Congress passes `doomsday' plan
By Noelle Straub
Sunday, January 9, 2005
Boston Herald
 
 
WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a controversial
doomsday provision that would allow a handful of lawmakers to run Congress
if a terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated large
numbers of congressmen.
     ``I think (the new rule) is terrible in a whole host of ways - first, I
think it's unconstitutional,'' said Norm Ornstein, a counselor to the
independent Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan panel created
to study the issue. ``It's a very foolish thing to do, I believe, and the
way in which it was done was more foolish.''
     But supporters say the rule provides a stopgap measure to allow the
government to continue functioning at a time of national crisis.
     GOP House leaders pushed the provision as part of a larger rules
package that drew attention instead for its proposed ethics changes, most of
which were dropped.
     Usually, 218 lawmakers - a majority of the 435 members of Congress -
are required to conduct House business, such as passing laws or declaring
war.
     But under the new rule, a majority of living congressmen no longer will
be needed to do business under ``catastrophic circumstances.''
     Instead, a majority of the congressmen able to show up at the House
would be enough to conduct business, conceivably a dozen lawmakers or less.
     The House speaker would announce the number after a report by the House
Sergeant at Arms. Any lawmaker unable to make it to the chamber would
effectively not be counted as a congressman.
     The circumstances include ``natural disaster, attack, contagion or
similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the
proceedings of the House.''
     The House could be run by a small number of lawmakers for months,
because House vacancies must be filled by special elections. Governors can
make temporary appointments to the Senate.
     Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), one of few lawmakers active on the issue,
argued the rule change contradicts the U.S. Constitution, which states that
``a majority of each (House) shall constitute a quorum to do business.
     ``Changing what constitutes a quorum in this way would allow less than
a dozen lawmakers to declare war on another nation,'' Baird said.