[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 53 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2332-H2335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, on roll call Nos. 128, 129, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Baird
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Baird moves that the Committee of the Whole do now rise
and report the bill H.R. 2844 back to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, this is as serious as it gets. Two and a
half years ago, we were given a remarkable gift. We were given the gift
of life itself, as a plane was heading this way with the intent to kill
all of us. Had they succeeded, the institution that we hold so dear,
that provides for representation on a proportional basis by the
citizens of our areas would have at least temporarily perished.
We have no adequate provisions before us today to fill that gap
should it happen, but we have no question today that we must confront
that possibility. In an era of nuclear weapons, of terrorists who mean
our destruction, we must accept our own mortality in order that we can
preserve the immortality of this institution we all so cherish.
We have had a spirited debate today. I lament that we were not all
given sufficient time to participate, that key amendments were not
offered, and that we were not all here for this. I know well that we
have many things to do, but this is about the very existence of the
institution.
Yesterday I had the privilege of speaking with many of my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle, and I asked a simple question: Have we, in
all sincerity and honesty, given enough
[[Page H2333]]
thought to the measure before us, given the gravity of the issue before
us? And many of those colleagues looked me in the eye and said,
frankly, no. And yet today we are moving forward towards passage of a
bill, which well-intentioned, and I do not doubt the intentions of the
authors of this bill, and there is merit to expediting elections, and I
appreciate the give and take, but, my colleagues, please understand,
this bill carries with it a number of problems.
I believe this bill disenfranchises independent voters. I believe it
does not provide for situations in which States cannot conduct their
elections in 45 days. I believe it leads to a chaotic process as some
States replenish their Members and others have yet to, and the
leadership of the House changes. But most importantly of all, it leaves
us without a Congress.
My friends on the other side have suggested some things which I need
to clarify, because I think they are not fair and they are not
accurate. They have suggested some of us want to take away the rights
of citizens to elect their Representatives. It is not true. Not a
single voice in the House of Representatives today shared that message.
Instead, we all said we love, and would adhere to and would defend to
the death the rights of citizens to elect their Representatives.
But we have also said that no representation at all for a period of
45 days is a more grave and egregious insult to the intent of the
Framers than would be temporary appointments in some fashion followed
by direct election. Do not let anyone suggest to you that we want to
take away the right to election, but neither imagine that the bill
today will solve the problem.
At a time of the most grave crisis in the history of our Nation, we
would be left without a United States Congress. Go home and look at the
Constitution and tear out Article I. That is the consequence if we do
not take further action.
Let me ask this, too. Go home and ask your constituents that if you
were to perish, along with hundreds of our colleagues today, and a
Cabinet member became the President of the United States, someone they
had never elected and do not even know, and that individual chooses to
send their son or daughter to war, would they like to have a
Representative from their region there to express their views, or would
they prefer that that seat be vacated? That is the issue before us.
I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution,
not because it is not well intentioned, but because we have not
adequately given it the attention we deserve. If you can look yourself
in the eye as you put that card in that slot and say, I have given 5
hours of study to this resolution, 5 hours, then vote your conscience.
{time} 1545
But if you have not, please vote ``no'' so you can have more time to
study this and discuss it with scholars.
Finally, we have asked and the chairman has agreed, and I am grateful
for that, that we explore and debate the issue of a constitutional
amendment to solve this. But I would beseech the chairman to please not
only bring up my proposal, give other Members a chance to bring up
proposals so the issue gets full and fair debate.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
preferential motion.
Mr. Chairman, we have been debating this matter in the Committee of
the Whole and before that when the rule was adopted for almost 5 hours.
It has become crystal clear that the entire thrust of this debate is
whether a reconstituted House of Representatives following a disaster
will be comprised of elected Members or temporary appointments,
appointed by somebody, maybe the Governor, maybe the legislature, maybe
we ourselves before our demise.
The issue of maintaining the people's House I think is the paramount
consideration we ought to be giving on this issue. But even if Members
agree we should amend the Constitution to have temporary appointments,
I think everybody ought to agree we ought to have special elections as
quickly as possible so that those who come to replace us will arrive
with a mandate from the people of our district.
So whether or not Members favor a temporary appointment method, which
I do not, or Members favor keeping the House being solely elected,
Members ought to vote for this bill because it does allow for the
filling of vacancies when 100 or more seats are vacant as quickly as
possible. That is the issue we have before us today, and it is an issue
which I believe is of paramount importance because, should this Nation
be in crisis as a result of a huge number of Members in the House of
Representatives being killed in a terrorist attack, the sooner we put
the people back in charge with representatives elected by the people I
think should be the paramount issue.
Now, the final point I would like to make is, yes, my committee will
mark up and send out to the floor the Baird constitutional amendment at
our next markup, and I hope that the leadership would schedule that as
quickly as possible. I for one will vigorously oppose it because I
believe the principle of an elected House of Representatives is one
that should prevail over everything.
The final point I would like Members to consider is if we end up
having an appointed House of Representatives even temporarily and an
appointed Senate and an appointed President, where do the people rule?
They do not rule in any of the three branches that make laws and
appropriate the public's money; that is all done by appointed
positions. And that is why I believe it is important to maintain the
elected nature of this House of Representatives even in the case where
a catastrophe occurs. I would urge rejection of the preferential motion
and urge passage of the bill.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my preferential motion.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the preferential motion is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments in order, the
question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute,
as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House
Resolution 602, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Watt
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. WATT. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Watt moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2844 to the
Committee on House Administration with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
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:
[[Page H2334]]
``(5) Rule of construction regarding federal election
laws.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed to affect
the application to special elections under this subsection of
any Federal law governing the administration of elections for
Federal office (including any law providing for the
enforcement of any such law), including, but not limited to,
the following:
``(A) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et
seq.), as amended.
``(B) The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.), as amended.
``(C) The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting
Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.), as amended.
``(D) The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42
U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.), as amended.
``(E) The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), as amended.
``(F) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et
seq.), as amended.
``(G) The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301 et
seq.), as amended.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
motion to recommit.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, the artificial time frames and deadlines
specified in H.R. 2844 could make it impossible to comply with many
State and Federal laws. Consequently, it has the potential to cause
serious violations of voting rights and civil rights. To correct that
problem, I rise to offer this motion to recommit with instructions.
The motion to recommit seeks to limit the damage posed by H.R. 2844
by ensuring that nothing in the bill will undercut the requirements of
the civil rights and voting rights laws that this Congress enacted and
this country has painstakingly honored over the last 40 years.
I cannot support a measure that does not protect the voting rights of
every American, including racial and language minorities, people with
disabilities, the elderly, and our young men and women serving in the
military.
H.R. 2844 jeopardizes those protections now afforded to racial and
language minorities under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by
making it impossible to provide voting materials to States or political
subdivisions with more than 5 percent of the citizens of voting age who
are single-language minorities and are limited-English proficient
within the time frame prescribed by this legislation.
Are these citizens not entitled to participate? The Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 sought to
empower individuals with disabilities to participate fully in society.
H.R. 2844 will diminish both laws by not providing sufficient time to
find facilities to host polling sites that are accessible to persons
with disabilities. These citizens should be entitled to participate in
our democracy even in crisis times.
In the last term of Congress, we passed the Help America Vote Act of
2002. The bill passed with bipartisan support in an effort to address
the problems brought to light during the 2000 Presidential elections.
Does H.R. 2844 allow enough time for provisional ballots to be printed
and for other important provisions of that law to be complied with? The
answer is, no.
H.R. 2844 will also undermine the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act by failing to provide sufficient time for absentee
ballots to be printed, distributed, and returned from Americans living
abroad. This includes military and diplomatic personnel, their
families, and other Americans living abroad. The Department of Defense
believes that a minimum of 45 days should be allowed from the time
ballots are printed, not from the date the election is called. Our
military men and women are serving our Nation all around the world.
They should be entitled to participate in our democracy, even in times
of crisis.
I think we should be sure that every law passed by this body to
ensure equal protection of voting rights to every citizen, not just
certain Americans, should apply to special elections. H.R. 2844 fails
to make good on that promise.
For these reasons, I offer this motion to recommit and ask my
colleagues for their support based on the proposition that every
citizen should be able to participate in our democracy, especially in
times of crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit for now, but I am prepared to accept this motion to recommit
for a number of reasons.
First of all, I think the motion to recommit is redundant in that all
Federal laws apply to these special elections, not just the laws that
are enumerated to the motion to recommit with instructions that the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) has offered, but I want to be
much more serious in terms of dealing with this.
How the House is reconstituted following a disaster should not be an
issue of partisan debate. Much of what has gone on here today has been
a partisan debate; and in accepting this motion to recommit, I am
reaching out to the other side to say let us make the passage of this
bill bipartisan because the acceptance of the motion to recommit should
make the bill bipartisan.
{time} 1600
And that, coupled with my commitment to deal with the gentleman from
Washington's (Mr. Baird) constitutional amendment, certainly should
show that we are dealing with this issue in good faith. And whether one
supports the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment or not,
it is important, I think, to make sure that the replacement
representatives that are elected are elected and seated as soon as
humanly possible, and that is what this bill attempts to do.
So I would hope that after the acceptance of this motion to recommit,
we could pass this bill by an overwhelming vote; and I would reach out
to my friends on the other side of the aisle and make that offer and
hope that they reciprocate.
I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier),
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would join with the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary and say that we do truly want to work in a bipartisan way to
make sure that the greatest deliberative body known to man is
maintained as that, and I hope very much that our decision to accept
the motion to recommit which is being offered in good faith by the
gentleman from North Carolina will see us proceed with an overwhelming
vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) reporting back on behalf of the Committee on House
Administration?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the chairman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the
House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2844, back to
the House with an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment:
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) Rule of construction regarding federal election
laws.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed to affect
the application to special elections under this subsection of
any Federal law governing the administration of elections for
Federal office (including any law providing for the
enforcement of any such law), including, but not limited to,
the following:
``(A) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et
seq.), as amended.
``(B) The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.), as amended.
``(C) The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting
Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.), as amended.
``(D) The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42
U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.), as amended.
``(E) The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), as amended.
``(F) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et
seq.), as amended.
[[Page H2335]]
``(G) The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301 et
seq.), as amended.''.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 306,
nays 97, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 130]
YEAS--306
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--97
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Clay
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Emanuel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Filner
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hefley
Hill
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
Meehan
Menendez
Michaud
Miller, George
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--30
Boehlert
Cardin
Carter
Clyburn
Collins
Delahunt
DeMint
Duncan
Forbes
Gallegly
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Houghton
Hulshof
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Nunes
Payne
Peterson (PA)
Pombo
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Toomey
Young (AK)
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} 1623
Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. GORDON and Ms. LINDA SANCHEZ of California changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SPRATT and Mr. LEWIS of Georgia changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 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, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________