Could Congress be Coming to Your Town?
October 2, 2010By Paul Campbell
The answer should be no. Yet oddly enough, the House of Representatives of the 111th Congress of the United States has attempted to open the door to just such a traveling road-show. On the very first day of the newly seated Congress (January 6, 2009) the House passed House Concurrent Resolution 1, (H. CON. RES. 1), "Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of government."
Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the US Constitution reads, "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting." A Concurrent Resolution is the tool used to get on paper that very "Consent of the other." The other interesting thing about a Concurrent Resolution is that it is not binding, does not carry the force and effect of law, and does not therefore require the signature of the President.
All of this does beg the question though of why this would come up, and why it would be the very first resolution passed by the House on their very first day in session. Well, as it turns out, it has been the very first resolution passed by the last four Congresses. So, it's easy to say that it is just a matter of routine business. Although I'm not entirely certain that is a long enough sample to call it routine. Still, what sort of concern prompted Congress to start availing themselves of this constitutional clause "to assemble at a place outside the District of Columbia" in the first place? Quite simply, it started with the 108th Congress, the first newly seated Congress post 9/11.
It certainly stands the test of reason. No one wants to be grappling over parliamentary procedure if the Capitol is in crisis. The attack on the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 made it painfully clear that just such a possibility was very real. While I'm not fond of the idea of my Congress beating a path out of town, I am even less enamored with the idea of them being in danger.
All of this still does not guarantee a speedy displacement of the Congress. According to the resolution it still requires a little consensus: ". . . the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate may notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to assemble at a place outside the District of Columbia if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it." In this era of fanatical partisan polarization, can anyone imagine these four people coming to a consensus about something as sensitive as moving the Congress out of the District of Columbia? Just how close to the Capitol building would the bombs have to be falling?
For obvious reasons the Concurrent Resolution does not specify when or where the Congress would reconvene. For one thing the resolution is part of the public record, and if someone was targeting Congress it would be an inherently bad idea to announce where you planned to be and when. Second, in the event of such a crisis it would behoove the Congress to leave a certain amount of flexibility to their options. We can only hope that the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader at least have some contingency plan tucked away in their safe on the statistically unlikely chance it were ever needed.
Whatever your personal feelings about government, the Congress, or your own representatives, I think most people would agree that to suddenly be without them would be somewhere between catastrophic and apocalyptic. All of our lives, our hopes, our dreams, and our very way of life depend largely on the stability of our government. While it is not outlandish to think that this move was simply protecting themselves, the reality of the situation is that we are all fortunate that our representatives had the forethought to protect our government in the course of protecting themselves.
What's next?
