[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11287-11305]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF INDIVIDUALS TO FILL 
                 VACANCIES IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 657, I 
call up 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, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 83 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 83

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Prior to taking the oath of office, an 
     individual who is elected to serve as a Member of the House 
     of Representatives for a Congress shall present to the chief 
     executive of the State from which the individual is elected a 
     list of nominees to take the individual's place in the event 
     the individual dies or becomes incapacitated prior to the 
     expiration of the individual's term of office. The individual 
     shall ensure that the list contains the names of not fewer 
     than two nominees, each of whom shall meet the qualifications 
     for service as a Member of the House of Representatives from 
     the State involved. After the individual takes the oath of 
     office, the individual may present revised versions of the 
     list at any time during the Congress.
       ``Section 2. If at any time a majority of the whole 
     membership of the House of Representatives are unable to 
     carry out their duties because of death or incapacity, or if 
     at any time the House adopts a resolution declaring that 
     extraordinary circumstances exist which threaten the ability 
     of the House to represent the interests of the people of the 
     United States, the chief executive of any State represented 
     by any Member who is dead or incapacitated at that time shall 
     appoint, from the most recent list of nominees presented by 
     the Member under section 1, an individual to take the place 
     of the Member. The chief executive shall make such an 
     appointment as soon as practicable (but in no event later 
     than seven days) after the date on which Member's death or 
     incapacity has been certified. An individual appointed to 
     take the place of a Member of the House of Representatives 
     under this section shall serve until the Member regains 
     capacity or until another Member is elected to fill the 
     vacancy resulting from the death or incapacity. The State 
     shall provide for an election to fill the vacancy at such 
     time and in

[[Page 11288]]

     accordance with such procedures as may be provided under 
     State law, and an individual appointed under this section may 
     be a candidate in such an election. This section shall not 
     apply with respect to any Member of the House who dies or 
     becomes incapacitated prior to the seven-day period which 
     ends on the date on which the event requiring appointments to 
     be made under this section occurs.
       ``Section 3. During the period of an individual's 
     appointment under section 2, the individual shall be treated 
     as a Member of the House of Representatives for purposes of 
     all laws, rules, and regulations, but not for purposes of 
     section 1. If an individual appointed under section 2 is 
     unable to carry out the duties of a Member during such period 
     because of death or incapacity, the chief executive of the 
     State involved shall appoint another individual from the same 
     list of nominees presented under section 1 from which the 
     individual was appointed under section 2. Any individual so 
     appointed shall be considered to have been appointed under 
     section 2.
       ``Section 4. Congress may by law establish the criteria for 
     determining whether a Member of the House of Representatives 
     or Senate is dead or incapacitated, and shall have the power 
     to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 657, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 
83, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we debate whether we should amend the Constitution 
of the United States to allow House Members to be appointed in the wake 
of mass vacancies caused by a terrorist attack.
  After September 11, 2001, no one would deny the real potential of 
such a catastrophe striking this body, but fundamentally today's debate 
is about whether to preserve lawmaking by a House of Representatives 
elected by the people or to deny the right of elected representation 
during the most crucial moments of American history and allow lawmaking 
by an appointed aristocracy.

                              {time}  1545

  I would urge the membership to soundly defeat this constitutional 
amendment to preserve the People's House as an elected House and not as 
an appointed House.
  Let us be clear, any constitutional amendment denying the right to 
elected representation would accomplish what no terrorist could, namely 
striking a fatal blow to what has always been the People's House. The 
House, unlike the Presidency and the Senate, are unique among all 
branches and bodies of the entire Federal Government. It is the only 
branch institutionally designed to always reflect the popular will 
through the legislation it passes.
  When terrorists attacked on September 11, 2001, it was an elected not 
an appointed Congress that acted in its wake; and the legislation 
passed by that elected Congress has a legitimacy that legislation 
passed by an appointed Congress would not have had. All of Congress' 
powers under Article I of the Constitution are only legitimately 
exercised by an elected House.
  H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, which passed the 
House on April 22 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 306 to 97, with 
more Democrats voting for it than against it, will ensure that the 
House is repopulated by legitimate democratic means within a maximum of 
45 days after an attack causes mass vacancies. Within those 45 days, 
any constitutional amendment that allowed lawmaking by appointed 
members would pose far more risks than benefits; and legislation passed 
by an appointed House that did not comport with the people's will would 
have to be repealed by a later elected House, leading to further 
discontinuity at the very time when continuity is most important.
  The Founders explicitly rejected the proposition that the appointment 
of Members is compatible with the American Republic. James Madison 
wrote that ``it is particularly essential that the House should have an 
immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people'' 
and that ``elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this 
dependence and sympathy can be effectively secured.'' As Madison stated 
in his speech to the Constitutional Convention, ``a gradual abridgement 
of the right to elected representation has been the mode in which 
aristocracies have been built on the ruins of popular forms.''
  This amendment is an abridgement of the right to elected 
representation. Contrary to the claim made by proponents of 
constitutional amendments, the President would not be unconstrained in 
its conduct immediately following a catastrophic terrorist attack. Of 
course, the President would be well within his constitutional authority 
to execute the laws in times of crisis.
  However, the Founders also made it clear that the President would 
always be subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives, 
either a House operating on reduced membership or a later fully 
reconstituted House if the President abused executive authority at any 
time. And of course no law can be enacted solely by a House operating 
with a few Members alone. Further, the issue of incapacitated House 
members can be handled by changes to House rules. The Committee on 
Rules is already exploring those options.
  Demonstrating this is not a partisan issue but one concerning the 
legitimacy of all Members of the House and of the legislation it 
passes, the House of Representatives, controlled both by Democrats and 
Republicans, throughout history has rejected all constitutional 
amendments authorizing appointed House Members sent to it by the 
Senate, even during the height of the Cold War. It is important to 
remember that the American people have always been able to elect their 
leaders, even during our Nation's darkest hour, the Civil War, when 
General Lee's Army was just a few miles away from this building.
  Today we consider House Joint Resolution 83 sponsored by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). This proposed constitutional 
amendment contains all the flaws of amendments allowing the appointment 
of nonelected members, but it also has some unique additional problems.
  The Baird amendment would not only override H.R. 2844, which already 
has passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, but it would 
forever strip the Congress of its discretionary authority to expedite 
special elections in emergency under its existing constitutional 
powers.
  Let me repeat this. The amendment before us takes away the right of 
Congress under Article I, section 4, that expedites special elections 
in emergencies.
  The amendment also requires House Members, prior to taking the oath 
of office, to submit a list of names to the governor that the governor 
can draw from in appointing that Member's replacement. This would 
subject candidates for Congress forever after to endless questions 
during their campaigns regarding whom they placed on the list and their 
connection to the candidate, and perhaps questions that can become 
embarrassing, creating needless distractions in what is supposed to be 
a clear contest between individual candidates.
  And if a candidate did not tell the press who was on his or her list, 
the voters would not have a say on who the candidate's potential 
replacement should be. Such a list would also invite great mischief, 
including the placing of names on the list of those owed political 
favors.
  Finally, H.J. Res. 83 provides that ``Congress may by law establish 
the criteria for determining whether a Member of the House of 
Representatives or Senate is dead or incapacitated.'' This provision 
would deny the

[[Page 11289]]

House its existing authority under the Constitution that allows each 
House to adopt its own rules, an authority the Committee on Rules is 
already exercising, to address incapacitation by the rules, and 
needlessly involve the Senate in how the House operates. By doing so, 
it would unfortunately make addressing continuity of government more 
difficult than it already is.
  Mr. Speaker, I doubt that any Member has faced a vote before that so 
clearly defines the principles stood for. Either you will vote to tear 
the fabric of our Constitution and deny the right of self-government 
under the laws passed by the people's chosen representatives, or you 
will vote to preserve the sacred right to elected representation.
  That sacred right has endured since America's birth, through two 
World Wars, a Civil War, and now a shadow war waged by vicious haters 
of democracy. The terrorists would like nothing more than to see us 
rewrite our Constitution, the supreme law that comes closest to being 
our Nation's soul, to reflect their twisted vision of autocratic rule.
  Around the world, both our friends and our enemies are watching. Vote 
this amendment down and show them what this House stands for and what 
it stands against.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Does the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) seek to control the time of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers)?
  Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, 6 weeks ago the House of Representatives passed H.R. 
2844, the Continuity of Representation Act of 2003, which was written 
and offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). This 
bill provides for the expedited special election of new Members of 
Congress to fill seats left vacant in extraordinary circumstances.
  Under this bill, when such extraordinary circumstances occur, a 
special election must be called within 45 days. This bill was an 
important first step in addressing how the House continues to function 
in the event of a catastrophe, and that is why I voted in support of 
the bill.
  I would note that outside scholars have questioned whether or not the 
Federal Government has the jurisdiction to impose this scheme on the 
States. I do not argue that today, but I think to some extent there is 
an open question as to that. There is also a more fundamental issue 
which may be partially addressed today, and that is what happens in the 
45 days between a disaster that could eliminate the House of 
Representatives and the holding of these special elections.
  In the 45 days following September 11, the House of Representatives 
cast 69 votes. Some of them were very important measures that helped us 
respond to the terrorism event. If there is no House of 
Representatives, there can be no Congress, and if there is no Congress 
to play its role in the constitutional scheme, the only thing that 
could happen in such a circumstance would be for the President to 
assume dictatorial powers and to end our system of constitutional 
government, an outcome that no one in this House or in this country 
wishes.
  Under H.R. 2844, the House of Representatives would have no way to 
function for a month and a half; and without the House, there is no 
Congress. Several Members have introduced constitutional amendments 
that would address this problem. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird) has offered an amendment which we are just about to vote on 
today. I have also introduced a constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 96, 
which takes a different approach from the Baird proposal; and our 
colleagues, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), have done similar things.
  This whole issue is very complex, and it may be that none of the 
amendments are quite ready for our approval, but they certainly do 
command our attention. All deserve to be debated by Members of 
Congress, yet I believe that the House would be best served if the 
committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on the Judiciary, were to have 
hearings to sort through the complexities of this issue and then be 
able to present our findings to the full House for consideration.
  However, during the 108th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary 
has not had a hearing on this issue to compare the various proposals 
and to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each. In fact, I 
have requested a hearing. I did so during the markup of the Baird 
amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary, but none have been held.
  Today, some may point out that there was a hearing on the 
constitutional amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird) in the 107th Congress. That is true, but the amendment on 
today's agenda is significantly different from the Baird amendment 
considered 2 years ago. This is a new amendment that was first 
introduced last December.
  A distinguished commission that included former Speakers Foley and 
Gingrich, as well as Lloyd Cutler and former Senator Alan Simpson, 
studied this matter at some length and reached the conclusion that we 
need a constitutional amendment. I am not suggesting that we should 
simply accept their recommendations, but at the very least we should 
consider and evaluate their findings before we cast a vote that will 
define the stability or instability of the country in the event of a 
national crisis. Unfortunately, the Committee on the Judiciary has not 
had a single hearing on any of these amendments, so we will not have 
the benefit today of hearing from the scholars, former speakers and 
other distinguished leaders on this complex issue.
  And now the leaders of the whole House are making the same error as 
the Committee on the Judiciary. They have scheduled a vote on an 
amendment that will decide the fate of our Congress during a 
catastrophe without first holding hearings to address the merits of the 
Baird approach and all of the others proposed by various leaders on the 
continuity of Congress.
  Let me repeat. Today we are being asked to vote on an amendment to 
the United States Constitution, but we have not had even one hearing on 
the amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary in this Congress. It is 
not often that the Committee on the Judiciary marks up a constitutional 
amendment to the full House before holding a hearing.
  Consider, for example, the constitutional amendment to protect the 
rights of crime victims. That particular amendment was introduced in 
the 108th, 107th, 106th, 105th and 104th Congress, and on each occasion 
prior to markup there were Judiciary Committee hearings.
  Also, consider the committee's treatment of a 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 on the Judiciary undertook hearings.
  Finally, in the 105th and 104th Congress, a constitutional amendment 
was introduced to limit the Federal Government's ability to raise 
taxes, and hearings were permitted on each occasion.
  The majority has already seen fit to schedule a series of five 
judiciary hearings over the course of several months to discuss the 
issue of same-sex marriage and a potential constitutional amendment. It 
only makes sense that this House should not vote on an amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution before the Committee on the Judiciary holds at least 
one hearing.
  This issue of the continuity of Congress should not be an exception. 
It is vitally important to our democracy and requires more 
deliberation.

                              {time}  1600

  Today, like I did in the Committee on the Judiciary 1 month ago, I 
will

[[Page 11290]]

not vote to support the Baird amendment; but I will vote on a motion to 
recommit so that the Committee on the Judiciary will have a chance to 
appropriately hold hearings and review various approaches to this vital 
issue to our democracy. Some will reach a reasoned, but different, 
conclusion relative to the Baird amendment itself; but I think all will 
agree this body would be better served with extensive hearings on this 
complicated and enormously important subject.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who served two terms as Secretary of State 
and chief elections officer of the State of Michigan.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this resolution, which is proposing to amend our Constitution by 
allowing for the appointment of Members of the United States House of 
Representatives in the event of a national emergency.
  For over 225 years, the House of Representatives has been the 
people's House; and I say that I think that is so important, as we 
think about that, we have been known as the people's House. Members of 
Congress are required by the Constitution to be elected directly by the 
people. This requirement, of course, allows for all citizens to truly 
have a voice in their government and provides probably the most 
important of all of our checks and balances.
  Under this resolution we are debating here today, elected 
representatives would be replaced by non-elected appointees, in a 
complete counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers. In a very 
strange irony, this provision would kick in at precisely the time when 
our citizens need to be heard the most, at a time of crisis.
  As well, provisions of this resolution call for sitting Members of 
Congress to provide the names of two people to replace them in the 
event of their own death or incapacitation. One of these two people 
would then be appointed to the seat by the Governor of the appropriate 
State. This nonelected Member of Congress would then serve out the 
remainder of the relevant 2-year term, with all of the rights and 
privileges of an elected Member.
  Yet appointing legislators who were not voted on by the public would 
negate the entire purpose of this House, which is to represent the 
people directly.
  Just last month, this Chamber passed H.R. 2844, The Continuity in 
Representation Act of 2004, of which I was a very proud cosponsor. H.R. 
2844 was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support because it puts 
forth a very clear, concise plan to deal with the now-real 
possibilities that we once considered unthinkable, quite frankly. It 
calls for expedited elections; and as the chairman had said here, as a 
former Secretary of State of a State of about 10 million people, I feel 
the timelines we outlined in that H.R. 2844 were very, very realistic.
  Every Member of this House is an elected official who earns the right 
to come here to Washington and represent our constituents because we 
were voted in by a majority of the people in our respective districts. 
Rather than tinker with one of the pillars of our democracy via a 
reckless change to our Constitution, we should vote this amendment down 
and continue to press for the full adoption of H.R. 2844.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 13 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird), the author of this legislation.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman be interested in 
joining me in a colloquy?
  I appreciate very much the comments of the gentlewoman, and I was 
intrigued by one thing she said. She said that even temporary 
appointments, I will paraphrase briefly here, would violate the entire 
purpose of the House of Representatives.
  My understanding of Madison's approach was that there were more 
elements to having a house of representation than mere election, as 
important as that is, but also the role of checks and balances, the 
role of proportionate representation, the division of authorities 
between the legislative branch and the executive branch.
  Madison specifically said: ``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.''
  What I would like to ask the gentlewoman is, if we have no House of 
Representatives, less than a quorum, do we have an alternative to the 
concentration of the power in the executive branch under current law?
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would say impeachment could 
be a possibility there. I do believe as you read the Constitution, the 
operative phrase, the operative theme, as we try to determine and 
decipher exactly what the intent of our Founding Fathers was, is that 
every Member of this House needs to be directly elected by the people.
  While I appreciate the gentleman's insistence on a constitutional 
amendment, it is obviously well thought out, the gentleman feels very 
passionately about it, I could not disagree more strongly.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate this need to 
exchange, because this is exactly what we need to do. During the 45-day 
period, as I understand it, the gentlewoman is saying the only check on 
the executive would be the threat of impeachment.
  Does the gentlewoman believe that is consistent with the Framers' 
intent, when they wrote all of article I and purposefully chose article 
I as the description the legislative branch, or does she believe the 
Framers' intent was to say the executive can have carte blanche to run 
the country as they might, but 45, and possibly 75, days later under 
the bill the gentlewoman coauthored, the Nation has to wait 75 days for 
impeachment as a check on the executive?
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I am not an expert in this part of the law, but I do believe 
Federalist Paper No. 47 addresses principally the gentleman's argument 
there. I will tell you though, as I mentioned, I was the Secretary of 
State for 8 years in one of our largest States, and I really looked at 
this bill and talked to a number of my colleagues, as well as many 
members involved in the elections industry, to make sure we had a 
reasonable time frame that we set out for expedited elections.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I may, I am not 
disputing that. The point before us here, we have passed that bill. The 
point before us here is what happens in the 45 days? I think there may 
be grounds to dispute whether you can have an election or not. But the 
point of this legislation is to say how do we get this Congress up and 
running promptly.
  Let me give you a scenario and see if you are comfortable with it. 
John Ashcroft said last week or the week before that high-profile 
targets include this summer the Democratic convention and the 
Republican convention. I will take him at his word.
  If it is true that we are a high-profile target, and if you are at 
the Republican convention or we are at the Democratic convention and 
terrorists attack, let us suppose they attack during the President's 
speech at the Republican convention, and the president is killed, 
heaven forbid this should happen, if the President and Vice President 
are killed and a number of my good friends on your side of the aisle 
perish, of necessity at that point the House will have to reconvene, 
there will be a new majority, hence a need to elect a new Speaker. 
Presumably at that point the Democrats control the House of 
Representatives, presumably we will elect a Democratic Speaker, and, 
under the law of succession of 1947, that person is now in line for the 
Presidency of the United States. That is my understanding of the status 
quo as it exists in law today.
  I would just ask the gentlewoman if she is comfortable with that or 
disputes that is the status?

[[Page 11291]]


  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, my understanding is that the gentleman's amendment here 
today, the resolution we are talking about here today, actually would 
override the bill we have already passed in a bipartisan way. That is 
really my intent, to make sure we focus on that as well. I think that 
is very, very important.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the legislation that I 
put forward, actually it would obviate, not necessarily override. I 
really want to underscore that point. The chairman has repeatedly, 
really since day one of this, I think, misrepresented this. He 
misrepresented it in his opening comments. He said the question before 
us, in essence, is whether you will have an elected Congress or an 
appointed aristocracy.
  The true question is, will you have any Congress or not? Not my bill, 
not the bill of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), not the 
bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), not the bill 
of Senator Cornyn, not any of the bills put forward would in fact ban 
elections, as the chairman repeatedly says. It is deeply frustrating to 
me to have a matter of this importance be misrepresented.
  No one disputes, and I firmly agree with you, that the mechanism to 
replace House Members should be direct election, ideally, and we should 
have them as promptly as possible. But if we are so concerned about an 
aristocracy and appointment not responsive to the people, are you not 
equally concerned that a party mechanism for selecting a candidate 
implies in itself some degree of potential beholding to those who 
appoint it? Is the gentlewoman concerned about that at all?
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, no, I do not share the gentleman's consternation with that 
particular facet of it.
  But as the gentleman has outlined, as I say, we are now dealing with 
a situation which we previously before 9/11 thought was absolutely 
unthinkable. So it is difficult for us all to stand up here and think 
about our own demise, numerically how many would have to be 
incapacitated or whatever before we would move forward with something 
like this.
  I think the gentleman has laid out in a very speculative way a number 
of different scenarios. The gentleman and I, along with many others, 
had an opportunity to debate this at a hearing in front of the 
Committee on House Administration. We went through all of these 
different kinds of things.
  I think we have just different approaches to what needs to happen 
here. But I feel very, very strongly, a vast majority, a bipartisan 
majority of this House feel that all of us should be directly elected 
by the people. I think the bill we passed previously does address that 
in a realistic way.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman 
for her time and appreciate her engaging in this colloquy. I sincerely 
do.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked the gentlewoman to respond is this is 
what we really need to do with this bill. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) would claim that he brought this up at our request. 
In fact, we did not request this fashion of bringing this legislation 
up. What we requested was that all measures to provide for continuity 
be brought up for debate, including my own, the bill of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the bill of the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), the bill of the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Larson), the bill of Senator Cornyn in the Senate, two Republicans 
on that list, by the way, several Democrats, that they all be brought 
up and we have full discussion.
  I would note for the record that I see on the House floor now about 
six colleagues, maybe seven. Two things concern me about that: first, 
if we really take this seriously, I believe we ought to all take it 
seriously. I do not think for a second my bill is perfect. I think 
there is merit to the other legislation. But I do not think we are 
going to get to a solution unless we grapple with this issue, unless we 
take it seriously.
  The second thing that concerns me is let us suppose this random group 
of survivors here, this six or seven on the floor, are the group of 
survivors. Under the Constitution, that is not a quorum. The 
Constitution, in my judgment, is rather clear that a quorum is a 
majority of the Members, but House Rules state it is a majority of 
those chosen, sworn, and living.
  Importantly, would the people of the United States of America believe 
that the seven or eight of us here now, relatively randomly chosen if 
we were survivors, are consistent with the representational nature of 
this body? It is not just the people's House because it is directly 
elected, it is the people's House because it deals with proportionate 
representation. It is the people's House because of prompt reelections.
  Would the eight of us here right now be sufficient to send this 
Nation into war? Would the eight of us be sufficient to impeach a 
President? Would we be sufficient to select one of our own as the 
Speaker of the House, who would then become the President of the United 
States? I noticed in her comments, in response from my friend from 
Michigan, not once did she truly address what happened in that 45 days.
  We talked about the elections, and I appreciate the importance of 
that. Let me, if I may, address some of the myths that have been 
perpetrated by the opponents of this bill.
  First of all, the myth that we have already solved the problem. We 
have not solved the problem. We have provided for special elections in 
45, possibly as long as 75, days. But this notion that it was an 
elected House, not an appointed House that passed legislation, is 
rather absurd, when the choice is there might be no House at all to 
pass legislation.
  Secondly, this notion that continuity is somehow not urgent, that we 
do not have to move forward with this. It has been 3 years. On 
September 10, 3,000 of our fellow citizens had no idea they were living 
their last day, yet they were.
  The notion that temporary appointments somehow subvert the right to 
election. Again, and I underscore it, nothing in any of the legislation 
put forward would take away the people's rights to election.
  When the chairman said, and I thought it was rather remarkable, that 
my legislation explicitly in the Constitution authorizing the Congress 
to deal with the matter of incapacity, that that takes away our right 
to deal with incapacity, I found that rather absurd, to say the least. 
The legislation before us says that Congress can deal with incapacity 
statutorily. How does that ban our right to do so?
  The myth, which is just so remarkable, that the appointees would be 
irresponsible to the general public does a profound disservice to the 
existing Members of the House of Representatives. Indeed, I find it an 
insult.
  To believe that the people that sent us here with the authority to 
send their children to war, as we have chosen to do, to tax them or 
give them back their taxes, to impose any number of legislative 
remedies and sometimes problems on this country, but then the moment it 
comes time to make one of our most profound decisions, who would 
replace us in a catastrophe to carry on this institution, that moment, 
suddenly we lose capacity of our senses.

                              {time}  1615

  It not only insults us, it insults those who we might nominate to 
replace us.
  By coincidence, not 30 minutes ago I met with Don Bonker, a gentleman 
who represented my district a little over a decade ago, a distinguished 
statesman with outstanding international skills. Do we seriously 
believe that if I nominated Mr. Bonker to be my replacement that he 
would act irresponsibly to care for this country? And if you believe 
that impeachment is a worthwhile check on the abuse by the executive, 
why do you not also believe that a subsequent election would be a 
worthwhile check on Mr. Bonker's conduct if he were to act 
irresponsibly? The inconsistencies and illogic are breathtaking 
sometimes.
  I want to do one other thing. My friend, the gentleman from Arizona

[[Page 11292]]

(Mr. Snyder) is here; and I want to compliment him. It is rare in this 
body I find that we acknowledge that there may be a shortcoming in our 
own legislation and that an opponent of that legislation has pointed 
out a shortcoming. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Snyder) came to me 
this morning, raised an issue; and I think he has a good point. I would 
like to be able to fix that.
  I would have liked the process such as we propose in the original 
rule where you debate things and then have time to amend it. I doubt 
that is going to be allowed. But I will say, and I appreciate the 
gentleman very much for raising the shortcoming, I will in future 
drafts, if we have the opportunity, endeavor to fix that.
  But I would also say right now that, even with the shortcoming, I 
believe with all my heart that the bill we have before us today is 
superior by far to the status quo. So while I expect fully that we may 
not pass this bill, I will intend to bring it up with modifications.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to this proposed constitutional 
amendment.
  Every person who has ever served in this House in the over 200-year 
history that we have existed as a country, every person has been 
elected. Not one has been appointed. When one reads our Nation's 
founding document, it soon becomes clear that the right to elected 
representation was the very core of its significance and its lasting 
value. No constitutional amendment that allows appointed 
representatives would be consistent with the very essence of our 
Nation's reason for being and, for that reason, I oppose such 
amendments, including this one.
  James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 57, ``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 obscurity and 
unpropitious fortune.''
  Constitutional amendments that would allow appointed Members would 
deny that sacred heritage.
  At the Constitutional Convention, according to the notes taken by 
James Madison, delegate George Mason argued strongly for ``an election 
of the larger branch,'' that means the House, ``by the people. It was 
to be the grand depository of the democratic principle of this 
government. It was, so to speak, to be our House of Commons. It ought 
to know and sympathize with every part of the community; and ought 
therefore to be taken not only from different parts of the whole 
republic, but also from different districts of the larger members of 
it.''
  It was arguments such as these that won the day when our Constitution 
was drafted. Constitutional amendments that would allow appointed 
Members would violate those principles the Founders believed were most 
important.
  James Wilson at the Constitutional Convention, according to Madison's 
notes, ``contended strenuously for drawing the most numerous branch of 
the legislature immediately from the people. He was for raising the 
Federal pyramid to a considerable altitude, and for that reason wished 
to give it as broad a basis as possible.''
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2844, which I cosponsored and which passed the 
House on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, 306 to 97 right here in 
this House, preserves America's essential right to elected 
representation. This amendment, however, would override H.R. 2844 and 
deny the core of America's founding principles and, for that reason, I 
strongly oppose it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would note that when the Founding Fathers 
spoke at that time, they were contrasting with a Senate that was 
appointed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time, and I appreciate 
the insight that she provided us in the Committee on the Judiciary when 
she asked for a delay so that we might give the kind of attention to 
this issue, Mr. Speaker, that I know my colleagues know it deserves.
  This is a very intellectual, if you will, and high law debate. As the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) said, it has been 3 
years, so sometimes distance and absence does not make the heart grow 
fonder, or it certainly does not educate us about the crisis in which 
we are literally debating.
  It is important for the colleagues who are listening to this debate 
and who are participating in this debate to realize what the Baird 
amendment actually does. He is talking about catastrophe, disaster. He 
is talking about a wiping out of the United States Congress, 218 
Members dead or incapacitated.
  It is nice to stand here and to give out pleasantries and to, if you 
will, assume that it could not happen to us. But, as I said this 
morning, the beginning of the Constitution said we have gathered to 
create a more perfect union, and today we are attempting to debate an 
issue that is to create a more perfect union in the light and the 
backdrop of the life we lead now: terrorism abounding throughout the 
world, Iraq exploding, Afghanistan exploding, and the potential of 
terrorist acts as the Attorney General has announced. Whether or not it 
is announced with any immediate evidence, he has announced it.
  So what we are saying to the American people, frankly, is that we are 
talking about this body being incapacitated.
  Now, I know that we would not want to make light of this, because 
some might say something about the incapacity, but we do realize that 
this is the most powerful law-making body in the world. This amendment 
deserves more than appeasement, and that is what we are getting here.
  Frankly, I believe the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) is 
accurate. He wanted to have a debate, he wanted to have a hearing 
because this is of value to him, not personally, but he believes that 
this is a needed constitutional amendment because we may face a 
catastrophe, and he wants to incorporate the gentleman from Arizona's 
(Mr. Snyder) reflection.
  I am interested in finding out whether there can be amendments 
dealing with how the appointment process goes forward.
  But this is not to undermine the constitutional aspects of election. 
This is to suggest that there is nobody here to have an election, that 
we are all dead. Does anybody understand the monument of the moment 
that we are speaking about?
  So when we begin to take this in a very calm and light manner, this 
is not what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) is talking about. 
He is not suggesting that we should eliminate the constitutional 
provisions or the commitment that we have to a democratic and free 
election. He is suggesting that we are in the middle of a crisis.
  Now let me just cite for my colleagues the history of this Committee 
on the Judiciary since I have been on it. We have had the controversial 
hearings dealing with Waco. We have had the controversial hearings that 
took up a half a year dealing with the impeachment process of the 
President that served just a few years ago, William Jefferson Clinton. 
We have had those hearings. We have had the flag-burning hearings on a 
constitutional amendment every single year. We have had the victims of 
crimes amendment every single year, or a good number of them. We are 
going to have the same-sex hearings over and over again. I do not know 
if those are life-or-death matters, but we have had our set of 
hearings.
  Can my colleagues tell me what reason there is, what reasonable men 
and women could disagree that we would

[[Page 11293]]

not placate the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) by a lousy 
presentation on the floor of the House? And I will say lousy not in 
disrespect of my colleagues but the fact that this is limited and 
ridiculous as it relates to the moment that we are discussing about the 
incapacitation of this body, 218 dead. And might I say to my 
colleagues, that is real. Because on 9/11, those planes were headed for 
the United States Capitol.
  I would simply say that we need hearings, and we should recommit this 
back to the Committee on the Judiciary for full hearings, and we should 
not appease, but we should do our jobs and respond to the crisis that 
may come forward and work on behalf of the American people.
   Mr. Speaker, I commend our distinguished colleague from Washington, 
Mr. Baird, for his effort and leadership in pursuing a legislative 
answer to questions left after the House passed H.R. 2844, the 
Continuity in Congress Act on April 22, 2004.
   Like Mr. Baird, I sought to obtain answers to some of the issues 
that I found in that bill by offering an amendment, which Mr. Schiff 
was kind enough to offer in my absence.
   While Mr. Baird's specific problems with H.R. 2844 are slightly 
different than those that I had, I support his legislation because it 
offers us an opportunity to craft a tighter legislative remedy to the 
need to establish a system of continuous leadership in the House of 
Representatives.
   However, even Mr. Baird's attempt will not be maximized because our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have seen fit to push this 
bill through Committee markup without first allowing the Members to 
analyze it in a legislative hearing.
   Although H.J. Res. 84 doesn't seek to expand the time to file suits 
concerning the special election process, Mr. Baird suggests that the 
question of emergency representation be answered before the vacancy can 
occur--when the elected Member initially takes office.
   To reiterate my proposals to improve H.R. 2844, I suggested first 
that 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 that exceed 
100 be increased. This change would expand the ability of an aggrieved 
party to file suit for either declaratory or injunctive relief.
   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 have a realistic 
opportunity to obtain legal relief through our Judicial Branch.
   Next, my proposal spoke more to the issue of due process for all 
citizens by preserving their right to appeal the announcement of a 
vacancy. 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.
   Lastly, I proposed that the right to sue under the original bill be 
extended to the citizens of every state in addition to the chief 
executive. This proposal is very important to protect the interests of 
all citizens in the various congressional districts in the midst of 
party politics. As H.R. 2844 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 solely to the 
``executive authority,'' in Houston's case, the Governor.
   Such very limited 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, we must 
allow citizens to sue for relief.
  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, I 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise to relish this debate. It is precisely the type of issue that, 
as I was a boy first falling in love with the Constitution of the 
United States, as no doubt the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) 
did as well, I hoped some day to be a part of here.
  I congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Washington State for 
his passion on this issue, and I believe in his well-intentioned 
efforts to address what is, unfortunately, an issue that this Congress 
must continue to confront in the years ahead.
  But with regard to House Joint Resolution 83, however well-
intentioned, Mr. Speaker, I would offer that it is nonetheless bad 
policy.
  When terrorists attacked America on September 11, I was here in the 
Congress, and that very next day, I witnessed that it was an elected 
Congress that responded in the wake of those attacks. Had the 107th 
Congress been comprised of appointed officials, the legislation we 
passed would not by definition have carried the same validity. The 
truth is, it would hardly have been reassuring to the American people 
immediately following a terrorist attack to see the faces of hundreds 
of strangers running their government; and, gladly, it did not occur.
  The Constitution could not be clearer on this point. Article I 
states, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members 
chosen by the people of the several States,'' and that ``when vacancies 
happen in the representation of any State, the executive authority 
shall issue writs of elections to fill such vacancies.''
  Of this point James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 52, ``As it is 
essential to liberty that the government in general

[[Page 11294]]

should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly 
essential that the House should have an immediate dependence on and an 
intimate sympathy with the people.''
  Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which a 
dependence and sympathy for the people can be equally secured. In fact, 
it would be Madison himself who in a speech years later would suggest 
``a gradual abridgement of the right to suffrage or to elected 
representation has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built 
on the ruins of popular forms.''
  That is not what we are about here today, nor would I imply it or 
suggest it to my friends and colleagues. But I am here to say that this 
business of the People's House being the exclusive province of the 
national government where one must be elected by the people to serve is 
a principle worth defending.
  For that reason, despite my admiration for the gentleman from 
Washington, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution inasmuch as 
it does undermine the core principle that this place on this floor 
should ever be the People's House.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we are asked today to consider the most 
serious question likely to come before the Congress: how to maintain 
our government as a democratic representative government in the event 
of a catastrophic terrorist attack. We must think carefully about the 
unthinkable, and we must do it now while we have the opportunity to do 
so.
  Unfortunately, this proposed amendment is being brought up by the 
Republican leadership under a closed rule, with 90 minutes of debate, 
no hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary or in any committee of 
this Congress. An alternative proposed by a Republican colleague from 
California cannot even be debated under this rule. As the ranking 
Democratic member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the 
subcommittee with the responsibility to consider all proposed 
constitutional amendments, I can tell my colleagues that this proposed 
amendment has never been the subject of a hearing in this Congress.
  Let me read what the Republican report on this bill says: ``No 
hearings were held on H.J. Res. 83,'' period. We have found the time 
for five hearings on same-sex marriage, and we have found the time to 
consider a bill to declare the oak tree the official tree of the United 
States. We have found time for hearings on flag burning but not on how 
to prevent the destruction of our democratic institutions.

                              {time}  1630

  We have found the time to consider a balanced budget constitutional 
amendment, but no time to consider how to maintain the voice of the 
American people in the consideration of taxing and spending measures.
  These are the twisted priorities of this Republican leadership. How 
do we protect our democracy in the event of a terrorist attack? Who 
knows. I would like to know how we can protect our democracy right now. 
Clearly an issue that is of the highest importance to the Nation, an 
issue that should be nonpartisan is being handled in a partisan manner. 
That is anti-democratic.
  Is this amendment the right solution to a significant problem? 
Perhaps. Frankly, I think it goes in the right direction. I have some 
amendments to it that I would make, if they were in order, if we had 
time to consider it. We ought to hold hearings.
  This House passed a bill to guarantee elections in 45 days. Frankly, 
I think that 45 days is too quickly. What do you do as a practical 
matter, especially after a catastrophe, what do you do within those 45 
days? I think that the best amendment would probably be something that 
would be along the lines of this amendment that we are considering now, 
but I think there ought to be a mandate that there be a special 
election within a reasonable time period, not 45 days, but maybe 120, 
180 days.
  What is practical? I think there are other things. But the fact is 
how do you determine when someone is incapacitated and when he is no 
longer incapacitated? We ought to have serious hearings. We ought to 
consider this properly. We ought to consider the gentleman from 
California's (Mr. Rohrabacher) suggestions, my suggestions, other 
people's suggestions. We ought to consider the suggestions of law 
professors. We ought to do this right. This is a serious matter.
  Instead, what we have done is take up the chairman's bill. Why? 
Because he is the chairman. We do not consider anything else. We know 
that many people think that that is not an adequate bill, but they did 
not have proper hearings either. Now because of criticism, we are 
taking up this bill with no amendments and no other considerations.
  Frankly, the trouble that Members are having answering these 
questions is because the Republican leadership will not allow the 
proper minimal consideration of this issue. That is no way to protect 
our democracy in these dangerous times.
  I would urge that this bill should be sent back to the Committee on 
the Judiciary. I will vote for it because it is the best thing we have 
in front of us. We ought not to be in the position we are in.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the complaints about the 
process in the Committee on the Judiciary. It is true there were no 
hearings on the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) 
during this Congress. There was a hearing in the last Congress. There 
was not very much support for the notion of appointing replacement 
Members of the House of Representatives.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) introduced House Joint 
Resolution 83. Until the day it was reported by the Committee on the 
Judiciary, it had no co-sponsors at all. Then there were two people who 
added their names to the joint resolution, including the gentleman from 
New York. There was one amendment that was offered during the committee 
markup when the resolution was open for amendment at any point, and it 
was subsequently withdrawn.
  When the Committee on Rules had its hearing last night, none of my 
Democratic friends offered any amendments for the Committee on Rules to 
consider. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) did offer an 
amendment.
  I would point out that on November 15, 1983, when the Democrats were 
controlling the House, the House considered the Equal Rights Amendment, 
a very important constitutional amendment under suspension of the rules 
where there was only 40 minutes of debate and no amendments were 
offered. Two-thirds vote was required under suspension, as it is for 
constitutional amendments; and it was voted down.
  But anybody who complains about this process where there is 90 
minutes of debate, no amendments because it is a closed rule and, 
except for the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), nobody 
offering any amendments, I think really ignores how the ERA was 
considered 21 years ago.
  Now, finally the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) filed a 
discharge petition. He wanted to bring the bill up out of the regular 
order, without any hearings, and without any committee consideration. 
What I did is there was a full markup at the committee where the 
amendment was open for amendment at any point. There was a vote in the 
committee. And the majority of the committee reported it out adversely.
  So I think that anybody who says we need more hearings should not 
have been on that discharge petition.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Forbes), a member of the committee.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 83. I myself was elected to serve in the House of 
Representatives 3 years ago this month in a special election when my 
predecessor passed away. If my predecessor had

[[Page 11295]]

been forced to make a list of successors, would have I been on it? I do 
not know the answer to that question. But I do know that it is unlikely 
that my constituents would have wanted their representative decided for 
them in any other manner than by election.
  In a time of national emergency, the people I represent should have a 
right to choose their next representative. To deny them this right 
would be autocratic and unjust, no matter how well intentioned the 
motive.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we are considering a powerful amendment that 
could alter the very nature of our government. It would strip the voice 
of the people at a time of national emergency, a time when the people's 
voices are most necessary and most moving. Without elections, our 
government becomes bureaucracy in action rather than democracy in 
action. It is precisely at such a time in such an emergency that we 
need to guard and defend the rights of our citizens to vote and not 
yield to the temptation to absolve that right.
  This bill undermines the legitimacy of the House of Representatives. 
It is no accident that our Founders designed the House of 
Representatives to be composed solely of elected representatives of the 
people.
  George Washington said: ``The preservation of the sacred fire of 
liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are 
justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment 
entrusted to the hands of the American people.''
  Mr. Speaker, our experiment with democracy has worked. As a Nation we 
have survived many national emergencies, disasters, and tragedies. We 
are the oldest working democracy because we make it clear that power in 
this government must remain with the people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against House Joint Resolution 83.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 83. And 
for those Members who are undecided on how they are going to vote 
today, I suggest two questions: First of all, have my colleagues read 
this proposal? If they have not, please go to the computer, pull it up, 
and read it. The language is confusing. It does not work. I do not 
believe it accomplishes the purposes that the sponsors have set out for 
us.
  Today is not the day of the vote for this proposal. It is still in a 
draft form and needs more work.
  The second question, What does one consider to be the essence of 
democracy? Is it continuity of government, or is it the right of a free 
people to be represented by those people whom they elect? If one 
believes in a seamless continuity, there has always been a way to do 
that. We have had kings. The king is dead. Long live the king. 
Succession just passes to the son or daughter.
  This particular proposal says succession will pass to people who we 
select. We die and the government will appoint one of those two people. 
That, in my view, provides continuity, but it does not preserve what I 
think is the essence of democracy, the right of a free people to be 
represented by those whom they elect.
  Finally, on the motion to recommit, which I believe is coming, the 
language that I read, I believe it is the current draft, says that this 
resolution will be sent back to committee for full hearings on this 
resolution.
  In the spirit of what has been said by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) and others, I would hope that language would be modified 
asking the committee chair to have hearings on all the proposals out 
there.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation. Of course, it is well intended. We have all worked 
together. The request was made of me that we have a chance to vote up 
or down on this constitutional amendment. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I worked this out.
  Now the author of the amendment says it is flawed. We have the 
ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution saying 
it is flawed. We have a proposal before us. It should be unanimous that 
we vote ``no.'' It is a bad idea, and it should not be done.
  The thing that troubles me is while I know that my colleagues would 
like to ensure that there are elections, their proposal does, in fact, 
provide the opportunity for appointed individuals to serve in the 
House. There was a debate in 1787 on this very issue. Charles Pinckney, 
as he discussed the issue of the first branch, talked about the fact 
that Members of the House should be appointed. Why should they be 
appointed? He said the people were less fit judges.
  Now, I am not claiming that the people who are proponents of this 
constitutional amendment believe that the people are less fit judges. I 
am not claiming that they do not want to have elections. But I will say 
that as we look at the debate in 1787, Madison, Mason, Dickenson and 
other Framers, I think, got it right and concluded correctly with 
Madison's quote when he said: ``The right of suffrage elections is 
certainly one of the fundamental articles of democratic government. A 
gradual abridgement of this right has been the mode in which 
aristocracies have been built on the ruins of popular forms.''
  I think it is very important for us to note that it was the James 
Madison view that prevailed, ensuring that the people are elected when 
they serve in the people's House. Remember, it was Federalist 53 when 
Madison said: ``Where elections end, tyranny begins.''
  This proposal would, in fact, have something take place before 
elections. So I think that we have the opportunity with this amendment 
before us to tragically move in the Pinckney direction, which did, in 
fact, say that the people are less fit judges. And that is why I 
believe it would be wrong for us to potentially have a totally 
appointive government which we conceivably could have if this 
constitutional amendment were to prevail. It is possible that we could 
have an appointed President, Vice President, an entire United States 
Senate and, with this proposal, appointed Members of the House. That is 
why James Madison was so careful, and that is why he was so correct in 
ensuring that at least one entity could not serve, could not have any 
power unless it is vested in them by the people.
  Mr. Speaker, the author and other Members have now admitted that this 
is flawed. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) just came forward 
having offered a proposal to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) 
about making a modification, and he has come forward and said he would 
like to have another proposal.
  Well, we have gone through this for a long period of time, and as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has said, a hearing on the 
constitutional amendment was, in fact, held in the last Congress. We 
know what it consists of. A constitutional amendment consists of having 
appointed, rather than elected, Members of the House. And the proposal 
itself is flawed, as has been admitted.
  That is why I encourage my colleagues in an overwhelming bipartisan 
way, just as we in an overwhelming bipartisan way by a vote of 306 to 
97 voted in favor of our expedited election legislation, we should come 
together in the same way and vote down this ill conceived measure that 
would fly in the face of the vision put forth, the inspired vision of 
the Framers of our Constitution.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
measure and commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird), for his outstanding leadership on this critical 
issue.
  This important legislation would amend the Constitution to allow 
temporary appointments to fill vacancies in the House only in the event 
of a catastrophic attack. If we do not pass this legislation, Mr. 
Speaker, we risk

[[Page 11296]]

disenfranchising large portions of the country in a time of national 
crisis or, worse, in the case of mass incapacitation of Members 
preventing the House from even convening to conduct the people's 
business.
  Some Members will argue today that a constitutional amendment is not 
necessary to address the problem of congressional continuity. While I 
understand some of their concerns, I question whether Congress has 
investigated the matter enough to even come to that conclusion.
  The AEI Brookings Continuity of Government Commission after studying 
the issue thoroughly endorsed a constitutional amendment even though 
some members began the process undecided or opposed to that course of 
action.
  Mr. Speaker, others will note that the House already addressed this 
matter by passing legislation in April to require expedited special 
elections within 45 days.

                              {time}  1645

  Well, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that in the 6 weeks after the 
attacks of September 11, the Congress passed numerous pieces of 
legislation authorizing, among other things, the use of military force, 
an airline assistance measure, an economic stimulus bill, the Defense 
Authorization Act, numerous appropriations bills, the farm bill, and 
legislation pertaining to bioterrorism, victims assistance and 
terrorism financing.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, without a constitutional amendment to allow 
temporary appointment after a disaster, the most important decision 
that our body can make, the decision to declare war, could have been 
made with a greatly diminished or unrepresentative House.
  I am disappointed that we are being given only 90 minutes to debate 
one of the most important topics that this Congress can address. I know 
that other Members have proposed their own constitutional amendment to 
address the issue of congressional continuity, and we deserve hearings 
and discussion on those recommendations as well.
  Mr. Speaker, it is our duty to prepare the legislative branch for any 
kind of disaster; and this constitutional amendment is necessary to 
ensure that the House will be able to continue its work even in the 
worst circumstances. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 
I congratulate the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for his 
leadership and passion on this issue.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the House Republican Policy 
Committee.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the author of this proposal before us. It was 2 
years ago that the Speaker asked me, along with the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) as my co-chair, to chair the Continuity of Congress 
Working Group that was a predecessor for the outstanding work that the 
Committee on the Judiciary has done legislatively in subsequent years.
  Our working group, which existed for over a year, took a first look 
at these problems after the horrible events of September 11 shocked us 
into realizing that it could happen, that the entire Congress or 
virtually the entire Congress could be destroyed at once. This is a 
problem for the House much more than it is for the Senate because, of 
course, senators can be appointed. They can be replaced immediately. 
The House cannot because we have, as you have heard throughout this 
debate, since the inception of our country always been an elected body.
  So the working group recommended a resolution that was adopted 
unanimously by this House, urging the States to advance special 
elections in the event of an emergency, to speed up that process. When 
the States did not, except for California, respond to that resolution, 
we passed the very thing here recently requiring that that take place. 
We have also, as a result of the work of the Speaker's working group, 
the bipartisan working group on continuity of Congress, seen a lot of 
our recommendations brought into effect.
  I want to commend the author of this proposal, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird), because he was one of the moving forces in 
making sure that all of this happened.
  We have completed the following: There is now a reformed House 
resolution on expedited special elections. There is now a change that 
we routinely employ to the concurrent adjournment resolution so that, 
in the event of a catastrophe, we could reconvene in some other place 
other than the Capitol. There is now an emergency recess rule so that 
if the Speaker or whoever is presiding learns that there is an imminent 
attack we can adjourn under our rules, and the Congress could reconvene 
elsewhere under the proceeding reform.
  There is a very important change in the way we account for vacancies 
in the House that otherwise, if there were a lot of Members killed, 
would prevent us from mustering a quorum. This change allows the 
Speaker to announce the adjustment of the whole number of the House 
upon notification of the death, resignation, or expulsion of a Member. 
And the Speaker's announcement, importantly, is not subject to appeal.
  We also have changed the rules for Speaker succession. Much in the 
same way that the author of this proposal has suggested that we 
repopulate the House, we have made sure that there will be a Speaker. 
There is now going to be a list of Members who will succeed the Speaker 
in the event of a vacancy in the office, and that Member will act in 
this role until the House reconvenes in order to elect a new Speaker.
  The challenges that are under debate today remain. We do not have a 
national consensus. We cannot get two-thirds in the House and Senate. 
We know that, but we are moving the process forward.
  I will vote against this only because it is not perfect, but I 
commend the gentleman for offering it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted for H.R. 2844, the expedited election procedure 
which provides that States should try to have expedited elections in 
the event of a catastrophe within 45 days.
  I voted for that measure because I thought it was better than 
nothing, and prior to that we did not have a process in place. I voted 
for it because, on a motion to recommit, the opposing side, the 
Republican side, decided that they would accept the motion to recommit 
to at least make whatever State procedures were in place subject to the 
civil rights laws of our country and other voting rights laws.
  H.R. 2844 provided a transition position that will expedite an 
election within 45 days, but I still think that there is a need to have 
a debate about whether there ought to be a different process for 
replacing Members in the event of a catastrophe in a shorter time 
frame, and I am satisfied that the only way that that can happen would 
be through a constitutional amendment.
  I am probably the least likely person to be supporting a 
constitutional amendment, and I rise today neither in support of nor in 
opposition to H.J. Res. 83, the proposed constitutional amendment that 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has offered. What I am 
disappointed about is that we have taken this very weighty national 
issue and turned it into what has essentially become a partisan issue, 
a political issue; and we have used this opportunity, instead of as an 
opportunity to hear from the people and to try to form a consensus 
about what should happen under these circumstances, to basically one-up 
the other side. Let me rush this thing to the floor without any real 
debate.
  I think the sad thing today really is that we have not had an 
opportunity to review and study and have hearings on either the Baird 
proposal or a number of other proposals that are out there

[[Page 11297]]

that cry out for hearings and the kind of debate that we believe are 
necessary and that the public deserves.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary for yielding me time; and I appreciate his leadership on this 
issue.
  I rise to note a couple of important points. I would start with the 
proposition that Lord Churchill pointed out, and that is that democracy 
is the worst form of government, except for all the others. It is an 
inconvenient form of government even at the best of times, but the 
gentleman just spoke and suggested that we need to have more debate 
about how the People's House should have its representatives selected.
  The truth of the matter is, from the inception of our Republic we 
have had that great debate and our Founding Fathers have solved that 
debate for us. They have told us that the People's House need to be 
elected by the people.
  Speaking of the inconvenience of democracy, George Mason during that 
great debate suggested that ``whatever inconvenience may attend the 
democratic principle, it must actuate one part of government.'' By the 
way, that is us. He continued, ``It is the only security for the rights 
of the people.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that doing away temporarily with 
democracy is something that a lot of aspiring democracies in third 
world countries have done, and temporary turns out to be a long time 
and sometimes forever. The worst thing that we can do is to throw out 
our traditions because we are having a serious crisis.
  It is a shame that a great, honorable debate about how we continue 
the traditions our Founding Fathers gave this great House, the People's 
House, always elected by the people of the various States, it is a 
shame that it has descended into sort of a partisan roughhouse here 
because that certainly is inappropriate. But I would point out that the 
Democratic party, big D, is being very undemocratic, small d, in this 
debate. The Republican party is being very, small r, republican during 
this debate because it is the Republic that our Founders gave us that 
we are trying to defend, especially as it relates to article 1 and how 
the people of this House, that represent all of the citizens of the 
United States, are selected.
  I would end up by stating that James Madison, the prime author of our 
Constitution itself, suggested he ``considered the popular election of 
one branch of national legislature an essential plan of every free 
government.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask every Member of the House to support 
Madison's version, our version, of a free government, defend elections, 
and do not do away with elections temporarily or ever.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 83. I 
support this constitutional amendment not because I believe this is the 
best proposal or a perfect proposal but because I believe we need a 
constitutional amendment to assure the continuity of Congress, and the 
Baird proposal is the only option that we have been allowed to vote on.
  I agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) that this 
subject deserves better treatment than it has gotten so far, and I will 
be voting for his motion to recommit with instructions to the Committee 
on the Judiciary to hold hearings on several proposals.
  One of those proposals, House Joint Resolution 92, is mine. I asked 
the Committee on Rules yesterday to make my proposal in order as a 
substitute and was turned down. So I am taking this opportunity to 
explain my substitute to our fellow colleagues today.
  My amendment would provide for a temporary acting successor, 
actually, a choice of five in case any of us become deceased or 
incapacitated. That would go for senators as well. I want to stress 
this point because there has been some misunderstanding. What we are 
talking about is the proposal on the floor today or my own proposal. 
The debate is not whether or not a seat should be filled by an elected 
representative. We keep hearing that. No. Elected representatives are 
certainly the best option to go whenever you have that opportunity.
  The choice that we are talking about today is whether the death or 
incapacitation of a representative or a senator should result in a 
State or district going unrepresented for months or whether 
representation should be continued during this period by someone who 
has been appointed or been selected by us, by those of us who were 
elected, and that selection is made known to the voters prior to the 
selection so that the voters will approve not only the representative 
or senator but the choice of an alternative in case that senator or 
representative becomes incapacitated or killed.
  We are not talking about not having an elected official or elected 
officials here. That is a bogus argument. I am sorry. We are talking 
about the 45 days in which, before there would be a special election, 
whether or not that our country will remain vulnerable because we do 
not have people representing the people of the United States or, in my 
proposal, whether or not during those 45 days the American people will 
have a chance to vote for an alternative when they vote for us to get 
us elected in the first place.

                              {time}  1700

  This makes all the sense in the world. We elect a Vice President of 
the United States that way right now. Is that to say if the President 
is incapacitated or dies that we have someone who is unelected when the 
Vice President steps up? No. He is elected even though his name is not 
on the ballot.
  There is no reason why we should not have this in the legislative 
part of the government as well as the executive. This goes to the heart 
of whether or not we are going to be prepared for an emergency.
  Let me note that on September 11, when we were in our desperate 
situation, I remember when we met on the steps, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird) and I, I grabbed him and said, look, we have got 
to sing ``God Bless America'' right now because the American people 
need this. We are in a crisis, and they need this.
  Today, the American people need a constitutional amendment to come to 
grips with this challenge that terrorism threatens to bring upon us. We 
need to make sure we are ready in case of an emergency. The Republican 
proposal is to leave us totally at risk for 45 days. That is 
ridiculous. Let us amend the Constitution and take care of this 
problem, and the people's right to vote will be taken care of as well.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith) a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank 
the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, Article I, section 2 of the Constitution states as 
follows: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members 
chosen by the People of the several States. When vacancies happen in 
the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof 
shall issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies.''
  The Constitution emphasizes the right of the people to govern 
themselves through their elected representatives. We should not ignore 
that Constitution.
  However, the constitutional amendment we are considering today would 
create unelected representatives. It would have vacancies during a 
disaster filled by appointees.
  The House already has passed H.R. 2844, introduced by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), which passed by a three to one 
margin. It requires special elections to occur within 45 days of a 
disaster that kills more than 100 Members of Congress.
  While some wonder how the government would operate while we are 
waiting for those elections, there is a House rule that provides that a 
quorum shall consist of all Members who are living. During a time of 
disaster when many

[[Page 11298]]

Members have died, the Speaker can adjust the required quorum to 
reflect the number of Members still living.
  On the other hand, by law, Senate vacancies are filled by the 
governor of the affected State. So if a significant number of House and 
Senate Members were killed during an attack and if House Members were 
appointed as well, as this constitutional amendment we are considering 
describes, we would then have a Congress of mostly unelected officials. 
That is another reason we must preserve the right of the American 
people to have elected representatives in the House.
  Some claim that a constitutional amendment providing for the 
immediate appointment of representatives is necessary for a government 
to function, but Congress has granted the President significant powers 
to act during a national emergency. Congress could utilize that reduced 
quorum until elections are held.
  Mr. Speaker, any constitutional amendment that would deprive the 
American people of the right to elect their representatives should be 
defeated. Democracy is always better than bureaucracy.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird), the author of the amendment.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
the time.
  I would just note that it was my distinguished colleague from Texas 
who, when we were given the opportunity, my colleague was asked for 
unanimous consent in the Committee on the Judiciary hearing to let me 
speak to my own bill. It was a UC request. All it needed was one member 
of their body to speak up and say no, and it was the gentleman from 
Texas.
  On the one hand, the opponents of this legislation argue that we must 
have elected representatives. On the other hand, they suppress the 
rights of those elected representatives to speak to their own 
legislation.
  Our 90 minutes are about up. I want to take a little bit of time, if 
I may, to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox) for their outstanding work on the Working 
Group. I would like to commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson); the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his 
intelligent and thoughtful comments; the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Langevin); the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for her 
leadership on this issue, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) 
for his work on presidential succession matters.
  I would also like to commend the work of the Continuity of Government 
Commission. We have spent 90 minutes on this issue today. The 
Continuity of Government Commission spent virtually a year on the 
matter. All of the members of that commission began saying we should 
not amend the Constitution, much like my friends on the other side 
have. Yet, to a person, they agreed at the end that we need to or we 
will be without the checks and balances so fundamental to our great 
Republic.
  I also want to thank the opponents of this bill, the chairmen of the 
various committees. I also want to thank the ranking members.
  The discussion today I think makes the proposal we will end up with a 
stronger proposal. That is part of the crucible of this institution. My 
fear, however, is that that crucible itself is in jeopardy. There will 
be silence on this floor if we perish or there will be chaos and 
discord as partisan rancor evolves in the aftermath when this lack of 
constitutional clarity emerges.
  People have said what the American people would want, my friends on 
the other side. One of the things we do far too seldom here is go back 
to the people themselves and ask them. I would invite my colleagues to 
do as I have. Hold some town halls, go to some Rotaries or Kiwanis or 
Lions or whatever group you want and give it a fair question. Say here 
is the choice, a fair and balanced question. Say do you want in the 
aftermath of a crisis, do you believe we should have temporary 
appointments, nominated by the people you most recently elected and 
thereby are most likely of the same party and political ideology or 
would you have complete vacancy for 45, possibly 75 days? Ask them and 
see what they say. Ask them.
  If my colleagues can come back to me and say that the people I talked 
to would say we would rather have no voice in Congress as our Nation 
goes to war and my sons and daughters are committed to a conflict, we 
would have no voice in Congress as our civil rights are usurped, we 
would like to have no voice in Congress as someone accedes to the 
presidency who was never elected but who was, in fact, themselves 
appointed, ask them, and I believe with great confidence they will tell 
my colleagues we would like a voice imperfect, indirect though that 
voice may be if unelected. At least they were appointed by the person 
most recently elected. At least the political makeup of this great body 
will be preserved. At least some of the most consequential decisions in 
the history of this country will be made under a model of checks and 
balances that, yes, Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Mason and the 
rest of the Founders found so essential.
  Elections are sacred, but so, too, is representation. I would urge my 
colleagues to vote yes on the motion to recommit. Let us have a full 
and fair debate in the committee and bring back a still better bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding this time, 
and I rise in opposition to the underlying resolution.
  I will agree with the argument that the Founders could not have 
envisioned airliners being used as missiles against skyscrapers, or 
even the U.S. Capitol. I do not, however, subscribe to the theory that 
the Founders were unable to envision in their minds a terrorist attack 
with the ability to take the lives of Members of Congress en masse.
  On November 5, 1605, 13 co-conspirators placed 36 barrels of 
gunpowder in a cellar beneath the British House of Lords with the 
intent of destroying the entire British parliament and killing King 
James I, who was charged with convening the legislative body on that 
day. Only through an anonymous letter and the quick action of a few 
members of Parliament was a British soldier named Guy Fawkes arrested 
minutes before he was to light a fuse that was designed to spur a 
revolution in England.
  My point is that the Founders were cognizant that a terrorist attack 
on the government resulting in the deaths of scores of Members of 
Congress could occur. The Founders drew a great deal of our 
constitutionally-formed system of government from the British 
parliamentary system and English common law. They were perhaps the 
greatest political thinkers in history. Yet, despite this knowledge of 
British history and clear references in the Federalist Papers to the 
dangers of any effort that would deny the right of elected 
representation, there are those who have argued today under the 
assumption that the Founders never contemplated such a situation.
  Despite knowing that a surprising and devastating attack could befall 
this government, the Founders were adamant in their belief that under 
no circumstances were Members of the House to be selected by any means 
other than popular elections. Elections are the key events that connect 
the American people to their government, and these elections have a 
legitimacy no appointment process ever could.
   Although we can all agree that an attack on this body would threaten 
the fabric of this country, that same fear should not drive us to 
weaken the very foundations upon which this Congress, as the Federal 
government's legislative branch, operates.
   Federalist No. 52 says it best: ``the right of suffrage is very 
justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. To 
have submitted it to the discretion of the states would have been 
improper . . . for the additional reason that it would have rendered 
too dependent on the State governments that branch of the Federal 
government which ought to be dependent on the people alone.''

[[Page 11299]]

   In addition, I am concerned that the constitutional amendment before 
us today would not only override H.R. 2844, which already passed the 
House by an overwhelming vote of 306-97, but it would remove the 
Congressional authority to expedite special elections in emergencies 
under its existing Article I, Section 4, clause 1 authority. H.R. 2844, 
as passed by the House, is designed to ensure that the House can be 
repopulated by legitimate democratic means within 45 days after an 
attack causes multiple vacancies in the House.
   The proposed constitutional amendment also includes a provision that 
states that ``Congress may by law establish the criteria for 
determining whether a Member of the House of Representatives or Senate 
is dead or incapacitated . . .'' I am quite concerned that this 
particular provision would deny the House its existing authority to 
address incapacitation by House Rules. This is an authority the House 
Rules Committee is already exercising. The provision of the 
constitutional amendment needlessly involves the Senate in how the 
House operates. By doing so, it would unfortunately make addressing 
continuity in government more difficult than it already is.
   Mr. Speaker, and I continue to believe that government should 
neither exist nor change but with the express will of the people by 
whom and for whom it is created. I am hopeful that the prevailing will 
of this body will reflect that of our nation's Founding Fathers and 
will ultimately preserve its own popularly-elected nature by defeating 
this resolution.
   With that Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to join me 
in voting against this resolution.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird) to make a correction.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I apparently misspoke earlier when I 
mentioned it was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) who expressed 
objection to my opportunity to speak in the Committee on the Judiciary. 
I regret that. There was a member of the majority. I thought it came 
from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). I apparently was in error, 
and I apologize for the mistake.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary when he is not busy as chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  On April 22 of this year the House, overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2844 
by a vote of 306 to 97, a measure introduced by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, which would provide for the continuation of the House of 
Representatives in the event of a catastrophic loss of Members of the 
House. This legislation would also ensure that each Member of the House 
is elected, just as our Constitution mandates. Ensuring the election of 
Members of the House is the right approach for structuring legislation 
to provide for the continuity of government.
  The direct election of Members of this body by the people is a 
fundamental principle established by the Founders of our Constitution. 
Specifically, the U.S. Constitution states, ``The House of 
Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the people of 
the several States. When vacancies happen in the Representation from 
any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of 
Election to fill such vacancies.''
  This was not what the Constitution provided for the other body, and 
ever after we have been known as the People's House. That principle 
would be severely eroded with the adoption of this resolution.
  Congress has a duty to set forth procedures to ensure that the 
government continues to function in the event of a catastrophe. 
However, Congress also has a duty to protect the direct link to the 
people that has always characterized the House of Representatives. 
Especially during the aftermath of a catastrophic event, it is 
important that we prevent the possibility that the government could 
consist only of unelected officials.
  I have some serious concerns about House Joint Resolution 83. 
Specifically, I am deeply concerned about the idea that every Member of 
this House would designate two or more other people to effectively 
shadow Members of Congress under somewhat secretive circumstances. I am 
also concerned that if one of these officials were appointed to 
Congress then that person would have an inherent advantage over anyone 
else in the subsequent election by reason of the implicit endorsement 
by the former Member of Congress. This provision would chip away at the 
premise that the people and only the people should have the authority 
to determine who their representative should be.
  For these reasons, I urge the opposition of this resolution and urge 
Members of the House to vote no on House Joint Resolution 83.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close debate if the 
gentlewoman from California will do so first.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Certainly.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it is important that we have hearings in the Committee on the 
Judiciary to examine this subject matter. Several speakers have 
suggested that to have a constitutional amendment to provide for the 
temporary replacement of Members of the House so that we could have a 
Congress that acts before elections can be held would be the end of 
democracy. I think that we need to come to grips with the fact that if 
they kill us all, we have some bad choices. Here they are.

                              {time}  1715

  We can have an appointed government, because there is a line of 
succession to the Presidency, in the Senate there is a provision in the 
Constitution for their appointment, and no House of Representatives, 
which means that the appointed President would assume dictatorial 
powers. Or we could have a constitutional amendment that allows for the 
temporary appointment of Members of the House until special elections 
can be held so that the House is made up of elected representatives. I 
think those are the choices that face us.
  Now, the American Enterprise Institute did a good thing. They put 
together a commission that looked at this whole issue, and here is what 
they said in their report: ``While some protections,'' they say, 
``exist for reconstituting the Presidency, Congress would have a far 
more difficult time. It might not function well or at all. Ensuring the 
continuity of Congress is now a more pressing need than at any previous 
time in our history. According to two of the 9/11 plotters, the fourth 
plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was headed for the Capitol, and it 
is entirely conceivable the Congress will again be a target.''
  It is interesting that although we have proceeded on pretty much a 
party-line basis in the discussion of this matter, not completely but 
almost completely, and it was certainly a party-line vote in the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, the commission itself was very bipartisan. 
The honorary cochairmen were President Jimmy Carter and President 
Gerald Ford. The cochairmen were Lloyd Cutler and former Senator Alan 
Simpson. Tom Foley, the former Speaker, and Newt Gingrich, the former 
Speaker, who did not agree on a lot, agreed on this. Further, Bob 
Michel, who was the minority leader for so many years and is so well 
regarded, served on this commission with Leon Panetta, and they agreed 
as well that what we need is a constitutional amendment.
  The alternatives to a constitutional amendment do not solve the 
problems of mass vacancy. They have a chapter indicating why special 
elections are helpful but not sufficient, and here is what they say: 
``The President would act without a check, extra constitutionally in 
some cases, until Congress reconstituted itself. In addition, there is 
a possibility that a Congress of

[[Page 11300]]

greatly reduced size would act, and that the vast majority of Americans 
could view this Congress as illegitimate. Shorter election cycles would 
not eliminate any of these problems but only slightly shorten their 
duration.''
  They point out that ``clarifying the quorum requirement is not a 
solution.'' And they say, ``While the commission sees the value of 
clarifying the interpretation of the quorum requirement, it does not 
believe that making the requirement more lenient will ensure the 
constitutional continuity of Congress. Quite the opposite. A lenient 
quorum requirement might result in a small number of Members acting as 
the whole Congress and calling into question the legitimacy of 
congressional actions. The commission does favor a clarification of the 
quorum requirement, but not as a substitute for the constitutional 
amendment.''
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have debated this constitutional amendment for almost 
an hour and a half now. I think that the issue is very clear, and that 
is whether the House should maintain its function as a House that no 
one enters without first being chosen by the people, or whether there 
should be some procedure for the appointment of Members of the House 
should there be a catastrophe.
  This is a philosophical difference, and it is a philosophical 
difference that no amount of hearings will be able to bridge. Maybe 
this constitutional amendment is improperly drafted, maybe it is not; 
but the thrust of the constitutional amendment is to allow the 
appointment of Members of the House of Representatives to act, 
supposedly in the people's name, when there is a national catastrophe 
of unspeakable proportions. Any action by appointed officials will lack 
the legitimacy of action by elected officials, and that is why I think 
it is important to reconstitute the House with people who come to 
Congress with a mandate from the people should there be a disaster that 
wipes out most of our government.
  Now, let us look at what House Joint Resolution 83 proposes to do. It 
says that prior to taking the oath of office, every Member elected to 
the House shall designate at least two temporary successors and will 
send that list to the Governor.
  Now, during a campaign, when candidates are running against each 
other, there is no way that candidates will be able to avoid telling 
the press and the public who they will name as temporary successors. 
And that would be a distraction that would take away from the issue of 
choosing a representative in Congress who, hopefully, will serve for 
the full 2-year term. And all kinds of extraneous issues, such as how 
much the temporary successor designee contributed or whether they have 
special interests and things like that, will end up becoming an 
ancillary, but very important, issue in the campaign and take the 
campaign's focus away from the issues that the candidates espouse in 
their platforms. And that would not be good for democracy at all.
  Now, it puzzles me greatly that people who have said how important it 
is that we deal with this issue and deal with it properly are now 
attacking the Committee on the Judiciary and asking for a delay. On 
October 23 of last year, the author of this amendment, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Baird), said ``The more urgent matter is to put 
the measure before the body.'' That is what is being done today, yet 
now I hear him and others saying, well, we need more hearings.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, more hearings will just continue the debate on 
whether or not there should be appointed temporary successors or the 
House should maintain its tradition constitutionally of being entirely 
comprised of people who are elected by the voters of the various 
States.
  The Continuity in Government Commission's report, which endorses 
appointed representatives, says ``The exact details of a solution are 
less important than that the problem be addressed seriously and 
expeditiously.'' Today we are debating that issue. We ought to send a 
clear message on whether this House wants to have temporary successors 
appointed, which will only be done by a constitutional amendment, or 
whether we want to continue our tradition of having people who come 
here to be elected.
  I urge that the motion to recommit be voted down and that the 
amendment be voted down so we can show the people of America and the 
world what this House stands for and what it stands against. I ask for 
a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit and a ``no'' vote on the 
constitutional amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 83, which 
amends the United States Constitution to allow appointed persons to 
fill vacancies in the House of Representatives in the event of an 
emergency. Since the Continuity of Government (COG) Commission first 
proposed altering our system of government by allowing appointed 
Members to serve in this body. I, along with other Members of Congress, 
journalists, academics, and policy experts, have expressed concerns 
that having appointed Members serve in the House of Representatives is 
inconsistent with the House's historic function as the branch of 
Congress most directly accountable to the people.
  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 are 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 Federalists 52: ``As 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 effectually secured.''
  Mr. Speaker, 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. 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. Speaker, during 
a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives 
accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has 
not 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 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 this plan claim that the appointment power will be 
necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed 
representatives will only serve for a limited time. However, the laws 
passed by these ``temporary'' representatives will be permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the 
continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no 
one suggested removing the people's right to vote for Members of the 
House of Representatives. For example, when the British attacked the 
city of Washington in the War of 1812 nobody suggested the States could 
not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though 
elections. During the Civil War, Virginia which borders Washington, DC, 
and where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and Members stay when 
Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against 
the United States Government, yet President 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 supporting H.J. Res. 83 will question 
the wisdom of handing terrorists a victory over republican government.
  The Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to 
function after a catastrophic event. Article I Section 2 grants the 
governors of the various States authority to hold special elections to 
fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I Section 4 
gives Congress the authority to designate the time, manner, and place 
of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously

[[Page 11301]]

following a national emergency. As Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, 
the ``time, place, and manner'' clause was specifically designed to 
address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by the 
supporters of H.J. Res. 83. Hamilton characterized authority over 
Federal elections as shared between the States and Congress, with 
neither being able to control the process entirely.
  Last month, this body fulfilled its Constitutional duty by passing 
H.R. 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act. H.R. 2844 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 or more Members of the House 
have been killed. This proposal 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.
  In conclusion, I call upon my colleges to reject H.J. Res. 83, since 
it alters the Constitution to deny the people's right to elect their 
representatives at a time when having elected representation may be 
most crucial.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this amendment.
  The Founding Fathers designed the House of Representatives to 
guarantee the preferences and will of the people was represented. They 
included provisions in the Constitution, such as a 2-year term of 
office and requiring that vacancies be filled in all events by a 
special election, to ensure that the Members serving in this Chamber 
would be held directly accountable to the people.
  Although the 17th amendment expanded this ideal of representation by 
requiring Senators to be directly elected by citizens of their State, 
it still permitted the use of appointments to fill vacancies. 
Therefore, the unique nature of the House of Representatives remained 
intact and to this day no Member has ever entered this body except by 
the mandate and popular vote of his or her constituents.
  The stark realities of the 21st century, where terrorists seek to 
destroy our Nation and the incapacitation of a large portion of this 
Chamber is no longer inconceivable, require us to reexamine the 
continuity of our government. However, I believe that even in a 
terrorist attack or other catastrophe enough Members would survive to 
conduct the business of the Congress. The small probability that no 
Members would survive to serve does not warrant amending the 
Constitution to circumvent the electoral process. Suffrage is 
fundamental to the success of our democracy, and it must be protected 
even in times of crisis and uncertainty.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the efforts of our colleague Representative Brian Baird to secure House 
consideration of the issue of amending the Constitution of the United 
States to ensure the continuity of Congress. I had hoped for hearings 
on this critical issue in the Judiciary Committee, followed by 
``regular order'', and I had hoped for consideration of a number of 
Constitutional amendments sponsored by Members of the House, including 
H.J. Res. 89, which I introduced. One subcommittee hearing conducted 2 
years ago does not really do this subject justice.
  Many Members were looking for an opportunity to use the normal 
legislative process to develop and perfect their proposals regarding 
the continuity of the House, relying on the collective wisdom of the 
Members, and input from constituents. Such a discussion could have 
helped to educate both Members and the public on the importance of a 
Constitutional amendment. But because the truncated process foreclosed 
on that option, I did not submit my joint resolution to the Rules 
Committee.
  Should the opportunity arise, I will vote to recommit this joint 
resolution to the Judiciary Committee, in the hope that there can be an 
open discussion, and broad debate on the matter. And I will vote for 
Rep. Baird's amendment, H.J. Res. 83, on final passage, in the hope 
that all Members who support the concept of a Constitutional amendment, 
will similarly express themselves on the worthiness of that objective, 
even though we may differ about which amendment would best serve this 
Nation. For I think this issue will arise again, and perhaps there will 
be an opportunity in the next Congress to more fully discuss and debate 
the issue. Sen. Cornyn's proposed Constitutional amendment is making 
its way through the Senate, so the issue is bound to arise again in 
some form.
  While I believe the need for a Constitutional amendment is self-
evident, I understand other Member's reservations about tinkering with 
the Constitution. Nonetheless, I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer 
to the question of what the Legislative Branch--not just the House--
could constitutionally do in the weeks or months following an attack, 
if deaths and incapacitation left either chamber bereft of a quorum, 
incapable of legislating, or so unrepresentative as to deligitimize any 
actions it might take.
  H.R. 2844, the ``Continuity of Representation Act'', which passed in 
April, and which called for special elections within 45 days after a 
certain number of vacancies occurred in the House, did not address that 
question. I think we need to be realistic about the consequences of a 
non-functional Legislative Branch at what is likely to be the most 
critical juncture in our Nation's history.
   And I would like to put to rest the notion that the continuity of 
Congress debate is in any way partisan. There is no partisan content 
whatsoever to this issue. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are 
advantaged or disadvantaged by any of the ideas we are discussing. The 
vote on H.R. 2844 should have put that notion to rest, when a majority 
of Democrats voted for the bill, joining all but a handful of 
Republicans.
   Members will no doubt recall that in the days and weeks following 
September 11, 2001, the House passed numerous pieces of vital 
legislation, which allowed the government to function both in war, and 
in furtherance of domestic policy goals. We did not hand out a ``closed 
for business--trust the Executive'' sign. We exercised the checks and 
balances essential to a stable and mature democracy, and we got the job 
of legislating done in record time.
   In the absence of a Constitutional amendment, there is the sad 
prospect that the National could be governed by either martial law, or 
by other extra-Constitutional actions by the Executive, of potentially 
dubious legal status. This would be happening at the most critical time 
in the Nation's history, since that would be the only means left to run 
the government without a functioning Legislative Branch. And that would 
trample upon one of the core principles of the Framers of our 
Constitution--our system of checks and balances.
   The Framers feared a powerful executive. And in the early days of 
our Republic, the office of President was fairly weak. However it has 
grown stronger over time, as the institutions of government have 
evolved, and as the Nation's needs have changed. The essential roles of 
Congress includes restraining the Executive, and that role remains 
paramount in maintaining our democracy today.
   We cannot predict how the Executive, claiming potentially 
dictatorial powers, will operate in the absence of a functioning 
Legislative Branch, or whether such actions will withstand legal 
challenge. But we do know how to prevent this situation from ever 
occurring. We need only to remove our heads from the sand, and take the 
proper steps to legally address the issue under the Constitution.
   While it is essential that we protect the ``people's House'' by 
populating it with popularly elected representatives from the 50 
states, it is also essential that we protect the ``people's interests'' 
by taking action to prevent the Legislative Branch from ever being shut 
down for weeks and months following a catastrophic event.
   I want to take a moment to discuss my own proposal, which I believe 
is less cumbersome and more straightforward than some of the other 
concepts. It would provide for the appointment of temporary Members of 
the House by state legislatures or, in some instances, by state 
governors, to serve pending the filling of vacancies through special 
elections. I think this procedure would be less cumbersome than using 
lists of potential successors which Members would have to create each 
and every time they ran for office. In the next Congress, I might 
consider leaving the appointment power to governors alone.
   My amendment would require that all temporary replacements be from 
the same political party as the Members they succeeded, and that their 
tenure cease as soon as a popularly elected successor presents 
credentials to the House. I look forward to future hearings to debate 
that aspect of the proposal, since issues have been raised as to how 
someone's party affiliation can be determined in some states.
  The amendment would also bar the temporary replacements from seeking 
office in the next election for the House, in order to ensure that they 
focus on representing their new constituencies, and coping with the 
emergency, rather than creating fund-raising committees and filming 
television commercials.
  The subject is also deserving of significant debate, since I know 
some have argued that temporary replacements should have the right to 
present themselves to the public for election in our democratic system. 
I believe, however, that during a crisis following a potential attack, 
it is more important to keep the government

[[Page 11302]]

running, and there is nothing in my amendment which would bar these 
temporary replacements from running at a future time, after they have 
finished discharging the responsibilities of the office to which they 
were appointed.
  My proposed Constitutional amendment also addresses the complex 
subject of incapacity, by giving Congress the power, by law, to address 
it. The issue is better suited to examination in a law-making, or rule-
making process, rather than to being specified in detail in the 
Constitution. As ranking member of the House Administration's 
Committee, which has jurisdiction over the incapacity question, I hope 
to press for Committee debate on the subject.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the 
Record, the text of H.J. Res. 89, and a section-by-section summary of 
the resolution, and yield back the balance of my time.

                              H.J. Res. 89

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. A smaller number than the majority of the 
     House may resolve that a vacancy exists in the majority of 
     the number of seats of the House of Representatives provided 
     by law.
       ``Section 2. After the adoption of a resolution under 
     section 1, the legislature of any State in which a vacancy in 
     the membership of the House of Representatives exists shall 
     convene a special session to appoint an individual to fill 
     the vacancy.
       ``Section 3. If the legislature of a State does not convene 
     a special session under section 2 during the 5-calendar day 
     period which begins on the day after the date the House 
     adopts the resolution described in section 1, or if the 
     legislature convenes a special session during such period but 
     does not appoint an individual to fill a vacancy in a seat 
     during the 3-calendar day period which begins on the date the 
     legislature convenes the special session, the chief executive 
     of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy.
       ``Section 4. An individual appointed under this article 
     shall meet the qualifications for service as a Member of the 
     House of Representatives, and shall serve as a Member until 
     an election is held to fill the original vacancy. The State 
     shall provide for such an election at such time and in 
     accordance with such procedures as may be provided by law, 
     except that the individual appointed under this article may 
     not be a candidate in the next election for the House. An 
     individual appointed under this article shall be a member of 
     the same political party as the Member of the House who 
     previously held the seat.
       ``Section 5. The procedures and requirements described in 
     sections 2 through 4 shall apply only with respect to a 
     vacancy existing as of the date of the adoption of the 
     resolution described in section 1 or a vacancy first 
     occurring during the 20-calendar day period which begins on 
     such date. In the case of a vacancy first occurring during 
     such 20-calendar day period, section 3 shall apply as if the 
     reference to the date on which the House adopts the 
     resolution described in section 1 were a reference to the 
     date on which the vacancy first occurs.
       ``Section 6. For purposes of carrying out the provisions of 
     this article, Congress shall have the power by law to specify 
     circumstances constituting when a vacancy happens in the 
     Representation from any State in the House of 
     Representatives, and to address the incapacity of Members of 
     the House of Representatives.
       ``Section 7. Congress shall have power to enforce this 
     article through appropriate legislation.''.

   Summary of House Joint Resolution 89, a Constitutional Amendment 
    Introduced by Representative John B. Larson To Allow Temporary 
     Appointments To Fill Vacancies in the House of Representatives

       Section 1. A smaller number than a majority of the House 
     may resolve that a vacancy exists in the majority of the 
     number of seats in the House provided by law, triggering the 
     temporary appointment provisions.
       Section 2. The legislature of any state in which House 
     vacancies exist shall then convene a special session to 
     appoint persons to temporarily fill the vacancies.
       Section 3. If the state legislature does not convene within 
     five calendar days after passage of the House resolution, or 
     if the legislature does not complete selection of temporary 
     House Members within a period of three calendar days 
     beginning on the date of convening, the governor is required 
     to make the appointments.
       Section 4. Members serving temporarily in the House by 
     appointment must meet the constitutional requirements for 
     service in the House, and will exercise the full powers of 
     membership until the vacancies are filled by election as 
     provided by law. A temporary Member may not be a candidate in 
     the succeeding election and must be of the same political 
     party as the Member who previously held the seat.
       Section 5. The temporary appointment authority applies to 
     vacancies which exist at the time of adoption of the 
     resolution by the House, or to any additional vacancies which 
     occur within 20 days thereafter. If vacancies occur within 
     this 20-day period, the time limits relating to action by the 
     state legislatures and governors begin again with respect to 
     those House seats.
       Section 6. For the purposes of this article, Congress shall 
     have the power by law to specify circumstances constituting 
     when a vacancy happens in the House, and to address the 
     incapacity of Members of the House.
       Section 7. Congress shall have the power to enforce this 
     article through appropriate legislation.
       The article would become part of the Constitution if 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states 
     within seven years of the date of its submission to them.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
657, the joint resolution is considered as having been read for 
amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read a third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Lofgren

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with 
instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the joint 
resolution?
  Ms. LOFGREN. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Lofgren moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J. 
     Res. 83 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions 
     to conduct hearings on the subject matter of the joint 
     resolution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her 
motion.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, in the 45 days after September 11, this 
House first met to show the American people that their Congress was 
still intact, and then we went to work.
  On September 13, we provided for the expedited payment for public 
safety officers who were killed or suffered catastrophic injury; we 
passed on September 13 the Victims of Terrorism Relief Act, the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act; on September 14 we 
authorized the United States Armed Forces to take action against those 
responsible for the attacks; we adopted the Air Transportation Safety 
and Stabilization Act; we made appropriations; we adopted bills to 
combat terrorism and adopted the Financial Anti-terrorism Act, the 
Bioterrorism Enforcement Act, and the list goes on and on.
  Those were important activities. And if there were no Congress, those 
either could not have occurred or the executive would have had to 
assume the legislative authority that is by Constitution vested with 
the Congress. And as has been stated before, the Congress cannot exist 
unless the House of Representatives exists.
  Now, we know that the temporary appointments can only be made if we 
are to change the Constitution. And although some think this is a bad 
idea, what we are asking is that we have a thorough study of this whole 
subject in the committee of jurisdiction in the House Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  There are many issues that we need to discuss. There are, as the 
commission pointed out, several approaches that can be made, a broad 
approach that delegates to the Congress the ability to provide for 
replacements by statute, or a prescriptive approach similar to the one 
promoted by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  What is incapacitated? How do we define that? If there is an 
appointment, is that person eligible to run for reelection? And if they 
are serving because of incapacity, will they be replaced when

[[Page 11303]]

the incapacitated Member resumes their abilities? Who would do the 
appointments: the courts? the Member? the governor? the legislature of 
each State? These are many questions that need to be answered, and all 
of them should be studied.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird), the author of the amendment.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  The reason I think we need to recommit this bill, and it is rare, I 
think, for an individual who has authored a bill to suggest a motion to 
recommit, because when I called for the discharge petition to bring 
this bill to the floor, it was not just this bill. I wanted to bring 
many different approaches so we could fully discuss it.
  The fundamental question I would urge the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary and its members and this body as a whole to consider 
is this: it is a fine thing to defeat this legislation, and I respect 
the judgments of the people who may choose to do so, but you have yet 
today, or in the prior discussion of the chairman's own bill, answered 
the question satisfactorily for the American people as to what happens 
during the 45 or 75 days. People continue to say, no one should ever 
serve in the House who was not elected. We would all prefer that that 
be the case. But you have never said clearly and unambiguously, with 
clear-cut constitutional justification, how our government runs without 
a House of Representatives. You have yet to do so. You have offered 
pleasantries, reassuring promises; but you have never said how the 
country runs.
  Madison did want the representatives to be elected, but he wanted 
there to be representatives. The people back home want to have 
representatives. Who will choose to send your kids to war? Who will 
choose to protect your civil rights? Maybe you can just rely on someone 
you do not know, an unelected representative whom you do not know. 
Maybe you can rely on that. And if they send your kid to war wrongly or 
usurp your civil rights, you can take great reassurance that 75 days 
later you can impeach them, assuming that one of their actions in the 
interim has not been to somehow reduce your right to do that.
  You are rolling the dice, my friends. You are rolling the dice, and 
you have not yet put in place a solution. Mine may not be perfect, it 
is not; but let us, please, have an opportunity to revisit this issue 
and answer that question.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would ask only that we approach this on a 
bipartisan basis in the committee. We should hold hands and work on 
this as a team, not fighting each other on party-line votes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, passing this motion to recommit will not serve to do 
anything but to continue a debate that has gone on for almost 45 years. 
In 1960, the Senate passed an amendment to allow for the appointment of 
House Members.

                              {time}  1730

  It was never voted on in the House of Representatives, and that was 
during the height of the Cold War when everybody was afraid that the 
Soviet Union would unleash a missile or massive numbers of bombers, and 
if we did not make it down to the bunker at the Greenbriar in West 
Virginia, the entire Congress would be wiped out. That was a crisis 
time, and the Congress did the right thing: It ignored what the Senate 
did in terms of appointment of House Members.
  Sending this resolution back to committee is not going to change 
anybody's mind on whether replacement House Members should be appointed 
or elected. We ought to hit this issue directly on the nose and vote on 
the amendment after defeating the motion to recommit.
  Now I am again very puzzled by the fact that many of the proponents 
of this amendment, including the Commission on Continuity in 
Government, and their spokesperson is Norman Ornstein of the American 
Enterprise Institute, have said that the problem should be addressed 
seriously and expeditiously. This is what we are doing today.
  And the author of the resolution, who now wants to have more 
hearings, told Roll Call on October 23, 2003, that the more urgent 
matter is to put the measure before the body. The measure is before the 
body today. We ought to vote down the motion to recommit. We ought to 
have a clear vote on whether Members want to have temporary successors 
appointed or to preserve Madison's principle of having the People's 
House be elected by the people. It is time to stand up and be counted, 
not to have more hearings on the subject. Vote no on the motion to 
recommit and vote no on the joint resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). 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

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute 
votes, as ordered, on the question of passage on each of three motions 
to suspend the rules on which proceedings were postponed yesterday and 
earlier today.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 221, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 218]

                               AYES--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     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
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crowley
     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.
     Jones (OH)
     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)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     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
     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

                               NOES--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     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

[[Page 11304]]


     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
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     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
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     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
     Tancredo
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ballance
     Bereuter
     Carson (OK)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Emerson
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Pickering
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1756

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida and Messrs. JOHNSON of Illinois, 
SHERWOOD, HEFLEY, BEAUPREZ and BRADY of Texas changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TANNER and Mr. PASCRELL changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  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 joint resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 63, 
nays 353, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 219]

                                YEAS--63

     Baird
     Bell
     Berkley
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Case
     Chandler
     Crowley
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Inslee
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Matheson
     McCollum
     McInnis
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Oberstar
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner

                               NAYS--353

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Watt
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ballance
     Carson (OK)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Emerson
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1805

  Mr. EDWARDS, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, and Mrs. BONO changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the joint 
resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 11305]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________