I rise in opposition to H.J.Res. 83, which amends
the United States Constitution to allow appointed persons to fill vacancies
in the House of Representatives in the event of an emergency. Since the Continuity
of Government (COG) Commission first proposed altering our system of government
by allowing appointed members to serve in this body, I, along with other members
of Congress, journalists, academics, and policy experts, have expressed concerns
that having appointed members serve in the House of Representatives is inconsistent
with the House’s historic function as the branch of Congress most directly accountable
to the people.
Even with the direct election of senators, the fact that members of the House
of Representatives are elected every two years (while senators run for statewide
office every six years) means that members of the House are still more
accountable to the people than members of any other part of the federal
government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative.
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist
52:
"As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a
common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch
of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an
intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the
only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually
secured."
There are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order
to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of
course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional
liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the
executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However,
during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives
accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check
on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties
at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are
reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that
this Act gives up too much liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials
would not be as responsive to public concerns.
Supporters of this plan claim that the appointment power will be necessary in
the event of an emergency, and that the appointed representatives will only
serve for a limited time. However, the laws passed by these "temporary"
representatives will be permanent.
This country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this
body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the
people’s right to vote for members of the House of Representatives. For example,
when the British attacked the city of Washington in the War of 1812, nobody
suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of
Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, D.C. neighbor Virginia
was actively involved in hostilities against the United States government – yet
President Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the
House.
Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their
own representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in
altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are
considering supporting H.J.Res. 83 will question the wisdom of handing
terrorists a victory over republican government.
The Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function
after a catastrophic event. Article I Section 2 grants the governors of the
various states authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the
House of Representatives. Article I Section 4 gives Congress the authority to
designate the time, manner, and place of such special elections if states should
fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. As Hamilton explains
in Federalist 59, the "time, place, and manner" clause was specifically designed
to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by the supporters of
H.J.Res. 83. Hamilton characterized authority over federal elections as shared
between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process
entirely.
Last month, this body fulfilled its constitutional duty by passing HR 2844,
the Continuity of Representation Act. HR 2844 exercises Congress’s power to
regulate the time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of
special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker declares
100 or more members of the House have been killed. This proposal protects the
people's right to choose their representatives at the time when such a right may
be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.
In conclusion, I call upon my colleagues to reject H.J.Res. 83, since it alters
the Constitution to deny the people their right to elect their representatives
at a time when having elected representation may be most
crucial.