Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, especially with so many in the gallery today, I rise to defend John Kerry from the onslaught on the floor today, a decorated veteran in Vietnam, a person who received three Purple Hearts and the Silver Star for serving with distinction. And now, because he is a candidate for President of the United States, he receives the unbridled attack from the opposition.

We ought to rise above this here on the floor of the House and across the Nation in this debate. What we need to do is focus on the issues that this country desperately needs to address, seniors that need prescription drugs, people that are out of work and unemployed.

What we need is leadership, the kind of leadership that John Kerry provided in the fields of Vietnam, that he has provided with distinction in the United States Senate, and that he will provide as President of the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

participatory process of candidate selection.

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

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

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

I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary of the State,

Connecticut,

Hartford, CT, December 11, 2003

Hon. John B. Larson,

Longworth HOB,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Larson: As the Chief Elections Official

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

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

that would require states to hold special elections to fill

vacancies in the House of Representatives not later than 45

days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the

House of Representatives in extraordinary circumstances.

While Connecticut General Statutes under Section 9-215

already allows for a special election for state

representatives and state senator in 45 days, a special

election for a member of Congress would represent a much

larger geographic and electoral population. In Connecticut,

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

a state representative or a state senate district.

A 45 day special election in a Connecticut congressional

district would not only be unworkable but runs counter to a

fair and democratic process. Specifically, such a short time

frame would not give voters the opportunity to make an

informed decision about any of the candidates running for

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

day special election for Congress would not allow the

opportunity for a primary. This would essentially force

Connecticut back to a closed election process after the

General Assembly recently opened up our democratic primary

system this past legislative session.

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

of Connecticut has 45 days to issue overseas ballots. These

ballots contain the names of candidates for federal office

only and are available 45 days before any election where the

names of candidates for federal office appear. Holding a

special election for Representative in Congress 45 days after

the vacancy would create a timeline too short to comply with

the State and Federal laws requiring the availability of the

45 day overseas ballots.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments and I

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

debate this very important issue in Congress. Please do not

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

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

assistance.

Sincerely,

Susan Bysiewicz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues and I have been watching with great interest the nightly news report on Lou Dobbs Tonight entitled ``Exporting America.'' The series has highlighted the disturbing trend of good paying American jobs that are being sent overseas. In the past three years, more than 2.8 million Americans employed in manufacturing have lost their jobs. Because each manufacturing job supports two non-manufacturing positions; that means at least 8.4 million people have been affected, directly or indirectly, because of the loss of American manufacturing to overseas companies. Despite these job losses, over 16 million Americans are still employed in the manufacturing sector. Additionally, manufacturing contributes roughly 17 percent of our nation's gross domestic product, provides 71 percent of our exports, and funds 67 percent of our nation's research and development investment. As these numbers indicate, manufacturing is the backbone of our economy and action must be taken to protect and create jobs here at home and stem the tide of American manufacturing jobs moving overseas.

Current free trade policies have enticed many large corporations and retailers to take

advantage of cheap foreign-made goods. I was dismayed when the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, only months ago, stated that companies outsourcing American jobs overseas is a ``good thing.'' While these policies can lead to a temporary boost for a sector of the economy, most notably in the retail sector, in the long run their implications can be detrimental to American workers. I doubt that any Americans who are out of work because their job went overseas believe that outsourcing is a good thing. We must protect the jobs we have and create others to fill the void left by the jobs that have been lost.

An even more dangerous result of these policies is the threat to our national security when vital defense-related products are made in foreign countries. The ever shifting geopolitical landscape could leave the source of critical components of our defense systems in the hands of a nation unsympathetic to the United States. Manufacturers are also major customers of information and communications technology. Many electronics components are now manufactured only outside the United States. For example, the wire industry is nearly nonexistent. If our manufacturing base continues to erode, the effects will be devastating, not only in terms of individual job losses, but also in terms of the ripple effects that will be felt throughout our economy and our national security.

In response to this disturbing trend, I worked with business and labor leaders to craft the American Workers and Manufacturers Support Act. This legislation is an eight-point plan which lays out pragmatic steps designed to secure our manufacturing economic base, protect jobs, and help grow the manufacturing sector here at home.

First, we must end the threat to our national security by strengthening the Buy American Act to ensure that the federal government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. The bill would strengthen the existing Act by applying its provisions to the new Department of Homeland Security and by tightening existing waivers. It would also require that information be provided to Congress and to the American people about how often the provisions of this Act are waived by Federal departments and agencies.

Second, we must enforce existing trade agreements. This bill establishes a Congressional Trade Office to provide Congress with independent, nonpartisan, neutral trade expertise and monitor compliance with major, bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements. The Office will also observe and evaluate dispute settlement deliberations and selected trade negotiations.

Third, we must stop the manipulation of currency exchange rates. Several nations have for years intervened aggressively in currency markets to maintain their national currencies at artificially low values relative to the U.S. dollar. The result is the gradual decline of manufacturing in the U.S. and job losses in manufacturing. This bill would give a ninety day deadline for the Administration to negotiate an end to the currency devaluation by countries such as China that severely undervalue their currency. If these bilateral negotiations fail, the legislation requires the President to utilize powers he already possesses under U.S. and international law to file legal action to halt these practices and recover damages for U.S. manufacturers.

Fourth, we must enable American consumers to make informed choices about purchasing American made goods. This bill charges the Department of Commerce with studying the feasibility and impact with regards to costs to manufacturers and consumers of enacting laws requiring all products retailing at more than $15 to state clearly on the labels the percentage of components made in the United States.

Fifth, we must invest American dollars in America. This bill brings the U.S. into compliance with World Trade Organization regulations and protects U.S. manufacturing jobs. It repeals the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income (FSC/ETI) tax provisions that provide a partial tax exemption for U.S. exports. These provisions have caused the European Union to threaten retaliatory tariffs because the WTO has ruled that these tax exemptions are prohibited export subsidies. The bill also provides transitional relief to companies currently receiving the FSC/ETI benefit, and provides permanent tax relief to make U.S. companies more competitive in the global market, resulting in an increase in U.S. manufacturing and U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Sixth, we need to stop pitting big American manufacturers against small ones. Large manufacturers and retailers know that smaller companies have difficulty competing within the current trade structure, and sometimes they use questionable tactics in trying to obtain favorable prices. One such practice is to place a large contract order to get a favorable price then to cancel the contract after only a portion of the goods are provided. This bill charges the Secretary of Commerce with setting up an investigative unit to look into these practices, establishing guidelines to address abuses and a unit to allow small manufacturers to confidentially report their complaints.

Seventh, we must ensure the flow of qualified manufacturing workers. This bill includes preparation of students for manufacturing jobs under the Advanced Technological Education Program and increases funding for the program. Additionally, it provides funding for the Manufacturing Skills Standards Council, which sets performance standards to certify job skills for manufacturing workers.

Finally, the eighth step is to support America's small manufacturers. This bill creates a new Undersecretary within the Department of Commerce to oversee the new Manufacturing and Technology Administration created by the bill. This office would be tasked with supervising the National Institutes of Standards and Technology; National Technical Information Service; and a new policy analysis office named Office of Manufacturing and Technology Policy. Additionally it would conduct manufacturing and technology policy analysis to improve United States industrial productivity, manufacturing capabilities, and innovation. It would also be tasked with identifying manufacturing and technology needs, problems and opportunities within and across industrial sectors. It would propose and support studies and policy experiments, in cooperation with other federal agencies, to determine the effectiveness of measures for improving United States manufacturing capabilities and productivity. Finally, it would encourage and assist the creation of centers and other joint initiatives by State or local governments, regional organizations, private businesses, institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, Federal laboratories to encourage technology transfer, to encourage innovation, and to promote an appropriate climate for investment in technology-related industries.

If our manufacturing base continues to erode, the effects of individual job losses on our economy and national security will be devastating. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to report on the ``Good Corporate Citizenship'' of AETNA, a constituent company in my district. During the week of April 26th, approximately 1,100 employees from Aetna's Consumer Markets segment across the country will donate more than 4,400 hours to charitable causes in their communities.

Aetna has a long history of volunteerism and contributing to the communities where it operates. In 2003, Aetna and the Aetna Foundation contributed approximately $16.5 million nationally, with nearly $4.4 million directed at entities in Connecticut, Aetna's home State for 150 years.

Every day, Aetna employees across the country demonstrate their compassion and commitment to this goal by devoting hundreds of hours of personal time to volunteerism. This commitment has created what is now recognized as Aetna's ``Culture of Caring''--a tradition of volunteerism that has become a part of Aetna's core values.

As part of this April 2004 charitable initiative, employees from 20 sites around the country will join together to make an impact in the lives of others. In my home State of Connecticut, this fine group of Aetna employees will focus on assisting The Children's Home of Cromwell, where they will collect school supplies and backpacks for resident children; The American Red Cross, where employees will paint houses and clean yards for low-income housing residents; Foodshare of Greater Hartford, where Aetna staff will participate in the Walk Against Hunger and will sort food at the Hartford Farmer's Market; The Shepherd Home, where employees will collect small appliances and furniture for transitional housing residents; and Community Renewal Team, where Aetna employees will paint classrooms for low-income, inner-city preschools, read to students, and provide nutritional snacks.

Being a leader in health care is a source of pride for the entire Aetna community. I am proud to represent Connecticut and Aetna's employees, especially as they demonstrate that corporate responsibility and employee volunteerism are key business objectives, objectives which help make Aetna such an integral part of the local community.

Offered By: Mr. Larson of Connecticut

Amendment No. 1: In section 26(b)(2) of the Revised

Statutes of the United States, as proposed to be added by the

bill, strike ``45 days'' and insert ``75 days''.

Offered By: Mr. Larson of Connecticut

Amendment No. 2: In section 26(b) of the Revised Statutes

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

add at the end the following new paragraph:

``(5) Extension of deadline to permit states to hold

primaries.--If State law provides that the candidates for a

special general election held under this subsection are to be

selected in a primary election, the State may extend the

deadlines referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3) to take into

account the period provided under State law for holding such

a primary election, including any runoff election resulting

from such a primary election.''.

Offered By: Mr. Larson of Connecticut

Amendment No. 3: Amend paragraph (3) of section 26(b) of

the Revised Statutes of the United States, as proposed to be

Offered By: Mr. Larson of Connecticut

Amendment No. 4: In section 26(b) of the Revised Statutes

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

add at the end the following new paragraph:

``(5) Rule of construction regarding federal election

laws.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed to affect

the application to special elections under this subsection of

any of the following laws:

``(A) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et

seq.).

``(B) The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and

Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.).

``(C) The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting

Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.).

``(D) The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42

U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.).

``(E) The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42

U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

``(F) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et

seq.).

``(G) The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301 et

seq.).''.

Offered By: Mr. Larson of Connecticut

Amendment No. 5: Add at the end the following new section:

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 393, the budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2005. One of the main reasons why I oppose this budget resolution is because it appears to parallel the President's budget by also underfunding the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). I have strongly urged Congress to fully fund the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) for Fiscal Year 2005 and I believe that the funding levels incorporated into this resolution fail to do so.

It is disheartening that we are approaching the first presidential election since the 2000 voting irregularities and the President and Congress still appear unwilling to commit the financial resources needed to make HAVA's envisioned success a reality.

Despite overwhelming bipartisan support for HAVA's passage, this budget resolution seems to provide for only $65 million of the $600 million authorized in that landmark law for fiscal 2005.

Under HAVA, the Federal government authorized $3.9 billion to the States to upgrade their voting procedures in the wake of the 2000 election. State and local governments have traditionally borne these costs with virtually no assistance from Congress. By passing and signing HAVA into law, Congress and the President demonstrated that the Federal Government needs to provide States with a minimum of election- related resources and technical guidelines.

We must make this modest investment suggested in HAVA. If fully funded by Congress and the President, HAVA will strengthen confidence in our electoral process by facilitating the replacement of outdated voting equipment, the training of poll workers, and the development of improved election procedures.

Just this week, the new agency created by HAVA, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), held its first public meeting to discuss election issues. The EAC is now our national resource for Federal election procedures. Thus, the EAC has a very important role in the future of our election process, and an equally important role in ensuring that we do not repeat the frustrations of the past.

Mr. Chairman, Congress should guarantee that the work of the Commission and other components of HAVA are provided for in our budget resolution, which is one of the reasons why I oppose House Concurrent Resolution 393 and would like to urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer what I believe is a necessary solution to a problem not addressed in our Founding Fathers' plan for our country's government.

I recently introduced a Constitutional Amendment to address the issue of how Congress would continue should a catastrophic event occur. Under this proposal, if a majority of House members are killed or incapacitated as a result of such an event their seats could be immediately filled by temporary appointments made by state legislatures. We need look no further than the Continental Congresses and Constitutional Convention, to understand that such a temporary solution would be successful. I believe that a functional House, even in a temporarily modified form, is far better than no House at all.

The temporary appointments would be afforded full Member powers, until vacancies are filled by a special election. However, a temporary Member could not be a candidate in the election for the seat he or she holds, and the temporary Member must be of the same political party as the Member who previously held the seat.

There is no way the Founders could have foreseen the need to address such an issue. The terrorist acts that take place nearly every day across the globe were not a part of their world. That's why I believe a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to enable the House to reconstitute itself as quickly as possible.

We have amended the Constitution to address presidential succession and the appointment of Senators in the case of vacancies, but the House has no such constitutional safeguard in the event of a catastrophe. That doesn't make sense. If the Senate can accept an appointment to fill an entire term, then a temporary appointment should not be that offensive to the concept of democracy, and therefore, should be acceptable for the House.

I offered this Constitutional amendment (H.J. Res. 89), because I believe that proposals to expedite special elections and make temporary appointments are not mutually exclusive. I support the idea of a new statute that seeks to expedite special elections and fill House seats quickly in the event of a catastrophe, but this needs to be done in concert with a Constitutional Amendment for temporary replacements and with respect for views of the states.

As for other proposals that address this issue only through expedited special elections, I am certainly willing to review any compromise opportunities. However, I do not believe, nor does the secretary of state from my home state of Connecticut believe, that it is reasonable to expect that we can hold special elections within 45 days after a disastrous event has wiped out hundreds of Members. Also, expedited special elections won't reconstitute the House fast enough to deal with pressing legislative matters.

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 taught us that Congress needs to act quickly on critical pieces of legislation to deal with the aftermath of a crisis. Should such an event occur again and many Members of Congress die, the country will not have the luxury of waiting for special elections to occur in order for the people's business to continue. To avoid taking action now to prevent this scenario would be a dereliction of our duty.

My proposed Constitutional Amendment also addresses vacancies created by the incapacity of a Member of the House, which cannot be addressed by a mere statute. The article would become part of the Constitution if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states within seven years of the date of its submission to them.

As a former history teacher and long-serving member of the Connecticut State Senate, I feel very strongly about the need to preserve the institution of Congress. In December, I held a Continuity of Congress Forum at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford, Connecticut. I invited local academic leaders, who are experts in Congressional operations, to discuss current House proposals about how Congress would continue should a catastrophic event occur.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this Constitutional Amendment. This is certainly an issue that is difficult for all of us to address--our untimely demise or incapacitation. Yet, given the level of terrorist activity in our world, it would behoove us to recognize that we need a mechanism for temporary appointments should a catastrophic event occur in the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I support S. Con. Res. 93, which authorizes planning for the use of the Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2005, for the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President and Vice President of the United States. We traditionally pass this measure to begin the period of security planning and rehearsal for the inaugural, since the Rotunda is routinely used for ceremonial purposes during the inauguration and could host the event itself, depending on the weather at that time.

The 108th Congress does not formally authorize use of the Rotunda through this measure, since it will expire on January 3, 2005, like all concurrent resolutions which are not made part of permanent law and must be renewed in the 109th Congress. However, it initiates the period of pre-event planning necessary to bring one of our democracy's most memorable and historic ceremonies to fruition smoothly and safely. I urge its adoption.

The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 94, the traditional measure which establishes the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies during the 108th Congress to begin work on preparations for the presidential inaugural ceremonies at the Capitol on January 20, 2005. The joint committee we are creating today expires on January 3, 2005, but will be renewed at the start of the 109th Congress to conclude its work.

Congress routinely passes this concurrent resolution every 4 years at about this time. The Speaker, majority leader and minority leader are customarily appointed by the Speaker to represent the House on the joint committee.

I urge adoption of the concurrent resolution.

The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to join my distinguished colleague from Ohio and support this motion and associate myself with his remarks.

In the quarter century since its inception, C-SPAN has become an institution. No organization has done more to enhance America's understanding of its government, its history than the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network. More than 85 million households have access to C-SPAN today, and millions regularly tune in to see their government in action. That is the way it should be.

The gentleman from Ohio mentioned the outstanding contribution of Brian Lamb, and truly we should acknowledge the great efforts in his vision to bring government to the households of every single American. I am proud to say as well that in the State of Connecticut is CT-N, which again is modeled after C-SPAN, which provides an opportunity to view the local legislative bodies and municipalities and actions so, in fact, people from their homes, especially many who are inbound, get an opportunity to participate in government on a regular basis.

Madam Speaker, today, especially on the eve of St. Patrick's Day, it is great to acknowledge the true father of C-SPAN in this Chamber and that is the legendary Speaker Tip O'Neill. Tip O'Neill was fond of saying that social policies brought many poor into the great American tent of opportunity. During his years as Speaker, many Americans were brought into the Halls of Congress via television. His decision to support televised coverage of the House of Representatives ushered in a new era of government accessibility. House TV went through its growing pains, but its success eventually influenced the Senate to follow suit, voting to let itself be televised in 1986.

When future generations remember Tip O'Neill, the man who served the longest consecutive term as Speaker, they may well remember him as the man who let Americans see their government at work as well.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to join my distinguished colleague in support of his motion. In the quarter-century since its inception, C- SPAN has become an institution. No organization has done more to enhance Americans' understanding of their government and history than the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network. More than 85 million households have access to C-SPAN today, and millions regularly tunein to see their government in action. This is as it should be.

Like microwave ovens, cellular telephones, the Internet, and other developments of this modern age, C-SPAN has become part of daily life for millions of Americans. Not only would we notice immediately if C- SPAN disappeared, most of us can't remember how we lived without it.

Think of it Madam Speaker. Before Brian Lamb transformed his vision of a television network devoted solely to public affairs into reality, Americans unable to visit the House gallery had to rely on others' reports about what their representatives said and did here. On March 19, 1979, all that changed. Beginning on that date, Americans could see and hear for themselves, immediately, directly, and unfiltered by others.

And while Americans may at times have disagreed with what they have seen or heard on the House floor since them, there is no question that Americans appreciate C-SPAN, and the cable-television industry, for enabling them to see and hear it. I know I was grateful for the opportunity to appear on C-SPAN for the first time on July 26, 2001, to talk about fuel cell technology.

Look how far C-SPAN has come in the past quarter-century. On that first day, four employees could broadcast gavel-to-gavel coverage of House proceedings, over one network initially available to fewer than 4 million homes.

Today, C-SPAN offers government and politics coverage over three television networks, one radio network, and over its website, c- span.org, all of it round-the-clock and accomplished without public funds. Not only can Americans now watch the floor debates of both the House and Senate, they can see interest groups, academics and ordinary citizens explore pending issues and offer their advice to policymakers. In addition to covering Congress, C-SPAN points its cameras at presidents and other executive-branch officials whenever possible. It covers state proceedings, including gubernatorial ``state-of-the- state'' messages, legislative debates, and even voting in the electoral college.

Madam Speaker, C-SPAN offers wonderful programming for everyone with a passion for public affairs. History have learned much by taking field trips to presidential libraries, birthplaces, and elsewhere on the ``C- SPAN School Bus.'' Viewers are again this year traveling the ``Road to the White House,'' with its through coverage of the 2004 campaigns. The ``Lyndon Johnson Tapes'' offer a fascinating glimpse into a turbulent period. Bibliophiles can explore authors and their works on ``Book TV'' all weekend long. Anglophiles can revel in British politics with ``Prime Minister's Questions'' when Parliaments is sitting, and enjoy the pomp of the state opening each November.

C-SPAN has even covered the Canadian and Australian parliaments which, like this Congress, derive their traditions from the ``mother of Parliaments'' in London.

I'm so proud that C-SPAN's commitment to educating Americans about their government has inspired individuals in my home State of Connecticut. The same historic leap of faith that was taken 25 years ago by C-SPAN, was also taken by State policy-makers and broadcast experts alike in 1999. That year marked the launch of CT-N, also known as the Connecticut Network.

From the beginning, the mission of CT-N has been to connect citizens to State government and public affairs programming. Connecticut Network provides unfiltered television and Web-cast coverage of all three branches of State government. CT-N viewers can watch the legislative sessions of the State Senate and House of Representatives, as well as committee meetings and public hearings, executive branch agency and commission meetings, and selected oral arguments before Connecticut's Supreme Court. The network is

managed and operated by the Connecticut Public Affairs Network, a not- for-profit company founded to educate citizens about State government.

Having served as Senate President Pro Tempore during the years prior to the launch of CT-N, I recall those early discussions about how we could provide television coverage of State Capitol proceedings. It was a daunting task, since at that time only a handful of State legislatures were airing government activities. Yet, no one doubted that such programming would one day exist in Connecticut. CT-N is now available in more than one million households in the State.

What a thrill it is for me to now see CT-N's camera persons walking the halls of the State Capitol when I'm back in the district. They are now part of the Capitol press corps, ready to cover breaking news at a moment's notice.

Why does CT-N's viewership continue to grow every year? It's because CT-N President and CEO Paul Giguere is constantly looking for new opportunities for government programming, and creating unique educational resources. For example, ``Joining the Debate: A Guide to Testifying at Public Hearings'' is a video produced by CT-N; ``CT-N State Civics Toolbox'' is a free teacher resource combining research, discussion, and mock legislature classroom activities with video of actual legislative debates from the Connecticut General Assembly; ``Capitol News Briefings'' are programming segments that follow the story from hearing rooms to assembly chambers; and ``State Agency Close-Ups'' are CT-N video segments that describe each executive branch agency in detail.

Americans are certainly more educated about national public policy issues that affect them thanks to C-SPAN. In Connecticut, CT-N gives citizens the tools and education needed to understand these same issues closer to home.

Madam Speaker, Senator Claude Pepper of Florida introduced legislation providing for broadcasting both houses of Congress in 1944. More than three decades later, in 1977, the House passed legislation to broadcast its proceedings, thus making C-SPAN possible.

The vote on the necessary resolution, sponsored by Trent Lott, now a Senator from Mississippi, was 342 to 44, an overwhelming expression of hope that broadcasting would benefit both the American people and the House.

I was not here then, but I bet the results of the last 25 years have exceeded the House's expectations many times over. On behalf of my constituents in Connecticut, and the House, I am proud to offer my congratulations to Brian Lamb and the entire staff of C-SPAN on its 25th anniversary of House broadcast coverage. Thanks to C-SPAN, our democracy is stronger, making America a better place for us all. I have no doubt that, 25 years hence, C-SPAN will have made even greater strides than it has in its first quarter-century. I urge everyone to tune in and watch C-SPAN prove me right.

Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill

On many a pleasant Thursday night, his former aides say,

House Speaker Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill would slip away to

his beloved Cape Code for a weekend of golf. After all, even

if the Congress were holding a Friday session, the speaker

could tune in to C-SPAN to keep an eye on the floor, and he

could phone instructions to his staff on Capitol Hill if he

saw something he didn't like.

Years later, former House Speaker Tip O'Neill would call

televising the House of Representatives ``one of the best

decisions I ever made.'' In 1977, his first year as speaker,

the Massachusetts Democrat agreed to put House television on

his agenda; by March 1979, the first live, gavel-to-gavel

telecast of the House went our by satellite to 3.5 million

cable homes. ``Thanks to television, the House of

Representatives is now recognized as the dominant branch of

Congress,'' wrote Speaker O'Neill in his 1987 autobiography,

Man of the House.

However, wary of its impact on the legislative process, Tip

O'Neill had not always supported House television. ``We were

disgusted with how the major networks covered the Republican

and Democratic conventions,'' he wrote. ``If a delegate was

picking his nose, that's what you'd see. . . . No wonder so

many of us were skittish.''

But after six years of debate on the issue, the new speaker

saw it was time to move ahead. So, with the help of

Democratic Party leaders, a proposal was crafted that gave

the office of the speaker control of the television cameras.

``That,'' he says, ``struck me as a reasonable compromise.''

On October 22, 1977, the House passed a measure permitting

full coverage of its sessions--on its own terms and with

tight controls--by a vote of 342-44.

After the measure passed, a telecommunications task force

headed by Rep. Charlie Rose (D-North Carolina) helped Speaker

O'Neill lay down the rules for the telecasts. A $1.6 million

system was installed. Cameras would be trained on the

speakers at the podium, and would not be allowed to pan the

chamber. During 15-minute votes, an electronic vote tally

would cover the screen. Proceedings of the legislative body

would be covered live, uninterrupted, and ``gavel-to-gavel''

and would be offered to all accredited news organizations.

Only C-SPAN, however, committed itself to telecasting the

House of Representatives whenever it was in session.

The speaker recalls that some members of the House

continued to grumble about the television measure after it

passed. ``Many of the members, of course, were skeptical. . .

. Today, of course, it's hard to imagine Congress without it,

and the results of our broadcasting experience have exceeded

my wildest hopes,'' he says.

It may have taken a few years, but House TV gained a loyal

following among those members who saw the potential of the

unblinking television eye. ``I see a young fellow come on the

floor with a blue suit and a red necktie, hair groomed back,

and an envelope under his arm,'' the speaker explained, ``and

I know that he's going to make a speech and that speech is

for home consumption. His office has already notified the

local media that he's going to be on and he's going to give a

talk.''

The audience for congressional telecasts grew as well. Just

five years into its run, the speaker was calling the audience

for Congress ``unbelievable.'' One avid viewer was the

speaker himself, who said, ``I really enjoy when I come in at

night and put it on and see a committee hearing.''

During his eight years of congressional TV coverage, the

speaker became a familiar figure to many Americans.

People began to recognize the speaker when they saw him in

airports or on the street. Appearing in a televised

interview with C-SPAN to mark House TV's fifth anniversary

in early 1984, Speaker O'Neill said, ``Television is here

to stay now. . . . Everywhere I go, people say, `Well, I

saw so-and-so on the show,' or `I listened to this bill,'

or `What are your views on that? '' He said he believed

that coverage of the House had ``whetted the curiosity of

America as far as the running of the government is

concerned,'' call it ``very informative for the American

people.''

Within months, though, a controversy would follow the

speaker's rosy assessment. In May 1984, Speaker O'Neill

asserted his control over the House cameras, provoking cries

of protest from House Republicans and leading to a disruption

on the House floor. In the process, the way that television

covers the House underwent permanent change.

On May 10, 1984, the speaker ordered House cameras to break

with precedent and provide a full view of the empty House

chamber during Special Orders speeches. With Rep. Robert

Walker (R-Pennsylvania) on the floor, the camera for the

first time showed a representative gesturing and talking to a

chamber of empty seats.

Minority whip Trent Lott (R-Mississippi), watching in his

office, dropped what he was doing and raced to the floor to

denounce the surprise camera angle as ``an underhanded,

sneaky, politically motivated change.'' The press picked up

on the story immediately and gave it the name of ``Camscam'';

Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales called it a ``knockabout

slugfest'' and wrote that ``the brouhaha over control of the

cameras has ignited the House and in the process served to

dramatize again the huge presence television has in the

political process.''

``Camscam'' came to a head on May 15, when harsh words flew

on the House floor between Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) and

Speaker O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill called a Gingrich speech `'the

lowest thing I have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress''--a

remark that the House parliamentarian ruled out of order. The

speaker's words were taken down and the phrase was struck

from the official congressional record, the first such rebuke

to a House speaker in this century.

In time, ``Camscam'' died down, but today the cameras

continue to show the whole chamber during Special Orders,

giving audiences a fuller view of the post-legislative

business proceedings. Later, in response to an initiative by

the Republican leadership, cameras also started showing

varied shots of the House members during votes. Slowly, the

early restrictions on what the viewing audience could see

through television were easing.

Speaker O'Neill, 75, likes to say that his social policies

brought many poor people into ``the great American tent of

opportunity,'' During his years as speaker, many Americans

were brought into the halls of Congress via television. His

decision to support televised coverage of the House of

Representatives ushered in a new era of government

accessibility. House TV went through its growing pains, but

its success eventually influenced the Senate to follow suite,

voting to let itself be televised in 1986. When future

generations remember Tip O'Neill--the man who served the

longest consecutive term as speaker--they may well remember

him as the man who let Americans see their government at

work.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the senior member of that delegation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just wanted to thank again the dean of the New England delegation and of Massachusetts for his thoughtful comments about the beloved Tip O'Neill and again associate myself with the remarks of the esteemed chairman from Ohio. Indeed, this is a very important event and certainly one where both Mr. Lamb and Mr. O'Neill deserve justified recognition.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize two outstanding individuals who have dedicated their lives to encouraging all Americans to participate in our government through the voting process. Under the authority granted to me by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), I have appointed two election experts, Joseph F. Crangle of Buffalo, NY and Hilary O. Shelton of Washington, DC, to serve as national voting procedure advisors to continue improving the election process in the wake of the 2000 elections.

HAVA established a four-person body called the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). I

am appointing Mr. Crangle and Mr. Shelton to the Board of Advisors, which will serve essentially as the EAC's board of directors. The board consists of 37 members representing a range of groups involved in elections.

I am very confident that with their decades of election experience and dedication to the voting process, Joseph Crangle and Hilary Shelton will have a tremendous impact on the EAC. It is my hope that they and the other 35 members of the board will examine the many issues involved in administering fair and accurate elections in this country, including the concerns that have been raised regarding the security and reliability of electronic voting systems.

I am grateful for the advice of my colleague from New York, Representative Charlie Rangel, who informed me about Mr. Crangle's decades of experience and dedication to the election process. It is truly an honor for me to appoint him for this position.

Joseph Crangle served as chairman of the Erie County Democratic Party from 1965 to 1988; as chair of the New York State Democratic Party from 1971 to 1974; as a delegate to every Democratic National Committee from 1968 to 1992; and as a member of the Democratic National Committee's Executive Committee from 1972 to 1988. Mr. Crangle is regarded as one of the leading experts in the country on voter registration and ``get- out-the-vote'' programs. He is an attorney for the law firm of Colucci and Gallaher, P.C. in Buffalo, NY.

Hilary Shelton's commitment to improving our election system was evident during the development of the Help America Vote Act. He worked tirelessly during the entire legislative process to ensure that this bill became law.

Mr. Shelton is the Director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Prior to working for the NAACP, he was the Federal Liaison Assistant Director of the Government Affairs Department of The United Negro College Fund. In addition, he worked for the 9.5 million member United Methodist Church advocating on numerous public policy issues including civil rights, access to higher education, and voting rights. He serves on the national boards of directors for the Center for Democratic Renewal, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the U.S. Census Advisory Board.

Members of the Board of Advisors serve a 2-year term in a strictly advisory capacity; they have no rule-making authority. Once all the appointments have been made and the EAC is fully functional, the board will begin its duties.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Crangle and Mr. Shelton as they begin their positions on the Board of Advisors. They are truly two of the best advocates in the country for our election process. I am confident that future generations of voters will be inspired to make their voices heard, because of the contributions of these two remarkable Americans.