CQ WEEKLY – CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS
May 4, 2002
Page 1143

Lawmakers Weigh Creation Of 'Electronic Congress' For Emergency Legislating

By Amol Sharma, CQ Staff

When Congress was forced to evacuate the Capitol complex during last year’s anthrax scare, it was technology — cell phones, e-mail, and BlackBerry pagers — that kept legislative business from grinding to a complete halt. Lawmakers and key aides had learned from the chaos of Sept. 11 and were better prepared for another evacuation. They were able to communicate, hold news conferences, and even draft legislation.

But if Congress had needed to hold an urgent vote in the hours or days immediately following either of those evacuations — to declare war or appropriate emergency funds — it would not have been possible. So lawmakers are now considering building an advanced telecommunications system, equipped with electronic voting and videoconferencing capabilities, that would allow all legislative activities to continue in the event of another emergency that warranted evacuation of the Capitol.

The House Administration Committee began hearing testimony the week of April 29 on the merits of building such a system. But the effort is not without its skeptics, who worry that lawmakers would overuse the system for everyday votes and meetings, tarnishing the process of legislative debate and compromise envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

“This institution has a history extending over 200 years of face-to-face deliberations,” said Administration Committee Chairman Bob Ney, R-Ohio. “That should be preserved.”

But others say such concerns may be exaggerated. Sarah Binder, an expert on Congressional reform at the Brookings Institution, said face-to-face deliberations in Congress already are rare, particularly in the House. More technology would simply advance that trend. “We should not kid ourselves,” she said. “It may not be as big a loss as we think.”

All parties agree that use of the system should be restricted to emergency situations, though it is unclear how such an emergency would be declared. One option is to create statutory guidelines that outline when an “electronic Congress” could convene. Another is to leave the decision to the discretion of House and Senate leaders.

Stephen Frantzich, a U.S. Naval Academy professor who studies the impact of technology on political institutions, said the system might never be used if it can serve as an effective deterrent to attack. “Maybe it would give the terrorists pause if they knew they couldn’t bring the U.S. Congress to its knees,” he said in his testimony.

Ultimately, the real hurdles to building a virtual Congress may be technological. Ensuring that members accessing the system and voting are who they say they are is a complex problem that could involve fingerprint and biometric verification, experts say. And to be useful in emergencies, the system would be required to have its own dedicated infrastructure for transmitting data, so lawmakers would not have to compete with the general public for Internet bandwidth.

Another problem is replicating the logistics of the parliamentary process with videoconferencing. How could control over debate be vested in a particular individual? And how would debate be regulated?

Convening an e-Congress is not the only way lawmakers could continue their work during an emergency. Opponents of the plan say arranging for Congress to meet physically at a location away from the Capitol, or even outside Washington, would be preferable. Donald R. Wolfensberger, who runs the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, called the e-Congress proposal unconstitutional, since it would not require Congress to assemble physically.

Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., has introduced legislation (HR 3481) calling for a study of the project’s technological feasibility. The Administration Committee plans to hold at least two more hearings on the issue before considering any specific measures.