Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to Congressional succession.

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

Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we are going to be considering today deals with a very, very serious issue, the possibility actually of a tragic attack that would result in the death of a significant number of our colleagues in the House. Though I think it is safe to say that none of us are eager to consider this issue, the events of September 11, 2001, forced this House to consider the ramifications of a successful terrorist attack against this body. On that fateful day, the enemies of freedom clearly targeted the pillars of our Nation. The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center which represented our economic freedom. They attacked the Pentagon which represents our military strength. And, by all accounts, Flight 93 was targeted either at the White House or at this building, both symbols of our form of democratic government and of our freedoms.

In fact, only the heroic actions, the unbelievable bravery of those brave passengers on Flight 93 prevented that particular plane, that particular flight, from reaching its intended target.

And so, Mr. Chairman, we begin to think about the unthinkable, to do our duty and to plan for every eventuality. H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act, provides a very reasonable, very well thought-out mechanism for the reconstitution of the House of Representatives in the event of such a tragedy. The sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) are to be commended for their great commitment and dedication in crafting this bill and bringing it to the floor today. The Congress must ensure that the government remains strong and stable during and following a terrorist attack, and this legislation would accomplish that goal.

Mr. Chairman, all the other branches of government already have contingency plans in place. In the case of a vacancy, the President would be replaced quickly by the existing line of succession. The courts would be replaced quickly by presidential appointment. The Senate would be reconstituted very quickly through gubernatorial appointment as is outlined in the 17th amendment. Only the House would be unable to function quickly in a time of national emergency.

The Continuity in Representation Act would correct this problem by requiring States to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives not later than 49 days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of this House in the extraordinary circumstances that vacancies in representation from the States exceed 100. Mr. Chairman, as we grapple with this issue, we must remind ourselves that the U.S. House of Representatives is the people's House. For the entirety of our national existence, Members of the House have been directly elected by the people. Article 1, section 2 of our Constitution states: ``When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of elections to fill such vacancies.'' The key word here is ``elections.'' No event should be reason enough to change this historic and constitutional constant.

The bill under consideration today allows us to remain true to the course charted for us by our Founding Fathers. There have been a number of suggested alternatives to the proposal in this legislation. Some have called for perhaps temporary appointment of the Members of Congress in such an emergency either through gubernatorial appointment like that in the Senate, or even by a sitting Member naming a successor to take the seat in the event of that Member's death.

Any of these ideas would require a constitutional amendment, which would be a change from both tradition and constitutional mandate which expressly calls again for the direct election of Members of the House of Representatives. Concerns have also been expressed regarding the requirement that special elections be completed within 49 days of the Speaker's announcement of 100 existing vacancies in the House would be difficult.

Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress actually, I was honored to serve as Michigan's Secretary of State for 8 years with a principal responsibility of serving as that State's chief election official, so this is an area that I do have some expertise in. Some have argued and will argue that more time is necessary, but I disagree.

Under this legislation, States would have the option, let me repeat, the option, of eliminating the primary election and permitting political parties recognized by State law to choose their candidates. In turn, this would eliminate the petition requirements and the verification process that accompanies it. Additionally, it is important for us to remember that the U.S. Representative position would really be the only one on the ballot which would dramatically ease printing, programming and testing.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, HAVA as we commonly call it, has helped to prepare local election officials more than ever to conduct special elections. HAVA is granting Federal dollars to the States in historic proportions, quite frankly, dollars that they are using to eliminate antiquated election equipment and purchasing new state-of-the-art equipment. States have either constructed or are moving very quickly toward construction of statewide computerized voter registration files, similar to the one that we built in Michigan several years ago. Technology actually allows for these lists to be updated daily so that a clean, up-to-date file can be printed out literally any day of the year anytime, and provided to the polling sites. Obviously this is a fantastic election tool for any election, but particularly so for an expedited election.

Also, States are now moving toward uniformity of voting systems in their precincts. Uniformity of election equipment in a State will enable vendors to always have a camera ready template of the ballot, and then all they literally have to do is fill in the names of the nominees for U.S. Representative and go to print. Having a uniform system will eliminate confusion amongst poll workers and further ease election preparation.

H.R. 841 also protects the ability of military personnel and overseas citizens to participate in a special election by requiring that absentee ballots be transmitted to such voters within 15 days of the Speaker's announcement and that such absentee ballots be counted if they are received not later than 45 days after the State transmits them.

In fact, even now the Department of Defense, the DOD, is moving towards a program where service men and women stationed overseas can actually download their ballots via the Internet.

Some will make the argument, again, that 49 days is simply not enough time for the States to prepare. To that argument, I would simply point out that some States today already have requirements that special elections be held in much less time than the 49-day period. So I believe that argument is obviously moot.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not intend to imply that this would be a simple task. There is no question there is lots of hard work. Regardless, it has been my observation and my personal experience that the fine men and women who administer our elections always rise to the occasion to complete the required work on time. I have no doubts that they would do so in a time of national emergency.

While I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we never have to face this situation, we must nonetheless prepare for it. Clearly it is incumbent on us to find a solution to this issue which honors the wishes and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers that the House of Representatives remain the people's House.

Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the price of freedom is remaining ever vigilant. I believe passing H.R. 841 is a step in showing the enemies of freedom that America is remaining ever vigilant. Similar legislation received over 300 votes in the last Congress, and I would, again, ask my colleagues for their strong bipartisan support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Continuity in Representation Act provides a process to ensure that our democratic government remains stable and orderly during a possible time of great instability. In addition, it preserves the unique status of the House of Representatives by continuing the tradition and the constitutional mandate that every Member of this body must be elected by his or her constituents. In such a time of crisis, the people of this Nation must have a voice in the critical decisions that are being made. This legislation ensures that that will be the case.

The time limit of 49 days that this bill lays out is more than adequate, Mr. Chairman. In fact, a survey of election officials confirmed that this is a realistic time frame, and I will tell you as a former elections official myself, I concur with those findings.

Furthermore, several States already have laws in place that require special elections to be conducted in a shorter period of time than the 49-day limit that this legislation requires. It is a short enough period that the House is reconstituted quickly and loses none of its authority, and, at the same time, it is a long enough period for fair elections to be conducted.

When this issue was before the 108th Congress, Mr. Chairman, the House acted in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and approved the Continuity in Representation Act by a more than three-to-one margin. In fact, H.R. 841 that we consider today has improved on the previous bill by addressing the following reservations that some Members of the House and some of the States had regarding that bill.

First, the special election privilege is extended now to Delegates and Resident Commissioners so that they could be replaced just as quickly as Members.

Second, the legislation explicitly gives States any method that they choose to selects the candidates for special elections. Certainly as an advocate of States' rights, this provision was extremely important to both myself and many of us here in this Chamber.

Finally, the time limit for special elections to be completed has been extended to 49 days from the time of the Speaker's announcement that over 100 vacancies exist. This gives local and State officials 7 full weeks to select candidates, to print ballots and to fully execute those special elections.

With these changes I am hopeful that the bipartisan support for this legislation will be even greater today than it has been in the past. Mr. Speaker, this is not simply a bill about elections or the best way to replace Members of Congress. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about the strength of our Nation. It is about our ability to secure the homeland, and it does that by ensuring that our democratically elected government is able to respond in the face of an urgent threat.

Homeland security is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. This is an issue that affects every single American, Mr. Chairman; and the Congress should act in the interest of America and of democracy.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 841, and I look forward very much to supporting and passing this important and historic legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the gentlewoman from California, while certainly a very well-intentioned amendment, is completely unnecessary and, I believe, would severely weaken this bill.

While this amendment would only increase the time limit in which to conduct the special election by 11 days, more than the limit provided for in H.R. 841, it would weaken the power of Congress in a significant way. According to the War Powers Act, when the

President has put our Armed Forces into action, Congress must act within 60 days to either approve or to disapprove the use of those troops. Following an attack in which over 100 Members of Congress have been killed, it is quite likely that a military response would be required.

If Congress is not reconstituted within this 60-day period, it would lose its ability to either affirm or disapprove of the executive's use of military actions and, thus, the power of the legislative branch would be diminished. The amendment by the gentlewoman would prevent Congress from acting in this situation. H.R. 841, as it stands, would allow for Congress to reconstitute and to act on such an important matter.

Another argument against this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that while it is not only dangerous, again it is completely unnecessary. A survey of election officials, as I mentioned earlier, shows that 49 days is a reasonable period of time in which to conduct a special election. And as a former chief elections officer of the State of Michigan, I agree with that assessment. As the legislation currently stands, States would have the option, and let me reiterate again, the States have the option of eliminating the primary election and permitting political parties recognized by State law to choose those candidates.

In turn, this would eliminate the petition requirements, and the verification process that accompanies it. Additionally, it is again very important to remember that the U.S. Representative position would really be the only race on the ballot. Again, dramatically easy printing, programming, and testing.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, HAVA, as it is commonly called, has helped prepare election officials more than ever to conduct such a special election. HAVA is granting Federal dollars to the States in historic proportions, dollars that are being used to eliminate antiquated election equipment, and the States are purchasing new state-of-the-art equipment. States have either constructed or are moving towards construction of statewide, computerized voter registration files, similar, as I mentioned, to the one we built in Michigan several years ago.

Technology is allowing these lists to be updated literally daily, so that a clean up-to-date file can be printed out any date of the year and provided to every polling site. Again, a fantastic election tool for any election, but particularly so in this case for an expedited election.

Also, States are rapidly moving towards a uniform system of voting machines. Uniformity of election equipment in a State will enable vendors to always have a camera-ready template on the ballot, and then all they have to do is just fill in the name of the nominees for U.S. Representative and go to print. Having a uniform system will eliminate confusion amongst poll workers and further ease election preparation.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, some States already prescribe that special elections be conducted in a period of time even shorter than this. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) mentioned the Virginia experience; Minnesota, I believe, requires a 30- or 35-day limit as well. All of this goes to prove that the amendment is completely unnecessary. The only thing that this amendment would effectively do is extend the time period for which some parts of the Nation would not be represented in this body, in the United States House of Representatives. And there is never a good reason to do that, Mr. Chairman.

While it is true that State and local officials must have sufficient time to conduct elections, it is imperative that they be completed as quickly as possible so that there is some semblance of continuity in representation. There should not be any unnecessary delay to this process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,

who has been a driving force in bringing this legislation to the floor today.

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

As I have listened to the debate, I feel more strongly than ever that this amendment would severely weaken the impact of H.R. 841. I urge my colleagues to reject the Millender-McDonald amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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

The language in the motion to recommit is very similar to the language in the Help America Vote Act legislation, HAVA, as it is commonly called, that legislation being H.R. 533. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is not the only Member who has proposed comprehensive election reform. A number of other bills have been introduced by Members on both sides of the aisle proposing amendments to the HAVA bill.

The Committee on House Administration has scheduled hearings on these issues, including in the State of Ohio I would say, and we will be considering all of these bills in due course.

Today is not the time nor is it the place to be debating election reform issues. We are here to provide for continuity and representation of this House and the American people. So let us focus on what needs to be done to provide for expedited special elections so that we can have a functioning House as soon as possible if there is a horrible, catastrophic attack.

Let us leave these other issues for a later day when they can be debated in the proper context.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to begin by congratulating him on his superb service on the Committee on Rules.

This is obviously a very important issue to him. He joined the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and me, along with former Secretary of State Candice Miller and our distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), in co-sponsoring this legislation.

As a former Secretary of State, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) understands how important this issue is for us to address.

I also want to express appreciation to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In the last Congress, while it has not happened in this Congress, I was very pleased that the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), joined as a cosponsor of this legislation, as well as my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). And it is my hope that we will be able to move ahead in a bipartisan way dealing with this very, very important institutional issue.

We all remember September 11 of 2001. My judgment has often been questioned because I was the last human being to walk out of this building on September 11 of 2001, and probably correctly. I did not think anyone would attack it. And I will say that when I left the building on September 11, 2001, I did so when one of the great Capitol Hill policemen said to me that there was a plane headed towards this building, and we all know now that that is the plane that went down with those very courageous passengers in Pennsylvania.

When we think back on September 11th, obviously it was one of the darkest days in the history of our republic, and it has led us to spend a great deal of time thinking about the unthinkable. Because of September 11th, we have had to ponder things that we would never even possibly consider because of the fact that we had not seen that kind of attack on U.S. soil. But since that time, the Speaker of the House has really stepped up to the plate and done a wide range of things that are designed to ensure that the people's House and, in fact, we hope both Houses of Congress, are able to continue to function.

If you recall on September 11th, late that afternoon, when Members of both Houses of Congress, both political parties, stood on the east front of the Capitol singing God Bless America. The reason that Members stood on the east front of the Capitol was to let the American people and to let anyone know who would want to do us in, that we, as a Nation, are strong, and this institution, the greatest deliberative body known to man, was continuing to function.

So beginning almost immediately after the attacks of September 11th, the Speaker took a number of steps that were designed to maintain the continuity of this great institution. He established the ability to adjourn to an alternative place and to declare an emergency recess. He established the ability to effect a joint leadership recall from a period of adjournment through designees, and the requirement that the Speaker submit to the

Clerk of the House a list of designees to act in the case of a vacancy in the Office of the Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, we all know that at the beginning of this 109th Congress, we included in our opening day rules package the provisions that allow the House to establish a quorum, which could be lowered if we go through a litany of roll call votes that would determine that many Members had been incapacitated and could not actually show up to work here.

I think it is important to note that we provided a number of protections in the use of that rule, including several that have been suggested by the Members of the other side of the aisle. And I have to add, Mr. Speaker, that the Speaker of the House and the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), have personally engaged and spent time talking about this very important issue. And it is my hope that we will, at the end of the day, end up with, as I said, a bipartisan compromise.

Some of those recommendations that came from Members of the minority on this issue: Extended roll calls lasting days at a time and excluding any time in recess so that Members can contact the House and let us know that they can come to vote. The availability of the motion to adjourn at any time. The nonpartisan advice of the Sergeant at Arms, the Capitol physician, and the medical and emergency personnel about the state of the membership of this body. And, Mr. Speaker, at the recommendation of the minority, consultation with the minority leader, in accordance with the traditional relationship between the Speaker and the minority leader.

And, finally, it is very important for us to remember that, as I just alluded to, that we have a bicameral legislature. The United States House of Representatives does not operate unilaterally, so there will always be a check on any action taken under the mass incapacitation quorum provision.

What I have been discussing, Mr. Speaker, answers how we will do the people's work if a terrorist attack incapacitates large numbers of us. Now, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005, which we are considering here today, deals with how we will replenish the House if terrorists kill large numbers of our Members. This legislation calls for special elections to be held within 45 days following such a catastrophe.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has just alluded to something, and while I know we do not enjoy the strong support of the minority on this, we have made a step in that we are going to have a manager's amendment made in order that would allow us to move in the direction of what it is that the minority wants, and that is allowing for 49 days, which would be a full 7 weeks.

Let me say that this legislation addresses a number of very important matters and it incorporates a number of suggestions made, again by Members on the other side of the aisle. They include more than doubling the amount of time for the special elections to occur from 21 days to 45 days. And again we are going even further, to a full 7 weeks.

Protecting overseas military and absentee voters so that they receive additional time in which to return ballots. And I want to thank, particularly, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his fine work in that area and his commitment to ensure that we address the issue of military and overseas voters.

Protecting civil and voter rights. You will recall when we considered this legislation, which at the end of the day drew large bipartisan support in the 108th Congress, we were able to address the concerns that were raised by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) at the end of the day when we were debating the legislation, and that is included in this. Again, that is a recommendation that came from the minority.

We allow States to have primaries and other options for selection of candidates for the special election so long as the general elections are completed within that period of time, which would be 49 days, excluding districts from the 49-day special election requirement if they already have either a general or special election scheduled, and including the four delegates and the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico within the provisions of the bill.

Now, I mentioned the large bipartisan support. Last year, this legislation passed the House by a vote of 306 to 97. I believe that we need to continue working in a strong bipartisan manner to move this bill through the House and get it to the other body just as expeditiously as possible. In that spirit, I anticipate that we will amend the rule, as I said, to move under this manager's amendment from 45 to 49 days. Again, our attempt to continue to work and address very, very correct concerns that are emerging from the minority.

I also have to say that on this rule itself we are very happy to have made in order the amendment of my colleague and neighbor, the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), who has offered an amendment calling for 60 days. I also want to congratulate her, Mr. Speaker, on her new assignment as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Administration. She is working closely with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) I know, and with the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who is going to be managing this legislation, and so we look forward to seeing what I hope is, again, a good bipartisan work product.

I want to talk now, if I can, Mr. Speaker, about how this bill protects what I feel is a very, very key part of our responsibility here: Our representation. When I was an undergraduate at Claremont McKenna College, I had a professor who pounded the Federalist Papers into me. I remember my mentor and the importance of the Constitutional Convention, and the great Connecticut Compromise of July 16 of 1787. And I remember that date because we convened the Congress in Philadelphia to mark the bicentennial of the Connecticut Compromise back on July 16 of 1987.

Of course, the Federalists have been so important in explaining and justifying the actions of the framers as they put the Constitution together. We all know that James Madison was the Father of our Constitution, as well as having been President of the United States, he, as a matter of fact, was a member of the first Committee on Rules. And a relative of mine served on that Committee on Rules at the founding.

Madison wrote extensively about this institution, the House of Representatives in Federalists 52 through 57. And one of the things I believe is very important for us to note is that Madison talked about the absolutely critical importance of this institution being elected.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the 435 of us who serve as Members of the House of Representatives are the only Federal officials who must be elected before we can serve. In the other body, the United States Senate, people are appointed by their governors if vacancies take place. And we all know from the example of President Ford, one can be appointed to serve as Vice President and President of the United States without having been elected. But no one has ever served in the people's House, this body, without having first been elected. And I think it is important to note that Madison made it clear when he was talking especially about this institution, as he said in Federalist No. 53, ``where elections end, tyranny begins.''

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are the only Federal office where no one has served here without having first been elected, and I think that is something we need to do everything we can to maintain.

In Federalist 52 Madison wrote: ``It is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on and an intimate sympathy with the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectively secured.''

He went on in Federalist 57 and wrote: ``Who are to be the electors of the Federal representatives? Not the rich more than the poor, not the learned more than the ignorant, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names more than the humble sons of

obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.''

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

I think it is very important for us to understand that there have been times in our Nation's history where we have faced greater difficulty than the difficulty that we face today, or even greater difficulty than we faced following September 11 of 2001, and that was the Civil War. If we think back to that time of the Civil War, we have to remember that this Capitol was surrounded by troops who were threatening the very being of our Republic. Yet President Lincoln proceeded with elections, understanding how critically important they are for our Republic's survival.

And, of course, we have the newest example of self-determination in the world. The brave people of Iraq recently tasted freedom and the joy of elections. What happened? We had many people saying those elections could not take place. Why? Because there was a great deal of tension. We saw terrorist attacks, and we continue to see that in Iraq. But we know that despite the bombs and the snipers and the fear of death, people exercised that very important right to self-determination. Having faced down aristocracy and tyranny, they knew just how important elections would be for them. We too are a democracy borne out of facing down aristocracy and tyranny ourselves, and we should never forget that for one moment.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that as we look at the struggles taking place in Iraq today, that building and reinforcing democratic institutions is crucial for the safety, security, and happiness of a nation's people, whether it is the people of Iraq or the people of the United States of America. That is why when we looked at some of the other options to provide for our continuity as an institution, such as the stand-in appointments provision that the House overwhelmingly defeated last year, we should ask what we lose if we, for one moment, give up on elections.

Some have said that this is different; that we will be dealing with a national emergency. And I say that elections are particularly important during a time of a national emergency. We should not have stand-ins or successors from a list in our back pockets passing laws, declaring war, or suspending habeas corpus. I believe that when we take this very, very unique institution, the people's House, where no one has served without having first been elected, and move away from elections, that we threaten the very basis of our strength as a democratic Nation.

Thus as we look at the very tough challenge of how to preserve our democracy in the face of catastrophe, this legislation is the most responsible way to continue the legitimacy of our government. If we look at the tragic loss of more than 100 Members, the idea of having the States hold special elections in that period of time is something that is doable. People will unite and will remove all obstacles in conducting elections.

Think about it, Mr. Speaker. In the time of a horrible tragedy, feeding and clothing one's family, making sure the roof is over their head, and then playing a role in picking one's leaders, that is all part of the process of rebuilding. And it can be done in a relatively short period of time.

My colleague (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and I represent the State of California. A year and a half ago in our home State, we went through a special election--recently, going through an unprecedented situation. We had the recall of a Governor and an election that took place in 55 days. It was not a single congressional district of 650,000 people with two or three candidates. That race had 135 candidates on the ballot, and they were running among a populace of 35 million people. And I am happy to say that that election came off without a hitch. And I should parenthetically say I am happy with the outcome as well, Mr. Speaker.

Let me close by saying that I think it is very important for us to realize again what James Madison was telling us when he said ``When elections end, tyranny begins.'' We should do everything we possibly can to make sure that we keep this House's very, very precious election process.

This rule allows for consideration of measures that address that. It is a very fair rule that again gives the ranking minority member an opportunity to have her proposal considered. I do oppose that proposal because I believe that the notion of moving to 49 days will allow us to work this out very well. And I again thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and others, who have worked long and hard on this.

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

First, let me congratulate the gentlewoman from Michigan in joining our committee, the Committee on House Administration. She is quite an addition to the committee and we congratulate her.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 841 in its current form. While the bill number has changed since last year, the core problems in this legislation remain the same as in last year's bill, H.R. 2844. H.R. 841 is unworkable, unfair and undemocratic. It restricts the franchise and inhibits public participation in the expedited special elections it would create, an especially unfortunate development following so closely after the serious problems revealed in the aftermath of the 2004 elections.

This bill is part of a series of actions by the majority over the last 2 years as advertised in addressing problems of congressional continuity. The stated objective of the legislation is to override State laws in order to hold expedited special elections within 45 days of a catastrophe which may leave more than 100 vacancies in the Chamber. While this goal is laudable, the bill defines a problem, creates an unfunded mandate, but then provides no solution. This legislation dumps the problem onto the States to produce something called an ``election'' within 45 days, but without the political and democratic substance we associate with campaigns for the House of Representatives.

I want to stress that H.R. 841 has no partisan content. It is simply inadequate to the task of reconstituting the House in a truly democratic fashion. Members on our side of the aisle were split almost down the middle last

April in the vote on this legislation because they felt pressured to do something. But the majority voted for it virtually lockstep when not even its principal sponsors could explain how the bill was actually supposed to work. The Senate, not surprisingly, never acted on it. So here we go again.

H.R. 841 contains a wish list of provisions which would set impractical deadlines, ignore the rights of candidates to run and of voters to participate in elections, and create confusion in the aftermath of a national catastrophe when the country needs the stability of established constitutional processes and the legitimacy of the rule of law.

Let us look at some of the specifics of this bill. Among the principal flaws of this legislation are the time frame is much too short for the conducting of special elections in many States. Even States whose present laws contemplate 45 days may not cope in the aftermath of an unknown future crisis which could affect our infrastructure and communications systems nationwide. The House last year rejected a proposal for 75 days in which to conduct these elections. This year, I will offer a compromise amendment proposing 60 days, which is not a magic solution, either, but which at least provides valuable additional flexibility to the States.

The bill represents an unfunded mandate. While States could conduct special elections to fill vacancies even without this bill, it eliminates their flexibility in the scheduling of elections, in the format of the elections and in the costs of elections.

There is insufficient time for voter registration for those wishing to participate in an unscheduled, sudden election for the House. New voters would be blocked out of the system. Why should we prevent full public participation when a Congress, seeking to renew itself, needs the legitimacy which an open democratic system provides?

The bill provides no mechanism for candidates to qualify for the ballot in States which require petition gathering or other potentially time-consuming measures intended to assess the public support and credibility of potential candidates. States are expected to develop some faster method to accomplish these central goals of qualifying candidates to run very early before the bill's trigger is pulled or risk missing the deadline. So which should it be?

This bill assumes that there are instant candidates out there who, upon learning of a vacancy, will decide to run without full consultation with family and friends, or with their potential parties and relevant interest groups and who can instantly arrange financing and instantly have an infrastructure in place to negotiate the campaign finance laws. These steps are extraordinarily difficult even in normal circumstances. Are candidates who can make instant decisions to run and instantly finance their campaigns representative of the full range of political talent of America? More importantly, are they the people we want to give a head start in gaining seats in the House? I do not think we want that, Mr. Chairman.

This bill also allows insufficient time to conduct primary elections in the many States which allow them for special elections. Last year's bill originally banned primaries entirely, but the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) improved this bill during our committee markup by removing the prohibition on primaries. Nevertheless, the 45-day scheme would still effectively block them in many States.

This bill still allows insufficient time to send, receive and count absentee ballots, even in those States which will not use primaries. Those most likely to face exclusion include Americans abroad and our military personnel stationed and fighting overseas.

Mr. Chairman, this bill contains no mechanism to activate its own provisions in the event the entire House membership is wiped out. If so, what happens next?

H.R. 841 deals with a practical catastrophe and a partial one, but becomes useless in the event of a total catastrophe. It was suggested on the House floor last year that in the circumstances that the entire House was wiped out, it would be up to the people to come together and make the determination as to the rebuilding process and how it begins. Really? Then how? Is it not the responsibility of Congress to anticipate and find solutions to problems when it enacts laws and not to rely on some vague national town meeting if the bill fails to work? Should we not be settling this issue right now right here in the legislation before us?

The 45-day provision in the bill allows insufficient time to assemble the infrastructure of elections necessary to manage elections competently and fairly. Even in elections, under the best of circumstances, there are inevitably problems with voter registration lists, voting with provisional ballots, transmitting, receiving, and counting absentee ballots, reserving polling places and staffing the polls with voting machines and election workers.

After a catastrophe we can add a potential breakdown in communication systems and other infrastructure, including transportation, along with the potential inability to order voting machines and ballots. Forty- five days is simply not enough time in many States to conduct special elections, especially after a national catastrophe.

Mr. Chairman, this bill represents the wrong choices of values in a democracy. It creates an artificial election timetable aimed at simply creating a result, and that is just Members of the House. The American people deserve real choices, emergency or not.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

To respond to the gentleman's comments about California, it does show that we do need beyond 45 days to hold a special election, such as in the case of our late friend, Representative Bob Matsui. And also I refer to the committees that were convened to preserve our institution, and it aligns many States where the vacancy days for holding elections were not fewer than 74 days. So those are the number of days that are important that we need to adhere to.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill is not a bill that will work. You have heard it from several Members. This bill is unfair and is undemocratic. It has also been shown it is too short a time to conduct special elections in many States. It is insufficient time for voter registration and for those who want to participate in this unscheduled election. New voters will be blocked out of the system entirely. Is this what we want, given the last election of 2004? I think not.

This bill simply represents the wrong choices of values in a democracy. This bill should be voted down.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in lieu of amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this compromise amendment would change the overall deadline to conduct expedited special elections under extraordinary circumstances to 60 days instead of the 49 which we just voted on.

I urge Members to support 60 days because it is a more practical and realistic deadline, places less burden on the States, and still accomplishes the bill's goals to expedite special elections in a large number of States.

A 60-day deadline would allow more time for States to attempt to implement the election law restructuring, whatever that might be, and require to comply with the bill's goals.

It would also allow some States more options if they wish to preserve their primary elections which at the insistence of the minority are no longer explicitly prohibited by this version of the legislation. But while primaries may no longer be barred, 49 days to hold both a primary and a special election is still a high bar to meet.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from a letter that was presented by Kevin Kennedy, the executive director to the State Elections Board of Wisconsin, the State which the author of the bill comes from. And he states in portions of the letter: ``62 days is the minimum time necessary to ensure proper mechanical operation of an expedited special election, consistent with democratic integrity, and offering of all voters the opportunity of a meaningful opportunity to vote.''

This is what I am speaking about in my amendment. The principle 49 days is really not enough time; and so, therefore, the bill is really flawed because it decrees that the elections will occur 49 days after the Speaker's announcement. But having said that, what would happen next?

How States which would have to reduce their preexisting time frame for special elections could actually accomplish this is the great unknown. Would it require States' enactments, States' constitutional amendments, popular referenda in some States?

I do not know the answers and the bill's sponsors surely do not know the answers. But 60 days at least provides some additional flexibility in the hands of the decision-makers who must grapple with the jig-saw puzzle of demands the bill places upon them. Sixty days is not a magic bullet any more than 49 days is; but experience as well as decades spent as candidates running for public office teaches us to err on the side of flexibility, especially at a time of potential national crisis.

This amendment is an effort to find common ground after the House rejected a 75-day time frame offered last year by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson). My 60-day amendment also conforms to the recommendations of the Election Center, which represents the Nation's voting registration and election officials and administrators at the city, township, county and State levels. Proponents seeking a truncated time frame for this legislation have often, misleadingly, cited Doug Williams, Executive Director of the Election Center, which, once again, represents the Nation's voting registration and election officials and administrators at the city, township, and State levels, but he has not endorsed this bill, and he has said that 45 days is still too short and that a time frame closer to 60 days would provide States a greater assurance of success. State and local election officials at election process forums over the last 2 years have raised questions about the time frame as well.

In testimony prepared before the Committee on House Administration on September 19, 2003, Mr. Lewis framed the debate as follows: ``What is an election? Is it a date-certain event so that voters can vote? Or is it more than that? Is an election in American democracy really a process that includes time for the identification of candidates, the ability of candidates to mount a campaign, to raise funds, to attract supporters, to inform the voters of what their choices are between the individual contestants, and then going to the polls to make that choice? The point is this: If it is only an event, then we can structure an event in a short time frame and carry out the event as flawlessly as possible. If, however, you define it in the broadest possible terms, then you have to allow the process time to work.''

Mr. Chairman, I agree that elections are a process which implement democracy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former Secretary of State.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who is also a former Secretary of State.

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

In this book we have, the first ``Report of the Continuity of Government Commission,'' in that it outlined an election in Michigan, Michigan's Third Congressional District where the vacancy occurred in 1993, and the time that was allotted for that election was 178 days, which brought us the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) who is part of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, in returning to the testimony of Mr. Doug Lewis, executive director of Election Center, after polling election officials from around the country, he summarized the results: ``While the responses indicated a variety of dates ranging from the shortest time period of 35 days after determination of who the candidates will be to a period of 4 months, it appears that election administrators feel that they can conduct an election with as few as 45 days. However, the election officials would be far more confident

that the interest of democracy would be best served by having up to 60 days to get the elections organized and held. Each additional day beyond the 45 day minimum time frame creates greater confidence in the process.''

Mr. Chairman, I prefer to come down on the side of the interest of democracy, and my instincts after campaigns for local, State, and Federal office tell me 49 days is simply too short.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Jackson-Lee amendment. A portion of the gentlewoman's amendment seeks to provide an expedited appeals process to the United States District Court for matters arising out of the special election process. We have been talking about this 44, 45, 49-day deadline for special State elections, and it already places significant constraints on the electoral process and on the citizens represented due to its brevity.

Taking away the right of an appeal to United States District Court would excessively curtail the procedural due process rights enjoyed by citizens. I support the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 841, the Continuity of Representation Act of 2005.

On September 11, 2001, the fourth hijacked plane was headed toward the Nation's capital. Had it not been for the heroic actions of the passengers of United Flight 93 who forced the plane down over Pennsylvania, Congress's ability to serve the American people may have been severely disrupted.

Currently, there is no mechanism to quickly replace House Members by special election. During the last Congress, the House acted in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion to address this deficiency by passing the predecessor of this year's bill by a larger than three to one margin. Unfortunately, the bill was never brought up in the other body because of the objections of one or more anonymous Members of that Chamber. Consequently, the guarantee of the right to elected representation following a catastrophic incident has yet been unnecessarily imperiled.

The legislation before us again today will preserve the people's constitutional right to directly elected representation by providing for the expedited special election of new Members within 49 days of the Speaker's announcement that there are more than 100 House vacancies. The House, unique among all branches and bodies of the entire Federal Government, is rooted in the principle of direct elections, and that principle must be preserved. Current Federal law allows the Presidency and the Senate to consist of entirely the unelected in certain circumstances. Without an elected House, the entire Federal Government could be run and laws could be written without a single branch directly representing the popular will.

Congress has the clear authority to enact the Continuity in Representation Act under article I, section 4 of the Constitution, which allows Congress, at any time by law, to make or alter State election laws. Consistent with the right to chosen representation, the Founders explicitly considered Congress's power to require expedited special elections as the solution to potential discontinuity in government in extraordinary situations. As Alexander Hamilton wrote, the Constitution gives the Congress ``a right to interpose'' its special election rules on the States ``whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety.'' The Supreme Court has unanimously approved such clear congressional authority.

Members from both parties have a significant stake in the operation of

the House following a terrorist incident, and I am pleased that the legislation before us today is appropriately a product of bipartisan cooperation and input. For example, I worked with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, to craft provisions that govern absentee ballots cast by members of the Armed Forces, and overseas voters, whose ballots would be counted if they are received within 45 days after the State transmits them.

Further, I have worked with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, to add a provision that all Federal laws governing the administration of elections for Federal office are explicitly preserved.

During the Committee on House Administration's markup of the bill, a substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) was adopted, which includes further changes that directly respond to concerns expressed by the minority. First, the current bill continues to allow States the option of having special election candidates selected by parties within 10 days, but would also authorize the States to select such candidates by any other method including primaries provided such method will ensure the State will hold the special election within the 45-day period.

Second, the bill considered today includes a provision that will allow seats left vacant by delegates and resident commissioners to also be filled by special election pursuant to the bill's requirements.

While some take the pessimistic view of the resiliency of the electoral process following an attack on the Nation's capital, I have a different view. I have no doubt that the boundless spirit of the American people will ensure that democracy prevails even in the most pressing conditions.

What I have heard from the opponents of this bill is that they say, well, we cannot have an election put together so quickly. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), I think, has made it quite clear that from her experience as Michigan's Secretary of State and chief election officer that we will be able to do that. And I point out that what this bill does is to ensure the prompt filling of vacant seats in States that have long special election processes.

Virginia is able to fill vacancies in its general assembly by special election within 12 days after the vacancy occurs provided the Governor calls a special election. If Virginia makes that apply to vacancies in the House of Representatives, we are going to have a full Virginia delegation sitting in this Chamber or elsewhere legislating while the States that decide that they want to have more debates and keep the seats vacant will end up sitting unrepresented here.

What this bill does is that it speeds up the process in the slow States, the ones that have lengthy special election processes, including the gentlewoman from California's own State.

The one seat in the House of Representatives that is vacant today is that occupied by our beloved colleague, the late Bob Matsui. He died on January 1. That was 63 days ago, and his seat is still unfilled. There is an election next week to fill the vacancy. But if no candidate in that election gets more than 50 percent of the vote, then we will wait until May 3 to find out who the new Representative from Sacramento, California is.

And what this bill will do is to make sure that California will have a full delegation as quickly as possible, notwithstanding the current State law, while other States fill their delegations up and those Representatives-elect will come to Congress and be seated and be functioning immediately after their election.

Let us make sure that every State as quickly as possible can have adequate representation. Let us pass this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the primary opposition to this legislation comes from people who have favored a constitutional amendment to provide for the appointment of substitute Representatives should there be a catastrophe that wipes out a significant part or all of the House of Representatives.

I believe last year, the House of Representatives laid that proposition to rest. We did have a full debate on the floor of the constitutional amendment that both the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) supported. It only got 63 votes. Twenty votes are necessary for the two-thirds majority necessary to propose amendments to the Constitution on any subject, and I believe that the House of Representatives at that time clearly and emphatically spoke in favor of maintaining elections as the only way one could enter the House of Representatives, the people's House.

So now we hear that the 49 days that are proposed in this bill are too short to be able to organize a proper election in a time of crisis. I do not think that is correct. During the Second World War, Great Britain was under attack constantly by the German Air Force, and even during the war they were able to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Commons within 42 days. Democracy prevailed because the people of Great Britain insisted that it do so, and those elections worked and those people who were elected entered the House of Commons with a mandate from the people.

This bill will work just as well in a time of crisis as a way of repopulating the House. We are not going to have appointed Representatives. The constitutional amendment has been overwhelmingly rejected here. So the responsible thing to do is to speed up the special election process, particularly in those States like California where it takes forever to fill a vacancy so that the States can have full representation as quickly as possible.

Pass the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make three points.

First, under the 60-day time frame proposed by the gentlewoman's amendment, the time under the War Powers Act for Congress to make a decision following an attack will have expired and, consequently, less than the full House will make the important decisions relative to under what circumstances American troops will be committed overseas. Under the 49-day time limit, that problem will not exist because the House will be reconstituted and repopulated before the War Powers Act limitation expires.

Secondly, the purpose of this bill is to require special elections to be held in those States with slower special election processes, to be held as quickly as possible within the 49-day period. The gentlewoman from California has read parts of the letter that Mr. Kennedy, who is the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Elections Board has written. I would respond to that simply by saying if Virginia repopulates the House, or its delegation to the House within 12 days and it takes at least 62 days for Wisconsin to do so, 50 days will elapse, or almost 2 months will elapse while Wisconsin has either a reduced or no delegation in the House, but the House keeps on legislating. And that is not fair to the people of my State, and it is not fair to the people of the other States, including the gentlewoman from California's own State that have relatively slow special election procedures.

So that is why this bill is here, is to speed up the process by which States can fill up their delegations to the House so that they will be fully represented when important decisions are made. And should this bill go down and the slow States continue to be really slow, then their delegations will either be nonexistent or have a relatively few number of Members.

Now, the final point I would like to make is that we have heard everybody who is against this bill say that this is too fast and too slow. Well, to speed up the process of repopulating the House, quicker than when special elections can be held, will require a constitutional amendment. We did debate a constitutional amendment and it was defeated by a vote of 63 ayes to 350-plus noes. This House is firmly on record against an appointment procedure however it is done.

So now we have to figure out how to make the special election procedure occur as quickly as possible and yet maintain fairness. The 49 days required under this bill is the way to do it to get people here to make important decisions under the War Powers Act. Sixty days or a longer period of time simply will not cut it. Defeat the amendment and pass the bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding.

The membership has been preparing for the debate on this bill with the amendment made in order under the rule. The gentlewoman now wants to submit a new amendment. I do not think that is fair to the membership who have prepared debate on the bill; so the answer is no.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to defeat this amendment, just as it did last year when the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) brought it up. The issue is very simple. We want elections. Her amendment wants lawsuits. The way she has phrased her amendment for the lawsuits is that anybody can sue, not just the Governor, to determine whether or not a vacancy actually exists. And also, there is an appeals process in the gentlewoman's amendment that would allow the appeals to be dragged out indefinitely.

When there is a catastrophe that wipes out a significant number of Members of the House, it is in the interest of the public to fill those vacancies as quickly as possible through a fair election. We should not allow anybody to tie up an election call in the courts forever and ever and ever simply because their candidate might not be in a proper position to win the election.

So let us have the people decide when these vacancies will be filled and who will fill them. Let us not allow endless litigation at a time of national catastrophe. Elections can bring people together. They will result in new Representatives coming with mandates rather than having the frustration of lawsuits that go on interminably.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the fatal flaw in this amendment is it does not extend the 49 days under which the election is required to be held under the provisions of this bill.

So the more time we spend in court, the less time the election officials have to be able to organize the election, print the ballots, mail the ballots to absentee voters at home and overseas and get them back in time to be counted.

We have heard an awful lot saying, well, the time frame is just too compact in order to run a fair election. What the gentlewoman's amendment does is that it makes it more compact because every day and every week that is spent tied up in the courts is going to be that much less time for the election machinery to operate.

This is a question very simply of lawsuits versus elections. If you want more lawsuits, vote yes. If you want a quicker and fairer election, vote no. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for the time. This is the first rule of which I hope are many that the gentleman and I are managing together. He has already been welcomed to the committee, so I extend those same warm welcomes to him for managing this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule which limits debate on how this body should operate if it experiences mass causality. This is an issue of grave importance to the American people and the integrity of that democracy in times of dire crisis.

The decision of the majority to place any restrictions on this body prohibiting Members from offering amendments and freely debating the subject is not responsible.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 changed the way that we as a country operate. In turn, Congress has rightfully committed itself to creating policy that protects Americans from future attacks, though I question how successful we have been in our actions. September 11 also presented us with a challenge to consider continuity in the House during a worst-case scenario. In examining such a grim situation, we must foresee what will be needed to regain stability and reassure the American people and the world that our government is going about business as usual.

While I believe that the underlying legislation is an honest attempt to address the concerns which I just raised, the discussion surrounding the issue has been, as one constitutional scholar wrote, embarrassingly partisan. Even more, the product of 3 years of discussion on the issue that the majority is bringing to the floor is incomplete, unrealistic, and fails to consider the implications of changing statute when we should be amending the United States Constitution.

The underlying legislation requires the States to hold special elections within 45 days in the case of extraordinary circumstances. This is a problematic requirement. When the Committee on House Administration took testimony from State and local election officials, it was told that 45 days is not enough time to pull off a primary and general election. Election officials noted that mailing ballots to absentee, overseas, and military voters for a primary and general election and then waiting for their return would alone take more than 45 days. This does not include the time that it takes to print and process ballots.

Should this time period be adopted, it would undoubtedly result in the disenfranchisement of millions, including

seniors who vote absentee, our diplomatic corps, and our men and women serving in our Armed Forces.

The majority finally agreed with Democrats and local election officials yesterday that 45 days is not enough time to conduct these critical elections. Late last night we were informed that my friends on the Republican side are now seeking to amend the rule so that they may offer a manager's amendment which will increase the time elections must be conducted from 45 to 49 days. Four days, Mr. Speaker. What can you realistically do in 4 more days?

This is more of a cosmetic and convenient change than substantive. It still sets up a process that will lead to the selection of Members of Congress who are potentially not the real choice of the citizenry. All of this is happening at the same time my friends in the majority have blocked Democratic Members from offering three different amendments to the bill, all of which were germane and all of which were turned in on time. It seems to me that we operate under two rules in the House of Representatives: one for them and one for us.

Later today, Democrats will offer an amendment lengthening the special election period from 45 to 60 days. Our proposal provides elections officials with a more realistic solution to a daunting task most likely overshadowed by grief and angst. I hope that Members of this body will place the integrity of our democracy above petty politics and vote to adopt the Millender-McDonald amendment.

Additionally, the continuity-in-government commission has recommended a different approach. It has suggested that States create lists of possible appointments to seats vacated due to mass causality to ensure that the House can continue to operate while States move forward with their own special elections process. These temporary appointments would serve until States are able to elect representatives in accordance to their own laws.

This is a fair approach and one which should be considered on equal footing as the underlying legislation. Yet, when our colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), offered this proposal in the 108th Congress, as a footnote, the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) wife is about to deliver their child and he might not get here. We are hoping that he does. But he certainly has been a stalwart leader in the effort to do what is necessary to preserve the integrity of this body. When he introduced this proposal, Republicans sought to embarrass him and the commission's ideas for which he was fighting. They set up a vote in the way that it was impossible for the proposal to be given its due consideration. In my view, it was cutthroat politics, and we should not allow for those kind of actions.

Incomplete as it is, the underlying legislation also fails to consider mass causality where the Speaker is a victim and is unable to trigger special elections. It does not address how the House quorum rules will work in the case of mass House vacancies. Perhaps most importantly, the underlying legislation could potentially leave our country without an effective or legitimate legislative branch for the first 6 weeks following a disaster.

Think about it this way: in the first 6 weeks following September 11, the House, this House, authorized the President to use force against terrorists and appropriated $40 billion to address the emergencies in New York and at the Pentagon. If the underlying legislation is dropped, the legitimacy of actions taken by a shorthanded Congress, most likely during a time of war, would always be in question. For me, this scenario is unacceptable.

Regardless of the House's decisions today, States and voters must ultimately approve this process through a constitutional amendment. It took less than 14 months to approve each of the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 23rd, and 26th amendments respectively. Anyone who suggests that the constitutional amendment process takes years, in my view, is incorrect.

Throughout history, when constitutional amendments have been needed, States and voters have responded. I suspect that they will respond similarly in this case.

All of these concerns underscore the need for this body to consider this legislation in an open and much larger discussion on the continuity of our government during times of mass causality. The effects of our hastiness today may not be felt while any of us are alive, but at some point in the future our successors and our States will be trapped by poor decisions we might make today.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have great respect for the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I know that he knows that the 17th amendment of the United States Constitution speaks to continuity.

I also know that he knows that the Congress, for purposes of preserving our institutions, allowed for the development of a continuity-of-government commission. On that commission a significant number of outstanding individuals from America, a broad cross-section of them, came up with the notion that it was critical that we have a constitutional amendment to go forward. Let me name some of the people that were on that commission: Lloyd Cutler; Alan Simpson; Philip Chase Bobbitt; Kenneth Duberstein; Tom Foley, former Speaker of the House; Robert Michel, minority leader; Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House; Nicholas B. Katzenbach; Jamie Gorelick; Robert Katzmann; Kweisi Mfume; Lynn Martin; Donna Shalala; and their senior counselors were Norman Orenstein and Thomas Mann.

What they said in the very preamble of their document is the following: We held two public meetings where we heard testimony from experts, and in the course of our investigation, we explored a wide range of options short of a constitutional amendment to ameliorate or solve these problems.

The commissioners, all of those persons that I just identified, shared distaste for frivolous or unnecessary amendments to the Constitution. Unfortunately, because the Constitution dictates the way that vacancies are to be filled in the House and Senate, there is no way to establish a procedure to quickly fill mass vacancies without a constitutional amendment. No less authorities than Robert Michel and Newt Gingrich and Tom Foley and Lloyd Cutler, folks who have studied the Constitution, actively came to that conclusion. I tend to share their view.

And the chairman of the Committee on Rules spoke of James Madison. No greater or eminent scholar that laid the foundation perhaps, other than Jefferson, dealt with all of the issues that they contemplated in their time. But I wonder if Mr. Madison would deem it fair that the House operates with closed rules rather than open rules. We had a vote on whether or not there should be an open rule in this important process for America, and we had an amendment offered by a distinguished Member of this body, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), requiring States to offer same-day voter registration for special elections held in accordance with this bill. Seems reasonable that people would be scattered and other things on their minds in a crisis such as we had experienced on 9/11.

My colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler), who lost more people than all of us combined in the 9/11 tragedy, offered a measure to prohibit deceiving any person as to the time, place, or eligibility requirements of special elections held in accordance with this bill.

And the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, offered an amendment that would require States to equally and fairly distribute election personnel and equipment when it conducts the special elections contemplated in this bill. All three of those civil rights measures went down the tube with the closed rule.

When we open up this institution, we will be able to address matters in a

more meaningful way so that the minority can have their amendments contemplated in good kind.

I end by saying that Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, who was one of the lead authors of the continuity commission's report, stated in front of the Committee on House Administration the following: ``The inability to swiftly constitute the House and Senate would deprive the country of a fully functioning first branch of government at a time of grave national crisis. Unable to achieve a quorum, or relying on a questionable quorum interpretation allowing a small minority, possibly a handful of surviving Members to act for the full Chamber, Congress would be unable to legitimately elect a new Speaker or confirm a new Vice President, both critical links in Presidential succession.

They will be unable to declare war, appropriate funds, pass legislation needed to deal with the attack, confirm Supreme Court and Cabinet appointments, oversee an executive branch possibly run by someone largely unknown to the country, and reassure a stunned Nation that their constitutional democracy is alive and well.''

Constitutional democracy, not statutory democracy as we are offering here today.

Mr. Madison offered the 17th amendment to the United States Constitution that has held well through the years with reference to continuity, and we owe no less responsibility to those Founders to be mindful of our responsibilities in that regard by offering up to the American people an appropriate constitutional amendment to be debated and decided by the people of this great country.

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