mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from oklahoma ( mr. cole ) xz4000770 for the time . 
this is the first rule of which i hope are many that the gentleman and i are managing together . 
he has already been welcomed to the committee , so i extend those same warm welcomes to him for managing this measure . 
mr. speaker , i rise today in opposition to this closed rule which limits debate on how this body should operate if it experiences mass causality . 
this is an issue of grave importance to the american people and the integrity of that democracy in times of dire crisis . 
the decision of the majority to place any restrictions on this body prohibiting members from offering amendments and freely debating the subject is not responsible . 
the terrorist attacks of september 11 changed the way that we as a country operate . 
in turn , congress has rightfully committed itself to creating policy that protects americans from future attacks , though i question how successful we have been in our actions . 
september 11 also presented us with a challenge to consider continuity in the house during a worst-case scenario . 
in examining such a grim situation , we must foresee what will be needed to regain stability and reassure the american people and the world that our government is going about business as usual . 
while i believe that the underlying legislation is an honest attempt to address the concerns which i just raised , the discussion surrounding the issue has been , as one constitutional scholar wrote , embarrassingly partisan . 
even more , the product of 3 years of discussion on the issue that the majority is bringing to the floor is incomplete , unrealistic , and fails to consider the implications of changing statute when we should be amending the united states constitution . 
the underlying legislation requires the states to hold special elections within 45 days in the case of extraordinary circumstances . 
this is a problematic requirement . 
when the committee on house administration took testimony from state and local election officials , it was told that 45 days is not enough time to pull off a primary and general election . 
election officials noted that mailing ballots to absentee , overseas , and military voters for a primary and general election and then waiting for their return would alone take more than 45 days . 
this does not include the time that it takes to print and process ballots . 
should this time period be adopted , it would undoubtedly result in the disenfranchisement of millions , including seniors who vote absentee , our diplomatic corps , and our men and women serving in our armed forces . 
the majority finally agreed with democrats and local election officials yesterday that 45 days is not enough time to conduct these critical elections . 
late last night we were informed that my friends on the republican side are now seeking to amend the rule so that they may offer a manager 's amendment which will increase the time elections must be conducted from 45 to 49 days . 
four days , mr. speaker . 
what can you realistically do in 4 more days ? 
this is more of a cosmetic and convenient change than substantive . 
it still sets up a process that will lead to the selection of members of congress who are potentially not the real choice of the citizenry . 
all of this is happening at the same time my friends in the majority have blocked democratic members from offering three different amendments to the bill , all of which were germane and all of which were turned in on time . 
it seems to me that we operate under two rules in the house of representatives : one for them and one for us . 
later today , democrats will offer an amendment lengthening the special election period from 45 to 60 days . 
our proposal provides elections officials with a more realistic solution to a daunting task most likely overshadowed by grief and angst . 
i hope that members of this body will place the integrity of our democracy above petty politics and vote to adopt the millender-mcdonald amendment . 
additionally , the continuity-in-government commission has recommended a different approach . 
it has suggested that states create lists of possible appointments to seats vacated due to mass causality to ensure that the house can continue to operate while states move forward with their own special elections process . 
these temporary appointments would serve until states are able to elect representatives in accordance to their own laws . 
this is a fair approach and one which should be considered on equal footing as the underlying legislation . 
yet , when our colleague , the gentleman from washington ( mr. baird ) xz4000110 , offered this proposal in the 108th congress , as a footnote , the gentleman from washington 's ( mr. baird ) xz4000110 wife is about to deliver their child and he might not get here . 
we are hoping that he does . 
but he certainly has been a stalwart leader in the effort to do what is necessary to preserve the integrity of this body . 
when he introduced this proposal , republicans sought to embarrass him and the commission 's ideas for which he was fighting . 
they set up a vote in the way that it was impossible for the proposal to be given its due consideration . 
in my view , it was cutthroat politics , and we should not allow for those kind of actions . 
incomplete as it is , the underlying legislation also fails to consider mass causality where the speaker is a victim and is unable to trigger special elections . 
it does not address how the house quorum rules will work in the case of mass house vacancies . 
perhaps most importantly , the underlying legislation could potentially leave our country without an effective or legitimate legislative branch for the first 6 weeks following a disaster . 
think about it this way : in the first 6 weeks following september 11 , the house , this house , authorized the president to use force against terrorists and appropriated $ 40 billion to address the emergencies in new york and at the pentagon . 
if the underlying legislation is dropped , the legitimacy of actions taken by a shorthanded congress , most likely during a time of war , would always be in question . 
for me , this scenario is unacceptable . 
regardless of the house 's decisions today , states and voters must ultimately approve this process through a constitutional amendment . 
it took less than 14 months to approve each of the 17th , 18th , 19th , 20th , 21st , 23rd , and 26th amendments respectively . 
anyone who suggests that the constitutional amendment process takes years , in my view , is incorrect . 
throughout history , when constitutional amendments have been needed , states and voters have responded . 
i suspect that they will respond similarly in this case . 
all of these concerns underscore the need for this body to consider this legislation in an open and much larger discussion on the continuity of our government during times of mass causality . 
the effects of our hastiness today may not be felt while any of us are alive , but at some point in the future our successors and our states will be trapped by poor decisions we might make today . 
i urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule . 
mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time . 
