Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

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

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's reference to Madison. I have spent a fair bit of time studying Mr. Madison as well. My question would be, where in the Federalist Papers or in the entire body of information from the Constitutional Convention do we see provisions for how this body should deal with the complete elimination of its Members or for how the executive branch should function in the absence of a constitutional quorum within the Congress?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) not only for yielding me this time, but for his leadership on this issue. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his work, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), all of whom, I think, have proposed innovative and real solutions to this problem. It is the night of the State of the Union Address. The President of the United States is here addressing the assembled body of the House and Senate. Behind him sits the Vice President of the United States in his capacity as President of the Senate. The Speaker of the House sits next to him. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are here, the diplomatic corps, and the judges of the Supreme Court. In midspeech, the television screens and radios across this country go blank. No one knows what has happened. A few moments later, one station reemerges on the air and says, ``Ladies and gentlemen, we have received word that a nuclear weapon has been detonated in our Nation's Capital. It apparently was set off very near the Capitol itself. We have no preliminary word, but it is quite possible that all Members of the House and the Senate and the President and his Cabinet, save one Member, have perished.'' At that moment someone must tell our Nation and must tell the world what happens next. The bill before us answers that question with the words chaos and uncertainty. There are provisions put forward that would give a constitutionally valid mechanism of rapidly reconstituting this body, of assuring the Article I checks and balances that were so important to Mr. Madison, to that individual, Mr. Washington, and to the Constitutional Convention. But, Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ years after September 11, we have not been allowed to debate those measures that are true solutions before this body. We have argued here, and we have heard eloquent arguments that elections are important, and let me be clear about something: Not one proposal that requires or provides for a temporary amendment, not one, would eliminate elections. We all share that conviction, all of us do, and it is duplicitous to suggest otherwise.

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

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for indicating he would bring my proposed amendment up; but I would also like to underscore that my belief is we should not simply bring my amendment up. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has a proposed amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has a proposed amendment, as do several other Members. I proposed a rule that would allow for multiple possible amendments to be considered, plus ample time for debate and amendment of those amendments until we move toward two-thirds vote for final passage. Last night on this floor I met with many Members of this body, and I asked them if they knew enough about this bill today to vote on it in an informed way. The collective answer was, no. Because of that, we should defeat the rule before us today, give this issue adequate time, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) said, and make sure that all opportunities are discussed. I am pleased that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary wants to address amendments, but I would respectfully ask the gentleman to not just simply consider mine; consider others so various approaches may be debated and this body has a chance to choose the true and best solution.

Mr. BAIRD. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman cannot filibuster me. We have waited 2\1/2\ years since we watched 3,000 of our fellow citizens die, and this body has not acted. They now give us 2 hours. We have not given this body time to debate. Ask my colleagues, as I did yesterday, have they had sufficient time to study this matter of this magnitude before we vote on it. They will tell you, no, sir, I have not. They will vote party line, as we far too often do here; but they will not vote conscience because their conscience has not grappled with this. I will not yield because this matters, and we have not been given sufficient time. Give us time for real debate, not in a committee chaired by someone who is antithetically opposed to it. Give us time in this great body because it is our entire future that is at stake, not the future of the Committee on the Judiciary or the Committee on House Administration. It is the future of this body. Give us time; give the people time for real debate. How can my colleagues say that elected representatives are sacrosanct and then not give those elected representatives time to debate a matter that concerns the very existence of this body? That, if for no other reason, is reason enough to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), as the majority leader of this body, if the other party were in power and this body were eliminated, would the gentleman be perfectly comfortable, under his constitutional fealty, in letting the executive branch rule this country, take this country into war, and do all of the other things reserved under that Constitution with no checks and balances? Again, it is a false straw man to say that anybody here wants to do away with elections. The issue is do we do away with the entire Congress temporarily until we can hold elections? We need those checks and balances. And they are not the only ones standing up for this Constitution who are opposing the alternatives of temporary appointments. We, too, are standing up for it. We are standing up for checks and balances, separation of powers, and all of the Article I provisions that are ensured in the Constitution.

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

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, earlier I asked this body to consider two questions: How would the Framers feel about the House of Representatives constituted by a few Members or no House of Representatives at all, and how would their constituents react if they had no voice as the country were taken into war by an unelected Cabinet member? Let me ask this question: The distinguished majority leader proudly held the Constitution of the United States up and presented to us that he was defending the Constitution with this legislation. Where, my good friends, in that sacred Constitution does it say that the political parties will be authorized to select the candidates who can be elected for the House of Representatives? If we are defending the Constitution, how in the name of the Framers can we say that political parties will select the candidates for office? And if we are saying that we are protecting the rights of our voters, how can we do so when we disenfranchise all independent voters from selecting their candidate of choice, and instead put that decision into the political elites, the very people who you assert you are protecting the voters from with your base bill?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would please show me where in the United States Constitution political parties are authorized to select candidates for the House of Representatives, I would be happy to engage in this colloquy.

Mr. BAIRD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the gentleman from California and the Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary have sent a letter to our colleagues suggesting that people have attempted to ban elections. If the gentleman would wish to retract that, I would welcome that opportunity, because it is false, and the gentleman knows it. I believe it was circulated under the gentleman's signature.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my preferential motion.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, this is as serious as it gets. Two and a half years ago, we were given a remarkable gift. We were given the gift of life itself, as a plane was heading this way with the intent to kill all of us. Had they succeeded, the institution that we hold so dear, that provides for representation on a proportional basis by the citizens of our areas would have at least temporarily perished. We have no adequate provisions before us today to fill that gap should it happen, but we have no question today that we must confront that possibility. In an era of nuclear weapons, of terrorists who mean our destruction, we must accept our own mortality in order that we can preserve the immortality of this institution we all so cherish. We have had a spirited debate today. I lament that we were not all given sufficient time to participate, that key amendments were not offered, and that we were not all here for this. I know well that we have many things to do, but this is about the very existence of the institution. Yesterday I had the privilege of speaking with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I asked a simple question: Have we, in all sincerity and honesty, given enough thought to the measure before us, given the gravity of the issue before us? And many of those colleagues looked me in the eye and said, frankly, no. And yet today we are moving forward towards passage of a bill, which well-intentioned, and I do not doubt the intentions of the authors of this bill, and there is merit to expediting elections, and I appreciate the give and take, but, my colleagues, please understand, this bill carries with it a number of problems. I believe this bill disenfranchises independent voters. I believe it does not provide for situations in which States cannot conduct their elections in 45 days. I believe it leads to a chaotic process as some States replenish their Members and others have yet to, and the leadership of the House changes. But most importantly of all, it leaves us without a Congress. My friends on the other side have suggested some things which I need to clarify, because I think they are not fair and they are not accurate. They have suggested some of us want to take away the rights of citizens to elect their Representatives. It is not true. Not a single voice in the House of Representatives today shared that message. Instead, we all said we love, and would adhere to and would defend to the death the rights of citizens to elect their Representatives. But we have also said that no representation at all for a period of 45 days is a more grave and egregious insult to the intent of the Framers than would be temporary appointments in some fashion followed by direct election. Do not let anyone suggest to you that we want to take away the right to election, but neither imagine that the bill today will solve the problem. At a time of the most grave crisis in the history of our Nation, we would be left without a United States Congress. Go home and look at the Constitution and tear out Article I. That is the consequence if we do not take further action. Let me ask this, too. Go home and ask your constituents that if you were to perish, along with hundreds of our colleagues today, and a Cabinet member became the President of the United States, someone they had never elected and do not even know, and that individual chooses to send their son or daughter to war, would they like to have a Representative from their region there to express their views, or would they prefer that that seat be vacated? That is the issue before us. I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, not because it is not well intentioned, but because we have not adequately given it the attention we deserve. If you can look yourself in the eye as you put that card in that slot and say, I have given 5 hours of study to this resolution, 5 hours, then vote your conscience. But if you have not, please vote ``no'' so you can have more time to study this and discuss it with scholars. Finally, we have asked and the chairman has agreed, and I am grateful for that, that we explore and debate the issue of a constitutional amendment to solve this. But I would beseech the chairman to please not only bring up my proposal, give other Members a chance to bring up proposals so the issue gets full and fair debate.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support the underlying transportation bill that will put America back to work, relieve congestion on our roadways, and streamline the permitting process. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of my amendment that will strengthen the Buy America Act. The Nation's unemployment rate continues to hover around 5.6 percent. In a district such as mine, that number is considerably higher. As we all know, the intent of the Buy America law was to ensure that when taxpayer money is spent on direct Federal Government procurement and infrastructure projects, those expenditures will stimulate U.S. production and U.S. job creation. My sense of the Congress resolution is intended to reinforce that commitment. This resolution does not cost the Federal Government any money, but it will help the working men and women in my district and others around this Nation keep their steel jobs and earn a decent living. My resolution will also strengthen our domestic steel industry, which is critical to our national security and ultimately to the future economic success of our country. Simply put, highway project managers have identified a way to circumvent the Buy America law as it applies to bridge projects that use Federal funds. My resolution is needed to clarify that law and close the loophole before it completely subverts the intent of Congress when the original Buy America provisions were enacted as part of the highway bill more than 20 years ago. The original Buy America provision provided that domestic iron and steel would be used in Federal transportation projects unless its use increased the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. The problem that is emerging in the highway bridge industry is that project managers have begun to attempt to circumvent the Buy America Act by breaking bridge projects into component parts and applying the 25 percent test individually rather than to the entire project as required under law. As it turns out, by breaking the project into smaller components, foreign steel providers are advantaged because it is possible to create situations where the 25 percent test is exceeded on smaller components, even though the test, if it were applied to the overall project, would be required. The steel bridge fabricating industry increasingly is being forced to fight this misinterpretation of the law which, left unchallenged, could devastate the steel bridge industry. Most recently, on the Wilson Bridge project between Maryland and Virginia, the bridge industry argued successfully that the original bid process developed by the Maryland Department of Transportation, which initially called for dividing the project into smaller component projects, violated the Buy America Act. Maryland revised its procedures and now domestic mills and fabricators are building that bridge. Congress needs to deliver a clear message to the Federal Highway Administration and to bridge managers across the country that Buy America provisions apply to the overall bridge project and we must, end any confusion or misinterpretation of the law. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my distinguished chairman and ranking member for their prior leadership on this and their continuing and steadfast support of Buy America provisions. This is not only a jobs issue, this is not only a safety issue, it is a homeland security issue. We must maintain a vibrant and strong domestic steel fabrication industry. We must not allow entities to circumvent the intent of the Buy America provision. This resolution helps the sense of the Congress clarify that intent, and I urge its passage. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I respect that, because one of my principles about this whole debate has been that it should not be a partisan issue. The continuity of our government is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. It is an issue for all Americans; and, indeed, it impacts the entire world. It is admirable that the gentleman has created a mechanism in his proposal that is nonpartisan in the sense that it would allow whichever party has been elected to the presidency to maintain that role in the executive branch even under times of catastrophe, and I think that is admirable. Is there anything else the gentleman would like to add before I move on to discuss congressional continuity?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, let me make one other observation that I find admirable on the gentleman's part. He and I are from the minority party. We are both Democrats. Everyone knows the administration is from the Republican side of the aisle. The gentleman's resolution assures that the President would stay in the hands of the Republican Party if he were to perish, at least the presidency would. So the gentleman is actually stepping up to the plate and saying he is ensuring that the President's Party would stay in power if the resolution were to pass and that circumstances could not create a scenario whereby, through catastrophe or assassination, the power of the presidency could shift parties. Is that accurate?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks. I should emphasize that we are by no means the only people who are working on this issue. Admirable and outstanding work, I think, was done by a working group within the Congress for a time period. That committee was chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who I think did yeomen's work. In addition, a number of other people participated. Other resolutions providing for continuity of the Congress, who are for a remote Congress should unique circumstances arise, have also been introduced. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution to provide for continuity. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) does as well; and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former Secretary of State from Rhode Island, has proposed a way we could have a remote Congress in extraordinary circumstances such as a threat or an outbreak of infection. All of those folks have done an outstanding job of presenting options, and we ought to be able to discuss them. I would also commend to my colleagues I think an outstanding service to our country. The Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institution formed a bipartisan group of distinguished scholars headed by Lloyd Cutler and Alan Simpson, two statesmen if ever there were people to whom that title would fit, and filled in by scholars and former Members of the Congress, legal scholars, constitutional experts. I would commend my colleagues to their work. It is available at Continuityofgovernment.Org, and I would encourage my colleagues to study this work. It reviews the history of continuity issues. It reviews how special elections can be held. It outlines in careful detail the problems that would arise were an attack to occur, and I think it is, again, a service to our country. One of the things that emerges from this document is that after close to a year of deliberation, that distinguished committee reached one conclusion, and the conclusion was something they resisted. The conclusion was that we cannot solve adequately the question of continuity of the House of Representatives without a constitutional amendment. I would underscore this fact. Not one member who served on that commission, and, again, it was a bipartisan commission, not one member began their service thinking that they wanted to amend the Constitution even to address something of this magnitude. But they all agreed after studying the matter that, regrettably, in order to provide real continuity, we must amend that magnificent document. No one races into that, no one sets out to amend the Constitution lightly, but we must have continuity of this government. Let me walk through, if I may, a few of the issues that could arise that have not yet been addressed. I talked a little bit about what constitutes a quorum. Remember that our government is bicameral, our legislative branch. We have a House and a Senate. The framers wanted the various regions of our States to have their own representatives. And it is absolutely true that no one in this body has ever served who was not elected. We hold that very dear to our hearts. Some have said under no circumstances should we deviate from that. But here is the problem. The Constitution says that if vacancies occur in the House of Representatives, executives of the States shall issue writs of election. Under normal circumstances, where you have lost one or two Members and have 430 or 434 to continue the people's business, it is not a problem. But when you have two surviving Members, or no surviving Members, you are left without a House of Representatives until you can have an election. How long does it take to have an election? We have spent a great deal of study and time on this. If you talk to various people who are experts in this field, different numbers emerge. But the critical point is this: even the fastest number you can come up with, until that time can be completed, you are without a House of Representatives. Frankly, most people with whom I have spoken who are experts and scholars in this field have suggested that a minimal probable length of time would be about 3 months. From the time of catastrophe in order to have real and meaningful elections, would be about 3 months. Anything less than that poses extraordinary logistical challenges and poses some real constitutional challenges potentially. Some have proposed, and I disagree with this proposal, but some have proposed that we mandate elections within 45 days of a catastrophic loss of Members. Let me be clear about something: everyone agrees who studied this issue that we want to maintain the tradition of special elections for permanent replacement of Members. But this Continuity of Government Commission and myself and many other scholars have said we are gravely concerned about a 45-day period with no House of Representatives, because how do the article I of the Constitution functions get carried out without a House of Representatives? Who carries those out? Who assumes those? Yes, it is true that no one has ever served in the House of Representatives that was not elected. But it is also true our country has never functioned without a House of Representatives. It has never functioned under an executive branch alone. Some have said if there were a catastrophe, the survivors would do the right thing. There is an assumption of survivors, first of all, which there may well not be. But, beyond that, the reason the framers created checks and balances is they were gravely concerned about vesting too much power in the hands of an individual without checks and balances. They rebelled against such a system. The revolution was all about overthrowing an unelected monarchy who functioned without effective checks and balances. To assume that a survivor who assumes the executive branch would do the right thing and that we do not need a Congress for up to 45 days strikes me as a direct insult to the fundamental insights of the people who wrote our Constitution, even if you could have a 45-day election. But how would we get to 45 days under the proposals that have been offered? Well, the Congress, which has constitutional authority to do so, would tell the States you cannot have a primary election because there is not time. Instead, the major political parties will select the candidates, thereby disenfranchising all the voters from choosing the candidates in the primary and thereby prohibiting most people who could run for office from standing for candidacy. What is more, in an expedited election of this sort, Americans living overseas, including very likely the very young men and women who would be dispatched to try to defend our country, could well be disenfranchised because there was not the time to get them the votes and get them ballots. So the proposals that we could have a mandated 45-day election leave our country with no functioning Congress for 45 days, and I should say as long as 75 days if it is proximal to a pending regular election; no House of Representatives, no article I functions; further, they mandate that the States allow the parties to select the candidates, when our dear Constitution has never once mentioned the word ``party'' in its entire history. They disenfranchise independents from standing for office, they disenfranchise overseas voters. And there are still more problems. Under this 45-day mandate, what happens if one State manages to conduct its election in 30 days, and if newly elected Members arrive at Congress and they are the first ones here and say there is nobody else here, we declare ourselves a functioning House of Representatives, and elected one of our Members Speaker of the House, who, by the way, under some circumstances could thereby become the President? Two days later yet another State, somewhat larger this time, gets its elections completed, and they arrive at the House of Representatives, and their Members are sworn in. They say we have more Members now. Someone from our State will be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. And so it goes, until at last everyone is here. Is that what we need at a time of the greatest crisis in our Nation's entire history, that sort of ambiguity? I submit that it is not. There is a further problem. If we pass a law that says all States must conduct elections in 45 days, what happens if this institution is struck by a nuclear weapon and some State capitals are taken out simultaneously? Al Qaeda targeted four different sites on September 11. If they target Washington, D.C., New York City, and Sacramento, California, do the people of New York, do we really expect them to conduct a special election within 45 days after New York City has been hit by a nuclear weapon? Do we expect California to do so after its capital has been destroyed? Or do we just pretend that could not happen and hope for the best? I think we have learned in the last few weeks that hoping for the best does not work, that we have to prepare. There is an alternative, and it is an alternative I reached with great contemplation and with great study by some of the most distinguished scholars I could speak with, and here it is: It is that we must find a way to temporarily, and I emphasize temporarily, reinstate this House of Representatives as quickly as possible in order that the people's business can be conducted, that we have checks and balances, that we have proportionate representation, that it is not just an executive or, even worse, a shadow government running our country. To do that will, regrettably, require a constitutional amendment, but it is not something that will sound extraordinary when I explain it. It is this: the people have elected us as their representatives to make decisions as profound as taking our Nation into war, as taxation and a host of other issues described in article I of the Constitution. If upon our election, we generate a list of potential successors who could only assume our position if we are killed or incapacitated, and only if that death or incapacitation happens in the course of a catastrophic event, and only for the circumstance that it is temporary until a special election can be held, we would be able, within a week of a catastrophic event, to reinstate the entire House of Representatives and restore our functioning constitutional government. Let me give you my own State as an example. In Washington State, if we were to create a list of potential successors who would take our place only in catastrophic circumstances, not in the normal course of events, that list could include former Speaker of the House of Representatives Tom Foley. It could include, on the Republican side, Slade Gorton, a man for whom I have the utmost respect. It could include, on the Democratic side, people such as Don Bonker, Al Swift, our Governor, Gary Locke. It could include on the Republican side former Governor and former U.S. Senator Dan Evans, Sid Morrison, former U.S. Representative and former Secretary of Transportation. These are distinguished individuals. And here is the choice, my friends. If that horrific day happens and if that announcement comes on television, we must have the media know what to tell the American people, and they can either say for the next 45 days a shadow government will run this country with no checks and balances and no representation from you, the people; or they can say your representatives in their best judgment have created a list of statesmen and stateswomen who will temporarily fill their seats until you can have real special elections. Then, instead of confusion and chaos and hasty disenfranchising elections, we would have a functioning Congress made up of distinguished statesmen and stateswomen who would take care of this country, who would do the right thing. And I would warrant that many of those people would not even stand for reelection or for new election. They would instead serve until the election could be held, and hand the country back to the newly elected people. What I most ask is that we have an opportunity to debate this. It is 2\1/2\ years now since September 11. I began to work on this the night of September 11. I began to talk to the leadership of this body within a week of that time. And I have asked, pleaded, negotiated and discussed; and we still have not had serious consideration by this body. On September 10, 2001 thousands of our fellow citizens had no idea that the next day when they kissed their families and went off to work, when they fixed their breakfast cereal, when they rode the elevators to their office or walked from the parking lot of the Pentagon in, they had no idea that they would be dead at the end of that day. We do not know in this body if on any given day it is the morning of September 11, or if it is September 10 and the next day we will all perish. We do not know that. But we have to assume that there are people in the world who would dearly like to bring that about. We do know that the weapons of mass destruction are out there. We know that a nuclear scientist from Pakistan essentially had an Amway- like system to help develop nuclear weapons internationally. We know the fissionable material is available in abundance, and we also know that if someone uses it, we are ill-prepared to address the outcome. I have offered a rule for debate. The rule seeks to achieve fairness. What it does is it invites not only my proposal, but proposals by other Members of this Congress to resolve this issue, to be brought up before the entire body for discussion. It says essentially, if you have a better way to do it, we are all ears. Let us hear it. Bring it up for debate. We will debate a series of potential solutions. Whichever one gets the most votes will become the new base bill. We will then take several days for contemplation, much the way the framers themselves would bring an issue up for discussion and then either recess for several days for contemplation or invite a subcommittee to review it further. We would take several days for contemplation, because this is a matter of the utmost seriousness. Then we would bring that base bill which had received the most votes back with an opportunity for amendment, and then we would proceed to a final vote. I would hope we could get the necessary two-thirds on that process, and I would hope it for this reason: that if we do not find some solution, be it mine or someone wiser than me, we leave this country subject to chaos and constitutional ambiguity and unelected shadow governments, which I think would mortify the people who wrote that magnificent document, and I think would mortify most Americans, should that event occur. So I will ask my colleagues to consider the resolution that I have put forward. It is H.J. Res. 83. I think it is rather simple, as most constitutional amendments should be. I think it is reasonable. It should be a bipartisan effort. If one is not compelled by H.J. Res. 83 and one thinks there are better ways, I welcome the discussion. Look, please, then at House Resolution 572. House Resolution 572 says we will have a debate and the rules for debate will be open. There will not be a committee chairman saying, only my amendment or my proposal is allowed. It will be the House of Representatives reviewing several alternatives, having the discussion, and trying to resolve this most grave of problems. The entire Constitution was written in one hot summer in Philadelphia, several months. We have been 2\1/2\ years since September 11 and we have been unwilling, not unable, but unwilling to address this change. There are people of good intention who I respect profoundly on the other side, but what I do not respect is the refusal to let other people of good intention engage in this debate. I find it profoundly ironic and troubling that those who assert that they oppose these amendments that I have offered and that others have offered is because they respect the sanctity of the vote, which I respect as well. Again, no one is proposing a substitute for direct election, for permanent replacement of Members. We are talking about temporary replacement. But they have said it is so sacrosanct, this principle of direct election, that we cannot even consider any alternative. And ironically, in defending the principle that one must be elected in order to serve in this body, they have at the same time said the people who have been elected to serve in this body are not entitled to debate this most serious of issues. So we have been sent here by our constituents. They have entrusted us with the most profound of responsibilities; and yet some individuals in this body have said they will not entrust us with the responsibility to ensure the continuity of this very institution and to ensure that constitutional measures will exist in a time of catastrophe. Please, I say to my colleagues, I beseech my colleagues, bring this issue up for a vote and for true debate. Let us not play partisan politics; let us not assume that one committee chair or 2 committee chairs have greater wisdom than this body. That assumption flies in the face of the principles of Madison and the rest of the Framers. Let us assume that the collective good intentions and intellect and scholarship of this body can craft a solution that will ensure the continuity of this institution that we all so cherish and will ensure that if that horrific day ever happens and we perish, we will perish knowing that our Nation will be left in good hands, rather than in confusion.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, could I ask my colleague a question if I may? There is a recent book out, I think, called The Vulcans, and we have read over the last couple of decades of plans for shadow governments, shadow administrations. I do not recall reading in the Constitution of the United States that the executive branch is empowered to create a shadow government. I do not recall reading it. I do recall, correctly I believe, that the Congress is empowered to provide through statutory language mechanisms to replace the President and the Vice President should those two seats be vacant. In the gentleman's estimation and thought, as he has spent a great deal of time, which does he think would have more legitimacy with the American public, a public process enshrined in statute, debated thoroughly by the House and Senate and passed into law that gives a clear cut, unambiguous line of succession for who will be President and Vice President or a shadow government created covertly and operating covertly to run the institutions of this country without a Congress to exercise oversight?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks. Have there been hearings yet on the gentleman's legislation?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a matter that we would all prefer to hope we never have to address, but that after September 11 we must address. I would ask my colleagues and friends to imagine the unimaginable. Imagine that the American people are going about their daily business while Congress is meeting in full session here in the House and the Senate is doing its business and suddenly the national news wires, television and radio are interrupted. They are interrupted by an announcement that a nuclear weapon has been detonated without warning in the Nation's Capital. The Capitol has been destroyed. The White House has been obliterated. It is evident that in all likelihood all Members of the House and Senate have perished, that the administration, the President and Vice President and most members at least of the Cabinet have been killed, that the Supreme Court has likely been killed along with thousands of our fellow citizens and government workers. At that moment, we must have an answer to the American people of what happens next, and at this moment we do not have an answer to that question. It has now been 2\1/2\ years since September 11. On that fateful day, not only did we see live on television as thousands of our fellow citizens were killed in an horrific manner, but what we did not know was that a fourth plane was coming here in an attempt to kill everyone in this building and that were it not for the heroism of the passengers on that flight and fortunate circumstances that delayed it by a few moments, many of us would likely have perished. The question then arises, what would happen in this event? We know that it is possible. We know that our adversaries seek nuclear weapons. We know that our adversaries seek chemical and biological weapons. And we know that in this era it is very possible, indeed probable, that one day they may obtain such weapons. Yet, Mr. Speaker and my friends, we have not prepared for congressional succession, and there are grave problems with the Presidential succession law. Let me walk you through, if I may, a scenario of what might happen. First let me start with the Constitution. Under the Constitution of the United States, a quorum to do business is made up of a majority of the Members. House rules stipulate that a quorum is made of the majority chosen and sworn and living. Let us suppose that three Members of the Congress are on a trip abroad and while they are overseas, they witness this horrific event. Everyone else in this body has been killed. The President and the Vice President are dead. America is in crisis to say the least. Those three Members under current House rules could declare themselves a functioning House of Representatives. They could elect one of the three the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Under current succession law, the third in line to the Presidency is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Let us suppose further that those three are from a party other than the current President. What we now have is a situation where three surviving Members of a catastrophe, randomly chosen more or less by events, have now become the entire House of Representatives, have chosen one of their own Members Speaker and that person has acceded to the role of Presidency. We now also have a situation where under our system of checks and balances, the article 1 provisions of the Constitution, declaration of war, approval of spending and taxation, and a host of other issues that are the rightful jurisdiction of this body and the Senate working together are presumably going to be carried out by two or three surviving Members, if there are survivors; or we would have a President who could say that because there is no Congress, the President is declaring extra-constitutional powers, conceivably taking our Nation into war without a vote of the Congress, conceivably imposing martial law, conceivably spending hundreds of billions of dollars and doing a host of other events with no representation from the people of the States as a check and balance on that person. And who might that person be? If it is not the Speaker of the House or the President pro tem of the Senate, it would most likely be a Cabinet member, assuming a survivor. I think we need to be frank. Cabinet members were never elected to their post. They were approved by the Senate, but they were not elected; and we need to be more frank still. Most Americans have not a clue, once you get past a couple of the top Cabinet members, just who they are. So if one of the lower Secretaries emerges on TV and says, I am now the President of the United States. Because there is no functioning Congress, I have authority to take this country into war, would the American people give that legitimacy? I do not think so. Would the Founders have given that legitimacy? I doubt that still further. We must face this problem, and we must face it before the time comes. Because when that happens, should it happen, the very institutions charged with crafting a solution will have been destroyed in the very event that demands a solution. And who will be left? The American people will be left wondering who is their Representative in Congress. How does our constitutional system of government function? The world will be left wondering who now has control over nuclear weapons and on what checks and balances can we rely that that person will conduct themselves responsibly? One of my good friends and colleagues has actually looked at this matter extensively, the matter of Presidential succession. The gentleman from California has offered a resolution that I think would address this, and I would encourage our colleagues to bring this up for a vote at some point soon, certainly before we need it. I would ask my friend from California to describe his resolution and some of the challenges it would address. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, the European Commission's antitrust investigation of Microsoft offered an opportunity to complement the recent U.S. settlement reached with the software corporation. Unfortunately, the Commission's ruling undermines the U.S. settlement and signals potential danger for the technology sector and for consumers at home and abroad. The Commission's ruling will impose drastic anticompetitive penalties on Microsoft, including a requirement that Microsoft sell a degraded version of its Windows software without a media player. Microsoft is already subject to a tough regulatory framework that promotes competition and innovation, and European consumers and companies continue to enjoy the benefits of this framework. The Commission's ruling, however, will now subject Microsoft to a new and contradictory set of regulations. The negative impact of this ruling will also extend far beyond the U.S. information technology industry as a whole. Competition authorities in other countries may now decide to follow the Commission's lead and reject long-standing principles of international comity, beginning a chain of second-guesses and doubts surrounding the U.S. in matters involving U.S. companies. For all these reasons, I strongly urge our administration to use every available resource to ensure that the European Commission reconsider its current strategy and redouble its efforts to resolve this dispute in a manner that complements rather than undermines the U.S. settlement and which offers improved computer software, not dismembered operating systems with less efficient platforms for consumers and businesses worldwide.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate that. What I just wanted to clarify was, we both participated in the same budget hearing, and my recollection in that budget hearing was that in the outyears, the veterans budget increases at a mere 0.5 percent per year. So while it is a fine thing to speak about what we are doing for our veterans, no one seriously believes that 0.5 percent per year in the outyears will keep up with inflation, let alone medical inflation, and, further, let alone the inflation in medical costs of the young men and women who are returning from Iraq. Mr. Chairman, that illustrates I think one of the fundamental problems with the budget we are considering today. I believe it makes false promises. Now we are going to shift the topic to the environment and we are going to discuss not only the environment, but the false promises that underlay the President's promises and the majority promises on the environment. My colleagues from the other side often say people know how to spend their money better than the government. There is some truth to that. But I will tell you this, people want to protect their environment, people want to invest in their national parks, people want clean air and clean water and are they willing to invest in that. Unfortunately, President Bush has a string of unending, almost, broken promises on the environment. Under the President's budget, discretionary spending on environmental programs is slated for a $1.9 billion reduction, 6 percent below fiscal year 2004, falling $30.3 billion to $28.4 billion. But the cuts do not stop there. The environment takes another whack in the President's long-term budget plan, dropping another $500 million in fiscal year 2006, with significant cuts falling on the land and water conservation efforts. Funding for the EPA would shrink by more than $600 million. The administration has broken their pledge to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Large cuts have been made in water quality infrastructure funding for reducing sources of pollution. This includes a broad range of activities, including sewage plants, water purification facilities and targeted pollution prevention interventions. And I would say, by the way, that many of our local and especially our rural communities depend on this funding to follow Federal mandates to clean up their water. And with that cut, we are going to shift that cost onto our local communities, onto our grandchildren and onto the environment. In his budget projection, the President includes $2.4 billion in revenues not yet achieved that would only be realized if we drill in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Superfund program is funded under the President, but the funds no longer come from the polluters, they come from the general public in this case. Finally, and I think most egregiously, this President promised the American public in his campaign that he would fund the backlog in our national parks. My friends, people love their national parks, and this President has broken yet another promise. If you listened to reports that there were memos from the administration suggesting that Park Service employees deceive the public about whether or not they had real cuts and mislead them about the impacts of these budgetary cuts, it is very disheartening. Yet again we are seeing the administration telling well-meaning and honest people, do not tell the public the truth. We have seen it time and time again. Now we are seeing it on the environment. I have a number of distinguished colleagues here who have been waiting to talk about this issue because they know well of its importance. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).