- Email: [email protected]
Climbing the Electronic Capitol Hill
Climbing the Electronic Capitol Hill: Personal and Professional Reflections on Teaching about Congress Donald J. Senese The Information Revolution, particularly evidenced by the Internet, e-mail and online access to government documents, has significantly affected the way Congress conducts business. The author reflects on the changes that he has had to make during his seven years of teaching a course on Congressional Office Operations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Graduate School. Through personal experiences, interviews, and historical perspectives, he describes changes in information resources, constituent communications, and press operations on Capitol Hill and how these changes have affected course content. He also describes how the events of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax mail problem have forced consideration of an electronic Congress. Serials Review 2002; 28:287–294. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Nothing is ever simple, unchanging, or completely logical in Washington, D.C. The great expanse of the Internet, as with other groundbreaking developments in communications like the electric typewriter, the fax machine, and the computer, finds members of Congress and their offices at different stages of acceptance and implementation of new technologies. Aside from embracing technology or not, the more pressing question is how the growth of the Internet—and the move away from a paper society—will affect the operations of Congress and the relationship of the constituents to members of Congress. How have the Internet and other online resources and technological innovations already affected Capitol Hill? New tools mean new ways of communication; new methods of communicating raise questions about whether a digital divide will develop between those who have and those who do not have access to electronic communication. How serious will the gap become, or can we alter the gap to a positive force of digital inclusion? Further-
more, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax mail scare, have forced immediate consideration of an e-Congress which could conduct business and meet in places other than Washington, D.C. Since 1995 I have taught a course entitled Congressional Office Operations for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Graduate School in Washington, D.C.1 During these seven years the dramatic impact of information technology (notably the Internet) on studying and reshaping Congress has been unprecedented. Growth of the Internet alone has created a major shift in instructional methods and class assignments that parallel changes in the way Congress and Congressional offices operate. For example, I used to devote ten to fifteen minutes of a class period to the process of writing a member of Congress; now I need almost an entire period to discuss communication with Congress—what it means for the member of Congress, the staff person, the lobbyist, and the constituent. With some background on Congressional operations, communications, technological transformations, and the future of a digital society, the students gain a sense of how this particular group functions in a technology-driven world.
Senese worked on Capitol Hill from 1973 to 1981 and in the executive branch of government from 1981 to 1985 and 1989 to 1993. He is the author, co-author or editor of eight books and over fifty public policy articles. He has taught Congressional Office Operations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Graduate School annually since 1995 and has served two terms on its General Administration Board. Contact: 7938 Bayberry Drive, Alexandria, VA 22306-3215 or Doctor_don42@ yahoo.com.
Operation of Congressional Offices Some Congressional offices eagerly embrace the latest methods for office efficiency and better communications with media and constituents; others remain entrenched
0098-7913/02$–see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S0098-7913(02)00207-1
287
Donald J. Senese
Serials Review
newspapers establishing their own bureaus and hiring full-time reporters in Washington, D.C. In recent years, this media coverage has exploded with radio, then television, with C-SPAN and the Internet coverage of Congress and news events.
in traditional methods and believe that the new methods are just fads that will disappear eventually. The latter reminds one of those who distrusted those “horseless carriages,” believing they would fade away. The conclusion is obvious. From 1973 to 1981, I worked on Capitol Hill as a staff member for both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Then I held positions with the Departments of Education, Labor and the Interior from 1981 to 1985 and from 1989 to 1993. I have witnessed members of Congress installing computers, generously dipping into their office accounts to acquire new equipment, and hiring experts to see that these new machines performed at peak efficiency and maximum benefit. Other members of Congress, more conservative in expenditures and less likely to embrace modern “gadgetry,” remained loyal to the old typewriter or the MT/ST (magnetic tape/Selectric typewriter®, which produced a rapid number of letters with an accompanying loud noise, sounding like a machine-gun gone wild). The introduction of MagCards in 1969 brought a major advance in technology since magnetic cards could recall and reprint text, a great device for sending out form letters. We witnessed the beginning of word processing. Aside from the equipment changes over the years, which challenged members of Congress and their staffs to more efficient communication with an expanding number of constituents and more media sources, members also sought close connections with constituents by opening or expanding offices in their districts and by moving key personnel into these district offices. This expansion signaled a different approach to conducting business. For most of its history Congress has been a sleepy institution, even averse to meeting all year. In past decades, members of Congress had full-time jobs and came to Washington, D.C. for only a few months to legislate. A number of factors changed the modus operandi to that of full-time politicians. The problems of the Depression of the 1930s and the ascent of President Franklin D. Roosevelt brought an activist role for Congress. The Legislative Reorganization Acts of 1946 and 1970 gave Congress a professional staff and created and expanded the role of the present Congressional Research Service (CRS).2 The size of the nation has also effected changes in Congress. Despite the rapid growth of the nation during the past century, the House reached the number of 435 in 1910 and has remained there, except for the temporary increase to accommodate the admission of Hawaii and Alaska, when it climbed to 437.3 The country nearly tripled in population from 91,972,266 in 1910 to 281,421,906 by 2000, and the Congressional district became larger and larger.4 The Baker v. Carr decision in 1962 provided that these districts, though determined by state legislatures or independent commissions in some states, had to be about the same or equivalent size.5 The rapid growth in population, the more prominent role for Congress in legislating, and the growth of new media focused additional attention on legislating. In the early twentieth century, news bureaus were set up with reporters covering Washington, D.C. for five to ten or more newspapers; the more recent trend has individual
A Technocrat on Capitol Hill During the winter session of 1995, when I had first been assigned to teach Congressional Office Operations, a political revolution occurred which was to affect profoundly American politics and especially the operation of Congress. In 1994, the Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, the latter for the first time in forty years. This shift in power brought to the Speakership Representative Newt Gingrich of Georgia, a former college professor and a self-proclaimed professional revolutionary, who believed both in the powers of ideas and organization. Although Gingrich’s role as Speaker will be debated for years by politicians, political scientists, and historians, there is no question that Gingrich, a technocrat himself, led an information revolution in the U.S. House of Representatives. In the “pre-Gingrich” days, House operations meant checking on the status of legislation by calling a telephone number for “Bill Status” or checking with a particular committee—sources used by Hill staff and outside groups. Fax machines were becoming more common, but the telephone and U.S. postal service were the prevalent ways for constituents and members of Congress to communicate. Congressional offices phased in computers for answering mail. When I first started working on Capitol Hill in 1973, we maintained written cards on constituents who had written or called the office with their particular interests; staff eventually found desktop computers useful for data storage and retrieval, eliminating a walk to the card file for tedious searching. The Congressional Record served as the “Bible” for major information on Congress. The Government Printing Office produced that remarkable document overnight. Office staff grabbed this document early each morning to check developments, legislation introduced, extensions of remarks, and various miscellaneous information. The Record was supplemented by information issued by the respective Republican and Democratic policy committees, special ad hoc legislative groups (i.e., Democratic Study Group, the Republican Study Group), magazines such as Congressional Quarterly and the National Journal, and their special daily features abstracting pertinent information (i.e., “Congress Daily”). Common sources for securing testimony before a committee for a lobbying group or for a Congressional Office involved sending a staff member or intern to the hearing room to pick up copies of the testimony and bring them back to the office. Members sent staff to their committee hearings. Staff made telephone calls to the respective cloakrooms, Democratic or Republican, to check on House or Senate floor action; more likely, a staff member was dispatched to monitor floor action, especially on a bill in which a member had a strong interest. Research still required much detailed work and
288
Volume 28, Number 4, 2002
Personal and Professional Reflections on Teaching about Congress
persistence. If a Congressional staff member wanted a statement from another member of Congress, he or she had to pick it up from the other office or have it faxed, usually after a telephone call. The Clerk’s office distributed hard copies of bills regularly so everyone could study the text, examine co-sponsors, and send copies to constituents (or interested groups in a member’s particular district). One of the more important political tools for groups was compiling the voting record of members of Congress. This compilation required a tedious search through the Roll Call votes. Special legislative groups, or “special interests” groups, normally identified ten or more key issues and then scored a member of Congress “right” or “wrong” (usually a plus or minus) as to his or her perspectives. A member of Congress was either “probusiness” or “anti-business,” “pro-consumer” or “anticonsumer,” “pro-environment” or “anti-environment,” based on the final score. Needless to say, it took tremendous effort to compile this information, chiefly from the print copy of Congressional Record. Direct mail also played a great role in information transfer as thousands of letters or notices went out urging constituents to call or write a member of Congress to support or oppose a bill. The compiled “Voting Record” stood as an endorsement or indictment to show how a member of Congress stacked up for a particular interest group.
proceeds slowly) and electronic democracy (where fast action is often the objective).7
Gingrich soon achieved his objective of putting the Library of Congress online. Gingrich had his own Website (speakernews.house.gov), which allowed him to keep up with the news on Capitol Hill and for people to send him e-mail. His Website attracted about 250,000 hits per month. In addition, through the new thomas.loc.gov site, the Speaker provided online access to the Congressional Record, as well as to every bill introduced or voted on it Congress.8 This revolution in information access became known as the “Internet public.” At the beginning of the 104th Congress in January 1995, the Library of Congress unveiled the THOMAS Website. This system was built on the InQuery information retrieval system that had been developed by the Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval based at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Texts of bills became available first, followed by the text of the Congressional Record since 1989, the status of bills and summaries since 1973, the Congressional Record Index, and then the Constitution and other historical documents. The system received its name in honor of the third U.S. President, Thomas Jefferson. The system contains recent Congressional committee reports and legislative schedules and is constantly being updated. It also includes valuable links to other sites of interest for legislative research.9 The year 1995 also ushered in a transition to a multimedia information environment for members of Congress. Previous access to legislative information existed in a mainframe environment. The few electronic documents that were created were maintained on separate computer systems without benefit of integrated networks or distributed systems. Under the direction of the Committee on House Oversight of the U.S. House of Representatives, members developed a major multiphase plan designed to provide all the House offices with the necessary information infrastructure to utilize the advances in electronic and communication technologies. For example, by 1999, all House offices had access to high-speed transmission facilities and multimedia capabilities for their Washington, D.C. and district offices. A significant advance came when the House Oversight Committee, along with the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service, developed a single system to organize previously unconnected House and Senate systems. The next phase added information from the General Accounting Office and the Government Printing Office. The newly developed Legislative Information System provided extensive public access with the following features: (1) the THOMAS system, (2) a Website for the House which provided information about members of Congress and committees, and (3) broadcast and narrowcast with audio and visual capabilities.10
Technological Transformation of Congress The electronic revolution changed everything—methods of communication, ways of doing research, approaches to office operations, and interactions in Congress, to give a few examples. Of particular note was C-SPAN’s decision to telecast Congressional floor action, beginning in 1979 with the House of Representatives gavel-to-gavel coverage and with the Senate proceedings, via C-SPAN2 in 1986.6 C-SPAN also broadcast selected committee hearings. The increased popularity of radio talk shows evolved into a medium for many Americans to get their news and an interpretation of Congressional action. Speaker Newt Gingrich viewed technology as a means to break the elitism of Congress. He pledged to change the rules of the House to require that all documents including committee reports and conference reports would be filed electronically, as well as in print. He wanted to make the information available to the average citizen in the country at the same time it would be available to the high-paid Washington lobbyist. Congressional Research Service government specialist Walter J. Oleszek provides an excellent overall assessment of this transformation: The agenda of Congress has been transformed because of developments in technology, telecommunications, and other aspects of the information age. Issues of electronic commerce, Internet security, privacy, copyright, censorship, and much more increasingly operate the attention of lawmakers. Electronic advocacy had added a plebiscitary quality to Congressional policy making. Today, many citizens and interest groups make their preferences known almost instantly to lawmakers. An important issue for Congress is how to achieve an effective balance between representative government (where policy usually
Special Perspectives on the Changes in Congress Although a wealth of articles cover technological changes in society, not as many focus on Capitol Hill from
289
Donald J. Senese
Serials Review
ways of contacting Congress and increasing citizen involvement. She speaks from her own experience on Capitol Hill in witnessing the effect of e-mail on the lobbying process. When a national issue is controversial, Vance notices that an office will experience a flurry of phone calls, e-mails, letters, postcards, petitions, faxes, and meetings. She puts this new technology in perspective:
“insider” perspectives. The bonus of guest lecturers in my classes gives students special views on the information revolution on Capitol Hill. The comments and observations which follow reflect the experiences of a few Washington professionals. Larry Hart is president of his own consulting firm, Hartco Strategies, Inc., which works with members of and candidates for Congress. Hart also served two terms as a Congressional staff member from 1987–1991 and 1994–1999. Hart shares the following observations about “before” and “after” the information revolution:
It certainly sends a dramatic message when all the phone lines are busy for days at a time, people are swarming in the hallways, the House and Senate servers crash due to the onslaught of e-mails, or an office receives thousands of postcards or form letters. Many offices will tally these communications and consider the numbers when making a decision on a particular action, but only to a point. One thoughtful and well-argued message can have more of an impact than a thousand letters or calls.”15
The use of the Internet in the 1990s brought profound changes. It started as an important tool for research. When I left Capitol Hill (1991), agencies were beginning to put information on Websites. By the time I came back to Capitol Hill (1994), all agencies had Websites. It makes a big difference to a Congressional office. Rather than going to the Congressional Research Service for information or calling the individual agency, a Congressional staff person can go online and get whatever he or she needs. If you need a document, you can go directly to the agency Website and get it, not bother ordering it by phone, and relying on faxing or the mail. You have it instantly.11
The whole process of influencing outcomes in a technological environment has even earned its own terminology: cyberadvocacy. Explains Harrison: Cyberadvocacy perhaps offers a greater opportunity to engage more people in the political process—a link to getting information to voters allowing them to express their opinions to public officials and then motivating them to such action as voting. We now have a means by pressing a button to tell politicians what we the voters want and to engage them in a dialogue on our issues.”16
And, Hart succinctly points out, “a member of Congress is only a keyboard away from a constituent.”12 Stella Anne Harrison, another guest lecturer who was a manager for business development for Juno Online Services, Inc., and in July 2001 became president and chief executive officer of her own public relations firm, Stellar Strategies, explains how one company mobilized the technological resources of the Internet and e-mail for constituent communication. Juno Online Services, Inc., expanded from its initial offering of e-mail to Juno Advocacy Network, Inc. The company started with an initial subscriber base of about fourteen million and conducted surveys of its members using twenty-three questions. Juno would then offer individuals or companies access to the information through surveys of 25,000, 50,000 or 100,000, identifying from those questions individuals for certain categories or issue interests (e.g., senior citizens, pro-education issues, environmental concerns). These names were then made available to an advocacy organization. What was provided “to the interested organization is nothing less than an instant roster from which it can draw political activists.”13 The list became a ready-made lobbying tool. The interested organization would tailor its message and sent it to this list urging people to contact their members of Congress. The e-mail transfer allowed the individual member office to get an e-mail and the address of the individual and identify these people as constituents. A “cc” copy went to the sponsoring organization to track responses. Positive response from the surveyed names has ranged from 6.5 to 12.5 percent, an impressive return. Harrison observed that the e-mail campaign drastically changed contact with Congress: “This survey is accomplished through e-mail, rather than the more expensive, uncertain, and laborious task of direct mail.”14 Stephanie Vance is a former Congressional staff member who has formed her own consulting group, AdVanced Consulting, Inc. She advises organizations on using new
Groups once mailed postcards or letters to members to urge them to contact members of Congress. Now via the Internet a group sends out its message and the interested party needs do nothing more to register an opinion but sit in front of that same computer from which they got the message. Groups structure access so the individual can find his or her two Senators and Representative. The response process involves two simple choices: (1) a pre-written message so that the constituent only adds his or her name and pushes the button to send it to the elected representatives, or (2) the person may compose a personalized message and then submit it. This method illustrates the tremendous convenience and quickness which should increase e-mail responses and decrease the traditional letter or postcard communication.17
E-Mail and the Press E-mail and the Internet affect not only constituent contact but also how each Congressional office handles the press function. One U.S. Senate press secretary who has lectured to the class (but prefers not to be named) noted that the biggest change in his seven years of working on Capitol Hill has been the distribution function for press releases. News releases appear quickly, often on Websites, and e-mails expedite communication with the press. The press secretary believes that “posting our press releases almost as soon as they are issued on the Website is a means to encourage journalists and constituents to regularly access our Website.”18 He estimates that he spends as much time with e-mails as he does on the telephone talking to reporters. Journalists prefer getting press releases by e-mails so they can cut and paste rather than retype. Harrison agrees and states emphatically that
290
Volume 28, Number 4, 2002
Personal and Professional Reflections on Teaching about Congress
would the U.S. government function? Donald R. Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center International Center for Scholars, testified in a series of hearings on the convening of Congress in such an emergency. He stated the question to the members of the House Administration Committee in the following way: “Specifically, you are asking whether some form of e-Congress might be a viable alternative to our two-centuries-old tradition of assembling as a single body, in a single location, to deliberate and vote on the people’s business in the sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability.”23 Aside from the question of convening Congress, the situation of filling vacancies raises a different set of “what ifs” on Capitol Hill. The hearings on an e-Congress—how Congress could convene electronically and conduct business—present new and frightening questions. A constitutional amendment is one possibility for dealing with that type of crisis. U.S. Representative Jim Langevin (D-RI) introduced legislation, the Ensuring Congressional Security and Continuity Act (H.R. 3481), adding a sobering image of what might have happened in testifying before a Congressional committee: “September 11th and the subsequent anthrax attack on our Congressional offices exposed just how vulnerable we are, particularly because we are centrally located. In fact, had the Pennsylvania flight taken off on time and headed straight for the Capitol, we would have been casting our journal vote at the very same time.”24
“e-mail has become essential in communicating with Congress and the media. Instant news requires instant communication. I use e-mail for over ninety percent of my communication with the media.”19 Jim Burns, veteran news reporter for United Press International and now senior staff reporter at Cybernews. Com, has covered Capitol Hill for five years. He observes that members of Congress can gauge how strongly people believe in an issue not only by the number of e-mails but also by how soon these e-mails arrive. Another aspect of the communication revolution that Burns notices is that “e-mails have been responsible for getting members to act quickly. I can ask a member of Congress in an interview, ‘have you received many e-mails on this issue?’ and the alert member of Congress should know the answer immediately.”20
The Electronic Congress Possibility The events of September 11, 2001, followed by the threat of anthrax in the mail, have caused most Americans to reflect seriously on all aspects of government. Harrison predicted June 21, 2001 that despite the concern over mass e-mails (spam), e-mails would play a growing role in Congressional life.21 The contamination of mail via anthrax confirmed this trend, and Harrison’s words proved all too prophetic. Suddenly phone calls, faxes, and e-mails replaced regular mail as a means of communication with Congressional offices. Although the number of tainted letters was small—two letters to members of Congress and two letters to news organizations—the overall effect was overwhelming. Postal employees were provided with masks and gloves. Maintenance processes were changed to limit the potential spread of anthrax in the postal buildings. Brentwood, a major processing facility in Washington, D.C. was closed. Mail was then sent to facilities in Ohio and New Jersey for sanitizing. Sylvester Black, manager of the Capitol Metro U.S. Postal Operations, observed that these letters “left a trail of contamination through multiple facilities and numerous pieces of equipment.”22 Random checks with Congressional offices revealed that the sanitizing process delayed mail up to three months. Shortly after the anthrax letters appeared, Congressional offices were urging constituents, especially those with casework problems and appointments to the service academies, to use faxes, e-mails, or other forms of communications; however, a greater threat than anthrax exists for our governing members of Congress, a threat that will significantly alter my course content and discussions never before imagined—the convening of an e-Congress. The World Trade Center disaster, and the two other plane crashes, one crashing in Pennsylvania and the other into the Pentagon, brought unthinkable considerations: What if one of those latter two planes had crashed into the U.S. Capitol while Congress was in session? What if many members of Congress had been killed? And what if Washington, D.C., for any variety of reasons, became an unsafe city in which to meet? How
Digital Divide or Digital Inclusion The electronic revolution has had its impact on all government documents, and not just the Congressional Record. The Government Printing Office, for example, sent an announcement to the federal depository libraries on March 13, 1996, about the shift to an electronic depository. Information that had been sent to libraries in paper and microfiche formats would be distributed in an electronic format for local access at a library. Full-text files would include the Congressional Record, the Federal Register, Congressional bills, and the federal budget.25 Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has urged that all Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports be made available to the public, not just to members of Congress. With taxpayers funding this service, McCain and others contend that the general public should have access to these reports electronically, just as they do for general reports of the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office. Senior managers at the CRS worry that making such reports available to the general public limits how candid CRS staff can be when giving advice and may subject their objective analyses to political pressures.26 To evaluate the impact of public availability of CRS reports, CRS management has worked with two members of Congress, Representatives Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA), to post CRS Issue Briefs on the Websites of these two members. The short CRS Issue Briefs represent only a fraction of all CRS reports. Still uncertain is how well this experiment is working and whether the two sites always feature the latest
291
Donald J. Senese
Serials Review
version of these reports that are updated constantly as major bills work through the legislative process. Given the great amount of material available on the Internet, another concern to address is whether there is a “digital divide,” and, if so, how serious it is? Researcher Mark Sargent believes this concern relates to “the gulf in access to technology tools and related learning opportunities imposed by socioeconomic status.”27 The issue becomes more relevant each year as more Americans are using the Internet as an essential tool. Digital connection becomes a critical factor for social, economic, and educational advancement. Thus, an essential national goal, whether dealing with business or communication with Congress, is providing opportunities for all Americans to participate in a technology-driven society, sometimes referred to as “digital inclusion.” Recent history provides one example. For decades we had a telephone divide. Remember Marty, the Academy Award–winning film of the 1950s, set in a working class neighborhood in New York City? Nobody in the neighborhood had a private telephone line. Personal calls to girl friends were made at the local diner so conversations were not overheard on party lines, if the receiver was fortunate enough to have a telephone. Telephones, especially during the Spanish-American War, were considered a luxury and were taxed as such. Whenever there has been technological innovation, there has always been a technology-driven divide. We must focus on the rapidly advancing positive achievements toward digital inclusion. We need greater focus on opportunities and less emphasis on problems associated with the Internet and technology. In some European countries, citizens enjoy free computer access on terminals in government buildings that provide direct services to their citizens. We have not yet reached that stage in the United States, although virtually every public library in our country is wired to the Internet and provides free access to its patrons. Granted, not every library user knows how to use the Internet or e-mail (or even how to secure a free e-mail account offered by various service providers); nevertheless, libraries offer instruction and opportunities to effect a digital inclusion. Even for the economically disadvantaged, cable television provides high speed Internet access. In the fourth report of the Falling Through the Net28 series, the authors examine the extent of digital inclusion by looking at households and individuals that have Internet connections. The report includes important data on high-speed access to the Internet and computers owned by those with disabilities. While conceding a digital divide remains, the report concludes, nonetheless, that “Internet access and computer ownership are rising for almost all groups” and that the overall level of U.S. digital inclusion is rapidly increasing. For example, between December 1998 and August 2000, the share of households with Internet access jumped 58% (26.2% to 41.5%); more than half of the households have computers (42.1% to 51.0%). In raw numbers, 116.5 million Americans were online at some location in August 2000, a great advance from the 31.9 million merely twenty months earlier.29
Vance, who works closely with many organizations communicating with Congress, puts the issue in perceptive: There is a digital divide. However, making Internet resources available in the schools and libraries for those who do not have computers will help bridge the gap. In terms of the impact on communicating with a Member of Congress, the Member looks at all aspects—e-mail, letters via mail, faxes, meeting with constituents. In that sense, I do not see the digital divide being a barrier for individuals communicating with elected officials. However, it can serve as a barrier to coordinating extensive grassroots campaigns.30
A Never-Ending Climb The modifications I’ve made in my course on Congressional Office Operations parallel the willingness of those on Capitol Hill to embrace technology and to alter methods of communication. The information revolution represented by the Internet places a premium on rapid response between members of Congress and the public; it has created a more technology-savvy Congress with some members having Websites and other innovative ways of sharing information. This revolution means that government documents, hearings, legislation, and information are becoming available at the mere touch of a button. Members of Congress and the public are acutely cognizant now of other possibilities that could seriously impede the traditional way Congress has functioned and the need to deal with the issue before another crisis develops. Leaders will study a virtual setting as an alternative to “business as usual” within a defined space. E-mail and the Internet will continue to be essential for normal business and possible future crises. Teaching the Congressional Operations course allows me to discover and evaluate changes on Capitol Hill over the last decade and to weigh issues implicit in information access for the public good. Information specialists can readily appreciate online Congressional resources without travelling. Undoubtedly, the next time this class convenes we will face a whole series of new issues about the present operation and future challenges to Congress.
Notes 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Graduate School was established in 1923 and provides adult education. The institution offers careerrelated courses to all adults regardless of education or place of employment. The more than 1,200 instructors are attracted from government, business, and academia with the purpose of allowing individuals to advance in their career, improve job performance, and enrich their lives. See Website: http://grad.usda.gov/programs_services. The Graduate School has been utilizing the new technology for its course offerings. Dr. Stefan Gunther, USDA Graduate School program manager, describes the changing focus as follows: “The Graduate School offers a panoply of distance learning (DL) options to satisfy the demand of different customer groups and learning styles. The options comprise traditional correspondence-style learning (both self-paced and instructor supported); CD-ROM based courses; Web-delivered courses; and hybrid courses that incorporate Web-based components into a classroomdelivered course (via platforms like Blackboard). Thus, the Graduate School is well-positioned to serve the increasing DL needs of the federal government, as well as of individual students.” The Graduate
292
Volume 28, Number 4, 2002
Personal and Professional Reflections on Teaching about Congress
School at large has about 170,000 registration annually. Dr. Stefan Gunther, telephone interview by author, 15 July 2002.
Communication,” Vital Speeches of the Day 67, no. 20 (August 1, 2001): 625.
2. Walter J. Oleszek. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process, 5th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2001), 275–7, 288.
14. Ibid. 15. Stephanie D. Vance. Government by the People: How to Communicate with Congress (Washington, DC: AdVanced Consulting, 1999), 38. She also adds: “As long as your message is thoughtful and personal, it doesn’t matter whether you wrote a letter or send an e-mail or a fax.” Ibid., 63.
3. George B. Galloway. History of the House of Representatives, 2nd ed. Revised by Sidney Wise (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1976), 22–3. 4. The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2002 (New York: World Almanac Books, 2002), 378.
16. Harrison, 626. She points out two books that focus on changes in the political field: Daniel Bennett, Pam Fielding, and John D. Rockefeller. The Net Effect: How Cyberadvocacy is Changing the Political Landscape (Merryfield, VA: e-advocates Press, 1999); and Dick Morris, Vote.com (Los Angeles, CA: Renaissance Books, 1999).
5. Kermit L. Hall, ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 56–9. 6. “C-SPAN Milestones,” compiled by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, http://www.ncta.com (July 2002). See issues of coverage highlighted in “C-SPAN Might Lose Gavel-to-Gavel Tag,” Roll Call (October 19, 2000): 1, 26.
17. See the step-by-step procedure for lobbying on the Website for the Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE), which promises “our easy-to-use form below that prepares a letter for you.” See also Larry Purpuro, Special Section, “The Rainmakers: How to Launch a Successful E-mail Campaign,” The Hill (May 6, 2002) www.thehill. com (May 2002). One description of the laborious process of keeping track of letters, pre-e-mail, can be found in Donald deKieffer, The Citizen’s Guide to Lobbying Congress (Chicago, IL: Chicago Review Press, 1997), 30–1, and Chapter 6.
7. Oleszek, 302–3. 8. Chris Barnett, “All Plugged In,” Modern Maturity (November– December 1998) www.aarp.org (November 2002). See also Gingrich’s view on future developments in technology and the effect on society, “The Dawn of the e-Revolution,” Hoover Digest no. 1 (2001). See Scott J. Schoenberg, “The New Newt,” Business to Business Magazine.
18. Anonymous press secretary of a United States Senator telephone interview by author, 24 June 2002. David R. Yale with Andrew J. Carothers in The Publicity Handbook (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001) notes that the Internet offers publicists, as well as press secretaries, new tools to expand their publicity efforts. They state that “on-line tools can help publicists target new audiences through specialized Web pages, E-zines, and on-line discussion groups. It’s easier to reach specialized print publications and radio shows that might have gone untapped in the past with E-mail pitches and invitations to your website’s pressroom” (p. 177). They comment that a press person can achieve greater clarity and impact through sending digital photos and audio and video clips via e-mail—a real change from past procedures. They advise that “instead of an expensive press conference, you can reach more journalists with webcasting, in which you present your announcement, answer questions, and display visual materials—all on the web” (Handbook, p. 177). Seeing the Internet as one of the greatest innovations of all time, they note there is “a new breed of Internetonly media” (p. 178). An interesting take on the changes can be found in Craig Cox, “Launch Your Own Media Empire: The Do-It-Yourself Communications Revolution,” Utne Reader (July–August 2002): 14–5.
9. Access http://THOMAS.loc.gov for explanation and resources of this legislative site. See especially the section about THOMAS under “Frequently Asked Questions,” http://thomas.loc.gov/home/faqlist.html (July 2002). 10. Ibid. In addition, the American Memory project of the National Digital Library Program of the Library of Congress has included more than five million items relating to American history including the papers of Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln and documents related to major legislative struggles (i.e., the Civil Rights Movement). See also William Matthews, “Yea or Nay?” p. 1 and “Wiring Congress,” p. 4 Federal Computer Week (February 19, 2001), or Website edition: http://www.fcw.com/fcw;articles/ 2001 (July 2002). Dr. Paul Rundquist, a lecturer for my class and a specialist in American National Government with the Government and Finance Division of the Congressional Research Service, has effectively summarized these changes as relating to the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. He observes: “For CRS, the rise of the Internet has substantially changed the way we do our job. Most of the research files we used in daily work were paper. Now our files are electronic. An analyst now who is not skilled electronically cannot do his or her job.” Dr. Paul Rundquist, telephone interview by author, 16 July 2002. Some private groups, such as National Journal.com, and GalleryWatch.com, produce updated service on key bills before Congress. Groups such as Rightclick.com advertise building and growing e-mail databases. However, now hearings testimony is posted on Websites of committees and hearings can be viewed live, eliminating the necessity of sending a staff member to attend a hearing. Maria Miller, Coalitions Director for Education Policy for the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, directs the Internet user to the committee’s Website, http:// edworkforce.house.gov (July 2002) to access its Webcasting service and view a hearing live. On a limited basis the Committee also has previous Webcasts. Jeffrey W. Seifert and R. Eric Peterson, “House of Representatives Information Technology Management Issues: An Overview of the Effects on Institutional Operation, the Legislative Process, and Future Planning,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, U.S. Government Printing Office, updated July 25, 2002), 3, 9, 12. This report provides an excellent overview of and key management decisions involved in bringing information technology to the U.S. House of Representatives, and linking the Senate and other government agencies, 1995–2002.
19. Stella Anne Harrison, President and CEO, Stellar Strategies, telephone interview by author, 21 June 2002. Harrison’s career illustrates the growing job opportunities as the new information revolution takes hold: “My own career parallels some of these dynamic changes in the way we secure information. I started out with a consulting firm providing information through media sources. I then worked as a television producer, working on news and public interest programs. And presently, I work with a firm that markets an e-mail service for information and for advocacy . . .” Harrison, Vital Speeches, op. cit., 624. The new technology has greatly contributed to the trend of working for oneself. Daniel H. Pink, explores this change in The Free Agent Nation: The Future of Working for Yourself (New York: Warner Books, 2001). 20. Jim Burns, senior correspondent, CyberNews Service, telephone interview by author, July 2002. 21. Harrison, 625. 22. Sylvester Black, Manager, Capitol Metro Operations, United States Postal Service, testimony before the Committee on House Administration, U.S. House of Representatives, 8 May 2002. See also testimony on the mail delivery process by James M. Eagen, III, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of Representatives, House Administration Committee, “Oversight Hearings on Congressional Mail Delivery,” http://www.house.gov/cha 8 May 2002. One proposal to remedy the earlier problem has been offered by the Chairman of the House Administration Committee, Representative Robert Ney, i.e., hiring private firms to scan all incoming House mail into digitized computer files. Sarita Chourey. “Ney Sees House Digital Mail Plan as ‘Foolproof,’”
11. Larry Hart, President, Hartco Strategies, Inc., interview by author, 2 July 2002. 12. Ibid. 13. Stella Anne Harrison. “The Internet, Cyberadvocacy, and Citizen
293
Donald J. Senese
Serials Review
sponse to a Terror Attack,” The Hill (July 17, 2002): 1, 24. For another perspective, see also Seifert and Peterson, “Electronic Congress: Proposals and Issues,” (Updated 2 July 2002), and Sula P. Richardson, “House Vacancies: Selected Proposals for Filling Them after a Catastrophic Loss of Members,” (Updated June 18, 2002), CRS Reports for Congress.
Roll Call (October 25, 2001): 3. In reference to Harrison’s comments earlier, see Amy Keller, “Anthrax Fears Boost Importance of E-mail on Hill,” Roll Call (October 25, 2001): 3. Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) noted that up until the anthrax discovery, his office staff had not guaranteed a response to e-mail because of the sheer volume they receive; however, he noted that for the immediate future his constituents were more likely to get a response to e-mail than the letters they send through regular mail, see Keller, Roll Call, op. cit., 3.
25. “Government Printing Office Announces Transition to Electronic Deposit Program,” Comment 6, no. 4 (April, 1996). The GPO outlined the plan in a report entitled The Electronic Federal Depository Library Program Transition Plan FY1996–FY1998, http:// www.gwu.ed/ ~connect/gpo5.html (July 2002).
23. Donald R. Wolfensberger. “E-Congress: Prospects, Problems and Alternatives,” testimony before the House Administration Committee, 1 May 2002. Another witness also discussed the issues involved the same day, Norman J. Ornstein, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, testimony before the Committee on House Administration, “E-Congress? Hearing for Conducting Congressional Operations in Emergency Situations” http://www.house.gov/cha (1 May 2002). Ornstein noted: “Thus, while I support Congress taking immediate, interim steps through enactment of laws and changes in rules to minimize the threat to governance we now face with contemporary terrorism, I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that a constitutional amendment is also appropriate and necessary. Congress needs to create a mechanism for temporary appointments to ensure its continued functioning in the event of a catastrophic act.”
26. Dr. Paul Rundquist, telephone interview by author, 16 July 2002. 27. Mark Sargent. The George Lucas Educational Foundation, “Community Technology Centers: A National Movement to Close the Digital Divide,” 15 July 2002, http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/ content/stories/indx (July 2002). Sargent serves as the Web content manager for the George Lucas Educational Foundation (GLEF), which documents and disseminates modes of innovative practices in American schools, kindergarten through twelfth grade. 28. “Executive Summary,” Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000, pp. xv–xviii. http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf (November 2002).
24. U.S. Representative Jim Langevin. “E-Congress? Hearing for Conducting Congressional Operations in Emergency Situations,” 1 May 2002, testimony before the House Administration Committee testimony is available through accessing the Committee’s website: http://www.house.gov/cha/business (November 2002). Mark Preston. “Senate Plans Disaster Drill: Convening Outside D.C. Considered,” Roll Call (May 16, 2002): 1, 32. See Kerry Kantin, “House Weighs Re-
29. Ibid. 30. Stephanie Vance, telephone interview by author, 26 July 2002.
294
Nothing is ever simple, unchanging, or completely logical in Washington, D.C. The great expanse of the Internet, as with other groundbreaking developments in communications like the electric typewriter, the fax machine, and the computer, finds members of Congress and their offices at different stages of acceptance and implementation of new technologies. Aside from embracing technology or not, the more pressing question is how the growth of the Internet—and the move away from a paper society—will affect the operations of Congress and the relationship of the constituents to members of Congress. How have the Internet and other online resources and technological innovations already affected Capitol Hill? New tools mean new ways of communication; new methods of communicating raise questions about whether a digital divide will develop between those who have and those who do not have access to electronic communication. How serious will the gap become, or can we alter the gap to a positive force of digital inclusion? Further-
more, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax mail scare, have forced immediate consideration of an e-Congress which could conduct business and meet in places other than Washington, D.C. Since 1995 I have taught a course entitled Congressional Office Operations for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Graduate School in Washington, D.C.1 During these seven years the dramatic impact of information technology (notably the Internet) on studying and reshaping Congress has been unprecedented. Growth of the Internet alone has created a major shift in instructional methods and class assignments that parallel changes in the way Congress and Congressional offices operate. For example, I used to devote ten to fifteen minutes of a class period to the process of writing a member of Congress; now I need almost an entire period to discuss communication with Congress—what it means for the member of Congress, the staff person, the lobbyist, and the constituent. With some background on Congressional operations, communications, technological transformations, and the future of a digital society, the students gain a sense of how this particular group functions in a technology-driven world.
Senese worked on Capitol Hill from 1973 to 1981 and in the executive branch of government from 1981 to 1985 and 1989 to 1993. He is the author, co-author or editor of eight books and over fifty public policy articles. He has taught Congressional Office Operations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Graduate School annually since 1995 and has served two terms on its General Administration Board. Contact: 7938 Bayberry Drive, Alexandria, VA 22306-3215 or Doctor_don42@ yahoo.com.
Operation of Congressional Offices Some Congressional offices eagerly embrace the latest methods for office efficiency and better communications with media and constituents; others remain entrenched
0098-7913/02$–see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S0098-7913(02)00207-1
287
Donald J. Senese
Serials Review
newspapers establishing their own bureaus and hiring full-time reporters in Washington, D.C. In recent years, this media coverage has exploded with radio, then television, with C-SPAN and the Internet coverage of Congress and news events.
in traditional methods and believe that the new methods are just fads that will disappear eventually. The latter reminds one of those who distrusted those “horseless carriages,” believing they would fade away. The conclusion is obvious. From 1973 to 1981, I worked on Capitol Hill as a staff member for both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Then I held positions with the Departments of Education, Labor and the Interior from 1981 to 1985 and from 1989 to 1993. I have witnessed members of Congress installing computers, generously dipping into their office accounts to acquire new equipment, and hiring experts to see that these new machines performed at peak efficiency and maximum benefit. Other members of Congress, more conservative in expenditures and less likely to embrace modern “gadgetry,” remained loyal to the old typewriter or the MT/ST (magnetic tape/Selectric typewriter®, which produced a rapid number of letters with an accompanying loud noise, sounding like a machine-gun gone wild). The introduction of MagCards in 1969 brought a major advance in technology since magnetic cards could recall and reprint text, a great device for sending out form letters. We witnessed the beginning of word processing. Aside from the equipment changes over the years, which challenged members of Congress and their staffs to more efficient communication with an expanding number of constituents and more media sources, members also sought close connections with constituents by opening or expanding offices in their districts and by moving key personnel into these district offices. This expansion signaled a different approach to conducting business. For most of its history Congress has been a sleepy institution, even averse to meeting all year. In past decades, members of Congress had full-time jobs and came to Washington, D.C. for only a few months to legislate. A number of factors changed the modus operandi to that of full-time politicians. The problems of the Depression of the 1930s and the ascent of President Franklin D. Roosevelt brought an activist role for Congress. The Legislative Reorganization Acts of 1946 and 1970 gave Congress a professional staff and created and expanded the role of the present Congressional Research Service (CRS).2 The size of the nation has also effected changes in Congress. Despite the rapid growth of the nation during the past century, the House reached the number of 435 in 1910 and has remained there, except for the temporary increase to accommodate the admission of Hawaii and Alaska, when it climbed to 437.3 The country nearly tripled in population from 91,972,266 in 1910 to 281,421,906 by 2000, and the Congressional district became larger and larger.4 The Baker v. Carr decision in 1962 provided that these districts, though determined by state legislatures or independent commissions in some states, had to be about the same or equivalent size.5 The rapid growth in population, the more prominent role for Congress in legislating, and the growth of new media focused additional attention on legislating. In the early twentieth century, news bureaus were set up with reporters covering Washington, D.C. for five to ten or more newspapers; the more recent trend has individual
A Technocrat on Capitol Hill During the winter session of 1995, when I had first been assigned to teach Congressional Office Operations, a political revolution occurred which was to affect profoundly American politics and especially the operation of Congress. In 1994, the Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, the latter for the first time in forty years. This shift in power brought to the Speakership Representative Newt Gingrich of Georgia, a former college professor and a self-proclaimed professional revolutionary, who believed both in the powers of ideas and organization. Although Gingrich’s role as Speaker will be debated for years by politicians, political scientists, and historians, there is no question that Gingrich, a technocrat himself, led an information revolution in the U.S. House of Representatives. In the “pre-Gingrich” days, House operations meant checking on the status of legislation by calling a telephone number for “Bill Status” or checking with a particular committee—sources used by Hill staff and outside groups. Fax machines were becoming more common, but the telephone and U.S. postal service were the prevalent ways for constituents and members of Congress to communicate. Congressional offices phased in computers for answering mail. When I first started working on Capitol Hill in 1973, we maintained written cards on constituents who had written or called the office with their particular interests; staff eventually found desktop computers useful for data storage and retrieval, eliminating a walk to the card file for tedious searching. The Congressional Record served as the “Bible” for major information on Congress. The Government Printing Office produced that remarkable document overnight. Office staff grabbed this document early each morning to check developments, legislation introduced, extensions of remarks, and various miscellaneous information. The Record was supplemented by information issued by the respective Republican and Democratic policy committees, special ad hoc legislative groups (i.e., Democratic Study Group, the Republican Study Group), magazines such as Congressional Quarterly and the National Journal, and their special daily features abstracting pertinent information (i.e., “Congress Daily”). Common sources for securing testimony before a committee for a lobbying group or for a Congressional Office involved sending a staff member or intern to the hearing room to pick up copies of the testimony and bring them back to the office. Members sent staff to their committee hearings. Staff made telephone calls to the respective cloakrooms, Democratic or Republican, to check on House or Senate floor action; more likely, a staff member was dispatched to monitor floor action, especially on a bill in which a member had a strong interest. Research still required much detailed work and
288
Volume 28, Number 4, 2002
Personal and Professional Reflections on Teaching about Congress
persistence. If a Congressional staff member wanted a statement from another member of Congress, he or she had to pick it up from the other office or have it faxed, usually after a telephone call. The Clerk’s office distributed hard copies of bills regularly so everyone could study the text, examine co-sponsors, and send copies to constituents (or interested groups in a member’s particular district). One of the more important political tools for groups was compiling the voting record of members of Congress. This compilation required a tedious search through the Roll Call votes. Special legislative groups, or “special interests” groups, normally identified ten or more key issues and then scored a member of Congress “right” or “wrong” (usually a plus or minus) as to his or her perspectives. A member of Congress was either “probusiness” or “anti-business,” “pro-consumer” or “anticonsumer,” “pro-environment” or “anti-environment,” based on the final score. Needless to say, it took tremendous effort to compile this information, chiefly from the print copy of Congressional Record. Direct mail also played a great role in information transfer as thousands of letters or notices went out urging constituents to call or write a member of Congress to support or oppose a bill. The compiled “Voting Record” stood as an endorsement or indictment to show how a member of Congress stacked up for a particular interest group.
proceeds slowly) and electronic democracy (where fast action is often the objective).7
Gingrich soon achieved his objective of putting the Library of Congress online. Gingrich had his own Website (speakernews.house.gov), which allowed him to keep up with the news on Capitol Hill and for people to send him e-mail. His Website attracted about 250,000 hits per month. In addition, through the new thomas.loc.gov site, the Speaker provided online access to the Congressional Record, as well as to every bill introduced or voted on it Congress.8 This revolution in information access became known as the “Internet public.” At the beginning of the 104th Congress in January 1995, the Library of Congress unveiled the THOMAS Website. This system was built on the InQuery information retrieval system that had been developed by the Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval based at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Texts of bills became available first, followed by the text of the Congressional Record since 1989, the status of bills and summaries since 1973, the Congressional Record Index, and then the Constitution and other historical documents. The system received its name in honor of the third U.S. President, Thomas Jefferson. The system contains recent Congressional committee reports and legislative schedules and is constantly being updated. It also includes valuable links to other sites of interest for legislative research.9 The year 1995 also ushered in a transition to a multimedia information environment for members of Congress. Previous access to legislative information existed in a mainframe environment. The few electronic documents that were created were maintained on separate computer systems without benefit of integrated networks or distributed systems. Under the direction of the Committee on House Oversight of the U.S. House of Representatives, members developed a major multiphase plan designed to provide all the House offices with the necessary information infrastructure to utilize the advances in electronic and communication technologies. For example, by 1999, all House offices had access to high-speed transmission facilities and multimedia capabilities for their Washington, D.C. and district offices. A significant advance came when the House Oversight Committee, along with the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service, developed a single system to organize previously unconnected House and Senate systems. The next phase added information from the General Accounting Office and the Government Printing Office. The newly developed Legislative Information System provided extensive public access with the following features: (1) the THOMAS system, (2) a Website for the House which provided information about members of Congress and committees, and (3) broadcast and narrowcast with audio and visual capabilities.10
Technological Transformation of Congress The electronic revolution changed everything—methods of communication, ways of doing research, approaches to office operations, and interactions in Congress, to give a few examples. Of particular note was C-SPAN’s decision to telecast Congressional floor action, beginning in 1979 with the House of Representatives gavel-to-gavel coverage and with the Senate proceedings, via C-SPAN2 in 1986.6 C-SPAN also broadcast selected committee hearings. The increased popularity of radio talk shows evolved into a medium for many Americans to get their news and an interpretation of Congressional action. Speaker Newt Gingrich viewed technology as a means to break the elitism of Congress. He pledged to change the rules of the House to require that all documents including committee reports and conference reports would be filed electronically, as well as in print. He wanted to make the information available to the average citizen in the country at the same time it would be available to the high-paid Washington lobbyist. Congressional Research Service government specialist Walter J. Oleszek provides an excellent overall assessment of this transformation: The agenda of Congress has been transformed because of developments in technology, telecommunications, and other aspects of the information age. Issues of electronic commerce, Internet security, privacy, copyright, censorship, and much more increasingly operate the attention of lawmakers. Electronic advocacy had added a plebiscitary quality to Congressional policy making. Today, many citizens and interest groups make their preferences known almost instantly to lawmakers. An important issue for Congress is how to achieve an effective balance between representative government (where policy usually
Special Perspectives on the Changes in Congress Although a wealth of articles cover technological changes in society, not as many focus on Capitol Hill from
289
Donald J. Senese
Serials Review
ways of contacting Congress and increasing citizen involvement. She speaks from her own experience on Capitol Hill in witnessing the effect of e-mail on the lobbying process. When a national issue is controversial, Vance notices that an office will experience a flurry of phone calls, e-mails, letters, postcards, petitions, faxes, and meetings. She puts this new technology in perspective:
“insider” perspectives. The bonus of guest lecturers in my classes gives students special views on the information revolution on Capitol Hill. The comments and observations which follow reflect the experiences of a few Washington professionals. Larry Hart is president of his own consulting firm, Hartco Strategies, Inc., which works with members of and candidates for Congress. Hart also served two terms as a Congressional staff member from 1987–1991 and 1994–1999. Hart shares the following observations about “before” and “after” the information revolution:
It certainly sends a dramatic message when all the phone lines are busy for days at a time, people are swarming in the hallways, the House and Senate servers crash due to the onslaught of e-mails, or an office receives thousands of postcards or form letters. Many offices will tally these communications and consider the numbers when making a decision on a particular action, but only to a point. One thoughtful and well-argued message can have more of an impact than a thousand letters or calls.”15
The use of the Internet in the 1990s brought profound changes. It started as an important tool for research. When I left Capitol Hill (1991), agencies were beginning to put information on Websites. By the time I came back to Capitol Hill (1994), all agencies had Websites. It makes a big difference to a Congressional office. Rather than going to the Congressional Research Service for information or calling the individual agency, a Congressional staff person can go online and get whatever he or she needs. If you need a document, you can go directly to the agency Website and get it, not bother ordering it by phone, and relying on faxing or the mail. You have it instantly.11
The whole process of influencing outcomes in a technological environment has even earned its own terminology: cyberadvocacy. Explains Harrison: Cyberadvocacy perhaps offers a greater opportunity to engage more people in the political process—a link to getting information to voters allowing them to express their opinions to public officials and then motivating them to such action as voting. We now have a means by pressing a button to tell politicians what we the voters want and to engage them in a dialogue on our issues.”16
And, Hart succinctly points out, “a member of Congress is only a keyboard away from a constituent.”12 Stella Anne Harrison, another guest lecturer who was a manager for business development for Juno Online Services, Inc., and in July 2001 became president and chief executive officer of her own public relations firm, Stellar Strategies, explains how one company mobilized the technological resources of the Internet and e-mail for constituent communication. Juno Online Services, Inc., expanded from its initial offering of e-mail to Juno Advocacy Network, Inc. The company started with an initial subscriber base of about fourteen million and conducted surveys of its members using twenty-three questions. Juno would then offer individuals or companies access to the information through surveys of 25,000, 50,000 or 100,000, identifying from those questions individuals for certain categories or issue interests (e.g., senior citizens, pro-education issues, environmental concerns). These names were then made available to an advocacy organization. What was provided “to the interested organization is nothing less than an instant roster from which it can draw political activists.”13 The list became a ready-made lobbying tool. The interested organization would tailor its message and sent it to this list urging people to contact their members of Congress. The e-mail transfer allowed the individual member office to get an e-mail and the address of the individual and identify these people as constituents. A “cc” copy went to the sponsoring organization to track responses. Positive response from the surveyed names has ranged from 6.5 to 12.5 percent, an impressive return. Harrison observed that the e-mail campaign drastically changed contact with Congress: “This survey is accomplished through e-mail, rather than the more expensive, uncertain, and laborious task of direct mail.”14 Stephanie Vance is a former Congressional staff member who has formed her own consulting group, AdVanced Consulting, Inc. She advises organizations on using new
Groups once mailed postcards or letters to members to urge them to contact members of Congress. Now via the Internet a group sends out its message and the interested party needs do nothing more to register an opinion but sit in front of that same computer from which they got the message. Groups structure access so the individual can find his or her two Senators and Representative. The response process involves two simple choices: (1) a pre-written message so that the constituent only adds his or her name and pushes the button to send it to the elected representatives, or (2) the person may compose a personalized message and then submit it. This method illustrates the tremendous convenience and quickness which should increase e-mail responses and decrease the traditional letter or postcard communication.17
E-Mail and the Press E-mail and the Internet affect not only constituent contact but also how each Congressional office handles the press function. One U.S. Senate press secretary who has lectured to the class (but prefers not to be named) noted that the biggest change in his seven years of working on Capitol Hill has been the distribution function for press releases. News releases appear quickly, often on Websites, and e-mails expedite communication with the press. The press secretary believes that “posting our press releases almost as soon as they are issued on the Website is a means to encourage journalists and constituents to regularly access our Website.”18 He estimates that he spends as much time with e-mails as he does on the telephone talking to reporters. Journalists prefer getting press releases by e-mails so they can cut and paste rather than retype. Harrison agrees and states emphatically that
290
Volume 28, Number 4, 2002
Personal and Professional Reflections on Teaching about Congress
would the U.S. government function? Donald R. Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center International Center for Scholars, testified in a series of hearings on the convening of Congress in such an emergency. He stated the question to the members of the House Administration Committee in the following way: “Specifically, you are asking whether some form of e-Congress might be a viable alternative to our two-centuries-old tradition of assembling as a single body, in a single location, to deliberate and vote on the people’s business in the sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability.”23 Aside from the question of convening Congress, the situation of filling vacancies raises a different set of “what ifs” on Capitol Hill. The hearings on an e-Congress—how Congress could convene electronically and conduct business—present new and frightening questions. A constitutional amendment is one possibility for dealing with that type of crisis. U.S. Representative Jim Langevin (D-RI) introduced legislation, the Ensuring Congressional Security and Continuity Act (H.R. 3481), adding a sobering image of what might have happened in testifying before a Congressional committee: “September 11th and the subsequent anthrax attack on our Congressional offices exposed just how vulnerable we are, particularly because we are centrally located. In fact, had the Pennsylvania flight taken off on time and headed straight for the Capitol, we would have been casting our journal vote at the very same time.”24
“e-mail has become essential in communicating with Congress and the media. Instant news requires instant communication. I use e-mail for over ninety percent of my communication with the media.”19 Jim Burns, veteran news reporter for United Press International and now senior staff reporter at Cybernews. Com, has covered Capitol Hill for five years. He observes that members of Congress can gauge how strongly people believe in an issue not only by the number of e-mails but also by how soon these e-mails arrive. Another aspect of the communication revolution that Burns notices is that “e-mails have been responsible for getting members to act quickly. I can ask a member of Congress in an interview, ‘have you received many e-mails on this issue?’ and the alert member of Congress should know the answer immediately.”20
The Electronic Congress Possibility The events of September 11, 2001, followed by the threat of anthrax in the mail, have caused most Americans to reflect seriously on all aspects of government. Harrison predicted June 21, 2001 that despite the concern over mass e-mails (spam), e-mails would play a growing role in Congressional life.21 The contamination of mail via anthrax confirmed this trend, and Harrison’s words proved all too prophetic. Suddenly phone calls, faxes, and e-mails replaced regular mail as a means of communication with Congressional offices. Although the number of tainted letters was small—two letters to members of Congress and two letters to news organizations—the overall effect was overwhelming. Postal employees were provided with masks and gloves. Maintenance processes were changed to limit the potential spread of anthrax in the postal buildings. Brentwood, a major processing facility in Washington, D.C. was closed. Mail was then sent to facilities in Ohio and New Jersey for sanitizing. Sylvester Black, manager of the Capitol Metro U.S. Postal Operations, observed that these letters “left a trail of contamination through multiple facilities and numerous pieces of equipment.”22 Random checks with Congressional offices revealed that the sanitizing process delayed mail up to three months. Shortly after the anthrax letters appeared, Congressional offices were urging constituents, especially those with casework problems and appointments to the service academies, to use faxes, e-mails, or other forms of communications; however, a greater threat than anthrax exists for our governing members of Congress, a threat that will significantly alter my course content and discussions never before imagined—the convening of an e-Congress. The World Trade Center disaster, and the two other plane crashes, one crashing in Pennsylvania and the other into the Pentagon, brought unthinkable considerations: What if one of those latter two planes had crashed into the U.S. Capitol while Congress was in session? What if many members of Congress had been killed? And what if Washington, D.C., for any variety of reasons, became an unsafe city in which to meet? How
Digital Divide or Digital Inclusion The electronic revolution has had its impact on all government documents, and not just the Congressional Record. The Government Printing Office, for example, sent an announcement to the federal depository libraries on March 13, 1996, about the shift to an electronic depository. Information that had been sent to libraries in paper and microfiche formats would be distributed in an electronic format for local access at a library. Full-text files would include the Congressional Record, the Federal Register, Congressional bills, and the federal budget.25 Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has urged that all Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports be made available to the public, not just to members of Congress. With taxpayers funding this service, McCain and others contend that the general public should have access to these reports electronically, just as they do for general reports of the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office. Senior managers at the CRS worry that making such reports available to the general public limits how candid CRS staff can be when giving advice and may subject their objective analyses to political pressures.26 To evaluate the impact of public availability of CRS reports, CRS management has worked with two members of Congress, Representatives Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA), to post CRS Issue Briefs on the Websites of these two members. The short CRS Issue Briefs represent only a fraction of all CRS reports. Still uncertain is how well this experiment is working and whether the two sites always feature the latest
291
Donald J. Senese
Serials Review
version of these reports that are updated constantly as major bills work through the legislative process. Given the great amount of material available on the Internet, another concern to address is whether there is a “digital divide,” and, if so, how serious it is? Researcher Mark Sargent believes this concern relates to “the gulf in access to technology tools and related learning opportunities imposed by socioeconomic status.”27 The issue becomes more relevant each year as more Americans are using the Internet as an essential tool. Digital connection becomes a critical factor for social, economic, and educational advancement. Thus, an essential national goal, whether dealing with business or communication with Congress, is providing opportunities for all Americans to participate in a technology-driven society, sometimes referred to as “digital inclusion.” Recent history provides one example. For decades we had a telephone divide. Remember Marty, the Academy Award–winning film of the 1950s, set in a working class neighborhood in New York City? Nobody in the neighborhood had a private telephone line. Personal calls to girl friends were made at the local diner so conversations were not overheard on party lines, if the receiver was fortunate enough to have a telephone. Telephones, especially during the Spanish-American War, were considered a luxury and were taxed as such. Whenever there has been technological innovation, there has always been a technology-driven divide. We must focus on the rapidly advancing positive achievements toward digital inclusion. We need greater focus on opportunities and less emphasis on problems associated with the Internet and technology. In some European countries, citizens enjoy free computer access on terminals in government buildings that provide direct services to their citizens. We have not yet reached that stage in the United States, although virtually every public library in our country is wired to the Internet and provides free access to its patrons. Granted, not every library user knows how to use the Internet or e-mail (or even how to secure a free e-mail account offered by various service providers); nevertheless, libraries offer instruction and opportunities to effect a digital inclusion. Even for the economically disadvantaged, cable television provides high speed Internet access. In the fourth report of the Falling Through the Net28 series, the authors examine the extent of digital inclusion by looking at households and individuals that have Internet connections. The report includes important data on high-speed access to the Internet and computers owned by those with disabilities. While conceding a digital divide remains, the report concludes, nonetheless, that “Internet access and computer ownership are rising for almost all groups” and that the overall level of U.S. digital inclusion is rapidly increasing. For example, between December 1998 and August 2000, the share of households with Internet access jumped 58% (26.2% to 41.5%); more than half of the households have computers (42.1% to 51.0%). In raw numbers, 116.5 million Americans were online at some location in August 2000, a great advance from the 31.9 million merely twenty months earlier.29
Vance, who works closely with many organizations communicating with Congress, puts the issue in perceptive: There is a digital divide. However, making Internet resources available in the schools and libraries for those who do not have computers will help bridge the gap. In terms of the impact on communicating with a Member of Congress, the Member looks at all aspects—e-mail, letters via mail, faxes, meeting with constituents. In that sense, I do not see the digital divide being a barrier for individuals communicating with elected officials. However, it can serve as a barrier to coordinating extensive grassroots campaigns.30
A Never-Ending Climb The modifications I’ve made in my course on Congressional Office Operations parallel the willingness of those on Capitol Hill to embrace technology and to alter methods of communication. The information revolution represented by the Internet places a premium on rapid response between members of Congress and the public; it has created a more technology-savvy Congress with some members having Websites and other innovative ways of sharing information. This revolution means that government documents, hearings, legislation, and information are becoming available at the mere touch of a button. Members of Congress and the public are acutely cognizant now of other possibilities that could seriously impede the traditional way Congress has functioned and the need to deal with the issue before another crisis develops. Leaders will study a virtual setting as an alternative to “business as usual” within a defined space. E-mail and the Internet will continue to be essential for normal business and possible future crises. Teaching the Congressional Operations course allows me to discover and evaluate changes on Capitol Hill over the last decade and to weigh issues implicit in information access for the public good. Information specialists can readily appreciate online Congressional resources without travelling. Undoubtedly, the next time this class convenes we will face a whole series of new issues about the present operation and future challenges to Congress.
Notes 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Graduate School was established in 1923 and provides adult education. The institution offers careerrelated courses to all adults regardless of education or place of employment. The more than 1,200 instructors are attracted from government, business, and academia with the purpose of allowing individuals to advance in their career, improve job performance, and enrich their lives. See Website: http://grad.usda.gov/programs_services. The Graduate School has been utilizing the new technology for its course offerings. Dr. Stefan Gunther, USDA Graduate School program manager, describes the changing focus as follows: “The Graduate School offers a panoply of distance learning (DL) options to satisfy the demand of different customer groups and learning styles. The options comprise traditional correspondence-style learning (both self-paced and instructor supported); CD-ROM based courses; Web-delivered courses; and hybrid courses that incorporate Web-based components into a classroomdelivered course (via platforms like Blackboard). Thus, the Graduate School is well-positioned to serve the increasing DL needs of the federal government, as well as of individual students.” The Graduate
292
Volume 28, Number 4, 2002
Personal and Professional Reflections on Teaching about Congress
School at large has about 170,000 registration annually. Dr. Stefan Gunther, telephone interview by author, 15 July 2002.
Communication,” Vital Speeches of the Day 67, no. 20 (August 1, 2001): 625.
2. Walter J. Oleszek. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process, 5th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2001), 275–7, 288.
14. Ibid. 15. Stephanie D. Vance. Government by the People: How to Communicate with Congress (Washington, DC: AdVanced Consulting, 1999), 38. She also adds: “As long as your message is thoughtful and personal, it doesn’t matter whether you wrote a letter or send an e-mail or a fax.” Ibid., 63.
3. George B. Galloway. History of the House of Representatives, 2nd ed. Revised by Sidney Wise (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1976), 22–3. 4. The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2002 (New York: World Almanac Books, 2002), 378.
16. Harrison, 626. She points out two books that focus on changes in the political field: Daniel Bennett, Pam Fielding, and John D. Rockefeller. The Net Effect: How Cyberadvocacy is Changing the Political Landscape (Merryfield, VA: e-advocates Press, 1999); and Dick Morris, Vote.com (Los Angeles, CA: Renaissance Books, 1999).
5. Kermit L. Hall, ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 56–9. 6. “C-SPAN Milestones,” compiled by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, http://www.ncta.com (July 2002). See issues of coverage highlighted in “C-SPAN Might Lose Gavel-to-Gavel Tag,” Roll Call (October 19, 2000): 1, 26.
17. See the step-by-step procedure for lobbying on the Website for the Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE), which promises “our easy-to-use form below that prepares a letter for you.” See also Larry Purpuro, Special Section, “The Rainmakers: How to Launch a Successful E-mail Campaign,” The Hill (May 6, 2002) www.thehill. com (May 2002). One description of the laborious process of keeping track of letters, pre-e-mail, can be found in Donald deKieffer, The Citizen’s Guide to Lobbying Congress (Chicago, IL: Chicago Review Press, 1997), 30–1, and Chapter 6.
7. Oleszek, 302–3. 8. Chris Barnett, “All Plugged In,” Modern Maturity (November– December 1998) www.aarp.org (November 2002). See also Gingrich’s view on future developments in technology and the effect on society, “The Dawn of the e-Revolution,” Hoover Digest no. 1 (2001). See Scott J. Schoenberg, “The New Newt,” Business to Business Magazine.
18. Anonymous press secretary of a United States Senator telephone interview by author, 24 June 2002. David R. Yale with Andrew J. Carothers in The Publicity Handbook (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001) notes that the Internet offers publicists, as well as press secretaries, new tools to expand their publicity efforts. They state that “on-line tools can help publicists target new audiences through specialized Web pages, E-zines, and on-line discussion groups. It’s easier to reach specialized print publications and radio shows that might have gone untapped in the past with E-mail pitches and invitations to your website’s pressroom” (p. 177). They comment that a press person can achieve greater clarity and impact through sending digital photos and audio and video clips via e-mail—a real change from past procedures. They advise that “instead of an expensive press conference, you can reach more journalists with webcasting, in which you present your announcement, answer questions, and display visual materials—all on the web” (Handbook, p. 177). Seeing the Internet as one of the greatest innovations of all time, they note there is “a new breed of Internetonly media” (p. 178). An interesting take on the changes can be found in Craig Cox, “Launch Your Own Media Empire: The Do-It-Yourself Communications Revolution,” Utne Reader (July–August 2002): 14–5.
9. Access http://THOMAS.loc.gov for explanation and resources of this legislative site. See especially the section about THOMAS under “Frequently Asked Questions,” http://thomas.loc.gov/home/faqlist.html (July 2002). 10. Ibid. In addition, the American Memory project of the National Digital Library Program of the Library of Congress has included more than five million items relating to American history including the papers of Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln and documents related to major legislative struggles (i.e., the Civil Rights Movement). See also William Matthews, “Yea or Nay?” p. 1 and “Wiring Congress,” p. 4 Federal Computer Week (February 19, 2001), or Website edition: http://www.fcw.com/fcw;articles/ 2001 (July 2002). Dr. Paul Rundquist, a lecturer for my class and a specialist in American National Government with the Government and Finance Division of the Congressional Research Service, has effectively summarized these changes as relating to the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. He observes: “For CRS, the rise of the Internet has substantially changed the way we do our job. Most of the research files we used in daily work were paper. Now our files are electronic. An analyst now who is not skilled electronically cannot do his or her job.” Dr. Paul Rundquist, telephone interview by author, 16 July 2002. Some private groups, such as National Journal.com, and GalleryWatch.com, produce updated service on key bills before Congress. Groups such as Rightclick.com advertise building and growing e-mail databases. However, now hearings testimony is posted on Websites of committees and hearings can be viewed live, eliminating the necessity of sending a staff member to attend a hearing. Maria Miller, Coalitions Director for Education Policy for the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, directs the Internet user to the committee’s Website, http:// edworkforce.house.gov (July 2002) to access its Webcasting service and view a hearing live. On a limited basis the Committee also has previous Webcasts. Jeffrey W. Seifert and R. Eric Peterson, “House of Representatives Information Technology Management Issues: An Overview of the Effects on Institutional Operation, the Legislative Process, and Future Planning,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, U.S. Government Printing Office, updated July 25, 2002), 3, 9, 12. This report provides an excellent overview of and key management decisions involved in bringing information technology to the U.S. House of Representatives, and linking the Senate and other government agencies, 1995–2002.
19. Stella Anne Harrison, President and CEO, Stellar Strategies, telephone interview by author, 21 June 2002. Harrison’s career illustrates the growing job opportunities as the new information revolution takes hold: “My own career parallels some of these dynamic changes in the way we secure information. I started out with a consulting firm providing information through media sources. I then worked as a television producer, working on news and public interest programs. And presently, I work with a firm that markets an e-mail service for information and for advocacy . . .” Harrison, Vital Speeches, op. cit., 624. The new technology has greatly contributed to the trend of working for oneself. Daniel H. Pink, explores this change in The Free Agent Nation: The Future of Working for Yourself (New York: Warner Books, 2001). 20. Jim Burns, senior correspondent, CyberNews Service, telephone interview by author, July 2002. 21. Harrison, 625. 22. Sylvester Black, Manager, Capitol Metro Operations, United States Postal Service, testimony before the Committee on House Administration, U.S. House of Representatives, 8 May 2002. See also testimony on the mail delivery process by James M. Eagen, III, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of Representatives, House Administration Committee, “Oversight Hearings on Congressional Mail Delivery,” http://www.house.gov/cha 8 May 2002. One proposal to remedy the earlier problem has been offered by the Chairman of the House Administration Committee, Representative Robert Ney, i.e., hiring private firms to scan all incoming House mail into digitized computer files. Sarita Chourey. “Ney Sees House Digital Mail Plan as ‘Foolproof,’”
11. Larry Hart, President, Hartco Strategies, Inc., interview by author, 2 July 2002. 12. Ibid. 13. Stella Anne Harrison. “The Internet, Cyberadvocacy, and Citizen
293
Donald J. Senese
Serials Review
sponse to a Terror Attack,” The Hill (July 17, 2002): 1, 24. For another perspective, see also Seifert and Peterson, “Electronic Congress: Proposals and Issues,” (Updated 2 July 2002), and Sula P. Richardson, “House Vacancies: Selected Proposals for Filling Them after a Catastrophic Loss of Members,” (Updated June 18, 2002), CRS Reports for Congress.
Roll Call (October 25, 2001): 3. In reference to Harrison’s comments earlier, see Amy Keller, “Anthrax Fears Boost Importance of E-mail on Hill,” Roll Call (October 25, 2001): 3. Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) noted that up until the anthrax discovery, his office staff had not guaranteed a response to e-mail because of the sheer volume they receive; however, he noted that for the immediate future his constituents were more likely to get a response to e-mail than the letters they send through regular mail, see Keller, Roll Call, op. cit., 3.
25. “Government Printing Office Announces Transition to Electronic Deposit Program,” Comment 6, no. 4 (April, 1996). The GPO outlined the plan in a report entitled The Electronic Federal Depository Library Program Transition Plan FY1996–FY1998, http:// www.gwu.ed/ ~connect/gpo5.html (July 2002).
23. Donald R. Wolfensberger. “E-Congress: Prospects, Problems and Alternatives,” testimony before the House Administration Committee, 1 May 2002. Another witness also discussed the issues involved the same day, Norman J. Ornstein, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, testimony before the Committee on House Administration, “E-Congress? Hearing for Conducting Congressional Operations in Emergency Situations” http://www.house.gov/cha (1 May 2002). Ornstein noted: “Thus, while I support Congress taking immediate, interim steps through enactment of laws and changes in rules to minimize the threat to governance we now face with contemporary terrorism, I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that a constitutional amendment is also appropriate and necessary. Congress needs to create a mechanism for temporary appointments to ensure its continued functioning in the event of a catastrophic act.”
26. Dr. Paul Rundquist, telephone interview by author, 16 July 2002. 27. Mark Sargent. The George Lucas Educational Foundation, “Community Technology Centers: A National Movement to Close the Digital Divide,” 15 July 2002, http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/ content/stories/indx (July 2002). Sargent serves as the Web content manager for the George Lucas Educational Foundation (GLEF), which documents and disseminates modes of innovative practices in American schools, kindergarten through twelfth grade. 28. “Executive Summary,” Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000, pp. xv–xviii. http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf (November 2002).
24. U.S. Representative Jim Langevin. “E-Congress? Hearing for Conducting Congressional Operations in Emergency Situations,” 1 May 2002, testimony before the House Administration Committee testimony is available through accessing the Committee’s website: http://www.house.gov/cha/business (November 2002). Mark Preston. “Senate Plans Disaster Drill: Convening Outside D.C. Considered,” Roll Call (May 16, 2002): 1, 32. See Kerry Kantin, “House Weighs Re-
29. Ibid. 30. Stephanie Vance, telephone interview by author, 26 July 2002.
294