[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.
____________________