Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out two things: first of all, in response to my dear friend from Nebraska, when he mentioned that the majority, or that this body, had passed or fixed concurrent receipt, he neglected to mention that was following a Democratic discharge petition that essentially shamed the majority into doing something that the administration had opposed, the Republican majority had opposed. They finally did it in the late term of the last Congress, just in time for an election; but they still did not put in a permanent fix for it. When the gentleman talked about the other things that the majority party has supposedly done for veterans, he neglected that just a couple of weeks ago, right here on this floor, the majority party rejected the gentleman from Mississippi's (Mr. Taylor) passionate request that we provide additional TRIO health care access to Guardsmen and Reservists. They rejected that. So to come here and say look at what all we have done for veterans is mighty hypocritical when you know the full record. Let me talk about what happened this past March. I have worked in VA hospitals as a clinical psychologist with returning veterans. We had Task Force Olympia coming back to my region, and I said we have got thousands of soldiers coming back and it is a logical, reasonable question to say do we have the resources in place to treat those soldiers and their families when they come back. I worked with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and we held a whole series of meetings with veterans and their families, and the veterans said, we are not getting the care already that we need. We talked to staff within the veterans hospital, and they told us, we are not meeting the demands of the people already back home, let alone do we have the capacity to meet the demands of thousands coming back. Based on that information and other information we had gleaned from prior hearings within this Congress, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and I offered an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill to provide $1.3 billion to make sure that those veterans came back and got the care they needed. The distinguished gentleman from Florida was part of the Committee on Rules that voted unanimously to not allow that amendment to be brought to the floor. Had we brought that amendment to the floor and passed it as part of the emergency supplemental, we would not be having this debate, veterans would not be waiting in lines, their families would be receiving the services they need, and we would be honoring our commitments to the men and women who served. Instead, what we are doing now months later is trying to jerryrig something that we could have solved. You have let the veterans and their families down. It is a historical fact. It is a current reality, and it is shameful. The President in his speech the other night said let us all wave flags on July 4th. We are all for the flag and we are all for our soldiers; but when the rubber meets the road, when the time comes to armor the Humvees, to equip our soldiers, to adequately provide for their health care before they deploy, to take care of them when they come back, you folks are AWOL. We could do the right thing tonight. We could do the right thing tonight, pass a bill through the House that would immediately be taken up by the Senate and immediately pass and get the money into the system that it needs. We are not going to do that; and, yet again, we are not going to do the right thing because of the opposition of the majority party which will then somehow claim that they stood up for veterans, and I think that is a disgrace, and it is inaccurate compared to the historical record.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the report from the Committee on the Budget hearing in which the majority denied our efforts to add the $1.3 billion back in March. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The Committee anticipates that the waiver includes: Rule XIII, clause 4 of House rules (requiring a three-day layover of the committee report and requiring the three-day availability of printed hearings on a general appropriation bill); Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act (prohibiting consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget unless reported by the Budget Committee); and Section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act (prohibiting consideration of budget-related legislation, as reported, that is not subject to annual appropriations). committee votes Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are printed below: Rules Committee Record Vote No. 10 Date: March 14, 2005. Measure: H.R. 1268, Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. Motion by: Mrs. Slaughter. Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the appropriate waivers to the amendment offered by Rep. Hooley to add $1.3 billion in funding to the FY06 Supplemental Appropriations bill to provide health care and readjustment assistance to the veterans of Iraq and the War on Terror. Specifically, the amendment would provide $1.2 billion for the Veterans Health Administration and $100 million for the reintegration of Army National Guard members being released from active duty. Results: Defeated 3 to 9. Vote by Members: Diaz-Balart--Nay; Hastings (WA)--Nay; Sessions--Nay; Putnam--Nay; Capito--Nay; Cole--Nay; Bishop-- Nay; Gingrey--Nay; Slaughter--Yea; McGovern--Yea; Hastings (FL)--Yea; Dreier--Nay. Rules Committee Record Vote No. 11 Date: March 14, 2005. Measure: H.R. 1268, Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. Motion by: Mr. McGovern Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the appropriate waivers to the amendment offered by Rep. Tierney to establish a select committee to study, among other things, the bidding, contracting, and auditing standards in the issuance of government contracts; the oversight procedures and forms of payment and safeguards against money laundering; the accountability of contractors and government officials involved in procurement; and the allocation of contracts to foreign companies and small businesses. Results: Defeated 3 to 9. Vote by Members: Diaz-Balart--Nay; Hastings (WA)--Nay; Sessions--Nay; Putnam--Nay; Capito--Nay; Cole--Nay; Bishop-- Nay; Gingrey--Nay; Slaughter--Yea; McGovern--Yea; Hastings (FL)--Yea; Dreier--Nay.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, my friend from New York called this frustration bellyaching. It is not. In my office last month was a wounded veteran from Iraqi Freedom. His leg had been nearly blown off by an IED. He had been repeatedly and routinely denied care just as a default to say ``you are not service-connected here.'' I saw the leg. It was damn near blown off. Because of shortfalls in funding, the people who have served this country and nearly gave their lives, but did give their limbs, are not getting the care they need. It is more than bellyaching to stand up for them. I would invite the gentleman from New York to do something we do not do very often here. Let us step out of the box and stop the partisan fighting. Here is the situation here today. If we pass the $975 million that the majority is putting forward, there is no way the Senate can conference that before the July 4th recess. The other body has said that if we pass $1.5 billion in the House, the same bill as theirs, it will be on the President's desk and can be signed and we can do something substantive rather than symbolic before July 4th. What is wrong with doing that for our veterans?

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is different. The gentleman may be right. My point is we have tried repeatedly on our side of the aisle to get additional funding for the veterans. We had hearings before the Committee on the Budget. The $1.3 billion figure that the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and I tried to add and were defeated by the majority, we did not draw out of thin air. It came from hearings before the Committee on the Budget. Veterans groups, as the gentlemen know, roundly criticized the majority budget as woefully underfunding veterans' needs. This did not come as a surprise. We saw it coming. We tried to tell you it was coming. You denied it repeatedly; and the sad part is for all of our bickering and complaining here, the people who suffered were the soldiers, and they are suffering today. We need to solve this problem.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend from Oregon for her leadership on this issue and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) as well. This meth problem is devastating our communities. When the President comes before our Nation and talks about the war on terror, we need to support that; but terror is happening in our families and in our homes and in our communities, and it is methamphetamine. We need to fully fund HIDTA, and we need to expand HIDTA resources. I support the amendment. I encourage the gentlewoman to continue this fight that she has been so strong on in the past.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word to engage the Chairman in a colloquy for the purpose of discussing the international narcotics control in methamphetamine. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, Members of both sides of the aisle joined me in affirming this body's strong support for combating international methamphetamine trafficking. Today, I would like to thank the Chair and ranking members for their work on the foreign operations approps bill and for supporting the State Department's international narcotics control and law enforcement efforts above the FY 2005 level, particularly the $40 million in programs for Mexico. As you know, the effects of international methamphetamine trafficking have invaded our communities and homes. SONDCP reported earlier this year that approximately two-thirds of meth production comes from large labs increasingly from Mexico. The trade also has origins in China, India, Germany, and the Czech Republic in the form of precursor manufacturing. Recently, the Oregonian reported that only nine factories manufacture the bulk of the world's supply. We simply must get a handle on this situation in order to stop the sweep of this drug across this country and prevent it from infesting our areas. I see mention in this bill report language on poppy cultivation and heroin trafficking. However, I do not see any explicit language on the importance of controlling the importation of meth precursors such as sudafedrine and efforts to train international customs officials to better control these imports. Has the chairman considered addressing this issue in report language of this legislation?

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and his willingness to work together on this and appreciate the time.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and my other colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo); the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) of the Committee on Resources; the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden); and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, for their guidance. And I certainly appreciate the help of their staff throughout this process. I also want to acknowledge the work of my good friend and colleague, Senator Cantwell, who has introduced the companion legislation in that Chamber. A number of people locally in our region deserve credit, including among them Phyllis Clausen of the Friends of the White Salmon River, Connie Kelleher from American Rivers, the SDS Lumber Company, the U.S. Forest Service, and local county commissioners from the region as well. This process has taken several years and represents a true collaborative local effort. The Upper White Salmon River is literally a world-famous river. Located in south central Washington, it is known for its great white water, stunning scenery, and fish and wildlife resources. The designation before us today will preserve the river's free-flowing status as well as the natural values and rural lifestyle in the surrounding area. In 1986, the river's outstanding quality received national recognition when Congress designated the lower 8 miles of the White Salmon as a National Wild and Scenic River. Congress directed the Forest Service to study the Upper White Salmon for possible designation into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. H.R. 38 seeks to protect 20 miles of Upper White Salmon River segments within the Gifford Pinchot Forest as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System by designating them wild and scenic. This designation has broad public support within the local community and throughout the region. It has been endorsed by a wide variety of environmental and recreational organizations, local community and business leaders. The land to be designated as wild and scenic consists entirely of public land, no private land is included; the area is currently being managed as if it is already part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I want to reiterate my gratitude to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and the chairman of the overall committee. I thank Members for their support and urge passage of this valuable piece of legislation.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. 211. Private First Class David L. Potter 212. Lance Corporal Jonathan W. Collins 213. Civilian Rick A. Ulbright 214. Captain Andrew R. Houghton 215. Staff Sergeant John R. Howard 216. Lance Corporal Tavon L. Hubbard 217. Captain Michael Yury Tarlavsky 218. Lance Corporal Nicholas B. Morrison 219. Lance Corporal Kane M. Funke 220. First Lieutenant Neil Anthony Santoriello 221. Sergeant Daniel Michael Shepherd 222. Second Lieutenant James Michael Goins 223. Private First Class Brandon R. Sapp 224. Private First Class Geoffrey Perez 225. Private First Class Fernando B. Hannon 226. Specialist Mark Anthony Zapata 227. Sergeant David M. Heath 228. Lance Corporal Caleb J. Powers 229. Specialist Brandon T. Titus 230. Lance Corporal Dustin R. Fitzgerald 231. Sergeant Harvey Emmett Parkerson III 232. Specialist Jacob D. Martir 233. Private First Class Henry C. Risner 234. Sergeant Richard M. Lord 235. Corporal Brad Preston McCormick 236. First Lieutenant Charles L. Wilkins III 237. Private First Class Ryan A. Martin 238. Corporal Nicanor Alvarez 239. Sergeant Jason Cook 240. Lance Corporal Seth Huston 241. Private First Class Nachez Washalanta 242. Private First Class Kevin A. Cuming 243. Gunnery Sergeant Edward T. Reeder 244. Second Lieutenant Matthew R. Stovall 245. Corporal Christopher Belchik 246. Staff Sergeant Robert C. Thornton, Jr. 247. Staff Sergeant Donald N. Davis 248. Lance Corporal Jacob R. Lugo 249. Lance Corporal Alexander S. Arredondo 250. Specialist Charles L. Neeley 251. Specialist Marco D. Ross 252. Private First Class Nicholas M. Skinner 253. Corporal Barton R. Humlhanz 254. Specialist Omead H. Razani 255. Lance Corporal Nickalous N. Aldrich 256. Private First Class Luis A. Perez 257. Sergeant Edgar E. Lopez 258. Airman First Class Carl L. Anderson, Jr. 259. Staff Sergeant Aaron N. Holleyman 260. Specialist Joseph C. Thibodeaux III 261. Lance Corporal Nicholas Wilt 262. Lance Corporal Nicholas Perez 263. Captain Alan Rowe 264. First Lieutenant Ronald Winchester 265. Petty Officer Third Class Eric L. Knott 266. Sergeant Shawna M. Morrison 267. Specialist Charles R. Lamb 268. Private First Class Ryan Michael McCauley 269. Staff Sergeant Gary A. Vaillant 270. Staff Sergeant Elvis Bourdon 271. Specialist Tomas Garces 272. Specialist Brandon Michael Read 273. Private First Class Devin J. Grella 274. Captain John J. Boria 275. Private First Class David Paul Burridge 276. Lance Corporal Derek L. Gardner 277. Lance Corporal Quinn A. Keith 278. Lance Corporal Joseph C. McCarthy 279. Corporal Mick R. Nygardbekowsky 280. Lance Corporal Lamont N. Wilson 281. Specialist Clarence Adams III 282. Specialist Yoe M. Aneiros 283. First Lieutenant Timothy E. Price 284. Specialist Chad H. Drake 285. Lance Corporal Michael J. Allred 286. Specialist Lauro G. DeLeon, Jr. 287. Private First Class Jason L. Sparks 288. Sergeant James Daniel Faulkner 289. Specialist Michael A. Martinez 290. Specialist Edgar P. Daclan, Jr. 291. Petty Officer Third Class David A. Cedergren 292. First Lieutenant Alexander E. Wetherbee 293. Private First Class Jason T. Poindexter 294. Specialist Benjamin W. Isenberg And I would like to conclude by acknowledging Regina Clark, who became the first Washington State woman to die in the war when a suicide bomber attacked her convoy in Fallujah. She was one my constituents, a single mother who leaves behind an 18-year-old son. Our thoughts and prayers are with Regina's son, the rest of her family, and with the familes and loved ones of all our Nation's fallen heroes.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) spoke eloquently about the need for the Rohrabacher/ Baird amendment; and I would like to address it briefly, if I may. Madison is quoted on this topic, but let me quote Madison from Federalist 47. He said: ``The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'' Now, I would like, if I may, to ask my colleagues, before we pass this appropriations bill with legislative language in it alleging to maintain continuity, to maybe address a couple of questions, before my colleagues vote on this, and I will yield time. Not for a filibuster, but just to address some questions. How will we, given Madison's concern, maintain checks and balances during the 49-day period until we have the special elections? I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to anyone who plans to vote for this bill to address that question.

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the fact is this Congress took a number of very important actions, as the distinguished gentleman from Illinois knows, during that same time period. Let me ask this: If what the gentleman is saying is that we are not going to do anything, the executive branch has all the control, then how do we not just define Madison's very definition of tyranny? And if that is the case, are we not with this bill promoting tyranny in this country?

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would beg to differ, and the gentleman, I think, is inaccurate historically.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I do not have it on the top of my head, my friend; but I can say that it is much faster than 7 weeks. I would assert, furthermore, that if the gentleman's assertion is that we do not need the United States Congress post a catastrophic attack, I think you are making a mistake and doing a disservice. If that is what you are voting for, then let us be honest with the American public, as apparently the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has been. We are voting with this bill to allow martial law, and I think that is a grave mistake. Let me continue, if I may, and ask a few other questions. How many millions of Americans are you willing to leave without representation as article I, section 8 responsibility such as declarations of war, appropriations of funds, et cetera, are made? How many millions of Americans is the gentleman willing to leave without representation?

Mr. BAIRD. Okay. So we do not have that answer. Let me ask this question: under the bill, the section that is proposed, I have yet to figure out what happens to this body.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that with these questions remaining, we should not be passing this legislation in the manner in which we are. We need a full and open and extensive debate on this.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to revisit this issue, and I want to clarify a couple of things. The opponents of a real continuity solution have asserted that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and I would take away the right to election. Nothing could be further from the truth. We believe we need real elections, not hasty elections, not elections in which the candidates are chosen by the party, but elections in which there is time for deliberation, elections in which there is time for overseas people to vote, elections in which we can have real candidates, real debate, real primaries, et cetera. So we all agree that we should have real elections; that is the ideal. But the question is, should we have a Congress in the interim? I have heard the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary point out that in the days post-9/11 it was an elected Congress, not an appointed Congress, that made decisions. He is absolutely right, because we had a Congress. My colleague from Illinois will recall that, in fact, the PATRIOT Act was passed during that 7-week interregnum; and interregnum may be the proper word because if we do not have a Congress, we would have effectively a monarchy or an appointed administration. Let me raise a couple of other points. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, as we all know, details a host of functions of this Congress. I have yet to hear how those functions get carried out during this 7-week period, save for the apparent explanations that the Congress does not have anything to do, and the Constitution Subcommittee chair's explanation that we will have marshal law. I for one did not run for this seat to bequeath marshal law as our legacy if we are eliminated by terrorists. People on the other side of this argument have said, oh, if we have anything but a direct election, the terrorists have won. I personally consider marshal law a substantial victory for the terrorists, a substantial victory. Far preferable would be some mechanism in which the terrorists and the rest of the world could see the Congress of the United States reconvening with legitimacy and with distinguished statesmen from both sides of the aisle to conduct the people's business until such time as we had really elections. It has been argued that we need to do this statutory fix because constitutional amendments take time. Yes, they do. But the Constitution did not say if it is going to take you too long to amend the Constitution, do it by House rule. At the start of this Congress, the first order of business was to pass the House rules. The second order of business was to pass a rule that was unconstitutional. Sorry. The first order of business was to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. The second order was to pass a rule that was patently unconstitutional. By that I mean we passed a rule that essentially says a quorum can be one or two people. The first order of business of the first Congress of the United States was to adjourn for lack of a quorum. Now, the distinguished gentlemen from California (Mr. Dreier) likes to quote Madison. So do I. Madison was present in that first Congress. He was a Member. He supported movements to adjourn because they lacked a quorum. And yet this body says, well, gee, you know, it takes too long to amend the Constitution, so let us do things unconstitutionally at a time of national crisis. This is not the way to go about it. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) was right. The gentleman earlier spent some time talking about horse manure. I think we need to spend more time on constitutional issues than we spend on horse manure, but we have not. In this Congress we have spent so much time debating so many things of much less importance, and it is fair enough to say that my amendment did not pass. I respect that. That is what this process is about. But, here is what you have not said, that myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) put forward a rules proposal that would have allowed multiple solutions to this to be debated. Multiple amendments. We could have had a serious and open and extensive debate. I have to tell you, when I talk to my colleagues and I ask them these questions, how many constituents are you willing to leave, how many millions of Americans with no representation at all, no representation, during a time of national crisis; how willing are you to have a Cabinet member serve as President, with no checks and balances, Secretary of Agriculture, Health and Human Services. Most Americans do not even know these folks. If you are so concerned about elected representation, are you not equally concerned about an unelected President with no checks and balances? I certainly am. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, it is a perverse reasoning that suggests that having no representation here at all somehow provides you better representation than to have someone appointed by the person you last elected. You are trying to say that we do not have a Democratic Republic if the elected representatives from other States can have a vote equal to someone from your State. I believe the best way to have a Republic is to have representation from all of the constituents. If that means temporary appointments, so be it. Finally, we have heard so many times one distinguished scholar quoted, and he is indeed a distinguished scholar. But let me point out to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) as he well knows, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which included Newt Gingrich, Tom Foley, Alan Simpson, Lloyd Cutler, a host of other scholars, has rejected essentially the proposal by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and has concluded with great reluctance that we do indeed need a mechanism to amend the Constitution so that whatever mechanism is arrived at is constitutionally valid. I would weigh the weight of their testimony and their objectivity and their bipartisanship against one single individual that you continually quote. Major Votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, September 11-October 26, 2001 September 13, 2001. H.R. 2884, Victims of Terrorism Relief Act of 2001. The bill exempted individuals killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or who die as a result of injuries suffered in those attacks, from paying federal income tax in the year of their death. September 13, 2001. H.R. 2882, Expedite Public Safety Office Benefits. This bill directed the Justice Department to expedite the benefit payment process for the public safety officers (and their families) that were killed or suffered catastrophic injuries sustained in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. September 14, 2001. H.R. 2888, 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States. The bill appropriated $40 billion in emergency funds to pay for the costs of recovery from the 9/11 terrorist attacks and to counter, investigate and prosecute terrorist activities. September 14, 2001. H.J. RES. 64, Authorization of Force. The resolution authorized the president to use ``all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.'' September 21, 2001. H.R. 2904, Military Construction Appropriations for FY 2002. The bill appropriates $10.5 billion for military construction programs in FY 2002. September 21, 2001. H.R. 2926, Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act. This bill provided $15 billion in assistance to the U.S. airline industry to help stabilize the financial condition of the industry in the wake of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11--$5 billion in immediate cash assistance and $10 billion in loan guarantees. September 24, 2001. H.J. RES. 65, Continuing Appropriations for FY 2002. September 25, 2001. H.R. 2586, Department of Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2002. September 25, 2001. H.R. 2944, District of Columbia Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002. October 5, 2001. H.R. 2646, Farm Security Act. October 11, 2001. H.R. 3061, Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002. October 12, 2001. H.R. 2975, PATRIOT Act. October 17, 2001. H.R. 3004, Financial Anti-Terrorism Act. The bill gives the Treasury Department new powers to combat money laundering by imposing additional record-keeping requirements and by restricting or banning dealings with suspect foreign financial entities. October 17, 2001. H.R. 2904, Military Construction Appropriations for FY 2002. October 17, 2001. H.R. 2217, Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2002. October 23, 2001. H.R. 3160, Bioterrorism Enforcement Act of 2001. The bill established criminal penalties for the unsafe or illegal possession or transfer of certain biological agents and toxins--including anthrax--and it required the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) to develop new regulations governing the possession and use of those substances. October 24, 2001. H.R. 3090, Tax Incentives for Economic Recovery. The measure provided business and individual tax cuts totaling $99.5 billion in 2002 and $159.4 billion over 10 years. October 24, 2001. H.R. 3162, USA PATRIOT Act Conference Report. October 25, 2001. H.J. RES. 70, Continuing Appropriations for FY 2002.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. A few moments ago, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules was here, and I want to begin by expressing my appreciation that my amendment will be made in order to extract what I believe is an inappropriate clause inserted by the majority. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I think, articulated the issue well. It is true that we had a vote in this Congress already on the issue of the continuity of the Congress, but it is also true that there was not a hearing on various opportunities to solve this problem. Essentially one version of the bill was brought forward without adequate hearing. I was present at the markup of my own bill. The distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary did not allow me to even speak to my own bill, though he mischaracterized it. Now, what the majority is doing is taking what is clearly legislative, and it is consequential legislation; let us be clear about this. What they are doing is taking legislation that provides for how we would replace this very body. Many of us, myself, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and others, tried to get this body, tried to get the leadership to say that we would have an open debate on multiple proposals, multiple proposals, with full amendments and full debate by this entire body. We are now years post-September 11. This body still does not have an adequate plan to ensure that every person in this country will have representation if this body is eliminated. Indeed, this body is fully willing, according to the clause in this legislation today and appropriately placed in this legislation, to allow the executive branch to function completely unfettered. I have to say to the distinguished gentleman from California, the chair of the Committee on Rules said I was contrary to Madison. Possibly so, in some ways; but I would warrant that he is even more contrary because Mr. Madison was absolutely clear that the fundamental principles of checks and balances are a core of this great Republic. The legislation being proposed by the majority would undermine that principle of checks and balances. More importantly still, the average American needs to understand that this body is considering legislation which would prohibit them from having representation in the Congress and prohibit the Congress from having a check on the executive at a time of national crisis, and that is disastrous. If Members care about this body, if they believe in the principles of checks and balances, they should reject this clause, support the Baird amendment. They should insist not that we ram this through on an inappropriate appropriations bill, where it should not belong, but that we have a full and open debate with our colleagues from the other body. I have to tell the Members that when I go home and talk to my constituents, and I would ask the Members to do this: Ask their constituents if they are comfortable, knowing that three or four people could serve as the House of Representatives under the rules we passed, which I believe are blatantly unconstitutional, if they believe that three or four people should be able to elect a Speaker of the House, that that person should then become the President of the United States, could declare martial law with absolutely no checks and no representation of hundreds of millions of Americans at the time that happens. This is irresponsible. Madison and Jefferson and the rest would be spinning in their graves if they knew what you are up to here. It is not just about germaneness, but that reason alone should cause Members to support the Baird amendment. A matter of this importance should not be attached to an appropriations bill as a way to try to jam it through the Senate. It simply should not be. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to posterity, we owe it to this institution to solve this problem, to solve it properly, and this amendment that I have introduced would at least prevent us from doing something bad. First, do no harm. My friend, the gentleman from California, is wrong when he suggests that we are contrary to Madison. Let me underscore the agenda here. The chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives said on this matter, we are going to have martial law anyway, we are going to have martial law anyway, so we do not need continuity provisions. If that is your agenda, be straight with the American people. If that is the agenda, let us go home now. If that is the agenda, to believe that when our Nation has been attacked, we are going to leave the American people without representation, without a House of Representatives, with the Senate functioning without a House because they can be replaced more promptly, with an unelected President, probably a cabinet member serving, if you believe we would solve this problem, you are kidding yourselves. You can kid yourselves, but history will not look kindly upon this body if we have shirked our obligation. And passage of this legislation today with this provision in it is an insult to the Framers and an insult to the principles of representative democracy. Vote ``no'' on the bill; vote ``yes'' on the Baird amendment.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kathy Marie Spoor, Director of Pacific County Public Health and Human Services Department, for her service in promoting the health of her community. Ms. Spoor was recently recognized as a 2005 Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leader. This prestigious award goes to only 10 recipients annually, and includes with if a grant of $105,000 to continue her work. Seeing her grandmother struggle with the effects of childhood polio and losing her mother to a smoking-related illness inspired Ms. Spoor to dedicate her life to preventing and treating illness. This dedication has led her to serve those who need help the most. Rural Pacific County is one of the poorest regions in the State of Washington. Of its 21,000 residents, close to 10,000 have incomes that are below 250 percent of the federal poverty level. More than 2,000 have no health insurance, and many more are underinsured and have no dental insurance or dental care. The Health Department offers all of the traditional public health services, from disease surveillance to tracking pregnancy outcomes, but under Spoor's leadership it has extended its work to include HIV and STD testing, family planning, low-cost or free a pharmaceuticals, a host of youth development programs, and even dental care. Ms. Spoor relies on her background as a registered nurse, a talent for raising funds when budgets are tight, and no small amount on ingenuity to serve the area's residents. In one instance, Ms. Spoor called in the National Guard to increase access to dental services for local residents. She then convinced one of the National Guard dentists to relocate by finding low-rent space for his practice in a local hospital. Mr. Speaker, it is for her dedication and indomitable spirit that Ms. Spoor is so deserving of this national award as a Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leader. It is my honor to recognize her today.