Continuity in Representation Act of 2004

CONTINUITY IN REPRESENTATION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - April 22, 2004)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 602 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2844) to require States to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives not later than 21 days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives in extraordinary circumstances, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 60 minutes, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

[Time: 11:15]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 602 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2004. The rule provides 60 minutes of general debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 3©(4) of rule XIII requiring the inclusion of general performance goals and objectives in a committee report.

The unanimous consent request just agreed to provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment which shall be considered as read.

The original text for purpose of the amendment will not include the text of part A of the Committee on Rules report. The unanimous consent agreement also makes in order the bipartisan amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in lieu of the Skeleton-Maloney amendment printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report.

The rule provides that the amendments made in order shall be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the whole House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, made clear that, as much as we might wish otherwise, at some point in the future it may be necessary to replace a large number of Members of this body killed in some type of a terrorist attack.

As my colleagues know, the Constitution has always required that the vacancies in the House, no matter how many or what their cause, be filled only by popular election of the people. The timing of such special elections is set on a state-by-state basis. Some States require that congressional vacancies be filled relatively quickly while others it takes quite a few months before a special election is held.

Such disparities are little cause for concern when vacancies are few and far between, as has thankfully been the case throughout the long history of this body. In those cases, only the citizens of a district temporarily left without representation are adversely affected until that vacancy is filled.

However, Mr. Speaker, we face a grim new reality today. The reality is that so many vacancies might suddenly occur in the House that our ability to function and to be confident that the decisions made in this Chamber reflect the broad desires of the American people, as expressed by their ballots, could be severely impaired.

That harsh new reality must be faced squarely. This, after all, is a national government and we are the Nation's legislature exercising national responsibilities. We must be able to act in the best interest of the Nation, and never more so than following a major catastrophe. No longer, Mr. Speaker, do we have the luxury of leaving it to the 50 States to decide when it would be possible to fully reconstitute the people's House in the wake of a deadly tragedy.

My colleagues will recall that after the attacks of September 11 the House passed H. Res. 559 expressing the sense of the House that each State should examine its existing statutes, practices, and procedures governing special elections so that in the event of catastrophic vacancies in the House, those vacancies might be filled in a timely fashion.

Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, only one State, the State of California, has responded to that request and changed its election laws to provide for expedited special elections in the wake of a catastrophe.

I should note also, Mr. Speaker, that the impetus for that resolution was in part work done by a bipartisan task force chaired by the House Republican Policy Committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and my colleague across the aisle, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who then served as the chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. The Cox-Frost task force met regularly during the 107th Congress to consider a wide range of issues following under the umbrella of the "continuity of Congress." Since then I am pleased that a number of Members on both sides of the aisle have continued this important dialogue, seeking neither personal gain nor partisan advantage. After all, surely no Member's election will be won or lost over this issue, nor should it.

The bill we will consider today represents but one part of a comprehensive strategy for preparing for the unthinkable. For that is what we are doing, preparing for the unthinkable. And prepare we must. H.R. 2844 is a key element of that strategy. We simply must make it possible for the people to reconstitute the people's House as quickly as possible if a large portion of this body is suddenly deceased.

To be sure, there are other equally important continuity issues still to be addressed. We must, for example, consider appropriate responses in the event that a large number of Members are incapacitated rather than killed. Certainly in a time of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, that is a potential scenario that cannot be ignored.

In order to act, the Constitution requires the House to achieve a quorum of Members, a quorum of a majority of all Members living and sworn. When a Member dies or resigns, the Speaker under the rules adjusts the quorum.

However, the Framers never contemplated and made no provision for the need to adjust the required quorum when a large number of Members are still living but unable to carry out, temporarily or otherwise, the duties of the office. Simply put, under current law, if more than half the House were to become incapacitated, yet not deceased, the House would be unable to act at a time when the need to do so could hardly be greater.

Therefore, I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to advise my colleagues that this complex issue of incapacitation will be the subject of a hearing to be held next week by the House Committee on Rules under the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), whose personal involvement and leadership on these issues, frankly, has gone largely unreported, but has contributed immeasurably to this important continuity in Congress effort.

Indeed, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), are the principal authors of the bill which will shortly be before us, the Continuity Representation Act of 2004.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2844, which was reported favorably by both the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary, provides for the expedited special election of new members to fill seats left vacant due to extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances would be deemed to exist when the Speaker announces that vacancies in the House exceed 100 Members, in other words, more than 100 Members of this body have been killed. When such extraordinary circumstances occur, a special election must be held within 45 days unless a regularly scheduled election is to occur within 75 days.

The bill provides political parties with a 10-day window in which to nominate candidates and sets forth judicial review procedures for announcements by the Speaker regarding those vacancies.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 2844 would have no significant impact on the Federal budget. Although the bill does contain an unfunded mandate, this mandate does not exceed the threshold amount established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me acknowledge that there are some Members in this Chamber who believe that we should amend the Constitution to permit the immediate appointment of replacements in the event that a tragedy as I described should occur. That is not my position, Mr. Speaker, for I share the framers' love for their ideal of a House of Representatives of the people, for the people, and elected by the people.

But I do sincerely believe that our colleagues who support the constitutional amendment deserve an opportunity for consideration of the merits of that approach. Many Members will be pleased to learn that we have been assured that such an opportunity will take place in the very near future.

At the same time, I think equally important would be to provide supporters of expedited special elections an opportunity to consider their legislation. Those who disagree should bear in mind that enacting this bill that we are going to take up today will do little or nothing to affect the odds of a constitutional amendment of continuity being adopted and eventually ratified.

And, for at least several years, neither approach precludes the other. Because let us be completely honest about this: even if successful, under the best circumstances, it takes several years to amend the Constitution. So in the meantime does it not make sense to do the work that we can within our existing constitutional framework to prepare for the worst?

Mr. Speaker, that is the question that can only be answered by the entire House. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the rule for the consideration of H.R. 2844 so that the important debate may begin.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, a gentleman who has worked extremely hard on this continuity issue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 14 minutes remaining.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Speaker, as evidenced by the remarks, this is a very important issue. I want to remind Members, in my opening remarks I mentioned that there are several things that need to be taken up. One, obviously, is a quick way to try to get the elected representatives back here. The other is the issue of incapacitation, which will be taken up next week in the Committee on Rules, and also the issue of a constitutional amendment of the various types that are floating around. That was confirmed by the chairman. There will be more debate on the issue. This is the first step, however. We ought to pass this rule, pass this bill, and continue our discussion on the other issues.

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 602.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I would like to point out that in the Committee on Rules, and I understand Members want to revise and extend their remarks on the rule and submit all kinds of material, but I would point out when this rule was being considered by the committee, we asked for an additional hour of debate on the bill itself and we were denied that by a rollcall vote. That vote was Committee on Rules record vote No. 247, three "yeses" and six "noes."

I will not object to Members being able to revise and extend their remarks, but I wish we had provided for additional debate time on this very important piece of legislation. That was a reasonable proposal that was made in the Committee on Rules and was rejected by the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?

There was no objection.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to have more debate on this important issue of continuity in Congress. We will have several more opportunities, and I suspect we will have plenty of time to have that debate. I certainly hope we will.

[Begin Insert]

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.