Congress Prepares For 'What Used To Be Unthinkable'
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
May 17, 2002
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Not since before the Cold War ended has Congress officially considered the possibility that a large number, if not all of its members could be killed or incapacitated by a single act of aggression against the United States, that is, until last year.
"September 11th made clear once and for all just how vulnerable the U.S. Congress is to a terrorist attack," said Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus Thursday at a joint meeting with the House Republican Policy Committee.
"We all know full well that if not for the courage of the passengers on United [Airlines] Flight 93," he continued, "the fourth hijacked plane may well have hit the Capitol."
Some 200 lawmakers gathered in the headquarters of the U.S. Capitol Police early that evening to discuss how they should respond.
"There was a conviction that the members of Congress needed to be visible and needed to assure the American public that they were prepared to meet this challenge," recalled Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
But the representatives and senators were not entirely certain of that fact themselves.
"The sense of helplessness and 'disconnected-ness,' if I can use that word, that members of Congress had was palpable," Hoyer explained, "and the sense of 'What do we do in this crisis?' was keen."
Those feelings led to Thursday's hearing to begin the process of developing contingency plans in the event of a catastrophic loss of life at the U.S. Capitol.
"We have to prepare for what used to be unthinkable," Frost acknowledged.
Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Republican Policy Committee, painted the picture of a worst case scenario in which terrorists successfully attacked the Capitol during the State of the Union address while the president, vice president, most of the members of the cabinet, all of the Supreme Court justices, and the members of Congress were present.
"If you stipulate that the speaker, the vice president, and the president all perish in the same incident, those remaining House members who might elect one of their tiny number the new speaker would also be electing the next president of the United States," Cox said. "So there are serious questions of legitimacy that attach to all of this."
The dilemma is compounded by the fact that, while the 17th Amendment provides for governors to temporarily fill vacancies in the Senate, no such provision is made in the Constitution for replacement of representatives in the House.
Therefore, special elections must be held for each open seat, no matter how many seats are vacant, and no matter how long it takes to organize those elections.
"We must not leave the American people wondering, 'Now what?'" warned Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who calls Sept. 11 "a giant wake-up call."
Baird has introduced a constitutional amendment that would allow governors to appoint temporary replacements if 25 percent or more of the members of the House are unable to carry out their duties because of death or incapacity.
Those 90-day appointments would allow time for special elections to replace the appointees with elected representatives. The resolution has 86 co-sponsors.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has introduced a similar resolution in the Senate. Specter's proposal sets the threshold at 50 percent of House members being incapacitated or killed rather than the 25 percent in Baird's resolution.
Specter's resolution attempts to insure continuity of the political leadership of Congress by mandating that, "An individual appointed to take the place of a Member of the House of Representatives under this section shall be a member of the same political party as the Member of the House of Representatives who is being replaced."
While he acknowledges that changes must be made to prepare for the possibilities discussed, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, is leery of a constitutional amendment.
"We should always be very cautious, very careful, very deliberative before we ever consider amending the Constitution," he urged.
Chabot noted that the Constitution has "only been amended 27 times in our 200-plus year history." Ten of those amendments constitute the Bill of Rights, and two were the introduction and repeal of prohibition.
"So, if you subtract that out, that's only 15 times that we've amended the Constitution other than the Bill of Rights," he recalled.
Congress did not adopt any of the 30 different constitutional amendments proposed during the Cold War to address the potential of a catastrophic nuclear attack on Washington, D.C.
"I think that the appropriate way for us to move forward is through rule changes or through statutory changes, rather than amending the Constitution," Chabot concluded.
Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) shares some of Chabot's concerns. What troubles Snyder the most, however, is the prospect of un-elected replacement representatives.
"The problem is this: How can we continue the essence of this great American democracy, which is the right of a free people to be governed by people whom they elect, not by people who other folks appoint?" he said.
Snyder would prefer to amend the Constitution so that both representatives and senators must be chosen in special elections as the result of a lawmaker's incapacity or death.
"Will the risks of our solution be greater or worse than the risks under the present Constitution?" he asked. "Would a new constitutional amendment increase the risks of us losing that essence of our democracy?"
Cox acknowledged the complexity of the issues and the minimum two-year time frame for seeing a constitutional amendment adopted.
"If it is at all possible, I think we would like to do something in this Congress, or at least preparatory for January for the opening of the next Congress," he said.
Frost and Cox agreed to continue their discussions and the joint meetings of the two bodies until a stop-gap measure can be agreed upon, and a permanent solution can be set in motion.
cnsnews.com\Politics\archive\200205\POL20020517a.html |
