PDA

View Full Version : Bill to replace members after attack


LV426
04-22-2004, 11:03 PM
House approves bill to replace members after attack (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/congress.continuity/index.html)Dems, GOP disagree over replacement method
From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, April 22, 2004 Posted: 5:32 PM EDT (2132 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House on Thursday approved a long-stalled bill requiring special elections if a catastrophic incident results in a large loss of lawmakers.

The vote came amid heightened concern by administration officials that there could be a terrorist attack in the United States before the November election.

The bill, approved 306 to 97, would require elections within 45 days if 100 or more of the 435 House members are killed or incapacitated.

During the debate on the measure, lawmakers talked about the September 11, 2001 hijackings and crashes of four U.S. commercial jets .

"On September 11, 2001, the fourth hijacked plane was headed for the U.S. Capitol," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, the bill's author.

"If it had not been for the heroic actions of the passengers of United Flight 93 who forced the plane down over Pennsylvania, Congress's ability to function may have been severely disrupted," he said.

While few lawmakers expressed any doubt about the need for Congress to have a plan to reconstitute itself quickly, action on the legislation bogged down when Republicans and Democrats couldn't agree on a solution.

Sensenbrenner and other Republicans insisted the bill preserve the unique constitutional quality of the House: that any vacancies are filled by elections.

But Democrats -- led by Rep. Brian Baird of Washington -- criticized the GOP plan as slow and cumbersome. They argued it would would leave the nation without a key part of the government at a time of need.

Speaking on the House floor, Baird contemplated a new president taking over after a devastating attack on Washington.

"Should they have 45 days carte blanche to take this country to war, take away your civil rights, and will you have no one here to express your concerns?" he asked.

The Democrats want to change the Constitution to allow governors almost immediately to appoint House members temporarily until an election could beheld or to allow each member of the House to choose a short list of successors who could take over.

They have begun a petition drive to force their proposal to the floor for a vote.

Though the bill passed Tuesday affects only the House, the Senate must also approve the measure. Companion legislation is moving slowly in the Senate and is unlikely to be voted on soon, aides said.

That bill, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, would allow states to develop their own plans to fill vacancies.

Senate seats are not in question because the Constitution already gives governors the ability to make appointments to fill vacancies.

LycanSpectre
04-23-2004, 12:49 AM
While I think that having back up plans in case of a tradgedy is good, I can't decide if this borders on paranoia or not.

Perhaps there is a place for that kind of paranoia in today's world though. I guess it can't hurt, just so long as it stays within reason.

Vendetta
05-06-2004, 03:52 PM
I'm curious as to WHY they would need such protections if terrorist networks have been dealt severe blows (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/3/171023.shtml) according to this administration. You'd think the danger would be over. The question is, why do politicians fear MORE for their lives now than they did before?

LycanSpectre
05-07-2004, 08:04 AM
Well, I suppose that now that the terrorists have proven themselves to be real, and not just something that happens to "someone else", the congress feels that it can't be too careful now. I'd imagine that they are hoping never to have to use this plan, but are making it just in case. After all, its the threaght they dont know about and haven't dealt with that is the most dangerous.