mr. chairman , i yield myself the balance of the time . 
mr. chairman , james madison said the problems of democracy are solved with more democracy . 
now , we regularly talk about the fact that the worst , the worst attack on our soil , was what took place on september 11 , 2001 . 
and it is very true that that is the case for what has happened in modern times . 
but i would like to remind my colleagues that the civil war was a very tough time for the united states of america . 
in fact , the battle of antietam saw southern troops get within miles of this capitol . 
the president of the united states , abraham lincoln , made a very firm decision at that point : proceed with elections . 
he felt it very important that the american people have an opportunity to participate through elections . 
now , when we think of the unthinkable , a tragic attack which would be launched against the united states of america , what is it that the people would do ? 
well , obviously , one would think about feeding and clothing their family , ensuring that they have a roof over their head . 
and , mr. chairman , a very important part of coming together following a tragedy is the important role of choosing one 's leaders . 
now , i do not believe that appointed members should be making the decision in the people 's house . 
yes , they can do that as members of the other body . 
yes , that can even happen for the chief executive of the country . 
but in the people 's house , no one has ever served here in our more than 200-year history without having first been elected . 
and this notion of creating a scenario whereby people could serve in the people 's house without having first been elected is anathema to the entire basis on which the united states of america was founded . 
we would have to deal with a crisis , but we would come up with a compromise . 
forty-nine days is the amount of time during which people could come together and hold elections and have their representative , that is why we are called representatives , their representative could come here and have the chance to serve . 
it is very clear to me that the house of representatives has , as has been said , spoken . 
sixty-three members of 435 voted in favor of our proceeding with a constitutional amendment . 
sixty-three members for a constitutional amendment . 
we know that it takes a two-thirds vote . 
we found that out earlier today . 
and obviously that is not what the people 's house wants . 
and so , mr. chairman , i urge my colleagues to reject the baird amendment , and create an opportunity for us to let the other body act on a house provision which is so vitally important to the deliberative nature of this great body . 
ms. millender-mcdonald . 
mr. chairman , i congratulate the gentleman from washington for his long-time leadership on this issue . 
mr. chairman , i support this amendment to strike legislation which has nothing to do with the appropriations process , legislation which has been improperly placed in this bill , the text of h.r. 841 , the `` continuity in representation act of 2005. '' that bill has already passed the house twice , in slightly different forms , in the spring of 2004 and most recently on march 3 , 2005 . 
the senate refused to consider it the first time , and it is currently pending on the legislative calendar in the senate , where it will remain unless objections by various senators are dealt with . 
make no mistake : there are senators who strongly oppose this bill , and virtually none who care about it , or strongly support it , or want to take up the senate 's time with it . 
this means that , if the bill is to move at all , its supporters need to take the objections seriously , be prepared to negotiate , and avoid further antagonizing the opponents . 
as ranking member of the committee of actual jurisdiction , the committee on house administration , i have never been consulted by the majority about beginning negotiations with the senate to try to resolve the objections and get a bill which can clear both chambers . 
whether such as effort could succeed is unclear , but -- nothing ventured , nothing gained . 
instead , the house appropriations committee has , to its obvious discomfort , effectively been hijacked by the house majority leadership to load the bill onto legislative branch appropriations in the belief that the senate will meekly submit to anything tucked into the house title . 
i am not going to reargue the substantive issues here . 
h.r. 841 was and is a bad bill . 
i oppose it and voted against it . 
we should not be recycling failed legislation . 
if the bill 's supporters ever hope to get it passed in some form , they need to make a serious effort to address the objections rather than to employ parliamentary games . 
they should not be misled by the margins by which the house has passed the bill . 
congress consists of two chambers . 
unfortunately , some of the house sponsors appear to be treating a controversial and sensitive subject as if it were a perk of the house , as though the house alone somehow had acquired , contrary to the constitution and other federal laws , the right to control the procedure under which its members are elected . 
this position has gotten them nowhere . 
i believe it is in fact counter-productive . 
during the appropriations markup , there were numerous questions about the continuity amendment which chairman lewis , who offered it , was unable to answer . 
it was obvious that the committee had no idea what it was being asked to do and , based on the thunderous chorus of `` nays '' on the voice vote , was reluctant to be forced to do it . 
mr. chairman , h.r. 841 is under the jurisdictions of the committee on house administration . 
it has nothing to do with the appropriations process . 
it has serious problems . 
the sponsors need to change their tune . 
attempting an end run around the regular order on what is , despite their spin , a very controversial bill , does nothing to enhance credibility in potential negotiations with the senate . 
if this bill is to be saved , let the members who care about and understand the issues engage seriously with those of differing views . 
that is how legislation becomes law . 
not this way . 
i urge adoption of the baird amendment to strike title 3 . 