Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the appointment of individuals to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas and associate myself with his remarks.

I rise to reject, without prejudice or malice, the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bill. As has been mentioned, this is not partisan disagreement because the issue does not advantage or disadvantage either party. This is a disagreement on the wisdom of the proposed policy. I am against the bill because it fails to correct the most egregious problems caused by forcing all States to conduct elections within 45 days of the Speaker's announcement of mass Member fatalities.

Regardless of how one feels about a constitutional amendment to address congressional continuity, we should defeat this bill because it will not work in practice and does not address the need to ``stand up'' the Congress immediately following a disaster. It does not support the immediate restoration of representative democracy, a key element in the Connecticut Compromise, noting that as important as it is that the people elect representatives, it is equally important to note that the people they send here represent the States.

I want the Members in this body, because this is a difficult and complex issue, to understand its complexity; and the best way that I have seen to relate this to Members is to evoke two images in their mind.

The first image is that of Members of this body, huddled in the Capitol Police office, waiting to hear word of what happened from our leaders who were somewhere, and who later that afternoon conveyed to us over the phone what had transpired and what happened and asked that this body not return here to the Capitol, out of concerns for safety. The Members there rejected that overwhelmingly, and came en masse--and in one of the most remarkable and memorable moments in our history-- stood on the steps of the House--united. It is a moment I will always cherish and remember, and I want my colleagues to reflect on that, it was an important symbol that we sent out to our people. Immediately standing there, Democrat and Republican, Senate and House, all united.

The other image is this: not too long after that event, we convened in this House, a joint caucus called by the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman from Missouri (Minority Leader Gephardt). The issue was different. It dealt with anthrax. There were concerns, purportedly a deal had been agreed to, signed off by the President and the Senate, that because of concerns as they related to safety, that we would close down this Chamber, and people would go home.

It was not met agreeably amongst the caucus. But our leaders appealed to our better angels, and we agreed to go home. The Senate did not. Recall, if you will, how you and your colleagues felt viscerally when the papers reported that the Senate was here, and the House had gone home.

I asked the Committee on Rules to make four amendments in order. The Committee on Rules only made two in order. My two proposed amendments, which were taken prisoner by the committee, would have allowed States to use their regular means of selecting candidates, and would have avoided trampling on 40 years of voting rights laws.

Under this bill, political parties must select candidates within 10 days of the Speaker's declaration, or give up their place on the ballot. So much for the

participatory process of candidate selection.

In my heart, and I thought it was great discussion in front of the Committee on Rules, I agree with what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) had to say. He suggested in the Committee on Rules that this issue is of such gravity, and such importance, that it actually transcends the normal committee processes, and that, in a joint committee, much like the one that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) called, we should discuss this issue amongst ourselves.

These are complex issues that require us to examine them throughly, but I do not believe the underlying bill provides that. Some of the things eloquently addressed by the gentlemen who are proposing the underlying bill, do protect, do promote, and do give great glory to this body and its grand tradition.

Others have spoken equally eloquently on that issue as well, in talking about the need for representative democracy to be promptly installed, while making sure that in fulfilling the mission of having people duly elected, we do not trample on the democratic rights and the processes by not allowing enough time.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin also by thanking my distinguished colleague from Ohio. Throughout this debate and discussion, clearly when there was an opportunity where issues were non-germane because of the importance and gravity of this issue, the chairman saw fit to make sure that this discussion was able to flow in our committee.

I further want to thank the Speaker of the House and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), as well, for their intercessions and understanding of the importance and significance of this issue. And as was mentioned by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) earlier as well, their willingness to bring a constitutional proposal before their committees, which I think is an important step in this process.

The continuity of Congress, as was pointed out by the distinguished chairman, apparently means different things to different people. But in reality, it comes down to one question: Can the legislative branch be fully functional in the immediate aftermath of a disaster which affects some or all of its Members? Can it ``stand up'' immediately in the wake of a catastrophe? For that kind of thing to take place, I turn to ``Justice,'' or more appropriately Judge Learned Hand, whose name I think is among the great names in history. But more importantly, what Judge Learned Hand said is ``The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.''

As we approach this debate today, and understanding the complexity of the issues involved, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) said earlier, neither side should be claiming that it is ``right,'' but both sides should be citing the principles that they are adhering to in trying to put them forward in the current context.

In my remarks before the Committee on Rules, I cited a couple of images that are seared in my memory, and I think the minds of most people here--the image of us all united on the steps of the Capitol immediately following the attacks on September 11, together and unified. And then also, not too long afterward, another situation that arose with respect to anthrax that moved the Speaker and then-Minority Leader Gephardt to convene a joint caucus. In that joint caucus we also discussed very important issues.

And at that time, because of the safety concerns around this building, our leaders argued that we had to shut down the legislative process, shut down the building for safety reasons, in what was thought to be an agreement with both the President and the other body. Appealing to our better angels, even though the Membership itself did not want to go home, we did, only to read in the papers that while the House was at home, the Senate was doing its duty. We know what the reality of that situation is.

I raise these symbolic images because of the message it sends out to the American people. And as was pointed out by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, I think it directly points to the differences that we have with regard to this bill. And they are important distinctions.

Earlier debate on the rule highlights the fact that there are really two convergent remedies before us today. Under immediate consideration is a statutory scheme to quickly fill House vacancies in the wake of mass casualties. Like it or not, even these expedited elections, which maintain the elective character of the House, cannot satisfactorily fill the potential power vacuum created in the wake of a catastrophic event, and do not address the issue at all with respect to incapacity.

It is important because, if either the House or the Senate cannot operate, or their actions are subject to questions of legitimacy, our systems of checks and balances fails, and our democracy is in jeopardy. These questions of legitimacy were raised most notably in my research by Estes Kefauver, when he said, having nobly served in this House, that no one enters into this Chamber who has not--as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) eloquently said--been duly elected by the people. That is a powerful and unique statement to make. But Kefauver went on to say that there is an important concern about the representative nature of this democracy--that while we are, in fact, elected by people, we are sent here by the States. And a catastrophe that could prevent whole States from not being represented for 45 days goes to the heart of my concern about the underlying bill.

So I have some questions that I pose to the House today, for our consideration as we debate this bill.

First, in the wake of a disaster, is the House able to reconstitute itself so that its actions are viewed by the American people as legitimate and representative under the Constitution? And legitimacy here is very important. Unless representatives from nearly all the 50 States are present to debate and deliberate, then the answer is ``No.'' Although, arguably, the House could function under parliamentary rules with as few as three Members, would the action of three Members have the legitimacy that it needs?

We all know and have heard from earlier debate that the Senate could immediately reconstitute itself. And there is a process for succession for the President. The smaller the number of Members, and the fewer the number of States represented, the greater the question of legitimacy.

Unless fully constituted with all 50 States participating, through some form of representation, there is no ``representative'' body for the people of various States, and House actions would lack the legitimacy of national ``majority rule'' under the Constitution.

Second, if immediate legislative authority is necessary to validate and support executive branch functions, and I believe it would be, or to hold them in check, will that legislative authority be there? If not, will the executive branch feel constrained to wait for a reconstituted legislative branch to work its legislative will? In a crisis, will we be governed by the rule of law, or by the will of men?

No one I have ever talked to about this scenario believes that the executive branch will put its functions on ``hold'' while the House is being reconstituted. If there is a national threat, or a natural disaster, the executive branch will respond however it chooses, perhaps extralegally, because of the absence of checks and balances from a functioning legislative branch. In other countries, this type of executive branch action would be called ``martial law.''

Third, is it necessary to squeeze the lifeblood out of our democracy's electoral process in the name of expedited elections? Clearly, that is not the intent of the proponents of this bill--I understand that. But unintended consequences happen in these situations.

Presumably state-chosen representatives, could save temporarily, while awaiting permanent replacements which are the result of legitimate popular elections conducted in the 50 States under their own election processes. This bill Federalizes State election procedures in these circumstances, and its timetable, unfortunately, tramples all over essential elements of our democracy, squeezing out most States' candidate eligibility and the selection procedures, voter registration opportunities and voter choice. It also tramples on 40 years of civil rights and voting rights laws. Is this really necessary?

Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record the following letters and documents.

Secretary of the State,

Connecticut,

Hartford, CT, December 11, 2003

Hon. John B. Larson,

Longworth HOB,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Larson: As the Chief Elections Official

for the State of Connecticut, I am writing to express my

concern over H.R. 2844 currently being debated in Congress

that would require states to hold special elections to fill

vacancies in the House of Representatives not later than 45

days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the

House of Representatives in extraordinary circumstances.

While Connecticut General Statutes under Section 9-215

already allows for a special election for state

representatives and state senator in 45 days, a special

election for a member of Congress would represent a much

larger geographic and electoral population. In Connecticut,

for example, a congressional seat can be 50 times the size of

a state representative or a state senate district.

A 45 day special election in a Connecticut congressional

district would not only be unworkable but runs counter to a

fair and democratic process. Specifically, such a short time

frame would not give voters the opportunity to make an

informed decision about any of the candidates running for

office or about the issues being discussed. In addition, a 45

day special election for Congress would not allow the

opportunity for a primary. This would essentially force

Connecticut back to a closed election process after the

General Assembly recently opened up our democratic primary

system this past legislative session.

In addition, pursuant to State and Federal law, the State

of Connecticut has 45 days to issue overseas ballots. These

ballots contain the names of candidates for federal office

only and are available 45 days before any election where the

names of candidates for federal office appear. Holding a

special election for Representative in Congress 45 days after

the vacancy would create a timeline too short to comply with

the State and Federal laws requiring the availability of the

45 day overseas ballots.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments and I

commend you on all of your hard work as you co0ntinue to

debate this very important issue in Congress. Please do not

hesitate to contact me or my Deputy Secretary of the State,

Maria Greenslade, if you have any questions or if I can be of

assistance.

Sincerely,

Susan Bysiewicz.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, we have reserved our time, but who will close and in what order?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), who as has been pointed out by several others, has done extraordinary work on behalf of this institution and this body to bring this very important issue before us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who has also been in the forefront of this issue, and I thank him for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, how much I have appreciated the debate this afternoon on this important issue. I want to go back, because of the focus of this debate, to comments made by Estes Kefauver. This is not an issue that is new to this Chamber. It has been raised in the past, and I think Kefauver cuts to the core of this issue.

He said, ``I do not say that it would be necessarily impossible for the House of Representatives to function with but a fraction of its Members. I am informed that present parliamentary precedents indicate that the House can operate with a quorum of its living Members. But any disaster which killed one-half or one-third of the Representatives might well disable or isolate so many others that a quorum of survivors could not be mustered.

``Also, if this occurred before a new Congress had organized and adopted its rules, a point of order might well be sustained that a quorum consists of a majority of all Members chosen. In any event, it would be important at such time that the representative character of the House be preserved. And that the delegations of the people of all States be substantially intact for the urgent legislative action which could be taken.''

The representative character of the House is equally as constitutionally compelling as is being duly elected here, because as so often quoted today, the Connecticut Compromise focused on the representation of States, and if a disaster did occur, I cannot imagine a body or this democracy would be able to proceed in a legitimate fashion with the potential of States, many States, not even being represented.

Kefauver went on to say the President should have the degree of support and national unity which only a fully constituted Congress can give him. Think back to those images I talked about earlier and how important it was as a symbol for this country. I think that cuts to the heart of how strongly people feel about this issue.

Mr. Chamberlain of Michigan shared a similar concern. His concern was that this body, its representative nature, without being legitimate, could force us into a situation that would not be reflective of this great institution and this great body.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the two amendments I have been restricted to offering today during this truncated debate will attempt to restore to the bill some of the elements which the American people associate with true democracy and legitimate elections, elections which allow the public to make a reasoned choice from among candidates who have had a fair chance to present themselves and to conduct campaigns, and elections which allow the American people to feel secure that their officials are representative of the diversity of their views.

That is, after all, the essence of our democracy. That is what this arbitrarily crafted legislation would strip away from all of us at a time when the stability of our political system will be under more stress than at any point since the Civil War.

One basic element of elections is the time required by our political system to conduct them. Supporters of expedited special elections, or in the case of this bill would be better called ``rushed'' special elections, would no doubt say that time is of the essence in replacing deceased Members of the House, and I agree. But the essence of democracy is choice, and the practices to facilitate that choice.

Meaningful democratic elections provide time for candidates to choose to run, time for political parties to choose among them through primaries and other methods, time for minor parties and independent candidates to qualify for the ballot, time for voters to register to vote, time to secure polling places, time to train poll workers, print ballots and mail out and receive back absentee ballots.

My first amendment today addresses the bill's short overall time frame. It would increase the maximum time allowed to conduct special elections to 75 days, up from 45 days. There is nothing in this amendment which prevents any State from holding expedited special elections in a shorter time should they wish to do so and should they be capable of doing so. H.R. 2844, as introduced, contained a 21-day deadline for the conduct of special elections, which could not possibly have worked, but which demonstrated, in my view, the urgency to ``stand up'' a democracy that has been debated previously on the bill.

The amended version approved by the Committee on House Administration at the behest of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) specified 45 days. This number is, I believe, too low, although a number of State laws provide for special elections within such a time frame. But most States, including my own State of Connecticut, as well as the State of Wisconsin, do not.

Conducting elections is difficult. It is time-consuming work, and it must be done correctly or the rights of the people will be violated, and the legitimacy of election winners will be questioned.

This amendment would alleviate a number of serious problems in the bill, better maintain the stability of our political process, and enhance the role of States in making decisions about the process they value most in conducting truncated special elections.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Throughout history States have often been the engines of political diversity and experimentation. The reason I chose the 75-day time frame was to allow more of those elements to be sustained. The 45-day time frame is far shorter than the special election time frames in a majority of States. The Commission on the Continuity of Government, the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, estimate that the average length of vacancies over the last nine Congresses has been more than 120 days. A 75-day time frame thus provides a process significantly faster than the norm in many instances, while avoiding some of the more jarring effects of the bill's far more drastic limitation.

That was the rationale in crafting this legislation. That was the rationale where others have suggested 60, or even 90, days. I felt 75 days guaranteed the cherished rights that we all seek to protect under any proposal. The 75-day proposal, I will admit, is arbitrary, like the 21-day, or the 45-day period selected previously by the sponsors, but the entire bill is constructed around arbitrary numbers which we are only permitted to amend in a limited way.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is no doubt in my mind of the great effort and the intellect and the able people that they have put behind this. The CBO reports that more than 40 States are going to have a problem with this mandate, and will be forced to go well beyond their means. In hearing from my own State of Connecticut--from my Secretary of State--about all the underlying concerns that are raised, especially as it relates to voting rights acts, she said she would not feel comfortable unless there was a 60-day period.

Can it be accomplished in 45 days? Perhaps. But as I indicated earlier, as Judge Learned Hand said, this is a question that leaves us ``not too sure that we are right,'' and with all due respect, I would rather err on the side of making sure that people were guaranteed those rights.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just wanted to close by saying that this has been an extraordinary afternoon, and I deeply appreciate the hard work and effort that has gone into this proposal on all sides. I simply disagree in principle with terms of the bill itself, notwithstanding my own position on the need for a constitutional amendment; but I do not think the bill before us gets the job done, and I think it imperils the very democratic processes that we all cherish so much, that allows a person to walk in here as a duly elected representative of his constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore democratic protections to candidates who wish to run in expedited special elections under H.R. 2844, and would enhance the voters' electoral choices, which the bill, I believe, needlessly seeks to limit. It would also give to the States, who are our first responders in elections, greater flexibility to respond to problems raised by a potential catastrophe or terrorist attack.

The amendment accomplishes several major improvements in the bill. First, it would eliminate the bill's perhaps most outrageous defect, the ban on primary elections in the great number of States which use them in special elections. The bill does this indirectly by requiring political parties in the States to select their nominees within 10 days of the Speaker's announcement of vacancies. The amendment strikes out that provision while adding entirely different language enhancing candidate eligibility, voters' electoral choices, and State flexibility in election administration.

The use of primaries was one of the great reforms in American politics which distinguishes us from many forms of parliamentary government. There is no way States could conduct primaries under the 10-day restriction. Indeed, this deadline provides barely enough time for prospective candidates to assess whether they even want to run.

In place of primaries, the bill would require political party committees of some sort to select a nominee, which is a legitimate mechanism already in use in some States for special elections; but even in those States, 10 days is a very short time. And of course many States do not allow selection of candidates by party committees because they consider it undemocratic, and require the selection of candidates by popular vote.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), in answering a question that I posed at the Committee on House Administration markup of this bill, when I was seeking clarity about some of the provisions his bill--what the bill would actually do--was crystal clear on one issue in this bill. He would penalize political parties in those States which could not meet the 10-day deadline by requiring that their party lines to be left blank on the ballot. He writes to the committee that H.R. 2844 clearly provides that political parties may, not must, nominate candidates within the 10-days allowed in any manner they see fit. If they do not, or cannot nominate a candidate within the time allowed, such parties will not appear on the ballot.

Selection of nominees, of course, is the ultimate political process, but it is more often known for controversy, deal-making, and intrigue, rather than speed and efficiency. That is why we have the expression ``the smoke-filled room.''

Imagine the nightmare if this bill became law, and the political parties in your district were unable to field any candidate because they could not convene under potentially adverse circumstances due to a national crisis, or if a party committee did not meet, but could not reach agreement on a nominee because there was strong competition among well-qualified candidates. How could there then be an election? Whom would the voters choose from the blank page?

I remind the Members that this bill's stated purpose is to expedite special elections, and to reconstitute the House of Representatives. Having elections without candidates would certainly accomplish the first goal, but would obviously fail miserably in the second. Not only could the bill leave the voters without any candidates to choose from, but it could have other irrational effects as well.

For example, even in a State like Minnesota, which in 1977 held both a special primary and a special election for a House seat in only 29 days, H.R. 2844 would require the abandonment of the primary system even though such a State might, under normal conditions, be able to comply with the overall 45-day deadline of the bill. The State managed to hold its primary in this case in 15 days, but could it do it in 10 days--the time limit for candidate selection in H.R. 2844? Why should the bill penalize those States, which could achieve their electoral results following regular order, by forcing them to change their basic political practices, and suddenly start choosing candidates through party committees?

Mr. Chairman, the 10-day provision of this bill, and its potentially disastrous side effects, constitutes reason enough for the adoption of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is easy to conceive of the circumstances in which companies that print ballots or manufacture voting machines or paper or computer equipment could be disrupted by the same catastrophic events which are triggering the special elections. The Nation's communications and commerce could be disrupted. My amendment gives the States the flexibility to respond.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. It removes a number of major problems in the bill. I find it hard to imagine how Members could not support a proposal which could restore primaries, enhance the ability of candidates to get on the ballot, and give the States greater flexibility to administer special elections in a time of crisis.

Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again I would add sincerely how much I have appreciated the debate and the depth of the debate that has taken place on the floor today.

I harken back to something I said during the debate on the rule, a notion that was brought up by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), that the only time, to my knowledge, that we have met in joint caucus has been when we were discussing the anthrax issue, and by the nature of this debate and the richness of this debate and the feelings on all sides, it rises above in so many respects the Committee on Rules, the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary and belongs in front of Members to discuss because of so many of these issues that are before us.

I quoted Judge Learned Hand before, and I will continue to quote him, because while you may be sure that all of these things can be accomplished in 45 days, I remain skeptical that that could happen, and my skepticism comes from wanting to provide the very constituents that would send someone through these doorways, duly elected, to have fully participated and therefore legitimized that election as well.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would suggest that my amendments, I think, improve that.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this deals with the 10-day provision underneath, which again prohibits primaries.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a matter that we would all

prefer to hope we never have to address, but that after September 11 we must address. I would ask my colleagues and friends to imagine the unimaginable. Imagine that the American people are going about their daily business while Congress is meeting in full session here in the House and the Senate is doing its business and suddenly the national news wires, television and radio are interrupted. They are interrupted by an announcement that a nuclear weapon has been detonated without warning in the Nation's Capital. The Capitol has been destroyed. The White House has been obliterated. It is evident that in all likelihood all Members of the House and Senate have perished, that the administration, the President and Vice President and most members at least of the Cabinet have been killed, that the Supreme Court has likely been killed along with thousands of our fellow citizens and government workers. At that moment, we must have an answer to the American people of what happens next, and at this moment we do not have an answer to that question.

It has now been 2\1/2\ years since September 11. On that fateful day, not only did we see live on television as thousands of our fellow citizens were killed in an horrific manner, but what we did not know was that a fourth plane was coming here in an attempt to kill everyone in this building and that were it not for the heroism of the passengers on that flight and fortunate circumstances that delayed it by a few moments, many of us would likely have perished.

The question then arises, what would happen in this event? We know that it is possible. We know that our adversaries seek nuclear weapons. We know that our adversaries seek chemical and biological weapons. And we know that in this era it is very possible, indeed probable, that one day they may obtain such weapons. Yet, Mr. Speaker and my friends, we have not prepared for congressional succession, and there are grave problems with the Presidential succession law.

Let me walk you through, if I may, a scenario of what might happen. First let me start with the Constitution. Under the Constitution of the United States, a quorum to do business is made up of a majority of the Members. House rules stipulate that a quorum is made of the majority chosen and sworn and living. Let us suppose that three Members of the Congress are on a trip abroad and while they are overseas, they witness this horrific event. Everyone else in this body has been killed. The President and the Vice President are dead. America is in crisis to say the least.

Those three Members under current House rules could declare themselves a functioning House of Representatives. They could elect one of the three the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Under current succession law, the third in line to the Presidency is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Let us suppose further that those three are from a party other than the current President. What we now have is a situation where three surviving Members of a catastrophe, randomly chosen more or less by events, have now become the entire House of Representatives, have chosen one of their own Members Speaker and that person has acceded to the role of Presidency.

We now also have a situation where under our system of checks and balances, the article 1 provisions of the Constitution, declaration of war, approval of spending and taxation, and a host of other issues that are the rightful jurisdiction of this body and the Senate working together are presumably going to be carried out by two or three surviving Members, if there are survivors; or we would have a President who could say that because there is no Congress, the President is declaring extra-constitutional powers, conceivably taking our Nation into war without a vote of the Congress, conceivably imposing martial law, conceivably spending hundreds of billions of dollars and doing a host of other events with no representation from the people of the States as a check and balance on that person.

And who might that person be? If it is not the Speaker of the House or the President pro tem of the Senate, it would most likely be a Cabinet member, assuming a survivor. I think we need to be frank. Cabinet members were never elected to their post. They were approved by the Senate, but they were not elected; and we need to be more frank still. Most Americans have not a clue, once you get past a couple of the top Cabinet members, just who they are. So if one of the lower Secretaries emerges on TV and says, I am now the President of the United States. Because there is no functioning Congress, I have authority to take this country into war, would the American people give that legitimacy? I do not think so. Would the Founders have given that legitimacy? I doubt that still further.

We must face this problem, and we must face it before the time comes. Because when that happens, should it happen, the very institutions charged with crafting a solution will have been destroyed in the very event that demands a solution. And who will be left? The American people will be left wondering who is their Representative in Congress. How does our constitutional system of government function? The world will be left wondering who now has control over nuclear weapons and on what checks and balances can we rely that that person will conduct themselves responsibly?

One of my good friends and colleagues has actually looked at this matter extensively, the matter of Presidential succession. The gentleman from California has offered a resolution that I think would address this, and I would encourage our colleagues to bring this up for a vote at some point soon, certainly before we need it. I would ask my friend from California to describe his resolution and some of the challenges it would address.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask my colleague a question if I may? There is a recent book out, I think, called The Vulcans, and we have read over the last couple of decades of plans for shadow governments, shadow administrations. I do not recall reading in the Constitution of the United States that the executive branch is empowered to create a shadow government. I do not recall reading it. I do recall, correctly I believe, that the Congress is empowered to provide through statutory language mechanisms to replace the President and the Vice President should those two seats be vacant.

In the gentleman's estimation and thought, as he has spent a great deal of time, which does he think would have more legitimacy with the American public, a public process enshrined in statute, debated thoroughly by the House and Senate and passed into law that gives a clear cut, unambiguous line of succession for who will be President and Vice President or a shadow government created covertly and operating covertly to run the institutions of this country without a Congress to exercise oversight?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks. Have there been hearings yet on the gentleman's legislation?

Mr. Speaker, let me make one other observation that I find admirable on the gentleman's part. He and I are from the minority party. We are both Democrats. Everyone knows the administration is from the Republican side of the aisle. The gentleman's resolution assures that the President would stay in the hands of the Republican Party if he were to perish, at least the presidency would. So the gentleman is actually stepping up to the plate and saying he is ensuring that the President's Party would stay in power if the resolution were to pass and that circumstances could not create a scenario whereby, through catastrophe or assassination, the power of the presidency could shift parties. Is that accurate?

Mr. Speaker, I respect that, because one of my principles about this whole debate has been that it should not be a partisan issue. The continuity of our government is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. It is an issue for all Americans; and, indeed, it impacts the entire world. It is admirable that the gentleman has created a mechanism in his proposal that is nonpartisan in the sense that it would allow whichever party has been elected to the presidency to maintain that role in the executive branch even under times of catastrophe, and I think that is admirable.

Is there anything else the gentleman would like to add before I move on to discuss congressional continuity?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks.

I should emphasize that we are by no means the only people who are working on this issue. Admirable and outstanding work, I think, was done by a working group within the Congress for a time period. That committee was chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who I think did yeomen's work. In addition, a number of other people participated.

Other resolutions providing for continuity of the Congress, who are for a remote Congress should unique circumstances arise, have also been introduced. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution to provide for continuity. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) does as well; and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former Secretary of State from Rhode Island, has proposed a way we could have a remote Congress in extraordinary circumstances such as a threat or an outbreak of infection. All of those folks have done an outstanding job of presenting options, and we ought to be able to discuss them.

I would also commend to my colleagues I think an outstanding service to our country. The Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institution formed a bipartisan group of distinguished scholars headed by Lloyd Cutler and Alan Simpson, two statesmen if ever there were people to whom that title would fit, and filled in by scholars and former Members of the Congress, legal scholars, constitutional experts. I would commend my colleagues to their work. It is available at Continuityofgovernment.Org, and I would encourage my colleagues to study this work. It reviews the history of continuity issues. It reviews how special elections can be held. It outlines in careful detail the problems that would arise were an attack to occur, and I think it is, again, a service to our country.

One of the things that emerges from this document is that after close to a year of deliberation, that distinguished committee reached one conclusion, and the conclusion was something they resisted. The conclusion was that we cannot solve adequately the question of continuity of the House of Representatives without a constitutional amendment.

I would underscore this fact. Not one member who served on that commission, and, again, it was a bipartisan commission, not one member began their service thinking that they wanted to amend the Constitution even to address something of this magnitude. But they all agreed after studying the matter that, regrettably, in order to provide real continuity, we must amend that magnificent document. No one races into that, no one sets out to amend the Constitution lightly, but we must have continuity of this government.

Let me walk through, if I may, a few of the issues that could arise that have not yet been addressed. I talked a little bit about what constitutes a quorum. Remember that our government is bicameral, our legislative branch. We have a House and a Senate. The framers wanted the various regions of our States to have their own representatives. And it is absolutely true that no one in this body has ever served who was not elected. We hold that very dear to our hearts. Some have said under no circumstances should we deviate from that.

But here is the problem. The Constitution says that if vacancies occur in the House of Representatives, executives of the States shall issue writs of election. Under normal circumstances, where you have lost one or two Members and have 430 or 434 to continue the people's business, it is not a problem. But when you have two surviving Members, or no surviving Members, you are left without a House of Representatives until you can have an election.

How long does it take to have an election? We have spent a great deal of study and time on this. If you talk to various people who are experts in this field, different numbers emerge. But the critical point is this: even the fastest number you can come up with, until that time can be completed, you are without a House of Representatives.

Frankly, most people with whom I have spoken who are experts and scholars in this field have suggested that a minimal probable length of time would be about 3 months. From the time of catastrophe in order to have real and meaningful elections, would be about 3 months. Anything less than that poses extraordinary logistical challenges and poses some real constitutional challenges potentially.

Some have proposed, and I disagree with this proposal, but some have proposed that we mandate elections within 45 days of a catastrophic loss of Members.

Let me be clear about something: everyone agrees who studied this issue that we want to maintain the tradition of special elections for permanent replacement of Members. But this Continuity of Government Commission and myself and many other scholars have said we are gravely concerned about a 45-day period with no House of Representatives, because how do the article I of the Constitution functions get carried out without a House of Representatives? Who carries those out? Who assumes those?

Yes, it is true that no one has ever served in the House of Representatives that was not elected. But it is also true our country has never functioned without a House of Representatives. It has never functioned under an executive branch alone.

Some have said if there were a catastrophe, the survivors would do the right thing. There is an assumption of survivors, first of all, which there may well not be. But, beyond that, the reason the framers created checks and balances is they were gravely concerned

about vesting too much power in the hands of an individual without checks and balances. They rebelled against such a system. The revolution was all about overthrowing an unelected monarchy who functioned without effective checks and balances.

To assume that a survivor who assumes the executive branch would do the right thing and that we do not need a Congress for up to 45 days strikes me as a direct insult to the fundamental insights of the people who wrote our Constitution, even if you could have a 45-day election. But how would we get to 45 days under the proposals that have been offered?

Well, the Congress, which has constitutional authority to do so, would tell the States you cannot have a primary election because there is not time. Instead, the major political parties will select the candidates, thereby disenfranchising all the voters from choosing the candidates in the primary and thereby prohibiting most people who could run for office from standing for candidacy.

What is more, in an expedited election of this sort, Americans living overseas, including very likely the very young men and women who would be dispatched to try to defend our country, could well be disenfranchised because there was not the time to get them the votes and get them ballots.

So the proposals that we could have a mandated 45-day election leave our country with no functioning Congress for 45 days, and I should say as long as 75 days if it is proximal to a pending regular election; no House of Representatives, no article I functions; further, they mandate that the States allow the parties to select the candidates, when our dear Constitution has never once mentioned the word ``party'' in its entire history. They disenfranchise independents from standing for office, they disenfranchise overseas voters.

And there are still more problems. Under this 45-day mandate, what happens if one State manages to conduct its election in 30 days, and if newly elected Members arrive at Congress and they are the first ones here and say there is nobody else here, we declare ourselves a functioning House of Representatives, and elected one of our Members Speaker of the House, who, by the way, under some circumstances could thereby become the President?

Two days later yet another State, somewhat larger this time, gets its elections completed, and they arrive at the House of Representatives, and their Members are sworn in. They say we have more Members now. Someone from our State will be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. And so it goes, until at last everyone is here. Is that what we need at a time of the greatest crisis in our Nation's entire history, that sort of ambiguity? I submit that it is not.

There is a further problem. If we pass a law that says all States must conduct elections in 45 days, what happens if this institution is struck by a nuclear weapon and some State capitals are taken out simultaneously? Al Qaeda targeted four different sites on September 11.

If they target Washington, D.C., New York City, and Sacramento, California, do the people of New York, do we really expect them to conduct a special election within 45 days after New York City has been hit by a nuclear weapon? Do we expect California to do so after its capital has been destroyed? Or do we just pretend that could not happen and hope for the best? I think we have learned in the last few weeks that hoping for the best does not work, that we have to prepare.

There is an alternative, and it is an alternative I reached with great contemplation and with great study by some of the most distinguished scholars I could speak with, and here it is:

It is that we must find a way to temporarily, and I emphasize temporarily, reinstate this House of Representatives as quickly as possible in order that the people's business can be conducted, that we have checks and balances, that we have proportionate representation, that it is not just an executive or, even worse, a shadow government running our country.

To do that will, regrettably, require a constitutional amendment, but it is not something that will sound extraordinary when I explain it. It is this: the people have elected us as their representatives to make decisions as profound as taking our Nation into war, as taxation and a host of other issues described in article I of the Constitution.

If upon our election, we generate a list of potential successors who could only assume our position if we are killed or incapacitated, and only if that death or incapacitation happens in the course of a catastrophic event, and only for the circumstance that it is temporary until a special election can be held, we would be able, within a week of a catastrophic event, to reinstate the entire House of Representatives and restore our functioning constitutional government.

Let me give you my own State as an example. In Washington State, if we were to create a list of potential successors who would take our place only in catastrophic circumstances, not in the normal course of events, that list could include former Speaker of the House of Representatives Tom Foley. It could include, on the Republican side, Slade Gorton, a man for whom I have the utmost respect. It could include, on the Democratic side, people such as Don Bonker, Al Swift, our Governor, Gary Locke. It could include on the Republican side former Governor and former U.S. Senator Dan Evans, Sid Morrison, former U.S. Representative and former Secretary of Transportation. These are distinguished individuals.

And here is the choice, my friends. If that horrific day happens and if that announcement comes on television, we must have the media know what to tell the American people, and they can either say for the next 45 days a shadow government will run this country with no checks and balances and no representation from you, the people; or they can say your representatives in their best judgment have created a list of statesmen and stateswomen who will temporarily fill their seats until you can have real special elections.

Then, instead of confusion and chaos and hasty disenfranchising elections, we would have a functioning Congress made up of distinguished statesmen and stateswomen who would take care of this country, who would do the right thing. And I would warrant that many of those people would not even stand for reelection or for new election. They would instead serve until the election could be held, and hand the country back to the newly elected people.

What I most ask is that we have an opportunity to debate this. It is 2\1/2\ years now since September 11. I began to work on this the night of September 11. I began to talk to the leadership of this body within a week of that time. And I have asked, pleaded, negotiated and discussed; and we still have not had serious consideration by this body.

On September 10, 2001 thousands of our fellow citizens had no idea that the next day when they kissed their families and went off to work, when they fixed their breakfast cereal, when they rode the elevators to their office or walked from the parking lot of the Pentagon in, they had no idea that they would be dead at the end of that day.

We do not know in this body if on any given day it is the morning of September 11, or if it is September 10 and the next day we will all perish. We do not know that. But we have to assume that there are people in the world who would dearly like to bring that about.

We do know that the weapons of mass destruction are out there. We know that a nuclear scientist from Pakistan essentially had an Amway- like system to help develop nuclear weapons internationally. We know the fissionable material is available in abundance, and we also know that if someone uses it, we are ill-prepared to address the outcome.

I have offered a rule for debate. The rule seeks to achieve fairness. What it does is it invites not only my proposal, but proposals by other Members of this Congress to resolve this issue, to be brought up before the entire body for discussion.

It says essentially, if you have a better way to do it, we are all ears. Let us hear it. Bring it up for debate. We will debate a series of potential solutions. Whichever one gets the most votes will become the new base bill. We will then take several days for contemplation, much the way the framers themselves would bring an issue up for discussion and then either recess for several days for contemplation or invite a subcommittee to review it further.

We would take several days for contemplation, because this is a matter of the utmost seriousness. Then we would bring that base bill which had received the most votes back with an opportunity for amendment, and then we would proceed to a final vote.

I would hope we could get the necessary two-thirds on that process, and I would hope it for this reason: that if we do not find some solution, be it mine or someone wiser than me, we leave this country subject to chaos and constitutional ambiguity and unelected shadow governments, which I think would mortify the people who wrote that magnificent document, and I think would mortify most Americans, should that event occur.

So I will ask my colleagues to consider the resolution that I have put forward. It is H.J. Res. 83. I think it is rather simple, as most constitutional amendments should be. I think it is reasonable. It should be a bipartisan effort.

If one is not compelled by H.J. Res. 83 and one thinks there are better ways, I welcome the discussion. Look, please, then at House Resolution 572. House Resolution 572 says we will have a debate and the rules for debate will be open. There will not be a committee chairman saying, only my amendment or my proposal is allowed. It will be the House of Representatives reviewing several alternatives, having the discussion, and trying to resolve this most grave of problems.

The entire Constitution was written in one hot summer in Philadelphia, several months. We have been 2\1/2\ years since September 11 and we have been unwilling, not unable, but unwilling to address this change.

There are people of good intention who I respect profoundly on the other side, but what I do not respect is the refusal to let other people of good intention engage in this debate. I find it profoundly ironic and troubling that those who assert that they oppose these amendments that I have offered and that others have offered is because they respect the sanctity of the vote, which I respect as well. Again, no one is proposing a substitute for direct election, for permanent replacement of Members. We are talking about temporary replacement. But they have said it is so sacrosanct, this principle of direct election, that we cannot even consider any alternative. And ironically, in defending the principle that one must be elected in order to serve in this body, they have at the same time said the people who have been elected to serve in this body are not entitled to debate this most serious of issues.

So we have been sent here by our constituents. They have entrusted us with the most profound of responsibilities; and yet some individuals in this body have said they will not entrust us with the responsibility to ensure the continuity of this very institution and to ensure that constitutional measures will exist in a time of catastrophe.

Please, I say to my colleagues, I beseech my colleagues, bring this issue up for a vote and for true debate. Let us not play partisan politics; let us not assume that one committee chair or 2 committee chairs have greater wisdom than this body. That assumption flies in the face of the principles of Madison and the rest of the Framers. Let us assume that the collective good intentions and intellect and scholarship of this body can craft a solution that will ensure the continuity of this institution that we all so cherish and will ensure that if that horrific day ever happens and we perish, we will perish knowing that our Nation will be left in good hands, rather than in confusion.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I wanted to clarify one point that my friend was making.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify again the statement that I made when this question came forward.

The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is here on the floor, and, as you know, in the past couple of weeks he and I have been discussing and I have shared those conversations, and the chairman has indicated his willingness to at the next markup the Committee on the Judiciary holds, they will mark up the constitutional amendments that you all put forward.

And I think it is also very important for us to note that we have been seeking, having worked with the task force that the gentleman and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), shared to work in a bipartisan way on this, and I know from having had discussions with friends on the gentleman's side of the aisle that there is, in fact, bipartisan support for the effort that we are proceeding with here. And that is one of reasons that as we look at the structure of this rule, we did make in order amendments offered by Democrats.

I see my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), here who has a thoughtful one. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has been working on this issue as well. I will say to my friends, bipartisanship is something that we have been seeking on this, and I hope at the end of the day we will be able to find that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate his very, very thoughtful opening statement.

I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary with whom I have been privileged to work with on this; the whip; I mentioned my friends, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) who in the last Congress chaired a task force on this. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) are very thoughtful Members who have spent a great deal of time contemplating this issue.

Mr. Speaker, September 11 of 2001, as we all know, was a devastating day for our Nation. It really launched the global war on terrorism. It changed all of our lives. And many of us had not pondered the thought of this Capitol being under attack. I was, in fact, the last person to leave this building on September 11 of 2001, and I did so when one of the guards said that there was a plane they had lost contact with, and it was headed right towards this building, and it ended up being the plane that was very courageously taken down by those passengers into the ground in Pennsylvania.

Since that time, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been done focusing on this issue of what would happen if we were to see a tremendous loss of life of Members of the House of Representatives.

We know that almost immediately the Speaker of the House took some steps. He established the ability to adjourn to an alternative place and to declare an emergency recess, the ability to effect a joint leadership recall from a period of adjournment through designees, and requires the Speaker to submit to the Clerk a list of designees to act in the case of a vacancy in the office of the Speaker.

These are actions that the Speaker has taken codifying a number of important things, including the quorum provision, which does allow us to continue our work.

As I listen to the remarks by my friend from Dallas (Mr. Frost), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, I do think it is important to note that we do have a bicameral Legislature, and the United States House of Representatives does not operate unilaterally. So there would, even if we went through a period of time, and I would say it would not be months. Our legislation that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I have calls for special elections to be held within 45 days following that disaster.

Let me say that the legislation that we do have addresses a number of very important issues, but I want to get to this issue of service here, representation, and what our framers went through on this question.

When I was an undergraduate, I had a professor, with whom I spoke last night, who pounded the Federalist Papers into me. It was after that great Constitutional Convention, and I remember when we marked the bicentennial of the Connecticut Compromise, and the House of Representatives convened in Philadelphia on July 16 of 1987 to mark that. It was the Connecticut Compromise that established this bicameral Legislature, which is a very, very important thing for us to note.

And what I did last night is I went through and I started rereading the Federalist, and I went to some of the items that were mentioned, Federalists 52 through 57, where James Madison talked at length about this institution. And some of the things that I believe are important for us to note on this as we look at the work of James Madison is that he talked about as he was justifying the Constitution this importance of the institution being elected, and a couple of items that he raised.

He said in Federalist number 53, ``Where elections end tyranny begins.''

As my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), pointed out, it was very clear that this House is the only Federal office where no one has ever served without having first been elected. And they talked about the fact that this is the body of the people. The other body is the body of the States. Madison in Federalist 52 wrote, ``It is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on and an intimate sympathy with the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.''

He went on in Federalist 57 to write, ``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 airs of distinguished names more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.''

And Madison rejected the idea that appointment of Members is acceptable to the American public. He said, ``The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fundamental articles of democratic government and ought not be regulated by the Legislature. A gradual abridgement of this right has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built on the ruin of popular reforms.''

I think it is very important for us to understand that there have been times in our Nation's history where we have faced even greater difficulty than we do today, and that was the Civil War. If we think back to the time of the Civil War, this Capital was surrounded by troops who were threatening our very being. And yet President Abraham Lincoln proceeded with elections, understanding how critically important that is for our Republic's survival.

That is why when we look at some of these options, the stand-in provision, whereby Members of the House would actually select their successors if they were to lose their life, we ask about the challenges that would be before us. Will stand-ins be responsible for passing laws, declaring war, or suspending habeas corpus or perhaps both? Will stand-ins be running for office in special elections? Would those follow soon after their appointments? What incentive does someone who has gotten into this House by appointment have to, in fact, be responsible to the people? Is it possible that we could, through intrigue or cabal, see some make an attempt to prevent the prospect of elections in the future?

I just believe that when we take this very, very unique institution, the people's House, where no one has served without having been elected and move in that direction away from elections, we threaten the very basis on which this institution is founded. So that is why, as we look at this tough challenge, this legislation is the most responsible way to deal with it.

If we look at the loss of more than 100 Members, the idea of having the States hold special elections in that 45-day period is something that is doable. My State of California went through last year an unprecedented time. We had the recall of a Governor; and with the election that took place, it was 55 days after we saw certification, and it was not a single congressional district where 644,000 people reside and there are two to three candidates. We had 125 candidates on the ballot, and we have a State of 35 million people; and I am happy to say that that election came

off without a hitch. Many people had predicted doom and the fact that it could not work; and that is why I believe that for us to deal with this situation, if we do see tremendous loss of Members of Congress, this country will have suffered greatly.

I am convinced as we look at the struggles taking place in Iraq today that the building of a democratic institution is something that is very important; and I am convinced, too, that following a tragedy, after people are feeding their families and getting a roof over their head, choosing their leader is a very important key to success and proceeding and survival; and that is why I believe that this legislation would, in fact, provide us an opportunity to do that.

We are going to have a great chance for rigorous debate today, and I will say that it is because I believe that Members of the minority who are proponents of the amendment to the Constitution, that I did get in contact with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and asked him to do this, and he agreed very readily to at his next markup, as I just said, report out the constitutional amendment.

While I am not in a position to guarantee, I would say to my friend from Dallas, to say exactly when this would be scheduled, we are trying to have a full debate on the constitutional amendment on the floor, but as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) said in his opening remarks, it seems to me to be very important for us to use the structure that exists for us today, and that is, the legislative structure, to deal with this.

This legislation may not be the panacea, but I think that it is so important to realize again, Madison said, ``When elections end, tyranny begins,'' we should do everything we possibly can to make sure that we keep the very precious election process.

I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has time, but I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

If I could reclaim my time, what I would say is that the Civil War was a time when this Republic faced its greatest threat, greater than the threat that we face today, and the answer that was provided at that point by President Lincoln was to proceed with elections, and so, of course, there was tremendous uncertainty at the founding. We saw all kinds of challenges, but Madison continued to go back time and time again.

He argued at first for annual elections and then they ended up with this issue of biennial elections, and so we have had the Speaker establish this quorum requirement.

My friend says it is true that it is possible that very few Members could be serving here in the House; but within 45 days, those special elections would be held under the structure that we have, and there would be a chance for us to deal with those issues.

I would say that I somewhat rhetorically ask what issues would we be dealing with here in the House of Representatives? Health care? a tax issue? No, we would be dealing with the crisis that would be before us at that time, and that is why I am convinced that the best way to do that is to have the people's representatives make that decision, and I am convinced that that could happen within a short period of time.

I thank my friend for his contribution, and let me again compliment him for all the time and energy he has put in the effort.

I thank my friend for yielding this time, and I look forward to our debate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And, Mr. Speaker, I in no way said that people are trying to avoid elections. What I am arguing is, if we do move in the direction of appointments, we create the opportunity for Members of this institution who would serve here by appointment to potentially move in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would just say that I have not seen the letter, and I do not believe that we are seeking to ban elections, so I want to make that clear.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

I simply would like to ask my friend, as we have been discussing this issue of a constitutional amendment, the one question that I have is that it is my sense that in this House there is not a two-thirds vote that would, in fact, allow for the process of the constitutional amendment to begin.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me state that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is arbitrary about the 45-day period. The State of New York has a maximum of 40 days, and we know that it has worked very well in the State of New York. And I think it is also important to note that there are three former Secretaries of State, I know at least on our side of the aisle, who serve here; and we fashioned this legislation in consultation with Secretaries of State in seeking the amount of time that would, in fact, address the concern that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has raised that we as quickly as possible make sure that this institution is reconstituted. So I think it is important just to note that we have not been arbitrary in the selection of this 45 days. A lot of research went into this.

Mr. Chairman, I briefly mentioned during the debate on the rule what happened out in California. We know that each congressional district has about 650,000, fewer than 650,000 people. We might have two or three candidates in those races. In California, we had 125 candidates and we had a total of 55 days; and the prediction of doom, I was frankly suspicious about the prospect of seeing us put together in a 55-day period with 35 million Californians this special election when in fact we found that we were able to do it in that period of time for a State of 35 million people. I think in the congressional districts that are a fraction of that size, 45 days is a reasonable period.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by yielding to my friend from Washington (Mr. Baird), to see if he would like to pose a question to me.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his question. I wanted to respond to it earlier.

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution makes it very clear that times, places and manner of election are within the purview of this institution.

I would go on to say that the United States Supreme Court has correctly, in my opinion, held that the times, places and manner clause of Article I, Section 4, grants Congress broad power, broad power, over elections, including, and I quote from the Smiley v. Holm decision of the Supreme Court, where they say ``authority to provide a complete code for Congressional elections, not as only to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting votes, making and publication of election returns.''

Mr. Chairman, let me say that is the provision that was upheld by the Supreme Court, and to me that makes it very, very clear that we have that authority.

The issue of uniformity is something we were very, very careful in crafting in this legislation. Why? Because as we look at this 45-day period, we want to make sure that all across the country we have an opportunity for people in a time of crisis to at the same time cast their ballots.

Now, when my friend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) used the issue of the State, I think it was Minnesota, that had that 15-day provision, I am convinced that just as we in California were able to take on that very unique and unprecedented recall election that we held last year, similarly States like Minnesota, which have had that nominating process take place, they have held those primaries in 15 days, similarly that nominating process could take place within the 10- day period.

We all know, Mr. Chairman, that this would be an extraordinary circumstance. And one of the reasons, I would say to my friend from Washington who raised the concern about the immediacy of trying to ensure that we have a full complement of Members of the House working, that is the reason that we have the 45-day period put into place, and that is the reason that we spent a great deal of time over the last year and a half talking with secretaries of state across this country, including, as I said, the three members of this institution who did serve as secretaries of state, to come up with a time which would best allow us to ensure those rights, realizing that this is in an extraordinary, potentially very difficult time for our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say there is no attempt whatsoever to give the executive branch the opportunity to run without the oversight that is, in fact, ensured in the Constitution. I believe that we would have a complement of Members. I do not know exactly what that would consist of, but the goal of this legislation is to make sure that we can get back to the full 435 membership, ensuring that we are the body of the people.

I would say that one of the interesting things about our Constitution, juxtaposed to other constitutions in the world and State constitutions, mine in California being an example, is the fact that any of us, just like the majority leader, are able to put it in our pocket. So that is why that very small item that I mentioned in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, makes it clear, and that interpretation, upheld by the United States Supreme Court, makes it clear that we do have the ability to do that. That is how we are legislatively able to proceed with this.

I will once again say to my friend from Washington and others on this issue, as we look at what appears to me to be growing opposition to amending the U.S. Constitution, and I will say to my friend, I have had Democrats as well as nearly every Republican with whom I have spoken on this say they are opposed to it, I think that there should be a realization that for us to take this first step with this very responsible, very balanced, very thoughtful approach, which has been considered over a long period of time, is the route for us to take.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that there is no way that you are going to get me to argue with Learned Hand. I share that skepticism, and I believe that is a very healthy thing, and it is an important thing.

We have pondered almost every possibility. As I listened to the opening statement that was made during the debate on the rule from my friend from Washington describing what conceivably could happen if we were in the midst of a State of the Union Address, and we had every single Member of the House and Senate and everyone, save the one member of the Cabinet who does not come to these addresses, obliterated, what would happen. Frankly, if it was as described, a nuclear bomb were to go off in this area, who knows how far that would reach, and that individual could be killed. So we have pondered everything.

What we have done, I believe, is we have worked very hard talking to many, many different people about the most balanced way that we can approach an imponderable, difficult situation, and I think we have come up with something reasonable. That is why in light of the fact it is going to be very difficult, I am happy to say, for a constitutional amendment to pass this body, I think that we need to ask the question, what is the backup position? What is it that is proposed, short of a constitutional amendment, other than this legislative approach, which we have tried to take in a bipartisan way?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, the amendment extending from 45 to 75 days in fact lengthens the amount of time when we could possibly get this body back together.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Let me say that the imponderable, if every single one, all 537 of the Federally elected officials, the President, the Vice President and all the Members of the House, and all the Members of Senate, in fact, are killed, including all of the Cabinet members, including the Cabinet member who is not here at the State of the Union message, it would be up to the people to come together and make the determination as the rebuilding process begins.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, at 9:50 in the morning on September 11, 2001, I was standing in this Chamber waiting to bring up three bills that had come out of the Committee on the Judiciary. At that time the Sergeant at Arms told Speaker Hastert that another plane had been unaccounted for; that it was heading in the direction of Washington, D.C., and the Speaker promptly ordered the evacuation of the Capitol and told me to run for my life.

Had that plane not left the gate at the Newark, New Jersey, airport, I would not be standing here today, nor would this building be standing here today. I think that gave me pause to think of what would happen to preserve this unique representative government should there be a disaster that wiped out the entire Congress. And the debate today goes basically to the issue of whether the reconstituted House should preserve the tradition that the House of Representatives has always consisted of Members that were first elected by the people, or whether we should have appointed Representatives, appointed by the Governor, appointed by the legislature, or appointed by ourselves before we passed away.

Now, if Armageddon should take place and a disaster should happen, we can have an executive branch that is headed by an appointed Cabinet Secretary under the Presidential succession law. We could have a Senate of 100 Members appointed by the Governor of the respective States. And if we should amend the Constitution to allow the appointment of Members of the House of Representatives, then we would have an appointed House. Is that what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind, an appointed President, an appointed Senate, and an appointed House of Representatives? No way. And the comments of James Madison in the Federalist Papers are right on target.

So the issue today is whether we should amend the Constitution to allow for the appointment of interim Representatives or figure out a way to elect replacement Representatives who would come to Washington, D.C., or wherever the Congress would be meeting, with a mandate from the people at the time of the most severe crisis in the history of this country. And this bill attempts to set up a mechanism so that we can have prompt special elections.

Now, no election is perfectly run. We have sure found that out 4 years ago in the Presidential election. But I am here to tell you that elections, no matter how imperfect they are, are much better than having an appointed House of Representatives where the loyalty would be nowhere but to whomever made the appointment.

Now, I have heard a lot of complaints from my friends on the other side of the aisle that I am stonewalling consideration of a constitutional amendment. That is not true. We had a hearing last year on the constitutional amendment proposed by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). It did not get very much support. But at the first markup of the Committee on the Judiciary that we will have, we will take up his constitutional amendment and send it to the floor. I will vigorously oppose it on the principle that I am opposed to having appointed Members sit in this House of Representatives. But we ought to have a debate on this, and we ought to see who wants to have our replacements be elected or our replacements be appointed should we be wiped out.

Then I hear the complaints that 45 days is too quick to be able to organize a fair election. That is not true. In Virginia, when there is a vacancy in the Virginia General Assembly due to a death or a resignation, there have been special elections that have been held within 12 days after that vacancy occurred, and nobody has complained that the successor Representative was unfairly elected.

During World War II, the British House of Commons, which, like the House of Representatives, has entirely consisted of people who have been elected by the people since 1215 A.D., they were able to have special elections within 42 days after a vacancy occurred. Notwithstanding the point that the Nazis were bombing Britain every night incessantly, they still were able to stand up and preserve the notion that people should come to the House of Commons with a mandate from the people and not be appointed by anybody else.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

``The right of suffrage is certainly one of the'' most ``fundamental articles of republican government, and ought not to be regulated by the legislature. A gradual abridgment of this right has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built on the ruins of popular forms.'' That was said by James Madison on August 7, 1787, to the Constitutional Convention; and the very proposal that is offered by opponents of this bill, a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to require that vacant House seats be filled by appointment, even temporarily, was explicitly rejected by the founders as antithetical to republican government.

My committee had a hearing in 2002 on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). There was not very much support for it; and I imagine that when this House debates the Baird amendment, it will be voted down. It will go far short of the two-thirds necessary to propose a constitutional amendment because there are enough Members of this House that believe that the principle of having an elected House of Representatives is paramount.

I will get my colleague his vote and his debate for him with the cooperation of my friend from California, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who is the cosponsor of my bill; but what I would like to know is those of my colleagues who criticize the Sensenbrenner-Dreier bill, what is their alternative if the constitutional amendment gets voted down? They have not stated what alternative they have, and that is why this bill is important.

On September 11, 2001, the fourth hijacked plane was headed for this building. If it had not been for the heroic actions of the passengers of United Flight 93 who forced the plane down over Pennsylvania, Congress' ability to function may have been severely disrupted. While the 17th amendment allows Governors immediately to appoint replacement Senators, currently there are no mechanisms to quickly replace House Members. However, we can act today to enact such a mechanism through the legislative process, just as the founders intended. The Continuity of Representation Act of 2004 will, unlike other proposals, preserve the people's constitutional right to elect directly their representatives.

The bill provides for the expedited special election of new Members to fill seats left vacant in extraordinary circumstances, which the bill defines as occurring when the Speaker announces that there are more than 100 vacancies in the representation from the States. Within 10 days after such an announcement, the political parties of the States with House vacancies, as provided by State law, may nominate candidates to run in a special election to be held within 45 days.

While some may argue for the adoption of a constitutional amendment allowing the appointment of replacement House Members if a terrorist attack leaves large numbers of vacancies, such an amendment would destroy the uninterrupted tradition that only Members duly and directly elected by their local constituents should serve in the House, while ignoring the current mechanism for preserving continuity in government, the founders, in their wisdom, included in the Constitution and which is the basis for this bill.

Madison used the strongest terms when stating the House must be composed of only those elected by the people. Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that direct elections are ``unquestionably the only policy'' by which the House can have ``an intimate sympathy with the people.''

The House, uniquely among all branches and bodies of the entire Federal Government, is rooted in democratic principles, and those principles

must be preserved at all costs. Current Federal law allows the Presidency and the Senate to consist entirely of the unelected. Without an elected House, the entire Federal Government would be run without a single branch reflecting the popular will. Think about it. If we have an appointed House and an appointed Senate and an appointed President, our democracy will end up being run by appointed people. That is not what James Madison and the others who were in that convention envisioned ever happening.

Congress has the clear constitutional authority to enact H.R. 2844 under article I, section 4, of the Constitution, which states that ``the Congress may at any time by law make or alter'' State election laws. Consistent with the right to chosen representation, the founders explicitly considered Congress' power to require expedited special elections the solution to potential discontinuity in government in extraordinary situations. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, the Constitution gives the Congress ``a right to interpose'' its special election rules on the States ``whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety.'' The Supreme Court has unanimously approved such clear-cut constitutional authority.

While some take a pessimistic view of the resiliency of the electoral process following an attack on the Nation's Capitol, I have a different view.

In England during the Second World War, many members of the House of Commons were killed in battle. Our friends across the Atlantic never devolved to appointed rule, and special elections were held within 42 days after the date of death to fill the vast majority of seats left vacant, even when the Nazis were bombing England during the Blitz. I have no doubt that here today in the United States the boundless spirit of the American people will ensure that democracy prevails in the most pressing conditions. Just as the recovery of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center sites were accomplished far quicker than imagined, I have the greatest confidence in the people of this great country that State and local election authorities would expeditiously work to restore the people's House in time of emergency.

R. Doug Lewis, executive director of the Elections Center, a nonpartisan organization representing the Nation's election officials, has testified that elections administrators from combined responses nationwide feel that they can conduct an election in as few as 45 days. While others assert that it would be too burdensome for special elections to be required within 45 days of a catastrophic attack, 10 States, as the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out, already require special elections within 45 days in normal, nonemergency situations. Vacancies in the Virginia General Assembly during the session have been filled in as few as 12 days after the vacancy has occurred, and no one has complained that those elections were unfair or unrepresentative.

One does not have to look far for examples of the resiliency of the voting process and our State and local election officials' dedication to the cause of democracy. Take, for example, last year's gubernatorial recall election in California that involved 135 candidates and an election that was certified 54 days after the certificate was issued. Voters were also asked to consider two constitutional amendment propositions. The election proceeded smoothly amidst unprecedentedly high voter turnout and 10,000 fewer polling places in the State of California than normal.

While some imagine horrific scenarios regarding catastrophic attacks on the Capitol, more inspiring scenarios can be imagined that resonate more closely with the American spirit. Should such a terrible situation occur, millions of people around the country might fill schools and gymnasiums, churches and meeting halls and freely exercise, in the wake of a vigorous attack by haters of freedom and democracy, their right to directly chosen representation, a right that has served uninterrupted in the history of our country.

Indeed, while some argue that adopting an amendment to the Constitution authorizing appointed Members is necessary in the light of a potential terrorist attack, the very adoption of such an amendment itself would accomplish what no terrorist could ever do, namely striking a fatal blow to what otherwise has been called the people's House. H.R. 2844, on the other hand, is founded on clear, existing constitutional authority that preserves the vital, time-tested constitutional value of directly elected representation that has made this country the most successful experiment in representative government the world has ever known.

The issue here in this debate has been if there is a catastrophe whether this House should stay elected or whether we should amend the Constitution to allow successors to be appointed in some manner or another. It is vitally important that in a time of crisis, whomever enters the doors to the Chambers where the House of Representatives meet enters the door with a mandate from the people, because if an appointed representative enters this door, the mandate would come from whomever appointed them.

Pass the bill. Do the right thing.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) cuts directly against every argument he has made up to now.

What the gentleman's amendment does is delay for another 30 days the right of the people to elect their own replacement Representatives. We either can reconstitute the House quickly or reconstitute the House slowly, and this amendment makes it happen slower.

The gentleman also brings up the issue that in Wisconsin we need 62 days. We have primary elections and special elections in Wisconsin. This bill says there should be no primary elections, and that cuts it down to 34 days. So Wisconsin runs a primary election 34 days after the vacancy occurs. We would have no problem replacing me or any of my colleagues from Wisconsin within the 45-day period of time.

Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment to gut the bill. All you need to do is look at the last three lines of the amendment that says ``or otherwise ensure that all eligible candidates are given sufficient time to prepare for and participate in the election.''

A State could decide to postpone the election indefinitely because they decided that all the candidates needed to have 30 face-to-face debates, and that would fall into the catch-all clause. We need to have a specified time frame to reconstitute the House with elected Members, and that is why we have the time frame put down here.

I am very interested in listening to the argument of the gentleman from Washington that completely misses the point. His side won a special election in Kentucky. I congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) for his victory. He did not win a primary election. He was not nominated by a Democratic Party convention and his opponent in the election was nominated by a Republican Party convention.

The election of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler) to the House to promptly fill the vacancy caused by the election of Ernie Fletcher, his predecessor, as Governor of Kentucky is no less democratic than the election of those of us that went through primaries.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment that is designed to slow down having an election to replace Members who have been wiped out as a result of a terrorist attack. It has a number of features that will do that and will open up Pandora's box to allow people to game the system.

The first part of the amendment extends by 5 days, from 2 days to 7 days, the time in which legal action can be filed on the narrow issue of whether there are 100 vacancies and whether a vacancy occurs in a particular district.

The second section of the gentleman's amendment is not properly drafted. The base bill says that the decision of the district court of 3 judges must be rendered within 3 days and is not reviewable. However, the second section of the amendment says, taking into account the opportunity for an expedited appeal of the initial decision.

There is no appeal of the initial decision in the base bill, and the second section makes that section of the revised statute inconsistent in its text.

The third section of the amendment proposes to allow anybody or a political party to petition for an appeal. This is how the system can be gamed. My district is an overwhelmingly Republican district. It has never elected a Democrat to the House of Representatives in over 40 years. If I should be annihilated, I am sure that there would be the temptation that would be there for the Democrats in my district to try to stop an election and try to stop a Republican from probably being elected and seated to replace me. Similarly, in the district next door to me, currently represented by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), that is an overwhelmingly Democratic district, and the temptation would be there under this amendment for the Republican Party or Republican citizens to file a lawsuit to slow down the election of the replacement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) should he be annihilated in a terrorist attack.

So the amendment that has been offered allows people to game the system for political ends rather than to rise above partisanship at times of a crisis and to speedily elect a replacement Member when someone has been wiped out in a terrorist attack.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard an awful lot that this is not a bipartisan bill. This is a bipartisan bill, and I would draw the attention of the Members to the reported bill does show that additional cosponsors include the two top Democrats on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's reference to Madison. I have spent a fair bit of time studying Mr. Madison as well.

My question would be, where in the Federalist Papers or in the entire body of information from the Constitutional Convention do we see provisions for how this body should deal with the complete elimination of its Members or for how the executive branch should function in the absence of a constitutional quorum within the Congress?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) not only for yielding me this time, but for his leadership on this issue. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his work, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), all of whom, I think, have proposed innovative and real solutions to this problem.

It is the night of the State of the Union Address. The President of the United States is here addressing the assembled body of the House and Senate. Behind him sits the Vice President of the United States in his capacity as President of the Senate. The Speaker of the House sits next to him. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are here, the diplomatic corps, and the judges of the Supreme Court.

In midspeech, the television screens and radios across this country go blank. No one knows what has happened. A few moments later, one station reemerges on the air and says, ``Ladies and gentlemen, we have received word that a nuclear weapon has been detonated in our Nation's Capital. It apparently was set off very near the Capitol itself. We have no preliminary word, but it is quite possible that all Members of the House and the Senate and the President and his Cabinet, save one Member, have perished.''

At that moment someone must tell our Nation and must tell the world what happens next. The bill before us answers that question with the words chaos and uncertainty. There are provisions put forward that would give a constitutionally valid mechanism of rapidly reconstituting this body, of assuring the Article I checks and balances that were so important to Mr. Madison, to that individual, Mr. Washington, and to the Constitutional Convention. But, Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ years after September 11, we have not been allowed to debate those measures that are true solutions before this body.

We have argued here, and we have heard eloquent arguments that elections are important, and let me be clear about something: Not one proposal that requires or provides for a temporary amendment, not one, would eliminate elections. We all share that conviction, all of us do, and it is duplicitous to suggest otherwise.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the gentleman from California and the Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary have sent a letter to our colleagues suggesting that people have attempted to ban elections. If the gentleman would wish to retract that, I would welcome that opportunity, because it is false, and the gentleman knows it. I believe it was circulated under the gentleman's signature.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

It is absolutely true. Not one proposal seeks to ban elections. What do we seek? Checks and balances. We seek to ensure that the Article I responsibilities of declarations of war, appropriating funds, impeaching a President, and all the other things that this body is tasked for in Article I, not the executive branch, are preserved, and the bill before us today does none of that. Does none of that.

It leaves this country and the world with an unelected person serving in the executive branch and claiming extraordinary unconstitutional powers, and that is perilous for a republic, not simply a democratic republic, but a republic where representatives carry the voice of the people to this Capitol.

Let me tell you what I think is wrong with the bill beyond that. In providing for a 45-day election, let me, first of all, say that many experts in this country have said a 45-day period is insufficient time for a genuine election, and that includes the head of the Elections Board of the State of Wisconsin, who said a minimum of 62 days would be necessary. It includes our own Member of this House, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former secretary of state, who has conducted elections. It is not enough time.

Furthermore, what happens if a State cannot conduct its election in 45 days? What happens? A nuclear weapon is not only detonated here, but, in a quite plausible scenario, it is detonated also in New York City and in San Francisco, California. Are they to conduct elections in 45 days in those circumstances? Will the Members subsequently elected not be seated? What happens to the structure of this body if a few Members survive, and then more Members come as one election is held? Who is the Speaker of the House?

And by the way, let me clarify something. The Constitution is absolutely

clear that a quorum is not a majority of those chosen, sworn and living, it is a majority of the membership. This notion that three or four people would be enough to have a House of Representatives flies so in the face of what the Framers intended.

The first official act of the first Congress was to adjourn for lack of a quorum. They did not believe for a moment that a handful of people should be present and maybe make decisions to take this country into war, or impeach a President, or levy taxes, or appropriate funds. A majority must be present. What happens until that majority comes back under this rule? Again, chaos and uncertainty.

We have an opportunity to discuss real solutions. A bipartisan, nonpartisan commission made up of scholars and distinguished statesmen, people like Alan Simpson from Wyoming, hardly, hardly a liberal Democrat, hardly a partisan, a true statesman, joined together and said let us look at this issue. To a person, that commission to a person began and said, we do not want to solve this by amending the Constitution. And yet after a year of study and review, to a person they agreed that that is the solution, with great regret, that we must resort to.

And, no, it does not take away your right to elect a Representative, but it preserves your right to have a Representative here when we decide how to respond to that attack. And it says you shall have the opportunity to have an election to replace that person as promptly as possible, through a real election, not a sham, expedited election that disenfranchises independent voters, as the bill does today. To a person these statesmen started with saying we do not want an amendment, and they reached the conclusion that we have to.

Let me close with this. On September 11, on flight 83, those passengers gave their lives to give us a second chance. That fourth plane was heading here with the full intent to kill everybody in this building if it possibly could. We know that our adversaries would seek nuclear weapons. We know nuclear materials are available. We know if they get one, they will set it off, and they will do so in this Capitol. We have been given a second chance.

The September 11 Commission has shown what happened to this country and to the world when advanced warnings were not heeded and action was not taken. Shame on us, eternal shame on us, if we do not take action to protect the Article I responsibilities of this body. Protect the right to elect Representatives, but protect the right to have a Representative and protect the checks and balances and separation of powers that have preserved this great Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for indicating he would bring my proposed amendment up; but I would also

like to underscore that my belief is we should not simply bring my amendment up. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has a proposed amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has a proposed amendment, as do several other Members.

I proposed a rule that would allow for multiple possible amendments to be considered, plus ample time for debate and amendment of those amendments until we move toward two-thirds vote for final passage.

Last night on this floor I met with many Members of this body, and I asked them if they knew enough about this bill today to vote on it in an informed way. The collective answer was, no. Because of that, we should defeat the rule before us today, give this issue adequate time, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) said, and make sure that all opportunities are discussed.

I am pleased that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary wants to address amendments, but I would respectfully ask the gentleman to not just simply consider mine; consider others so various approaches may be debated and this body has a chance to choose the true and best solution.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for the time, and I thank my friends on the other side.

Let us start with where we agree. Everyone who has spoken has said that the ideal way to replace Members permanently is through elections. People have suggested that this is somehow a covert way or a slippery slope to do away with elections for Members of the House. It is not true. There will not be a single voice in the record of this discussion that argues that it is true. We all agree on that. Let us ask if we agree on some other things.

Do we agree that article I functions of the Congress should not be usurped by the executive branch? I think we should because we have sworn an oath to that Constitution; but if we do not act to ensure that there is a legislative

branch, what alternative is left but for the executive to usurp those responsibilities, and if they so choose, what vehicle and what body is left to rein them in from that usurpation?

I submitted an amendment to this very bill which was not ruled in order that would have at least had the Congress of the United States on record affirming that the executive, in time of crisis, should not usurp our authority; but it was ruled out of order. I find it frankly astonishing that my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who is such an adamant defender of the Constitution, is apparently willing to abrogate all of our article I until we can have special elections and an unelected executive could run the entire country.

Ask yourselves, would the Framers really have let two or three people constitute a House of Representatives when they themselves adjourned? Would they really have believed that two or three survivors or no survivors should allow an executive to take this Nation into war? Ask your constituents. Go back home. Ask your constituents: If your representatives in Congress are all killed, and a Cabinet member who you never chose and do not know who they are, have no information about their background, emerges one day and says I am now the President of the United States of America, should they have 45 days carte blanche to take this country into war, take away your civil rights and you will have no one here to express your concerns?

This notion that we are going to somehow appoint people who are totally unresponsive to the American people boggles my mind. We have been entrusted with our constituents, with impeachment of Presidents, with taking our country into war, with levying taxes and all the other article I duties; and yet somehow we are not capable of choosing people, former statesmen, former stateswomen who would serve this Nation well in time of crisis. Somehow that escapes our capacity. To create straw men as convenient vehicles for rhetorical argument, that would leave our country without a functioning Congress, is not a service to the people who wrote this Constitution.

There are two portraits of this gentleman in this hall that I revere. First of all, Washington's presence right here because he looks over us and reminds us to take our job seriously; but in the rotunda of this building there is a portrait in which Washington is giving back his commission as Commander in Chief of the Army to a republican form of representative government. He is not saying, I won the war, now I as chief executive want to run the country. He is saying there must be a Congress that runs this country; representatives of the people must run this country.

We agree that you must have special elections, but my friends have not made provisions for what else to do in the interim; and in the time in which there would be elections, they have created a vehicle which is laden with problems.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman cannot filibuster me.

We have waited 2\1/2\ years since we watched 3,000 of our fellow citizens die, and this body has not acted. They now give us 2 hours. We have not given this body time to debate. Ask my colleagues, as I did yesterday, have they had sufficient time to study this matter of this magnitude before we vote on it. They will tell you, no, sir, I have not. They will vote party line, as we far too often do here; but they will not vote conscience because their conscience has not grappled with this. I will not yield because this matters, and we have not been given sufficient time.

Give us time for real debate, not in a committee chaired by someone who is antithetically opposed to it. Give us time in this great body because it is our entire future that is at stake, not the future of the Committee on the Judiciary or the Committee on House Administration. It is the future of this body. Give us time; give the people time for real debate.

How can my colleagues say that elected representatives are sacrosanct and then not give those elected representatives time to debate a matter that concerns the very existence of this body? That, if for no other reason, is reason enough to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), as the majority leader of this body, if the other party were in power and this body were eliminated, would the gentleman be perfectly comfortable, under his constitutional fealty, in letting the executive branch rule this country, take this country into war, and do all of the other things reserved under that Constitution with no checks and balances?

Again, it is a false straw man to say that anybody here wants to do away with elections. The issue is do we do

away with the entire Congress temporarily until we can hold elections? We need those checks and balances. And they are not the only ones standing up for this Constitution who are opposing the alternatives of temporary appointments. We, too, are standing up for it. We are standing up for checks and balances, separation of powers, and all of the Article I provisions that are ensured in the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, earlier I asked this body to consider two questions: How would the Framers feel about the House of Representatives constituted by a few Members or no House of Representatives at all, and how would their constituents react if they had no voice as the country were taken into war by an unelected Cabinet member?

Let me ask this question: The distinguished majority leader proudly held the Constitution of the United States up and presented to us that he was defending the Constitution with this legislation. Where, my good friends, in that sacred Constitution does it say that the political parties will be authorized to select the candidates who can be elected for the House of Representatives? If we are defending the Constitution, how in the name of the Framers can we say that political parties will select the candidates for office? And if we are saying that we are protecting the rights of our voters, how can we do so when we disenfranchise all independent voters from selecting their candidate of choice, and instead put that decision into the political elites, the very people who you assert you are protecting the voters from with your base bill?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would please show me where in the United States Constitution political parties are authorized to select candidates for the House of Representatives, I would be happy to engage in this colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, my question is, where in the Constitution of the United States? I understand the Supreme Court has ruled that, but the point is if the gentleman is asserting that the purpose of this bill before us today is to protect the rights of all voters to elect their Representatives, effectively it is my position that you are disenfranchising those from independent parties or minority parties from selecting their candidates.

The second thing I would ask, since we are quoting the Constitution, is where in the Constitution or in subsequent Supreme Court decisions has it authorized the executive branch to function without checks and balances

from a House of Representatives or from a House of Representatives comprised of less than a quorum?