Sept. 16 Daily News editorial

The eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks prompted Beltway sages and pundits to revisit the once hot topic of how government might cope with a catastrophic attack on the U.S. Capitol that decimated the ranks of Congress. The Washington Post editorialized last Friday that “the best solution may be allowing governors to appoint interim representatives for their states in case of a massive attack, with special elections to follow after a few months.”

This, of course, is the “solution” proposed by Congressman Brian Baird just a few weeks after 9/11. The Washington Democrat’s plan for the continuity of Congress generated a good deal of interest at the time. Lawmakers and the public were just learning that the fourth hijacked jetliner that crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pa., had been headed for the U.S. Capitol. The potential for an attack that could have killed or incapacitated hundreds of members of Congress was very clear, as was the problem such a loss would pose for government.

The Constitution allows governors to replace senators by appointment. Oregon was the single exception in 2001; the state requires a special election to replace its senators. Massachusetts joined Oregon in 2004, passing a law requiring a special election to replace a senator who had more than five months left in his or her term. Waiting for a special election to replace just a couple of senators wouldn’t create a problem with the continuity of the Senate. Where Baird’s solution was — and still is — needed in the House. Waiting for upwards of 100 elections to replace 25 percent or more of the House’s 435 members, as is now constitutionally mandated, would cause a big problem.

Baird’s proposal was simple enough — a constitutional amendment allowing governors to appoint representatives for a 90-day term if a quarter or more of House members are killed or incapacitated. This would allow time for the election of permanent replacements without disrupting House business.

It apparently was all too simple for most House members. Faced with a workable solution to a weighty problem, Congress opted for a time-honored stall tactic: It formed a commission to study the issue. After many months of study, the Continuity of Congress Commission recommended an appointment process almost identical to Baird’s proposal. That would not do — Baird being a member of the minority party in the then-Republican-controlled Congress. After several more weeks, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., produced an alternative plan — one not much different from the status quo. Sensenbrenner proposed that vacancies be filled by special elections held within 45 days of catastrophic event that kills or incapacitates more than 100 House members. Sensenbrenner’s proposal passed along party lines in the House, but died in the Senate. Baird’s proposal was never given a fair hearing in the House.

Would Baird’s plan get the serious look it deserves in the current Democrat-controlled Congress? It’s difficult to be optimistic, notwithstanding last week’s renewed interest in continuity of government. Our government may still be as vulnerable as it was on Sept. 11, 2001, but the public memory of that day eight years is not as sharp. It’s likely that the best opportunity to prepare for the possibility of a catastrophic attack on the Capitol has passed.