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 ) xz4003430 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 ) xz4001150 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 ) xz4002210 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 ) xz4003430 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 . 
