Indeed, this deadline provides barely enough time 
for prospective candidates to assess whether they even want to run.
  In place of primaries, the bill would require political party 
committees of some sort to select a nominee, which is a legitimate 
mechanism already in use in some States for special elections; but even 
in those States, 10 days is a very short time. And of course many 
States do not allow selection of candidates by party committees because 
they consider it undemocratic, and require the selection of candidates 
by popular vote.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), in answering a 
question that I posed at the Committee on House Administration markup 
of this bill, when I was seeking clarity about some of the provisions 
his bill--what the bill would actually do--was crystal clear on one 
issue in this bill. He would penalize political parties in those States 
which could not meet the 10-day deadline by requiring that their party 
lines to be left blank on the ballot. He writes to the committee that 
H.R. 2844 clearly provides that political parties may, not must, 
nominate candidates within the 10-days allowed in any manner they see 
fit. If they do not, or cannot nominate a candidate within the time 
allowed, such parties will not appear on the ballot.
  Selection of nominees, of course, is the ultimate political process, 
but it is more often known for controversy, deal-making, and intrigue, 
rather than speed and efficiency. That is why we have the expression 
``the smoke-filled room.''
  Imagine the nightmare if this bill became law, and the political 
parties in your district were unable to field any candidate because 
they could not convene under potentially adverse circumstances due to a 
national crisis, or if a party committee did not meet, but could not 
reach agreement on a nominee because there was strong competition among 
well-qualified candidates. How could there then be an election? Whom 
would the voters choose from the blank page?
  I remind the Members that this bill's stated purpose is to expedite 
special elections, and to reconstitute the House of Representatives. 
Having elections without candidates would certainly accomplish the 
first goal, but would obviously fail miserably in the second. Not only 
could the bill leave the voters without any candidates to choose from, 
but it could have other irrational effects as well.
  For example, even in a State like Minnesota, which in 1977 held both 
a special primary and a special election for a House seat in only 29 
days, H.R. 2844 would require the abandonment of the primary system 
even though such a State might, under normal conditions, be able to 
comply with the overall 45-day deadline of the bill. The State managed 
to hold its primary in this case in 15 days, but could it do it in 10 
days--the time limit for candidate selection in H.R. 2844? Why should 
the bill penalize those States, which could achieve their electoral 
results following regular order, by forcing them to change their basic 
political practices, and suddenly start choosing candidates through 
party committees?
  Mr. Chairman, the 10-day provision of this bill, and its potentially 
disastrous side effects, constitutes reason enough for the adoption of 
my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman from Connecticut's (Mr. Larson) 
concern that an expedited special election should be open to as many 
eligible candidates as possible. However, this amendment, although I do 
not believe intended, would indirectly undermine the very core of H.R. 
2844, which is the establishment of a time frame for conducting 
expedited special elections that promptly fill House vacancies while 
still providing the necessary time for election preparation.
  This amendment would permit each State to determine how much or how 
little time it needs to conduct a special election, thereby rendering 
meaningless H.R. 2844's 45-day time frame for conducting those 
elections. The framework for expedited special elections that is set 
forth in H.R. 2844 represents a balanced approach, taking into 
consideration both the need for an accelerated reconstitution of the 
House and also the need for adequate election preparation time. This 
amendment would knock that framework out of balance and would in all 
likelihood unnecessarily prolong the period that many American people 
would be without representation in the House of Representatives in the 
aftermath of a catastrophic attack.
  I do say I appreciate the commitment to the States rights that my 
friends are showing on the other side of the aisle, demonstrated by 
their support of this amendment. I hope that commitment will continue 
to be reflected in future votes on other election-related matters, on 
all issues, for that matter.
  However, I think we could agree that if there was ever a time when 
Federal preemption of State laws was appropriate, it would be in the 
aftermath of

[[Page H2327]]

an attack that has killed over 100 of us as Members of the House. We 
have an obligation to take action to make sure that in those 
circumstances this House is reconstituted with elected Members as 
quickly as possible. That is a Federal responsibility, not one that 
should be left to the States to decide. I cannot think of a more 
appropriate or more necessary time to exercise our article I, section 4 
powers to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections.

                              {time}  1430

  Therefore, I would oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, earlier I asked this body to consider two 
questions: How would the Framers feel about the House of 
Representatives constituted by a few Members or no House of 
Representatives at all, and how would their constituents react if they 
had no voice as the country were taken into war by an unelected Cabinet 
member?
  Let me ask this question: The distinguished majority leader proudly 
held the Constitution of the United States up and presented to us that 
he was defending the Constitution with this legislation. Where, my good 
friends, in that sacred Constitution does it say that the political 
parties will be authorized to select the candidates who can be elected 
for the House of Representatives? If we are defending the Constitution, 
how in the name of the Framers can we say that political parties will 
select the candidates for office? And if we are saying that we are 
protecting the rights of our voters, how can we do so when we 
disenfranchise all independent voters from selecting their candidate of 
choice, and instead put that decision into the political elites, the 
very people who you assert you are protecting the voters from with your 
base bill?
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment to gut the 
bill. All you need to do is look at the last three lines of the 
amendment that says ``or otherwise ensure that all eligible candidates 
are given sufficient time to prepare for and participate in the 
election.''
  A State could decide to postpone the election indefinitely because 
they decided that all the candidates needed to have 30 face-to-face 
debates, and that would fall into the catch-all clause. We need to have 
a specified time frame to reconstitute the House with elected Members, 
and that is why we have the time frame put down here.
  I am very interested in listening to the argument of the gentleman 
from Washington that completely misses the point. His side won a 
special election in Kentucky. I congratulate the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) for his victory. He did not win a primary 
election. He was not nominated by a Democratic Party convention and his 
opponent in the election was nominated by a Republican Party 
convention.
  The election of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) to the 
House to promptly fill the vacancy caused by the election of Ernie 
Fletcher, his predecessor, as Governor of Kentucky is no less 
democratic than the election of those of us that went through 
primaries.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is easy to conceive of the circumstances in which 
companies that print ballots or manufacture voting machines or paper or 
computer equipment could be disrupted by the same catastrophic events 
which are triggering the special elections. The Nation's communications 
and commerce could be disrupted. My amendment gives the States the 
flexibility to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. It removes a number 
of major problems in the bill. I find it hard to imagine how Members 
could not support a proposal which could restore primaries, enhance the 
ability of candidates to get on the ballot, and give the States greater 
flexibility to administer special elections in a time of crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by yielding to my 
friend from Washington (Mr. Baird), to see if he would like to pose a 
question to me.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would please show me where 
in the United States Constitution political parties are authorized to 
select candidates for the House of Representatives, I would be happy to 
engage in this colloquy.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his question. I wanted to respond to it earlier.
  Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution makes it very clear that 
times, places and manner of election are within the purview of this 
institution.
  I would go on to say that the United States Supreme Court has 
correctly, in my opinion, held that the times, places and manner clause 
of Article I, Section 4, grants Congress broad power, broad power, over 
elections, including, and I quote from the Smiley v. Holm decision of 
the Supreme Court, where they say ``authority to provide a complete 
code for Congressional elections, not as only to times and places, but 
in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection 
of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting votes, 
making and publication of election returns.''
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that is the provision that was upheld by the 
Supreme Court, and to me that makes it very, very clear that we have 
that authority.
  The issue of uniformity is something we were very, very careful in 
crafting in this legislation. Why? Because as we look at this 45-day 
period, we want to make sure that all across the country we have an 
opportunity for people in a time of crisis to at the same time cast 
their ballots.
  Now, when my friend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) used 
the issue of the State, I think it was Minnesota, that had that 15-day 
provision, I am convinced that just as we in California were able to 
take on that very unique and unprecedented recall election that we held 
last year, similarly States like Minnesota, which have had that 
nominating process take place, they have held those primaries in 15 
days, similarly that nominating process could take place within the 10-
day period.
  We all know, Mr. Chairman, that this would be an extraordinary 
circumstance. And one of the reasons, I would say to my friend from 
Washington who raised the concern about the immediacy of trying to 
ensure that we have a full complement of Members of the House working, 
that is the reason that we have the 45-day period put into place, and 
that is the reason that we spent a great deal of time over the last 
year and a half talking with secretaries of state across this country, 
including, as I said, the three members of this institution who did 
serve as secretaries of state, to come up with a time which would best 
allow us to ensure those rights, realizing that this is in an 
extraordinary, potentially very difficult time for our Nation.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, my 
question is, where in the Constitution of the United States? I 
understand the Supreme Court has ruled that, but the point is if the 
gentleman is asserting that the purpose of this bill before us today is 
to protect the rights of all voters to elect their Representatives, 
effectively it is my position that you are disenfranchising those from 
independent parties or minority parties from selecting their 
candidates.
  The second thing I would ask, since we are quoting the Constitution, 
is where in the Constitution or in subsequent Supreme Court decisions 
has it authorized the executive branch to function without checks and 
balances

[[Page H2328]]

from a House of Representatives or from a House of Representatives 
comprised of less than a quorum?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say there is no 
attempt whatsoever to give the executive branch the opportunity to run 
without the oversight that is, in fact, ensured in the Constitution. I 
believe that we would have a complement of Members. I do not know 
exactly what that would consist of, but the goal of this legislation is 
to make sure that we can get back to the full 435 membership, ensuring 
that we are the body of the people.
  I would say that one of the interesting things about our 
Constitution, juxtaposed to other constitutions in the world and State 
constitutions, mine in California being an example, is the fact that 
any of us, just like the majority leader, are able to put it in our 
pocket. So that is why that very small item that I mentioned in Article 
I, Section 4 of the Constitution, makes it clear, and that 
interpretation, upheld by the United States Supreme Court, makes it 
clear that we do have the ability to do that. That is how we are 
legislatively able to proceed with this.
  I will once again say to my friend from Washington and others on this 
issue, as we look at what appears to me to be growing opposition to 
amending the U.S. Constitution, and I will say to my friend, I have had 
Democrats as well as nearly every Republican with whom I have spoken on 
this say they are opposed to it, I think that there should be a 
realization that for us to take this first step with this very 
responsible, very balanced, very thoughtful approach, which has been 
considered over a long period of time, is the route for us to take.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, again I would add sincerely how much I have appreciated 
the debate and the depth of the debate that has taken place on the 
floor today.
  I harken back to something I said during the debate on the rule, a 
notion that was brought up by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), that the only time, to my knowledge, that we have met in 
joint caucus has been when we were discussing the anthrax issue, and by 
the nature of this debate and the richness of this debate and the 
feelings on all sides, it rises above in so many respects the Committee 
on Rules, the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on 
the Judiciary and belongs in front of Members to discuss because of so 
many of these issues that are before us.
  I quoted Judge Learned Hand before, and I will continue to quote him, 
because while you may be sure that all of these things can be 
accomplished in 45 days, I remain skeptical that that could happen, and 
my skepticism comes from wanting to provide the very constituents that 
would send someone through these doorways, duly elected, to have fully 
participated and therefore legitimized that election as well.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would say that there is no way that you 
are going to get me to argue with Learned Hand. I share that 
skepticism, and I believe that is a very healthy thing, and it is an 
important thing.
  We have pondered almost every possibility. As I listened to the 
opening statement that was made during the debate on the rule from my 
friend from Washington describing what conceivably could happen if we 
were in the midst of a State of the Union Address, and we had every 
single Member of the House and Senate and everyone, save the one member 
of the Cabinet who does not come to these addresses, obliterated, what 
would happen. Frankly, if it was as described, a nuclear bomb were to 
go off in this area, who knows how far that would reach, and that 
individual could be killed. So we have pondered everything.
  What we have done, I believe, is we have worked very hard talking to 
many, many different people about the most balanced way that we can 
approach an imponderable, difficult situation, and I think we have come 
up with something reasonable. That is why in light of the fact it is 
going to be very difficult, I am happy to say, for a constitutional 
amendment to pass this body, I think that we need to ask the question, 
what is the backup position? What is it that is proposed, short of a 
constitutional amendment, other than this legislative approach, which 
we have tried to take in a bipartisan way?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would 
suggest that my amendments, I think, improve that.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, the 
amendment extending from 45 to 75 days in fact lengthens the amount of 
time when we could possibly get this body back together.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this 
deals with the 10-day provision underneath, which again prohibits 
primaries.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 made in order by the 
order of the House of earlier today.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) the 
designee of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)?
  Mrs. MALONEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment made in order by a previous order of the House in 
     lieu of Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report No. 108-466 
     offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       In section 26(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States, as proposed to be added by the bill, add at the end 
     the following new paragraph:

       ``(5) Protecting ability of absent military and overseas 
     voters to participate in special elections.--
       ``(A) Deadline for transmittal of absentee ballots.--In 
     conducting a special election held under this subsection to 
     fill a vacancy in its representation, the State shall ensure 
     to the greatest extent practicable (including through the use 
     of electronic means) that absentee ballots for the election 
     are transmitted to absent uniformed services voters and 
     overseas voters (as such terms are defined in the Uniformed 
     and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) not later than 15 
     days after the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     announces that the vacancy exists.
       ``(B) Period for ballot transit time.--Notwithstanding the 
     deadlines referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3), in the case 
     of an individual who is an absent uniformed services voter or 
     an overseas voter (as such terms are defined in the Uniformed 
     and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act), a State shall 
     accept and process any otherwise valid ballot or other 
     election material from the voter so long as the ballot or 
     other material is received by the appropriate State election 
     official not later than 45 days after the State transmits the 
     ballot or other material to the voter.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 602, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York. (Mrs. Maloney).

                              {time}  1445

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Skelton amendment, and I am 
pleased to join my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), in offering this amendment. He has always been a strong 
advocate for the men and women in the military. And the purpose of this 
amendment is to ensure that overseas voters, including the men and 
women who are risking their lives to protect our country, their 
dependents, and private citizens, will have an opportunity to vote in a 
continuity-of-government election.
  I join my colleague in thanking the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Dreier) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) for 
working with us

[[Page H2329]]

to bring this amendment to the floor. While this is not the amendment 
that we originally offered before the Committee on Rules, we appreciate 
their good-faith efforts to reach this compromise.
  The terrorist attacks of September 11 made us all aware of how 
vulnerable our government could be in the event of a catastrophe. The 
underlying bill provides for special elections if more than 100 Members 
of the House are incapacitated or killed. While there are many 
objections to the bill, it protects the tradition that Members of the 
House may only serve if they have been elected by the people.
  Our amendment simply requires States to provide overseas voters 45 
days to return their ballots from the date on which the ballot is 
mailed. If we are going to have elections to deal with disasters as 
envisioned by this legislation and which we hope will never happen, our 
amendment will ensure that overseas voters have the same opportunity 
that our voters at home have to cast their ballots.
  For several years I have been working on making sure that overseas 
voters can participate in elections. In the Help America Vote Act, my 
colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds), and I were able to include provisions that will ensure 
that overseas voters have a better opportunity to vote in Federal 
general elections.
  The Skelton-Maloney amendment is a continuation of this effort by 
helping overseas American voters participate in a continuity-of-
government election if one should be necessary.
  We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the men and women who are 
serving our country. At the very least we must make the efforts to make 
sure that they are included in the basic right of participating in 
elections. This extends the number of days from the date that the 
ballot is mailed so that they have time to mail it back and be part of 
this election.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
in opposition to this amendment, though I do not oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be working with my colleagues, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), to bring this amendment to the floor. It does 
allow additional time for those who are serving in the military or 
those who are overseas to receive their ballot and be allowed to return 
their ballot. It does not prevent the States from certifying a winner, 
but only allows extra time if needed for those overseas ballots to be 
counted.
  As a former Secretary of State and chief election official of our 
State, there would be many occasions when you might still have a ballot 
out, but it is clear to the State election official that the ballot out 
would make no difference in the outcome and consequently no particular 
reason to slow down the process of certifying in the circumstances we 
are talking about.
  At the same time, if those ballots that had not been returned would 
make a difference, they would have to be counted, have to be part of 
the process, and would assure that all those who could have made a 
difference in the outcome of the election had a chance to do this.
  In all likelihood, we would see State election officials doing 
everything they could to expedite this process. We give them in the 
language here certainly authority to use electronic means to transmit 
ballots to people overseas or in the military. Also we require that, if 
practical, election officials have a ballot ready to send out within 15 
days of the starting of that original 45-day clock. I think in these 
circumstances that is certainly a time that election officials could 
meet. But because the way this is worded, if they cannot meet that 
language, there is no penalty. There is just a clear encouragement here 
to move this process along, get those ballots in the mail, and take 
time then, as necessary, for those ballots to return.
  I particularly appreciate my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), and the great commitment he has on this and to those who 
serve us. It is a privilege for me to stand here in support of this 
amendment that he and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and 
I have jointly recommended be included in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that the amendment being 
offered today by my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney), and by my next door neighbor back home, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), is very important. It would ensure that 
adequate time is provided to the States holding continuity-of-
government elections to ensure that overseas and deployed 
servicemembers have sufficient time in which to register and vote.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) also 
and the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost). Again, a special thanks to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) for 
working with us. We had to work it out over a period of several days. 
And we appreciate, I think, at the end of the day, it is a very, very 
good amendment. So we thank them for that.
  This act would require States to conduct expedited special elections 
in extraordinary circumstances which means that there are more than 100 
vacancies in the House of Representatives. States would have 45 days in 
which to nominate candidates and hold elections to fill these 
congressional vacancies.
  The deadly terrorist attacks on September 11 raised the Nation's 
awareness that a catastrophic assault on our country's soil was not 
just a historical event, but a constant threat that we truly must face. 
We are living in an environment where terrorists are willing to target 
unarmed civilians and innocent bystanders to call attention to their 
cause. Unlike military conflicts in the past, these extremists do not 
follow acceptable standards for rules of engagement under the Geneva 
Convention.
  The threat of future terrorist attacks convinces me that we need to 
review the process by which we provide continuity of government in case 
of a catastrophic attack on Congress. However, any effort we undertake 
should not alienate or disenfranchise any American citizen, 
particularly those who volunteered or who serve at the point of the 
spear, American servicemembers.
  This amendment would ensure that adequate time is provided to 
military members who are serving overseas to participate in the most 
basic right of this country's democracy, the right to vote.
  The Department of Defense has been working with States to ensure that 
at least 45 days of transit time are provided during regular elections 
so that overseas and deployed members and other Americans stationed 
overseas have the opportunity to participate. To be fair to our men and 
women in uniform, States should provide 45 days from the time from 
which the ballot is mailed to the voter to the date by which the voter 
must return the ballot to the local election official.
  The amendment that is offered today by the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Blunt), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and me 
simply seeks to ensure that servicemembers and American citizens who 
are stationed or deployed overseas may fully participate in this 
special electoral process. The amendment seeks no more than basic 
fairness.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to protect the voting 
rights of those in uniform and those who serve so well and so ably 
overseas.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in relation to this, the general topic here of the 
bill, I mentioned the importance of preparing these ballots in a quick 
period of time. I know that my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Langevin), earlier, also a former Secretary of State, questioned 
whether 45 days was practical or not. I would just like to point

[[Page H2330]]

out that 10 States already have a time frame that is 45 days or less. 
Rhode Island is pretty small. A State very close, New York, that is 
very big, has a 40-day time frame now. Texas has a time frame that is 
within the 45 days, and eight other States do as well.
  I certainly think that is a reasonable period of time, particularly 
in these extraordinary circumstances. I think we would see State 
election officials not only eager to help reconstitute the House but 
also encouraging the quick movement in the process of the selection of 
candidates and the preparation of ballots. Those ballots would then be 
mailed to military personnel and personnel overseas. And those 
individuals serving, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) said, 
particularly those in the military serving at the point of the spear, 
would have the time that they would appropriately need to have to 
respond to this process.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, having no other speakers, I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in part B of House Report 108-466.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Schiff

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) has an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule that I 
will be offering on her behalf as her designee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Schiff:
       In section 26(b)(4)(C)(i) of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, strike 
     ``2 days'' and insert ``7 days''.
       In section 26(b)(4)(C)(iii) of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, insert 
     after ``the action'' the following: ``(taking into account an 
     opportunity for an expedited appeal of the initial 
     decision)''.
       In section 26(b)(4)(C)(iv) of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, insert 
     after ``vacant'' the following: ``any citizen of the district 
     and any political party of the State''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today on behalf 
of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) would make a few minor 
changes with respect to the judicial review provisions currently within 
the bill. The amendment would briefly extend the amount of time for an 
action to be filed in court with regard to the Speaker's announcement 
of a vacancy. It would further provide for the appeal of that court's 
decision and for participation in this process by all citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, the matter we are discussing today on the floor, the 
reconstitution of this House in response to a devastating attack, is 
certainly a contingency that none of us would like to imagine. It is a 
scenario that, frankly, seems unthinkable. However, because of the 
continuing threat of terrorism that we face, we must contemplate even 
the unthinkable.
  The House of Representatives is indeed a unique body. As a purely 
representative body, there is only one way to get here: by direct 
election of the people of this great Nation. I cherish that heritage, 
and I know my colleagues do as well; but the love of that tradition 
cannot take precedence over the need to ensure continuity of our 
representative government in the face of unprecedented disaster, the 
annihilation of a large number of our Members.
  The base bill contemplates that we would operate without a government 
for 45 days. This, my colleagues, is a dereliction of duty. It is a 
dereliction of our duty to ensure that the governance of our Nation 
goes on in the face of such a tragedy. I, therefore, oppose the base 
bill. During the 45 days that followed the events of September 11, 
Congress worked vigorously to respond to the attacks on our Nation. No 
doubt the devastation of our Congress and the equally accompanying 
trauma of such a devastation would require the most prompt response 
likewise. The principle that all the people should be equally 
represented is essential to our democratic character, and mass 
vacancies for 45 days will be a departure from the representative rule 
of that body.
  Without a quorum in the House, the inability to conduct business may, 
in turn, force a President to act extraconstitutionally in any 
immediate response to an attack. By protecting one tradition, we would 
instead be scuttling others; and in the process we will only deny the 
American people the assurance that our swift and decisive response was 
a legitimate one.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Chairman, the survival of our very Nation must take precedence 
over our fond and philosophical adherence to the principal of direct 
election to the House under all circumstances. The temporary 
appointment of Members to fill vacancies where 100 or more of our 
Members are killed or incapacitated is the narrowest of exceptions. In 
the unlikely event we should ever face such a terrible contingency, our 
country's future will depend more, far more, on the swift response of a 
fully reconstituted Congress than on a blind adherence to the principle 
of direct elections for 45 excruciating days. I, therefore, oppose the 
base bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment that is designed to slow down 
having an election to replace Members who have been wiped out as a 
result of a terrorist attack. It has a number of features that will do 
that and will open up Pandora's box to allow people to game the system.
  The first part of the amendment extends by 5 days, from 2 days to 7 
days, the time in which legal action can be filed on the narrow issue 
of whether there are 100 vacancies and whether a vacancy occurs in a 
particular district.
  The second section of the gentleman's amendment is not properly 
drafted. The base bill says that the decision of the district court of 
3 judges must be rendered within 3 days and is not reviewable. However, 
the second section of the amendment says, taking into account the 
opportunity for an expedited appeal of the initial decision.
  There is no appeal of the initial decision in the base bill, and the 
second section makes that section of the revised statute inconsistent 
in its text.
  The third section of the amendment proposes to allow anybody or a 
political party to petition for an appeal. This is how the system can 
be gamed. My district is an overwhelmingly Republican district. It has 
never elected a Democrat to the House of Representatives in over 40 
years. If I should be annihilated, I am sure that there would be the 
temptation that would be there for the Democrats in my district to try 
to stop an election and try to stop a Republican from probably being 
elected and seated to replace me. Similarly, in the district next door 
to me, currently represented by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kleczka), that is an overwhelmingly Democratic district, and the 
temptation would be there under this amendment for the Republican Party 
or Republican citizens to file a lawsuit to slow down the election of 
the replacement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) should he 
be annihilated in a terrorist attack.
  So the amendment that has been offered allows people to game the 
system for political ends rather than to rise above partisanship at 
times of a crisis and to speedily elect a replacement Member when 
someone has been wiped out in a terrorist attack.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and all the work that he has done on the 
committee. He expresses a concern about the timeliness of the process 
contemplated by this amendment, and I share the concern about the 
timeliness of the process contemplated in the base

[[Page H2331]]

bill. And, in fact, this is one of the reasons I have such concerns 
about the base bill. Whether it is 45 days or 47 days or 50 days, this 
is far too long in the wake of catastrophe to be reconstituting the 
Congress.
  I also share the chairman's desire that we rise above considerations 
of partisanship and think that this bill should go back to committee 
and come forth with a bipartisan measure that comes forth for all of 
us. This is a bipartisan bill. It should have a bipartisan work 
product.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 60 seconds to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, in reading the base bill I have a concern, 
and it has nothing to do with the number of days, but it has all to do 
with how that is triggered.
  In the legislation itself it says, ``Extraordinary circumstances 
occur when the Speaker of the House of Representatives announces that 
vacancies have occurred.''
  Now, should, and God forbid on the evening that we would have the 
State of the Union, and we are all here, and there should be a missile, 
it could wipe out everyone, including everyone that is on the list at 
that time. Who then triggers this action? Who are the people? Who has 
the authority to put this process in place?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Let me say that the imponderable, if every single one, all 537 of the 
Federally elected officials, the President, the Vice President and all 
the Members of the House, and all the Members of Senate, in fact, are 
killed, including all of the Cabinet members, including the Cabinet 
member who is not here at the State of the Union message, it would be 
up to the people to come together and make the determination as the 
rebuilding process begins.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard an awful lot that this is not a 
bipartisan bill. This is a bipartisan bill, and I would draw the 
attention of the Members to the reported bill does show that additional 
cosponsors include the two top Democrats on the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  The amendment was rejected.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson);
  Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson).
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The 
second electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.


          Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 229, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 128]

                               AYES--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chandler
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hill
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--229

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Cardin
     Carter
     Clyburn
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Forbes
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hulshof
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Millender-McDonald
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Sullivan
     Tauzin
     Toomey
     Young (AK)

[[Page H2332]]




                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1531

  Messrs. BURNS, PUTNAM, NORWOOD, BARRETT of South Carolina, Ms. GINNY 
BROWN-WAITE of Florida, and Messrs. ROGERS of Alabama, FROST, OTTER, 
and TAYLOR of North Carolina changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. EDWARDS and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Larson of Connecticut

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 217, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 129]

                               AYES--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chandler
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--217

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Cardin
     Carter
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Cox
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Forbes
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hulshof
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Millender-McDonald
     Mollohan
     Neugebauer
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Tauzin
     Toomey
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1540

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 129, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________