Some of you might be interested in what the Democrats are proposing the nation do if Congress were forced to flee for a prolonged period of time from the Capitol. ~Jen Annenberg School for Communication University of Pennsylvania jstromer@asc.upenn.edu http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/jstromer ================================== NEW DEMOCRATS ONLINE -- NEW DEM DAILY -- Pithy news and commentary from the DLC. ================================== [ http://www.ndol.org ] 23-OCT-2001 Legislating By Any Means Necessary The anthrax attack on Senator Daschle's office, and the brief shutdown of Congress to allow biohazard teams to check out the Capitol and the members' office buildings, have led to some quiet but serious talk in Washington about what to do if future attacks make regular Congressional deliberations impractical or unsafe. (The American Enterprise Institute went a step further with a ghoulish panel discussion entitled "What If Congress Was Obliterated?" about the constitutional implications of a full-scale terrorist attack on the Capitol.) Believe it or not, there's precedent for Congressional action in physical emergencies. During the Revolutionary War, as the British army advanced on Philadelphia, the Continental Congress was forced to scramble and run for the hills in order to evade capture. But members of Congress agreed before their evacuation on a place to reconvene and carry on our fledgling nation's business -- most notably, to continue handling the purse strings of government during the prosecution of the war. (During the War of 1812, of course, the British actually burned the Capitol and the White House, but withdrew so quickly that the operations of government were not significantly interrupted.) No one is expecting this kind of contingency, but additional interruptions of Congressional sessions are entirely possible. According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House has been prodding Congress to give the President spending authority to keep the government operating for as much as 30 days at a time if lawmakers can't convene and the necessary appropriations for cabinet departments expire. ("Even before the anthrax scare," the Journal noted in its Oct. 22 report, "pressures generated by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks played havoc with the year-end congressional schedule. Anti-terrorism and airport-security bills have consumed time and created new obstacles to action on appropriations and other bills pending at the time of the disaster.") The pros and cons of the White House's idea aside, the specter of an enemy aiming to disrupt or destroy the Capitol points to the need for Congress to have back-up plans for convening and carrying on with the nation's business. There are obviously several state capitols near Washington that could theoretically provide temporary facilities for the U.S. Congress in a pinch, but modern information technology could also allow for another scenario: an electronic Congress. Here's how it could work: * A website could easily be built that would facilitate virtually all of the business normally conducted on the floors of the House and Senate, or in committees -- from debates, to mark-ups to votes. * The site could just as easily be built to be administered through the Internet, so physical proximity to the box where it's actually running would be irrelevant. In a national emergency, if the Capitol itself is in danger or is actually attacked, members could log on from wherever they are. * The means of authenticating a member of Congress would likely need to be several cuts above a simple password -- possibly involving bio-metrics, or human verification -- so the best system might require members spread around the country to go the nearest state capitol or city hall to use special kiosks there. * Once online, just as in the offline world, staff from the offices of the respective chambers' majority leaders would have administrative access to control the agenda, and other members could log on to enter arguments into the record and vote. * The site could be open to the public on a read-only basis, so citizens could watch their representatives much as they can now on C-SPAN. This scheme may not be as not as far-fetched as it might initially seem. Congress is already a generation behind much of the private sector in using information technologies to conduct business in the absence of physical meetings. Indeed, long before September 11, there were proposals circulating for electronic voting and web- enabled debates and committee meetings so that members could spend less time in Washington and more time in their states and districts. We admire the dedication of Congressional leaders in believing they should set an example for the country by returning to normal business as quickly as possible after the anthrax attack. But we can overcome terrorists by our brainpower and our technology as well as by our courage. At a minimum, Congress may want to consider technological means for conducting some of the nation's legislative business when members can't physically convene in Washington, as potentially a good thing in and of itself. At the same time, they could create a contingency plan for keeping Congress running, even if the Capitol is shut down.