Continuity in Representation Act of 2005

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.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

My good colleague from California raised the exact and critical point. The question is, what happens during those 45 days? We will need to support elections. There is not a single Member of this House who has not supported some form of general election, a special election, to replace the Members at some point. But during that 45 days, what happens?

The Chair of the Constitution Subcommittee says this is what happens: martial law. We do not know who would fill the vacancy of the Presidency, but we do know that the Succession Act most likely suggests it would be an unelected person.

The sponsors of the bill before us today insist, and I think rightfully so, on the importance of elections. But to then say that during a 45-day period we would have none of the checks and balances so fundamental to our Constitution, none of the separation of powers, and that the Presidency would be filled by an unelected member of the Cabinet who not a single member of this country, not a single citizen, voted to fill that position, and that that person would have no checks and balances from Congress for a period of 45 days I find extraordinary. I find it inconsistent. I find it illogical, and, frankly, I find it dangerous.

The gentleman from Wisconsin refused earlier to yield time, but I was going to ask him, if Virginia has those elections in a shorter time period, they should be commended for that. So now we have a situation in the Congress where the Virginia delegation has sent their Members here, but many other States do not have Members here. Do they at that point elect a Speaker of the House in the absence of other Members? And then three more States elect their representatives, temporary replacements, or full replacements at that point. They come in. Do they elect a new Speaker? And if that happens, who becomes the President under the Succession Act?

This bill does not address that question. This bill responds to real threats with fantasies. It responds with the fantasy, first of all, that a lot of people will still survive; but we have no guarantee of that. It responds with the fantasy that those who do survive will do the right thing. We are here having this debate, we have debates every day, because people differ on what the right thing is to do.

I have been in very traumatic situations with people in severe car wrecks and mountain climbing accidents. My experience has not been that crisis imbues universal sagacity and fairness. It has not been that. People respond in extraordinary ways, and we must preserve an institution that has the deliberative body and the checks and balances to meet those challenges.

Many of our States are going increasingly to mail-in ballots. We in this body were effectively disabled by an anthrax attack not long after September 11. I would ask my dear friends, will you conduct this election in 45 days if there is anthrax in the mail and still preserve the franchise of the American people? How will you do that? You have no answer to that question.

I find it extraordinary, frankly, that while saying you do not want to amend the Constitution, we began this very Congress by amending the Constitution through the rule, by undermining the principle that a quorum is 50 percent of the body and instead saying it is however many people survive. And if that rule applies, who will designate it, who will implement it? The Speaker, or the Speaker's designee? Again, not an elected person, as you say is so critical and I believe is critical, but a temporary appointee, frankly, who not a single other Member of this body knows who they are. So we not only have an unelected person, we have an unknown person who will convene this body, and who, by the way, could conceivably convene it for their own election to then become the President of the United States under the Succession Act.

You have refused steadfastly to debate this real issue broadly. You had a mock debate in the Committee on the Judiciary in which the distinguished chairman presented my bill without allowing me the courtesy or dignity to defend it myself. And on that, you proudly say you defend democracy. Sir, I think you dissemble in that regard.

Here is the fundamental question for us, my friends, and it is this: The American people are watching television and an announcement comes on and says the Congress has been destroyed in a nuclear attack, the President and Vice President are killed and the Supreme Court is dead and thousands of our citizens in this town are.

What happens next? Under your bill, 45 days of chaos. Apparently, according to the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution chairman, 45 days of marshal law, rule of this country by an unelected President with no checks and balances. Or an alternative, an alternative which says quite simply that the people have entrusted the Representatives they send here to make profound decisions, war, taxation, a host of other things, and those Representatives would have the power under the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) bill or mine to designate temporary successors, temporary, only until we can have a real election.

The American people, in one scenario, are told we do not know who is going to run the country, we have no Representatives; where in another you will have temporary Representatives carrying your interests to this great body while we deliberate and have real elections. That is the choice.

You are making the wrong choice today if you think you have solved this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). I will always remember that day, as we all will. His point is well taken.

I understand there is good intent behind the bill before us today and the amendment, but it is not enough. It simply is not. It leaves our country vulnerable for 45 days and that is too long.

The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary made some comments recently that suggested that somehow terrorists would oppose this bill and by some implication would favor the bill the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and I have put forward because it seems to support their autocratic views of government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, what our bill would do is tell the terrorists, you could come on a single day and set off a nuclear weapon in this town and kill every single Member of us; and though we would be missed, the very next day the Congress would be up and functioning with every single State, every single district having full representation by statesmen and stateswomen at a time of national crisis.

That is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and I are trying to do. We are trying to tell the terrorists, you can kill all of us as individuals, but you will not defeat this institution. You will not defeat the principle of representation. You will not

defeat the principles of checks and balances. You will not impose martial law.

Here is the irony. If terrorists hit us today when we finally vote on this, let us suppose a few Democrats do not make it over here. You are leaving this country vulnerable to change in power. If the terrorists were to strike your conference retreat where the President speaks to the Republican House and Senate Members and kill hundreds of House and Senate Members on the Republican side, the Democrats at that point claim the majority. The Democrats at that point elect a Speaker of the House. I am a Democrat, for goodness sakes; but that is not the way to leave our country vulnerable.

You are leaving your own party, you are leaving the will of the people through their elections vulnerable. If we have temporary replacements, you immediately reconstitute the House; you immediately ensure representation; you assure that you maintain the balance of political power; and you do it in an orderly, structured way with no chaos, in a way that is constitutionally valid by definition.

What you have proposed is not necessarily constitutionally valid. It leaves the terrorists able to change our system of government. It depends on a fantasy immediate or quick election. It does not allow really qualified people necessarily to get here and act in time. There are so many things you have left undone.

You are going to try to say that at the start of this year we have solved this problem; let us go home.

You have not solved the problem, and it is a doggone disgrace, and it is a danger to this country.

The other day a gentleman testified before the Committee on the Budget and said this: ``The lack of preparation for continuity, for true continuity invites attack.''

You are inviting attack. Not preventing attack.

Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make two fundamental points before we proceed to vote on this. The two points are these: This resolution does not solve the real problem and it may create more problems than it purports to solve, and we have to understand that.

It does not solve the problem for this reason: By leaving us without a Congress for 45 days, we essentially impose the opportunity for the executive branch to exert marshal law, and that is not what the Framers of this country had in mind.

This bill, if we do not provide some mechanism for prompt replacement other than this bill, will leave this country governed by an unelected executive, a cabinet member most likely who not a single American elected to that office.

Furthermore, it has a host of problems. It does not address the possibility that one delegation will elect its Representatives more promptly than another. They will come to this body, choose one of its members as Speaker. That person could move on to become the President. Then another delegation comes in, et cetera.

You are essentially leaving this country without a House of Representatives, without checks and balances, without separation of powers, for at least 45 days, assuming an election can be held in 45 days and assuming that the terrorists through an anthrax attack, like they subjected this very Capitol to, will not somehow undermine that ability.

This is reality. We have seen the reality here. We saw those airplanes hit the buildings, we saw the anthrax, and yet we are not truly acting to solve this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me make two final points: One, the majority party must understand this: If you are at a Republican Conference retreat and terrorists should strike you and kill the President and Vice President and significant numbers of your side of the aisle, the Democrats under your proposed law will obtain the majority, will elect a Speaker of the House, and that person will then become the President of the United States of America. You are leaving this country vulnerable to that. You must not do it. You must not.

This matter must be taken seriously. It deserves full debate. Whether it is the proposal of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and mine or others, we should commit to having this full House seriously consider this. If we do not and we are not fortunate, history will not look kindly upon the jeopardy in which we have left this great Nation.

Vote no on this bill and insist on true debate on true continuity of Congress in a responsible way that protects the balance of power, assures real succession to the presidency, and, most importantly, assures that your constituents will have representation at a time when our Nation may well go to nuclear war, institute a draft, appropriate trillions of dollars, suspend habeas corpus and impose marshal law. You do not want that. But if you stop at this bill, you leave this Nation vulnerable.

Mr. Chairman, if there is no one to speak in opposition, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my preferential motion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I know this seems a strange thing to say on a bill as small as the bill to fund the congressional budget, but I honestly believe, because of the attachment of the proposal for the continuity of Congress, that this bill is by far the worst bill to come to the floor in this session of Congress.

I believe that that continuity of representation provision attached to this bill is an assault on constitutional government. I believe it is an assault on checks and balances. It is an assault on the rule of law. It is an invitation to one-man rule and dictatorship. I think it is profoundly misguided, profoundly misgotten, and I think a profound disservice is done in not having months and months of hearings with constitutional scholars before such a drastic proposal is brought before the House.

I think there is a very good reason that the Senate has not taken it up. It is because it is a turkey of a proposal. It could leave us literally with 75 and 80 percent of the congressional districts in this country unrepresented in a time of crisis, at a time of terrorist attack, and unrepresented in the halls of Congress, and I think that is a bad way to do business.

What I would like to do now is to talk about another problem in this bill. That is the Congressional Visitors Center. I really believe that the Congressional Visitors Center has been mismanaged in such spectacular fashion that it is really sort of a metaphor for the way that the entire Federal budget deficit has been mismanaged, and let me explain what I mean.

This project originally started as a $95 million project to have a modest expansion of the Capitol, to give tourists an opportunity to come in and see a movie about what the Congress was all about before they visited the Capitol. But the security assault on this Capitol and 9/11 has, in my view, been used as an excuse to expand this operation. We have also had other efforts from the Library of Congress and other institutions to further expand this proposition; and so as a result, today, this project is a $500 million-plus project. It is more than a year behind schedule, and I think it is wasting taxpayers' money and wasting an opportunity that we had to provide much-needed usable space for the Congress at the same time.

What is happening out on the East Front is that over 2 acres of underground space is being added to the Capitol. Some of that is being added for purposes of a visitors center and some of the other space is being added for the purpose of expanding space under control of the Senate and the House to do their work.

We all know that this Congress needs more working space. In my view, the number one need of the Congress for working space is the need for additional rooms for conference committees between the Senate and the House because most of our hearings, especially on the Committee on Appropriations. When I came here, they were held behind closed doors. The press was not in, the public was not in. So there was plenty of room for a few people to get behind closed doors and work out deals and that is not the way government is supposed to work today.

Today, when we have a conference committee, the press has a right to be there. We need our staffs there, and the public has the right to be there, too. We have no real room in the Capitol for that kind of facility.

This is an opportunity to create that kind of room. Instead, what has happened? Instead, the only appreciable room of any quality in the new House space is what is called the House hearing room, but in plain language, that room is really a media center. That is going to be where the press focuses whenever there is a hearing in that room because it will have all of the creature comforts for the press. That room will have ample room for one hearing, one presentation, and whoever runs the Congress will be able to decide what subject it is that gets that attention. If you are trying to hold another public hearing on another subject in the Capitol, you are going to be stuck in tiny rooms that are worthless in terms of public access.

When I visited the visitors center, I asked the Architect why, with these vaulted ceilings that you have set aside for this hearing room, why could you not simply reduce the height of those rooms and at least provide two rooms of approximately the same size so that we had enough overflow room for the committees to do our work and to have conference committees? I have yet to get an answer from the Architect's office.

That is my problem. My problem is that with all of this space being created, much of it is not usable for the purpose that we need it used for.

Then we come to the other portion of the add-on, which is the portion devoted to the visitors center. Originally, that visitors center was supposed to have two media theaters so that the public could come in, see a short film about the Congress, and then be on its way.

Here is the problem. We have those two small orientation theaters, but in addition to that, we have this huge congressional auditorium, which is going to seat 450-plus people. I asked the Architect, and this is a vaulted theater, I asked why do we need another theater in the Capitol? What I was told by the Architect is, ``Well, you can bring in large constituency groups.'' I would like to know how many Members of the House have ever brought 500 people into the Capitol. I do not think there are going to be many people would raise their hands.

The second thing the Architect told me is that, ``Well, we need a place for where the House of Representatives can meet when the House Chamber is being remodeled.''

That I found a might strange, because we have just redecorated the Committee on Ways and Means room in the Longworth Building. That room was originally created to serve as an alternative meeting place for the House of Representatives when we had to repair this Chamber. So we have already got a spare room.

In addition, we have another spare room I cannot talk about because it is classified, but it is being built off campus somewhere. So in essence we will have three spare rooms. I do not know how much the off- campus room is costing the taxpayers or how much the Committee on Ways and Means room cost the taxpayers, but this room is going to cost a bundle.

I keep asking ``What is the real purpose for this room?'' You finally go back 10 years and look at the original plans, what do we find out. We find out that this was originally included in the plans at the request of the Library of Congress because they wanted another theater to show movies and give presentations. That might be nice for them to have, but this project is already 400 percent over original cost. I do not think it makes any sense. I think this is the last chance that we are going to have to reconfigure this center so we have some additional working space instead of the Taj Mahal show space we are going to have.

Another thing I do not like, we have been told we are likely to have three congressional seals in the new visitors center. Those seals, I have been told, will cost up to a million bucks. Does any Member really want to take the political heat when taxpayers find out that somebody is talking about spending $1 million on three congressional seals? Do Members remember the Cain that was raised when marble floors were put in four of our elevators in the Capitol? Does anybody have any memory? I would like to think so, but I guess not.

Mr. Chairman, I consider myself to be an institutional man. I usually support this piece of legislation; but out of frustration, I am not going to support it today because I think this Capitol Visitors Center, when it is finally built, is going to draw flies in terms of bad stories about waste of taxpayer money, misuse of space, and we are going to wind up not having enough room for the principal function of government. If this is, indeed, supposed to be a working Capitol, then we ought to be able to do better than this floor plan.

I really believe this package has been brought to us by staff who do not really understand how committees work and do not really understand the principal needs of this institution. This is the last time we are going to have a chance to repair this package and

make it more usable for the 100 years at least that it will be used. I urge Members to vote against this bill so we can start over.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to simply say I congratulate the gentleman from California. I agree with the gentleman from California. I would be perfectly willing to vote for this proposition today if we had a constitutional amendment going at the same time, so that the solution in this bill would be only a temporary solution until we got a real one.

Without the Rohrabacher approach, or something similar, and I happen to prefer the one he introduced in the last Congress, but without something like that, we guarantee that we can have the President governing with literally a handful of people in the Congress. We could have hundreds of districts with no representation whatsoever. That is not continuity. That is chaos. That is martial law. That is one-man rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

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

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Congressional Visitors Center, we are not saying there should not be one; all we are saying is that the one that is being proposed is screwed up and spectacularly wasteful and needs to be changed.

With respect to the assertion of my friend from Illinois that we do not have to worry about not having a Congress for 45 days because there will not be anything for Members of Congress to do, all I can tell my colleague is, if that is the case, then I wonder why it is that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bill Young) and I negotiated a $20 billion supplemental appropriation just a few days after 9/11; and I wonder why it is we were sitting in the office of the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) until 12:30 at night hammering out differences with people on the Senate side who did not agree with what we had done; and why it is that the President made a commitment of $10 billion to New York; and why we had to spend a lot of time backing him up.

I would also remind the gentleman we had a debate on the House floor when the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure tried to slip into that bill an extra $10 billion appropriation for the airlines.

There was plenty for us to do after 9/11; and thank God, in contrast to the proposition being set out today, thank God that then we had a Congress around to do it.

If you want to vote for a situation in which we can have no Congress whatsoever for 45 days, then by all means vote for this provision. If you do not, if you think we ought to have some kind of balance and check on the Presidency during that period by having somebody here to do the Nation's business, then my colleagues will reconsider and listen to what the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) have to say.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, just one point. We did that 3 days after 9/ 11, 3 days.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to inquire of the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute. In the spirit of collegiality, I realize that we have a rule, but I gained a sense that the Committee on House Administration would be supportive of this substitute which would only allow an added 5 days for an appeal from 2 days, less than a week. I would inquire of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, would the gentleman allow that to move forward by unanimous consent? If the gentleman would answer with just a yes or no whether we would be able to move forward with this substitute, I would be delighted to work with the chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, I think they would have followed the gentleman's lead, but I thank the gentleman very much.

Let me move forward with the amendment before us. This is my very point. I encourage my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to look very carefully at the Jackson-Lee amendment, and I ask for their support.

This is the problem we have here today, and that is the continuity and the preservation of this historic and honorable institution, the Members of the United States Congress, really should be a bipartisan process. I am disappointed we are not, even in time of death and tragedy, terrorism, that we cannot find in our hearts and in our intellectual minds the ability to be collegial and to work in an very informed and thoughtful way.

This particular amendment is very succinct, and I ask my colleagues to give it considerable thought and vote for it. One, the amendment has the expansion of the ability of an aggrieved party to file suit for either declaratory or injunctive relief from just 2 days to 5 days. This is a question to answer the needs of the Secretaries of State and the States that when this crisis occurs, that all of them have the procedures in place to be able to fulfill our democratic calling.

This is not a constitutional amendment. I wish it were. But since we are doing this by statute, why not give the opportunity for there to be enough open view and transparency for this to occur?

Number 2 of this amendment is a provision for an expedited appeals process to the United States District Court for matters rising out of the special election process because a 45-day deadline for special State election already places significant constraints on the electoral process and on the citizens represented due to its brevity, taking away the right to an appeal to the U.S. District Court. This gives an expedited appeal.

In addition, this provides for an expansion of the right to sue for declaratory judgment beyond the Governor, but to citizens and classes of citizens.

Mr. Chairman, the gravity of the matter of reconstituting the House of Representatives in the face of catastrophe requires the fullest debate possible. However, due to the fact that a structured rule was reported out of Committee, this body is relegated to saving this severely flawed legislation by way of the only two amendments made in order last Tuesday--those of my colleague, the distinguished Ranking Member of the House Administration Committee and the Jackson-Lee Amendment. The Jackson-Lee Amendment has three essential components which propose to preserve the rights of the States, the voters, and of the spirit of democracy:

The first portion of this amendment, Jackson-Lee #1, reads as follows:

In section 26(b)(4)(B)(i) of the Revised Statutes of the

United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, strike

``2 days'' and insert ``5 days.''

This change would amend the section of the bill that deals with the time in which a person(s) may file a lawsuit arising out of the Speaker of the House's announcement of vacancies in the House of Representatives in excess of 100. This change would amend paragraph (4), subparagraph (B)(i) and expand the ability of an aggrieved party to file suit for either declaratory or injunctive party to file suit for either declaratory or injunctive relief from just two (2) days to five (5) days.

Because not every State has a Capital Beltway or even a superhighway system, and because information travels at a different rate in every location, it is important that we establish a fair standard for a filing rule that affects every State in the country. The principle of procedural due process dictates that every citizen of each State have a realistic opportunity to obtain legal relief through our Judicial Branch.

The second portion of this proposal speaks even more to the issue of due process for all citizens. Its text reads as follows:

In section 26(b)(4)(B)(iii) of the Revised Statues of the

United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, insert

after ``the action'' the following: ``(taking into account an

opportunity for an expedited appeal of the initial

decision).''.

Because the 45-day deadline for special State elections already places significant constraints on the electoral process and on the citizens represented due to its brevity, taking away the right to an appeal from the U.S. District Court would excessively curtail the procedural due process rights enjoyed by citizens. Given that the time in which a Federal judge has to compose an order disposing of these matters is provided in this bill, an equally expeditious appeals process should be provided so as to maintain consistency with the U.S. Constitution and the commitment to both the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Thirdly, the amendment reads as follows:

In section 26(b)(4)(B)(iv) of the Revised Statutes of the

United States, as proposed to be added by the bill, insert

after ``vacant'' the following: ``any citizen of the district

or any group of citizens of the State.''.

This proposal is very important to protect the interests of all citizens in the various congressional districts in the midst of party politics as well as the certification of classes in legal actions. As the bill is drafted, Section 2, paragraph (4), subparagraph (iv) would confer the right to sue in the event of a vacancy announcement by the Speaker of the House

solely to the ``executive authority,'' in the case of Texas, the Governor. Such overly restrictive language almost certainly threatens to deprive the citizens of a right that they should enjoy in the event that the Governor chooses not to participate in a suit for declaratory or injunctive relief pursuant to a vacancy announcement made by the Speaker of the House. In order to protect the rights of every person who truly has an interest in a call for a special election under this Act, this provision must be amended to allow citizens and classes of citizens to sue for relief.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support the voters of each State, the framework of the U.S. Constitution, and the spirit of democracy by supporting the Jackson-Lee Amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, this is about chaos and confusion. There is no definition of how the announcement will go out to the people beyond the beltway. A mere extending from 2 days to 5 days to make sure that Americans, even in crisis, have due process and democracy and justice is not too much to ask. I would indulge and beg my colleagues to realize all this does is simply allow for the people of America in crisis to be represented and to be responded to.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and thank the gentlewoman for her support.

Again, the idea of this amendment, in the judicial review aspect, one, there is no definitive information about how the information will be disseminated to our States and to citizens in a 2-day period if crisis is occurring, if a terrorist act has occurred. My amendment gives an additional 5 days to guarantee that that notice be given.

In addition, the other aspects of the legislation provides for an expedited time frame. It does not in any way cause a sufficient delay that would not allow us to restore this body to its ability to do business on behalf of the American people. Continuity, tragedy, all equal bipartisanship. I would ask my colleagues to look at this amendment and all it does provide, the enhanced due process. And I think we would not want the terrorists to believe that because of a terrorist act that we have lost our sense of judgment, the Constitution and due process.

After 9/11, we went to New York to show that we are not afraid of the terrorists. I believe we should show that we are not afraid of them by upholding the Constitution and due process on behalf of the American people. Vote for the Jackson-Lee amendment. I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

The legislative branch bill, Mr. Chairman, provides for $2.870 billion, an increase of only 1.7 percent over the fiscal year 2005. The bill represents a $270 million reduction from the budget request.

Mr. Chairman, although we did not agree on every item on this bill, we worked very closely with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to produce a bipartisan bill for the legislative branch. I want to thank all the committee members for their contributions in putting this bill together.

While small in size, this is the bill that funds the work of the Congress, and it is a bill that we all can be very proud of.

The bill includes funding for the operations of the House and several joint items, the Capitol Police, the Compliance Board, the Congressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, the General Accountability Office, and the Open World Leadership Program.

There will be no reductions in the current workforce.

The bill provides for all personnel cost-of-living increases and all other pay-related costs.

The bill also was reported out of the full committee on a voice vote.

The Capitol Visitor Center is funded at the cost-to-complete level of $36.9 million. The bill does not include funding for CVC operating expenses.

The bill establishes an Inspector General for the Capitol Police. The bill terminates the mounted horse unit and transfers the horses and equipment to the U.S. Park Service.

As part of an amendment in the full committee, I offered, and the committee adopted, the Continuity in Representation Act at the Speaker's request. This bill has passed the House twice, and just recently, the vote in March was 329 to 68.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and one that benefits the entire legislative branch. Ultimately, this is the bill that reflects the work of the House. We are all in this together, Mr. Chairman, and because of that, I feel very strongly that this legislation should have the support of the entire House.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN05.004

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

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

I appreciate very much the gentleman having this colloquy with me and raising this important issue. As we have discussed, the smoking policy in the House office buildings is under the jurisdiction of the House Office Building Commission. That commission is made up of leaders on both sides of the aisle; and, frankly, I am very hesitant to interfere with their responsibility or their work. But I think it is very important that the gentleman is raising this issue today, and I am happy to have this discussion with him.

I would be very happy to join with the gentleman in that discussion. I think I probably will discuss it with my wife as well; but in the meantime, you and I work together on the committee, and I am happy to work with you on almost any issue you might raise.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

If the gentleman will yield, I would be pleased to do so.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell the gentleman that I am very appreciative of his interest in the institution's history. As he is aware, the Speaker controls the placement of plaques on the House side of the Capitol. Their placement is very restricted, and we attempt to achieve recognition of events and places normally through other means.

The Capitol Visitors Center is being designed to provide our visitors with a much fuller understanding and history of the House and Senate. Included in the CVC is a 16,000 square-foot exhibit hall. In this exhibit hall, the architectural and legislative history of the institution are highlighted.

As part of the currently proposed CVC exhibits are detailed sections on the history of the Capitol and included in this is the fact that when the Capitol was originally built, it was used for more than legislative meetings. It was commonly used as the community center for the citizens of Washington, D.C. During that time, there were few places for meetings or church services. Thus, it is correct that such religious services were held here.

All these facts are included in the CVC exhibits, and I would encourage that the education of citizens be pursued in this venue so that a more complete history beyond a plaque can be presented.

There have been, and I very much appreciate the gentleman's interest in this matter. He and I will be pursuing it as we go forward in the months and, indeed, the years ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I must say I understand the points that the gentleman is making. I believe he has a constitutional amendment that proposes an alternative approach. I must say the Speaker has been most concerned, and he asked me to put this in this bill, because a constitutional amendment takes so long to accomplish. We could be out there for Lord knows how long if it is ever accomplished. In the meantime, he has a proposal that will go forward and will be altered significantly as we go forward in order to expedite the process. That is what the Speaker is asking us to do here.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, he does have a constitutional amendment proposed. He knows how long and how risky constitutional proposals are. They hardly ever happen. And, therefore, the Speaker wants to make sure this proposal goes forward, and that is what we are suggesting.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to yield time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier); but before doing so, I just want to mention that the previous speaker had a constitutional amendment regarding the issue of continuity in the last Congress, and on that constitutional amendment the vote was 63 yeas and 353 nays. To say the least, the constitutional approach is difficult.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak in these closing moments.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it is important for the public to know that all of us are concerned about continuity of government in the event of a tragedy. We certainly would not be having this discussion if it had not been for 9/11.

But, indeed, there are differences in the approach that one might take. Some prefer a constitutional amendment; and yet we have tried that on more than one occasion. We have had the debate, and very few in this House have supported that proposition. So the Speaker has asked us to go forward with an idea that will be worked on carefully between now and the time we finish our work with the Senate.

But from that point forward, let me talk a bit about the Capitol Visitors Center. My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I, early on in this Congress, were not active supporters of a CVC. But, indeed, his leadership and my leadership, at a higher pay grade, made a different decision; so we are carrying forward their work in this process.

I have looked at the visitors center very carefully. It is rather a fabulous addition to the Capitol, the greatest addition that has been made in this century, I believe. Indeed, within the mix of that, while I might change some things, I prefer not to suggest what the details ought to be that the Architect moves forward with. I am critical of the Architect; but in the meantime, I am not one. Therefore, we are going to add this major change whereby visitors can enter the Capitol, and it will have a very significant piece of our future history in the Capitol complex. It is going to be a fabulous addition. Indeed, it will be a very high-quality addition that we will all be proud of, but I think it would be a mistake for me to try to be the architect between now and then.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate about the work of the people's House. I am very happy to participate in this with my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) control 2\1/2\ minutes of that time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2985 the Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 2006. However, I find it truly unfortunate that these Appropriations were consistently under-funded because of the tight budget due to the massive tax cuts given to the richest Americans. These Bush Administration tax cuts have created gaps in so many programs and these Legislative Branch Appropriations are no different.

The total funding for this legislation is $2.87 billion which is only 2% more than current levels and $270 million (9%) less than requested by the various legislative offices and agencies. This bill appropriates $1.1 billion for operations of the House of Representatives which is only $13 million (1%) more than current funding and $35 million (3%) less than requested. It is unfortunate that these Appropriations are so tight, when the cost of operating the House of Representatives is in fact getting higher. These costs are becoming higher because the needs of our constituencies are becoming greater. With these unfortunate budget cuts in place it will be our constituents who suffer. Regardless of these cuts, Congress will continue to function properly and we will serve our constituents proudly, but these cuts in our funding undermine our efforts.

In addition to insufficient funding to the House of Representatives, the greatest deficiencies can be found in the legislative branch agencies that directly or indirectly support Congressional operations. This funding is only $32.6 million (2%) more than current levels and a staggering $234.8 million (12%) less than requested. Funding for the Capitol Police, who are entrusted with protecting the Capitol Complex and all those who work and visit here actually received $2 million (1%) less than in FY 2005, and $50.4 million (17%) less than requested in this Appropriation. The Architect of the Capitol who have worked so hard in the last year to make the Capitol Complex more accessible to visitors received only $317.3 million, $16.7 million (6%) more than current funding but a full $123.6 million (28%) less than requested. The Government Printing Office (GPO) which serves the demanding printing needs of hundreds of legislators every year received only $122.6 million which is $2.8 million (2%) more than current funding but $8.5 million (6%) less than requested. Indeed, even the Library of Congress, the resource for Members and staff to conduct research and the institution meant to be our nation's greatest repository of reading materials, even their

funding was cut in this Appropriation. The Library of Congress received $543 million, about equal to the FY 2005 level but $47.8 million (8%) less than requested. It is sad to see these legislative branch agencies, which work so hard and diligently to support the work of Congress, have their funding needs not met. Again, these agencies will continue to support Congress and they will do their jobs well, but these cuts in funding can only lessen their effectiveness.

However, the issue that has me most concerned about this Appropriation is the language of H.R. 841, which would require states to hold special elections within 49 days of the Speaker declaring that more than 100 vacancies exist in the House. First of all, this language has no business being in this Appropriations measure, it clearly legislates on what is supposed to be a spending bill. Truly, the other side of the aisle is trying to sneak in a piece of legislation within this Appropriation in order to force its passage upon the Senate. Furthermore, this language within this bill threatens to weaken the electoral process, to disenfranchise overseas, disabled, and lower- income voters and thereby reduce individual rights. The more expedited the process of replacing the members of the House and the smaller body constituted is, the less legitimacy it will have. Unless the House constitutes members from all 50 States and through a full, fair, and transparent process, this body will lack qualities that make it truly ``representative.''

Despite my objections with certain provisions of this legislation I will vote in favor of this Appropriation because it serves the needs of our Congress. However, I hope that soon our economic and budgeting practices would change so that we are not forced to make so many cuts in vital areas. I also hope that in the future we do not use these Appropriations bills as a way to further our legislative agendas. It is my sincere hope that the institution of Congress, which was made to serve the needs of the people, will continue to be effective no matter the obstacle.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of my colleague Mr. Baird's amendment to H.R. 2985 the Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 2006. The Baird amendment would strike the language of H.R. 841, which would require states to hold special elections within 49 days of the Speaker declaring that more than 100 vacancies exist in the House. First of all, this language has no business being in this Appropriations measure, it clearly legislates on what is supposed to be a spending bill. Truly, the other side of the aisle is trying to sneak in a piece of legislation within this Appropriation in order to force its passage upon the Senate.

Furthermore, this language within this bill threatens to weaken the electoral process, to disenfranchise overseas, disabled, and lower- income voters and thereby reduce individual rights. The more expedited the process of replacing the members of the House and the smaller the body constituted is, the less legitimacy it will have. Unless the House constitutes members from all 50 States and through a full, fair, and transparent process, this body will lack qualities that make it truly ``representative.''

Forty-nine days is simply not enough time for a state to hold the most free and fair elections. Special elections on average, take four months. In the event of a catastrophic disaster, elections should be held on an expedited time schedule. The pillars of what makes American democracy unique, however, should not be toppled in the pursuit to do so. True democracy dictates that every eligible woman or man has the right to run for office and to vote freely and under fair circumstances. Under the guidelines of this language, this would not be possible. Many states would have to forgo party primaries and the system would lend itself to the wealthiest and most well-known candidates' ability to run virtually unopposed. All debate of the candidates' platforms or characters would be nearly muted, and in effect, Americans would vote ``in the blind.''

Significant disenfranchisement will likely occur in the unrealistic time frame that the language of H.R. 841 offers in this Appropriations measure. There would be no way to mail out and receive absentee ballots in time. Overseas Americans, including those in the military, would not have a realistic chance to vote. Yes, the legislation ostensibly offers military and overseas voters an opportunity to be heard, but 15 days simply are not enough. There is something unseemly about denying our men and women of the military the right to vote in the most consequential elections imaginable, when we would be replacing perhaps the entire House. Logistically, many states would not have sufficient time for voter registration. It would be difficult to even print the ballots in the time allotted under this Act. There are only a few ballot printing companies in this country and a limited supply of ballot-appropriate paper stock. In the case of electronic voting, programs must be written, and even under ideal circumstances, not all the technical glitches have been sufficiently worked out to assure voter privacy or the fidelity of the system.

The language of H.R. 841 in this bill proposes to make the issue of state elections a ``federal question.'' However, just because this issue would become federalized does not mean that we should frustrate the essential elements of democracy.The processes of establishing the eligibility of state candidates, voter registration, voter freedom of choice, and equal access to voting under the Civil Rights Act must be preserved--even in the face of a catastrophe. Democracy should not be abandoned simply because our leadership may have to suddenly change.

Clearly, this language does not belong in this Appropriations bill, nor does it serve the best interest of the American people. I urge all my colleagues to support the Baird amendment and remove this improper language from the Legislative Appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 841, and I regret the partisan flavor that seems to have become part of this debate.

Mr. Chairman, this bill offers a solution to a crisis, to a problem that we face, to a challenge that we face, but it is a solution that will not work. I plead with my fellow Republicans to listen to the arguments that have just been made and to determine for themselves whether or not this legislation will do the job that it claims it is intended to do.

I looked at it with an open heart and an open mind and find that I agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) that at a time when we need it the most, this bill will leave us in limbo, without leadership, and it will make America vulnerable at a time when we need leadership the most.

I oppose this legislation. This bill focuses on the continuity of the election process rather than the continuity of Congress. The people who wrote this bill got their priorities all mixed up as to what the purpose of this was supposed to be.

Mr. Chairman, the time frame in this bill of 45 days is both too long and too short. Forty-five days is too long to reconstruct the House of Representatives in a time of crisis when decisions need to be made immediately, so in that 45 days, when we are the most vulnerable, this legislation would leave America the most vulnerable.

But 45 days is also too short a period to preserve the democratic representation that we have heard about, because, yes, you could have elections, but it does not allow time for primary elections. So who are those elections going to be all about? Under this law, party bosses rather than party voters will choose the candidates; thus, they will choose the Representatives. This is hollow, a very hollow approach to democracy, suggesting that this would permit people to be elected, when in fact it will be the party bosses that will be deciding who the voters will have a chance to vote on.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and I have introduced a bipartisan constitutional amendment that solves the problems that H.R. 841 attempts to address, and it does this without the inevitable limitations of trying to fix a constitutional problem with a simple statute.

House Joint Resolution 26 provides for the immediate replacement of both deceased and incapacitated Members by alternates, who become acting Representatives only until a new Representative is elected. Just as the Vice President of the United States is elected as part of a ticket with the President, alternate Representatives would go on the ballot and be elected as a ticket with their Representative so that in times of crisis, there would be immediate representation for the United States Congress and for the people throughout our country.

H.J. Res. 26 thus solves the constitutional problem that a statute such as H.R. 841 cannot. It provides for both the continuity of Congress and for the continuity of representation for every district in the country, even if only one Representative dies or is in incapacitated. Under our alternative, thus no district would ever be without representation.

H.R. 841, on the other hand, does nothing to address incapacity, and in the case of death, allows as many as 99 districts at a time to go without representation for months.

Under H.J. Res. 26, Acting Representatives would be every bit as much elected officials as the Vice President is, yet would serve only until a new Representative is elected under the fully democratic procedures used by States today. Thus the Rohrabacher-Baird amendment not only solves all the continuity problems, but also preserves the principle that only elected officials may cast a vote in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, although I oppose the bill before us, the Rohrabacher- Baird amendment is something that can be supported even by those who vote for the bill. I ask my colleagues for their support and co- sponsorship of H.J. Res. 26.

On 9/11 we lived through a crisis that at times seemed bizarre and even surreal. Many otherwise competent leaders were in a state of shock and at one moment when we gathered on the Capitol steps to send a message to the American people, Representative Baird and I realized more was needed and began singing God Bless America. All our colleagues joined in. That was the message the American people needed.

Today let's do what is needed for the American people at a time of maximum crisis.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my fellow Republicans, please give this serious consideration. This is too important an issue to think about in terms of party politics. This is a time of crisis, when American people will be counting on us to do our best and to set up something that will work in a time of crisis.

I claim the time for the opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I oppose this amendment because it does not correct the fundamental flaw of H.R. 841, which is leaving the United States of America at a time of its worst crisis, its worst potential crisis that you can imagine, it leaves the American people in the lurch, leaves them without representative government and without representation in the Congress for 7 weeks. According to this amendment, there will be no representation for the American people at a time when our government needs leadership.

On 9/11 we lived through a crisis which at times seemed bizarre and even surreal. Many otherwise competent leaders were in a state of shock and at that moment, on 9/11, did not necessarily know or were incapable of doing exactly what the right thing was.

Many of us gathered at the Capitol on that fateful day; we gathered on the steps to back up our leadership. The purpose was to send a message to the American people. Representative Barrett and I realized, once a very short message had been given by our leaders, that the message was not adequate enough. And let me note that on that day, that time of crisis when we were all in confusion, standing on the Capitol about ready to break up, Representative Barrett and I looked at each other in our eyes and said this is not enough. We are going to start singing God bless America right now. And it was Representative Barrett and myself that started leading that singing and were joined in by our colleagues.

Let me note that that was the message the American people needed to hear of unity and God bless America at this time.

Let us today do what is needed for the American people at the time of the next crisis. What is happening is we are being offered an alternative that will leave them in the lurch, leave them wanting at the time of maximum crisis. If we do believe in God bless America, let us join in now with the partisan flavor of this debate and do what is right to make sure our people are prepared if our country is ever attacked like this again.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am asking my fellow Republicans to please look at what we are about to do. This solution that we are being offered will not work and will leave the American people vulnerable at a time of maximum crisis.

This is one of the most important votes that we are going to have. What is going to happen in the future if we put this solution in place and there is a crisis? For 45 days after the death or incapacitation of these Members, we will have no government. We will basically be left to marshal law or anything else.

There is an alternative. The people who have written this bill basically have come up with a continuity of elections instead of a continuity of Congress, and they have good motives, but the fact is it will not work. It will create a huge crisis for America at the moment that it needs to have something laid down for them, something solid on which to rely upon at a time of crisis. So, please look at this.

There is an alternative. We did not have to do this by statute. We can do this by constitutional amendment. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and I have a constitutional amendment which will do that.

So, again, let us not leave a void, which this bill does, for the future Americans who will face the crisis of a generation and leave them in the lurch.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to extend thanks to the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). By this time next week, we will have completed all of the appropriation bills. This is a history-making event in the House of Representatives. I have been here for 11 years; and for the 11 years I have been here, I do not know of another time when we have completed all of our appropriation bills going right up to the July 4 recess break.

That is in large part due to the cooperation that the chairman received from the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), but in large part also from the leadership exhibited by the chairman of the full committee. He set a very, very high bar, a high standard, and all of the subcommittee chairs comported with that; and we will have sent to the Senate all of our appropriation bills as of a week from today or a week from tomorrow. That is an accomplishment that should not go unnoticed, and I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their leadership and also the subcommittee chairmen for that kind of goal setting and then meeting those goals.

Secondly, this is an important bill. This is the legislative branch bill. This is the bill where we say to all of the people, and I personally say to all of the people around the Capitol campus, thank you for the good work you do. The clerks, the people taking down our words here, the Congressional Record that will be printed overnight, the Parliamentarians who do such good work in directing the proceedings of the House, all of the Capitol Hill police who stand guard 24-7 and protect the Capitol, the attending physician's office who keep us all healthy, the people who work in the cloakrooms, the people who help us write bills, the people at CRS who help us make sure that we get the words correct and get them done correctly in the bills that we prepare and take a lot of credit for.

The folks who work at the Library of Congress. The most magnificent facility on the Capitol campus is the Library of Congress. I hate to say it, but it is even more magnificent than this building, but the Library of Congress is a magnificent facility. Members have an opportunity to take full advantage of many of the books there and research that can be done. The Botanical Gardens is also a part of our campus. This is the bill that funds all of that.

This is Congress' opportunity to say thank you to all of the people who work around here. It includes the lawyers who make sure that we do things correctly, and all of the people who work hard day and night to keep this building open, keep Members on the right track, and make sure that the things we do are done by the book.

So I pay my compliments to all of the people who make this magnificent facility that we call the United States Capitol the great place that it is, where we make the laws and have the debates and have the opportunity to represent the people from all over the country. We could not do it without this bill, without the funding in this bill, and we could not do it without the people who provide all of the services, and are very dedicated, many of whom work late hours to keep this place going. I want to take my hat off to those folks.

I want to say a word about the visitors center. I want to say this: it is a done deal. The leadership decided several years we needed a visitors center. Has it been done all correctly? No. And the points that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) makes are correct points. A lot of the work that has been done has been done by direction of staff of the principals. The principals really have not been that involved. They said they wanted a visitors center, and then they allowed the staff over the last 4 or 5 years to give direction. The architects have had many masters on this visitors center, unfortunately.

But it is going to be built, and it is going to be a magnificent opportunity for people to have good shelter and safety. And after 9/11, we do not want people standing outside, we do not want people standing in inclement weather, and there will be an opportunity for people to get a little bit of history before they enter the Capitol. To say we should throw the whole bill out because of the visitors center does not make sense.

I also want to say something about a subject I have felt very strongly about for the last few years, thank the architect and the chief operating officer and others for helping me with this, and that is the development of a staff health fitness center. It is under way in the Rayburn garage. It is for the staff around here who work long hours. There will be a health fitness center that they will be able to take advantage of, to stay healthy and be able to exercise, to have an opportunity to do the same thing that all of the Members have the opportunity to do. I am grateful that we are finally getting that kind of opportunity for our staff to be able to make this happen.

With respect to the provision that was put in the bill having to do with respect to what do we do around here if another disaster happens, if the Members are injured or killed in some kind of an attack, there has to be something that guides the direction of the House in the event that something happens. The Speaker decided in order to get this moving and in order to get the Senate to go along with something, it had to be included in a bill, and it was put in this bill. It was put in, really, to get something done, to make something happen, to have some provision in the event that something happens.

It is probably not the best way to do it, but maybe it will end up to be the most efficient way to do it, to get the Senate finally to come around and sit down and talk to us about what do we do if something happens around here and how do we account for succession.

The Constitution calls for elections, not appointment. When there is a vacancy, there has to be an election. That is the way we get Members to congregate in this House. That is the way it should be.

My point is the idea that this was included and is some sort of nonessential thing, it is essential that we have a provision in the law that allows us to account for a situation in the event that Members need to be replaced. That is really the reason it was put in.

It is a part of the process here. If we want to get things moving, this is one of the ways to do it. It is not unprecedented. We have included other provisions in bills before to try and get some compromise with the Senate. I congratulate the Speaker for trying to get something done on this. If it does not happen here, it probably will not happen. We need to have this provision in the law.

I ask every Member to consider the good work that goes on around here, the fact that this is the bill that funds all of this. This is the bill that takes care of all of the work that we do around here. It is a good bill. My compliments go to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the work of the staff people that made it possible for this bill to come to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I will address it in this way: I was here on 9/11, as the gentleman was. There is absolutely nothing for the Members of Congress to do. That is the answer to the gentleman's question. The whole thing was taken over by the administration. There is not going to be anything for any Member of Congress, any major decisions to be made during that period of time. We do not need to be around here.

Mr. Chairman, we were all meandering around here trying to figure out what to do, trying to figure out how to get our phones working. All of the major legislation that was created was created long after the period of time that the gentleman is talking about.

If the gentleman will further yield, what is the time frame?

I was going to respond to the gentleman's other questions.