Continuity in Represnetation Act of 2005
CONTINUITY IN REPRESENTATION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - March 03, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we are going to be considering today deals with a very, very serious issue, the possibility actually of a tragic attack that would result in the death of a significant number of our colleagues in the House. Though I think it is safe to say that none of us are eager to consider this issue, the events of September 11, 2001, forced this House to consider the ramifications of a successful terrorist attack against this body. On that fateful day, the enemies of freedom clearly targeted the pillars of our Nation. The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center which represented our economic freedom. They attacked the Pentagon which represents our military strength. And, by all accounts, Flight 93 was targeted either at the White House or at this building, both symbols of our form of democratic government and of our freedoms.
In fact, only the heroic actions, the unbelievable bravery of those brave passengers on Flight 93 prevented that particular plane, that particular flight, from reaching its intended target.
And so, Mr. Chairman, we begin to think about the unthinkable, to do our duty and to plan for every eventuality. H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act, provides a very reasonable, very well thought-out mechanism for the reconstitution of the House of Representatives in the event of such a tragedy. The sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) are to be commended for their great commitment and dedication in crafting this bill and bringing it to the floor today. The Congress must ensure that the government remains strong and stable during and following a terrorist attack, and this legislation would accomplish that goal.
Mr. Chairman, all the other branches of government already have contingency plans in place. In the case of a vacancy, the President would be replaced quickly by the existing line of succession. The courts would be replaced quickly by presidential appointment. The Senate would be reconstituted very quickly through gubernatorial appointment as is outlined in the 17th amendment. Only the House would be unable to function quickly in a time of national emergency.
The Continuity in Representation Act would correct this problem by requiring States to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives not later than 49 days after the vacancy is announced by the Speaker of this House in the extraordinary circumstances that vacancies in representation from the States exceed 100. Mr. Chairman, as we grapple with this issue, we must remind ourselves that the U.S. House of Representatives is the people's House. For the entirety of our national existence, Members of the House have been directly elected by the people. Article 1, section 2 of our Constitution states: ``When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of elections to fill such vacancies.'' The key word here is ``elections.'' No event should be reason enough to change this historic and constitutional constant.
The bill under consideration today allows us to remain true to the course charted for us by our Founding Fathers. There have been a number of suggested alternatives to the proposal in this legislation. Some have called for perhaps temporary appointment of the Members of Congress in such an emergency either through gubernatorial appointment like that in the Senate, or even by a sitting Member naming a successor to take the seat in the event of that Member's death.
Any of these ideas would require a constitutional amendment, which would be a change from both tradition and constitutional mandate which expressly calls again for the direct election of Members of the House of Representatives. Concerns have also been expressed regarding the requirement that special elections be completed within 49 days of the Speaker's announcement of 100 existing vacancies in the House would be difficult.
Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress actually, I was honored to serve as Michigan's Secretary of State for 8 years with a principal responsibility of serving as that State's chief election official, so this is an area that I do have some expertise in. Some have argued and will argue that more time is necessary, but I disagree.
Under this legislation, States would have the option, let me repeat, the option, of eliminating the primary election and permitting political parties recognized by State law to choose their candidates. In turn, this would eliminate the petition requirements and the verification process that accompanies it. Additionally, it is important for us to remember that the U.S. Representative position would really be the only one on the ballot which would dramatically ease printing, programming and testing.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, HAVA as we commonly call it, has helped to prepare local election officials more than ever to conduct special elections. HAVA is granting Federal dollars to the States in historic proportions, quite frankly, dollars that they are using to eliminate antiquated election equipment and purchasing new state-of-the-art equipment.
States have either constructed or are moving very quickly toward construction of statewide computerized voter registration files, similar to the one that we built in Michigan several years ago. Technology actually allows for these lists to be updated daily so that a clean, up-to-date file can be printed out literally any day of the year anytime, and provided to the polling sites. Obviously this is a fantastic election tool for any election, but particularly so for an expedited election.
Also, States are now moving toward uniformity of voting systems in their precincts. Uniformity of election equipment in a State will enable vendors to always have a camera ready template of the ballot, and then all they literally have to do is fill in the names of the nominees for U.S. Representative and go to print. Having a uniform system will eliminate confusion amongst poll workers and further ease election preparation.
H.R. 841 also protects the ability of military personnel and overseas citizens to participate in a special election by requiring that absentee ballots be transmitted to such voters within 15 days of the Speaker's announcement and that such absentee ballots be counted if they are received not later than 45 days after the State transmits them.
In fact, even now the Department of Defense, the DOD, is moving towards a program where service men and women stationed overseas can actually download their ballots via the Internet.
Some will make the argument, again, that 49 days is simply not enough time for the States to prepare. To that argument, I would simply point out that some States today already have requirements that special elections be held in much less time than the 49-day period. So I believe that argument is obviously moot.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not intend to imply that this would be a simple task. There is no question there is lots of hard work. Regardless, it has been my observation and my personal experience that the fine men and women who administer our elections always rise to the occasion to complete the required work on time. I have no doubts that they would do so in a time of national emergency.
While I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we never have to face this situation, we must nonetheless prepare for it. Clearly it is incumbent on us to find a solution to this issue which honors the wishes and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers that the House of Representatives remain the people's House.
Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the price of freedom is remaining ever vigilant. I believe passing H.R. 841 is a step in showing the enemies of freedom that America is remaining ever vigilant. Similar legislation received over 300 votes in the last Congress, and I would, again, ask my colleagues for their strong bipartisan support of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the Continuity in Representation Act provides a process to ensure that our democratic government remains stable and orderly during a possible time of great instability. In addition, it preserves the unique status of the House of Representatives by continuing the tradition and the constitutional mandate that every Member of this body must be elected by his or her constituents. In such a time of crisis, the people of this Nation must have a voice in the critical decisions that are being made. This legislation ensures that that will be the case.
The time limit of 49 days that this bill lays out is more than adequate, Mr. Chairman. In fact, a survey of election officials confirmed that this is a realistic time frame, and I will tell you as a former elections official myself, I concur with those findings.
Furthermore, several States already have laws in place that require special elections to be conducted in a shorter period of time than the 49-day limit that this legislation requires. It is a short enough period that the House is reconstituted quickly and loses none of its authority, and, at the same time, it is a long enough period for fair elections to be conducted.
When this issue was before the 108th Congress, Mr. Chairman, the House acted in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and approved the Continuity in Representation Act by a more than three-to-one margin. In fact, H.R. 841 that we consider today has improved on the previous bill by addressing the following reservations that some Members of the House and some of the States had regarding that bill.
First, the special election privilege is extended now to Delegates and Resident Commissioners so that they could be replaced just as quickly as Members.
Second, the legislation explicitly gives States any method that they choose to selects the candidates for special elections. Certainly as an advocate of States' rights, this provision was extremely important to both myself and many of us here in this Chamber.
Finally, the time limit for special elections to be completed has been extended to 49 days from the time of the Speaker's announcement that over 100 vacancies exist. This gives local and State officials 7 full weeks to select candidates, to print ballots and to fully execute those special elections.
With these changes I am hopeful that the bipartisan support for this legislation will be even greater today than it has been in the past. Mr. Speaker, this is not simply a bill about elections or the best way to replace Members of Congress. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about the strength of our Nation. It is about our ability to secure the homeland, and it does that by ensuring that our democratically elected government is able to respond in the face of an urgent threat.
Homeland security is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. This is an issue that affects every single American, Mr. Chairman; and the Congress should act in the interest of America and of democracy.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 841, and I look forward very much to supporting and passing this important and historic legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the gentlewoman from California, while certainly a very well-intentioned amendment, is completely unnecessary and, I believe, would severely weaken this bill.
While this amendment would only increase the time limit in which to conduct the special election by 11 days, more than the limit provided for in H.R. 841, it would weaken the power of Congress in a significant way. According to the War Powers Act, when the President has put our Armed Forces into action, Congress must act within 60 days to either approve or to disapprove the use of those troops. Following an attack in which over 100 Members of Congress have been killed, it is quite likely that a military response would be required.
If Congress is not reconstituted within this 60-day period, it would lose its ability to either affirm or disapprove of the executive's use of military actions and, thus, the power of the legislative branch would be diminished. The amendment by the gentlewoman would prevent Congress from acting in this situation. H.R. 841, as it stands, would allow for Congress to reconstitute and to act on such an important matter.
Another argument against this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that while it is not only dangerous, again it is completely unnecessary. A survey of election officials, as I mentioned earlier, shows that 49 days is a reasonable period of time in which to conduct a special election. And as a former chief elections officer of the State of Michigan, I agree with that assessment. As the legislation currently stands, States would have the option, and let me reiterate again, the States have the option of eliminating the primary election and permitting political parties recognized by State law to choose those candidates.
In turn, this would eliminate the petition requirements, and the verification process that accompanies it. Additionally, it is again very important to remember that the U.S. Representative position would really be the only race on the ballot. Again, dramatically easy printing, programming, and testing.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, HAVA, as it is commonly called, has helped prepare election officials more than ever to conduct such a special election. HAVA is granting Federal dollars to the States in historic proportions, dollars that are being used to eliminate antiquated election equipment, and the States are purchasing new state-of-the-art equipment. States have either constructed or are moving towards construction of statewide, computerized voter registration files, similar, as I mentioned, to the one we built in Michigan several years ago.
Technology is allowing these lists to be updated literally daily, so that a clean up-to-date file can be printed out any date of the year and provided to every polling site. Again, a fantastic election tool for any election, but particularly so in this case for an expedited election.
Also, States are rapidly moving towards a uniform system of voting machines. Uniformity of election equipment in a State will enable vendors to always have a camera-ready template on the ballot, and then all they have to do is just fill in the name of the nominees for U.S. Representative and go to print. Having a uniform system will eliminate confusion amongst poll workers and further ease election preparation.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, some States already prescribe that special elections be conducted in a period of time even shorter than this. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) mentioned the Virginia experience; Minnesota, I believe, requires a 30- or 35-day limit as well. All of this goes to prove that the amendment is completely unnecessary. The only thing that this amendment would effectively do is extend the time period for which some parts of the Nation would not be represented in this body, in the United States House of Representatives. And there is never a good reason to do that, Mr. Chairman.
While it is true that State and local officials must have sufficient time to conduct elections, it is imperative that they be completed as quickly as possible so that there is some semblance of continuity in representation. There should not be any unnecessary delay to this process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
As I have listened to the debate, I feel more strongly than ever that this amendment would severely weaken the impact of H.R. 841. I urge my colleagues to reject the Millender-McDonald amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The language in the motion to recommit is very similar to the language in the Help America Vote Act legislation, HAVA, as it is commonly called, that legislation being H.R. 533. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is not the only Member who has proposed comprehensive election reform. A number of other bills have been introduced by Members on both sides of the aisle proposing amendments to the HAVA bill.
The Committee on House Administration has scheduled hearings on these issues, including in the State of Ohio I would say, and we will be considering all of these bills in due course.
Today is not the time nor is it the place to be debating election reform issues. We are here to provide for continuity and representation of this House and the American people. So let us focus on what needs to be done to provide for expedited special elections so that we can have a functioning House as soon as possible if there is a horrible, catastrophic attack.
Let us leave these other issues for a later day when they can be debated in the proper context.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov