Why does Congress still meet in DC?

I mean, until something like 15 years ago, communications weren't so good as they are now, so it made sense for legislative bodies to convene in one place. Now, however, we have the Internet and it's much less costly for each Congressman to stay in his home district, except during emergency or ceremonious sessions (e.g. the opening of a new Congress). Besides, it gives the people more input concerning their representatives' votes and actions, so it can't be that bad an idea.

Any thoughts?

A representative residing in his own district, instead of out of touch in Washington MUST listen to his constituents.

Not to mention that the DeLay type of strong arm tactics are completely eliminated except via phone and email.

This is an EXCELLENT idea!!!

How could our representatives complain about:

1. Not having to maintain 2 homes?
2. Being separated from their families or moving children to new schools, etc. on election?
3. The travel budget they must control and spend?
4. Staff not being asked to uproot their lives?
5. Terrorist attacks not being able to take out our entire system of government?

......I could go on and on....

On the cost saving to the country.........

Get the figures from the GAO on how much it costs to run congress.....

And let Congress know we figured a way to fund Head Start among other things......

Congresscritters do much more than convene among themselves. They have federal agencies to visit, ambassadors to entertain, lobbyists to talk with....and all those folks are in Washington (because that's where Congress is). Congressfolks pretty much rely on their district offices as clearinghouses for constituent casework.

making it MORE expensive for lobbyists to meet with EACH candidate is a bad thing????

And making it EASIER for the constituents they represent to speak with and meet with their representatives is a bad thing?

And having an ambassador actually visit their state instead of DC is a bad thing?

As for visiting federal agencies, we voters have to rely on internet visits, why not the politicians?????

Those are all LAME excuses.

Answers to redeyes questions, thank you very much.

making it MORE expensive for lobbyists to meet with EACH candidate is a bad thing????

Actually, you'd probably make it cheaper for the lobbyist, since most lobbying meetings occur over lunch or dinner...and you can't do lunch over the Internet.

And making it EASIER for the constituents they represent to speak with and meet with their representatives is a bad thing?

Not a bad thing at all...I agree with you on this.

And having an ambassador actually visit their state instead of DC is a bad thing?

Well, all of the embassies are in DC......

As for visiting federal agencies, we voters have to rely on internet visits, why not the politicians?????

Frankly, a visit a voter makes to agency and a visit a legislator makes to an agency are going to be VASTLY different in nature. This I can assure you of.

Representatives would be more responsive to their constituents.
There would be no justification for inflated congressional salaries (since they would no longer "need to maintain two residences")
I can not ever see this happening, though. The lobbyists need all of their errand boys in one central location.

I do not recall when they made it a year round thing but Congress did not meet like this all the time and it has been in my life time, I am sure. I do think I recall the prez could call them back.

I want my senators and reps to be right here in this community, and have to walk by the unemployment lines and the soup kitchen lines and have to worry about their security when 100s of jailed felons are set free because there is no money to jail them!

I think the lobbyist-sponsored party in Washington should be shut down! No more spring break party fun for our sell-outs congress critters.

They could EASILY work right in their constitutents' backyards via high tech communications devices.

I think we should start a movement to bring our guys/gals HOME where they have to live with their decisions......and face us. I NEVER get any feedback from my dem senator, Ron Wyden. He holds these town hall meetings at the beginning of every session. NEVER comes to Portland! There wouldn't be a DEM in the state or federal levels if it weren't for Portland.......

It's frustratiing.

It would keep the Congressmen better in touch with the people who elected them and better able to respond to local issues. Also, the ability to vote remotely would decrease vote absenteeism. No more need for that whole "vote offset" thing. It's not like we decide these things by secret ballot. It would make a difference when serving on committees, of course, but there's no reason those discussions couldn't be held remotely as well.

Also, I'm just cynical enough to believe that many Congressmen actually prefer to be detached from their constituants. Lobbyists and campaign contributors are able to reach them just fine in Washington, even if the people who voted for them aren't. And, of course, Washington is where the political parties are centered, and party loyalty seems to be far more important than anything else to many Congressmen right now.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Has never telecommuted.

Telecommuting is great -- once in a while. But you can't get major meetings done, major deals done in a reliable way because people LIKE face to face contact.

Now, I think * might like this because it would be like cutting the balls off of Congress. Imagine a company where the Board of Directors only meets electronically. Then ask yourself, who would REALLY be in charge? That board or the CEO?

D.C., for all of its faults, makes sense because Congressmen and women have all of what they need to do except constituent work all in one place.

WASHINGTON, DC—Calling the current U.S. Capitol "inadequate and obsolete," Congress will relocate to Charlotte or Memphis if its demands for a new, state-of-the-art facility are not met, leaders announced Monday.


"Don't get us wrong: We love the drafty old building," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said. "But the hard reality is, it's no longer suitable for a world-class legislative branch. The sight lines are bad, there aren't enough concession stands or bathrooms, and the parking is miserable. It hurts to say, but the capitol's time has come and gone."

"If we want to stay competitive, we need to upgrade," said House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO), who has proposed a new $3.5 billion capitol on the site of the current edifice. "Look at British Parliament. Look at the Vatican. Respected institutions in their markets. But without modern facilities, they've been having big problems attracting top talent."





Above: An architectural firm's proposal for a new retractable-dome capitol. Inset: Hastert addresses reporters.

more at
http://www.theonion.com/onion3820/congress_threatens.html