[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 101 (Tuesday, July 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6085-H6089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING POSTPONEMENT OF A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

  Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 728) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the actions of terrorists will never cause the 
date of any Presidential election to be postponed and that no single 
individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone the date 
of a Presidential election.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 728

       Whereas no regularly scheduled national election for 
     Federal office has ever been postponed for any reason;
       Whereas regularly scheduled Federal elections took place as 
     scheduled during the Civil War, World War I, and World War 
     II;
       Whereas after having been re-elected in an election that 
     took place while the Civil War continued to rage, Abraham 
     Lincoln said ``We can not have free government without 
     elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or 
     postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have 
     already conquered and ruined us. . . . [T]he election, along 
     with its incidental and undesirable strife, has done good 
     too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can 
     sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil 
     war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this 
     was a possibility.'';
       Whereas the terrorist bombings that took place in Spain on 
     the eve of the Spanish elections in March 2004 were almost 
     certainly perceived by Al Qaeda as having contributed to the 
     defeat of the government that had stood with the United 
     States in the Global War on Terror;
       Whereas terrorists may attempt to strike again against the 
     United States in the months leading up to the November 2004 
     Presidential election in an attempt to alter or affect the 
     election's outcome;
       Whereas in the event that such a horrific attack were to 
     occur, the actions of millions of Americans across the Nation 
     casting their ballots would demonstrate powerfully the 
     strength and resilience of our democracy;
       Whereas there is no reason to believe that the men and 
     women who administer elections in jurisdictions across the 
     Nation would be incapable of determining how to react to a 
     terrorist attack;
       Whereas postponing an election in the aftermath of a 
     terrorist attack would demonstrate weakness, not strength, 
     and would be interpreted as a victory for the terrorists; and
       Whereas under section 4 of article II of the Constitution, 
     Congress has the authority to determine the date on which a 
     Presidential election shall take place: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--

[[Page H6086]]

       (1) the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of 
     any Presidential election to be postponed; and
       (2) no single individual or agency should be given the 
     authority to postpone the date of a Presidential election.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to introduce, I think, an extremely important 
resolution, House Resolution 728, which expresses the sense of the 
House that the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of any 
national election, Presidential election, to be postponed and that no 
single individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone 
the date of a national election.
  In a great democratic republic such as ours, there is nothing more 
fundamental than the bond that is forged between citizens and their 
representatives during the course of regularly scheduled elections. In 
our country and by design of our Federal Constitution, the people are 
sovereign. The power that we exercise as representatives derives 
directly from their consent.
  James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 52, stated that ``It is 
essential to liberty that the government in general should have a 
common interest with the people.'' According to Madison, ``Frequent 
elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence 
and sympathy can be effectually secured.''
  Congress is authorized by the Constitution to determine the date on 
which the Presidential election and all other Federal elections will 
take place. Thus, only an act of Congress, and not the actions of a 
single individual or agency, could change that date.
  The ability of the United States to conduct regularly scheduled 
Federal elections even during the most difficult and trying of times, 
for example, such as during the Civil War and during World Wars I and 
II, is a hallmark of our strength and our resiliency, the great 
cornerstone of our democracy itself. We would do well to remember the 
counsel of Abraham Lincoln who, after having been reelected President 
while the Civil War was raging, stated:
  ``We cannot have free government without elections. And if the 
rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone a national election, it 
might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The 
election, along with its incidental and undesirable strife, has done 
good. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a 
national election in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has 
not been known to the world that this was a possibility.''
  The resolution that we are introducing today reaffirms our national 
commitment to holding Federal elections, including the election for 
President, on the date prescribed by law and to stand firm in the face 
of terrorist enemies who seek to derail the operation of our democracy.
  Since the terrible and fateful morning of September 11, 2001, we all 
have become in this country painfully aware of the destructive intent 
of our country's terrorist enemies as well as the increasingly 
sophisticated and devastating methods by which they carry out their 
deadly work. We were further reminded of al Qaeda's hatefulness and 
total disregard for innocent life this past March when, in the days 
leading up to the Spanish national elections, they unleashed a string 
of lethal bombings that killed scores of civilians in Madrid. Shortly 
thereafter, the Spanish Government, that had stood shoulder to shoulder 
with us, was then voted out of office. But it is not a matter of who 
was voted into office or who was voted out of office. It is the matter 
of the action that the terrorists took to intimidate a country.
  I realize that many factors were at play during that election. 
However, I have no doubt that al Qaeda believes its actions led 
directly to the defeat of a government. And I believe, in fact, the 
threats that we hear about are intimidation factors on us in the United 
States to attempt to get us to think about the possibility of a 
national election being changed.
  We hope that there are no terrorist attacks, of course, and we hope 
that our Central Intelligence Agency and FBI and Homeland Security will 
do everything possible, as we know they will, in conjunction with the 
States, to make sure that attacks are not carried out.
  But if an attack did occur and we in fact postponed an election, what 
would we do? Would we say it will happen in 1 week? Or it will happen 
in 2 weeks? And there is another attack and we postpone it for 2 more 
weeks. One could imagine the chaos that would be caused by this type of 
action.
  It has been suggested that such an attack may require the 
postponement of this November's election. I strongly disagree. Any 
delay in the conduct of an election in the aftermath of a terrorist 
attack would signify weakness rather than strength and would be a 
victory for the terrorists if they could accomplish that here on our 
soil. I believe that if such an attack were ever to occur, and I 
earnestly pray, as we all do, that it never happens, the actions of 
millions of Americans across this great country casting their ballots 
in a regularly scheduled election would send a very powerful signal to 
our terrorist enemies and to all the world about the vigor of our 
democracy and the fortitude of our citizens to continue on where 
America does her work, at the ballot box.

                              {time}  1830

  With this resolution the House declares on behalf of the American 
people it represents that the strength and stability of the American 
democratic system and the values upon which it is founded are much 
greater than any attempts our terrorist enemies may make to disrupt or 
destroy them. The message we send is unmistakably clear: we will not 
shrink in the face of terrorist threats.
  And let me add one other point I think that is important to make. As 
there has been chatter about the possibility of talking about one 
person or one agency postponing the elections, we live in a democracy. 
Elections are postponed in countries that have dictators by one 
individual. We do not operate that way. So there are many good reasons 
to support this.
  I want to thank the Speaker of the House, all of the Republicans. I 
want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and most of 
all also the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), our ranking 
member. This is a truly bipartisan resolution. This is a resolution 
where everybody has joined together to say that we will not be 
intimidated and to say that Congress has the authority on the 
elections, the elections will go forward, and that no one single person 
or agency will even entertain the idea that, in fact, they can postpone 
an election. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for 
his great support.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Chairman Ney), my good friend.
  I rise today in support of this resolution to reaffirm that our 
Federal elections should not be postponed in the event of terrorist 
attacks, as our chairman has eloquently stated in his remarks. I stand 
in support of this resolution because of the matters contained in the 
resolving clauses. Number one, the actions of terrorists will never 
cause the date of any Presidential election to be postponed; and, 
number two, no single individual or agency should be given the 
authority to postpone the date of a Presidential election. This is the 
meat of this resolution.
  I further join with the gentlewoman (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished 
leader, in calling for the United States to be an example for 
democracies around the world, and that means holding our elections on 
schedule. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner), ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, 
who spoke out so eloquently on this issue, and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), who has already circulated in the immediate 
comments following some of the press with respect to this issue and 
garnered more than 150 signatures, as the chairman has indicated, along 
bipartisan lines.

[[Page H6087]]

  The Union has stood for over 225 years and has never had a Federal 
election postponed or cancelled. Not in time of war, not in time of 
economic turmoil, and not in time of natural disaster. We should not 
start now. We as a country will not bend in the face of threats to our 
democracy. The United States was founded on the ideas of hope and 
freedom. Those who believe that they will break those pillars with the 
threat of terror are misguided.
  I have requested a briefing from Department of Homeland Security 
Secretary Tom Ridge to learn how his Department plans to work with 
Congress to safeguard the November elections and on reducing the risk 
of attack. I join with the committee chairman and we share the 
concerns, and we all hope and pray and abide that no such attacks will 
occur, and yet we must be prepared for those contingencies. I would 
suggest that while we are mindful of security and the safety of voters, 
we should not focus on these issues to the extent that they damage 
democracy by frightening voters away from the polls. Americans should 
go to the polls in record numbers to show our determination that we 
take our democracy seriously.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith), and I would also note that the gentleman has 
introduced House Concurrent Resolution 474 into our committee, and it 
supports the very same objectives; and I appreciate the gentleman's 
introducing that resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time, and I think there is going to be unanimous 
support for this resolution.
  I think it is appropriate to mention the only reason this really came 
to the forefront and has become an issue is because the Election 
Assistance Commission Chairman, DeForest Soaries, proposed a 
possibility of a policy for allowing the alteration of the schedule for 
Federal elections in the event of an unspecified emergency. He said 
maybe we should be looking at that possibility. I think it was never 
the intention of Congress or the administration or anybody else for the 
reasons that have been presented from both sides to ever alter our 
election schedule in the United States of America.
  I would like to add some of the whereases in the concurrent 
resolution that I introduced earlier in July, on H. Con. Res. 474.
  And it says: ``Whereas the United States has never postponed or 
delayed a Federal election for any reason, even during the Civil War'' 
and ``Whereas Condoleezza Rice, the Assistant to the President for 
National Security Affairs, has stated that the administration has no 
intention of altering the schedule for Federal elections and expects 
the elections to occur as scheduled'' and ``Whereas the American people 
have a longstanding and legitimate expectation that regularly scheduled 
Federal elections will continue to be held in accordance with Federal 
law'' and ``Whereas keeping the schedule of Federal elections is 
necessary to maintain confidence in the legitimacy of the Presidency 
and Congress both in the United States and around the world: Now 
therefore be it resolved'' it is not going to happen and this Congress 
is never going to permit the alteration of law that would be required 
to have a postponement of our Federal elections because of terrorist 
threat.
  I compliment both sides of the aisle for moving ahead with this 
resolution.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has led the effort here 
in the House and petitioned to Secretary Ridge.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, it appeared earlier this month that if 
DeForest Soaries, the chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance 
Commission, had gotten his wish, his agency would have the authority to 
postpone the November Presidential elections in the event of a 
terrorist threat or attack. I was personally appalled that Soaries made 
such a request and that it was even considered.
  The postponement of a Presidential election would present the 
greatest threat to date to our democratic process. It would be an 
admission of defeat to the terrorists, inviting them to disrupt the 
selection of our highest leader, and it would be unprecedented in our 
Nation's history. Such a proposal suggests that State officials 
responsible for elections in their region are incapable of deciding 
what steps to take in the event of a catastrophe. The legislative 
branch of the government has always held the authority to regulate 
elections, not the executive branch.
  So last week I wrote a letter to Secretary Ridge, as the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) stated, and I requested that he take no 
further steps to postpone this year's Presidential election. 190 
Members of Congress signed this letter with me, and I credit the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson) for bringing this important resolution H. Res. 728, to the 
House floor immediately, showing support of our request and showing 
full appreciation for the election process.
  Madam Speaker, in early 1864, President Abraham Lincoln feared that 
he would lose his Presidency due to the widespread criticism of his 
handling of the Civil War. No President had won a second term in more 
than 30 years, and the Union had recently suffered a string of military 
disappointments, and his advisers told him that they thought he should 
postpone the election. Many of President Lincoln's closest advisers 
told him he would lose the election, in fact, if it were held. But 
President Lincoln never considered that possibility, nor will we.
  Wars, droughts, floods, and hurricanes have not stopped elections. 
And the possibility of a terrorist attack must not stop one either. I 
urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for 
yielding me this time and thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  I want to raise a question here because, first of all, I absolutely 
agree that the executive branch must not be given the authority or must 
not assume the authority to change our elections. On that I one hundred 
percent agree. That must be the purview and the prerogative of the 
United States Congress.
  But I just want to raise a question. The issue really is not the 
holding of elections. The issue is whether or not in the elections 
everyone's vote gets counted, and we must be very careful in our 
rhetorical concerns to not just say they will never disrupt the 
elections but to instead ensure that terrorists not allow individual 
votes to not be counted.
  We have seen elections in which individual votes were not counted, 
and that is the threat to the democracy. And I mean this very 
seriously. It is quite plausible to imagine scenarios wherein we go 
forth with an election, but individual votes are not counted and 
thereby the election of an individual as President of the United States 
or as Members of the House or Senate does produce an outcome, but the 
outcome is not based on a fair and full counting of each of our votes.
  And that is my concern. And my concern, frankly, is I think we are 
moving this forward too fast. My own preference would be to follow 
something along the lines of what Norm Ornstein recommended, and that 
is appoint a commission to study in the interim what the possible 
scenarios are and what our opportunities are because if, for example, 
one State, let us say California, is attacked by terrorists and the 
number of the votes are not in some way able to be tallied, are we 
today setting a marker in the ground that says it is better not to 
count the votes of the State of California or to only partially count 
those in order that we can say the election was held on time?
  Quite frankly, I am not comfortable with the results of elections 
where we have said what matters is that we say we have held the 
election rather than we say what matters is every single person's vote 
is counted. It is that principle on which the integrity of a democratic 
Republic depends, not merely holding elections on a designated time.

[[Page H6088]]

  So I will very likely vote for this, but I will do so with 
reservations. And I would suggest that if we do pass this resolution, 
we not assume that in so doing we have solved this problem. Nor do we 
assume that in so doing, we have assured the American people that their 
votes will be counted. Because the American people say not that we must 
hold the election on the first Tuesday of November. What they say is, 
most important is my vote must count. In the past it has not counted, 
and it must count ever after.
  Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am not sure I am going to attempt to actually answer that, but I 
will say this, and I respect always the gentleman's opinion: when he 
says the issue is about counting votes, we cannot count votes unless we 
have an election, I understand where he is coming from. However, there 
is an issue about the security of the ballots. Let us take terrorists 
away from it. There could be an earthquake. It could be in California. 
It could be in Texas. Do we then stop the national elections? Forget 
terrorism. Would we stop the national elections if on the day of the 
elections there was an earthquake somewhere? Would we somehow broadcast 
to the Nation stop, turn around, and go home? But I think, frankly, 
understanding what he is saying, respecting what he is saying about 
security, this still goes way beyond that.

                              {time}  1845

  At issue tonight is not forgetting about security elections, not 
forgetting about having accurate elections, but the issue is with the 
chatter about one person being able to stop elections; the Congress, I 
think this is the time the Congress is the body that can do that, and 
this is as a result of the chatter about one person.
  Now, whom would we pick? Would we pick you, would we pick the 
Speaker, would we pick the minority leader, would we pick the Attorney 
General, would we pick Homeland Security?
  So I think the issue of this is stating on the record that Congress 
will not even entertain one person, because the idea of one person is 
something so foreign to us, that no one individual in this country 
ever, ever has the power to stop an election.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just wanted to comment, as well, that I appreciate 
the spirit of my colleague's comments and what he had to say, and I 
think that votes being conducted does truly matter.
  In the legislative process, would it be that every time we passed a 
piece of legislation did we not think the problem had been solved? So I 
agree that we have to continue to follow through on this issue.
  But I think the chairman is correct in terms of looking at the 
gravity of this situation and an individual, and, as the gentleman 
pointed out in his remarks as well, understanding completely that that 
authority should derive with the United States Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I appreciate the discussion here. I absolutely agree. I want to 
underscore that. The gentleman, I could not agree more; it must not 
reside with one person. Frankly, not because we feel that way, not 
because we cannot think of who that one person would be, but because 
the Constitution of the United States of America has never said that 
the President or a designee of the President can delay an election. 
That must reside with Congress, if anything is going to happen to 
elections.
  But I really do want to underscore, what is the purpose of an 
election? The purpose of an election is not simply to say we had an 
election and someone was declared the winner. The purpose of the 
election is to understand the will of the majority of the American 
people.
  If events, be they natural or terrorist, in some way distort the 
ability of us to accurately glean and determine the will of the 
American people, then that is to be of profound consideration.
  My concern, again, is we must first and foremost ask ourselves what 
mechanisms are in place to ensure that the will of the American people 
is accurately recorded and counted, not what mechanisms are in place so 
that at the close of business on November 2 we can all declare we have 
had an election. That is all I am trying to say here.
  I absolutely applaud the gentleman for saying no one person must make 
this decision. If nothing else than that, I would vote for this 
resolution. But I think we must step back after that and say, What 
mechanisms do we have in place? If on Election Day something profound 
has happened, be it terrorist or natural, that we reliably can reliably 
say we do not have an accurate count at the end of this day, should we 
move forward so that we can say, We had an election; or should we have 
some mechanism in place to ask ourselves, Has this mechanism of an 
election been valid? And if it has not been valid, then it behooves us 
and it is our duty to the American people and the voters to say, We are 
going to do something beforehand to make sure it is valid and not leave 
it up to chance. That is all I am trying to say.
  So if we pass this, let us please continue this discussion, and ask 
if something does happen that interferes with your right to have your 
vote counted and accurately represented, we have some mechanism to 
anticipate that.
  Mr. LARSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful 
comments.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 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. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership, particularly the 
guidance that he has given us through a number of election challenges 
that we have had in this Congress. And I thank the chairman of the 
committee, who has remained open-minded on these issues.
  I think my colleague that has just spoken has crafted one instruction 
for us, and that is that we should be diligent and we should be 
vigilant, and I frankly think that this legislation allows us to do 
both.
  I am rising to enthusiastically support the idea that we are 
committed to the principles of this country and we are not to be 
intimidated.
  Let me say that I believe there is not one of us who is not committed 
unanimously and in a bipartisan and nonpartisan manner and as Americans 
to fight the war against terror. We are saying to the world that we 
will not be intimidated by terrorists or terror. I think we also are 
committed to securing the homeland, and we realize that we have that 
kind of important challenge.
  In a few days, we will receive the 9/11 report, and it will probably 
announce, pronounce, a number of failings in our system, one of them 
being the failing in our Intelligence Community's communication.
  In a few days, as well, probably simultaneously, the Select Committee 
on Homeland Security, of which I am a member, will be marking up a new 
authorization bill, one that I hope will not be a bill that is 
intimidating and timid, that we will address the questions of securing 
the homeland; and frankly, I hope that in the discussions we will talk 
about the sanctity and the importance of holding elections.
  With that in our mind-set, the 9/11 Commission report and homeland 
security, this particular initiative, this legislation, is important. 
It makes a public pronouncement of the authority of the United States 
Congress to hold Federal elections.
  I do believe it is important, however, to have this discussion 
realize that we too understand the possibility of tragic incidents, 
whether it is one of terror or natural disaster, and that we will say, 
as we debate this, that we will be cognizant of those possibilities and 
be prepared as a Congress to respond.
  We will be prepared to respond. How that response will take place, it 
will be our decision as to how it will take place, but we are assuring 
everyone that our first priority is to have elections.
  So I will support this particular legislation because it makes an 
important public statement: Whose authority is it? It is the United 
States Congress',

[[Page H6089]]

the Federal authority, to ensure we have elections.
  But, Madam Speaker, let me say this. I think it is important to make 
note of the fact that all votes should be counted. I was here on 
January 6, 2001, and supported the idea of challenging the election at 
that time. The challenge was not a personal challenge, it was simply 
one that had to do with making sure that every vote was counted. So 
that point is very clear, that we should be diligent and vigilant with 
ensuring that all votes are counted.
  Let me add, as I close, that one of the other important aspects of 
our diligence and our vigilance is, as we look forward to the 
elections, to make sure they are accurate.
  So I was disappointed with the vote of this Congress, an amendment by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), that would ask that we not have 
international monitors here. The debate was vigorous, and I think the 
prevailing debate, although it was not prevailing in the vote, is that 
we are proud of our democracy. We have our failures and our faults, but 
we are proud of our democracy, and we do not mind if anyone comes to 
monitor our elections. So this is in sync with this particular 
legislation on the floor.
  Again, let me congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), because we will find 
that most of the Members of Congress, and let me say that I think all, 
will find themselves able to vote for this legislation 
enthusiastically, because we do believe in the importance of elections, 
no matter whether we win or lose.
  But let us do so by being vigilant and diligent. Let us make sure 
they are accurate elections and make sure that we open the doors for 
international monitors so that we can make sure that the American 
people have the best elections ever for the world to see.
  Madam Speaker, I ask for support of this legislation.
  Mr. LARSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, and I again want 
to add both my praise and thanks for the leadership of our 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), in bringing 
this resolution to the floor.
  We are the greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are known 
throughout the globe for our great strength and resolve. We are known 
for the great strength of our military and our armies and the shock and 
awe that they create.
  But the most awesome thing that we have, the thing that sticks out in 
everybody's minds, what makes us the Nation that we are, is our freedom 
of expression and our right to vote. That is why this is such an 
important resolution and such an important issue.
  In the final analysis, it will not be the strength of our armies; it 
will be the strength of the individual and collective thoughts of our 
citizens that are expressed on the day we vote that makes us the Nation 
that we are.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership.
   Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of this resolution to 
reaffirm that our Federal elections should not be postponed in the 
event of terrorist attack. I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of the Chairman and thank his staff for drafting this 
resolution. I stand in support of this resolution because of the 
matters contained in the resolving clauses (1) the actions of 
terrorists will never cause the date of any Presidential election to be 
postponed; and (2) no single individual or agency should be given the 
authority to postpone the date of a Presidential election. This is the 
meat of the resolution, and others can debate about the meaning of the 
``whereas'' clauses--and I am sure there will be lots of different 
interpretations.
   I further join with Leader Pelosi in calling for ``the United States 
to be an example for democracies around the world, and that means 
holding our elections as scheduled.'' I would also like to thank the 
ranking minority member of the Homeland Security subcommittee Jim 
Turner and Representative Lynn Woolsey for their leadership on this 
very important issue. This union has stood for over 225 years and has 
never had a Federal election postponed or cancelled. Not in time of 
war; not in time of economic turmoil and not in time of natural 
disaster. We should not start now! We as a country will not bend in the 
face of threats to our democracy. The United States was founded on the 
ideals of Hope and Freedom! Those who believe that they will break 
those pillars with the threat of terror are misguided.
   I have requested a briefing from Homeland Security Secretary Thomas 
Ridge to learn how his department plans to work with Congress to 
safeguard the November elections and on reducing the risk of an attack.
   I would suggest that while we must be mindful of the security and 
safety of voters, we should not focus on these issues to the extent 
that it damages democracy by frightening voters away from the polls. 
Americans should go to the polls in record numbers to show our 
determination that we take democracy seriously.
   Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, we have gone a long way in this country, and we always 
continue to look for ways we can better improve security, ways that we 
can have integrity in the elections, the Help America Vote Act. There 
are a lot of different things that we continuously do in the history of 
our country.
  On this issue, I am so proud of this House. I want to thank the 
Speaker for his support, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) 
for his quick action on this, the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  You take Members from all backgrounds in this House and sometimes 
people say, do you ever agree on anything? Well, you know, we might 
disagree here and there. But you take Members from the left, the right 
and the middle, you take Members from the rural and the urban, they 
have come together so quickly on this resolution on a bipartisan basis, 
because I believe that this Chamber knows and respects the integrity of 
our process and the rule of law that we have on the election process 
and Congress' clear, defined role in that.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I urge support of this 
resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hensarling). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 728.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________