Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 444) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to assist Americans in returning to work.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 656, I call up the bill (H.R. 444) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to assist Americans in returning to work, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and included extraneous material on H.R. 444.

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

Mr. Speaker, the economic news over the last 8 months has been very encouraging. Republicans and President Bush have focused on creating jobs and opportunity, helping working Americans by providing tax relief, improving worker training and education to help Americans without work get back on their feet, and enhancing the competitiveness of employers both at home and abroad to ensure they continue to hire more and more American workers.

As recent data from the Labor Department shows, the U.S. is creating thousands of new jobs every month. The pro-growth agenda has created 1.1 million net new jobs over the last 8 months, and 625,000 jobs, net new jobs, I should say, in March and April alone. Moreover, the national unemployment rate declined to 5.6 percent in April, lower than the average unemployment rate during the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s.

While this is welcome news for working Americans, we remain committed to ensuring that every displaced worker has the opportunity to find meaningful employment and access to job-training services that will help them find good-paying jobs. As President Bush has said, one worker out of work is one too many, and we have a responsibility to help working families in times when they need it most.

Job training and worker education is more important to this effort in today's changing economy now more than ever before. Every member of our society, including those who are most vulnerable and the hardest to employ, want to achieve independence and self-sufficiency. No American wants endless reliance on our government, and I think the President recognizes that and providing personal reemployment accounts represents one more way we are helping the unemployed by specifically tailoring job training and employment services to meet their unique needs.

Giving displaced workers the resources they need and continuing this economic expansion is critically important. That brings us to why we are here today: to highlight a new and innovative approach to helping the unemployed get back on their feet. The bill before us, the Worker Reemployment Accounts Act, allows demonstration funding under the Workforce Investment Act to be used by States and local workforce investment boards for a pilot project to offer personal reemployment accounts of up to $3,000.

With the funds from these accounts, unemployed workers may purchase a variety of different services to help them find a new job and to reenter the workforce, including job training, child care, transportation, housing assistance, relocation services, career counseling, computer classes, just to name a few. And all of these are accessible through the One-Stop Career Center system where unemployed workers already seek job training assistance.

A key component of this plan allows workers who become reemployed within 13 weeks to keep the balance of their account as a cash reemployment bonus. In addition, these reemployment accounts empower individual recipients to make choices appropriate for their own circumstances. Recipients will be able to create reemployment accounts that help them navigate all of the options that are available, such as career counseling or job training for a new profession. In providing choice and flexibility, I think we get people back to work into steady, good-paying jobs sooner.

For those who are struggling to get back on their feet, we in Congress, I think, have a responsibility to look for additional solutions to help them when they need it most. The intent of this bill is clear: this new benefit supplements and enhances the services that are already available for those who are most likely to face obstacles in finding and keeping new employment, whether it be unemployment benefits or the employment training programs offered through the Workforce Investment Act.

The bill before us is a pilot project, a scaled-back version of a more comprehensive proposal that the Committee on Education and the Workforce approved last year. Our goal here is to put this program to a test, see how it works in practice, and determine whether it truly gives unemployed workers an option, a workable option to help them improve their job search. The lessons learned through this pilot project will give Congress more information on how best to serve those who are looking for work.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for their work on this measure and last year's bill as well. During hearings that we had last year, we heard from State leaders at a field hearing in Nevada about the practical benefits of these reemployment accounts in helping the unemployed. We also heard from Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who said that the accounts ``will empower individuals by giving them more flexibility, personal choice, and

control over their job search and career.''

Over the past 2 years, we have taken numerous steps to help unemployed workers, and we are also in the process of reauthorizing the Federal job-training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. Millions of jobless workers should not have to wait for job-training reform, and Congress has an obligation this year to improve those job- training opportunities for American workers. Unfortunately, it appears, though, that some in the other body want to block major job-training legislation that would help strengthen training and retraining opportunities for American workers. I think if given the opportunity, we look forward to completing work on that legislation this year.

But Congress must act now to provide new, innovative options to help workers as quickly as possible, and the choice and flexibility available through personal reemployment accounts will help more Americans get back on their feet and find good jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, we probably would not be here today if the other body would actually go to conference on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. But I think all of us realize that they have been unwilling to go to conference, and we believe that we have got every responsibility known to man to help those people who are unemployed and need help.

Secondly, let me say that, once again, we are getting into a debate about the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. What this bill does is set up a pilot project that allows unemployed workers who qualify the option of this $3,000 reemployment bonus. The real key here is that they, the unemployed workers, get to decide what kind of training they need, what kind of education they might need, what kind of services they may need to help them get back on their feet and into good work. They get to decide, not some bureaucrat in some office somewhere. They get to decide.

And this option of allowing them that flexibility, I think, is worth trying. That is what we are asking for today: Let us try this. Let us see what happens. Let us see if this additional flexibility for unemployed workers does, in fact, help them get the training, retraining they may need to find a good job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the original author and I would describe as the father of the Workforce Investment Act. I applaud him on his good work.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

There was a discussion here about what would happen if workers chose to take a $3,000 personal reemployment account and their ability to access services at the Career One Stops. I just want to set the record straight.

While it is true that recipients would be prohibited from accessing intensive or training services through the One Stop career system for 1 year after the creation of the account, unless, unless the person with the account chooses to purchase services there, however, all individuals remain eligible for the core services provided by the Career One Stop. Such services include job search and placement assistance, including career counseling, where appropriate, and access to labor market information.

Now the idea here is that we allow individuals $3,000, giving them the right to choose the types of services that they think will help them get back on their feet and find a good job. They can purchase those services at the Career One Stop or they can go down the street and go to a community college if they want. But the core services that the Career One Stops provide for all individuals, these persons with the $3,000 personal reemployment accounts, would still be eligible for those core services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

I think all of us realize that the American economy is changing, and I think it is changing at a more rapid pace than any of us would likely know. During a hearing several months ago, I found a number of statistics that I really found unusual. If we all think back for a moment to 1999, the American economy was in full bloom, the stock market was rising, employment levels were at all-time highs, yet in 1999 the American economy lost 35 million jobs. Yes, that is right. The American economy lost 35 million jobs. But, in 1999, the American economy also created 37 million new jobs, a net gain of 2 million jobs.

Now, let us move forward 3 years to 2002. And what happened in 2002? We had a recession, we had the effects of 9/11, we had a war going on in Afghanistan, and the American economy lost 35 million jobs in 2002. The American economy, though, in 2002, only created 33\1/2\ million new jobs.

This churning that we see in the American economy has always been there, but this churning we are now seeing is happening at a much faster pace than ever before; and, as a result, the need for job training, retraining, and educational services for American workers is at an all-time high.

During our hearing, when we had Alan Greenspan in front of our committee, he said this: ``We need to increase our efforts to ensure that as many of our citizens as possible have the opportunity to capture the benefits that flow from that engagement. For reasons that I shall elucidate shortly, one critical element in creating that opportunity is the provision of rigorous education and ongoing training to all members of our society. This proposal is not novel. It is, in fact, the strategy that we have followed successfully for most of the past century and a strategy that we now should embrace with renewed commitment.''

Education and training and ongoing education and training for the American workforce is absolutely critical, Mr. Speaker.

There has been a lot said here today about the nature of our economy and what is happening, but in a U.S. News and World Report that is out today, dated June 7, Mort Zuckerman, in his editorial, says this:

``The economy is well on a tear. New jobs are being generated in large numbers. Income is growing at twice the rate of last year. And the exhilaration is such that we will probably see 5 percent growth in the gross domestic product. The jobs reports of the past few months have changed market sentiment. Sixty-one percent of private industries surveyed have added workers. That is the highest in 4 years. Business confidence has surged to a 20-year high, and business spending is exploding, with even American manufacturing joining the party. Companies that once saved every nickel are laying out more and more money as capital equipment to meet growing orders in double-digit rates.''

He goes on to say later in the article, ``We are on a trajectory toward extraordinary growth in the second half of 2004 that will beget stronger job and income growth, stronger retail spending, and accelerating demand at a time when businesses have cut costs, raising profit margins to their highest level in years.

``Higher profits will beget more spending, which will beget more business expansion, which will beget more income for workers which should trigger yet another increase in demand.''

Do not look now, but the surging economy may be the real October Surprise. There is a real surge in our economy; and for Americans to take advantage of that surging economy, the kind of education and training that we allow under the Workforce Investment Act and provide for them should be helpful to them. These personal reemployment accounts are a pilot project to give them the choice about the kinds of services they need, the kinds of training or retraining they need to go out and take advantage of a surging economy to get a real job for the long term.

I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means that deals with this.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has pointed out, we have extended unemployment benefits on several occasions and have provided tens of billions of dollars in support for those extensions.

The motion to recommit, if Members believe this is going to provide unemployment extensions to people, they are kidding themselves. What the Kildee motion does is create a new program within the Workforce Investment Act to extend unemployment benefits. This is not the usual unemployment system that we have that works really well. Under this proposal, we create a new program that is not funded. There is no funding in this bill for the program that is being created, and all this is going to do is bring false hope to millions of Americans who are out there trying to seek work who are on unemployment.

But the worst part of the motion to recommit is that it totally eliminates the underlying bill. For those of us who believe personal reemployment accounts are a good idea and that projects ought to be initiated to allow people up to $3,000 to find the kind of training, retraining, and education they need in order to gain good employment, that entire bill is eliminated under the gentleman's motion to recommit.

I would urge my colleagues, let us not engage in a facade; let us not make empty promises to people who need our help and need our help badly. This is a new program. It is not funded. It will not extend unemployment benefits. Again, the worse part about it is it would eliminate the entire underlying bill and the personal reemployment accounts that we think will be helpful for American workers who are out of work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, was he present, if I may ask, at the Committee on the Judiciary markup of this legislation?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I do not want a filibuster. Just a simply yes or no, because I was there.

Okay. The reason I ask that is because, if we say that it was a bipartisan process, I was there. I am the author of this legislation. There were no hearings granted prior to the vote, and at that hearing a reasonable request was made.

The author of the legislation is here. Let us give him a couple of minutes to speak to the legislation. It was a unanimous consent request. That was denied.

The spirit of true bipartisanship would have said, if the author of a legislation has never had a chance to speak before our committee, then let us at least hear him out.

Instead, what happened was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary presented the bill I believe in a false and misleading light, and I was not given a single moment to address it.

I respect the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and I am glad he is here, and I am glad we have this opportunity, and I appreciate that, but it would be a rewrite of history to suggest for one second that the Committee on the Judiciary process that led up to this was bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time.

In 1787, this month, the Constitutional Convention was at work in Philadelphia, some of the brightest minds in the history of this country. One of those great minds was Madison, and he has been quoted a lot today, but let me quote another thing Mr. Madison said.

Madison said this about the importance of checks and balances: ``The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.''

Madison truly believed we have to elect our representatives to the House, but he also believed with equal dedication that there must be checks and balances. Mr. Speaker, if you and we here today do not act, we impose upon this Nation conditions that will ensure the situation that Madison abhorred of concentration of all the power in the executive.

And let us be clear, it will not likely be an elected executive. We are not talking about President Bush or Vice President Cheney. If the terrorists strike, they will do everything in their power to kill those two individuals and everyone in here that they can. Who then will run this country? That is the question you have yet to answer. You have not answered it. You have said 45 days later we will figure something out. But during that 45 days, who runs the United States of America?

We have indeed taken an oath to defend this Constitution. We have also taken an oath that says we will defend the whole Constitution, including the prerogatives of the House of Representatives as specified in article I.

As people watch this debate today, the people here and the people elsewhere, they must ask themselves, Do I want this country run with no representation from my district there to speak for me? Does an unelected individual who assumes power in the executive branch get to send my child to war without me having a person there to exercise a voice and a vote? I do not think so.

I have had 220 town halls since being elected here, and I will tell you the people back home get this. They do not care really about the insides and outs of the Committee on Rules, but they do care about fair process. And they would say to themselves the idea that we would bring a constitutional amendment to the floor, without ever having given the author a chance to speak to it, is antithetical to the real principles of democracy.

When the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules said we are doing our best, I do not believe so. I believe he dissembles. We are not doing our best. Our best would be this: our best would be to invite all the authors of various proposals, for real continuity, to have a full opportunity for debate, an extensive opportunity for the debate, and for the Speaker of the House of the Representatives and the minority leader to say to their representatives, come to the floor, pay attention to this vital matter, and then we will have time for fair debate, time for full amendments.

That is what we truly asked the chairman of the Committee on Rules to do. We did not say just bring this up for an up-or-down vote. I introduced a resolution that would have provided a fair and full rule to allow for debate of all different proposals, but that was denied. That rule would have offered several days' waiting period for extensive amendments. That was denied. We can do better than this.

It has been said that few problems require a constitutional amendment. Absolutely true. I believe the majority party has been far too eager to amend the Constitution of late. But I will tell you that a bipartisan commission, a bipartisan commission of distinguished scholars began studying this issue over a year and a half ago, with the premise that we must not amend the Constitution to fix this. After a full year of study, and we are going to have about an hour today, they studied this matter for a year, and they listened to experts and scholars from across the political spectrum, and what did they conclude? They concluded we can only fix this with an amendment.

And that includes, by the way, distinguished Republican statesmen, people like former Senator Al Simpson from Wyoming. Ask Senator Simpson why he reached that conclusion. Ask the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, who has successfully introduced legislation in the other body, why he concluded that we need an amendment.

None of us woke up on September 11 and said, boy, what a great day to start thinking about a constitutional amendment. But thousands of our fellow citizens woke up that day not knowing it would be their last. We do not know today when that will happen; but we do know that if the terrorists strike us, they will, in fact, change our system of government at their discretion. They will change who the President is. They will change the political makeup of this body. And we are unprepared to deal with that, and it is irresponsible. And I am sorry it has taken 3 years.

Let me close with statements from the Attorney General of the United States just a week ago: ``After the March 11 attack in Madrid, Spain, an al Qaeda spokesman announced 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete.'' A paragraph later the Attorney General said, ``Several upcoming events over the next few months may suggest especially attractive targets. These events include the G-8 summit, the Democratic Party convention in Boston this summer and the convention of the Republican Party in New York City.''

If the terrorists attack the convention in New York, kill the President and Vice President and many Members of this body, the inevitable consequence is that Democrats will take the majority of this body, will be forced to elect a Speaker, that person will be a Democrat, and that person will become President.

The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules says this was precedent in Madison's time. No, sir, it

was not. It was not for two reasons. The nuclear weapon did not exist in Mr. Madison's time. Secondly, the Succession Act of 1947 was about 180 years away from being written. Madison could not have conceived this. He could not have conceived this, but he left to us an opportunity to address it. We wish we did not have to, but it is foolhardy and reckless to not act when we know the dangers we face.

It has been 3 years, Mr. Speaker, 3 years almost since we saw 3,000 of our fellow citizens killed. If we believe we are immune to that, then we are desperately, desperately deceiving ourselves. And if we do not take provisions to provide for that, then we are letting our public down and letting that sacred Constitution down.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is available?

Mr. Speaker, in that brief time let me address what this amendment really does.

It is very straightforward. It says this: in the event of a catastrophic loss of Members, if we lose over 218, in other words more than would be required to sustain a quorum, then special provisions will apply. But only under catastrophic losses. And those special provisions are very straightforward.

The membership of this body, having been elected by our constituents to perform all the vital functions under article I, would be asked upon their election to create a list of potential successors who, upon our death or incapacity in a catastrophic event, could temporarily fill our place until special elections could be held. Temporarily until special elections could be held.

It is disingenuous, if not deliberately deceptive, to suggest this subverts or bans or undermines elections. We all believe direct elections should be held. The real question is this: Should we have a Congress or not? Should we have a House of Representatives? I think the Framers said we should.

That is why it is article I. But, my friends, if we lose more Members than necessary to sustain a quorum, we will have a constitutional crisis. It is that simple. The majority party has yet to address that.

I found a remarkable statement in the chairman's remarks during the markup of this bill. The chairman said, and I really want to pay attention to this: ``Congress has granted the President significant powers to act during an emergency. He could maintain the necessary functions of government, along with the Congress, utilizing a reduced quorum until elections are held.'' Where did Congress do that? The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States has asserted that the Congress has granted the President of the United States special provisions and he has apparently ex cathedra dictated that we can function with a reduced quorum.

The Constitution of the United States has not dictated that we can function with a reduced quorum. The chairman cited no reference to say where this great body said, ``Mr. President, here are your authorities under a crisis.'' It did not happen. And it was not challenged in the Judiciary. How remarkable and how dangerous that is, that a chairman would dictate that we have given the President powers that we are not authorized under the Constitution to give and that we never took action to give.

The fact is it would not be the President, it would be an unelected Cabinet member that most Americans do not know forced to exercise extra constitutional powers. And, my friends, you would have no voice in this body or in this government to counteract whatever that individual wanted to do. That is why this matters.

It is so much easier to not look at this issue. It is so much easier to go on about our business as if every day we will be here just like we always have. We may not. And if we are not, and if tragedy strikes, the American people have a right to know what happens next. And this body, for 3 years, has failed to answer that question. Answers are available.

This bill may not be perfect, but the status quo is vastly, dangerously imperfect. What we have asked is to bring not only this bill but others, the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), Senator Cornyn's bill, that of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), or the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and ask this body, implore this body to grapple with the complexities of this. Because only when you struggle with it, and only when you see not only the alternatives but the problems of the status quo do you get it.

It is so much easier not to do that. It is easier not to make a will, it is easier not to provide care for our kids if we are gone; but it is irresponsible to do those things. This body must act. And at least today one thing will happen. We will be on record today as having voted to do something or having voted to do nothing. If you vote to do nothing, and God forbid something horrible happens and someone takes advantage of that and leads this Nation in a desperately dangerous path, then you are at least on record as having voted to do nothing. You have seen the risk, and you have chosen the course of inaction. That is irresponsible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would urge a no vote on the rule. How indicative that we said we will have 90 minutes to debate this, 90 minutes to debate the future of this country in the event of a terrorist attack. We are taking this tremendously seriously. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe we are giving 90 whole minutes to whether or not we will have a constitutional government with the House of Representatives and the very bicameral system that the gentleman from Washington described. Vote no on this. Give this body time to have real debate, real discussion on multiple amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for his leadership on this issue and for his fine work on the Committee on Rules.

As I listen to the comments of my very good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I cannot help but think how hard we have in fact been trying to work in a bipartisan way on this issue. I am going to talk about what led us to the point where we are right now, we are considering the rule; and then I will try to get a bit into the substance of the constitutional amendment.

We, after September 11, did come together as a Nation; and we had this historic appearance on the east front of the Capitol where Members of the House and the Senate came together to focus on the solidarity that was important as we begin to proceed with the global war on terrorism. We had never seen an attack like that that we saw on September 11 in our Nation's history. And contrary to what my friend from Massachusetts just said, we have continued to work in a strong bipartisan way, and we are here at this moment considering this constitutional amendment which I virulently oppose because of our desire to work in a bipartisan way.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I introduced legislation which called for expedited special elections. Why? Because we feel very, very passionately about the need to ensure that no one ever serves in the People's House without having first been elected. It is conceivable under the constitutional structure that exists today that every other member that is traditionally elected in the United States of America could hold that office by appointment. The President of the United States can become President by appointment, as we found with President Ford. He became Vice President and then President. Members of the other body, the United States Senate, can in fact be appointed, serving in the United States Senate. But, Mr. Speaker, no one has ever served in the People's House without having first been elected.

James Madison said, ``Where elections end, tyranny begins.'' And so that is the reason that, having spent a great deal of time over the past few years looking at this, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I joined with a number of our colleagues and we enjoyed bipartisan support in this effort. We put together this structure which says, if more than 100 Members are tragically killed, what happens? Well, we have an expedited procedure whereby elections are held within 45 days.

So when we put this legislation together we worked very, very hard on it. We had Members who said, we want to have a constitutional amendment, specifically, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), who I am happy to see has joined us and who has spent a great deal of time and effort on this issue; and I congratulate him for the thoughtful approach that he has taken on this issue.

But what happened when we moved ahead with our legislation was I had someone who was not, frankly, a proponent of the amendment or even the consideration of it; and that is the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

At the request of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and others, I talked with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; and he made a commitment to me that in fact at the next markup the Committee on the Judiciary had they would report out this constitutional amendment. And so that is exactly what has happened.

It has been the bipartisanship that has gotten us to this point today where we are going to, at the request of the minority, have a vote on what I personally believe is an ill-conceived idea and

that is amending the US Constitution which would allow for the appointment of unelected members to serve in this House. And I recognize they want elections. Everyone is for elections. But I do not believe that anyone should serve here without the people having first decided who is going to serve.

So what happened, Mr. Speaker? Well, we worked on this legislation again in a bipartisan way; and by a vote of 306 to 97 we were able to pass this legislation. That is a clear, very strong bipartisan majority.

And how did we do it working in a bipartisan way? We addressed some of the very valid concerns that came from the minority, ensuring that all of the voting rights procedures are included. Those were offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and we agreed that those should be accepted. The ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), very appropriately talked about the concern to make sure that our men and women in uniform who are overseas have the opportunity to participate in those special elections. Those are two concerns that emerged from Democrats, from members of the minority that we incorporated in our legislation.

So as we proceeded with that measure, getting this strong bipartisan 306 to 97 vote in support of the legislation, we addressed the minority concerns. And so, contrary to what is being said about hearings, there were hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary. They did take place in the past Congress, but this has been a process that has been going on since September 11 of 2001.

Now I will say that when it comes to amending the Constitution I have always argued that an amendment to the Constitution should be a last rather than a first resort, and that is one of the reasons I believe that it is best for us to let the legislation that we have seen pass this House come up for consideration in the other body. I believe we should sign that legislation; and then, Mr. Speaker, we will have in place a structure to deal with a potential crisis.

Now, if we were to see two-thirds of this House vote, which everyone acknowledges is not going to happen, but if we were going to see two- thirds of this House vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that would allow for the appointment of Members to serve in the People's House, we have seen, on average, 7 years for ratification of a constitutional amendments. And I think that, based on the fact that this is very controversial and undermines the spirit, the Madisonian spirit of the representative democracy for the People's House, I think it would conceivably take a lot longer.

So that is why I think it is incumbent upon us to do everything we possibly can to ensure the bipartisan legislation which has passed this House, in fact, becomes public law. So that is why support of this rule is support of proceeding with the bipartisan commitment that I was proud to have been able to get from members of both political parties from our leadership team.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), is absolutely committed to institutional reform as it comes, as we address this issue. There are a wide range of things that everyone has done to ensure the continuity of the Congress.

We in the Committee on Rules are spending a great deal of time right now dealing with this issue of incapacitation. It is a tough one. It is not an easy one. But we are deliberating which is exactly what our responsibility is. So I believe that support of this rule is support of the bipartisan quest and the agreement that I was proud to have put together with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to allow for a vote, which is what they asked me to do, Mr. Speaker. I was asked to put into place a structure that would allow for a vote on a constitutional amendment, and we are going to be doing that vote.

So that is why when people want to talk about the fact that somehow this has become partisan, it is not partisan. The one vote we had, 365 members of both political parties overwhelmingly supported the legislation and, along with that, even though it is not going to pass, have allowed for a vote on the issue of amending the Constitution.

Now, let me say very briefly that I believe that looking at the prospect of having anyone serve in the House of Representatives without having first been elected is ill-conceived and wrong; and I believe that while we may hear about a structure that does exist for the Speaker of the House who could be selected by a very few Members to conceivably by the succession plan become President of the United States, that structure existed when James Madison, the father of the Constitution, put this whole device that we have in place under which we govern the United States Constitution.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we are doing the right thing by allowing the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to have his chance to be heard with the constitutional amendments, and I believe that we are doing everything we can to continue down the road of working in a bipartisan way on institutional reform. So I will simply say that I thank my friend again for his hard work. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for the leadership that he has shown on this.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply argue that requests were made of me as the chairman of the Committee on Rules to allow us to have a chance to debate and vote on the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) constitutional amendment. That was the request that was made of me. We know that there is strong opposition, and I am proud to be one of the leaders of the opposition of the constitutional amendment, but I recognize that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has put a lot of time and effort in this. We have gone through a multi-year period, a multi-year period allowing for a lot of deliberation on this; and the Committee on the Judiciary reported this measure out unfavorably. Why? Because I believe correctly they understand that amending the Constitution is not the proper thing for us to do.

So I am just trying to underscore the fact that I am standing here because of bipartisanship on this issue. Frankly, I do not think that we really need to consider this amendment to the Constitution. It is not going to carry. Two-thirds of this House is not going to be voting in favor of the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment. He acknowledges that fact. He acknowledged it in the Committee on Rules last night in debate. But it is our good will and desire to work in a bipartisan way that led us to this point.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

My job is to chair the Committee on Rules.

No.

Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman has made a couple of statements that I need to respond to, I would say in response to the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) statement, no, I was not there.

I do know that, in the Committee on the Judiciary, if the gentleman would further yield.

Mr. Speaker, if you would just yield me a minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me respond by saying that in the Committee on the Judiciary I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, offered an amendment. He withdrew that amendment. So there were no amendments offered.

An opportunity for bipartisanship obviously existed in the committee in that Members could, in fact, offer proposals.

The agreement that we had, the request that was made of me, was that we allow for an up-or-down vote on the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) constitutional amendment on the floor. That is what we are doing. We are going to, in fact, be having an up-or-down vote.

I cannot understand why it is that people want to talk about the fact that in the Committee on the Judiciary they did not believe that there was a proper hearing. In the last Congress, there was hearing on the issue of a constitutional amendment. We know that the members of the Committee on the Judiciary oppose amending the Constitution to allow for appointed people to serve in the People's House, where everyone has always been elected; and the members of the minority in the Committee on the Judiciary did have, in fact, an opportunity to offer amendments themselves to this proposal.

That is what a markup is about. The agreement was that there would be a markup in the Committee on the Judiciary. That was the request that was made of me. We complied with it.

So I believe that we are doing the best thing we can; and, I apologize to my friend from Washington if he thinks what I just said was a filibuster.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me just say that I totally agree with the need to make sure that we deal with this life-or-death issue. The request was made of me that we, in fact, not have a hearing, that was not the request that was made of me. The request that was made of me is that we have an opportunity for the full House to vote on the issue of a constitutional amendment which would allow for appointed Members to serve here in the House of Representatives, as opposed to having the people elect them, and that is the agreement we had.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is debating the continuity of Congress. We are attempting to answer important questions: What happens to the House of Representatives if a majority of Members are killed or incapacitated in a catastrophic event like a terrorist attack? How does the House continue to function if there are not enough Members to constitute a quorum?

These are not easy questions to answer. Indeed, they are not easy questions to talk about or to think about. Nobody wants to consider what happens if they and their friends and colleagues are attacked, but they are questions that we must face head on. And they are questions that elicit

strong policy answers from those who have taken the time to study the issue.

Some believe that amending the Constitution is the proper course. Others disagree, arguing for statutory fixes. But it seems to me that we could all agree on one thing: that these issues should transcend partisan politics. But not in this House.

The Republican leadership cannot seem to help itself when it comes to the way it manages this body. They seem to be addicted to stifling debate, to muzzling Members of both parties, to partisan rules and lousy procedures, and to shredding the committee process.

And so I rise today in strong opposition to this rule because the Republican leadership has once again taken a nonpartisan issue and dragged it into the partisan mud. Instead of working side by side with Democrats, the Republican leadership ignored the proper procedures of this body and rushed this constitutional amendment to the floor for a vote.

This rule makes in order 90 minutes of general debate. That is 90 minutes more than the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), held in hearings on this amendment. Let me say that again. In the 108th Congress, there has not been one single hearing about a constitutional amendment on this issue.

The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary found time to write a very eloquent op ed piece in this morning's Washington Post, but apparently could not find the time to hold a hearing. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), hold strong views that the Constitution should not be amended. They may be right. However, I honestly do not believe that this whole issue has been given the serious and thoughtful attention and consideration that it deserves.

There is no reason to bring this bill to the floor without hearing from academics, lawyers, Members of Congress, Senators, former and current administration officials, liberal, moderate, and conservative interest groups. Many of those experts served right here as Members of Congress as members of the Committee on the Judiciary. Why are we not taking advantage of their expertise?

I am especially puzzled by this unnecessarily partisan process given that this is not a hot topic in the elections. I think it is safe to say that not a single congressional race this year will turn on whether the candidate supports constitutional or statutory remedies for the continuity of Congress. This is not what people are talking about around their kitchen tables. But it is important, and it should be handled correctly.

This rule makes in order only the constitutional amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). Yet last night, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) came before the Committee on Rules with two proposals. Several members of the Committee on Rules had questions and sought clarification on certain aspects of his ideas.

It was a very, very interesting conversation. But it was not a discussion that should have taken place in the Committee on Rules less than a day before the House votes on a constitutional amendment. It should have taken place at a hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect and they deserve a House that works together when this country faces adversity. After the September 11 attacks, the Speaker of the House and the minority leader brought our two parties together for a bipartisan caucus to discuss what happened and to discuss the next steps. During those next days and weeks we were not two parties, we were one country. I believe that we need to once again join together in a bipartisan caucus to talk about this important issue and decide on the steps that we need to take, to bring together experts from across the political spectrum and to do what is right for the country and for the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this constitutional amendment was brought before the House in the wrong way. This rule is the wrong rule, and I would urge my colleagues to reject it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules that what today is supposed to be bipartisan is more than just giving the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) his day on the floor.

Last night, in the Committee on Rules, the chairman said this is a very serious issue. He mentioned on the floor today that it is a very controversial issue. It would seem to me that if it is a serious issue and a controversial issue and if we are going to have a process here that both sides can respect, then at a minimum the committee of jurisdiction, which is the Committee on the Judiciary, should have held a hearing on it. We reported this measure out on a very partisan vote in the Committee on the Judiciary without a hearing on the proposal that we are debating here today.

The chairman of the Committee on Rules says that we are working in a bipartisan way. How can this be a bipartisan process when the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on the Judiciary, has not held a hearing?

I would say that I read the chairman's op-ed piece today in the Washington Post, and I agree with much of what he is saying, but I have a lot of questions. There were members of the Committee on Rules last night who had a lot of questions. There are Members who are not on the floor right now who have a lot of questions. I think that it is important that we have a process that has some integrity to it, a process where people can have their questions raised and answered; and this is not the process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, we have a whole bunch of speakers here on our side. Could maybe your side yield the distinguished chairman some time?

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

Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, I should just point out to the chairman of the Committee on Rules that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) tried twice during the markup to postpone consideration of the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment for a couple of weeks to allow for there to be an opportunity for Members to offer amendments and there to be a hearing, and the motion was tabled.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Let me just say to kind of clarify what the concerns are on this side of the aisle. This is an important issue. This is an important topic that we are talking about. I think all of us can agree on that. This is supposed to be a deliberative body where we deliberate, and that means hold hearings where we have people who are experts on some of these issues be able to talk and testify and offer their input.

I am not sure whether it is a good idea to amend the Constitution, but I have to tell my colleagues I am appalled by this process that we would bring an issue like this to the House floor and to ask Members to vote up or down on it without holding hearings in the committee of jurisdiction. That is not the way this place is supposed to work.

The people of this country, the people of this institution deserve a lot better.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert an article that was written by Professor Colleen Shogan, who is a professor of Government and Politics at George Mason University. This article appeared in yesterday's Roll Call.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, if I can just read the first line of that column where Professor Shogan says, ``The debate over how Congress should reconstitute itself in the wake of a devastating terrorist attack has evolved into a partisan melee with experts, staffers, and elected officials talking past one another.''

I think, Mr. Speaker, what people on our side are concerned about is that the professor is absolutely right, that this issue has kind of become more partisan than it should be. In fact, it should not be partisan at all and this really is a time to kind of take a couple of steps backwards and to do the necessary deliberation and consideration that something this important requires. That is what we are asking for here.

I think it is hard for the other side to justify that this has been a fair and bipartisan process and that they are taking this issue seriously when the main committee of jurisdiction has not even held a hearing on this particular bill in the 108th Congress. So what we are asking for is that this serious issue be taken seriously, that the necessary deliberation and the necessary consideration be followed as we move forward with this legislation.

So with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), and urge a no vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Resolution 671, which is the rule for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004, which is masquerading today as the energy conference report of 2003; and H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act.

Mr. Speaker, this summer Americans all across the country are flooding into movie theaters to see the much-anticipated sequels to such blockbuster films as ``Shrek,'' ``Spider Man,'' and ``Harry Potter.''

So far the early reviews and box office returns for these sequels suggest Hollywood has actually managed to improve on the original versions by adding exciting new characters and interesting new plot lines.

Sadly, that is not so here in the House of Representatives. This summer, the Republican leadership is forcing us to vote on the same tired old reruns of bad bills that we have already seen and voted on once before. The consideration of H.R. 4503 actually marks the sixth time this year that this House has passed a bill for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of the bills that the House has voted on at least twice this year.

(1) Bankruptcy. The House passed its bankruptcy reform bill

on March 19, 2003 (H.R. 975, vote No. 74) and passed it again

on January 28, 2004 when it substituted the text of

the already-passed H.R. 975 into a non-controversial Senate

family farmer bankruptcy bill (S. 1920, vote No. 10).

(2) Medical Malpractice. The House passed medical

malpractice reform legislation on March 13, 2003 (H.R. 5,

vote No. 64) and then passed it again on May 12, 2004, as

part of the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R.

4280, vote No. 166).

(3) Association Health Plans. The House passed legislation

creating Association Health Plans (AHPs) on June 19, 2003 and

then passed the same bill again in May 13, 2004, as part of

the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R. 4281,

vote No. 174).

(4) Teacher Training. The House passed the ``Ready to

Teach'' Act on July 9, 2003 (H.R. 2211, vote No. 340) and

then passed it again under a new bill number on June 2, 2004

under suspension of the rules (H.R. 4409, voice voted, then

inserted by H. Res. 656 into H.R. 444).

(5) Graduate School Grants. The House passed a bill to

reauthorize programs that award grants to U.S. graduate

students under suspension of the rules on October 21, 2003

(H.R. 3076, voice voted) and then passed it again under a new

bill number on June 2, 2004 under suspension of the rules

(H.R. 4409, voice voted, then inserted by H. Res. 656 into

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this process is lousy. H.R. 4503, the bill the gentleman was referring to, Members on the Democratic side were not even allowed to participate in the conference where this bill was negotiated. The process here is awful, and it really is indefensible.

I also remind the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this rule is not only for the consideration of H.R. 4503, it is also for the consideration of H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery and Revitalization Act. There were no hearings at all in the committee of jurisdiction on that bill. There was no markup by the Members of the committee of jurisdiction on that bill.

I think we need to say something in defense of the Members, both Democrat and Republican, who are on that committee of jurisdiction that they should have an opportunity to be present at hearings and ask questions and to be able to make suggestions to make that bill better. So this process is indefensible. It is indefensible not only by the fact that people are getting locked out and bills are being rushed to the floor without hearings and without markups, but also this is bad policy. I think almost everybody knows it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. Speaker, this House is becoming a place where the rules are constantly being broken and a place where the process is constantly being ignored. No hearings, no markups, no amendments made in order. How cynical on an issue so important.

We need an energy policy in this country, Mr. Speaker. But this is not it. What we are being presented with today really is a giveaway to big campaign contributors. This bill does nothing to lower gas prices. This bill does nothing to have us become less dependent on foreign oil. It does nothing to support, in a meaningful way, renewable energy sources.

This bill is having a tough time for all the right reasons, because it is a bad bill. And rather than trying to fix it and rather than trying to negotiate with the other body, here we are again going through the same old routine.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just people like me who have problems with this bill. Let me read just a section from a letter signed by the president of Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, the president of the Council for Citizens against Government Waste, the President of the National Taxpayers Union, the president of the Americans for Tax Reform, and the president of the American Conservative Union. They recently sent all of us a letter. Let me just quote from one paragraph.

They say: ``There is too much waste to describe in one letter,'' contained in this bill. ``Suffice it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything, from giving billions to ethanol producers to 'green' bonds for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal industries to billions in loan guarantees for an Alaska natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet projects at colleges across this country. The oil and gas industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's funding.''

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and I will insert this letter in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, we could do so much better, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule, to force the committees of jurisdiction to do their job, to go back and meet again and to come up with an energy bill that we all can be proud of.

December 1, 2003.

Pop the Ballooning Energy Bill

Dear Senator: On behalf of our members, the undersigned

groups urge you to oppose H.R. 6, the so-called ``Energy

Policy Act of 2003.'' We are concerned that at every

opportunity the energy bill has been larded up with more and

more waste and inappropriate taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Between initial passage on the floor of the House of

Representatives and the bill's emergence from the sequestered

conference committee, the bill's price tag ballooned from $46

billion to over $72 billion in authorized spending. That is a

50% increase in authorized spending in just a few months. Our

organizations will strongly consider including votes on this

bill in our end-of-the-year scorecards.

H.R. 6 is chock full of subsidies, pork barrel projects,

and unnecessary spending that have little, if anything, to do

with our nation's energy needs. Even supporters of the

legislation have admitted that it is not real comprehensive

energy policy, but merely a goodie bag of various projects

and policies. The Wall Street Journal called this bill ``one

of the great logrolling exercises in recent Congressional

history'' and that to get the bill through, leadership has

``greased more wheels than a Nascar pit crew.'' The

Washington Post also editorialized against the bill, calling

on lawmakers to ``make sure the bill doesn't become law.'' We

echo that sentiment.

There is too much waste to describe in one letter. Suffice

it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything,

from giving billions to ethanol producers to ``green'' bonds

for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal

industries to billion in loan guarantees for an Alaska

natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet

projects at colleges across the country. The oil and gas

industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's

funding.

Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 6 and we will strongly

consider including votes on this wasteful legislation in our

organizations' end-of-year scorecards. We would be happy to

discuss these issues with you further. Please contact Aileen

Roder at Taxpayers for Common Sense Action at (202) 546-8500

130 or [email protected] with questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Jill Lancelot,

President, Taxpayers for Common Sense Action.

Tom Schatz,

President, Council for Citizens against Government Waste.

John Berthoud,

President, National Taxpayers Union.

Grover G. Norquist,

President, Americans for Tax Reform.

Richard Lessner, Ph.D,

Executive Director, American Conservative Union.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.