[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11237-11246]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 83, PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO 
  THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF 
     INDIVIDUALS TO FILL VACANCIES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 657 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 657

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 83) proposing an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States regarding the appointment 
     of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of 
     Representatives. The joint resolution shall be considered as 
     read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate on the 
     joint resolution equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 657 is a rule providing for the 
consideration of House Joint Resolution 83, a proposed amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States regarding appointment of individuals 
to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives.
  The rule provides for 90 minutes of debate to be equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, on April 22 of this year, the House of Representatives 
debated and voted on H.R. 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act, 
which provides for the expedited special election of new Members to 
fill seats left vacant due to extraordinary circumstances.
  Such circumstances would be deemed to exist when the Speaker of the 
House announces that vacancies in the House exceed 100 members. The 
special elections would be required to be held within 45 days. This 
bill passed the House with a broad majority of 306 votes in favor to 97 
against.
  At the foundation of the Continuity in Representation Act is the 
principle that Members of this House ought to be elected by the people. 
This principle has guided service in this institution since its 
inception. Indeed, the purpose of the House is to serve as a Chamber 
that is closest to the people; closest to the people due to the equal 
size of our constituencies; closest to the people due to the frequency 
of elections; and, most important, closest to the people because of the 
direct election by the people.
  I support the Founding Fathers' view that Members of the House ought 
to be directly elected by the people and not selected for them.
  This rule provides for consideration of an approach that would amend 
the Constitution and allow for immediate appointment within 7 days of 
replacements for Members due to the death or incapacity of a majority 
of the House's membership. The appointments would be made by the chief 
executives of the States where a vacancy exists from a list provided 
and maintained by the elected Member.
  While I do not agree with changing the Constitution's requirements 
that Members of the House be directly elected, I do sincerely believe 
that our colleagues who do support this constitutional amendment 
deserve the opportunity to have their proposal voted upon by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, following the tragic events of September 11, this House 
has a responsibility and duty to consider the fate of this institution 
should it become necessary to replace a significant number of Members 
due to a deadly terrorist attack.
  Neither passage of the expedited elections bill nor consideration of 
H.J. Res. 83 alone serves as a comprehensive response to the continuity 
of this House in the face of deadly attack. For example, we must 
consider appropriate responses in the event that a large number of 
Members are incapacitated rather than killed. This is a potential 
scenario that cannot be ignored in a time of chemical, biological, and 
radiological weapons.
  In order to act, the Constitution requires the House to achieve a 
quorum of majority of all Members living and sworn. When a Member dies 
or resigns, the Speaker under the rules adjusts the quorum. However, 
the Framers never contemplated and made no provisions for the need to 
adjust the required quorum when large numbers of Members are still 
living but unable to carry out, temporarily or otherwise, the duties of 
the office to which they have been sworn. Under current law, if more 
than half of the House were to become incapacitated yet not deceased, 
the House could be unable to act at a time when the need to do so could 
hardly be greater.
  On April 29, the House Committee on Rules held an original 
jurisdiction hearing on the incapacitation of Members. Under the 
leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), the 
Committee on Rules is approaching this important issue with the 
seriousness and thoughtfulness it deserves.
  Mr. Speaker, while H.J. Res. 83 provides for the appointment of 
replacing representatives due to incapacity of elected Members, it does 
not offer an answer on how the House is to proceed on the question of 
defining or declaring incapacitation. These are important questions and 
the House must continue to deliberate seriously on their solutions.
  I am committed to working to address this complex continuity issue, 
and I know that the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) will continue their 
personal involvement and leadership on this issue, as well as other 
committed colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and 
continue the important consideration of how this House will operate 
should massive tragedy strike.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

[[Page 11238]]


  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House is debating the continuity of Congress. 
We are attempting to answer important questions: What happens to the 
House of Representatives if a majority of Members are killed or 
incapacitated in a catastrophic event like a terrorist attack? How does 
the House continue to function if there are not enough Members to 
constitute a quorum?
  These are not easy questions to answer. Indeed, they are not easy 
questions to talk about or to think about. Nobody wants to consider 
what happens if they and their friends and colleagues are attacked, but 
they are questions that we must face head on. And they are questions 
that elicit strong policy answers from those who have taken the time to 
study the issue.
  Some believe that amending the Constitution is the proper course. 
Others disagree, arguing for statutory fixes. But it seems to me that 
we could all agree on one thing: that these issues should transcend 
partisan politics. But not in this House.
  The Republican leadership cannot seem to help itself when it comes to 
the way it manages this body. They seem to be addicted to stifling 
debate, to muzzling Members of both parties, to partisan rules and 
lousy procedures, and to shredding the committee process.
  And so I rise today in strong opposition to this rule because the 
Republican leadership has once again taken a nonpartisan issue and 
dragged it into the partisan mud. Instead of working side by side with 
Democrats, the Republican leadership ignored the proper procedures of 
this body and rushed this constitutional amendment to the floor for a 
vote.
  This rule makes in order 90 minutes of general debate. That is 90 
minutes more than the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), held in hearings on this 
amendment. Let me say that again. In the 108th Congress, there has not 
been one single hearing about a constitutional amendment on this issue.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary found time to write a 
very eloquent op ed piece in this morning's Washington Post, but 
apparently could not find the time to hold a hearing. The chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary and the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), hold 
strong views that the Constitution should not be amended. They may be 
right. However, I honestly do not believe that this whole issue has 
been given the serious and thoughtful attention and consideration that 
it deserves.
  There is no reason to bring this bill to the floor without hearing 
from academics, lawyers, Members of Congress, Senators, former and 
current administration officials, liberal, moderate, and conservative 
interest groups. Many of those experts served right here as Members of 
Congress as members of the Committee on the Judiciary. Why are we not 
taking advantage of their expertise?
  I am especially puzzled by this unnecessarily partisan process given 
that this is not a hot topic in the elections. I think it is safe to 
say that not a single congressional race this year will turn on whether 
the candidate supports constitutional or statutory remedies for the 
continuity of Congress. This is not what people are talking about 
around their kitchen tables. But it is important, and it should be 
handled correctly.
  This rule makes in order only the constitutional amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). Yet last night, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) came before the Committee 
on Rules with two proposals. Several members of the Committee on Rules 
had questions and sought clarification on certain aspects of his ideas.

                              {time}  1130

  It was a very, very interesting conversation. But it was not a 
discussion that should have taken place in the Committee on Rules less 
than a day before the House votes on a constitutional amendment. It 
should have taken place at a hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people expect and they deserve a House that 
works together when this country faces adversity. After the September 
11 attacks, the Speaker of the House and the minority leader brought 
our two parties together for a bipartisan caucus to discuss what 
happened and to discuss the next steps. During those next days and 
weeks we were not two parties, we were one country. I believe that we 
need to once again join together in a bipartisan caucus to talk about 
this important issue and decide on the steps that we need to take, to 
bring together experts from across the political spectrum and to do 
what is right for the country and for the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this constitutional amendment was brought before the 
House in the wrong way. This rule is the wrong rule, and I would urge 
my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and an individual who 
has been a leader on this issue.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) for his leadership on this issue and for his fine work on the 
Committee on Rules.
  As I listen to the comments of my very good friend, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I cannot help but think how hard we 
have in fact been trying to work in a bipartisan way on this issue. I 
am going to talk about what led us to the point where we are right now, 
we are considering the rule; and then I will try to get a bit into the 
substance of the constitutional amendment.
  We, after September 11, did come together as a Nation; and we had 
this historic appearance on the east front of the Capitol where Members 
of the House and the Senate came together to focus on the solidarity 
that was important as we begin to proceed with the global war on 
terrorism. We had never seen an attack like that that we saw on 
September 11 in our Nation's history. And contrary to what my friend 
from Massachusetts just said, we have continued to work in a strong 
bipartisan way, and we are here at this moment considering this 
constitutional amendment which I virulently oppose because of our 
desire to work in a bipartisan way.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I introduced 
legislation which called for expedited special elections. Why? Because 
we feel very, very passionately about the need to ensure that no one 
ever serves in the People's House without having first been elected. It 
is conceivable under the constitutional structure that exists today 
that every other member that is traditionally elected in the United 
States of America could hold that office by appointment. The President 
of the United States can become President by appointment, as we found 
with President Ford. He became Vice President and then President. 
Members of the other body, the United States Senate, can in fact be 
appointed, serving in the United States Senate. But, Mr. Speaker, no 
one has ever served in the People's House without having first been 
elected.
  James Madison said, ``Where elections end, tyranny begins.'' And so 
that is the reason that, having spent a great deal of time over the 
past few years looking at this, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and I joined with a number of our colleagues and we 
enjoyed bipartisan support in this effort. We put together this 
structure which says, if more than 100 Members are tragically killed, 
what happens? Well, we have an expedited procedure whereby elections 
are held within 45 days.
  So when we put this legislation together we worked very, very hard on 
it. We had Members who said, we want to

[[Page 11239]]

have a constitutional amendment, specifically, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird), who I am happy to see has joined us and who has 
spent a great deal of time and effort on this issue; and I congratulate 
him for the thoughtful approach that he has taken on this issue.
  But what happened when we moved ahead with our legislation was I had 
someone who was not, frankly, a proponent of the amendment or even the 
consideration of it; and that is the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  At the request of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and 
others, I talked with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; 
and he made a commitment to me that in fact at the next markup the 
Committee on the Judiciary had they would report out this 
constitutional amendment. And so that is exactly what has happened.
  It has been the bipartisanship that has gotten us to this point today 
where we are going to, at the request of the minority, have a vote on 
what I personally believe is an ill-conceived idea and that is amending 
the US Constitution which would allow for the appointment of unelected 
members to serve in this House. And I recognize they want elections. 
Everyone is for elections. But I do not believe that anyone should 
serve here without the people having first decided who is going to 
serve.
  So what happened, Mr. Speaker? Well, we worked on this legislation 
again in a bipartisan way; and by a vote of 306 to 97 we were able to 
pass this legislation. That is a clear, very strong bipartisan 
majority.
  And how did we do it working in a bipartisan way? We addressed some 
of the very valid concerns that came from the minority, ensuring that 
all of the voting rights procedures are included. Those were offered by 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and we agreed that those 
should be accepted. The ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), very 
appropriately talked about the concern to make sure that our men and 
women in uniform who are overseas have the opportunity to participate 
in those special elections. Those are two concerns that emerged from 
Democrats, from members of the minority that we incorporated in our 
legislation.
  So as we proceeded with that measure, getting this strong bipartisan 
306 to 97 vote in support of the legislation, we addressed the minority 
concerns. And so, contrary to what is being said about hearings, there 
were hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary. They did take place in 
the past Congress, but this has been a process that has been going on 
since September 11 of 2001.
  Now I will say that when it comes to amending the Constitution I have 
always argued that an amendment to the Constitution should be a last 
rather than a first resort, and that is one of the reasons I believe 
that it is best for us to let the legislation that we have seen pass 
this House come up for consideration in the other body. I believe we 
should sign that legislation; and then, Mr. Speaker, we will have in 
place a structure to deal with a potential crisis.
  Now, if we were to see two-thirds of this House vote, which everyone 
acknowledges is not going to happen, but if we were going to see two-
thirds of this House vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that 
would allow for the appointment of Members to serve in the People's 
House, we have seen, on average, 7 years for ratification of a 
constitutional amendments. And I think that, based on the fact that 
this is very controversial and undermines the spirit, the Madisonian 
spirit of the representative democracy for the People's House, I think 
it would conceivably take a lot longer.
  So that is why I think it is incumbent upon us to do everything we 
possibly can to ensure the bipartisan legislation which has passed this 
House, in fact, becomes public law. So that is why support of this rule 
is support of proceeding with the bipartisan commitment that I was 
proud to have been able to get from members of both political parties 
from our leadership team.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that the Speaker of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), is absolutely committed to 
institutional reform as it comes, as we address this issue. There are a 
wide range of things that everyone has done to ensure the continuity of 
the Congress.
  We in the Committee on Rules are spending a great deal of time right 
now dealing with this issue of incapacitation. It is a tough one. It is 
not an easy one. But we are deliberating which is exactly what our 
responsibility is. So I believe that support of this rule is support of 
the bipartisan quest and the agreement that I was proud to have put 
together with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to allow for a 
vote, which is what they asked me to do, Mr. Speaker. I was asked to 
put into place a structure that would allow for a vote on a 
constitutional amendment, and we are going to be doing that vote.
  So that is why when people want to talk about the fact that somehow 
this has become partisan, it is not partisan. The one vote we had, 365 
members of both political parties overwhelmingly supported the 
legislation and, along with that, even though it is not going to pass, 
have allowed for a vote on the issue of amending the Constitution.
  Now, let me say very briefly that I believe that looking at the 
prospect of having anyone serve in the House of Representatives without 
having first been elected is ill-conceived and wrong; and I believe 
that while we may hear about a structure that does exist for the 
Speaker of the House who could be selected by a very few Members to 
conceivably by the succession plan become President of the United 
States, that structure existed when James Madison, the father of the 
Constitution, put this whole device that we have in place under which 
we govern the United States Constitution.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we are doing the right thing by 
allowing the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to have his chance 
to be heard with the constitutional amendments, and I believe that we 
are doing everything we can to continue down the road of working in a 
bipartisan way on institutional reform. So I will simply say that I 
thank my friend again for his hard work. I want to thank the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for the leadership that he has shown on 
this.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules that what today is supposed to be bipartisan is more 
than just giving the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) his day on 
the floor.
  Last night, in the Committee on Rules, the chairman said this is a 
very serious issue. He mentioned on the floor today that it is a very 
controversial issue. It would seem to me that if it is a serious issue 
and a controversial issue and if we are going to have a process here 
that both sides can respect, then at a minimum the committee of 
jurisdiction, which is the Committee on the Judiciary, should have held 
a hearing on it. We reported this measure out on a very partisan vote 
in the Committee on the Judiciary without a hearing on the proposal 
that we are debating here today.
  The chairman of the Committee on Rules says that we are working in a 
bipartisan way. How can this be a bipartisan process when the committee 
of jurisdiction, the Committee on the Judiciary, has not held a 
hearing?
  I would say that I read the chairman's op-ed piece today in the 
Washington Post, and I agree with much of what he is saying, but I have 
a lot of questions. There were members of the Committee on Rules last 
night who had a lot of questions. There are Members who are not on the 
floor right now who have a lot of questions. I think that it is 
important that we have a process that has some integrity to it, a 
process where people can have their questions raised and answered; and 
this is not the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply argue that requests were made

[[Page 11240]]

of me as the chairman of the Committee on Rules to allow us to have a 
chance to debate and vote on the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. 
Baird) constitutional amendment. That was the request that was made of 
me. We know that there is strong opposition, and I am proud to be one 
of the leaders of the opposition of the constitutional amendment, but I 
recognize that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has put a lot 
of time and effort in this. We have gone through a multi-year period, a 
multi-year period allowing for a lot of deliberation on this; and the 
Committee on the Judiciary reported this measure out unfavorably. Why? 
Because I believe correctly they understand that amending the 
Constitution is not the proper thing for us to do.
  So I am just trying to underscore the fact that I am standing here 
because of bipartisanship on this issue. Frankly, I do not think that 
we really need to consider this amendment to the Constitution. It is 
not going to carry. Two-thirds of this House is not going to be voting 
in favor of the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment. He 
acknowledges that fact. He acknowledged it in the Committee on Rules 
last night in debate. But it is our good will and desire to work in a 
bipartisan way that led us to this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, was he present, 
if I may ask, at the Committee on the Judiciary markup of this 
legislation?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. My job is to chair the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. BAIRD. I do not want a filibuster. Just a simply yes or no, 
because I was there.
  Mr. DREIER. No.
  Mr. BAIRD. Okay. The reason I ask that is because, if we say that it 
was a bipartisan process, I was there. I am the author of this 
legislation. There were no hearings granted prior to the vote, and at 
that hearing a reasonable request was made.
  The author of the legislation is here. Let us give him a couple of 
minutes to speak to the legislation. It was a unanimous consent 
request. That was denied.
  The spirit of true bipartisanship would have said, if the author of a 
legislation has never had a chance to speak before our committee, then 
let us at least hear him out.

                              {time}  1145

  Instead, what happened was the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary presented the bill I believe in a false and misleading light, 
and I was not given a single moment to address it.
  I respect the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and I am glad he is 
here, and I am glad we have this opportunity, and I appreciate that, 
but it would be a rewrite of history to suggest for one second that the 
Committee on the Judiciary process that led up to this was bipartisan.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman has made a couple of 
statements that I need to respond to, I would say in response to the 
gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) statement, no, I was not there.
  I do know that, in the Committee on the Judiciary, if the gentleman 
would further yield.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have a whole bunch of speakers here on 
our side. Could maybe your side yield the distinguished chairman some 
time?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if you would just yield me a minute.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me respond by saying that in the 
Committee on the Judiciary I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, offered an amendment. He withdrew that amendment. So 
there were no amendments offered.
  An opportunity for bipartisanship obviously existed in the committee 
in that Members could, in fact, offer proposals.
  The agreement that we had, the request that was made of me, was that 
we allow for an up-or-down vote on the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. 
Baird) constitutional amendment on the floor. That is what we are 
doing. We are going to, in fact, be having an up-or-down vote.
  I cannot understand why it is that people want to talk about the fact 
that in the Committee on the Judiciary they did not believe that there 
was a proper hearing. In the last Congress, there was hearing on the 
issue of a constitutional amendment. We know that the members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary oppose amending the Constitution to allow 
for appointed people to serve in the People's House, where everyone has 
always been elected; and the members of the minority in the Committee 
on the Judiciary did have, in fact, an opportunity to offer amendments 
themselves to this proposal.
  That is what a markup is about. The agreement was that there would be 
a markup in the Committee on the Judiciary. That was the request that 
was made of me. We complied with it.
  So I believe that we are doing the best thing we can; and, I 
apologize to my friend from Washington if he thinks what I just said 
was a filibuster.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, I should just point out 
to the chairman of the Committee on Rules that the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) tried twice during the markup to postpone 
consideration of the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment 
for a couple of weeks to allow for there to be an opportunity for 
Members to offer amendments and there to be a hearing, and the motion 
was tabled.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I wish the chairman of the Committee on Rules would remain on the 
floor. Because I believe that, more than a bipartisan effort on the 
gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) legislation, we really have 
appeasement; and I do not think the Constitution warrants appeasement 
in life-and-death matters.
  As I hold a portion of the Constitution in my hands, let me remind my 
colleague that the opening refrain of the Constitution clearly states: 
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect 
union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the 
common defense, and promote the general welfare and secure the 
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and 
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
  My good friend from California has indicated an appeasement story, 
but we are not looking for appeasement. This is a question of whether 
or not we have a full body of procedure on a constitutional amendment; 
and the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I sit as a member, did not 
have any hearings on the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) 
constitutional amendment. In fact, as he indicated, when it was 
requested for him to at least give an airing, a presentation, a view of 
this life-or-death question, he was denied.
  First of all, for those comments about aversions to constitutional 
amendments, let me cite for my colleagues, in our own Committee on the 
Judiciary we have had a hearing on the crime amendment to the 
Constitution, rights of crime victims. Every single time since 1994 we 
have had a hearing. We have also had a hearing on the flag burning. In 
fact, we voted on the flag burning constitutional amendment. And the 
gentleman is right. Since we voted on it every year it has not passed. 
108th, 106th, 105th, 104th Congress we have had hearings on 
constitutional amendments.

[[Page 11241]]

  We have already had about five hearings scheduled on the 
constitutional amendment regarding same sex marriages, and my 
understanding is my good friends on the other side are gung-ho to vote 
for that constitutional amendment. I do not know if that is life or 
death. It is not life or death to most of us.
  But this is a life-or-death question, whether or not this 
institution, founded and established by this Constitution, that talks 
about creating a more perfect union, and we cannot have a hearing nor 
do we have the opportunity to.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me just say that I totally agree with the need to make sure that 
we deal with this life-or-death issue. The request was made of me that 
we, in fact, not have a hearing, that was not the request that was made 
of me. The request that was made of me is that we have an opportunity 
for the full House to vote on the issue of a constitutional amendment 
which would allow for appointed Members to serve here in the House of 
Representatives, as opposed to having the people elect them, and that 
is the agreement we had.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the 
Chairman for coming to the floor and explaining that.
  The only thing I would say to him is he spoke eloquently about 
bipartisanship. That request was made by the Republican chairman of the 
committee. I do not believe that was made by the ranking member of the 
committee, and so we do not have bipartisanship. That is why I stand on 
the floor of the House now, not ignoring, if you will, the idea that 
this distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) was going to 
have an up-and-down vote, because I do not think that is what he is 
asking for. He has studied this issue for a number of years because he 
realizes how serious it is.
  I offered an amendment to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) to allow judicial review, to allow an extension of the 
time for an appeal on the decisions made by the governor. Why did I ask 
for that? I asked for that, Mr. Speaker, because I believe there should 
be more involvement of the people in this process.
  The legislation that is moving forward by the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, with all due respect to his good 
intentions, limits this to the leadership of various States. It does 
not in any way take into account the people; and, as I noted, in the 
Constitution, it started out by saying, We, the people.
  Now, we stand here sort of in a dream-like atmosphere. Because 9/11 
was more than 2\1/2\ years ago, and those of us that can recount the 
stories of where we were, as we did on the date of the assassination of 
John F. Kennedy, can say that we were in the hearing room or we were in 
the Capitol. I happened to be in the Capitol. And if we wanted to 
recount our fears and apprehension on that day, we would know the state 
of confusion that we were in.
  We also know that those airplanes, God forbid, were destined not only 
for this Capitol but some rumor for the White House. Tragically, it 
went to the Pentagon and, of course, to the World Towers, but maybe 
distance makes the mind lose the gravity of the moment.
  The point is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) is talking 
about life or death, and for the Committee on Rules to come to this 
floor and suggest there is bipartisanship based on the request of the 
Republican chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is unfair.
  I would only ask my colleagues, even though it is a distant memory, 
in light of the state of the world today and the war on terrorism, it 
is a reality and particularly in terms of what this administration has 
put us in in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows when a terrorist attack 
will occur?
  The point is we need real legislation in a bipartisan way. The 
gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment should have had a 
full hearing, and anytime we amend the Constitution we should take it 
very seriously, and I regret that we have not. I ask my colleagues to 
demand a hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary before we vote 
on this amendment.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the closed rule that was 
reported out of the Committee on Rules yesterday regarding this 
legislation sponsored by my colleague Mr. Baird. 
   A careful review of the Judiciary Committee's history with respect 
to its past treatment of constitutional amendments evidences a strong 
practice of holding hearings prior to any scheduled full Committee 
markup of that particular amendment.
   Consider, for example, the constitutional amendment to protect the 
rights of crime victims. That amendment was introduced in each 
consecutive Congress since 1994 (the year the current Majority took 
control of the House), and on each occasion, it was the wisdom of the 
Committee to schedule a hearing.
   Also, consider the Committee's treatment of the constitutional 
amendment to prohibit flag burning. A proposal on this issue was 
introduced in the 108th, 106th, 105th and 104th Congress and each time 
the Committee undertook hearings prior to scheduling a markup.
   Moreover, consider the Committee's treatment of the constitutional 
amendment to limit the Federal government's ability to raise taxes. A 
proposal on this topic was introduced in the 105th and 104th Congress, 
and hearings were held on both occasions.
   With this apparent and undeniably longstanding tradition, we are now 
told that a hearing is unnecessary under the present set of 
circumstances because a hearing was already held on the Baird amendment 
introduced in the 107th Congress. This line of reasoning lacks merit 
for two important reasons.
   First, as previously mentioned, it has been the well-established 
practice of the Judiciary Committee to schedule a hearing on such 
proposals prior to proceeding to a markup. This hard and steadfast rule 
has prevailed, even under circumstances where the proposed amendments 
were virtually identical in nature.
   Second, even assuming the general rule was subject to change, the 
two versions of the Baird amendment, H.J. Res. 67 (introduced in the 
107th Congress) and H.J. Res. 83 (introduced in the current Congress), 
are distinct enough to warrant two separate hearings on their own 
merits. H.J. Res. 83, for example, uses a distinct threshold for making 
temporary appointments; places considerable limits on the discretion of 
the chief executive when he or she is authorized to make such 
appointments; and provides a mechanism for an incapacitated Member to 
regain his or her seat after recovery from incapacity.
   Our Committee has already seen fit to schedule a series of five 
hearings, over the course of the next several months, to discuss the 
issue of same-sex marriage. With this in mind, one single hearing to 
discuss and consider ideas on how best to ensure the continuity of our 
government in the event of a catastrophic incident is more than 
reasonable.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I oppose this rule and ask that my colleagues 
think about the gravity of what this Constitutional amendment will 
entail. We need to recommit this bill to the committee of jurisdiction, 
the Judiciary, and revisit the important issues that I have stated 
above.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time 
remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the 
great State of Washington for allowing me this opportunity.
  I rise in strong support of this rule. It is a brief rule, it is 
understandable, and it is a very fair rule because it does get us to 
debate, but I am very much in opposition to the underlying resolution. 
That is the nature of this House. Even though we are against something, 
we bring it forward for debate. I think that is very fair.
  It is prudent to ensure that our legislative process continues to 
function when we are at war or after a catastrophe. That goes without 
saying. It is not only prudent. It is responsibility.
  We are at war. It is a fact. A loosely organized global network of 
radical fanatics, who use terror as their weapon of choice, has 
declared war on us. The

[[Page 11242]]

escalation of terrorist attacks against us, underscored by the terrible 
carnage on our innocent homeland on September 11, leaves no doubt that 
war has been declared on us, and we are at war.
  So it is wise to visit the issue of continuity of Congress. However, 
few problems require a constitutional remedy, and I firmly believe this 
is not one of them.
  The beauty of our government is the ability to evolve and adapt to 
changing times and needs without altering the foundation that supports 
and guides us. That is our Constitution.
  Our country has withstood foreign wars, civil war, depression, even 
attacks on our own soil with only 27 changes to our Constitution over 
the years. As elected public officials, we must understand our 
responsibilities are not only to those we represent but also to the 
Constitution that holds our Nation together.
  I remind my colleagues, the opening line of our oath of office reads, 
``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution 
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' There 
is no Member of this body who has ever spoken from this floor who has 
not sworn that oath.
  Not far from where we stand, an hour or so from this Chamber, lies 
Montpelier, the home of the father of the Constitution, James Madison. 
There, and in this body, his teachings live on and his wisdom resonates 
with the new generations.
  Our Nation has a powerful history based on the principles of free 
government and the right of all people to elect their representatives. 
Congress has the privilege to serve those it represents, not to appoint 
that right to others.
  When describing the special relationship between the House of 
Representatives and the American people, James Madison said, ``Duty, 
gratitude, interest, and ambition itself are the chords by which they 
will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the 
people.''
  In order to preserve this bond, we should not tolerate exceptions and 
caveats to our election process but, rather, continue to encourage 
Americans to gather together and to vote, solidifying our conviction 
for and our responsibility to a free government that serves its people.
  In the war on terror, we are confronting those who threaten our 
liberty simply because we have it and we enjoy it. Although the war 
made against us by terrorists is perilous and unpredictable, we have a 
duty to remain steadfast and strong, vigilant and upholding the ideals 
that have contributed to this great Nation, but not in overreacting. We 
must bring patient, I emphasize patient, devotion and overall intensity 
of purpose to prudent action without moving the foundation stone of our 
freedom, our Constitution.
  I support the rule because it provides for a deliberative debate, 
which is what the opposition has asked, but I strongly oppose rushing 
to change our Constitution. Are the terrorists trying to make us do 
things to ourselves that the terrorists themselves could not directly 
force us to do? Let us not succumb to a hasty reaction. Let us 
celebrate our Constitution as it is and vote ``no'' on the resolution 
that would amend it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say to kind of clarify what the concerns are on this side 
of the aisle. This is an important issue. This is an important topic 
that we are talking about. I think all of us can agree on that. This is 
supposed to be a deliberative body where we deliberate, and that means 
hold hearings where we have people who are experts on some of these 
issues be able to talk and testify and offer their input.
  I am not sure whether it is a good idea to amend the Constitution, 
but I have to tell my colleagues I am appalled by this process that we 
would bring an issue like this to the House floor and to ask Members to 
vote up or down on it without holding hearings in the committee of 
jurisdiction. That is not the way this place is supposed to work.
  The people of this country, the people of this institution deserve a 
lot better.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time.
  In 1787, this month, the Constitutional Convention was at work in 
Philadelphia, some of the brightest minds in the history of this 
country. One of those great minds was Madison, and he has been quoted a 
lot today, but let me quote another thing Mr. Madison said.

                              {time}  1200

  Madison said this about the importance of checks and balances: ``The 
accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and judiciary in the 
same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, 
self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition 
of tyranny.''
  Madison truly believed we have to elect our representatives to the 
House, but he also believed with equal dedication that there must be 
checks and balances. Mr. Speaker, if you and we here today do not act, 
we impose upon this Nation conditions that will ensure the situation 
that Madison abhorred of concentration of all the power in the 
executive.
  And let us be clear, it will not likely be an elected executive. We 
are not talking about President Bush or Vice President Cheney. If the 
terrorists strike, they will do everything in their power to kill those 
two individuals and everyone in here that they can. Who then will run 
this country? That is the question you have yet to answer. You have not 
answered it. You have said 45 days later we will figure something out. 
But during that 45 days, who runs the United States of America?
  We have indeed taken an oath to defend this Constitution. We have 
also taken an oath that says we will defend the whole Constitution, 
including the prerogatives of the House of Representatives as specified 
in article I.
  As people watch this debate today, the people here and the people 
elsewhere, they must ask themselves, Do I want this country run with no 
representation from my district there to speak for me? Does an 
unelected individual who assumes power in the executive branch get to 
send my child to war without me having a person there to exercise a 
voice and a vote? I do not think so.
  I have had 220 town halls since being elected here, and I will tell 
you the people back home get this. They do not care really about the 
insides and outs of the Committee on Rules, but they do care about fair 
process. And they would say to themselves the idea that we would bring 
a constitutional amendment to the floor, without ever having given the 
author a chance to speak to it, is antithetical to the real principles 
of democracy.
  When the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules said we are 
doing our best, I do not believe so. I believe he dissembles. We are 
not doing our best. Our best would be this: our best would be to invite 
all the authors of various proposals, for real continuity, to have a 
full opportunity for debate, an extensive opportunity for the debate, 
and for the Speaker of the House of the Representatives and the 
minority leader to say to their representatives, come to the floor, pay 
attention to this vital matter, and then we will have time for fair 
debate, time for full amendments.
  That is what we truly asked the chairman of the Committee on Rules to 
do. We did not say just bring this up for an up-or-down vote. I 
introduced a resolution that would have provided a fair and full rule 
to allow for debate of all different proposals, but that was denied. 
That rule would have offered several days' waiting period for extensive 
amendments. That was denied. We can do better than this.
  It has been said that few problems require a constitutional 
amendment. Absolutely true. I believe the majority party has been far 
too eager to amend the Constitution of late. But I will tell you that a 
bipartisan commission, a bipartisan commission of distinguished 
scholars began studying this issue over a year and a half ago, with the 
premise that we must not amend the Constitution to fix this. After a 
full year of

[[Page 11243]]

study, and we are going to have about an hour today, they studied this 
matter for a year, and they listened to experts and scholars from 
across the political spectrum, and what did they conclude? They 
concluded we can only fix this with an amendment.
  And that includes, by the way, distinguished Republican statesmen, 
people like former Senator Al Simpson from Wyoming. Ask Senator Simpson 
why he reached that conclusion. Ask the distinguished Senator from 
Texas, Mr. Cornyn, who has successfully introduced legislation in the 
other body, why he concluded that we need an amendment.
  None of us woke up on September 11 and said, boy, what a great day to 
start thinking about a constitutional amendment. But thousands of our 
fellow citizens woke up that day not knowing it would be their last. We 
do not know today when that will happen; but we do know that if the 
terrorists strike us, they will, in fact, change our system of 
government at their discretion. They will change who the President is. 
They will change the political makeup of this body. And we are 
unprepared to deal with that, and it is irresponsible. And I am sorry 
it has taken 3 years.
  Let me close with statements from the Attorney General of the United 
States just a week ago: ``After the March 11 attack in Madrid, Spain, 
an al Qaeda spokesman announced 90 percent of the arrangements for an 
attack in the United States were complete.'' A paragraph later the 
Attorney General said, ``Several upcoming events over the next few 
months may suggest especially attractive targets. These events include 
the G-8 summit, the Democratic Party convention in Boston this summer 
and the convention of the Republican Party in New York City.''
  If the terrorists attack the convention in New York, kill the 
President and Vice President and many Members of this body, the 
inevitable consequence is that Democrats will take the majority of this 
body, will be forced to elect a Speaker, that person will be a 
Democrat, and that person will become President.
  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules says this was 
precedent in Madison's time. No, sir, it was not. It was not for two 
reasons. The nuclear weapon did not exist in Mr. Madison's time. 
Secondly, the Succession Act of 1947 was about 180 years away from 
being written. Madison could not have conceived this. He could not have 
conceived this, but he left to us an opportunity to address it. We wish 
we did not have to, but it is foolhardy and reckless to not act when we 
know the dangers we face.
  It has been 3 years, Mr. Speaker, 3 years almost since we saw 3,000 
of our fellow citizens killed. If we believe we are immune to that, 
then we are desperately, desperately deceiving ourselves. And if we do 
not take provisions to provide for that, then we are letting our public 
down and letting that sacred Constitution down.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert an 
article that was written by Professor Colleen Shogan, who is a 
professor of Government and Politics at George Mason University. This 
article appeared in yesterday's Roll Call.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                     [From Roll Call, June 1, 2004]

             On Continuity, Both Parties Need To Cooperate

                          (By Colleen Shogan)

       The debate over how Congress should reconstitute itself in 
     the wake of a devastating terrorist attack has evolved into a 
     partisan melee with experts, staffers and elected officials 
     talking past one another. The same arguments are repeated 
     over and over again, with interested parties now seeming to 
     treat the issue as a law school exercise that rewards the 
     most arcane legal reasoning.
       It's true that when tinkering with the Constitution, and 
     interpreting the meaning of the Founders, we must pay 
     attention to the details. But along the way, we should not 
     lose sight of the larger issues that surround the 
     preservation of Congress and its continuity. The current 
     debate has given scant attention to several important 
     points--points that may have the power to move deliberations 
     beyond the impasse over whether a constitutional amendment is 
     needed or whether appointments should take precedence over 
     special elections.
       Virtually everyone agrees that the first priority in the 
     wake of a disaster is to make sure the federal government 
     continues to function. The oft-cited reason for quickly 
     reconstituting the House is to preserve its representative 
     capacity. While this rationale is essential, an equally 
     important reason is to preserve legislative power vis-a-vis 
     an emboldened executive.
       At a recent Rules Committee hearing on continuity, one 
     Member wondered if a House of Representatives with only a few 
     able Members should cease to function and cede power to the 
     president until it was able to regain membership. Although it 
     is appropriate to ask this question, the answer is a 
     resounding ``no.''
       If Congress cannot function properly, unilateral executive 
     actions will serve as the operating mechanism of the federal 
     government. For several months in 1861, Abraham Lincoln 
     prosecuted the Civil War unilaterally, until Congress 
     reconvened in early July. The suspension of habeas corpus, 
     the naval blockade, and the enlargement of the Army and Navy 
     undertaken by Lincoln are conventionally revered in American 
     history as acts of necessity and preservation. But in the 
     Second Treatise of Government (Chapter 8, Section 111), John 
     Locke warned against the expansion of the executive 
     ``prerogative'' power.
       Locke conceded that ``virtuous princes'' who expand 
     executive power in a time of crisis perform a noble service, 
     but added that those princes who come to power in the 
     aftermath will always be tempted to abuse the precedents set 
     before them. We may recall that Richard Nixon invoked 
     Lincoln's expansive use of executive power when he refused to 
     turn over the Watergate tapes. Locke's so-called ``virtuous 
     princes'' are not the problem; rather, it is those who follow 
     in their wake.
       In short, it would be a travesty if the legislative branch 
     ceased to operate with legitimacy at a time of crisis in the 
     United States. Emergency executive actions that Congress or 
     the Supreme Court subsequently recognize as legally 
     permissible ultimately enlarge the discretionary power of the 
     executive branch. Congress's effectiveness as a bulwark 
     against the executive should encourage lawmakers to design 
     logistical procedures that insure the immediate 
     reconstitution of the House and Senate if mass vacancies or 
     incapacitations occur.
       The Constitution requires that all members be selected by 
     election, following the Founders' desires to keep the House 
     close to the people. Yet while the electoral integrity of the 
     House is significant, so too is the fact that the Founders 
     designed the House to provide proportionate and equal 
     representation to all citizens.
       Read in its entirety, the Federalist Papers aggressively 
     promote the republican nature of American government, while 
     defending its democratic allowances cautiously. Strictly 
     speaking, the United States is a ``democratic republic.'' If 
     only a few Members were left to represent the whole nation 
     for a period of time before special elections could be held, 
     would that arrangement accurately reflect the Founders' 
     republican vision? Democracy and republicanism are essential 
     to American governance, and the solution to continuity should 
     span both ideals.
       The relevance of both democratic and republican norms 
     suggests that a two-part approach might provide the most 
     comprehensive resolution to the problem of congressional 
     continuity. The Continuity in Representation Act of 2004, 
     sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), ensures the 
     democratic character of the House by mandating that special 
     elections be held within 45 days of a catastrophe. While that 
     time period may prove too short to conduct several hundred 
     special elections after a massive attack, the underlying 
     electoral motivation behind the bill is sound.
       By itself, however, the measure is not a comprehensive 
     answer. To preserve the representative function of the House, 
     an amendment allowing the temporary appointment of members 
     must be enacted. In the context of partisan rancor, these two 
     approaches to continuity have been presented as mutually 
     exclusive measures. But instead, a constitutional amendment 
     should be considered compatible with Sensenbrenner's bill, 
     together producing a federal law that mandates timely special 
     elections as well as a constitutional amendment that provides 
     for temporary House appointments. Only this can preserve the 
     Founders' democratic and republican ideals.
       It is time to move beyond the repetitive rhetoric and the 
     impenetrable inflexibility of rival solutions. Each side has 
     solved part of the problem; only a blend of approaches can 
     settle the looming question of continuity. Adherence to the 
     Founders' ideals depends on a bipartisan approach. Even more 
     important, the balanced preservation of our nation's 
     governing system in a time of crisis necessitates it.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, if I can just read the first line of that column where 
Professor Shogan says, ``The debate over

[[Page 11244]]

how Congress should reconstitute itself in the wake of a devastating 
terrorist attack has evolved into a partisan melee with experts, 
staffers, and elected officials talking past one another.''
  I think, Mr. Speaker, what people on our side are concerned about is 
that the professor is absolutely right, that this issue has kind of 
become more partisan than it should be. In fact, it should not be 
partisan at all and this really is a time to kind of take a couple of 
steps backwards and to do the necessary deliberation and consideration 
that something this important requires. That is what we are asking for 
here.
  I think it is hard for the other side to justify that this has been a 
fair and bipartisan process and that they are taking this issue 
seriously when the main committee of jurisdiction has not even held a 
hearing on this particular bill in the 108th Congress. So what we are 
asking for is that this serious issue be taken seriously, that the 
necessary deliberation and the necessary consideration be followed as 
we move forward with this legislation.
  So with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, how much time is available?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Washington 
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, in that brief time let me address what this 
amendment really does.
  It is very straightforward. It says this: in the event of a 
catastrophic loss of Members, if we lose over 218, in other words more 
than would be required to sustain a quorum, then special provisions 
will apply. But only under catastrophic losses. And those special 
provisions are very straightforward.
  The membership of this body, having been elected by our constituents 
to perform all the vital functions under article I, would be asked upon 
their election to create a list of potential successors who, upon our 
death or incapacity in a catastrophic event, could temporarily fill our 
place until special elections could be held. Temporarily until special 
elections could be held.
  It is disingenuous, if not deliberately deceptive, to suggest this 
subverts or bans or undermines elections. We all believe direct 
elections should be held. The real question is this: Should we have a 
Congress or not? Should we have a House of Representatives? I think the 
Framers said we should. That is why it is article I. But, my friends, 
if we lose more Members than necessary to sustain a quorum, we will 
have a constitutional crisis. It is that simple. The majority party has 
yet to address that.
  I found a remarkable statement in the chairman's remarks during the 
markup of this bill. The chairman said, and I really want to pay 
attention to this: ``Congress has granted the President significant 
powers to act during an emergency. He could maintain the necessary 
functions of government, along with the Congress, utilizing a reduced 
quorum until elections are held.'' Where did Congress do that? The 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States has 
asserted that the Congress has granted the President of the United 
States special provisions and he has apparently ex cathedra dictated 
that we can function with a reduced quorum.
  The Constitution of the United States has not dictated that we can 
function with a reduced quorum. The chairman cited no reference to say 
where this great body said, ``Mr. President, here are your authorities 
under a crisis.'' It did not happen. And it was not challenged in the 
Judiciary. How remarkable and how dangerous that is, that a chairman 
would dictate that we have given the President powers that we are not 
authorized under the Constitution to give and that we never took action 
to give.
  The fact is it would not be the President, it would be an unelected 
Cabinet member that most Americans do not know forced to exercise extra 
constitutional powers. And, my friends, you would have no voice in this 
body or in this government to counteract whatever that individual 
wanted to do. That is why this matters.
  It is so much easier to not look at this issue. It is so much easier 
to go on about our business as if every day we will be here just like 
we always have. We may not. And if we are not, and if tragedy strikes, 
the American people have a right to know what happens next. And this 
body, for 3 years, has failed to answer that question. Answers are 
available.
  This bill may not be perfect, but the status quo is vastly, 
dangerously imperfect. What we have asked is to bring not only this 
bill but others, the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), Senator Cornyn's bill, that of the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), or the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson), and ask this body, implore this body to grapple with the 
complexities of this. Because only when you struggle with it, and only 
when you see not only the alternatives but the problems of the status 
quo do you get it.
  It is so much easier not to do that. It is easier not to make a will, 
it is easier not to provide care for our kids if we are gone; but it is 
irresponsible to do those things. This body must act. And at least 
today one thing will happen. We will be on record today as having voted 
to do something or having voted to do nothing. If you vote to do 
nothing, and God forbid something horrible happens and someone takes 
advantage of that and leads this Nation in a desperately dangerous 
path, then you are at least on record as having voted to do nothing. 
You have seen the risk, and you have chosen the course of inaction. 
That is irresponsible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we can sure tell how important this debate is, and I do 
appreciate my colleague from Washington State for his passion on this. 
I do disagree with his approach, but he is going to have an opportunity 
to debate that when this rule passes, and we will have a debate on a 
constitutional amendment of appointing Members of this body.
  But I want to just go back and I guess reflect on how we have tried 
to deal with this in the course of the history of our country.

                              {time}  1215

  After the Revolutionary War, when we formed a new government, it was 
the Articles of Confederation. Our Founders found out that did not work 
all that well for a variety of reasons, I suspect because there was a 
division of powers and there was no central government, and so the 
Founders had to figure out a way how do we respect the people's 
government, which I think is very, very important, and still have some 
central authority.
  Part of that compromise was to make a bicameral legislature in which 
the lower house, the House of Representatives, the People's House, 
would always be elected by the people. Perhaps this debate is evolving 
into that very essential principle.
  I think that the government, this government of the people, by the 
people and for the people, as Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address, 
can function very well. I also believe there is no single answer to 
this question as we move forward.
  I mentioned in my opening remarks that we passed the Continuity of 
Congress Act providing for expedited elections by the States. This may 
be an approach. But even if we were to pass a constitutional amendment, 
and I do not think it is going to get the two-thirds, it would take up 
to perhaps 7 years to get that ratified by three-fourths of the States. 
We have to have something in place. I hope the other body acts on the 
continuity issue so we can have something in place to take care of 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, and this will be the first 
time we will have an opportunity, the first time certainly to my 
knowledge that we will have an issue before the People's House, the 
U.S. House of Representatives, that will allow for something

[[Page 11245]]

other than a direct election, under whatever circumstance, of Members 
of this House. This is a very, very important issue. I think it 
deserves to have a debate. This rule provides 90 minutes for that 
debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Chair would inform Members 
that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) yielded back his time to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) controls 30 seconds.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird), and urge a no vote on the rule.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a no vote on the rule. How 
indicative that we said we will have 90 minutes to debate this, 90 
minutes to debate the future of this country in the event of a 
terrorist attack. We are taking this tremendously seriously. I cannot 
believe it. I cannot believe we are giving 90 whole minutes to whether 
or not we will have a constitutional government with the House of 
Representatives and the very bicameral system that the gentleman from 
Washington described. Vote no on this. Give this body time to have real 
debate, real discussion on multiple amendments.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we will have a vigorous debate on this. As I mentioned, 
I am opposed to the underlying constitutional amendment. I think it is 
bad policy, but I think it should be debated in the People's House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 657 will be followed by 5-
minute votes, if ordered, on adopting H. Res. 657; ordering the 
previous question on the amendment to H. Res. 656 and on the resolution 
itself; adopting the amendment to H. Res. 656; and adopting H. Res. 
656, as amended.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 195, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 213]

                               YEAS--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bachus
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Carson (OK)
     Costello
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Jones (OH)
     Latham
     McCrery
     Pearce
     Simmons
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1242

  Mr. MARKEY, Mr. KIND and Ms. WOOLSEY changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Ms. GRANGER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 213 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 213, I was unavoidably 
detained and missed voting on H.J. Res. 83. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 11246]]




                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211, 
noes 200, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 214]

                               AYES--211

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Rohrabacher
       

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bachus
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Carson (OK)
     Costello
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Emerson
     Hayes
     Hunter
     Jones (OH)
     McCrery
     Northup
     Peterson (PA)
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1250

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 214, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________