Mr. Beilenson. This is a little daunting, Mr. Chairman. This is not the reason I am leaving, but if I had known about this, I perhaps would have left a little earlier.

I commend our chairman, Mr. Dreier, for holding this hearing on the use of advanced technology in Congress, a new topic for the Rules Committee, I believe. And I join with him in welcoming our distinguished witnesses, who have so graciously agreed to be here with us this morning. We look forward to learning more about the communications technologies that currently exist, as well as those that are anticipated in the not-too-distant future. Some of these devices appear to offer excellent prospects for helping us run our offices more efficiently and effectively and for improving operations here in the Congress generally.

At the same time, the rapid advances in the kinds of technology that are now or will soon be available to Congress pose tremendous new challenges and questions for us. We need to be sure that we have the best possible process for determining which types of equipment are best suited for our legislative offices, are the most cost-effective and are the least likely to become quickly outmoded. We need to be wary of the excitement generated by some of the new technologies and not let that entice us to invest huge amounts of taxpayers' money on equipment we don't really need or, worse, on equipment that is actually detrimental to our work.

The danger of some of these new technologies is that they could increase pressures to make changes in the legislative process that we may well come to regret. It is easy to imagine, for example, that if a secure system for remote voting is within reach technologically, our leaders will face enormous demands from members to be permitted to vote from their districts, something that would change the very nature of Congress very much, I believe, for the worse. Or if it is technically possible to participate in two meetings at once_one in person, the other by checking in periodically by video_there would be two obvious pitfalls. One is that the member would be trying to concentrate on two different subjects, giving neither one the full attention it needs. The other is that we will be facing increasing demands to be several places at one time, so to speak, making our often frantic lives even more so. Thus, installing videoconferencing equipment in the Capitol complex in a well-meaning attempt to make it possible for Members to participate in more meetings could, in fact, encourage behavior that is damaging to the deliberative process.

And, finally, I personally worry about losing the essence of communication and the real understanding that results from that through the increased use of advanced technologies.

We have one witness who will be testifying today from Minnesota, which is great in some ways. We will get the benefit of his expertise without incurring the cost of a flight to Washington, but I imagine it will be harder to engage in the give and take of questioning with him than it will be with the witnesses who are here with us in person. And I imagine it will be more difficult for our colleague and friend, Mr. McInnis, to be fully engaged in the hearing if he is participating by video than if he were here in person.

If holding hearings by videoconference becomes a common practice, my sense is that the lack of face-to-face and personal contact is likely to make hearings even less substantive and less deliberative than many, unfortunately, already are. I do hope that through the course of this hearing our witnesses will give us their best advice on how we can help ensure that these technologies operate for the benefit rather than to the detriment of the men and women who serve in Congress, of the legislative process and, most importantly, of course, of the people that we are elected to represent.

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.