Should Congress Meet Outside of Washington DC?

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to always meet in Washington, D.C. If both the Senate and House were to agree, Congress could temporarily meet in Milwaukee, or Atlanta or St. Louis or anywhere else in the U.S. 

Why would Congress leave its nest in D.C.?

Because according to the October Gallup poll, only 13% approve of the job Congress is doing, while 84% disapprove.

Because these numbers reflect lack of trust,  disillusionment with democracy, willingness to consider undemocratic alternatives.

And because erosion of stability in the world’s most powerful nation is exceedingly dangerous at a time of international instability.

---

---

A Powerful Statement With Significant Benefits

Would a cameo appearance outside of Washington right the ship? Hardly. But it would be a dramatic announcement that Congress understands the depth of the problem.

Temporarily moving its decision-making power away from the entrenched army of special interest lobbyists permanently encamped in D.C and closer to those immediately affected by its actions would be a powerful statement with significant practical benefits.

People who otherwise would never have an opportunity to attend a live session of the House or Senate would pack the meeting venues. Not just for the full sessions, but for the committee hearings as well. 

Host area schools would use the unique opportunity to focus on civics courses with field trips, research and essay assignments. Local students could be selected as temporary pages. Hundreds of members of Congress would be locally available to speak in schools and elsewhere, focusing attention on issues of immediate interest, both local and national. 

Congress meeting outside of Washington would be a major media event, a fresh look at what to most Americans is a remote and unworkable institution.

And it would be a fresh perspective for members of Congress as well. Google “fresh perspective” and you will find links to many major business schools and consulting organizations touting the benefits. 

 
Why US Cities Would Want to Host Congressional Sessions

Would U.S. cities welcome the opportunity to host Congress for a week, two weeks, a month? Are you kidding? Just about every city and state has a convention bureau competing to attract the annual District Rotary Club convention, or the national American Library Association show. Landing the U.S. Congress would be on a par with the Super Bowl for its media and revenue possibilities. 

Could a city like Milwaukee handle the influx of 10,000 or so members, staff, lobbyists and media who would fill its restaurants and hotels? Does it have an arena where 435 House members could meet, with space for a public gallery and media facilities? Absolutely. Next July, Milwaukee will host the Republican National Convention, drawing 20,000+ to the area for a week or more of national exposure.

Congressional Sessions Outside Washington Would be a Bargain

What about expense? My back of the envelope figure for transporting and housing up to 5,000 members, staff, arranging for communications and other costs totals about $2 to $2.5 million a day. That would be $30 to $40 million for a two-week session, less whatever contribution the host city would provide.

Chicago, for example, established a $30 million line of credit to lure next year’s Democratic National Convention. Even if there were no local contribution from the host city or state, weigh the benefits for democracy against the legislative branch’s current $6 billion budget. It would be a bargain.

How Would Remote Congressional Sessions Affect Performance?

Could Congress function, distant from its home base in Washington? Compared with what? The way it’s functioning now? 

Look no further than how Covid has transformed the workplace to include nearly everyone’s home, car and remote location. With current technology, communications at a distance presents little obstacle to performance. 

Most people would consider the notion of a mobile Congress pure fantasy and disconnected from real-world problems. The proper response to current dysfunction should be for the Republican majority in the House to conduct itself more responsibly, quit threatening to shut down the government, work collaboratively with the 49% of the members who aren’t Republicans, and seek consensus on the raft of issues at the top of most Americans’ to-do list.

What Are the Chances?

Hoping for all that to happen is the actual fantasy. 

Meanwhile, staging a show—like sending Congress on the road—might fit right into our entertainment-obsessed political environment. Even the bad actors should benefit from it.

Comments? Criticism? Contact Joe Rothstein at jrothstein@rothstein.net