[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 2, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3617-H3626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 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
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 657 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 657
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House 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 joint resolution shall be considered as
read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate on the
joint resolution equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 657 is a
rule providing for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 83, a
proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding
appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of
Representatives.
The rule provides for 90 minutes of debate to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, on April 22 of this year, the House of Representatives
debated and voted on H.R. 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act,
which 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 of the
House announces that vacancies in the House exceed 100 members. The
special elections would be required to be held within 45 days. This
bill passed the House with a broad majority of 306 votes in favor to 97
against.
At the foundation of the Continuity in Representation Act is the
principle that Members of this House ought to be elected by the people.
This principle has guided service in this institution since its
inception. Indeed, the purpose of the House is to serve as a Chamber
that is closest to the people; closest to the people due to the equal
size of our constituencies; closest to the people due to the frequency
of elections; and, most important, closest to the people because of the
direct election by the people.
I support the Founding Fathers' view that Members of the House ought
to be directly elected by the people and not selected for them.
This rule provides for consideration of an approach that would amend
the Constitution and allow for immediate appointment within 7 days of
replacements for Members due to the death or incapacity of a majority
of the House's membership. The appointments would be made by the chief
executives of the States where a vacancy exists from a list provided
and maintained by the elected Member.
While I do not agree with changing the Constitution's requirements
that Members of the House be directly elected, I do sincerely believe
that our colleagues who do support this constitutional amendment
deserve the opportunity to have their proposal voted upon by the House.
Mr. Speaker, following the tragic events of September 11, this House
has a responsibility and duty to consider the fate of this institution
should it become necessary to replace a significant number of Members
due to a deadly terrorist attack.
Neither passage of the expedited elections bill nor consideration of
H.J. Res. 83 alone serves as a comprehensive response to the continuity
of this House in the face of deadly attack. For example, we must
consider appropriate responses in the event that a large number of
Members are incapacitated rather than killed. This is a potential
scenario that cannot be ignored in a time of chemical, biological, and
radiological weapons.
In order to act, the Constitution requires the House to achieve a
quorum of 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 provisions for the need to
adjust the required quorum when large numbers of Members are still
living but unable to carry out, temporarily or otherwise, the duties of
the office to which they have been sworn. Under current law, if more
than half of the House were to become incapacitated yet not deceased,
the House could be unable to act at a time when the need to do so could
hardly be greater.
On April 29, the House Committee on Rules held an original
jurisdiction hearing on the incapacitation of Members. Under the
leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), the
Committee on Rules is approaching this important issue with the
seriousness and thoughtfulness it deserves.
Mr. Speaker, while H.J. Res. 83 provides for the appointment of
replacing representatives due to incapacity of elected Members, it does
not offer an answer on how the House is to proceed on the question of
defining or declaring incapacitation. These are important questions and
the House must continue to deliberate seriously on their solutions.
I am committed to working to address this complex continuity issue,
and I know that the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) will continue their
personal involvement and leadership on this issue, as well as other
committed colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and
continue the important consideration of how this House will operate
should massive tragedy strike.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today the House is debating the continuity of Congress.
We are attempting to answer important questions: What happens to the
House of Representatives if a majority of Members are killed or
incapacitated in a catastrophic event like a terrorist attack? How does
the House continue to function if there are not enough Members to
constitute a quorum?
These are not easy questions to answer. Indeed, they are not easy
questions to talk about or to think about. Nobody wants to consider
what happens if they and their friends and colleagues are attacked, but
they are questions that we must face head on. And they are questions
that elicit
[[Page H3618]]
strong policy answers from those who have taken the time to study the
issue.
Some believe that amending the Constitution is the proper course.
Others disagree, arguing for statutory fixes. But it seems to me that
we could all agree on one thing: that these issues should transcend
partisan politics. But not in this House.
The Republican leadership cannot seem to help itself when it comes to
the way it manages this body. They seem to be addicted to stifling
debate, to muzzling Members of both parties, to partisan rules and
lousy procedures, and to shredding the committee process.
And so I rise today in strong opposition to this rule because the
Republican leadership has once again taken a nonpartisan issue and
dragged it into the partisan mud. Instead of working side by side with
Democrats, the Republican leadership ignored the proper procedures of
this body and rushed this constitutional amendment to the floor for a
vote.
This rule makes in order 90 minutes of general debate. That is 90
minutes more than the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), held in hearings on this
amendment. Let me say that again. In the 108th Congress, there has not
been one single hearing about a constitutional amendment on this issue.
The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary found time to write a
very eloquent op ed piece in this morning's Washington Post, but
apparently could not find the time to hold a hearing. The chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary and the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), hold
strong views that the Constitution should not be amended. They may be
right. However, I honestly do not believe that this whole issue has
been given the serious and thoughtful attention and consideration that
it deserves.
There is no reason to bring this bill to the floor without hearing
from academics, lawyers, Members of Congress, Senators, former and
current administration officials, liberal, moderate, and conservative
interest groups. Many of those experts served right here as Members of
Congress as members of the Committee on the Judiciary. Why are we not
taking advantage of their expertise?
I am especially puzzled by this unnecessarily partisan process given
that this is not a hot topic in the elections. I think it is safe to
say that not a single congressional race this year will turn on whether
the candidate supports constitutional or statutory remedies for the
continuity of Congress. This is not what people are talking about
around their kitchen tables. But it is important, and it should be
handled correctly.
This rule makes in order only the constitutional amendment offered by
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). Yet last night, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) came before the Committee
on Rules with two proposals. Several members of the Committee on Rules
had questions and sought clarification on certain aspects of his ideas.
{time} 1130
It was a very, very interesting conversation. But it was not a
discussion that should have taken place in the Committee on Rules less
than a day before the House votes on a constitutional amendment. It
should have taken place at a hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Speaker, the American people expect and they deserve a House that
works together when this country faces adversity. After the September
11 attacks, the Speaker of the House and the minority leader brought
our two parties together for a bipartisan caucus to discuss what
happened and to discuss the next steps. During those next days and
weeks we were not two parties, we were one country. I believe that we
need to once again join together in a bipartisan caucus to talk about
this important issue and decide on the steps that we need to take, to
bring together experts from across the political spectrum and to do
what is right for the country and for the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, this constitutional amendment was brought before the
House in the wrong way. This rule is the wrong rule, and I would urge
my colleagues to reject it.
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 and an individual who
has been a leader on this issue.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington (Mr.
Hastings) for his leadership on this issue and for his fine work on the
Committee on Rules.
As I listen to the comments of my very good friend, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I cannot help but think how hard we
have in fact been trying to work in a bipartisan way on this issue. I
am going to talk about what led us to the point where we are right now,
we are considering the rule; and then I will try to get a bit into the
substance of the constitutional amendment.
We, after September 11, did come together as a Nation; and we had
this historic appearance on the east front of the Capitol where Members
of the House and the Senate came together to focus on the solidarity
that was important as we begin to proceed with the global war on
terrorism. We had never seen an attack like that that we saw on
September 11 in our Nation's history. And contrary to what my friend
from Massachusetts just said, we have continued to work in a strong
bipartisan way, and we are here at this moment considering this
constitutional amendment which I virulently oppose because of our
desire to work in a bipartisan way.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I introduced
legislation which called for expedited special elections. Why? Because
we feel very, very passionately about the need to ensure that no one
ever serves in the People's House without having first been elected. It
is conceivable under the constitutional structure that exists today
that every other member that is traditionally elected in the United
States of America could hold that office by appointment. The President
of the United States can become President by appointment, as we found
with President Ford. He became Vice President and then President.
Members of the other body, the United States Senate, can in fact be
appointed, serving in the United States Senate. But, Mr. Speaker, no
one has ever served in the People's House without having first been
elected.
James Madison said, ``Where elections end, tyranny begins.'' And so
that is the reason that, having spent a great deal of time over the
past few years looking at this, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and I joined with a number of our colleagues and we
enjoyed bipartisan support in this effort. We put together this
structure which says, if more than 100 Members are tragically killed,
what happens? Well, we have an expedited procedure whereby elections
are held within 45 days.
So when we put this legislation together we worked very, very hard on
it. We had Members who said, we want to have a constitutional
amendment, specifically, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), who
I am happy to see has joined us and who has spent a great deal of time
and effort on this issue; and I congratulate him for the thoughtful
approach that he has taken on this issue.
But what happened when we moved ahead with our legislation was I had
someone who was not, frankly, a proponent of the amendment or even the
consideration of it; and that is the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
At the request of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and
others, I talked with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary;
and he made a commitment to me that in fact at the next markup the
Committee on the Judiciary had they would report out this
constitutional amendment. And so that is exactly what has happened.
It has been the bipartisanship that has gotten us to this point today
where we are going to, at the request of the minority, have a vote on
what I personally believe is an ill-conceived idea and
[[Page H3619]]
that is amending the US Constitution which would allow for the
appointment of unelected members to serve in this House. And I
recognize they want elections. Everyone is for elections. But I do not
believe that anyone should serve here without the people having first
decided who is going to serve.
So what happened, Mr. Speaker? Well, we worked on this legislation
again in a bipartisan way; and by a vote of 306 to 97 we were able to
pass this legislation. That is a clear, very strong bipartisan
majority.
And how did we do it working in a bipartisan way? We addressed some
of the very valid concerns that came from the minority, ensuring that
all of the voting rights procedures are included. Those were offered by
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and we agreed that those
should be accepted. The ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), very
appropriately talked about the concern to make sure that our men and
women in uniform who are overseas have the opportunity to participate
in those special elections. Those are two concerns that emerged from
Democrats, from members of the minority that we incorporated in our
legislation.
So as we proceeded with that measure, getting this strong bipartisan
306 to 97 vote in support of the legislation, we addressed the minority
concerns. And so, contrary to what is being said about hearings, there
were hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary. They did take place in
the past Congress, but this has been a process that has been going on
since September 11 of 2001.
Now I will say that when it comes to amending the Constitution I have
always argued that an amendment to the Constitution should be a last
rather than a first resort, and that is one of the reasons I believe
that it is best for us to let the legislation that we have seen pass
this House come up for consideration in the other body. I believe we
should sign that legislation; and then, Mr. Speaker, we will have in
place a structure to deal with a potential crisis.
Now, if we were to see two-thirds of this House vote, which everyone
acknowledges is not going to happen, but if we were going to see two-
thirds of this House vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that
would allow for the appointment of Members to serve in the People's
House, we have seen, on average, 7 years for ratification of a
constitutional amendments. And I think that, based on the fact that
this is very controversial and undermines the spirit, the Madisonian
spirit of the representative democracy for the People's House, I think
it would conceivably take a lot longer.
So that is why I think it is incumbent upon us to do everything we
possibly can to ensure the bipartisan legislation which has passed this
House, in fact, becomes public law. So that is why support of this rule
is support of proceeding with the bipartisan commitment that I was
proud to have been able to get from members of both political parties
from our leadership team.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that the Speaker of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), is absolutely committed to
institutional reform as it comes, as we address this issue. There are a
wide range of things that everyone has done to ensure the continuity of
the Congress.
We in the Committee on Rules are spending a great deal of time right
now dealing with this issue of incapacitation. It is a tough one. It is
not an easy one. But we are deliberating which is exactly what our
responsibility is. So I believe that support of this rule is support of
the bipartisan quest and the agreement that I was proud to have put
together with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to allow for a
vote, which is what they asked me to do, Mr. Speaker. I was asked to
put into place a structure that would allow for a vote on a
constitutional amendment, and we are going to be doing that vote.
So that is why when people want to talk about the fact that somehow
this has become partisan, it is not partisan. The one vote we had, 365
members of both political parties overwhelmingly supported the
legislation and, along with that, even though it is not going to pass,
have allowed for a vote on the issue of amending the Constitution.
Now, let me say very briefly that I believe that looking at the
prospect of having anyone serve in the House of Representatives without
having first been elected is ill-conceived and wrong; and I believe
that while we may hear about a structure that does exist for the
Speaker of the House who could be selected by a very few Members to
conceivably by the succession plan become President of the United
States, that structure existed when James Madison, the father of the
Constitution, put this whole device that we have in place under which
we govern the United States Constitution.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we are doing the right thing by
allowing the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to have his chance
to be heard with the constitutional amendments, and I believe that we
are doing everything we can to continue down the road of working in a
bipartisan way on institutional reform. So I will simply say that I
thank my friend again for his hard work. I want to thank the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for the leadership that he has shown on
this.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules that what today is supposed to be bipartisan is more
than just giving the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) his day on
the floor.
Last night, in the Committee on Rules, the chairman said this is a
very serious issue. He mentioned on the floor today that it is a very
controversial issue. It would seem to me that if it is a serious issue
and a controversial issue and if we are going to have a process here
that both sides can respect, then at a minimum the committee of
jurisdiction, which is the Committee on the Judiciary, should have held
a hearing on it. We reported this measure out on a very partisan vote
in the Committee on the Judiciary without a hearing on the proposal
that we are debating here today.
The chairman of the Committee on Rules says that we are working in a
bipartisan way. How can this be a bipartisan process when the committee
of jurisdiction, the Committee on the Judiciary, has not held a
hearing?
I would say that I read the chairman's op-ed piece today in the
Washington Post, and I agree with much of what he is saying, but I have
a lot of questions. There were members of the Committee on Rules last
night who had a lot of questions. There are Members who are not on the
floor right now who have a lot of questions. I think that it is
important that we have a process that has some integrity to it, a
process where people can have their questions raised and answered; and
this is not the process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply argue that requests were made
of me as the chairman of the Committee on Rules to allow us to have a
chance to debate and vote on the gentleman from Washington's (Mr.
Baird) constitutional amendment. That was the request that was made of
me. We know that there is strong opposition, and I am proud to be one
of the leaders of the opposition of the constitutional amendment, but I
recognize that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has put a lot
of time and effort in this. We have gone through a multi-year period, a
multi-year period allowing for a lot of deliberation on this; and the
Committee on the Judiciary reported this measure out unfavorably. Why?
Because I believe correctly they understand that amending the
Constitution is not the proper thing for us to do.
So I am just trying to underscore the fact that I am standing here
because of bipartisanship on this issue. Frankly, I do not think that
we really need to consider this amendment to the Constitution. It is
not going to carry. Two-thirds of this House is not going to be voting
in favor of the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment. He
acknowledges that fact. He acknowledged it in the Committee on Rules
last night in debate. But it is our good will and desire to work in a
bipartisan way that led us to this point.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
[[Page H3620]]
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, was he present,
if I may ask, at the Committee on the Judiciary markup of this
legislation?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. My job is to chair the Committee on Rules.
Mr. BAIRD. I do not want a filibuster. Just a simply yes or no,
because I was there.
Mr. DREIER. No.
Mr. BAIRD. Okay. The reason I ask that is because, if we say that it
was a bipartisan process, I was there. I am the author of this
legislation. There were no hearings granted prior to the vote, and at
that hearing a reasonable request was made.
The author of the legislation is here. Let us give him a couple of
minutes to speak to the legislation. It was a unanimous consent
request. That was denied.
The spirit of true bipartisanship would have said, if the author of a
legislation has never had a chance to speak before our committee, then
let us at least hear him out.
{time} 1145
Instead, what happened was the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary presented the bill I believe in a false and misleading light,
and I was not given a single moment to address it.
I respect the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and I am glad he is
here, and I am glad we have this opportunity, and I appreciate that,
but it would be a rewrite of history to suggest for one second that the
Committee on the Judiciary process that led up to this was bipartisan.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman has made a couple of
statements that I need to respond to, I would say in response to the
gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) statement, no, I was not there.
I do know that, in the Committee on the Judiciary, if the gentleman
would further yield.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have a whole bunch of speakers here on
our side. Could maybe your side yield the distinguished chairman some
time?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if you would just yield me a minute.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me respond by saying that in the
Committee on the Judiciary I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, offered an amendment. He withdrew that amendment. So
there were no amendments offered.
An opportunity for bipartisanship obviously existed in the committee
in that Members could, in fact, offer proposals.
The agreement that we had, the request that was made of me, was that
we allow for an up-or-down vote on the gentleman from Washington's (Mr.
Baird) constitutional amendment on the floor. That is what we are
doing. We are going to, in fact, be having an up-or-down vote.
I cannot understand why it is that people want to talk about the fact
that in the Committee on the Judiciary they did not believe that there
was a proper hearing. In the last Congress, there was hearing on the
issue of a constitutional amendment. We know that the members of the
Committee on the Judiciary oppose amending the Constitution to allow
for appointed people to serve in the People's House, where everyone has
always been elected; and the members of the minority in the Committee
on the Judiciary did have, in fact, an opportunity to offer amendments
themselves to this proposal.
That is what a markup is about. The agreement was that there would be
a markup in the Committee on the Judiciary. That was the request that
was made of me. We complied with it.
So I believe that we are doing the best thing we can; and, I
apologize to my friend from Washington if he thinks what I just said
was a filibuster.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, I should just point out
to the chairman of the Committee on Rules that the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) tried twice during the markup to postpone
consideration of the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment
for a couple of weeks to allow for there to be an opportunity for
Members to offer amendments and there to be a hearing, and the motion
was tabled.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I wish the chairman of the Committee on Rules would remain on the
floor. Because I believe that, more than a bipartisan effort on the
gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) legislation, we really have
appeasement; and I do not think the Constitution warrants appeasement
in life-and-death matters.
As I hold a portion of the Constitution in my hands, let me remind my
colleague that the opening refrain of the Constitution clearly states:
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, and promote the general welfare and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
My good friend from California has indicated an appeasement story,
but we are not looking for appeasement. This is a question of whether
or not we have a full body of procedure on a constitutional amendment;
and the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I sit as a member, did not
have any hearings on the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird)
constitutional amendment. In fact, as he indicated, when it was
requested for him to at least give an airing, a presentation, a view of
this life-or-death question, he was denied.
First of all, for those comments about aversions to constitutional
amendments, let me cite for my colleagues, in our own Committee on the
Judiciary we have had a hearing on the crime amendment to the
Constitution, rights of crime victims. Every single time since 1994 we
have had a hearing. We have also had a hearing on the flag burning. In
fact, we voted on the flag burning constitutional amendment. And the
gentleman is right. Since we voted on it every year it has not passed.
108th, 106th, 105th, 104th Congress we have had hearings on
constitutional amendments.
We have already had about five hearings scheduled on the
constitutional amendment regarding same sex marriages, and my
understanding is my good friends on the other side are gung-ho to vote
for that constitutional amendment. I do not know if that is life or
death. It is not life or death to most of us.
But this is a life-or-death question, whether or not this
institution, founded and established by this Constitution, that talks
about creating a more perfect union, and we cannot have a hearing nor
do we have the opportunity to.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Let me just say that I totally agree with the need to make sure that
we deal with this life-or-death issue. The request was made of me that
we, in fact, not have a hearing, that was not the request that was made
of me. The request that was made of me is that we have an opportunity
for the full House to vote on the issue of a constitutional amendment
which would allow for appointed Members to serve here in the House of
Representatives, as opposed to having the people elect them, and that
is the agreement we had.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the
Chairman for coming to the floor and explaining that.
The only thing I would say to him is he spoke eloquently about
bipartisanship. That request was made by the Republican chairman of the
committee. I do not believe that was made by the
[[Page H3621]]
ranking member of the committee, and so we do not have bipartisanship.
That is why I stand on the floor of the House now, not ignoring, if you
will, the idea that this distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird) was going to have an up-and-down vote, because I do not think
that is what he is asking for. He has studied this issue for a number
of years because he realizes how serious it is.
I offered an amendment to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) to allow judicial review, to allow an extension of the
time for an appeal on the decisions made by the governor. Why did I ask
for that? I asked for that, Mr. Speaker, because I believe there should
be more involvement of the people in this process.
The legislation that is moving forward by the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, with all due respect to his good
intentions, limits this to the leadership of various States. It does
not in any way take into account the people; and, as I noted, in the
Constitution, it started out by saying, We, the people.
Now, we stand here sort of in a dream-like atmosphere. Because 9/11
was more than 2\1/2\ years ago, and those of us that can recount the
stories of where we were, as we did on the date of the assassination of
John F. Kennedy, can say that we were in the hearing room or we were in
the Capitol. I happened to be in the Capitol. And if we wanted to
recount our fears and apprehension on that day, we would know the state
of confusion that we were in.
We also know that those airplanes, God forbid, were destined not only
for this Capitol but some rumor for the White House. Tragically, it
went to the Pentagon and, of course, to the World Towers, but maybe
distance makes the mind lose the gravity of the moment.
The point is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) is talking
about life or death, and for the Committee on Rules to come to this
floor and suggest there is bipartisanship based on the request of the
Republican chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is unfair.
I would only ask my colleagues, even though it is a distant memory,
in light of the state of the world today and the war on terrorism, it
is a reality and particularly in terms of what this administration has
put us in in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows when a terrorist attack
will occur?
The point is we need real legislation in a bipartisan way. The
gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment should have had a
full hearing, and anytime we amend the Constitution we should take it
very seriously, and I regret that we have not. I ask my colleagues to
demand a hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary before we vote
on this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the closed rule that was
reported out of the Committee on Rules yesterday regarding this
legislation sponsored by my colleague Mr. Baird.
A careful review of the Judiciary Committee's history with respect
to its past treatment of constitutional amendments evidences a strong
practice of holding hearings prior to any scheduled full Committee
markup of that particular amendment.
Consider, for example, the constitutional amendment to protect the
rights of crime victims. That amendment was introduced in each
consecutive Congress since 1994 (the year the current Majority took
control of the House), and on each occasion, it was the wisdom of the
Committee to schedule a hearing.
Also, consider the Committee's treatment of the constitutional
amendment to prohibit flag burning. A proposal on this issue was
introduced in the 108th, 106th, 105th and 104th Congress and each time
the Committee undertook hearings prior to scheduling a markup.
Moreover, consider the Committee's treatment of the constitutional
amendment to limit the Federal government's ability to raise taxes. A
proposal on this topic was introduced in the 105th and 104th Congress,
and hearings were held on both occasions.
With this apparent and undeniably longstanding tradition, we are now
told that a hearing is unnecessary under the present set of
circumstances because a hearing was already held on the Baird amendment
introduced in the 107th Congress. This line of reasoning lacks merit
for two important reasons.
First, as previously mentioned, it has been the well-established
practice of the Judiciary Committee to schedule a hearing on such
proposals prior to proceeding to a markup. This hard and steadfast rule
has prevailed, even under circumstances where the proposed amendments
were virtually identical in nature.
Second, even assuming the general rule was subject to change, the
two versions of the Baird amendment, H.J. Res. 67 (introduced in the
107th Congress) and H.J. Res. 83 (introduced in the current Congress),
are distinct enough to warrant two separate hearings on their own
merits. H.J. Res. 83, for example, uses a distinct threshold for making
temporary appointments; places considerable limits on the discretion of
the chief executive when he or she is authorized to make such
appointments; and provides a mechanism for an incapacitated Member to
regain his or her seat after recovery from incapacity.
Our Committee has already seen fit to schedule a series of five
hearings, over the course of the next several months, to discuss the
issue of same-sex marriage. With this in mind, one single hearing to
discuss and consider ideas on how best to ensure the continuity of our
government in the event of a catastrophic incident is more than
reasonable.
Mr. Speaker, again, I oppose this rule and ask that my colleagues
think about the gravity of what this Constitutional amendment will
entail. We need to recommit this bill to the committee of jurisdiction,
the Judiciary, and revisit the important issues that I have stated
above.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time
remains on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the
great State of Washington for allowing me this opportunity.
I rise in strong support of this rule. It is a brief rule, it is
understandable, and it is a very fair rule because it does get us to
debate, but I am very much in opposition to the underlying resolution.
That is the nature of this House. Even though we are against something,
we bring it forward for debate. I think that is very fair.
It is prudent to ensure that our legislative process continues to
function when we are at war or after a catastrophe. That goes without
saying. It is not only prudent. It is responsibility.
We are at war. It is a fact. A loosely organized global network of
radical fanatics, who use terror as their weapon of choice, has
declared war on us. The escalation of terrorist attacks against us,
underscored by the terrible carnage on our innocent homeland on
September 11, leaves no doubt that war has been declared on us, and we
are at war.
So it is wise to visit the issue of continuity of Congress. However,
few problems require a constitutional remedy, and I firmly believe this
is not one of them.
The beauty of our government is the ability to evolve and adapt to
changing times and needs without altering the foundation that supports
and guides us. That is our Constitution.
Our country has withstood foreign wars, civil war, depression, even
attacks on our own soil with only 27 changes to our Constitution over
the years. As elected public officials, we must understand our
responsibilities are not only to those we represent but also to the
Constitution that holds our Nation together.
I remind my colleagues, the opening line of our oath of office reads,
``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' There
is no Member of this body who has ever spoken from this floor who has
not sworn that oath.
Not far from where we stand, an hour or so from this Chamber, lies
Montpelier, the home of the father of the Constitution, James Madison.
There, and in this body, his teachings live on and his wisdom resonates
with the new generations.
Our Nation has a powerful history based on the principles of free
government and the right of all people to elect their representatives.
Congress has the privilege to serve those it represents, not to appoint
that right to others.
When describing the special relationship between the House of
Representatives and the American people, James Madison said, ``Duty,
gratitude, interest, and ambition itself are the chords
[[Page H3622]]
by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great
mass of the people.''
In order to preserve this bond, we should not tolerate exceptions and
caveats to our election process but, rather, continue to encourage
Americans to gather together and to vote, solidifying our conviction
for and our responsibility to a free government that serves its people.
In the war on terror, we are confronting those who threaten our
liberty simply because we have it and we enjoy it. Although the war
made against us by terrorists is perilous and unpredictable, we have a
duty to remain steadfast and strong, vigilant and upholding the ideals
that have contributed to this great Nation, but not in overreacting. We
must bring patient, I emphasize patient, devotion and overall intensity
of purpose to prudent action without moving the foundation stone of our
freedom, our Constitution.
I support the rule because it provides for a deliberative debate,
which is what the opposition has asked, but I strongly oppose rushing
to change our Constitution. Are the terrorists trying to make us do
things to ourselves that the terrorists themselves could not directly
force us to do? Let us not succumb to a hasty reaction. Let us
celebrate our Constitution as it is and vote ``no'' on the resolution
that would amend it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say to kind of clarify what the concerns are on this side
of the aisle. This is an important issue. This is an important topic
that we are talking about. I think all of us can agree on that. This is
supposed to be a deliberative body where we deliberate, and that means
hold hearings where we have people who are experts on some of these
issues be able to talk and testify and offer their input.
I am not sure whether it is a good idea to amend the Constitution,
but I have to tell my colleagues I am appalled by this process that we
would bring an issue like this to the House floor and to ask Members to
vote up or down on it without holding hearings in the committee of
jurisdiction. That is not the way this place is supposed to work.
The people of this country, the people of this institution deserve a
lot better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time.
In 1787, this month, the Constitutional Convention was at work in
Philadelphia, some of the brightest minds in the history of this
country. One of those great minds was Madison, and he has been quoted a
lot today, but let me quote another thing Mr. Madison said.
{time} 1200
Madison said this about the importance of checks and balances: ``The
accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and judiciary in the
same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary,
self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny.''
Madison truly believed we have to elect our representatives to the
House, but he also believed with equal dedication that there must be
checks and balances. Mr. Speaker, if you and we here today do not act,
we impose upon this Nation conditions that will ensure the situation
that Madison abhorred of concentration of all the power in the
executive.
And let us be clear, it will not likely be an elected executive. We
are not talking about President Bush or Vice President Cheney. If the
terrorists strike, they will do everything in their power to kill those
two individuals and everyone in here that they can. Who then will run
this country? That is the question you have yet to answer. You have not
answered it. You have said 45 days later we will figure something out.
But during that 45 days, who runs the United States of America?
We have indeed taken an oath to defend this Constitution. We have
also taken an oath that says we will defend the whole Constitution,
including the prerogatives of the House of Representatives as specified
in article I.
As people watch this debate today, the people here and the people
elsewhere, they must ask themselves, Do I want this country run with no
representation from my district there to speak for me? Does an
unelected individual who assumes power in the executive branch get to
send my child to war without me having a person there to exercise a
voice and a vote? I do not think so.
I have had 220 town halls since being elected here, and I will tell
you the people back home get this. They do not care really about the
insides and outs of the Committee on Rules, but they do care about fair
process. And they would say to themselves the idea that we would bring
a constitutional amendment to the floor, without ever having given the
author a chance to speak to it, is antithetical to the real principles
of democracy.
When the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules said we are
doing our best, I do not believe so. I believe he dissembles. We are
not doing our best. Our best would be this: our best would be to invite
all the authors of various proposals, for real continuity, to have a
full opportunity for debate, an extensive opportunity for the debate,
and for the Speaker of the House of the Representatives and the
minority leader to say to their representatives, come to the floor, pay
attention to this vital matter, and then we will have time for fair
debate, time for full amendments.
That is what we truly asked the chairman of the Committee on Rules to
do. We did not say just bring this up for an up-or-down vote. I
introduced a resolution that would have provided a fair and full rule
to allow for debate of all different proposals, but that was denied.
That rule would have offered several days' waiting period for extensive
amendments. That was denied. We can do better than this.
It has been said that few problems require a constitutional
amendment. Absolutely true. I believe the majority party has been far
too eager to amend the Constitution of late. But I will tell you that a
bipartisan commission, a bipartisan commission of distinguished
scholars began studying this issue over a year and a half ago, with the
premise that we must not amend the Constitution to fix this. After a
full year of study, and we are going to have about an hour today, they
studied this matter for a year, and they listened to experts and
scholars from across the political spectrum, and what did they
conclude? They concluded we can only fix this with an amendment.
And that includes, by the way, distinguished Republican statesmen,
people like former Senator Al Simpson from Wyoming. Ask Senator Simpson
why he reached that conclusion. Ask the distinguished Senator from
Texas, Mr. Cornyn, who has successfully introduced legislation in the
other body, why he concluded that we need an amendment.
None of us woke up on September 11 and said, boy, what a great day to
start thinking about a constitutional amendment. But thousands of our
fellow citizens woke up that day not knowing it would be their last. We
do not know today when that will happen; but we do know that if the
terrorists strike us, they will, in fact, change our system of
government at their discretion. They will change who the President is.
They will change the political makeup of this body. And we are
unprepared to deal with that, and it is irresponsible. And I am sorry
it has taken 3 years.
Let me close with statements from the Attorney General of the United
States just a week ago: ``After the March 11 attack in Madrid, Spain,
an al Qaeda spokesman announced 90 percent of the arrangements for an
attack in the United States were complete.'' A paragraph later the
Attorney General said, ``Several upcoming events over the next few
months may suggest especially attractive targets. These events include
the G-8 summit, the Democratic Party convention in Boston this summer
and the convention of the Republican Party in New York City.''
If the terrorists attack the convention in New York, kill the
President and Vice President and many Members of this body, the
inevitable consequence is that Democrats will take the majority of this
body, will be forced to elect a Speaker, that person will be a
Democrat, and that person will become President.
The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules says this was
precedent in Madison's time. No, sir, it
[[Page H3623]]
was not. It was not for two reasons. The nuclear weapon did not exist
in Mr. Madison's time. Secondly, the Succession Act of 1947 was about
180 years away from being written. Madison could not have conceived
this. He could not have conceived this, but he left to us an
opportunity to address it. We wish we did not have to, but it is
foolhardy and reckless to not act when we know the dangers we face.
It has been 3 years, Mr. Speaker, 3 years almost since we saw 3,000
of our fellow citizens killed. If we believe we are immune to that,
then we are desperately, desperately deceiving ourselves. And if we do
not take provisions to provide for that, then we are letting our public
down and letting that sacred Constitution down.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert an
article that was written by Professor Colleen Shogan, who is a
professor of Government and Politics at George Mason University. This
article appeared in yesterday's Roll Call.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From Roll Call, June 1, 2004]
On Continuity, Both Parties Need To Cooperate
(By Colleen Shogan)
The debate over how Congress should reconstitute itself in
the wake of a devastating terrorist attack has evolved into a
partisan melee with experts, staffers and elected officials
talking past one another. The same arguments are repeated
over and over again, with interested parties now seeming to
treat the issue as a law school exercise that rewards the
most arcane legal reasoning.
It's true that when tinkering with the Constitution, and
interpreting the meaning of the Founders, we must pay
attention to the details. But along the way, we should not
lose sight of the larger issues that surround the
preservation of Congress and its continuity. The current
debate has given scant attention to several important
points--points that may have the power to move deliberations
beyond the impasse over whether a constitutional amendment is
needed or whether appointments should take precedence over
special elections.
Virtually everyone agrees that the first priority in the
wake of a disaster is to make sure the federal government
continues to function. The oft-cited reason for quickly
reconstituting the House is to preserve its representative
capacity. While this rationale is essential, an equally
important reason is to preserve legislative power vis-a-vis
an emboldened executive.
At a recent Rules Committee hearing on continuity, one
Member wondered if a House of Representatives with only a few
able Members should cease to function and cede power to the
president until it was able to regain membership. Although it
is appropriate to ask this question, the answer is a
resounding ``no.''
If Congress cannot function properly, unilateral executive
actions will serve as the operating mechanism of the federal
government. For several months in 1861, Abraham Lincoln
prosecuted the Civil War unilaterally, until Congress
reconvened in early July. The suspension of habeas corpus,
the naval blockade, and the enlargement of the Army and Navy
undertaken by Lincoln are conventionally revered in American
history as acts of necessity and preservation. But in the
Second Treatise of Government (Chapter 8, Section 111), John
Locke warned against the expansion of the executive
``prerogative'' power.
Locke conceded that ``virtuous princes'' who expand
executive power in a time of crisis perform a noble service,
but added that those princes who come to power in the
aftermath will always be tempted to abuse the precedents set
before them. We may recall that Richard Nixon invoked
Lincoln's expansive use of executive power when he refused to
turn over the Watergate tapes. Locke's so-called ``virtuous
princes'' are not the problem; rather, it is those who follow
in their wake.
In short, it would be a travesty if the legislative branch
ceased to operate with legitimacy at a time of crisis in the
United States. Emergency executive actions that Congress or
the Supreme Court subsequently recognize as legally
permissible ultimately enlarge the discretionary power of the
executive branch. Congress's effectiveness as a bulwark
against the executive should encourage lawmakers to design
logistical procedures that insure the immediate
reconstitution of the House and Senate if mass vacancies or
incapacitations occur.
The Constitution requires that all members be selected by
election, following the Founders' desires to keep the House
close to the people. Yet while the electoral integrity of the
House is significant, so too is the fact that the Founders
designed the House to provide proportionate and equal
representation to all citizens.
Read in its entirety, the Federalist Papers aggressively
promote the republican nature of American government, while
defending its democratic allowances cautiously. Strictly
speaking, the United States is a ``democratic republic.'' If
only a few Members were left to represent the whole nation
for a period of time before special elections could be held,
would that arrangement accurately reflect the Founders'
republican vision? Democracy and republicanism are essential
to American governance, and the solution to continuity should
span both ideals.
The relevance of both democratic and republican norms
suggests that a two-part approach might provide the most
comprehensive resolution to the problem of congressional
continuity. The Continuity in Representation Act of 2004,
sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), ensures the
democratic character of the House by mandating that special
elections be held within 45 days of a catastrophe. While that
time period may prove too short to conduct several hundred
special elections after a massive attack, the underlying
electoral motivation behind the bill is sound.
By itself, however, the measure is not a comprehensive
answer. To preserve the representative function of the House,
an amendment allowing the temporary appointment of members
must be enacted. In the context of partisan rancor, these two
approaches to continuity have been presented as mutually
exclusive measures. But instead, a constitutional amendment
should be considered compatible with Sensenbrenner's bill,
together producing a federal law that mandates timely special
elections as well as a constitutional amendment that provides
for temporary House appointments. Only this can preserve the
Founders' democratic and republican ideals.
It is time to move beyond the repetitive rhetoric and the
impenetrable inflexibility of rival solutions. Each side has
solved part of the problem; only a blend of approaches can
settle the looming question of continuity. Adherence to the
Founders' ideals depends on a bipartisan approach. Even more
important, the balanced preservation of our nation's
governing system in a time of crisis necessitates it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, if I can just read the first line of that column where
Professor Shogan says, ``The debate over how Congress should
reconstitute itself in the wake of a devastating terrorist attack has
evolved into a partisan melee with experts, staffers, and elected
officials talking past one another.''
I think, Mr. Speaker, what people on our side are concerned about is
that the professor is absolutely right, that this issue has kind of
become more partisan than it should be. In fact, it should not be
partisan at all and this really is a time to kind of take a couple of
steps backwards and to do the necessary deliberation and consideration
that something this important requires. That is what we are asking for
here.
I think it is hard for the other side to justify that this has been a
fair and bipartisan process and that they are taking this issue
seriously when the main committee of jurisdiction has not even held a
hearing on this particular bill in the 108th Congress. So what we are
asking for is that this serious issue be taken seriously, that the
necessary deliberation and the necessary consideration be followed as
we move forward with this legislation.
So with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, how much time is available?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Washington
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, in that brief time let me address what this
amendment really does.
It is very straightforward. It says this: in the event of a
catastrophic loss of Members, if we lose over 218, in other words more
than would be required to sustain a quorum, then special provisions
will apply. But only under catastrophic losses. And those special
provisions are very straightforward.
The membership of this body, having been elected by our constituents
to perform all the vital functions under article I, would be asked upon
their election to create a list of potential successors who, upon our
death or incapacity in a catastrophic event, could temporarily fill our
place until special elections could be held. Temporarily until special
elections could be held.
It is disingenuous, if not deliberately deceptive, to suggest this
subverts or bans or undermines elections. We all believe direct
elections should be held. The real question is this: Should we have a
Congress or not? Should we have a House of Representatives? I think the
Framers said we should.
[[Page H3624]]
That is why it is article I. But, my friends, if we lose more Members
than necessary to sustain a quorum, we will have a constitutional
crisis. It is that simple. The majority party has yet to address that.
I found a remarkable statement in the chairman's remarks during the
markup of this bill. The chairman said, and I really want to pay
attention to this: ``Congress has granted the President significant
powers to act during an emergency. He could maintain the necessary
functions of government, along with the Congress, utilizing a reduced
quorum until elections are held.'' Where did Congress do that? The
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States has
asserted that the Congress has granted the President of the United
States special provisions and he has apparently ex cathedra dictated
that we can function with a reduced quorum.
The Constitution of the United States has not dictated that we can
function with a reduced quorum. The chairman cited no reference to say
where this great body said, ``Mr. President, here are your authorities
under a crisis.'' It did not happen. And it was not challenged in the
Judiciary. How remarkable and how dangerous that is, that a chairman
would dictate that we have given the President powers that we are not
authorized under the Constitution to give and that we never took action
to give.
The fact is it would not be the President, it would be an unelected
Cabinet member that most Americans do not know forced to exercise extra
constitutional powers. And, my friends, you would have no voice in this
body or in this government to counteract whatever that individual
wanted to do. That is why this matters.
It is so much easier to not look at this issue. It is so much easier
to go on about our business as if every day we will be here just like
we always have. We may not. And if we are not, and if tragedy strikes,
the American people have a right to know what happens next. And this
body, for 3 years, has failed to answer that question. Answers are
available.
This bill may not be perfect, but the status quo is vastly,
dangerously imperfect. What we have asked is to bring not only this
bill but others, the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher), Senator Cornyn's bill, that of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), or the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Larson), and ask this body, implore this body to grapple with the
complexities of this. Because only when you struggle with it, and only
when you see not only the alternatives but the problems of the status
quo do you get it.
It is so much easier not to do that. It is easier not to make a will,
it is easier not to provide care for our kids if we are gone; but it is
irresponsible to do those things. This body must act. And at least
today one thing will happen. We will be on record today as having voted
to do something or having voted to do nothing. If you vote to do
nothing, and God forbid something horrible happens and someone takes
advantage of that and leads this Nation in a desperately dangerous
path, then you are at least on record as having voted to do nothing.
You have seen the risk, and you have chosen the course of inaction.
That is irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we can sure tell how important this debate is, and I do
appreciate my colleague from Washington State for his passion on this.
I do disagree with his approach, but he is going to have an opportunity
to debate that when this rule passes, and we will have a debate on a
constitutional amendment of appointing Members of this body.
But I want to just go back and I guess reflect on how we have tried
to deal with this in the course of the history of our country.
{time} 1215
After the Revolutionary War, when we formed a new government, it was
the Articles of Confederation. Our Founders found out that did not work
all that well for a variety of reasons, I suspect because there was a
division of powers and there was no central government, and so the
Founders had to figure out a way how do we respect the people's
government, which I think is very, very important, and still have some
central authority.
Part of that compromise was to make a bicameral legislature in which
the lower house, the House of Representatives, the People's House,
would always be elected by the people. Perhaps this debate is evolving
into that very essential principle.
I think that the government, this government of the people, by the
people and for the people, as Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address,
can function very well. I also believe there is no single answer to
this question as we move forward.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that we passed the Continuity of
Congress Act providing for expedited elections by the States. This may
be an approach. But even if we were to pass a constitutional amendment,
and I do not think it is going to get the two-thirds, it would take up
to perhaps 7 years to get that ratified by three-fourths of the States.
We have to have something in place. I hope the other body acts on the
continuity issue so we can have something in place to take care of
that.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, and this will be the first
time we will have an opportunity, the first time certainly to my
knowledge that we will have an issue before the People's House, the
U.S. House of Representatives, that will allow for something other than
a direct election, under whatever circumstance, of Members of this
House. This is a very, very important issue. I think it deserves to
have a debate. This rule provides 90 minutes for that debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Chair would inform Members
that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) yielded back his time to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) controls 30 seconds.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird), and urge a no vote on the rule.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a no vote on the rule. How
indicative that we said we will have 90 minutes to debate this, 90
minutes to debate the future of this country in the event of a
terrorist attack. We are taking this tremendously seriously. I cannot
believe it. I cannot believe we are giving 90 whole minutes to whether
or not we will have a constitutional government with the House of
Representatives and the very bicameral system that the gentleman from
Washington described. Vote no on this. Give this body time to have real
debate, real discussion on multiple amendments.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we will have a vigorous debate on this. As I mentioned,
I am opposed to the underlying constitutional amendment. I think it is
bad policy, but I think it should be debated in the People's House.
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 noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 657 will be followed by 5-
minute votes, if ordered, on adopting H. Res. 657; ordering the
previous question on the amendment to H. Res. 656 and on the resolution
itself; adopting the amendment to H. Res. 656; and adopting H. Res.
656, as amended.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215,
nays 195, not voting 23, as follows:
[[Page H3625]]
[Roll No. 213]
YEAS--215
Aderholt
Akin
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
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
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
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
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
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
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
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
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
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--23
Bachus
Ballance
Ballenger
Bereuter
Berkley
Carson (OK)
Costello
Davis (FL)
DeGette
DeMint
Deutsch
Dingell
Edwards
Emerson
Etheridge
Jones (OH)
Latham
McCrery
Pearce
Simmons
Tancredo
Tauzin
Wilson (NM)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1242
Mr. MARKEY, Mr. KIND and Ms. WOOLSEY changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Ms. GRANGER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 213 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 213, I was unavoidably
detained and missed voting on H.J. Res. 83. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
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 211,
noes 200, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 214]
AYES--211
Aderholt
Akin
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
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
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
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
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
McCotter
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--200
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
[[Page H3626]]
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
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
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Rohrabacher
NOT VOTING--21
Bachus
Ballance
Ballenger
Bereuter
Berkley
Carson (OK)
Costello
Davis (FL)
DeGette
DeMint
Deutsch
Emerson
Hayes
Hunter
Jones (OH)
McCrery
Northup
Peterson (PA)
Tancredo
Tauzin
Wilson (NM)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1250
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.
Stated for:
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 214, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________