[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.''
____________________