To memorialize and honor the contribution of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Mr. Speaker, on February 28, 2002, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution held a legislative hearing on H.J. Res. 67, Representative Brian Baird's proposed constitutional amendment to allow lawmaking by an appointed House of Representatives following a terrorist attack.

During the 107th Congress, a bipartisan working group co-chaired by then-House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Christopher Cox and House Democratic Policy Chairman Martin Frost, met regularly to discuss the issues surrounding continuity in government, including constitutional amendments. As a result of those working group meetings, the House passed H. Res. 559 during the 107th Congress, expressing the sense of the House that each State should examine its existing procedures governing special elections so that, in the event of a catastrophe, vacancies in the House could be filled in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, only one state, California, responded to that request. Consequently, the House responded precisely as the Founders would have expected the House to respond, namely by acting pursuant to Congress's authority under the Constitution to ensure that the House is repopulated expeditiously through elections in extraordinary circumstances. To that end, H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, was introduced in the 108th Congress. The bill received a hearing before the House Administration Committee on September 24, 2003, and it was marked up by both the House Administration (on November 19, 2003) and House Judiciary Committees (January 21, 2004). Amendments adopted on the House floor included one that would protect the rights of military and overseas voters to participate in the expedited elections, and a provision that provided explicitly that all federal laws governing the administration of federal elections would apply.

Because H.R. 2844 was a bipartisan bill that resonates best with America's democratic values, on April 22, 2004, it passed the House on an overwhelming bipartisan basis by a more than 3-to-1 margin, by a vote of 306-97.

As part of a bipartisan agreement, I agreed to a markup of Representative Baird's proposed constitutional amendment (H.J. Res. 83 in the 108th Congress) in the Judiciary Committee. That was done on May 5, 2004. Committee Members all had the opportunity to offer amendments to H.J. Res. 83 to either perfect its language or replace it entirely with the text of any other version of the amendment. During the markup, I asked if there were any Members who wanted to offer amendment more than half a dozen times. The Judiciary Committee adversely reported out H.J. Res. 83, so all Members could have an opportunity to vote on it on the House floor.

The constitutional amendment the House voted on was the approach supported by Representative Brian Baird, the Member who is widely regarded as the most outspoken House proponent of appointed Members. This proposal and a host of others have been extensively studied by scholars both inside and outside of Congress, including during the last Congress, and by previous Congresses, going back some 50 years. It remains a terrible idea because it would introduce into our Founding document, for the first time, the concept that laws can be written by an unelected aristocracy. That is a bad idea now, and it was a bad idea then, when the House of Representatives, controlled by both Democrats and Republicans, rejected all constitutional amendments authorizing appointed House Members sent to it by the Senate, even during the height of the Cold War.

The conclusion of the Continuity in Government Commission's (a privately-funded commission's) report recommending a constitutional amendment that would deny the right to self-government under laws enacted by elected representatives states that ``The exact details of a solution are less important than that the problem be addressed seriously and expeditiously.'' (This is from page 31 of the re- port, which can be found at http://www.continuityofgovernment.org/ report/report.html.)

On June 2, 2004, the House voted on H.J. Res. 83 and generally on the question of whether Americans should be governed by laws passed by an unelected aristocracy. There are only two ways to go on the issue: either you support an appointed House--the ``details,'' by the Continuity in Government Commission's own admission, are relatively unimportant--or you support preserving lawmaking by an elected House. Representative Baird, the author of H.J. Res. 83, said of a constitutional amendment--quote--``The more urgent matter is to put that measure before the body.'' On June 2, 2004, that measure was put before the House, and the House overwhelmingly rejected it by a vote of 63-353, a margin of over 5-1. That margin of defeat of a constitutional amendment is historically large.

The right to self-government under laws passed by the People's chosen representatives has endured since America's birth, through two World Wars, a Civil War, a Cold War, and now a war against terrorism. The terrorists would like nothing more than to make us rewrite our Constitution to reflect their twisted vision of autocratic rule. The Continuity in Representation Act rejects that terrorist vision and would preserve the right to elected representation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support passage of H.J. Res. 83, which authorizes funds for a bust to be placed in the Supreme Court honoring the late Chief Justice Rehnquist. Chief Justice Rehnquist served admirably on the country's highest court for 33 years--19 as Chief Justice. It is appropriate that we honor his service as we have the other Chief Justices with a bust in the Supreme Court building.

I was privileged to have known the Chief Justice for many years and to have had the pleasure of serving with him on the Smithsonian Board of Regents. We also shared a love for the beautiful land and the independent people of Vermont--a place that served as a special refuge for the Chief Justice and his family over the years. His courage and commitment were without question, particularly recently when he attended the last inauguration and continued work to the end.

It would also be fitting in my view to honor other important figures in the Supreme Court's history. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Thurgood Marshall broke barriers and became the first woman and first African American justices on the Supreme Court in our Nation's long history. Both are role models not only for women and African Americans who will follow them on the Supreme Court, but for judges everywhere and all Americans. It would be appropriate to honor their significant accomplishments and contributions to the law, to the Supreme Court and to the country by including them among those honored at the Supreme Court building.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) to memorialize and honor the contribution of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration

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

House Joint Resolution 83, introduced by Congressman Richard Pombo, chairman of the House Resources Committee, is offered to honor the contributions of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist by authorizing and directing the Curator of the Supreme Court to produce a marble bust, including a pedestal, of the late Chief Justice and have it placed in the Supreme Court Building.

Madam Speaker, Chief Justice Rehnquist served the people of this country and the court that he loved for 33 years. He was, in fact, the fourth longest serving Chief Justice. I believe a bust in the Supreme Court is but a small token of our deep appreciation for his dedication to this country and the rule of law.

Similar honors have been authorized by Congress for 13 other Chief Justices, and I believe Chief Justice Rehnquist is equally deserving. I encourage adoption of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, the majority has already explained the purpose of House Joint Resolution 83, which was introduced by Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo.

All former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court are currently memorialized with their busts placed in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court Building. House Joint Resolution 83 will extend this honor to former Chief Justice Rehnquist as well, and we support this legislation.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. J. Res. 83 which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the joint resolution be read a third time and passed, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.