[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 23 (Thursday, March 3, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H948-H969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                CONTINUITY IN REPRESENTATION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 125 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 125

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 841) to require States to hold special 
     elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives 
     not later than 45 days after the vacancy is announced by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives in extraordinary 
     circumstances, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed 60 minutes, with 40 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on House 
     Administration now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous

[[Page H949]]

     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), 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.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on March 1, the Committee on Rules 
met and granted a structured rule for H.R. 841, the Continuity in 
Representation Act of 2005. I believe this is a fair rule that allows 
for a full discussion of the relevant points pertaining to the 
legislation before us.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 841 is an important step forward in addressing what 
are critical shortcomings in America's plan for the continuity of this 
House in the event of an unexpected disaster or attack.

                              {time}  1030

  While I was not a Member of Congress on September 11, 2001, I was in 
an office directly across LaFayette Park from the White House. Like all 
Americans, I remember that day in detail. One of the most significant 
memories I have is the bipartisan response to the tragedy where Members 
stood on the steps of the Capitol and let it be known to the world that 
our government would continue to operate.
  Mr. Speaker, the response of Congress to 9/11 should never be 
forgotten. It was a sign to the world that America was strong, that it 
would persevere and that we would go forward as a Nation. The 
underlying legislation today does the exact same thing. It takes an 
important step to ensure the preservation of our Republic and the 
continuity of our government under the most trying of circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, very simply, this legislation ensures a continuity of 
operations for the House of Representatives. In the event that more 
than 100 Members of Congress are killed, the Speaker may announce that 
``exceptional circumstances'' exist and thereby trigger expedited 
special elections that must occur within 7 full weeks, thus ensuring 
the continuity of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation should not be very divisive based on 
the fact that a similar measure passed the House by a substantial 
bipartisan margin of 365 to 97 in the last session of Congress. This 
legislation ensures the continuity of the people's House. It ensures 
that the House will still be an elected body chosen by the American 
public just as the Founders intended.
  With that said, let us talk about what the bill is not. It is not an 
election law bill. It is a continuity bill.
  Mr. Speaker, you may well hear many Members describe various 
provisions today in the context of Federal election law. These measures 
may have genuine merit. However, they are not relevant to this 
legislation. Personally, I firmly believe that most Members would agree 
with me when I suggest that election law should remain essentially a 
local issue. This is where it resides historically, and this is where 
it should continue to reside.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a clear decision before us today. We can either 
be responsible in preparing for what we all hope never occurs, or we 
can engage in pointless bickering over election laws that are 
historically controlled by the localities. Just a few years ago almost 
all Members would have viewed a tragedy like September 11 as an 
unthinkable event, and that is precisely the point. We cannot predict 
tomorrow. What we do know, however, is that we are engaged in a real, 
genuine, and taxing global war on terror. This is a generational war 
and one that will not disappear over night.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, this legislation is about the security and 
continuity of America's governing institutions. It is an issue of 
critical importance in establishing an orderly response should the 
unthinkable occur again.
  The legislative history of this bill is clear. This bill originated 
in direct response to the events of September 11. It is a continuity-
in-government bill, not an election reform measure. To confuse the 
former with the latter by encumbering this bill with extraneous issues 
would be to lose sight of the fundamental purpose of the legislation. 
Our job here is to ensure the continuity of the House of 
Representatives, not reform a state-based electoral process with 
Federal legislation.
  During my time as Secretary of State in Oklahoma, the bombing of the 
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building occurred. At that time such an event 
was considered unthinkable in the United States. That incident and the 
larger tragedy of 9/11 are a sober warning that we should prepare for 
the unexpected before it occurs. H.R. 841 is an important part of that 
preparation, and it also is a tangible sign to terrorists that they 
will never intimidate this country, change the nature of this House as 
the elected representatives of the American people, or keep our 
government from facing any challenges it may face in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, let us wait no longer. Let us move forward. And to that 
end, I would urge all Members to support this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for the 
time. This is the first rule of which I hope are many that the 
gentleman and I are managing together. He has already been welcomed to 
the committee, so I extend those same warm welcomes to him for managing 
this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule which 
limits debate on how this body should operate if it experiences mass 
causality. This is an issue of grave importance to the American people 
and the integrity of that democracy in times of dire crisis.
  The decision of the majority to place any restrictions on this body 
prohibiting Members from offering amendments and freely debating the 
subject is not responsible.
  The terrorist attacks of September 11 changed the way that we as a 
country operate. In turn, Congress has rightfully committed itself to 
creating policy that protects Americans from future attacks, though I 
question how successful we have been in our actions. September 11 also 
presented us with a challenge to consider continuity in the House 
during a worst-case scenario. In examining such a grim situation, we 
must foresee what will be needed to regain stability and reassure the 
American people and the world that our government is going about 
business as usual.
  While I believe that the underlying legislation is an honest attempt 
to address the concerns which I just raised, the discussion surrounding 
the issue has been, as one constitutional scholar wrote, embarrassingly 
partisan. Even more, the product of 3 years of discussion on the issue 
that the majority is bringing to the floor is incomplete, unrealistic, 
and fails to consider the implications of changing statute when we 
should be amending the United States Constitution.
  The underlying legislation requires the States to hold special 
elections within 45 days in the case of extraordinary circumstances. 
This is a problematic requirement. When the Committee on House 
Administration took testimony from State and local election officials, 
it was told that 45 days is not enough time to pull off a primary and 
general election. Election officials noted that mailing ballots to 
absentee, overseas, and military voters for a primary and general 
election and then waiting for their return would alone take more than 
45 days. This does not include the time that it takes to print and 
process ballots.
  Should this time period be adopted, it would undoubtedly result in 
the disenfranchisement of millions, including

[[Page H950]]

seniors who vote absentee, our diplomatic corps, and our men and women 
serving in our Armed Forces.
  The majority finally agreed with Democrats and local election 
officials yesterday that 45 days is not enough time to conduct these 
critical elections. Late last night we were informed that my friends on 
the Republican side are now seeking to amend the rule so that they may 
offer a manager's amendment which will increase the time elections must 
be conducted from 45 to 49 days. Four days, Mr. Speaker. What can you 
realistically do in 4 more days?
  This is more of a cosmetic and convenient change than substantive. It 
still sets up a process that will lead to the selection of Members of 
Congress who are potentially not the real choice of the citizenry. All 
of this is happening at the same time my friends in the majority have 
blocked Democratic Members from offering three different amendments to 
the bill, all of which were germane and all of which were turned in on 
time. It seems to me that we operate under two rules in the House of 
Representatives: one for them and one for us.
  Later today, Democrats will offer an amendment lengthening the 
special election period from 45 to 60 days. Our proposal provides 
elections officials with a more realistic solution to a daunting task 
most likely overshadowed by grief and angst. I hope that Members of 
this body will place the integrity of our democracy above petty 
politics and vote to adopt the Millender-McDonald amendment.
  Additionally, the continuity-in-government commission has recommended 
a different approach. It has suggested that States create lists of 
possible appointments to seats vacated due to mass causality to ensure 
that the House can continue to operate while States move forward with 
their own special elections process. These temporary appointments would 
serve until States are able to elect representatives in accordance to 
their own laws.
  This is a fair approach and one which should be considered on equal 
footing as the underlying legislation. Yet, when our colleague, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), offered this proposal in the 
108th Congress, as a footnote, the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. 
Baird) wife is about to deliver their child and he might not get here. 
We are hoping that he does. But he certainly has been a stalwart leader 
in the effort to do what is necessary to preserve the integrity of this 
body. When he introduced this proposal, Republicans sought to embarrass 
him and the commission's ideas for which he was fighting. They set up a 
vote in the way that it was impossible for the proposal to be given its 
due consideration. In my view, it was cutthroat politics, and we should 
not allow for those kind of actions.
  Incomplete as it is, the underlying legislation also fails to 
consider mass causality where the Speaker is a victim and is unable to 
trigger special elections. It does not address how the House quorum 
rules will work in the case of mass House vacancies. Perhaps most 
importantly, the underlying legislation could potentially leave our 
country without an effective or legitimate legislative branch for the 
first 6 weeks following a disaster.
  Think about it this way: in the first 6 weeks following September 11, 
the House, this House, authorized the President to use force against 
terrorists and appropriated $40 billion to address the emergencies in 
New York and at the Pentagon. If the underlying legislation is dropped, 
the legitimacy of actions taken by a shorthanded Congress, most likely 
during a time of war, would always be in question. For me, this 
scenario is unacceptable.
  Regardless of the House's decisions today, States and voters must 
ultimately approve this process through a constitutional amendment. It 
took less than 14 months to approve each of the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 
21st, 23rd, and 26th amendments respectively. Anyone who suggests that 
the constitutional amendment process takes years, in my view, is 
incorrect.
  Throughout history, when constitutional amendments have been needed, 
States and voters have responded. I suspect that they will respond 
similarly in this case.
  All of these concerns underscore the need for this body to consider 
this legislation in an open and much larger discussion on the 
continuity of our government during times of mass causality. The 
effects of our hastiness today may not be felt while any of us are 
alive, but at some point in the future our successors and our States 
will be trapped by poor decisions we might make today.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
his kind words and I look forward to working with him as we move ahead 
and I learn from him as I already have in the context of the 
deliberations of the Committee on Rules.
  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.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
I want to begin by congratulating him on his superb service on the 
Committee on Rules.
  This is obviously a very important issue to him. He joined the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and me, along with former 
Secretary of State Candice Miller and our distinguished colleagues, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), 
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), in co-sponsoring this 
legislation.
  As a former Secretary of State, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole) understands how important this issue is for us to address.

                              {time}  1045

  I also want to express appreciation to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. In the last Congress, while it has not happened in 
this Congress, I was very pleased that the distinguished ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), joined as a cosponsor of this legislation, as 
well as my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Berman). And it is my hope that we will be able to move ahead in a 
bipartisan way dealing with this very, very important institutional 
issue.
  We all remember September 11 of 2001. My judgment has often been 
questioned because I was the last human being to walk out of this 
building on September 11 of 2001, and probably correctly. I did not 
think anyone would attack it. And I will say that when I left the 
building on September 11, 2001, I did so when one of the great Capitol 
Hill policemen said to me that there was a plane headed towards this 
building, and we all know now that that is the plane that went down 
with those very courageous passengers in Pennsylvania.
  When we think back on September 11th, obviously it was one of the 
darkest days in the history of our republic, and it has led us to spend 
a great deal of time thinking about the unthinkable. Because of 
September 11th, we have had to ponder things that we would never even 
possibly consider because of the fact that we had not seen that kind of 
attack on U.S. soil. But since that time, the Speaker of the House has 
really stepped up to the plate and done a wide range of things that are 
designed to ensure that the people's House and, in fact, we hope both 
Houses of Congress, are able to continue to function.
  If you recall on September 11th, late that afternoon, when Members of 
both Houses of Congress, both political parties, stood on the east 
front of the Capitol singing God Bless America. The reason that Members 
stood on the east front of the Capitol was to let the American people 
and to let anyone know who would want to do us in, that we, as a 
Nation, are strong, and this institution, the greatest deliberative 
body known to man, was continuing to function.
  So beginning almost immediately after the attacks of September 11th, 
the Speaker took a number of steps that were designed to maintain the 
continuity of this great institution. He established the ability to 
adjourn to an alternative place and to declare an emergency recess. He 
established the ability to effect a joint leadership recall from a 
period of adjournment through designees, and the requirement that the 
Speaker submit to the

[[Page H951]]

Clerk of the House a list of designees to act in the case of a vacancy 
in the Office of the Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, we all know that at the 
beginning of this 109th Congress, we included in our opening day rules 
package the provisions that allow the House to establish a quorum, 
which could be lowered if we go through a litany of roll call votes 
that would determine that many Members had been incapacitated and could 
not actually show up to work here.
  I think it is important to note that we provided a number of 
protections in the use of that rule, including several that have been 
suggested by the Members of the other side of the aisle. And I have to 
add, Mr. Speaker, that the Speaker of the House and the minority 
leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), have personally 
engaged and spent time talking about this very important issue. And it 
is my hope that we will, at the end of the day, end up with, as I said, 
a bipartisan compromise.
  Some of those recommendations that came from Members of the minority 
on this issue: Extended roll calls lasting days at a time and excluding 
any time in recess so that Members can contact the House and let us 
know that they can come to vote. The availability of the motion to 
adjourn at any time. The nonpartisan advice of the Sergeant at Arms, 
the Capitol physician, and the medical and emergency personnel about 
the state of the membership of this body. And, Mr. Speaker, at the 
recommendation of the minority, consultation with the minority leader, 
in accordance with the traditional relationship between the Speaker and 
the minority leader.
  And, finally, it is very important for us to remember that, as I just 
alluded to, that we have a bicameral legislature. The United States 
House of Representatives does not operate unilaterally, so there will 
always be a check on any action taken under the mass incapacitation 
quorum provision.
  What I have been discussing, Mr. Speaker, answers how we will do the 
people's work if a terrorist attack incapacitates large numbers of us. 
Now, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005, which we are 
considering here today, deals with how we will replenish the House if 
terrorists kill large numbers of our Members. This legislation calls 
for special elections to be held within 45 days following such a 
catastrophe.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has just alluded to 
something, and while I know we do not enjoy the strong support of the 
minority on this, we have made a step in that we are going to have a 
manager's amendment made in order that would allow us to move in the 
direction of what it is that the minority wants, and that is allowing 
for 49 days, which would be a full 7 weeks.
  Let me say that this legislation addresses a number of very important 
matters and it incorporates a number of suggestions made, again by 
Members on the other side of the aisle. They include more than doubling 
the amount of time for the special elections to occur from 21 days to 
45 days. And again we are going even further, to a full 7 weeks.
  Protecting overseas military and absentee voters so that they receive 
additional time in which to return ballots. And I want to thank, 
particularly, the distinguished ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 
for his fine work in that area and his commitment to ensure that we 
address the issue of military and overseas voters.
  Protecting civil and voter rights. You will recall when we considered 
this legislation, which at the end of the day drew large bipartisan 
support in the 108th Congress, we were able to address the concerns 
that were raised by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) at the 
end of the day when we were debating the legislation, and that is 
included in this. Again, that is a recommendation that came from the 
minority.
  We allow States to have primaries and other options for selection of 
candidates for the special election so long as the general elections 
are completed within that period of time, which would be 49 days, 
excluding districts from the 49-day special election requirement if 
they already have either a general or special election scheduled, and 
including the four delegates and the resident commissioner of Puerto 
Rico within the provisions of the bill.
  Now, I mentioned the large bipartisan support. Last year, this 
legislation passed the House by a vote of 306 to 97. I believe that we 
need to continue working in a strong bipartisan manner to move this 
bill through the House and get it to the other body just as 
expeditiously as possible. In that spirit, I anticipate that we will 
amend the rule, as I said, to move under this manager's amendment from 
45 to 49 days. Again, our attempt to continue to work and address very, 
very correct concerns that are emerging from the minority.
  I also have to say that on this rule itself we are very happy to have 
made in order the amendment of my colleague and neighbor, the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), who 
has offered an amendment calling for 60 days. I also want to 
congratulate her, Mr. Speaker, on her new assignment as the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Administration. She is working 
closely with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) I know, and with the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who is going to be managing 
this legislation, and so we look forward to seeing what I hope is, 
again, a good bipartisan work product.
  I want to talk now, if I can, Mr. Speaker, about how this bill 
protects what I feel is a very, very key part of our responsibility 
here: Our representation. When I was an undergraduate at Claremont 
McKenna College, I had a professor who pounded the Federalist Papers 
into me. I remember my mentor and the importance of the Constitutional 
Convention, and the great Connecticut Compromise of July 16 of 1787. 
And I remember that date because we convened the Congress in 
Philadelphia to mark the bicentennial of the Connecticut Compromise 
back on July 16 of 1987.
  Of course, the Federalists have been so important in explaining and 
justifying the actions of the framers as they put the Constitution 
together. We all know that James Madison was the Father of our 
Constitution, as well as having been President of the United States, 
he, as a matter of fact, was a member of the first Committee on Rules. 
And a relative of mine served on that Committee on Rules at the 
founding.
  Madison wrote extensively about this institution, the House of 
Representatives in Federalists 52 through 57. And one of the things I 
believe is very important for us to note is that Madison talked about 
the absolutely critical importance of this institution being elected.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the 435 of us who serve as Members 
of the House of Representatives are the only Federal officials who must 
be elected before we can serve. In the other body, the United States 
Senate, people are appointed by their governors if vacancies take 
place. And we all know from the example of President Ford, one can be 
appointed to serve as Vice President and President of the United States 
without having been elected. But no one has ever served in the people's 
House, this body, without having first been elected. And I think it is 
important to note that Madison made it clear when he was talking 
especially about this institution, as he said in Federalist No. 53, 
``where elections end, tyranny begins.''
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are the only Federal office where no one 
has served here without having first been elected, and I think that is 
something we need to do everything we can to maintain.
  In Federalist 52 Madison wrote: ``It is essential to liberty that the 
government in general should have a common interest with the people, so 
it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration 
should have an immediate dependence on and an intimate sympathy with 
the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by 
which this dependence and sympathy can be effectively secured.''
  He went on in Federalist 57 and wrote: ``Who are to be the electors 
of the Federal representatives? Not the rich more than the poor, not 
the learned more than the ignorant, not the haughty heirs of 
distinguished names more than the humble sons of

[[Page H952]]

obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great 
body of the people of the United States.''
  And, Mr. Speaker, Madison rejected the idea that appointment of 
Members is acceptable to the American public. He said, and I quote: 
``The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fundamental articles of 
democratic government and ought not be regulated by the legislature. A 
gradual abridgement of this right has been the mode in which 
aristocracies have been built on the ruin of popular forms.''
  I think it is very important for us to understand that there have 
been times in our Nation's history where we have faced greater 
difficulty than the difficulty that we face today, or even greater 
difficulty than we faced following September 11 of 2001, and that was 
the Civil War. If we think back to that time of the Civil War, we have 
to remember that this Capitol was surrounded by troops who were 
threatening the very being of our Republic. Yet President Lincoln 
proceeded with elections, understanding how critically important they 
are for our Republic's survival.
  And, of course, we have the newest example of self-determination in 
the world. The brave people of Iraq recently tasted freedom and the joy 
of elections. What happened? We had many people saying those elections 
could not take place. Why? Because there was a great deal of tension. 
We saw terrorist attacks, and we continue to see that in Iraq. But we 
know that despite the bombs and the snipers and the fear of death, 
people exercised that very important right to self-determination. 
Having faced down aristocracy and tyranny, they knew just how important 
elections would be for them. We too are a democracy borne out of facing 
down aristocracy and tyranny ourselves, and we should never forget that 
for one moment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that as we look at the struggles taking 
place in Iraq today, that building and reinforcing democratic 
institutions is crucial for the safety, security, and happiness of a 
nation's people, whether it is the people of Iraq or the people of the 
United States of America. That is why when we looked at some of the 
other options to provide for our continuity as an institution, such as 
the stand-in appointments provision that the House overwhelmingly 
defeated last year, we should ask what we lose if we, for one moment, 
give up on elections.
  Some have said that this is different; that we will be dealing with a 
national emergency. And I say that elections are particularly important 
during a time of a national emergency. We should not have stand-ins or 
successors from a list in our back pockets passing laws, declaring war, 
or suspending habeas corpus. I believe that when we take this very, 
very unique institution, the people's House, where no one has served 
without having first been elected, and move away from elections, that 
we threaten the very basis of our strength as a democratic Nation.

                              {time}  1100

  Thus as we look at the very tough challenge of how to preserve our 
democracy in the face of catastrophe, this legislation is the most 
responsible way to continue the legitimacy of our government. If we 
look at the tragic loss of more than 100 Members, the idea of having 
the States hold special elections in that period of time is something 
that is doable. People will unite and will remove all obstacles in 
conducting elections.
  Think about it, Mr. Speaker. In the time of a horrible tragedy, 
feeding and clothing one's family, making sure the roof is over their 
head, and then playing a role in picking one's leaders, that is all 
part of the process of rebuilding. And it can be done in a relatively 
short period of time.
  My colleague (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and I represent the State of 
California. A year and a half ago in our home State, we went through a 
special election--recently, going through an unprecedented situation. 
We had the recall of a Governor and an election that took place in 55 
days. It was not a single congressional district of 650,000 people with 
two or three candidates. That race had 135 candidates on the ballot, 
and they were running among a populace of 35 million people. And I am 
happy to say that that election came off without a hitch. And I should 
parenthetically say I am happy with the outcome as well, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me close by saying that I think it is very important for us to 
realize again what James Madison was telling us when he said ``When 
elections end, tyranny begins.'' We should do everything we possibly 
can to make sure that we keep this House's very, very precious election 
process.
  This rule allows for consideration of measures that address that. It 
is a very fair rule that again gives the ranking minority member an 
opportunity to have her proposal considered. I do oppose that proposal 
because I believe that the notion of moving to 49 days will allow us to 
work this out very well. And I again thank my colleagues, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and others, who have worked long and hard on this.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I have great respect for the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier), and I know that he knows that the 17th amendment of the 
United States Constitution speaks to continuity.
  I also know that he knows that the Congress, for purposes of 
preserving our institutions, allowed for the development of a 
continuity-of-government commission. On that commission a significant 
number of outstanding individuals from America, a broad cross-section 
of them, came up with the notion that it was critical that we have a 
constitutional amendment to go forward. Let me name some of the people 
that were on that commission: Lloyd Cutler; Alan Simpson; Philip Chase 
Bobbitt; Kenneth Duberstein; Tom Foley, former Speaker of the House; 
Robert Michel, minority leader; Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the 
House; Nicholas B. Katzenbach; Jamie Gorelick; Robert Katzmann; Kweisi 
Mfume; Lynn Martin; Donna Shalala; and their senior counselors were 
Norman Orenstein and Thomas Mann.
  What they said in the very preamble of their document is the 
following: We held two public meetings where we heard testimony from 
experts, and in the course of our investigation, we explored a wide 
range of options short of a constitutional amendment to ameliorate or 
solve these problems.
  The commissioners, all of those persons that I just identified, 
shared distaste for frivolous or unnecessary amendments to the 
Constitution. Unfortunately, because the Constitution dictates the way 
that vacancies are to be filled in the House and Senate, there is no 
way to establish a procedure to quickly fill mass vacancies without a 
constitutional amendment. No less authorities than Robert Michel and 
Newt Gingrich and Tom Foley and Lloyd Cutler, folks who have studied 
the Constitution, actively came to that conclusion. I tend to share 
their view.
  And the chairman of the Committee on Rules spoke of James Madison. No 
greater or eminent scholar that laid the foundation perhaps, other than 
Jefferson, dealt with all of the issues that they contemplated in their 
time. But I wonder if Mr. Madison would deem it fair that the House 
operates with closed rules rather than open rules. We had a vote on 
whether or not there should be an open rule in this important process 
for America, and we had an amendment offered by a distinguished Member 
of this body, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), requiring States 
to offer same-day voter registration for special elections held in 
accordance with this bill. Seems reasonable that people would be 
scattered and other things on their minds in a crisis such as we had 
experienced on 
9/11.
  My colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler), who lost more people than 
all of us combined in the 9/11 tragedy, offered a measure to prohibit 
deceiving any person as to the time, place, or eligibility requirements 
of special elections held in accordance with this bill.
  And the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, offered an amendment that would require 
States to equally and fairly distribute election personnel and 
equipment when it conducts the special elections contemplated in this 
bill. All three of those civil rights measures went down the tube with 
the closed rule.
  When we open up this institution, we will be able to address matters 
in a

[[Page H953]]

more meaningful way so that the minority can have their amendments 
contemplated in good kind.
  I end by saying that Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, who 
was one of the lead authors of the continuity commission's report, 
stated in front of the Committee on House Administration the following: 
``The inability to swiftly constitute the House and Senate would 
deprive the country of a fully functioning first branch of government 
at a time of grave national crisis. Unable to achieve a quorum, or 
relying on a questionable quorum interpretation allowing a small 
minority, possibly a handful of surviving Members to act for the full 
Chamber, Congress would be unable to legitimately elect a new Speaker 
or confirm a new Vice President, both critical links in Presidential 
succession.
  They will be unable to declare war, appropriate funds, pass 
legislation needed to deal with the attack, confirm Supreme Court and 
Cabinet appointments, oversee an executive branch possibly run by 
someone largely unknown to the country, and reassure a stunned Nation 
that their constitutional democracy is alive and well.''
  Constitutional democracy, not statutory democracy as we are offering 
here today.
  Mr. Madison offered the 17th amendment to the United States 
Constitution that has held well through the years with reference to 
continuity, and we owe no less responsibility to those Founders to be 
mindful of our responsibilities in that regard by offering up to the 
American people an appropriate constitutional amendment to be debated 
and decided by the people of this great country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  In closing, I would like to say I believe the debate has been an 
excellent discussion underlining many of the substantive concerns of 
both sides of a complex issue. But let us make one thing clear, this 
bill is about America's security and the way that Congress will deal 
with a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. To ignore this basic 
fact is to ignore the warnings of history and the tragedy of September 
11.
  Mr. Speaker, today others have placed this debate in the context of 
election laws and constitutional issues. I appreciate their concerns, 
but this is not what this legislation is about. It is about 
establishing an orderly procedure to ensure the continuity of the House 
in the aftermath of a catastrophic event. The potential for this was 
underlined by what occurred on September 11. We cannot ignore those 
facts or ignore the realities and dangers of a changed international 
and geopolitical environment. To do so would be irresponsible.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment specified in section 3(a) shall be 
     in order as though printed as the first amendment in House 
     Report 109-10 if offered by Representative Ney of Ohio or a 
     designee, and the amendment specified in section 3(b) may be 
     in order in lieu of the amendment printed in House Report 
     109-10 and numbered 1.
       Sec. 3(a). The first amendment referred to in section 2, 
     which shall be debatable for ten minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, is as follows:
       In section 26(b)(2) of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States, as proposed to be added by the bill, strike ``45 
     days'' and insert ``49 days''.
       (b). The second amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:
       In section 26(b)(2) of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States, as proposed to be added by the bill, strike ``shall 
     take place'' and all that follows through ``the vacancy 
     exists,'' and insert the following: ``shall take place not 
     later than 60 days after the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives announces that the vacancy exists,''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole) is recognized.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to 
briefly describe this amendment before going further.
  This amendment makes in order another amendment to take one more step 
toward satisfying the concerns of the minority and the Senate by 
extending the time limits by which States can hold elections. It is a 
short extension, but useful in that it allows States to phase their 
election plans over 7 even weeks. To that end I would urge my 
colleagues to support this fair rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and move the 
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cole of Oklahoma). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 125 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 841.

                              {time}  1113


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 841) to require States to hold special elections to fill 
vacancies in the House of Representatives not later than 45 days after 
the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
in extraordinary circumstances, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour, with 40 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on House Administration, and 20 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) each will control 20 minutes, and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

                              {time}  1115

  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we are going to be considering 
today deals with a very, very serious issue, the possibility actually 
of a tragic attack that would result in the death of a significant 
number of our colleagues in the House. Though I think it is safe to say 
that none of us are eager to consider this issue, the events of 
September 11, 2001, forced this House to consider the ramifications of 
a successful terrorist attack against this body. On that fateful day, 
the enemies of freedom clearly targeted the pillars of our Nation. The 
terrorists attacked the World Trade Center which represented our 
economic freedom. They attacked the Pentagon which represents our 
military strength. And, by all accounts, Flight 93 was targeted either 
at the White House or at this building, both symbols of our form of 
democratic government and of our freedoms.
  In fact, only the heroic actions, the unbelievable bravery of those 
brave passengers on Flight 93 prevented that particular plane, that 
particular flight, from reaching its intended target.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, we begin to think about the unthinkable, to do 
our duty and to plan for every eventuality. H.R. 841, the Continuity in 
Representation Act, provides a very reasonable, very well thought-out 
mechanism for the reconstitution of the House of Representatives in the 
event of such a tragedy. The sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as well as the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) and the

[[Page H954]]

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) are to be commended for their great 
commitment and dedication in crafting this bill and bringing it to the 
floor today. The Congress must ensure that the government remains 
strong and stable during and following a terrorist attack, and this 
legislation would accomplish that goal.
  Mr. Chairman, all the other branches of government already have 
contingency plans in place. In the case of a vacancy, the President 
would be replaced quickly by the existing line of succession. The 
courts would be replaced quickly by presidential appointment. The 
Senate would be reconstituted very quickly through gubernatorial 
appointment as is outlined in the 17th amendment. Only the House would 
be unable to function quickly in a time of national emergency.
  The Continuity in Representation Act would correct this problem by 
requiring States to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the 
House of Representatives not later than 49 days after the vacancy is 
announced by the Speaker of this House in the extraordinary 
circumstances that vacancies in representation from the States exceed 
100. Mr. Chairman, as we grapple with this issue, we must remind 
ourselves that the U.S. House of Representatives is the people's House. 
For the entirety of our national existence, Members of the House have 
been directly elected by the people. Article 1, section 2 of our 
Constitution states: ``When vacancies happen in the representation from 
any State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of 
elections to fill such vacancies.'' The key word here is ``elections.'' 
No event should be reason enough to change this historic and 
constitutional constant.
  The bill under consideration today allows us to remain true to the 
course charted for us by our Founding Fathers. There have been a number 
of suggested alternatives to the proposal in this legislation. Some 
have called for perhaps temporary appointment of the Members of 
Congress in such an emergency either through gubernatorial appointment 
like that in the Senate, or even by a sitting Member naming a successor 
to take the seat in the event of that Member's death.
  Any of these ideas would require a constitutional amendment, which 
would be a change from both tradition and constitutional mandate which 
expressly calls again for the direct election of Members of the House 
of Representatives. Concerns have also been expressed regarding the 
requirement that special elections be completed within 49 days of the 
Speaker's announcement of 100 existing vacancies in the House would be 
difficult.
  Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress actually, I was honored to 
serve as Michigan's Secretary of State for 8 years with a principal 
responsibility of serving as that State's chief election official, so 
this is an area that I do have some expertise in. Some have argued and 
will argue that more time is necessary, but I disagree.
  Under this legislation, States would have the option, let me repeat, 
the option, of eliminating the primary election and permitting 
political parties recognized by State law to choose their candidates. 
In turn, this would eliminate the petition requirements and the 
verification process that accompanies it. Additionally, it is important 
for us to remember that the U.S. Representative position would really 
be the only one on the ballot which would dramatically ease printing, 
programming and testing.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the passage of the Help America Vote Act 
of 2002, HAVA as we commonly call it, has helped to prepare local 
election officials more than ever to conduct special elections. HAVA is 
granting Federal dollars to the States in historic proportions, quite 
frankly, dollars that they are using to eliminate antiquated election 
equipment and purchasing new state-of-the-art equipment. States have 
either constructed or are moving very quickly toward construction of 
statewide computerized voter registration files, similar to the one 
that we built in Michigan several years ago. Technology actually allows 
for these lists to be updated daily so that a clean, up-to-date file 
can be printed out literally any day of the year anytime, and provided 
to the polling sites. Obviously this is a fantastic election tool for 
any election, but particularly so for an expedited election.
  Also, States are now moving toward uniformity of voting systems in 
their precincts. Uniformity of election equipment in a State will 
enable vendors to always have a camera ready template of the ballot, 
and then all they literally have to do is fill in the names of the 
nominees for U.S. Representative and go to print. Having a uniform 
system will eliminate confusion amongst poll workers and further ease 
election preparation.
  H.R. 841 also protects the ability of military personnel and overseas 
citizens to participate in a special election by requiring that 
absentee ballots be transmitted to such voters within 15 days of the 
Speaker's announcement and that such absentee ballots be counted if 
they are received not later than 45 days after the State transmits 
them.
  In fact, even now the Department of Defense, the DOD, is moving 
towards a program where service men and women stationed overseas can 
actually download their ballots via the Internet.
  Some will make the argument, again, that 49 days is simply not enough 
time for the States to prepare. To that argument, I would simply point 
out that some States today already have requirements that special 
elections be held in much less time than the 49-day period. So I 
believe that argument is obviously moot.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not intend to imply that this would be a 
simple task. There is no question there is lots of hard work. 
Regardless, it has been my observation and my personal experience that 
the fine men and women who administer our elections always rise to the 
occasion to complete the required work on time. I have no doubts that 
they would do so in a time of national emergency.
  While I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we never have to face this 
situation, we must nonetheless prepare for it. Clearly it is incumbent 
on us to find a solution to this issue which honors the wishes and the 
wisdom of the Founding Fathers that the House of Representatives remain 
the people's House.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the price of freedom is remaining 
ever vigilant. I believe passing H.R. 841 is a step in showing the 
enemies of freedom that America is remaining ever vigilant. Similar 
legislation received over 300 votes in the last Congress, and I would, 
again, ask my colleagues for their strong bipartisan support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First, let me congratulate the gentlewoman from Michigan in joining 
our committee, the Committee on House Administration. She is quite an 
addition to the committee and we congratulate her.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 841 in its current form. 
While the bill number has changed since last year, the core problems in 
this legislation remain the same as in last year's bill, H.R. 2844. 
H.R. 841 is unworkable, unfair and undemocratic. It restricts the 
franchise and inhibits public participation in the expedited special 
elections it would create, an especially unfortunate development 
following so closely after the serious problems revealed in the 
aftermath of the 2004 elections.
  This bill is part of a series of actions by the majority over the 
last 2 years as advertised in addressing problems of congressional 
continuity. The stated objective of the legislation is to override 
State laws in order to hold expedited special elections within 45 days 
of a catastrophe which may leave more than 100 vacancies in the 
Chamber. While this goal is laudable, the bill defines a problem, 
creates an unfunded mandate, but then provides no solution. This 
legislation dumps the problem onto the States to produce something 
called an ``election'' within 45 days, but without the political and 
democratic substance we associate with campaigns for the House of 
Representatives.
  I want to stress that H.R. 841 has no partisan content. It is simply 
inadequate to the task of reconstituting the House in a truly 
democratic fashion. Members on our side of the aisle were split almost 
down the middle last

[[Page H955]]

April in the vote on this legislation because they felt pressured to do 
something. But the majority voted for it virtually lockstep when not 
even its principal sponsors could explain how the bill was actually 
supposed to work. The Senate, not surprisingly, never acted on it. So 
here we go again.
  H.R. 841 contains a wish list of provisions which would set 
impractical deadlines, ignore the rights of candidates to run and of 
voters to participate in elections, and create confusion in the 
aftermath of a national catastrophe when the country needs the 
stability of established constitutional processes and the legitimacy of 
the rule of law.
  Let us look at some of the specifics of this bill. Among the 
principal flaws of this legislation are the time frame is much too 
short for the conducting of special elections in many States. Even 
States whose present laws contemplate 45 days may not cope in the 
aftermath of an unknown future crisis which could affect our 
infrastructure and communications systems nationwide. The House last 
year rejected a proposal for 75 days in which to conduct these 
elections. This year, I will offer a compromise amendment proposing 60 
days, which is not a magic solution, either, but which at least 
provides valuable additional flexibility to the States.
  The bill represents an unfunded mandate. While States could conduct 
special elections to fill vacancies even without this bill, it 
eliminates their flexibility in the scheduling of elections, in the 
format of the elections and in the costs of elections.
  There is insufficient time for voter registration for those wishing 
to participate in an unscheduled, sudden election for the House. New 
voters would be blocked out of the system. Why should we prevent full 
public participation when a Congress, seeking to renew itself, needs 
the legitimacy which an open democratic system provides?
  The bill provides no mechanism for candidates to qualify for the 
ballot in States which require petition gathering or other potentially 
time-consuming measures intended to assess the public support and 
credibility of potential candidates. States are expected to develop 
some faster method to accomplish these central goals of qualifying 
candidates to run very early before the bill's trigger is pulled or 
risk missing the deadline. So which should it be?
  This bill assumes that there are instant candidates out there who, 
upon learning of a vacancy, will decide to run without full 
consultation with family and friends, or with their potential parties 
and relevant interest groups and who can instantly arrange financing 
and instantly have an infrastructure in place to negotiate the campaign 
finance laws. These steps are extraordinarily difficult even in normal 
circumstances. Are candidates who can make instant decisions to run and 
instantly finance their campaigns representative of the full range of 
political talent of America? More importantly, are they the people we 
want to give a head start in gaining seats in the House? I do not think 
we want that, Mr. Chairman.
  This bill also allows insufficient time to conduct primary elections 
in the many States which allow them for special elections. Last year's 
bill originally banned primaries entirely, but the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ney) improved this bill during our committee markup by removing 
the prohibition on primaries. Nevertheless, the 45-day scheme would 
still effectively block them in many States.
  This bill still allows insufficient time to send, receive and count 
absentee ballots, even in those States which will not use primaries. 
Those most likely to face exclusion include Americans abroad and our 
military personnel stationed and fighting overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill contains no mechanism to activate its own 
provisions in the event the entire House membership is wiped out. If 
so, what happens next?

                              {time}  1130

  H.R. 841 deals with a practical catastrophe and a partial one, but 
becomes useless in the event of a total catastrophe. It was suggested 
on the House floor last year that in the circumstances that the entire 
House was wiped out, it would be up to the people to come together and 
make the determination as to the rebuilding process and how it begins. 
Really? Then how? Is it not the responsibility of Congress to 
anticipate and find solutions to problems when it enacts laws and not 
to rely on some vague national town meeting if the bill fails to work? 
Should we not be settling this issue right now right here in the 
legislation before us?
  The 45-day provision in the bill allows insufficient time to assemble 
the infrastructure of elections necessary to manage elections 
competently and fairly. Even in elections, under the best of 
circumstances, there are inevitably problems with voter registration 
lists, voting with provisional ballots, transmitting, receiving, and 
counting absentee ballots, reserving polling places and staffing the 
polls with voting machines and election workers.
  After a catastrophe we can add a potential breakdown in communication 
systems and other infrastructure, including transportation, along with 
the potential inability to order voting machines and ballots. Forty-
five days is simply not enough time in many States to conduct special 
elections, especially after a national catastrophe.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents the wrong choices of values in a 
democracy. It creates an artificial election timetable aimed at simply 
creating a result, and that is just Members of the House. The American 
people deserve real choices, emergency or not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 841, the Continuity of 
Representation Act of 2005.
  On September 11, 2001, the fourth hijacked plane was headed toward 
the Nation's capital. Had it not been for the heroic actions of the 
passengers of United Flight 93 who forced the plane down over 
Pennsylvania, Congress's ability to serve the American people may have 
been severely disrupted.
  Currently, there is no mechanism to quickly replace House Members by 
special election. During the last Congress, the House acted in an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion to address this deficiency by passing 
the predecessor of this year's bill by a larger than three to one 
margin. Unfortunately, the bill was never brought up in the other body 
because of the objections of one or more anonymous Members of that 
Chamber. Consequently, the guarantee of the right to elected 
representation following a catastrophic incident has yet been 
unnecessarily imperiled.
  The legislation before us again today will preserve the people's 
constitutional right to directly elected representation by providing 
for the expedited special election of new Members within 49 days of the 
Speaker's announcement that there are more than 100 House vacancies. 
The House, unique among all branches and bodies of the entire Federal 
Government, is rooted in the principle of direct elections, and that 
principle must be preserved. Current Federal law allows the Presidency 
and the Senate to consist of entirely the unelected in certain 
circumstances. Without an elected House, the entire Federal Government 
could be run and laws could be written without a single branch directly 
representing the popular will.
  Congress has the clear authority to enact the Continuity in 
Representation Act under article I, section 4 of the Constitution, 
which allows Congress, at any time by law, to make or alter State 
election laws. Consistent with the right to chosen representation, the 
Founders explicitly considered Congress's power to require expedited 
special elections as the solution to potential discontinuity in 
government in extraordinary situations. As Alexander Hamilton wrote, 
the Constitution gives the Congress ``a right to interpose'' its 
special election rules on the States ``whenever extraordinary 
circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its 
safety.'' The Supreme Court has unanimously approved such clear 
congressional authority.
  Members from both parties have a significant stake in the operation 
of

[[Page H956]]

the House following a terrorist incident, and I am pleased that the 
legislation before us today is appropriately a product of bipartisan 
cooperation and input. For example, I worked with the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
Services, to craft provisions that govern absentee ballots cast by 
members of the Armed Forces, and overseas voters, whose ballots would 
be counted if they are received within 45 days after the State 
transmits them.
  Further, I have worked with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, to add a 
provision that all Federal laws governing the administration of 
elections for Federal office are explicitly preserved.
  During the Committee on House Administration's markup of the bill, a 
substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) 
was adopted, which includes further changes that directly respond to 
concerns expressed by the minority. First, the current bill continues 
to allow States the option of having special election candidates 
selected by parties within 10 days, but would also authorize the States 
to select such candidates by any other method including primaries 
provided such method will ensure the State will hold the special 
election within the 45-day period.
  Second, the bill considered today includes a provision that will 
allow seats left vacant by delegates and resident commissioners to also 
be filled by special election pursuant to the bill's requirements.
  While some take the pessimistic view of the resiliency of the 
electoral process following an attack on the Nation's capital, I have a 
different view. I have no doubt that the boundless spirit of the 
American people will ensure that democracy prevails even in the most 
pressing conditions.
  What I have heard from the opponents of this bill is that they say, 
well, we cannot have an election put together so quickly. The 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), I think, has made it quite 
clear that from her experience as Michigan's Secretary of State and 
chief election officer that we will be able to do that. And I point out 
that what this bill does is to ensure the prompt filling of vacant 
seats in States that have long special election processes.
  Virginia is able to fill vacancies in its general assembly by special 
election within 12 days after the vacancy occurs provided the Governor 
calls a special election. If Virginia makes that apply to vacancies in 
the House of Representatives, we are going to have a full Virginia 
delegation sitting in this Chamber or elsewhere legislating while the 
States that decide that they want to have more debates and keep the 
seats vacant will end up sitting unrepresented here.
  What this bill does is that it speeds up the process in the slow 
States, the ones that have lengthy special election processes, 
including the gentlewoman from California's own State.
  The one seat in the House of Representatives that is vacant today is 
that occupied by our beloved colleague, the late Bob Matsui. He died on 
January 1. That was 63 days ago, and his seat is still unfilled. There 
is an election next week to fill the vacancy. But if no candidate in 
that election gets more than 50 percent of the vote, then we will wait 
until May 3 to find out who the new Representative from Sacramento, 
California is.
  And what this bill will do is to make sure that California will have 
a full delegation as quickly as possible, notwithstanding the current 
State law, while other States fill their delegations up and those 
Representatives-elect will come to Congress and be seated and be 
functioning immediately after their election.
  Let us make sure that every State as quickly as possible can have 
adequate representation. Let us pass this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  To respond to the gentleman's comments about California, it does show 
that we do need beyond 45 days to hold a special election, such as in 
the case of our late friend, Representative Bob Matsui. And also I 
refer to the committees that were convened to preserve our institution, 
and it aligns many States where the vacancy days for holding elections 
were not fewer than 74 days. So those are the number of days that are 
important that we need to adhere to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, this bill does have 
flaws, as have been identified, and I think the criticisms are fairly 
taken. And the ranking gentlewoman's amendment is a sound one I will 
support. But in the end, we do need to have special elections in the 
case of a catastrophe. I voted for this last year and will vote for it 
again.
  The problem is it misses the point of what happens in the 45 days or, 
if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) passes, in 
the 75 days. What happens then?
  I read with some alarm the ``Roll Call'' article of December 6, 2004, 
on this subject, and I will quote from that article: ``The country is 
going to be under martial law until we have elections anyway.'' That 
was actually said by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), chairman of 
the Constitution Subcommittee. And I just must say, is the agenda 
martial law? Because that appears to be the case, and absent a 
constitutional amendment to allow for a temporary appointment, we will 
have martial law and the elimination of a Republic in this country.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  My good colleague from California raised the exact and critical 
point. The question is, what happens during those 45 days? We will need 
to support elections. There is not a single Member of this House who 
has not supported some form of general election, a special election, to 
replace the Members at some point. But during that 45 days, what 
happens?
  The Chair of the Constitution Subcommittee says this is what happens: 
martial law. We do not know who would fill the vacancy of the 
Presidency, but we do know that the Succession Act most likely suggests 
it would be an unelected person.
  The sponsors of the bill before us today insist, and I think 
rightfully so, on the importance of elections. But to then say that 
during a 45-day period we would have none of the checks and balances so 
fundamental to our Constitution, none of the separation of powers, and 
that the Presidency would be filled by an unelected member of the 
Cabinet who not a single member of this country, not a single citizen, 
voted to fill that position, and that that person would have no checks 
and balances from Congress for a period of 45 days I find 
extraordinary. I find it inconsistent. I find it illogical, and, 
frankly, I find it dangerous.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin refused earlier to yield time, but I was 
going to ask him, if Virginia has those elections in a shorter time 
period, they should be commended for that. So now we have a situation 
in the Congress where the Virginia delegation has sent their Members 
here, but many other States do not have Members here. Do they at that 
point elect a Speaker of the House in the absence of other Members? And 
then three more States elect their representatives, temporary 
replacements, or full replacements at that point. They come in. Do they 
elect a new Speaker? And if that happens, who becomes the President 
under the Succession Act?
  This bill does not address that question. This bill responds to real 
threats with fantasies. It responds with the fantasy, first of all, 
that a lot of people will still survive; but we have no guarantee of 
that. It responds with the fantasy that those who do survive will do 
the right thing. We are here having this debate, we have debates every 
day, because people differ on what the right thing is to do.
  I have been in very traumatic situations with people in severe car 
wrecks and mountain climbing accidents. My experience has not been that 
crisis imbues universal sagacity and fairness. It has not been that. 
People respond in extraordinary ways, and we must preserve an 
institution that has the deliberative body and the checks and balances 
to meet those challenges.

[[Page H957]]

                              {time}  1145

  Many of our States are going increasingly to mail-in ballots. We in 
this body were effectively disabled by an anthrax attack not long after 
September 11. I would ask my dear friends, will you conduct this 
election in 45 days if there is anthrax in the mail and still preserve 
the franchise of the American people? How will you do that? You have no 
answer to that question.
  I find it extraordinary, frankly, that while saying you do not want 
to amend the Constitution, we began this very Congress by amending the 
Constitution through the rule, by undermining the principle that a 
quorum is 50 percent of the body and instead saying it is however many 
people survive. And if that rule applies, who will designate it, who 
will implement it? The Speaker, or the Speaker's designee? Again, not 
an elected person, as you say is so critical and I believe is critical, 
but a temporary appointee, frankly, who not a single other Member of 
this body knows who they are. So we not only have an unelected person, 
we have an unknown person who will convene this body, and who, by the 
way, could conceivably convene it for their own election to then become 
the President of the United States under the Succession Act.
  You have refused steadfastly to debate this real issue broadly. You 
had a mock debate in the Committee on the Judiciary in which the 
distinguished chairman presented my bill without allowing me the 
courtesy or dignity to defend it myself. And on that, you proudly say 
you defend democracy. Sir, I think you dissemble in that regard.
  Here is the fundamental question for us, my friends, and it is this: 
The American people are watching television and an announcement comes 
on and says the Congress has been destroyed in a nuclear attack, the 
President and Vice President are killed and the Supreme Court is dead 
and thousands of our citizens in this town are.
  What happens next? Under your bill, 45 days of chaos. Apparently, 
according to the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the 
Constitution chairman, 45 days of marshal law, rule of this country by 
an unelected President with no checks and balances. Or an alternative, 
an alternative which says quite simply that the people have entrusted 
the Representatives they send here to make profound decisions, war, 
taxation, a host of other things, and those Representatives would have 
the power under the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) bill or mine to designate temporary successors, temporary, 
only until we can have a real election.
  The American people, in one scenario, are told we do not know who is 
going to run the country, we have no Representatives; where in another 
you will have temporary Representatives carrying your interests to this 
great body while we deliberate and have real elections. That is the 
choice.
  You are making the wrong choice today if you think you have solved 
this problem.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 841, and 
I regret the partisan flavor that seems to have become part of this 
debate.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill offers a solution to a crisis, to a problem 
that we face, to a challenge that we face, but it is a solution that 
will not work. I plead with my fellow Republicans to listen to the 
arguments that have just been made and to determine for themselves 
whether or not this legislation will do the job that it claims it is 
intended to do.
  I looked at it with an open heart and an open mind and find that I 
agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) that at a time 
when we need it the most, this bill will leave us in limbo, without 
leadership, and it will make America vulnerable at a time when we need 
leadership the most.
  I oppose this legislation. This bill focuses on the continuity of the 
election process rather than the continuity of Congress. The people who 
wrote this bill got their priorities all mixed up as to what the 
purpose of this was supposed to be.
  Mr. Chairman, the time frame in this bill of 45 days is both too long 
and too short. Forty-five days is too long to reconstruct the House of 
Representatives in a time of crisis when decisions need to be made 
immediately, so in that 45 days, when we are the most vulnerable, this 
legislation would leave America the most vulnerable.
  But 45 days is also too short a period to preserve the democratic 
representation that we have heard about, because, yes, you could have 
elections, but it does not allow time for primary elections. So who are 
those elections going to be all about? Under this law, party bosses 
rather than party voters will choose the candidates; thus, they will 
choose the Representatives. This is hollow, a very hollow approach to 
democracy, suggesting that this would permit people to be elected, when 
in fact it will be the party bosses that will be deciding who the 
voters will have a chance to vote on.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and I have introduced a 
bipartisan constitutional amendment that solves the problems that H.R. 
841 attempts to address, and it does this without the inevitable 
limitations of trying to fix a constitutional problem with a simple 
statute.
  House Joint Resolution 26 provides for the immediate replacement of 
both deceased and incapacitated Members by alternates, who become 
acting Representatives only until a new Representative is elected. Just 
as the Vice President of the United States is elected as part of a 
ticket with the President, alternate Representatives would go on the 
ballot and be elected as a ticket with their Representative so that in 
times of crisis, there would be immediate representation for the United 
States Congress and for the people throughout our country.
  H.J. Res. 26 thus solves the constitutional problem that a statute 
such as H.R. 841 cannot. It provides for both the continuity of 
Congress and for the continuity of representation for every district in 
the country, even if only one Representative dies or is in 
incapacitated. Under our alternative, thus no district would ever be 
without representation.
  H.R. 841, on the other hand, does nothing to address incapacity, and 
in the case of death, allows as many as 99 districts at a time to go 
without representation for months.
  Under H.J. Res. 26, Acting Representatives would be every bit as much 
elected officials as the Vice President is, yet would serve only until 
a new Representative is elected under the fully democratic procedures 
used by States today. Thus the Rohrabacher-Baird amendment not only 
solves all the continuity problems, but also preserves the principle 
that only elected officials may cast a vote in the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, although I oppose the bill before us, the Rohrabacher-
Baird amendment is something that can be supported even by those who 
vote for the bill. I ask my colleagues for their support and co-
sponsorship of H.J. Res. 26.
  On 9/11 we lived through a crisis that at times seemed bizarre and 
even surreal. Many otherwise competent leaders were in a state of shock 
and at one moment when we gathered on the Capitol steps to send a 
message to the American people, Representative Baird and I realized 
more was needed and began singing God Bless America. All our colleagues 
joined in. That was the message the American people needed.
  Today let's do what is needed for the American people at a time of 
maximum crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my fellow Republicans, please give this 
serious consideration. This is too important an issue to think about in 
terms of party politics. This is a time of crisis, when American people 
will be counting on us to do our best and to set up something that will 
work in a time of crisis.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would announce that the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller) has 12.5 minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 2.5 minutes remaining and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) has 30 seconds 
remaining. The order of closing is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

[[Page H958]]

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the primary opposition to this legislation comes from 
people who have favored a constitutional amendment to provide for the 
appointment of substitute Representatives should there be a catastrophe 
that wipes out a significant part or all of the House of 
Representatives.
  I believe last year, the House of Representatives laid that 
proposition to rest. We did have a full debate on the floor of the 
constitutional amendment that both the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) supported. 
It only got 63 votes. Twenty votes are necessary for the two-thirds 
majority necessary to propose amendments to the Constitution on any 
subject, and I believe that the House of Representatives at that time 
clearly and emphatically spoke in favor of maintaining elections as the 
only way one could enter the House of Representatives, the people's 
House.
  So now we hear that the 49 days that are proposed in this bill are 
too short to be able to organize a proper election in a time of crisis. 
I do not think that is correct. During the Second World War, Great 
Britain was under attack constantly by the German Air Force, and even 
during the war they were able to hold special elections to fill 
vacancies in the House of Commons within 42 days. Democracy prevailed 
because the people of Great Britain insisted that it do so, and those 
elections worked and those people who were elected entered the House of 
Commons with a mandate from the people.
  This bill will work just as well in a time of crisis as a way of 
repopulating the House. We are not going to have appointed 
Representatives. The constitutional amendment has been overwhelmingly 
rejected here. So the responsible thing to do is to speed up the 
special election process, particularly in those States like California 
where it takes forever to fill a vacancy so that the States can have 
full representation as quickly as possible.
  Pass the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not a bill that will work. You have heard 
it from several Members. This bill is unfair and is undemocratic. It 
has also been shown it is too short a time to conduct special elections 
in many States. It is insufficient time for voter registration and for 
those who want to participate in this unscheduled election. New voters 
will be blocked out of the system entirely. Is this what we want, given 
the last election of 2004? I think not.
  This bill simply represents the wrong choices of values in a 
democracy. This bill should be voted down.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Continuity in Representation Act provides a process 
to ensure that our democratic government remains stable and orderly 
during a possible time of great instability. In addition, it preserves 
the unique status of the House of Representatives by continuing the 
tradition and the constitutional mandate that every Member of this body 
must be elected by his or her constituents. In such a time of crisis, 
the people of this Nation must have a voice in the critical decisions 
that are being made. This legislation ensures that that will be the 
case.
  The time limit of 49 days that this bill lays out is more than 
adequate, Mr. Chairman. In fact, a survey of election officials 
confirmed that this is a realistic time frame, and I will tell you as a 
former elections official myself, I concur with those findings.
  Furthermore, several States already have laws in place that require 
special elections to be conducted in a shorter period of time than the 
49-day limit that this legislation requires. It is a short enough 
period that the House is reconstituted quickly and loses none of its 
authority, and, at the same time, it is a long enough period for fair 
elections to be conducted.
  When this issue was before the 108th Congress, Mr. Chairman, the 
House acted in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and approved the 
Continuity in Representation Act by a more than three-to-one margin. In 
fact, H.R. 841 that we consider today has improved on the previous bill 
by addressing the following reservations that some Members of the House 
and some of the States had regarding that bill.
  First, the special election privilege is extended now to Delegates 
and Resident Commissioners so that they could be replaced just as 
quickly as Members.
  Second, the legislation explicitly gives States any method that they 
choose to selects the candidates for special elections. Certainly as an 
advocate of States' rights, this provision was extremely important to 
both myself and many of us here in this Chamber.
  Finally, the time limit for special elections to be completed has 
been extended to 49 days from the time of the Speaker's announcement 
that over 100 vacancies exist. This gives local and State officials 7 
full weeks to select candidates, to print ballots and to fully execute 
those special elections.

                              {time}  1200

  With these changes I am hopeful that the bipartisan support for this 
legislation will be even greater today than it has been in the past. 
Mr. Speaker, this is not simply a bill about elections or the best way 
to replace Members of Congress. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about the 
strength of our Nation. It is about our ability to secure the homeland, 
and it does that by ensuring that our democratically elected government 
is able to respond in the face of an urgent threat.
  Homeland security is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic 
issue. This is an issue that affects every single American, Mr. 
Chairman; and the Congress should act in the interest of America and of 
democracy.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 841, and I 
look forward very much to supporting and passing this important and 
historic legislation.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 841, the 
Continuity in Representation Act, introduced by my distinguished 
colleague, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner. H.R. 
841 provides a practical and constitutional way to ensure that the 
House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more 
than 100 Members are killed, H.R. 841 thus protects the people's right 
to choose their Representatives at the time when such a right may be 
most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.
  Article I section 2 of the United States Constitution grants State 
governors the authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in 
the House of Representatives. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution 
gives Congress the authority to designate the time, place and manner of 
such special elections if States should fail to act expeditiously 
following a national emergency. Alexander Hamilton, who played a major 
role in the drafting and ratification of the United States 
Constitution, characterized authority over Federal elections as shared 
between the States and Congress, with neither being able to control the 
process entirety. H.R. 841 exercises Congress's power to regulate the 
time, place and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special 
elections within 45 days after the Speaker or Acting Speaker declares 
100 Members of the House have been killed.
  I have no doubt that the people of the States are quite competent to 
hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, it is in each State's 
interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in 
Washington. The version of H.R. 841 before Congress today was drafted 
with input from State elections commissioners to make sure it sets 
realistic goals and will not unduly burden State governments.
  I am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible 
approach of H.R. 841 and instead support amending the Constitution to 
allow appointed Members to serve in this body. Allowing appointed 
Members to serve in ``the people's house'' will fundamentally alter the 
nature of this institution and sever the people's most direct 
connection with their government.
  Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that Members of 
the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide 
office every 6 years means that Members of the House of Representatives 
are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part 
of the Federal Government. Appointed Members of Congress simply cannot 
be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton 
eloquently made this point in Federalist 52:

       As it is essential to liberty that the government in 
     general should have a common

[[Page H959]]

     interest with the people, so it is particularly essential 
     that the branch of it under consideration should have an 
     immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the 
     people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy 
     by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectively 
     secured.

  Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment 
is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent 
an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree 
that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional 
liberties in times of crisis and that an over-centralization of power 
in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that 
liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the 
more important to have Representatives accountable to the people. 
Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of 
government to infringe on the people's liberties at such a time. I 
would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering 
reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns 
that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. 
Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.
  Supporters of amending the Constitution claim that the appointment 
power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the 
appointed Representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws 
passed by these ``temporary'' Representatives will be permanent.
  Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to 
the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one 
suggested removing the people's right to vote for Members of Congress. 
For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of 
Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack 
of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During 
the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many 
Capitol Hill staffers reside and many Members stay while Congress is in 
session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States 
Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected 
persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the 
people the ability to choose their own Representatives would let the 
terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican 
institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting 
H.R. 841 in favor of a constitutional amendment will question the 
wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican 
government.
  As noted above, the Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to 
address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising 
this institution's primary function as a representative body. In fact, 
as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the ``time, place, and manner'' 
clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary 
circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 841, the 
Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can 
continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the 
drafters of the Constitution intended. Furthermore, passage of H.R. 841 
sends a strong message to terrorists that they cannot alter our 
republican government.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                                H.R. 841

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Continuity in Representation 
     Act of 2005''.

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

       Section 26 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 
     U.S.C. 8) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The time'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the time''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Special Rules in Extraordinary Circumstances.--
       ``(1) In general.--In extraordinary circumstances, the 
     executive authority of any State in which a vacancy exists in 
     its representation in the House of Representatives shall 
     issue a writ of election to fill such vacancy by special 
     election.
       ``(2) Timing of special election.--A special election held 
     under this subsection to fill a vacancy shall take place not 
     later than 45 days after the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives announces that the vacancy exists, unless, 
     during the 75-day period which begins on the date of the 
     announcement of the vacancy--
       ``(A) a regularly scheduled general election for the office 
     involved is to be held; or
       ``(B) another special election for the office involved is 
     to be held, pursuant to a writ for a special election issued 
     by the chief executive of the State prior to the date of the 
     announcement of the vacancy.
       ``(3) Nominations by parties.--If a special election is to 
     be held under this subsection, the determination of the 
     candidates who will run in such election shall be made--
       ``(A) by nominations made not later than 10 days after the 
     Speaker announces that the vacancy exists by the political 
     parties of the State that are authorized by State law to 
     nominate candidates for the election; or
       ``(B) by any other method the State considers appropriate, 
     including holding primary elections, that will ensure that 
     the State will hold the special election within the deadline 
     required under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Extraordinary circumstances.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this subsection, `extraordinary 
     circumstances' occur when the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives announces that vacancies in the 
     representation from the States in the House exceed 100.
       ``(B) Judicial review.--If any action is brought for 
     declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge an announcement 
     made under subparagraph (A), the following rules shall apply:
       ``(i) Not later than 2 days after the announcement, the 
     action shall be filed in the United States District Court 
     having jurisdiction in the district of the Member of the 
     House of Representatives whose seat has been announced to be 
     vacant and shall be heard by a 3-judge court convened 
     pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code.
       ``(ii) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly 
     to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
       ``(iii) A final decision in the action shall be made within 
     3 days of the filing of such action and shall not be 
     reviewable.
       ``(iv) The executive authority of the State that contains 
     the district of the Member of the House of Representatives 
     whose seat has been announced to be vacant shall have the 
     right to intervene either in support of or opposition to the 
     position of a party to the case regarding the announcement of 
     such vacancy.
       ``(5) Protecting ability of absent military and overseas 
     voters to participate in special elections.--
       ``(A) Deadline for transmittal of absentee ballots.--In 
     conducting a special election held under this subsection to 
     fill a vacancy in its representation, the State shall ensure 
     to the greatest extent practicable (including through the use 
     of electronic means) that absentee ballots for the election 
     are transmitted to absent uniformed services voters and 
     overseas voters (as such terms are defined in the Uniformed 
     and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) not later than 15 
     days after the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     announces that the vacancy exists.
       ``(B) Period for ballot transit time.--Notwithstanding the 
     deadlines referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3), in the case 
     of an individual who is an absent uniformed services voter or 
     an overseas voter (as such terms are defined in the Uniformed 
     and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act), a State shall 
     accept and process any otherwise valid ballot or other 
     election material from the voter so long as the ballot or 
     other material is received by the appropriate State election 
     official not later than 45 days after the State transmits the 
     ballot or other material to the voter.
       ``(6) Application to district of columbia and 
     territories.--This subsection shall apply--
       ``(A) to a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the 
     Congress in the same manner as it applies to a Member of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       ``(B) to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the United States 
     Virgin Islands in the same manner as it applies to a State, 
     except that a vacancy in the representation from any such 
     jurisdiction in the House shall not be taken into account by 
     the Speaker in determining whether vacancies in the 
     representation from the States in the House exceed 100 for 
     purposes of paragraph (4)(A).
       ``(7) Rule of construction regarding federal election 
     laws.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed to affect 
     the application to special elections under this subsection of 
     any Federal law governing the administration of elections for 
     Federal office (including any law providing for the 
     enforcement of any such law), including, but not limited to, 
     the following:
       ``(A) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et 
     seq.), as amended.
       ``(B) The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and 
     Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.), as amended.
       ``(C) The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.), as amended.
       ``(D) The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 
     U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.), as amended.
       ``(E) The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), as amended.
       ``(F) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et 
     seq.), as amended.
       ``(G) The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301 et 
     seq.), as amended.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order

[[Page H960]]

except those printed or considered as printed in House Report 109-10. 
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed or considered 
as printed in the report, by a Member designated, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not 
be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment considered to be the 
first amendment printed in House Report 109-10.


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Ney

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer the manager's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment made in order pursuant to House Resolution 125 
     offered by Mr. Ney:
       In section 26(b)(2) of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States, as proposed to be added by the bill, strike ``45 
     days'' and insert ``49 days''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 125, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to offer this manager's amendment, but first I want to 
thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller). She is our able new 
committee member. We are so pleased to have the gentlewoman on the 
Committee on House Administration and thank her for managing this bill.
  She is a former Secretary of State. She brings a wealth of knowledge 
and personal experience regarding running elections to this debate. And 
of course House Administration does a wide variety of things, but we 
also oversee Federal election laws, so we appreciate her carrying this 
bill through, and also her perspectives on it.
  And it is a pleasure to be here with the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Millender-McDonald), our new ranking member. And again, we like 
the working relationship we have had on the issues.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005 
is an important piece of legislation that furthers the vital objective 
of ensuring that the people's House would continue to function 
effectively and with legitimacy in the event of a catastrophic 
terrorist attack in which a large number of House Members would be 
killed.
  This amendment I am introducing today would extend the time frame for 
holding expedited special elections from 45 days to 49 days. The 
addition of the extra days would provide additional time for State and 
local election officials to prepare for expedited special elections and 
for the voting public to make informed choices.
  This amendment also addresses the concerns of those who felt that too 
little time was provided for conducting expedited special elections. It 
marks yet another step the majority has been willing to take to 
accommodate some concerns that have been raised by the minority.
  Last Congress, Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, 
a nonprofit organization representing State and local election 
officials whose purpose is to promote, preserve and improve democracy, 
testified before our committee that it appears that elections 
administrators feel they can conduct an election within as few as 45 
days. He had varied opinions on how long, frankly, this process could 
take. He pointed out, however, that any additional days would enable 
election officials to better prepare for the election and ensure that 
the process went forward as smoothly as possible.
  When operating under a tight time frame, any additional time can make 
a difference in the quality of the process. Thus I believe this 
amendment enables us to better strike the proper balance between the 
demand to fill House vacancies through special elections in as short a 
time frame as possible and the need for election officials and the 
voting public to have the necessary time to get ready for elections and 
to examine the candidates and the issues.
  It is a good important piece of legislation. And I want to thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for carrying this 
through. And it preserves the fundamental character of the House as a 
body consisting of only elected Members and allows for reconstitution 
of that body as quickly as possible if we ever face these terrible 
circumstances which we hope do not happen. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment and the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I claim the time for the opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I oppose this amendment because it does not correct the 
fundamental flaw of H.R. 841, which is leaving the United States of 
America at a time of its worst crisis, its worst potential crisis that 
you can imagine, it leaves the American people in the lurch, leaves 
them without representative government and without representation in 
the Congress for 7 weeks. According to this amendment, there will be no 
representation for the American people at a time when our government 
needs leadership.
  On 9/11 we lived through a crisis which at times seemed bizarre and 
even surreal. Many otherwise competent leaders were in a state of shock 
and at that moment, on 9/11, did not necessarily know or were incapable 
of doing exactly what the right thing was.
  Many of us gathered at the Capitol on that fateful day; we gathered 
on the steps to back up our leadership. The purpose was to send a 
message to the American people. Representative Barrett and I realized, 
once a very short message had been given by our leaders, that the 
message was not adequate enough. And let me note that on that day, that 
time of crisis when we were all in confusion, standing on the Capitol 
about ready to break up, Representative Barrett and I looked at each 
other in our eyes and said this is not enough. We are going to start 
singing God bless America right now. And it was Representative Barrett 
and myself that started leading that singing and were joined in by our 
colleagues.
  Let me note that that was the message the American people needed to 
hear of unity and God bless America at this time.
  Let us today do what is needed for the American people at the time of 
the next crisis. What is happening is we are being offered an 
alternative that will leave them in the lurch, leave them wanting at 
the time of maximum crisis. If we do believe in God bless America, let 
us join in now with the partisan flavor of this debate and do what is 
right to make sure our people are prepared if our country is ever 
attacked like this again.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher). I will always remember that day, as we 
all will. His point is well taken.
  I understand there is good intent behind the bill before us today and 
the amendment, but it is not enough. It simply is not. It leaves our 
country vulnerable for 45 days and that is too long.
  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary made 
some comments recently that suggested that somehow terrorists would 
oppose this bill and by some implication would favor the bill the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and I have put forward 
because it seems to support their autocratic views of government. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  In fact, what our bill would do is tell the terrorists, you could 
come on a single day and set off a nuclear weapon in this town and kill 
every single Member of us; and though we would be missed, the very next 
day the Congress would be up and functioning with every single State, 
every single district having full representation by statesmen and 
stateswomen at a time of national crisis.
  That is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and I 
are trying to do. We are trying to tell the terrorists, you can kill 
all of us as individuals, but you will not defeat this institution. You 
will not defeat the principle of representation. You will not

[[Page H961]]

defeat the principles of checks and balances. You will not impose 
martial law.
  Here is the irony. If terrorists hit us today when we finally vote on 
this, let us suppose a few Democrats do not make it over here. You are 
leaving this country vulnerable to change in power. If the terrorists 
were to strike your conference retreat where the President speaks to 
the Republican House and Senate Members and kill hundreds of House and 
Senate Members on the Republican side, the Democrats at that point 
claim the majority. The Democrats at that point elect a Speaker of the 
House. I am a Democrat, for goodness sakes; but that is not the way to 
leave our country vulnerable.
  You are leaving your own party, you are leaving the will of the 
people through their elections vulnerable. If we have temporary 
replacements, you immediately reconstitute the House; you immediately 
ensure representation; you assure that you maintain the balance of 
political power; and you do it in an orderly, structured way with no 
chaos, in a way that is constitutionally valid by definition.
  What you have proposed is not necessarily constitutionally valid. It 
leaves the terrorists able to change our system of government. It 
depends on a fantasy immediate or quick election. It does not allow 
really qualified people necessarily to get here and act in time. There 
are so many things you have left undone.
  You are going to try to say that at the start of this year we have 
solved this problem; let us go home.
  You have not solved the problem, and it is a doggone disgrace, and it 
is a danger to this country.
  The other day a gentleman testified before the Committee on the 
Budget and said this: ``The lack of preparation for continuity, for 
true continuity invites attack.''
  You are inviting attack. Not preventing attack.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 
printed in House Report 109-10 or the amendment made in order in lieu 
thereof.


              Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in lieu of 
amendment No. 1.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment made in order pursuant to H. Res. 125 in lieu of 
     amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-10 offered by Ms. 
     Millender-McDonald:
       In section 26(b)(2) of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States, as proposed to be added by the bill, strike ``shall 
     take place'' and all that follows through ``the vacancy 
     exists,'' and insert the following: ``shall take place not 
     later than 60 days after the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives announces that the vacancy exists,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 125, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this compromise amendment would change the overall 
deadline to conduct expedited special elections under extraordinary 
circumstances to 60 days instead of the 49 which we just voted on.
  I urge Members to support 60 days because it is a more practical and 
realistic deadline, places less burden on the States, and still 
accomplishes the bill's goals to expedite special elections in a large 
number of States.
  A 60-day deadline would allow more time for States to attempt to 
implement the election law restructuring, whatever that might be, and 
require to comply with the bill's goals.
  It would also allow some States more options if they wish to preserve 
their primary elections which at the insistence of the minority are no 
longer explicitly prohibited by this version of the legislation. But 
while primaries may no longer be barred, 49 days to hold both a primary 
and a special election is still a high bar to meet.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from a letter that was presented 
by Kevin Kennedy, the executive director to the State Elections Board 
of Wisconsin, the State which the author of the bill comes from. And he 
states in portions of the letter: ``62 days is the minimum time 
necessary to ensure proper mechanical operation of an expedited special 
election, consistent with democratic integrity, and offering of all 
voters the opportunity of a meaningful opportunity to vote.''
  This is what I am speaking about in my amendment. The principle 49 
days is really not enough time; and so, therefore, the bill is really 
flawed because it decrees that the elections will occur 49 days after 
the Speaker's announcement. But having said that, what would happen 
next?
  How States which would have to reduce their preexisting time frame 
for special elections could actually accomplish this is the great 
unknown. Would it require States' enactments, States' constitutional 
amendments, popular referenda in some States?
  I do not know the answers and the bill's sponsors surely do not know 
the answers. But 60 days at least provides some additional flexibility 
in the hands of the decision-makers who must grapple with the jig-saw 
puzzle of demands the bill places upon them. Sixty days is not a magic 
bullet any more than 49 days is; but experience as well as decades 
spent as candidates running for public office teaches us to err on the 
side of flexibility, especially at a time of potential national crisis.

                              {time}  1215

  This amendment is an effort to find common ground after the House 
rejected a 75-day time frame offered last year by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson). My 60-day amendment also conforms to the 
recommendations of the Election Center, which represents the Nation's 
voting registration and election officials and administrators at the 
city, township, county and State levels. Proponents seeking a truncated 
time frame for this legislation have often, misleadingly, cited Doug 
Williams, Executive Director of the Election Center, which, once again, 
represents the Nation's voting registration and election officials and 
administrators at the city, township, and State levels, but he has not 
endorsed this bill, and he has said that 45 days is still too short and 
that a time frame closer to 60 days would provide States a greater 
assurance of success. State and local election officials at election 
process forums over the last 2 years have raised questions about the 
time frame as well.
  In testimony prepared before the Committee on House Administration on 
September 19, 2003, Mr. Lewis framed the debate as follows: ``What is 
an election? Is it a date-certain event so that voters can vote? Or is 
it more than that? Is an election in American democracy really a 
process that includes time for the identification of candidates, the 
ability of candidates to mount a campaign, to raise funds, to attract 
supporters, to inform the voters of what their choices are between the 
individual contestants, and then going to the polls to make that 
choice? The point is this: If it is only an event, then we can 
structure an event in a short time frame and carry out the event as 
flawlessly as possible. If, however, you define it in the broadest 
possible terms, then you have to allow the process time to work.''
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that elections are a process which implement 
democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the gentlewoman from 
California, while certainly a very well-intentioned amendment, is 
completely unnecessary and, I believe, would severely weaken this bill.
  While this amendment would only increase the time limit in which to 
conduct the special election by 11 days, more than the limit provided 
for in H.R. 841, it would weaken the power of Congress in a significant 
way. According to the War Powers Act, when the

[[Page H962]]

President has put our Armed Forces into action, Congress must act 
within 60 days to either approve or to disapprove the use of those 
troops. Following an attack in which over 100 Members of Congress have 
been killed, it is quite likely that a military response would be 
required.
  If Congress is not reconstituted within this 60-day period, it would 
lose its ability to either affirm or disapprove of the executive's use 
of military actions and, thus, the power of the legislative branch 
would be diminished. The amendment by the gentlewoman would prevent 
Congress from acting in this situation. H.R. 841, as it stands, would 
allow for Congress to reconstitute and to act on such an important 
matter.
  Another argument against this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that while 
it is not only dangerous, again it is completely unnecessary. A survey 
of election officials, as I mentioned earlier, shows that 49 days is a 
reasonable period of time in which to conduct a special election. And 
as a former chief elections officer of the State of Michigan, I agree 
with that assessment. As the legislation currently stands, States would 
have the option, and let me reiterate again, the States have the option 
of eliminating the primary election and permitting political parties 
recognized by State law to choose those candidates.
  In turn, this would eliminate the petition requirements, and the 
verification process that accompanies it. Additionally, it is again 
very important to remember that the U.S. Representative position would 
really be the only race on the ballot. Again, dramatically easy 
printing, programming, and testing.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the passage of the Help America Vote Act 
of 2002, HAVA, as it is commonly called, has helped prepare election 
officials more than ever to conduct such a special election. HAVA is 
granting Federal dollars to the States in historic proportions, dollars 
that are being used to eliminate antiquated election equipment, and the 
States are purchasing new state-of-the-art equipment. States have 
either constructed or are moving towards construction of statewide, 
computerized voter registration files, similar, as I mentioned, to the 
one we built in Michigan several years ago.
  Technology is allowing these lists to be updated literally daily, so 
that a clean up-to-date file can be printed out any date of the year 
and provided to every polling site. Again, a fantastic election tool 
for any election, but particularly so in this case for an expedited 
election.
  Also, States are rapidly moving towards a uniform system of voting 
machines. Uniformity of election equipment in a State will enable 
vendors to always have a camera-ready template on the ballot, and then 
all they have to do is just fill in the name of the nominees for U.S. 
Representative and go to print. Having a uniform system will eliminate 
confusion amongst poll workers and further ease election preparation.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, some States already prescribe that special 
elections be conducted in a period of time even shorter than this. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) mentioned the Virginia 
experience; Minnesota, I believe, requires a 30- or 35-day limit as 
well. All of this goes to prove that the amendment is completely 
unnecessary. The only thing that this amendment would effectively do is 
extend the time period for which some parts of the Nation would not be 
represented in this body, in the United States House of 
Representatives. And there is never a good reason to do that, Mr. 
Chairman.
  While it is true that State and local officials must have sufficient 
time to conduct elections, it is imperative that they be completed as 
quickly as possible so that there is some semblance of continuity in 
representation. There should not be any unnecessary delay to this 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former Secretary of 
State.
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise today in opposition to this legislation and am disappointed we 
are taking up this measure again when we should be debating this issue 
in a more thoughtful and comprehensive manner. Many of my colleagues, 
including the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) have tried to 
encourage dialogue on this matter, but this bill simply does not 
address many of the concerns raised by Members and outside experts 
during the last 3\1/2\ years.
  If under H.R. 841 the House experienced the deaths of more than 100 
Members, the Speaker could direct States to conduct special elections 
now within 49 days. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the authors of 
this legislation had all the good intentions in the world, but 
unfortunately we find in the real world, in practice, it does not 
always work out as we had intended. As a former Secretary of State, I 
have run numerous elections, and I can tell you that the 49-day limit 
would constrain election officials' ability to prepare ballots, train 
poll workers, select polling locations, and inform the voting public 
about the process.
  Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, under this limited time 
frame, there would be voters who would be disenfranchised. The mail 
ballot process itself can be very cumbersome, and I can guarantee you 
that very potentially the elderly, people with disabilities, and most 
especially, our men and women in uniform who are overseas would 
potentially be disenfranchised by this shortened time frame.
  Now, at a time when our Nation would be looking to its government for 
answers, it will instead face confusion and uncertainty about how its 
leaders are elected. Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me to be reasonable 
to support the gentlewoman's amendment to extend the time period to 60 
days. At the very least, if we are going to do this, I believe we need 
to do it the right way, and this would allow us the extra time we would 
need.
  But, Mr. Chairman, my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) really said it right. Whether it is 49 days or the 60 
days, it is really both too long and too short. Even if we were able to 
hold special elections within the 49 days, that would still be too long 
for Congress to remain inactive. I want to remind everyone that in the 
6 weeks after the attacks of September 11, Congress passed legislation 
authorizing the use of military force, an airline assistance measure, 
an economic stimulus bill, the Defense Authorization Act, numerous 
appropriation bills, the farm bill, legislation pertaining to 
bioterrorism, victims assistance, and terrorism financing.
  H.R. 841 would leave important decisions to a greatly diminished and 
possibly unrepresentative House. Worse, in the case of widespread 
incapacitation, the House would be unable to achieve a quorum and 
become inoperative during a time of crisis. A recent change in House 
rules tried to circumvent this problem by creating a provisional 
quorum, which would permit a smaller number of Members to constitute a 
quorum in emergency circumstances. However, one must question the 
constitutionality and public support of laws that would be passed by a 
handful of Members during a time of national crisis.
  The House is attempting to address this complex issue over 
congressional continuity, Mr. Chairman, by passing feel-good 
legislation and tweaking our internal rules. But I am disappointed that 
H.R. 841 does not take a comprehensive approach to continuity nor does 
it address a priority of mine, deciding how Congress could communicate 
and function if terrorist acts prevented it from meeting in one 
location.
  Mr. Chairman, these matters warrant greater discussion than the 
limited bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 841 so 
that we can have the full debate that this Congress and our Nation 
deserves.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,

[[Page H963]]

who has been a driving force in bringing this legislation to the floor 
today.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make three points.
  First, under the 60-day time frame proposed by the gentlewoman's 
amendment, the time under the War Powers Act for Congress to make a 
decision following an attack will have expired and, consequently, less 
than the full House will make the important decisions relative to under 
what circumstances American troops will be committed overseas. Under 
the 49-day time limit, that problem will not exist because the House 
will be reconstituted and repopulated before the War Powers Act 
limitation expires.
  Secondly, the purpose of this bill is to require special elections to 
be held in those States with slower special election processes, to be 
held as quickly as possible within the 49-day period. The gentlewoman 
from California has read parts of the letter that Mr. Kennedy, who is 
the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Elections Board has written. I 
would respond to that simply by saying if Virginia repopulates the 
House, or its delegation to the House within 12 days and it takes at 
least 62 days for Wisconsin to do so, 50 days will elapse, or almost 2 
months will elapse while Wisconsin has either a reduced or no 
delegation in the House, but the House keeps on legislating. And that 
is not fair to the people of my State, and it is not fair to the people 
of the other States, including the gentlewoman from California's own 
State that have relatively slow special election procedures.
  So that is why this bill is here, is to speed up the process by which 
States can fill up their delegations to the House so that they will be 
fully represented when important decisions are made. And should this 
bill go down and the slow States continue to be really slow, then their 
delegations will either be nonexistent or have a relatively few number 
of Members.
  Now, the final point I would like to make is that we have heard 
everybody who is against this bill say that this is too fast and too 
slow. Well, to speed up the process of repopulating the House, quicker 
than when special elections can be held, will require a constitutional 
amendment. We did debate a constitutional amendment and it was defeated 
by a vote of 63 ayes to 350-plus noes. This House is firmly on record 
against an appointment procedure however it is done.
  So now we have to figure out how to make the special election 
procedure occur as quickly as possible and yet maintain fairness. The 
49 days required under this bill is the way to do it to get people here 
to make important decisions under the War Powers Act. Sixty days or a 
longer period of time simply will not cut it. Defeat the amendment and 
pass the bill.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who is also a former Secretary of 
State.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise in support of the Millender-McDonald amendment and to express 
concern for the underlying bill. I am glad we are considering 
legislation that would address what should be done in the event of a 
large-scale incapacitation of Congress. It obviously makes sense to do 
that. It is more essential than ever in a time of national emergency 
that democracy be preserved.
  Our Constitution established the House of Representatives to provide 
directly elected representation in the event of a catastrophe that must 
be restored as quickly as possible. We have heard sort of grand, 
philosophical statements of our allegiance to democracy on the floor of 
this House; but at the same time, we need to be practical about what 
actually can work in a time of national crisis.
  I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have glossed over 
the problems that especially military voters, the elderly, others who 
do not have access on an election day to the polls, the kind of 
problems that they would face.
  I was Secretary of State in the 1980s for 8 years in the State of 
Ohio, a large State with several million registered voters, a State 
that has always had a tradition of bipartisan elections conducted 
fairly. The year of 2004 may have been different where the election 
machinery frankly was not so well administered as it had been in the 
past by Secretaries of State of both parties. That aside, I have 
serious concerns as a former Secretary of State about the legislation 
we are considering today. Forty-nine days establishes an unrealistic 
time frame for holding legitimate, fair elections where people have 
access to the polling booth.
  In a national emergency, Congress must be able to provide immediate 
relief, and this legislation would allow the country to elect 
representation for those 6 or 7 weeks. You cannot, I believe, hold fair 
elections, accessible elections, in 49 days. The process simply takes 
longer than that. Again, military voters, people far away outside the 
country, in uniform serving our country, elderly voters who do not have 
access to the polls, the most vulnerable among us, in many ways, that 
cannot simply do that.
  There are alternatives, and I want to answer the concerns of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner). There are 
alternatives that would create immediate representation while providing 
a framework for States to conduct elections. I supported legislation 
last year that, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) said, was defeated, but could be considered in the light 
of understanding how elections actually work in that there needs to be 
a time line to get candidates on the ballots, to get the ballots 
printed, to get them sent to the Armed Forces around the world, and get 
those ballots back in time for an election.
  The Baird proposal would allow States to appoint temporary 
replacements for deceased or incapacitated Representatives. States 
could then conduct special elections to elect permanent Representatives 
according to State laws.
  I support the Millender-McDonald amendment because appointing the 
process, if we could do that down the line, and I understand that is 
not on the table today, but to do them in 45 or 49 days simply is not 
practical, and too many people will be denied the right to vote.
  We want to do this right. We want to refill, if you will, the House 
of Representatives as quickly as possible, but we want to do it in the 
most democratic way possible, and ultimately that means giving the 
election machinery time so that everyone, especially our servicemen and 
-women overseas, so that everyone has access to the ballots. I think 
the underlying bill does not do that. I think the Millender-McDonald 
amendment makes this bill work much better than it does otherwise. I 
ask support for the Millender-McDonald amendment.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  As I have listened to the debate, I feel more strongly than ever that 
this amendment would severely weaken the impact of H.R. 841. I urge my 
colleagues to reject the Millender-McDonald amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  In this book we have, the first ``Report of the Continuity of 
Government Commission,'' in that it outlined an election in Michigan, 
Michigan's Third Congressional District where the vacancy occurred in 
1993, and the time that was allotted for that election was 178 days, 
which brought us the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) 
who is part of our committee.
  Mr. Chairman, in returning to the testimony of Mr. Doug Lewis, 
executive director of Election Center, after polling election officials 
from around the country, he summarized the results: ``While the 
responses indicated a variety of dates ranging from the shortest time 
period of 35 days after determination of who the candidates will be to 
a period of 4 months, it appears that election administrators feel that 
they can conduct an election with as few as 45 days. However, the 
election officials would be far more confident

[[Page H964]]

that the interest of democracy would be best served by having up to 60 
days to get the elections organized and held. Each additional day 
beyond the 45 day minimum time frame creates greater confidence in the 
process.''
  Mr. Chairman, I prefer to come down on the side of the interest of 
democracy, and my instincts after campaigns for local, State, and 
Federal office tell me 49 days is simply too short.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House 
Report 109-10.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       In section 26(b)(4)(B)(i) of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, strike 
     ``2 days'' and insert ``5 days''.
       In section 26(b)(4)(B)(iii) of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, insert 
     after ``the action'' the following: ``(taking into account an 
     opportunity for an expedited appeal of the initial 
     decision)''.
       In section 26(b)(4)(B)(iv) of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, insert 
     after ``vacant'' the following: ``and any citizen of the 
     district or any group of citizens of the State''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 125, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to inquire of the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), I have an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute. In the spirit of collegiality, I realize that we have 
a rule, but I gained a sense that the Committee on House Administration 
would be supportive of this substitute which would only allow an added 
5 days for an appeal from 2 days, less than a week. I would inquire of 
the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, would the gentleman 
allow that to move forward by unanimous consent? If the gentleman would 
answer with just a yes or no whether we would be able to move forward 
with this substitute, I would be delighted to work with the chairman.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman 
yielding.
  The membership has been preparing for the debate on this bill with 
the amendment made in order under the rule. The gentlewoman now wants 
to submit a new amendment. I do not think that is fair to the 
membership who have prepared debate on the bill; so the answer is no.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I think they would have 
followed the gentleman's lead, but I thank the gentleman very much.
  Let me move forward with the amendment before us. This is my very 
point. I encourage my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to 
look very carefully at the Jackson-Lee amendment, and I ask for their 
support.
  This is the problem we have here today, and that is the continuity 
and the preservation of this historic and honorable institution, the 
Members of the United States Congress, really should be a bipartisan 
process. I am disappointed we are not, even in time of death and 
tragedy, terrorism, that we cannot find in our hearts and in our 
intellectual minds the ability to be collegial and to work in an very 
informed and thoughtful way.
  This particular amendment is very succinct, and I ask my colleagues 
to give it considerable thought and vote for it. One, the amendment has 
the expansion of the ability of an aggrieved party to file suit for 
either declaratory or injunctive relief from just 2 days to 5 days. 
This is a question to answer the needs of the Secretaries of State and 
the States that when this crisis occurs, that all of them have the 
procedures in place to be able to fulfill our democratic calling.
  This is not a constitutional amendment. I wish it were. But since we 
are doing this by statute, why not give the opportunity for there to be 
enough open view and transparency for this to occur?
  Number 2 of this amendment is a provision for an expedited appeals 
process to the United States District Court for matters rising out of 
the special election process because a 45-day deadline for special 
State election already places significant constraints on the electoral 
process and on the citizens represented due to its brevity, taking away 
the right to an appeal to the U.S. District Court. This gives an 
expedited appeal.
  In addition, this provides for an expansion of the right to sue for 
declaratory judgment beyond the Governor, but to citizens and classes 
of citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, the gravity of the matter of reconstituting the House 
of Representatives in the face of catastrophe requires the fullest 
debate possible. However, due to the fact that a structured rule was 
reported out of Committee, this body is relegated to saving this 
severely flawed legislation by way of the only two amendments made in 
order last Tuesday--those of my colleague, the distinguished Ranking 
Member of the House Administration Committee and the Jackson-Lee 
Amendment. The Jackson-Lee Amendment has three essential components 
which propose to preserve the rights of the States, the voters, and of 
the spirit of democracy:
  The first portion of this amendment, Jackson-Lee #1, reads as 
follows:

       In section 26(b)(4)(B)(i) of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, strike 
     ``2 days'' and insert ``5 days.''

  This change would amend the section of the bill that deals with the 
time in which a person(s) may file a lawsuit arising out of the Speaker 
of the House's announcement of vacancies in the House of 
Representatives in excess of 100. This change would amend paragraph 
(4), subparagraph (B)(i) and expand the ability of an aggrieved party 
to file suit for either declaratory or injunctive party to file suit 
for either declaratory or injunctive relief from just two (2) days to 
five (5) days.
  Because not every State has a Capital Beltway or even a superhighway 
system, and because information travels at a different rate in every 
location, it is important that we establish a fair standard for a 
filing rule that affects every State in the country. The principle of 
procedural due process dictates that every citizen of each State have a 
realistic opportunity to obtain legal relief through our Judicial 
Branch.
  The second portion of this proposal speaks even more to the issue of 
due process for all citizens. Its text reads as follows:

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

  Because the 45-day deadline for special State elections already 
places significant constraints on the electoral process and on the 
citizens represented due to its brevity, taking away the right to an 
appeal from the U.S. District Court would excessively curtail the 
procedural due process rights enjoyed by citizens. Given that the time 
in which a Federal judge has to compose an order disposing of these 
matters is provided in this bill, an equally expeditious appeals 
process should be provided so as to maintain consistency with the U.S. 
Constitution and the commitment to both the 5th and 14th Amendments.
  Thirdly, the amendment reads as follows:

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

  This proposal is very important to protect the interests of all 
citizens in the various congressional districts in the midst of party 
politics as well as the certification of classes in legal actions. As 
the bill is drafted, Section 2, paragraph (4), subparagraph (iv) would 
confer the right to sue in the event of a vacancy announcement by the 
Speaker of the House

[[Page H965]]

solely to the ``executive authority,'' in the case of Texas, the 
Governor. Such overly restrictive language almost certainly threatens 
to deprive the citizens of a right that they should enjoy in the event 
that the Governor chooses not to participate in a suit for declaratory 
or injunctive relief pursuant to a vacancy announcement made by the 
Speaker of the House. In order to protect the rights of every person 
who truly has an interest in a call for a special election under this 
Act, this provision must be amended to allow citizens and classes of 
citizens to sue for relief.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support the voters of each 
State, the framework of the U.S. Constitution, and the spirit of 
democracy by supporting the Jackson-Lee Amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to defeat this amendment, just as 
it did last year when the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
brought it up. The issue is very simple. We want elections. Her 
amendment wants lawsuits. The way she has phrased her amendment for the 
lawsuits is that anybody can sue, not just the Governor, to determine 
whether or not a vacancy actually exists. And also, there is an appeals 
process in the gentlewoman's amendment that would allow the appeals to 
be dragged out indefinitely.
  When there is a catastrophe that wipes out a significant number of 
Members of the House, it is in the interest of the public to fill those 
vacancies as quickly as possible through a fair election. We should not 
allow anybody to tie up an election call in the courts forever and ever 
and ever simply because their candidate might not be in a proper 
position to win the election.
  So let us have the people decide when these vacancies will be filled 
and who will fill them. Let us not allow endless litigation at a time 
of national catastrophe. Elections can bring people together. They will 
result in new Representatives coming with mandates rather than having 
the frustration of lawsuits that go on interminably.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman does not.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about chaos and confusion. There is no 
definition of how the announcement will go out to the people beyond the 
beltway. A mere extending from 2 days to 5 days to make sure that 
Americans, even in crisis, have due process and democracy and justice 
is not too much to ask. I would indulge and beg my colleagues to 
realize all this does is simply allow for the people of America in 
crisis to be represented and to be responded to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Millender-McDonald), the ranking member of the Committee on House 
Administration.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Jackson-Lee amendment. A portion of the gentlewoman's amendment seeks 
to provide an expedited appeals process to the United States District 
Court for matters arising out of the special election process. We have 
been talking about this 44, 45, 49-day deadline for special State 
elections, and it already places significant constraints on the 
electoral process and on the citizens represented due to its brevity.
  Taking away the right of an appeal to United States District Court 
would excessively curtail the procedural due process rights enjoyed by 
citizens. I support the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time, and thank the gentlewoman for her support.
  Again, the idea of this amendment, in the judicial review aspect, 
one, there is no definitive information about how the information will 
be disseminated to our States and to citizens in a 2-day period if 
crisis is occurring, if a terrorist act has occurred. My amendment 
gives an additional 5 days to guarantee that that notice be given.
  In addition, the other aspects of the legislation provides for an 
expedited time frame. It does not in any way cause a sufficient delay 
that would not allow us to restore this body to its ability to do 
business on behalf of the American people. Continuity, tragedy, all 
equal bipartisanship. I would ask my colleagues to look at this 
amendment and all it does provide, the enhanced due process. And I 
think we would not want the terrorists to believe that because of a 
terrorist act that we have lost our sense of judgment, the Constitution 
and due process.
  After 9/11, we went to New York to show that we are not afraid of the 
terrorists. I believe we should show that we are not afraid of them by 
upholding the Constitution and due process on behalf of the American 
people. Vote for the Jackson-Lee amendment. I ask my colleagues to vote 
for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the fatal flaw in this amendment is it does not extend 
the 49 days under which the election is required to be held under the 
provisions of this bill.

                              {time}  1245

  So the more time we spend in court, the less time the election 
officials have to be able to organize the election, print the ballots, 
mail the ballots to absentee voters at home and overseas and get them 
back in time to be counted.
  We have heard an awful lot saying, well, the time frame is just too 
compact in order to run a fair election. What the gentlewoman's 
amendment does is that it makes it more compact because every day and 
every week that is spent tied up in the courts is going to be that much 
less time for the election machinery to operate.
  This is a question very simply of lawsuits versus elections. If you 
want more lawsuits, vote yes. If you want a quicker and fairer 
election, vote no. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  The amendment in lieu of amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and amendment No. 2 offered by 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


              Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment in lieu of amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 229, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 49]

                               AYES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn

[[Page H966]]


     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--229

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brown (OH)
     Carson
     Cunningham
     Ford
     Harris
     Inglis (SC)
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Napolitano
     Rothman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1314

  Mr. CUELLAR and Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DINGELL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-10 offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 239, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 50]

                               AYES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--239

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack

[[Page H967]]


     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brown (OH)
     Carson
     Cunningham
     Ford
     Harris
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Napolitano
     Rothman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1325

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Baird

  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. BAIRD moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
     the bill H.R. 841 back to the House with the recommendation 
     that the enacting clause be stricken.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird) for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make two fundamental points before 
we proceed to vote on this. The two points are these: This resolution 
does not solve the real problem and it may create more problems than it 
purports to solve, and we have to understand that.
  It does not solve the problem for this reason: By leaving us without 
a Congress for 45 days, we essentially impose the opportunity for the 
executive branch to exert marshal law, and that is not what the Framers 
of this country had in mind.
  This bill, if we do not provide some mechanism for prompt replacement 
other than this bill, will leave this country governed by an unelected 
executive, a cabinet member most likely who not a single American 
elected to that office.
  Furthermore, it has a host of problems. It does not address the 
possibility that one delegation will elect its Representatives more 
promptly than another. They will come to this body, choose one of its 
members as Speaker. That person could move on to become the President. 
Then another delegation comes in, et cetera.
  You are essentially leaving this country without a House of 
Representatives, without checks and balances, without separation of 
powers, for at least 45 days, assuming an election can be held in 45 
days and assuming that the terrorists through an anthrax attack, like 
they subjected this very Capitol to, will not somehow undermine that 
ability.
  This is reality. We have seen the reality here. We saw those 
airplanes hit the buildings, we saw the anthrax, and yet we are not 
truly acting to solve this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am asking my fellow Republicans to 
please look at what we are about to do. This solution that we are being 
offered will not work and will leave the American people vulnerable at 
a time of maximum crisis.
  This is one of the most important votes that we are going to have. 
What is going to happen in the future if we put this solution in place 
and there is a crisis? For 45 days after the death or incapacitation of 
these Members, we will have no government. We will basically be left to 
marshal law or anything else.
  There is an alternative. The people who have written this bill 
basically have come up with a continuity of elections instead of a 
continuity of Congress, and they have good motives, but the fact is it 
will not work. It will create a huge crisis for America at the moment 
that it needs to have something laid down for them, something solid on 
which to rely upon at a time of crisis. So, please look at this.
  There is an alternative. We did not have to do this by statute. We 
can do this by constitutional amendment. The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Baird) and I have a constitutional amendment which will do that.
  So, again, let us not leave a void, which this bill does, for the 
future Americans who will face the crisis of a generation and leave 
them in the lurch.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me make two final 
points: One, the majority party must understand this: If you are at a 
Republican Conference retreat and terrorists should strike you and kill 
the President and Vice President and significant numbers of your side 
of the aisle, the Democrats under your proposed law will obtain the 
majority, will elect a Speaker of the House, and that person will then 
become the President of the United States of America. You are leaving 
this country vulnerable to that. You must not do it. You must not.
  This matter must be taken seriously. It deserves full debate. Whether 
it is the proposal of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
and mine or others, we should commit to having this full House 
seriously consider this. If we do not and we are not fortunate, history 
will not look kindly upon the jeopardy in which we have left this great 
Nation.
  Vote no on this bill and insist on true debate on true continuity of 
Congress in a responsible way that protects the balance of power, 
assures real succession to the presidency, and, most importantly, 
assures that your constituents will have representation at a time when 
our Nation may well go to nuclear war, institute a draft, appropriate 
trillions of dollars, suspend habeas corpus and impose marshal law. You 
do not want that. But if you stop at this bill, you leave this Nation 
vulnerable.
  Mr. Chairman, if there is no one to speak in opposition, I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw my preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1330

  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendment, the question is on 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Accordingly, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 841) to 
require States to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House 
of Representatives not later than 45 days after the vacancy is 
announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives in 
extraordinary circumstances, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 125, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion To Recommit Offered By Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

[[Page H968]]

  Mr. CONYERS. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Conyers moves to recommit the bill H.R. 841 to the 
     Committee on House Administration with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       In section 26(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States, as proposed to be added by the bill, insert after 
     paragraph (5) the following new paragraph (and redesignate 
     accordingly):
       ``(6) Minimum required voting systems and poll workers in 
     polling places used in special elections.--In carrying out 
     special elections under this subsection, each State shall 
     provide for the minimum required number of functioning and 
     accurate voting systems and poll workers required in each 
     precinct used on the day of the election, using a uniform and 
     nondiscriminatory geographic distribution of such systems and 
     workers based on a ratio of the number of systems and workers 
     per voter, taking into account voter registration statistics 
     for the precinct, the most recent available census data 
     regarding the number of individuals residing within the 
     precinct who are eligible to register to vote, and the level 
     of voter turnout during previous elections held in the 
     precinct.''.

  Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would simply require that each 
State provide a minimum required number of functioning and accurate 
voting machines and poll workers for each precinct on the day of any 
special election. I do this and offer the amendment so that we can 
avoid the misallocation of voting machines and poll workers that 
occurred last year in the Ohio Presidential election that led to lines 
of sometimes 10 hours and disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of 
voters.
  Consider the following: in Franklin County in that State, 27 of the 
30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities 
for Bush while six of the seven wards with the fewest machines 
delivered the large margins for Kerry. They also found that election 
officials in Franklin County decided to make due with 2,868 machines 
even though their analysis showed that 5,000 machines were needed. In 
Columbus alone it is estimated that the misallocation of machines 
reduced the number of votes by up to 15,000 votes.
  There is also an investigation that revealed the Franklin County 
election officials reduced the number of election voting machines 
assigned to downtown precincts and added them to suburbs. They used a 
formula based not on the number of registered voters but on past 
turnout. In the Columbus area, the result was that suburban precincts 
that supported Mr. Bush tended to have more machines per registered 
voter than those in the inner-city precincts that supported Mr. Kerry.
  The Election Protection Coalition testified that more than half the 
complaints about the long lines they received came from Columbus and 
Cleveland where a huge proportion of the State's Democratic voters 
lived.
  This should never happen again in an election in our Nation. It is 
unconscionable to stack the deck so that Americans are forced to wait 
in the rain in line while others are given the red carpet treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) for allowing me a moment to speak on this issue.
  This is very, very important. I would like to bring to your attention 
the fact that former Minority Leader Gephardt appointed me to chair a 
special committee on election reform of the Democratic Caucus. And I 
have traveled to at least four States talking to people about what had 
gone wrong in the elections in the 2000 elections.
  One of the things that we concentrated on was provisional ballots. 
And we wrote into the Help America Vote Act that if you went to a 
polling place and they said your name was not there, that you are to be 
given a provisional ballot no matter where you went. Little did I know 
that something had happened in the Help America Vote Act, perhaps, that 
allowed Ken Blackwell in Ohio to have a different law from everybody 
else on provisional ballots. And so thousands of people went to polling 
places and were told they could not vote because they were in the wrong 
precinct. That is not what we wrote into the law. So we had thousands 
of ballots that were not counted in Ohio because Mr. Ken Blackwell 
described his law a lot differently than we had framed the law in the 
Help America Vote Act.
  That is the one place perhaps in America with a law on provisional 
balloting that does not allow someone who swears that they are 
registered to vote to be able to vote.
  I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to share this information 
at this important time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The motion to recommit would fix the problem raised by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), at least for special 
elections under this bill.
  I urge the support of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The language in the motion to recommit is very similar to the 
language in the Help America Vote Act legislation, HAVA, as it is 
commonly called, that legislation being H.R. 533. In fact, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is not the only Member who has 
proposed comprehensive election reform. A number of other bills have 
been introduced by Members on both sides of the aisle proposing 
amendments to the HAVA bill.
  The Committee on House Administration has scheduled hearings on these 
issues, including in the State of Ohio I would say, and we will be 
considering all of these bills in due course.
  Today is not the time nor is it the place to be debating election 
reform issues. We are here to provide for continuity and representation 
of this House and the American people. So let us focus on what needs to 
be done to provide for expedited special elections so that we can have 
a functioning House as soon as possible if there is a horrible, 
catastrophic attack.
  Let us leave these other issues for a later day when they can be 
debated in the proper context.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, our forefathers fought a revolution. They 
fought a revolution for freedom against a power that at that time was 
much greater than the sum of this Nation. They fought against private 
gentry.
  George Mason said at the Constitutional Convention that ``the people 
will be represented; they ought therefore to choose their 
representatives.''
  This is a conceptual framework that has governed this body for more 
than 2 centuries. Today, even though times have changed, the spirit of 
Mason lives on. And with God's blessing we will never have to use this 
piece of legislation. But we have to seriously consider the issue of 
the continuity in Congress.
  We have specifically designed authority to other Members of this body 
to call the House back into session should I not be here to do it. We 
have changed the rules of the House to allow it to function if Members 
are incapacitated.
  Today we debate a bill that calls for the States to provide special 
elections if more than 100 Members are killed. And yes, even though we 
have provided for rules if Members are incapacitated, we have a 
constitutional responsibility to ensure the American people have full 
representation in this Congress.
  Congress has always been for the people and by the people. And in 
keeping with the great traditions of our country, we need to keep it 
that way. Last Congress we overwhelmingly passed a very similar bill to 
the one we are debating today. It was improved by the

[[Page H969]]

Congress with various amendments, many from the other side of the 
aisle, which the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has incorporated into 
this bill. We heard a desire to make sure that this bill specifically 
allows for primaries; that language is incorporated in this bill. And 
my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), wanted to 
make sure that the military ballots from overseas were counted. We have 
incorporated that suggestion into this bill.
  I discussed with the Democratic leader the idea of increasing the 
number of days from 45 to 49, 7 weeks, to provide the 7 weeks for these 
special elections. I thought it was important to add a few more days. 
However, 60 days is too long a time for the framework of the national 
crisis because of our role under the War Powers Act.
  The bill we had adopted last Congress with the support of 306 Members 
was a very good bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) have even a better bill 
this year, and I expect the same overwhelming bipartisan support.
  In closing, we face a significant threat. What makes America great is 
that we can come together during times of national tragedy. And my 
point is that after September 11, partisan bickering was on the back 
burner, and we were able to come together and do great things for the 
American people.
  Terrorists hate everything we stand for, especially our democracy. 
Their whole object is to disrupt and destroy. In the event of the 
unthinkable, this bill strikes a blow to the heart of the terrorists 
and allows this body to reconstitute itself as quickly as possible, 
therefore carrying on the spirit of Mason and of this great Nation.
  I urge the defeat of the motion to recommit. I urge the passage of 
this bill.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for an electronic vote on the 
question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 223, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 51]

                               AYES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Carson
     Cunningham
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Ford
     Harris
     Issa
     Kingston
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Napolitano
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Wamp
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1404

  Mr. PORTMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________