House members contemplated their own mortality yesterday as they approved a bill designed to replace themselves and keep Congress functioning, should a large number of them be killed in a catastrophic event.
Lawmakers said the September 11 terrorist attacks made it clear that an attack on the Capitol could paralyze Congress with mass House casualties.
“We face a grim new reality today,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, Washington Republican.
“For us to pretend that it could not happen … does a disservice to our form of government,” agreed Rep. Martin Frost, Texas Democrat.
While vacancies in the Senate can be filled with appointments made by governors, only elections can fill unexpected vacancies in the House. Special elections can take several months, however, and that could leave the House unable to function in the wake of a tragedy.
But there was strong disagreement yesterday over what approach would best solve this problem.
The bill, authored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican, would require special elections to fill House vacancies within 45 days of a terrorist attack or other catastrophe that kills 100 or more members. The bill was approved yesterday, 306-97.
Others, however, said the best solution would be a constitutional amendment that would allow replacement House members to be appointed in the wake of such a tragedy, until special elections could be held. They said the Sensenbrenner bill wouldn’t give states nearly enough time to conduct fair elections, and would leave the House with crippling vacancies for more than a month.
There are 435 member in the House of Representatives.
“We would find ourselves without a functioning Congress for perhaps months under this bill,” Mr. Frost said.
Rep. Brian Baird, Washington Democrat, has been pushing his own constitutional amendment that would allow each House member to appoint a replacement to serve temporarily in case the member dies or is incapacitated by a catastrophic event.
To appease Mr. Baird and others who support a constitutional amendment approach, Mr. Sensenbrenner yesterday promised that his committee will vote on Mr. Baird’s proposal and send it to the House floor in the near future.
But Mr. Sensenbrenner and other Republicans insisted that a constitutional amendment approach is wrong because allowing House members to be appointed — even temporarily — would compromise the Founding Fathers’ intention that House members be elected representatives.
“That is not the way to continue this democracy,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican.
“We must preserve the right and obligation to be elected to serve in the House,” added Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican.
Democrats offered a few amendments yesterday they said would improve the Sensenbrenner bill by preserving election rights. One, defeated 229-179, would have extended the deadline for special elections from 45 to 75 days.
“We have concerns over whether the fine history of voter protections … could be fully adhered to in the time frame outlined in the bill,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Democrat.
Another amendment, adopted by voice vote, allows for some extra time for military personnel and other people living overseas to mail in their ballots in the special elections.
Lawmakers said there will be more debate over how best to ensure that Congress can continue after an attack.
The Continuity of Government Commission, run by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, examined the many issues surrounding a catastrophic attack on Congress, and recommended a constitutional amendment as the main solution.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.