Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I may, I am not disputing that. The point before us here, we have passed that bill. The point before us here is what happens in the 45 days? I think there may be grounds to dispute whether you can have an election or not. But the point of this legislation is to say how do we get this Congress up and running promptly. Let me give you a scenario and see if you are comfortable with it. John Ashcroft said last week or the week before that high-profile targets include this summer the Democratic convention and the Republican convention. I will take him at his word. If it is true that we are a high-profile target, and if you are at the Republican convention or we are at the Democratic convention and terrorists attack, let us suppose they attack during the President's speech at the Republican convention, and the president is killed, heaven forbid this should happen, if the President and Vice President are killed and a number of my good friends on your side of the aisle perish, of necessity at that point the House will have to reconvene, there will be a new majority, hence a need to elect a new Speaker. Presumably at that point the Democrats control the House of Representatives, presumably we will elect a Democratic Speaker, and, under the law of succession of 1947, that person is now in line for the Presidency of the United States. That is my understanding of the status quo as it exists in law today. I would just ask the gentlewoman if she is comfortable with that or disputes that is the status?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate this need to exchange, because this is exactly what we need to do. During the 45-day period, as I understand it, the gentlewoman is saying the only check on the executive would be the threat of impeachment. Does the gentlewoman believe that is consistent with the Framers' intent, when they wrote all of article I and purposefully chose article I as the description the legislative branch, or does she believe the Framers' intent was to say the executive can have carte blanche to run the country as they might, but 45, and possibly 75, days later under the bill the gentlewoman coauthored, the Nation has to wait 75 days for impeachment as a check on the executive?

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman be interested in joining me in a colloquy? I appreciate very much the comments of the gentlewoman, and I was intrigued by one thing she said. She said that even temporary appointments, I will paraphrase briefly here, would violate the entire purpose of the House of Representatives. My understanding of Madison's approach was that there were more elements to having a house of representation than mere election, as important as that is, but also the role of checks and balances, the role of proportionate representation, the division of authorities between the legislative branch and the executive branch. Madison specifically 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.'' What I would like to ask the gentlewoman is, if we have no House of Representatives, less than a quorum, do we have an alternative to the concentration of the power in the executive branch under current law?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. The reason I think we need to recommit this bill, and it is rare, I think, for an individual who has authored a bill to suggest a motion to recommit, because when I called for the discharge petition to bring this bill to the floor, it was not just this bill. I wanted to bring many different approaches so we could fully discuss it. The fundamental question I would urge the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and its members and this body as a whole to consider is this: it is a fine thing to defeat this legislation, and I respect the judgments of the people who may choose to do so, but you have yet today, or in the prior discussion of the chairman's own bill, answered the question satisfactorily for the American people as to what happens during the 45 or 75 days. People continue to say, no one should ever serve in the House who was not elected. We would all prefer that that be the case. But you have never said clearly and unambiguously, with clear-cut constitutional justification, how our government runs without a House of Representatives. You have yet to do so. You have offered pleasantries, reassuring promises; but you have never said how the country runs. Madison did want the representatives to be elected, but he wanted there to be representatives. The people back home want to have representatives. Who will choose to send your kids to war? Who will choose to protect your civil rights? Maybe you can just rely on someone you do not know, an unelected representative whom you do not know. Maybe you can rely on that. And if they send your kid to war wrongly or usurp your civil rights, you can take great reassurance that 75 days later you can impeach them, assuming that one of their actions in the interim has not been to somehow reduce your right to do that. You are rolling the dice, my friends. You are rolling the dice, and you have not yet put in place a solution. Mine may not be perfect, it is not; but let us, please, have an opportunity to revisit this issue and answer that question.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I apparently misspoke earlier when I mentioned it was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) who expressed objection to my opportunity to speak in the Committee on the Judiciary. I regret that. There was a member of the majority. I thought it came from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). I apparently was in error, and I apologize for the mistake.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for the time. I would just note that it was my distinguished colleague from Texas who, when we were given the opportunity, my colleague was asked for unanimous consent in the Committee on the Judiciary hearing to let me speak to my own bill. It was a UC request. All it needed was one member of their body to speak up and say no, and it was the gentleman from Texas. On the one hand, the opponents of this legislation argue that we must have elected representatives. On the other hand, they suppress the rights of those elected representatives to speak to their own legislation. Our 90 minutes are about up. I want to take a little bit of time, if I may, to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for their outstanding work on the Working Group. I would like to commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson); the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his intelligent and thoughtful comments; the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin); the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for her leadership on this issue, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for his work on presidential succession matters. I would also like to commend the work of the Continuity of Government Commission. We have spent 90 minutes on this issue today. The Continuity of Government Commission spent virtually a year on the matter. All of the members of that commission began saying we should not amend the Constitution, much like my friends on the other side have. Yet, to a person, they agreed at the end that we need to or we will be without the checks and balances so fundamental to our great Republic. I also want to thank the opponents of this bill, the chairmen of the various committees. I also want to thank the ranking members. The discussion today I think makes the proposal we will end up with a stronger proposal. That is part of the crucible of this institution. My fear, however, is that that crucible itself is in jeopardy. There will be silence on this floor if we perish or there will be chaos and discord as partisan rancor evolves in the aftermath when this lack of constitutional clarity emerges. People have said what the American people would want, my friends on the other side. One of the things we do far too seldom here is go back to the people themselves and ask them. I would invite my colleagues to do as I have. Hold some town halls, go to some Rotaries or Kiwanis or Lions or whatever group you want and give it a fair question. Say here is the choice, a fair and balanced question. Say do you want in the aftermath of a crisis, do you believe we should have temporary appointments, nominated by the people you most recently elected and thereby are most likely of the same party and political ideology or would you have complete vacancy for 45, possibly 75 days? Ask them and see what they say. Ask them. If my colleagues can come back to me and say that the people I talked to would say we would rather have no voice in Congress as our Nation goes to war and my sons and daughters are committed to a conflict, we would have no voice in Congress as our civil rights are usurped, we would like to have no voice in Congress as someone accedes to the presidency who was never elected but who was, in fact, themselves appointed, ask them, and I believe with great confidence they will tell my colleagues we would like a voice imperfect, indirect though that voice may be if unelected. At least they were appointed by the person most recently elected. At least the political makeup of this great body will be preserved. At least some of the most consequential decisions in the history of this country will be made under a model of checks and balances that, yes, Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Mason and the rest of the Founders found so essential. Elections are sacred, but so, too, is representation. I would urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to recommit. Let us have a full and fair debate in the committee and bring back a still better bill.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a no vote on the rule. How indicative that we said we will have 90 minutes to debate this, 90 minutes to debate the future of this country in the event of a terrorist attack. We are taking this tremendously seriously. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe we are giving 90 whole minutes to whether or not we will have a constitutional government with the House of Representatives and the very bicameral system that the gentleman from Washington described. Vote no on this. Give this body time to have real debate, real discussion on multiple amendments.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, in that brief time let me address what this amendment really does. It is very straightforward. It says this: in the event of a catastrophic loss of Members, if we lose over 218, in other words more than would be required to sustain a quorum, then special provisions will apply. But only under catastrophic losses. And those special provisions are very straightforward. The membership of this body, having been elected by our constituents to perform all the vital functions under article I, would be asked upon their election to create a list of potential successors who, upon our death or incapacity in a catastrophic event, could temporarily fill our place until special elections could be held. Temporarily until special elections could be held. It is disingenuous, if not deliberately deceptive, to suggest this subverts or bans or undermines elections. We all believe direct elections should be held. The real question is this: Should we have a Congress or not? Should we have a House of Representatives? I think the Framers said we should. That is why it is article I. But, my friends, if we lose more Members than necessary to sustain a quorum, we will have a constitutional crisis. It is that simple. The majority party has yet to address that. I found a remarkable statement in the chairman's remarks during the markup of this bill. The chairman said, and I really want to pay attention to this: ``Congress has granted the President significant powers to act during an emergency. He could maintain the necessary functions of government, along with the Congress, utilizing a reduced quorum until elections are held.'' Where did Congress do that? The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States has asserted that the Congress has granted the President of the United States special provisions and he has apparently ex cathedra dictated that we can function with a reduced quorum. The Constitution of the United States has not dictated that we can function with a reduced quorum. The chairman cited no reference to say where this great body said, ``Mr. President, here are your authorities under a crisis.'' It did not happen. And it was not challenged in the Judiciary. How remarkable and how dangerous that is, that a chairman would dictate that we have given the President powers that we are not authorized under the Constitution to give and that we never took action to give. The fact is it would not be the President, it would be an unelected Cabinet member that most Americans do not know forced to exercise extra constitutional powers. And, my friends, you would have no voice in this body or in this government to counteract whatever that individual wanted to do. That is why this matters. It is so much easier to not look at this issue. It is so much easier to go on about our business as if every day we will be here just like we always have. We may not. And if we are not, and if tragedy strikes, the American people have a right to know what happens next. And this body, for 3 years, has failed to answer that question. Answers are available. This bill may not be perfect, but the status quo is vastly, dangerously imperfect. What we have asked is to bring not only this bill but others, the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), Senator Cornyn's bill, that of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), or the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and ask this body, implore this body to grapple with the complexities of this. Because only when you struggle with it, and only when you see not only the alternatives but the problems of the status quo do you get it. It is so much easier not to do that. It is easier not to make a will, it is easier not to provide care for our kids if we are gone; but it is irresponsible to do those things. This body must act. And at least today one thing will happen. We will be on record today as having voted to do something or having voted to do nothing. If you vote to do nothing, and God forbid something horrible happens and someone takes advantage of that and leads this Nation in a desperately dangerous path, then you are at least on record as having voted to do nothing. You have seen the risk, and you have chosen the course of inaction. That is irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, how much time is available?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time. In 1787, this month, the Constitutional Convention was at work in Philadelphia, some of the brightest minds in the history of this country. One of those great minds was Madison, and he has been quoted a lot today, but let me quote another thing Mr. Madison said. Madison said this about the importance of checks and balances: ``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.'' Madison truly believed we have to elect our representatives to the House, but he also believed with equal dedication that there must be checks and balances. Mr. Speaker, if you and we here today do not act, we impose upon this Nation conditions that will ensure the situation that Madison abhorred of concentration of all the power in the executive. And let us be clear, it will not likely be an elected executive. We are not talking about President Bush or Vice President Cheney. If the terrorists strike, they will do everything in their power to kill those two individuals and everyone in here that they can. Who then will run this country? That is the question you have yet to answer. You have not answered it. You have said 45 days later we will figure something out. But during that 45 days, who runs the United States of America? We have indeed taken an oath to defend this Constitution. We have also taken an oath that says we will defend the whole Constitution, including the prerogatives of the House of Representatives as specified in article I. As people watch this debate today, the people here and the people elsewhere, they must ask themselves, Do I want this country run with no representation from my district there to speak for me? Does an unelected individual who assumes power in the executive branch get to send my child to war without me having a person there to exercise a voice and a vote? I do not think so. I have had 220 town halls since being elected here, and I will tell you the people back home get this. They do not care really about the insides and outs of the Committee on Rules, but they do care about fair process. And they would say to themselves the idea that we would bring a constitutional amendment to the floor, without ever having given the author a chance to speak to it, is antithetical to the real principles of democracy. When the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules said we are doing our best, I do not believe so. I believe he dissembles. We are not doing our best. Our best would be this: our best would be to invite all the authors of various proposals, for real continuity, to have a full opportunity for debate, an extensive opportunity for the debate, and for the Speaker of the House of the Representatives and the minority leader to say to their representatives, come to the floor, pay attention to this vital matter, and then we will have time for fair debate, time for full amendments. That is what we truly asked the chairman of the Committee on Rules to do. We did not say just bring this up for an up-or-down vote. I introduced a resolution that would have provided a fair and full rule to allow for debate of all different proposals, but that was denied. That rule would have offered several days' waiting period for extensive amendments. That was denied. We can do better than this. It has been said that few problems require a constitutional amendment. Absolutely true. I believe the majority party has been far too eager to amend the Constitution of late. But I will tell you that a bipartisan commission, a bipartisan commission of distinguished scholars began studying this issue over a year and a half ago, with the premise that we must not amend the Constitution to fix this. After a full year of study, and we are going to have about an hour today, they studied this matter for a year, and they listened to experts and scholars from across the political spectrum, and what did they conclude? They concluded we can only fix this with an amendment. And that includes, by the way, distinguished Republican statesmen, people like former Senator Al Simpson from Wyoming. Ask Senator Simpson why he reached that conclusion. Ask the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, who has successfully introduced legislation in the other body, why he concluded that we need an amendment. None of us woke up on September 11 and said, boy, what a great day to start thinking about a constitutional amendment. But thousands of our fellow citizens woke up that day not knowing it would be their last. We do not know today when that will happen; but we do know that if the terrorists strike us, they will, in fact, change our system of government at their discretion. They will change who the President is. They will change the political makeup of this body. And we are unprepared to deal with that, and it is irresponsible. And I am sorry it has taken 3 years. Let me close with statements from the Attorney General of the United States just a week ago: ``After the March 11 attack in Madrid, Spain, an al Qaeda spokesman announced 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete.'' A paragraph later the Attorney General said, ``Several upcoming events over the next few months may suggest especially attractive targets. These events include the G-8 summit, the Democratic Party convention in Boston this summer and the convention of the Republican Party in New York City.'' If the terrorists attack the convention in New York, kill the President and Vice President and many Members of this body, the inevitable consequence is that Democrats will take the majority of this body, will be forced to elect a Speaker, that person will be a Democrat, and that person will become President. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules says this was precedent in Madison's time. No, sir, it was not. It was not for two reasons. The nuclear weapon did not exist in Mr. Madison's time. Secondly, the Succession Act of 1947 was about 180 years away from being written. Madison could not have conceived this. He could not have conceived this, but he left to us an opportunity to address it. We wish we did not have to, but it is foolhardy and reckless to not act when we know the dangers we face. It has been 3 years, Mr. Speaker, 3 years almost since we saw 3,000 of our fellow citizens killed. If we believe we are immune to that, then we are desperately, desperately deceiving ourselves. And if we do not take provisions to provide for that, then we are letting our public down and letting that sacred Constitution down.

Mr. BAIRD. Okay. The reason I ask that is because, if we say that it was a bipartisan process, I was there. I am the author of this legislation. There were no hearings granted prior to the vote, and at that hearing a reasonable request was made. The author of the legislation is here. Let us give him a couple of minutes to speak to the legislation. It was a unanimous consent request. That was denied. The spirit of true bipartisanship would have said, if the author of a legislation has never had a chance to speak before our committee, then let us at least hear him out. Instead, what happened was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary presented the bill I believe in a false and misleading light, and I was not given a single moment to address it. I respect the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and I am glad he is here, and I am glad we have this opportunity, and I appreciate that, but it would be a rewrite of history to suggest for one second that the Committee on the Judiciary process that led up to this was bipartisan.

Mr. BAIRD. I do not want a filibuster. Just a simply yes or no, because I was there.

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

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, was he present, if I may ask, at the Committee on the Judiciary markup of this legislation?

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member and the chairman for including in this en bloc amendment an amendment drafted by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and me. In essence, what our amendment does is ask the Department of Defense to study the availability of mental health services for our returning soldiers and their families. I have been to Walter Reed on many occasions, and we are providing outstanding physical health care and mental health care for those folks. But when people come back to their small rural towns, we need to make sure if they are suffering the emotional after-effects from the things they have seen and experienced, that they get the help they need, so they can return to their families, return to their work and not suffer lasting impacts. For 23 years before serving in Congress, I worked as a psychologist, often with veterans and in VA hospitals; and I know we can provide care that will help our warriors return home. We need to do that. I thank the chairman and ranking member for making sure this will happen and look forward to working with them when the report is returned from the DOD.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, on the night of September 11, I began to think about what might happen if this institution were to perish in an attack, and I asked, who should we talk to to learn the answer to that question? And the answer to that was Charlie Johnson. Charlie, I want to thank you and your entire staff for your help on that issue but, more importantly, for how you help us every single day. People around the country see us disagree and bicker all the time here, and they say is there not anything you people can agree on? Today, my friends, we have agreed on something. We have agreed to honor this magnificent individual, his service to our country and the principle of the rules that keep our democracy, our Republic, and this great body functioning. I thank you, Charlie, and I thank my colleagues for their great words today. God speed, Charlie.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 199, the Hunter amendment, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the great State of Texas for his leadership on this. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has been a steadfast advocate of correcting this injustice for many years, and I appreciate working with him. Mr. Speaker, I also respect also my colleague on the other side of the aisle because I know he cares about this. But at the end of the day today, we will have had an opportunity to vote to at least restore fairness to our citizens. When we go back home, we cannot very well say to them ``it is a procedural matter,'' because it is also a procedural matter that every year when they fill out their taxes and they itemize their deductions, they have to put a zero; they have to say because our State chooses sales tax over income tax, as is their right, we are not able to deduct our sales taxes the way the States with income taxes can. It is a procedural matter that costs our taxpayers hundreds of dollars every single year that they could use for their families. It is a procedural matter that costs my State $500 million every year. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) was right: We have passed a number of tax bills over the last few years in this Congress. We have had multiple opportunities, had the majority Members chosen to put their people over their partisanship. But they have declined. Here is another opportunity. There was one last week. How many weeks are we going to say to our constituents that you go to the back of the line again? We have lowered the tax rates on millionaires in this country. We have refused to fight for tax fairness by insisting that the people of our States be allowed their deductions. So millionaires, not just millionaires, but people earning $1 million a year in income, were put at the front of the line. Our States have been told again and again, you go to the back of the line. It is going to happen again today, I fear, and it does not have to. To my good friends on the other side of the aisle, we have worked and we should work in a bipartisan way, because the Tax Code does not say Republicans or Democrats or Independents get to deduct or do not get to deduct their sales tax. It just says all of you who have a sales tax do not get to deduct it. But at the end of the day, on a procedural vote, we are going to bypass yet another opportunity, and bypassing that opportunity over the last several years has cost our taxpayers thousands of dollars. When I ask my friends, when are you going to say to your leadership, we insist at long, long last that our constituents be treated fairly in the Tax Code? When are you going to say that? Because we have said it to our leadership. It is going to be in the Democratic bill. It has been in prior Democratic bills. We have brought it up before the Committee on Rules, with almost unanimous no votes on the other side, with few exceptions. We cannot get the help on the other side. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), has been a steadfast advocate. He brought this issue up last week, and I am grateful he did. We didn't get a single yes vote from the other side. We did not get a single vote. Here it is again, and I wager we will not get a single vote yet again. At some point, the citizens of our States are going to catch on and they are going to say, for all this talk about tax cuts, why do you keep leaving us out? Because your leadership is putting you in a position that says, time and time and time and time again, you must vote with us and not with your constituents. And it is not your leadership who elected you, it is your constituents. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has been responsive to his constituents. He has said we need to bring this up now, and we have the opportunity to do that now. I would just ask my colleagues, you know as well as I do the only way we get this to happen is to make this part of a larger bill. We do need to provide relief for low and mid-income families in the Tax Code, but we also need to provide relief for the families in our States who have suffered too long under this injustice.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of this committee, and the chairman for their initiative. I think it is long past time for this Nation to express grave concern and work with the international community to thwart Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and I applaud them for this resolution. I do, however, feel compelled to ask an inquiry of the chairman and the ranking member, and it is this: we have seen, I believe, a growing concern about possible usurpation by the administration of congressional authority, particularly in regard to war-making and the use of force. I thoroughly intend to support this sound resolution. I just would like clarification that the resolution does not, in its efforts to rein in the Iranian nuclear program, authorize the President to use force. I yield to my distinguished ranking member to address this.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that clarification. I intend to support this most worthy proposal, and I think it is important that we establish for the record that this Congress is not intending with this legislation to authorize the use of force without approval of the Congress.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, my question is, where in the Constitution of the United States? I understand the Supreme Court has ruled that, but the point is if the gentleman is asserting that the purpose of this bill before us today is to protect the rights of all voters to elect their Representatives, effectively it is my position that you are disenfranchising those from independent parties or minority parties from selecting their candidates. The second thing I would ask, since we are quoting the Constitution, is where in the Constitution or in subsequent Supreme Court decisions has it authorized the executive branch to function without checks and balances from a House of Representatives or from a House of Representatives comprised of less than a quorum?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that clarification. It is absolutely true. Not one proposal seeks to ban elections. What do we seek? Checks and balances. We seek to ensure that the Article I responsibilities of declarations of war, appropriating funds, impeaching a President, and all the other things that this body is tasked for in Article I, not the executive branch, are preserved, and the bill before us today does none of that. Does none of that. It leaves this country and the world with an unelected person serving in the executive branch and claiming extraordinary unconstitutional powers, and that is perilous for a republic, not simply a democratic republic, but a republic where representatives carry the voice of the people to this Capitol. Let me tell you what I think is wrong with the bill beyond that. In providing for a 45-day election, let me, first of all, say that many experts in this country have said a 45-day period is insufficient time for a genuine election, and that includes the head of the Elections Board of the State of Wisconsin, who said a minimum of 62 days would be necessary. It includes our own Member of this House, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former secretary of state, who has conducted elections. It is not enough time. Furthermore, what happens if a State cannot conduct its election in 45 days? What happens? A nuclear weapon is not only detonated here, but, in a quite plausible scenario, it is detonated also in New York City and in San Francisco, California. Are they to conduct elections in 45 days in those circumstances? Will the Members subsequently elected not be seated? What happens to the structure of this body if a few Members survive, and then more Members come as one election is held? Who is the Speaker of the House? And by the way, let me clarify something. The Constitution is absolutely clear that a quorum is not a majority of those chosen, sworn and living, it is a majority of the membership. This notion that three or four people would be enough to have a House of Representatives flies so in the face of what the Framers intended. The first official act of the first Congress was to adjourn for lack of a quorum. They did not believe for a moment that a handful of people should be present and maybe make decisions to take this country into war, or impeach a President, or levy taxes, or appropriate funds. A majority must be present. What happens until that majority comes back under this rule? Again, chaos and uncertainty. We have an opportunity to discuss real solutions. A bipartisan, nonpartisan commission made up of scholars and distinguished statesmen, people like Alan Simpson from Wyoming, hardly, hardly a liberal Democrat, hardly a partisan, a true statesman, joined together and said let us look at this issue. To a person, that commission to a person began and said, we do not want to solve this by amending the Constitution. And yet after a year of study and review, to a person they agreed that that is the solution, with great regret, that we must resort to. And, no, it does not take away your right to elect a Representative, but it preserves your right to have a Representative here when we decide how to respond to that attack. And it says you shall have the opportunity to have an election to replace that person as promptly as possible, through a real election, not a sham, expedited election that disenfranchises independent voters, as the bill does today. To a person these statesmen started with saying we do not want an amendment, and they reached the conclusion that we have to. Let me close with this. On September 11, on flight 83, those passengers gave their lives to give us a second chance. That fourth plane was heading here with the full intent to kill everybody in this building if it possibly could. We know that our adversaries would seek nuclear weapons. We know nuclear materials are available. We know if they get one, they will set it off, and they will do so in this Capitol. We have been given a second chance. The September 11 Commission has shown what happened to this country and to the world when advanced warnings were not heeded and action was not taken. Shame on us, eternal shame on us, if we do not take action to protect the Article I responsibilities of this body. Protect the right to elect Representatives, but protect the right to have a Representative and protect the checks and balances and separation of powers that have preserved this great Republic.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for the time, and I thank my friends on the other side. Let us start with where we agree. Everyone who has spoken has said that the ideal way to replace Members permanently is through elections. People have suggested that this is somehow a covert way or a slippery slope to do away with elections for Members of the House. It is not true. There will not be a single voice in the record of this discussion that argues that it is true. We all agree on that. Let us ask if we agree on some other things. Do we agree that article I functions of the Congress should not be usurped by the executive branch? I think we should because we have sworn an oath to that Constitution; but if we do not act to ensure that there is a legislative branch, what alternative is left but for the executive to usurp those responsibilities, and if they so choose, what vehicle and what body is left to rein them in from that usurpation? I submitted an amendment to this very bill which was not ruled in order that would have at least had the Congress of the United States on record affirming that the executive, in time of crisis, should not usurp our authority; but it was ruled out of order. I find it frankly astonishing that my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who is such an adamant defender of the Constitution, is apparently willing to abrogate all of our article I until we can have special elections and an unelected executive could run the entire country. Ask yourselves, would the Framers really have let two or three people constitute a House of Representatives when they themselves adjourned? Would they really have believed that two or three survivors or no survivors should allow an executive to take this Nation into war? Ask your constituents. Go back home. Ask your constituents: If your representatives in Congress are all killed, and a Cabinet member who you never chose and do not know who they are, have no information about their background, emerges one day and says I am now the President of the United States of America, should they have 45 days carte blanche to take this country into war, take away your civil rights and you will have no one here to express your concerns? This notion that we are going to somehow appoint people who are totally unresponsive to the American people boggles my mind. We have been entrusted with our constituents, with impeachment of Presidents, with taking our country into war, with levying taxes and all the other article I duties; and yet somehow we are not capable of choosing people, former statesmen, former stateswomen who would serve this Nation well in time of crisis. Somehow that escapes our capacity. To create straw men as convenient vehicles for rhetorical argument, that would leave our country without a functioning Congress, is not a service to the people who wrote this Constitution. There are two portraits of this gentleman in this hall that I revere. First of all, Washington's presence right here because he looks over us and reminds us to take our job seriously; but in the rotunda of this building there is a portrait in which Washington is giving back his commission as Commander in Chief of the Army to a republican form of representative government. He is not saying, I won the war, now I as chief executive want to run the country. He is saying there must be a Congress that runs this country; representatives of the people must run this country. We agree that you must have special elections, but my friends have not made provisions for what else to do in the interim; and in the time in which there would be elections, they have created a vehicle which is laden with problems.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?