Thursday, June 26, 1997

House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Rules & Organization of the House
Committee on Rules
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:32 a.m. in Room H-313, The Capitol, Hon. David Dreier [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Dreier, Solomon and Hall.

Mr. Dreier. The subcommittee will come to order.

It is nice to see such an extraordinarily structured and organized setup here. Usually Members of Congress just straggle in and hang around and no one's names are before us. It is a very unique and impressive sight.

The purpose of this morning's hearing is to examine the effects of new information technologies on decision-making in the House of Representatives, and I want to express our appreciation to the very distinguished panel of witnesses for their willingness to share their brilliance and expertise on this issue with us.

During the 104th Congress, this subcommittee established The 21st Century Congress Project to begin an examination of the operations and procedures of the House to determine how technology can make the institution more open, accountable and effective.

A little over a year ago, the subcommittee held its first hearing on this subject which was entitled Legislating in the 21st Century Congress. With the help of C-SPAN, we were able to showcase some of the practical applications of the new information technologies that will be coming on line over the next few years, including video conferencing, e-mail and the Internet.

If we learned anything from that hearing, it was that the House of Representatives was not ready to enter the new Information Age. The resources dedicated to new technologies and the familiarity of Members and staff in their practical use were, to say the least, very limited. More noteworthy, there was expressed an overwhelming concern about the potential for technology to undermine the deliberative nature of the institution.

So much has changed, however, since we held that hearing. The infrastructure of the House network has been substantially upgraded. Member offices, committees and other internal organizations have been replacing outdated computer hardware and software with advanced desktop computers and fully integrated office systems software capable of handling information in text, audio and video formats.

A comprehensive security program is being developed for the House to ensure the integrity and authenticity of electronic information. Support and training of congressional staff has drastically improved, and the institution's presence on the Internet has been dramatically expanded, providing the public with access to House documents and e-mail to their Representatives.

By the end of the 104th Congress, 164 House Members were participating in the House of Representatives constituent e-mail system and 275 members and 18 standing committees currently have World Wide Web sites on the Internet. This is in stark contrast to the situation at the beginning of the 104th Congress, when only 51 House Members had e-mail addresses and there were no committee Web sites.

That Congress will be fully integrated with the rest of the Nation technologically within a few short years is not in question. What is less certain is how technology will transform the culture, operations and responsibilities of Congress and what it will mean for our Federal system of representative government.

Hopefully, our panel of witnesses will be able to shed some light on these issues; and, in particular, we asked them to provide input on three questions:

First, how will the Internet and other information technologies affect the way Members of Congress communicate with constituents and how will these new forms of communication impact decision-making in committees and on the House floor?

Second, what can we do to promote better understanding between those who work in the legislative process and those who are involved in the information-user community? As we learned from our hearing last year, one of the causes of serious misunderstanding between the two is that the information industry innovates with great speed while Congress, by design, is a slow-moving, deliberative institution.

Third, what are the advantages and disadvantages of providing immediate on-line access to various forms of congressional documents and information, particularly in light of the new House rule requiring electronic availability of committee publications?

The prepared statements of our witnesses can be obtained on our subcommittee site, and the transcript of this hearing will also be made available in just a few weeks.

I want to say that I am very pleased to be having this hearing in large part because I am celebrating -- I think it is maybe my 6-week anniversary of being a surfer on the World Wide Web. When we held that last hearing, I was very, very hard pressed to be able to understand much of what was going on in the computer area. Now I am pleased that I have been able to, thanks to my computer whiz in my office, access my Web site, and I found several other things on the Internet. So I feel proud that I am rapidly moving into it and am anxiously looking forward to the statements from the witnesses.

Now I will go through the introductions of all of the panelists, and then we can proceed with your testimony.

Our first witness is Shabbir Safdar. He is the co-creator of the democracy.net, a joint project of the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Voters Telecommunications Watch. The mission of democracy.net is to explore ways of enhancing citizen participation in the democratic process via the Internet.

Our second witness is Dr. Edward Tenner. He is a Princeton University scholar and author of the book, "Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences," and he recently served as a research fellow with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Our third witness is Kenneth Weinstein. He is the Director of the Government Reform Project for the Heritage Foundation, a position previously held by my very good friend and fellow Claremont alumnus, David Mason. Ken co-wrote a widely read report on the Hill last year calling for immediate electronic access to all legislative information, including draft legislation and so-called chairman's marks.

Last but not least is Dr. Kimberly Jenkins, Executive Director of Highway 1, a nonprofit corporation that supports the use of innovative technologies in the legislative process.

Without objection, your entire statements will appear in the record; and you are welcome to summarize.

But, before you begin, since we have just been joined by the distinguished Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee, my good friend Mr. Hall, I would like to see if Tony would like to at least extend a welcome to all of our witnesses, which I suspect he might. Any other comments that you would like to make?

Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing on technology.

I think that everybody would agree that technology has had a tremendous effect on the country and on this House and it is often unpredictable. Some people would say that the invention of the air conditioner is not a good thing for this House. It has kept us in session during the summer months. But other people would say that the technology of inventing the airplane, which came from my district -- people used to say, if God wanted people to fly, he would give them wings -- has changed the world so completely. I have a statement for the record I would like to have in, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dreier. Without objection.

Mr. Hall. I look forward to your testimony and learning and appreciate Mr. Dreier having this important committee hearing.

Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much for being here, Tony.

[The statement of Mr. Hall follows:] ******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

Mr. Dreier. We are joined by our distinguished Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Solomon, who is not quite as computer literate as I am, I have to admit. He is sort of proud of that. I will say that, in recognizing him, that I was able to get a first step. He and I played pinball that his grandson set up just last week, so he is moving into the 21st century very rapidly.

Mr. Solomon. David, thanks to my grandson I am not totally computer illiterate anymore.

I commend you, David, for holding the hearing. I want to commend our witnesses as well.

I have to go down and report to a conference in just a couple of minutes that is going on right now to explain what we are going to be doing when we come back after the break next week. But, again, we really appreciate you coming and taking the time so that we can get your understanding. It will be very helpful to us. And, David, again I commend you for holding this hearing.

Mr. Dreier. While you will be explaining what we will be doing when we come back next week, here we will be explaining what we are going to be doing in the next millennia.

Mr. Dreier. Mr. Safdar.

STATEMENT OF SHABBIR SAFDAR, CO-CREATOR OF DEMOCRACY.NET AND DIRECTOR OF THE VOTERS TELECOMMUNICATIONS WATCH

Mr. Safdar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, for allowing me the opportunity to be here. More than anything, I think you have made my mother in Missouri very proud, since this is my first committee testimony.

My name is Shabbir Safdar, and I am co-creator of an innovative project which celebrated its 1-year anniversary yesterday. Since we are doing anniversaries, it is very appropriate.

The democracy.net project, which was co-created by myself and Jonah Seiger from the Center for Democracy and Technology, who happens to be at the Supreme Court today, unfortunately, is an innovative project which involves the cybercasting of congressional events and agency events on the Internet so that people can participate with the mission of not fundamentally changing the process involved.

There are a couple of components to it, and I think that our experience over the last year may serve as a good guidepost for what Congress can do in the coming years to put more of its processes and documents on the Internet without experiencing the sort of organizational jarring that I think many people are concerned about.

A year ago yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee cybercast a hearing on the encryption issue, which is very important to many Internet users. It is all about security on the Internet, and it had three or four visually important components. There was an audio feed which came out of a room much like this one which users on the Internet at home could listen to live. In addition, after the event, they could go back and listen to the hearing themselves.

Since the transcripts often take a while to propagate out and are not often easy to get by individuals, people who could go to our Web site and listen to the transcript of that hearing when they had to be at work earlier in the day found it very valuable.

A second component was an interactive chat room where members who, during the break, had free time, as well as Internet users all over the country and the world, sat and discussed the issues, discussed who was talking about what, which senators were asking what kinds of questions; and staff members even came and answered questions as well on-line. It proved to really provide a kind of communication which we haven't often seen between Congress and Hill staff and people back home.

One of the questions that you asked us to address is, what can we do to improve those communications? Those sorts of informal communications, which are very inexpensive to do, are, in fact, one of the things that I recommend.

A third element was very, very simple. We just had a camera, an electronic camera that transmitted a picture every 40 seconds from the room; and if you were listening to the audio, listening to a Member speak, listening to a witness speak, it really added an element of color to your appreciation of the event.

Lastly, there was some submitted testimony. As the committee is fairly up on things, I was able to submit my testimony today electronically and it can go right on the Web site. A lot of Internet users and general Americans who are interested in these issues don't often know about hearings and would like to express their opinion and can do so in written form. During the Commerce Committee hearing a year ago yesterday, they actually submitted their comments by typing them into a Web site, and then the comments became a part of the record.

All of these point to a way in which the committee was able to create an environment where citizen participation in the event and listening to it was all done in a way that did not affect the actual structure of the process.

One of the things that, in doing sort of Congress on the Internet which you are deeply engaged in now, is very important is to not aim too high. During the 1996 elections and before, we have always heard of people suggesting electronic town hall meetings and instant polling and referendums and direct democracy. In the democracy.net project we view these as problematic, as fundamentally changing the nature of representative democracy. We feel the Founders were very wise when they thought of this process as a somewhat slow, deliberate one. That is actually a safety valve, if nothing else.

Some of the things that we found that were very important were the transcripts continue to be important today. In terms of numbers, the hearing room, the Senate hearing rooms where the Commerce Committee meeting was held only holds about 100, 110 people; and we called the project Government Without Walls because over 700 people participated that day live and listened to the hearing. They could not have fit in the hearing room, even if they could have gotten to D.C.; and being in Seattle and California, there was simply no way.

Furthermore, the audio transcript on line, which lets you hear your own Member talk about the issue and question the witnesses, was available almost immediately afterwards; and over 1,400 human people in the 2 weeks following the event listened to that and is proof that there is really a demand for the people to get close to the project and observe it and be a part of it while, at the same time, not fundamentally changing it.

Having done this, we also discovered some open questions which I hope you will answer. Most importantly: Who does this? We are a nonprofit and we focus on as many issues as we can, which tends to be just Internet issues and a few select hearings, always with the full cooperation of the chairman.

It is not always the case that we are either going to have those relationships or that we are going to be the right ones to do that. For example, we would never, for example, broadcast a hearing on the abortion issue, mostly because this is not our area of expertise.

The question is: Who does that? Is this a facility that is done by the public interest groups that are interested in the issue or is this done by Congress?

I personally would like nothing better than to see Congress take this functionality and adopt it as its own, putting me out of business and freeing me up to do other things which also don't pay but are very rewarding in a spiritual sense.

We are seeing some elements of that. We are seeing different committees broadcasting their hearings on the Internet or taping them and putting them on the Internet afterwards, which is almost equivalent in terms of value to the citizen.

Just one last thing that I do want to mention is that there is a crucial difference in the medium of Internet technology and putting Congress on the Internet than versus the traditional thing like C-SPAN. In particular we are starting to see competition in local areas for must-carry channels; and when it comes to carrying something that is very popular and something that is very important like C-SPAN, sometimes C-SPAN tends to lose out.

In addition, C-SPAN only has two channels; and so if there is something very obscure that you want to see you may have to wait until 2 in the morning to see it and tape it, if they cover it at all.

One of the benefits of Congress using the Internet in a "pull" medium, where people come and retrieve stuff that they want, is that you don't have to be in the business of broadcasting. If, for example, there are 25 hearings going on today, they could all be taped and put on the Internet; and people could come and get them on the Internet. There is no longer a competition of which is the most important or going to attract the most viewers to the channel.

In going forward, let me be brief and say, as a guideline, the things that we have learned in this project are that it is not necessary to be shiny and flashy, which my copanelists will appreciate. The most advanced technology is not some of the best technology. Live video is very, very impressive looking, but most computers at home cannot carry live video over the Internet.

Be simple. Things like audio and publishing the transcript on your Web page, these are very valuable and simple and effective. In doing these things, I hope that we can provide some advice to Congress in the coming years as to how they can accomplish these things to get the most bang for the buck, so to speak.

Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much.

[The statement of Mr. Safdar follows:] ******** INSERT 1-1 ********

Mr. Dreier. Dr. Tenner.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD TENNER, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY SCHOLAR AND AUTHOR OF THE BOOK "WHY THINGS BITE BACK: TECHNOLOGY AND THE REVENGE OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES"

Dr. Tenner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee. I first want to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, and I want to thank especially the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars for helping to arrange it.

It is really a wonderful organization that I came to know first as an editor when I was with Princeton University Press, and it was always an important call for me to see as many as possible of the people who were doing some of the most important work, and it was a great surprise and honor for me to become one of those fellows. I also saw that it was the kind of resource and the kind of commitment to making information available to the public that shows how Congress has been able to support the production and diffusion of information.

Now, I want to start, though, with an observation about today's hearings, which is that they are being recorded not by a tape recording system but by a skilled human being who has the experience in making an accurate transcription of what is going on.

I have been writing my book. I read about some of the ambiguities that come when you have a tape recorded record. In other words, sometimes the technology that seems to be most advanced brings with it problems, uncertainties, that the older technology is able to resolve more effectively.

So today I am here to sound or to flash a yellow light -- not a red light or even a blinking red light, but a caution light about new technology; and I am doing it on the basis of not of a technical background. I am not a technical person. I am speaking, though, as a user who was confronted with technology, new and old, as a tool and who saw the inherent advantages and problems of it.

For example, I am sure that Congress itself has found that electronic means do not necessarily reduce the use of printed paper. That, in fact, sometimes because of the very limits of the computer screen and because of the need for repeated iterations of a document and because of, also, the speed of computer printers, that sometimes the introduction of the new technology can actually lead to greater use of paper. This, to me, signified the kind of unintended result that could and often did come from the use of a new technology in our setting, which was publishing.

Now, on the other hand, there is also a positive side of new media. For example, in the world of book publishing, the Internet has helped the sales of many books. The Internet has been a great means for booksellers to make information about new books known. But if you ask publishers about the extent to which the World Wide Web has really replaced the printed book as a means of disseminating information, I don't know of any publishers except for some specialized financial publishers who are actually making money from a Web site. It is always used to augment and better distribute what is available.

That, to me, is a good model of how Congress can use the Internet, not -- and other electronic means of communication, not to develop completely a different way of doing things but to better realize the advantages of what is in place.

There are three areas that concerned me in preparing for this meeting. The first was one of the long-term security of documents. I understand that there are new means of authenticating text that might make it tempting to make the electronic version of legislation, for example, a standard one. That is, to replace the printed record with an electronic record.

From my experience with electronic communications, though, I think there are great problems in any replacement of that kind, mainly because the inherent fragility of networks and the difficulty of verifying completely whether an authentication system will remain secure forever makes the old-fashioned printed record, I think, a necessary standard in the foreseeable future.

If you think, for example, of how long simply electricity can be unavailable at times during power outages or how systems can sometimes just go down for lengths of time, I think we can see in the older ways of doing things certain advantages in robustness that we should not forgo.

In the second area of public information, what has struck me is that, with the wealth of information available from Congress, the real lack is not of the information, whether it is printed or electronic, the real problem for someone like me and the lay public, somebody who has not been directly concerned more than other citizens with political matters, is the lack of a context, the lack of a framing of the background and issues that are necessary for me to interpret legislation that has been proposed or enacted.

Even in a field that I have been familiar with, for example as an editor, and I have signed dozens, maybe hundreds of contracts, it would be very hard for me to evaluate a new copyright bill without some kind of expert guidance.

So I think that Congress should not, especially since Members of Congress are often dealing regularly with people who are very well-informed about the nature of pending legislation, that it should not be assumed that most of the people out there are looking at the Web site will really be able to interpret it. So I think that there is a need for creative strategies in somehow linking these resources, the texts that are available on-line, with other documents, whether Congressional Research Service reports or the works of other organizations, that will give people the essential context for understanding what the meaning of this legislation is going to be for them.

The third area concerns communications, both communications among Members of Congress and their staffs and also communications with the public. There, again, I think that experience with the social effects of electronic mail have shown that there is a real danger of incivility, really unintended, that comes from the fact that electronic mail is composed in the same casual way in which we would conduct a telephone conversation and yet it has all of the impact of the written message and sometimes even more impact.

Therefore, any radical change in the way in which business is conducted, any really significant reliance on electronic mail risks two things. It risks, first of all, an erosion or further erosion of civility, which I know has been an issue in Congress, but it also risks losing some of the other context that is present in other means of communication. For example, the handwritten note can sometimes have a lot of information, a lot of nuances that are absent from other forms of communication.

I have noticed, at least around a lot of universities and businesses, that when somebody really has something very important to say, they will take the time to write it out by hand; and, in fact, fountain pen sales have been going up very significant as a result of that.

So I would like to conclude just by repeating that I am not an opponent of new technology at all. I think it is great within the limited scope of what it can accomplish. But it is not going to work unless it is embedded in two other things. It has to be, first of all, part of a framework of civil interchange and deliberation within Congress; and second, it has to be part of a more comprehensive set of institutions that will better familiarize the public with the broad outlines of issues and let them evaluate at each stage of legislation what the meaning of whatever it is on-line is really going to be.

Again, I appreciate very much the chance to address this subcommittee.

Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much, Dr. Tenner.

[The statement of Mr. Tenner follows:] ******** INSERT 1-2 ********

Mr. Dreier. Mr. Weinstein.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH WEINSTEIN, DIRECTOR OF THE GOVERNMENT REFORM PROJECT FOR THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Mr. Weinstein. Good morning. I would like to thank you for allowing me the honor of testifying before the Committee on Rules. Since 1995, this committee has implemented many significant reforms that have made the House more open and responsive than ever before.

I should also add that although I, unlike Dave Mason, did not have the honor of attending Claremont College, my Heritage collaborator on the report you referred to, August Stofferahn, is, in fact, a Claremont graduate.

Mr. Dreier. That is a relief.

Mr. Weinstein. As the House has changed the way it has done business over the last few years, so concurrently has the Internet changed the way that Americans get information. Over the last few years, the House has met this growing demand for on-line legislative information by moving what was, in some ways, an 18th century institution into the 20th century.

This electronic outreach is providing citizens with the opportunity to actively monitor and quickly respond to congressional action. We know that a majority of House Members have Web sites and e-mail addresses and together THOMAS and GPO access have been visited more than 100 million times.

My own organization, the Heritage Foundation, has likewise adapted to the Information Age, though I am sure there are those in this room who would argue that we have yet to enter the 20th century on a number of other fronts. But Heritage regularly e-mails monographs upon completion and makes them accessible on our Web site at www.heritage.org.

Just a couple of years, ago we launched the Town Hall Internet host site. The 35 organizations at townhall.com receive in excess of 4 million hits per month. That is 180,000 visits a day at all hours free of charge. Town Hall has really increased our audience exponentially. Less than one-fifth of its visitors are policy professionals.

Given this audience of interested citizens, I think it is essential that Congress continue to improve public access for legislative documents. By improving such access, the House would gain greater respect from members of the on-line community who are already very appreciative of the efforts that have been made.

Last summer, the on-line community placed great hopes in the recommendations of the Task Force on Committee Review, chaired by the chairman of this subcommittee. Its recommendations would have required committees to place numerous legislative documents on line, including committee and subcommittee prints of bills and committee and subcommittee reports.

While these recommendations, unfortunately, were not incorporated into the rules package for the 105th Congress, the House took a considerable step forward by mandating that each committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible, make its publications available in electronic form. So far, I think even the skeptics -- and I was one of them at the time the rule was enacted -- have to say that the rule has been generally pretty successful. Most committees are posting rules schedules, oversight activities and committee reports. Many committees are posting witness statements submitted in advance on this.

I was impressed yesterday afternoon when I looked at this subcommittee's Web site and saw that today's testimony was already available around 3 or 4 o'clock. The Committee on Science is even using a scanner to convert noncomputerized witness statements into Internet-accessible documents for its Web sites.

The House, thus, has made enormous strides, but further progress can still be made. Rather than waiting for final finished published products, certain committee and conference materials should automatically be released earlier via the Internet, including committee and subcommittee prints of bills and marks and preliminary transcripts of hearings and markups. This increased public access will, as Speaker Gingrich has noted, help level the playing field between ordinary citizens and lobbyists.

Afforded access to similar materials in a timely fashion, policy specialists, the Heritage and the Institute for Policy Studies across the board could offer their perspectives on proposed legislation that Congress might not otherwise hear. Citizens affected by amendments or new laws would be able to communicate with their representatives as legislation is being considered.

The on-line age will bring, obviously, increased disclosure about the activities of the Federal Government and more rapid feedback from citizens about these activities. However, the changes heralded by placing Member offices and committee information on line should not be exaggerated. Legislative process will remain one of give and take.

Staffers and Members, therefore, retain a right to operate with a degree of confidentiality. Internal office memoranda and preliminary documents shouldn't be distributed on line, as such documents represent neither official actions or considered viewpoints of legislators. Increasing the amount of information on line should not, moreover, be seen as opening the gates for what has been termed electronic democracy.

Congressional Web sites shouldn't be the locus of instantaneous unscientific polling. In the eyes of America's Founding Fathers, Congress, especially the Senate, was designed to be a deliberative body, not an immediate mirror of the public's unfettered passions and prejudices. Improving public access to congressional documents can nonetheless serve an important, didactic role that coincides with the Founders' vision of an active citizenry.

Mr. Dreier. Thanks very much.

[The statement of Mr. Weinstein follows:] ******** INSERT 1-3 ********

Mr. Dreier. Dr. Jenkins.

STATEMENT OF KIMBERLY JENKINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAY 1, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION THAT SUPPORTS THE USE OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

Ms. Jenkins. Thank you. I commend you on your recent entry into the world of surfing.

Mr. Dreier. Thank you.

Ms. Jenkins. I am the Executive Director of Highway 1. We are a 501(c)(3) educational, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization whose sole mission is to help educate Members of Congress and other leaders throughout the government. In particular, we are working closely with the chief information officers throughout the Federal agencies on the very issues that you are addressing today.

I come here with a background of 14 years in the high-tech industry and have been here in Washington since 1994, working with government. So my introduction to government is somewhat recent. Perhaps I can bring some examples from business.

My written testimony is filled with ideas and examples, but I would like to focus this limited time on just three ideas, and the first one relates to the Internet. The use of the Internet to inform, educate and engage constituents will have the greatest effect on the decision-making process, if not the whole democratic process, since the introduction of franking privileges.

A recent study showed that there are nearly 28 million adult Internet users; and, by year-end, we expect to have over 36 million. I think what is notable is that nearly half of those, 46 percent, use the Internet to find information about their government and the community.

Over 20 million users that were surveyed said that they found this information indispensable. As individual members and especially in the committee forum, the use of the Internet is a powerful way to provide the American public with ready access to information about legislation and about you as their representatives. It is the best way that I can think of to get beyond the apathy, the anger and the ignorance, beyond the 8-second sound bites and beyond the media filter to a place where constituents can get not only detailed but very immediate and accurate information about issues directly from you.

My advice to you is to require and enforce the on-line publication of all committee documents. And I differ a bit with my colleague. You did quote the language that each committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible, make its publication available in electronic form. But in my survey of all the committees that have done so, the information quality and quantity is somewhat erratic. There are some, like your committee, that are very current. However, others haven't been updated in months and I would urge you as a committee to require that.

There isn't any current consistency of content. Concerns about security, authenticity and integrity of information are very real, but so, too, are the solutions that can safeguard the information from abuse and limit the access to appropriate users.

I think what is most important is not to lose sight of the critical issue to focus so much on security that we sacrifice real communication.

And lastly, I would like to say that providing information and access to constituents is the key to the democratic process. Therefore, it is critical that you as Members of Congress engage all Americans in that process and do whatever you can to support the availability of this technology to all U.S. citizens by encouraging the efforts of schools, libraries, businesses, community organizations, to providing access to their citizens.

I applaud the work that the House has done to date. Compared to what I have seen in the Senate and many other Federal agencies, you have done a lot to make universal messaging, e-mail, standardized browsers, committee reports, readily available, and I think you have set an example for the rest of the Federal Government. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak.

[The statement of Ms. Jenkins follows:] ******** INSERT 1A-1 ********

Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much. All of the testimony has been extraordinarily interesting and I think very helpful. And while you have comported yourself in a very, very diplomatic way, there actually are very diverse views that have come out over the course of your testimonies.

And I have got to say that, the other day on NPR, I was listening to a commentary on Morning Edition in which a woman was talking about the greatness of holding a book as opposed to looking at the computer screen as you were mentioning, Dr. Tenner, and I think that that is something that creates a real conflict as to where we were heading.

When I was walking in this morning, I ran into Senator Bob Graham from Florida, and he was holding his beeper and talking as he walked on Second Street on the almost Dick Tracy-like telephone, and he told me, when he saw me he stopped, that he was actually getting some information on his constituents in Florida, some totals of things as he was getting ready to go into a meeting. And so it is amazing how this technology has really pushed us in the direction of about as close to direct democracy as we have ever had in our Nation's history. And I think that it is fascinating to see the merging of this system of government, which is rooted in the 17th Century, with these changes as we head to the 21st Century. Vince gave me the little piece about the new Senator from Wyoming who created a major stir when he brought his laptop on to the Senate floor and all the questions that come from that as he looks to make the kinds of decisions that he is faced with.

We had an experience just 2 days ago here. You mentioned the issue of e-mail. The whole e-mail system here went down because a couple of offices proceeded to send an e-mail message to everyone, including new people on the system like me, which threw the whole process into turmoil.

I also have to say to you, Dr. Tenner, it is interesting, over the last couple of weeks I was addressing the Chamber of Commerce meeting out in Los Angeles, and I happened to send to my constituents a printed, handwritten message, and I have done that for all of the 1990s. I started really in 1989. I just write on the front and back of a piece of our letterhead, and I get into substantive issues. When I was at this Chamber of Commerce meeting, I was bragging about my expertise with the computer, and a man stood up and said, "we are all very proud of you, but I hope that you never stop sending us those handwritten letters which we all enjoy reading." And I find that people do read those with greater frequency.

There is another thing that is of great interest to me, and you, Dr. Jenkins, are encouraging us to move that much further. When you look at the fact that television cameras cover the operations of the Congress, there was a sense in the late 1970s when this debate ensued on whether or not television would be used for the Congress, that, if the American people could only see how hard we are working and what we are doing here, they would, of course, have a great opinion of what we have done. And we all know what has happened. In fact, the level of respect and support for this institution has dropped significantly as there has been greater coverage of it.

So the question is: Will all this new technology allow us to go from what we like to call the corrosive cynicism that unfortunately exists today back to the Jeffersonian view of a healthy skepticism, which is what we really should have?

Another question that comes forward pretty regularly is this: Lots of my colleagues think that we have gone way too far on this and we should not have coverage of these things. And there is a sense that people have a tendency, of course, to play to the cameras, which happens often. But in trying to put together a consensus on legislation, some people feel that if there is so much input, that it is very tough to actually come to a consensus.

One of the things that is being debated now, since we have access to everything is what actually gets in our eyes. Where do we focus our attention? So those are just some of the thoughts and concerns that I have as we look at this issue. It is obviously a very exciting time, and I want to do everything that I can, and I know this subcommittee does, to ensure that we do move boldly into the 21st Century, but I don't think we should ever forget the importance of deliberative democracy and representative government. There is a conflict, obviously, with those who want to see us respond to the whim of every constituent, and I have been fighting that myself for quite a while.

So I would appreciate if you all could comment on any of the things that I have said.

Mr. Safdar. If I say, sir, once again thank you for having us here. The one common theme that I heard throughout all of the panelists is that the direct democracy idea is very problematic and even in something as small as when we do a town hall meeting, we find that the communication, the extensive, longer than 8-second sound bite communication, actually is a humanizing effect, and restoring civility in a lot of cases, the seeing of a Member of Congress on TV saying a sentence or two about an issue, is very problematic. People can extrapolate all sorts of views from that.

When we have our town hall meetings, we have done one with Ms. Eshoo and Mr. White and so on, when you get to sit and hear a Member discuss an issue for an hour, and there is not a significant cost associated with that. It really does humanize the Member of Congress. You get to know them. You understand what their thought processes are, and there is a respect that is gained there.

We have even seen in the Internet community for a particular issue, when there is a hearing and a Member goes particularly carefully in terms of protecting a point of view or a tough line of questioning with a witness, we have seen a certain amount of fan clubism where Internet users will start to develop a follow for the reputation of a particular Member who is very strong or intelligent or well-spoken on an issue. These don't always happen in traditional media. These don't always happen when you only get a few seconds to comment on something. And the opposite is true as well.

When we have a relaxed environment and a moderator for a town hall meeting who feeds these questions from the public through to the Members so it doesn't become an uncivil environment, the Members tend to use the questions a little differently as well, because they are moderated and they are tempered with a certain amount of civility. So I think that the reputation damage that we saw TV do may be because it is a one-way medium and because it can be very, very brief and very, very sound byte-oriented and these new technologies may be able to make us able to recover the reputation.

Mr. Dreier. How would you see C-SPAN changing? Obviously, it is one way, except for the fact that they do have their programs regularly in the morning. I have gone there where people call in and send e-mail in with questions and so I guess they have sought to have as much two-way communication as possible.

Mr. Safdar. They are trying. I think that they haven't quite -- they have done it in the broadcast medium. They haven't quite accomplished that same level of interaction, which I think in TV is as far as they could go. A call in, in the Internet medium, and they obviously have a resource issue because they haven't arrived there yet and most of what C-SPAN is today is mostly one-way from the Congress out, which is very valuable. I cannot tell you how valuable it is to go to a C-SPAN site and listen to live floor proceedings. But as we talked about, that may be reputation damaging in the long run. And we need to have ways to get the communication back into Congress without overwhelming people.

Mr. Tenner. I would only add that phrase "Internet community" is one that I have often heard and I have heard today, and I suppose I am a member of it because I do use the Internet quite a bit.

On the other hand, I am a little concerned about the idea that somehow the people who are active on the Web should have a privileged position vis-a-vis other citizens. I know this is not the intention of my fellow witnesses, but I think there is something of a risk in attaching so much importance to electronic communication that we forget about all those constituents, fellow citizens.

I am sure, the siblings and especially the parents of many of the people here, who really have no intention of getting on the Web, who do not feel that it will fill a major part in their life, many people who simply cannot afford even the lower cost computers. Even the low are cost of access. People who might not be able to get to their public library regularly or may have only 15 minutes at a terminal, which is the rule even in an affluent community like the one I live in.

So, I think that it is great to provide this access, but it should be only one of a number of modes. And I don't think that the priorities of Congress in dealing with constituents should be so distorted that other people, that they are not getting their fair share of attention. And again, I know that this is not the intention of my fellow witnesses, but it is an easy thing just because of the expense that the -- just because of all of the attention that is necessary. That attention could easily divert scarce staff time from other constituent relations.

Mr. Dreier. So we shouldn't look to the Internet as a panacea, I understand.

Mr. Tenner. Yes.

Mr. Weinstein. I share the Chairman's concern with the danger of direct democracy and the danger of demagoguery, but I also think it is important to keep in mind that as one spends time on the Internet, as all of us have, you learn to filter out valuable sources of information from those that are significantly less valuable. And using the Internet as a research tool when you enter in the name of a particular topic on a Web browser and come up with literally hundreds of different sources of information on that topic, you eventually come to distinguish those sources that are valuable, that allow you to reflect properly, and I think in terms of pushing it towards a more deliberative democracy, I think that certain ways the Web will assist the process of thinking through legislation and the like.

Mr. Dreier. Dr. Jenkins?

Ms. Jenkins. I share the view that the Internet is not a panacea and that the key issue here today is the concern about direct democracy versus representative democracy. And I would advocate that the role of the Internet is unique and most powerful in its role informing and educating constituents, not in soliciting their votes per se. It is not a push button voting mechanism, rather a way for constituents to go very deep on issues that they are concerned about and ideally to walk away with a much more intelligent position from which to vote for their representatives who then can deliberate.

Mr. Dreier. Well, I agree with that. I support empowering people with as much information as possible as they look to make decisions. On the question about representative democracy, I make the point, which is often interpreted as arrogance, that people cast their vote every 2 years and make a judgment on the person who is going to represent them in the Congress.

And it seems to me that there are many people who have tried time and time again to argue that you have to respond. If there are 10,000 messages coming in through e-mail or letters to the office on a particular issue, it is your responsibility to do exactly what those 10,000 people say. And that is really not the case at all. We know with computer technology that 10 people could put those 10,000 messages together with a great deal of ease and I try to keep that in mind.

Ms. Jenkins. That is right.

Mr. Dreier. Mr. Hall?

Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of weeks ago I was researching some information and I went to the Library of Congress. I walked over and went through the process of trying to get books and look up various issues. I found it to be intimidating because the issue I was researching had a tremendous number of bibliographies and information, and I didn't tell the people that I was a Member of Congress. You have to wait in line. You have to get your picture taken. You have got to do a number of things that require waiting.

And then once you request a book you have to wait sometimes 45 minutes to an hour to get the book. It was so intimidating, after a half a day I decided to go to my local library, which is much quicker. But the fact is that the local library doesn't have the information that the Library of Congress has. And so we have been talking about today being able to sit in your office and look into the Library of Congress, and to be able to get information quickly. Some day I think we are going to have, hopefully, every book in the Library of Congress available to us and be able to call it up. I hope we are moving towards that.

It is a wonderful thing to be able to have so much information available to us as Members of Congress and to our legislative aides who are the ones who are constantly looking up information and searching for facts. And I think some of you have really put your fingers on it. I think you have to help us decide what is useful with this new technology and what isn't. I think that it can be extremely impersonal. You know, when somebody writes to me through e-mail, or even with a typewritten letter, it is much different than when I see him in person.

And e-mail is so impersonal. If we are to be representatives of that kind of democracy, I am going to want to be out of here, because I cannot eyeball you, I cannot see you, I cannot see your body language. I can't really listen to you. That's the problem for Members of Congress -- and, again, I have to admit that I am somewhat computer illiterate.

Mr. Dreier. I will teach you.

Mr. Hall. I heard you say that. The problem is that I don't want anybody outside my district to use the e-mail for me. I don't have time. If I have to, I need more money to hire people to be in charge of e-mail. I want to hear from my own constituents. Oftentimes we get into issues that are way beyond our districts, but I know how to reach out and ask people. And the problem is that when you get e-mail as a Member of Congress, everybody from all over the country is writing you and it is very hard to be responsive to that.

And which leads to a problem. If, in fact, we are going to have that situation here, how do you suggest we handle that? We will have to change our whole way we deal with the staff. We will probably have to hire more people, which we cannot possibly do right now with the thinking that is going on here. Can address some of the things I have said?

Mr. Dreier. Could I just comment on how I deal with that first before they do, which is sort of a challenge that we have. I was concerned about the idea of constituents out there wanting to communicate with me, and they would end up getting somebody like Vince here who cannot speak for me, and I don't want him to speak for me. We think alike on a lot of things, but I don't want him to be responding or an intern in my office doing that.

So one of the things that we are insistent on is if people do send that message, they are welcome to provide their input, but if they want any kind of response from me, we will only do it with a letter, meaning it will go through the process that your office does and mine does on overseeing a letter that is done. I mean, put together, and your position is well set forth. So I mean that is one way to deal with part of that problem that comes in is to let people know that you are not going to be getting instant responses like that, because it is just impossible to. Anyone?

Ms. Jenkins. I think many Members have automatic responses along the lines that you have suggested where they very diplomatically encourage input from their constituents and they currently respond in hard copy. They will accept it in electronic form, but indicate right up front that they will only have the ability to respond to those who are in their area of constituency, and they ask for a written address so that you can see exactly where they live. And what I can offer is that there are outside organizations like Highway 1, like Democracy.net, like many others, that can serve to set expectations and that is part of what we need to do in this electronic age, and what we constantly do is tell people don't spam the Members of Congress. Don't push one button and send it to all 535 people. It is really only proper etiquette to send it to your representative and to be realistic about the amount of time it might take to receive a response.

We are trained in the electronic era to expect immediate response. And I understand, as some people don't, who are not as familiar with Congress, that that would not be possible. It would probably have to be routed through the normal way a letter would be routed. So as a process of setting expectations and educating the community, that we can help you with.

Mr. Safdar. If I could show as an example, Representative Eshoo from California has a very impressive pilot project where her office has set up a Web site which basically allows you to do e-mail through the Web site. In fact, I think Ellen was a part of that. Constituents are given a special password and while anyone can send an e-mail or write a letter, constituents can use the Web site with a special password that shows that they are constituents so that the staff will pay them the attention necessary.

Mr. Dreier. How does that work?

Mr. Safdar. You send them your address and if it is within the district, they send you back a password. It is the same sort of security measure that one would use on a letter because one would look at the address and the postmark. The same is true. I know all this is not perfect, it allows them to take a significant amount of constituent input and prioritize it and pay it the special attention necessary.

So I think that there are some ways of doing this. Out there as a society, we just haven't fully explored those yet. And we should continue to experiment with those and watch that particular pilot and see if there is something we can learn from that.

Mr. Hall. It concerns me. I guess it is my own archaic way of dealing with things. It concerns me that it is so impersonal. I hope that we don't have a government based on this some day. But if it replaces democracy, if it replaces representative government, I don't want anything to do with it. Because we might as well have a government by petition and let everybody just write me and I will decide through a poll what to do. And we have got too much of that now. We have got too many representatives that are afraid to make decisions and they are afraid to lead and they are afraid to take chances. They are all sitting around listening to their polls and all the technology that is coming about.

So, it is not so much as a question, it is more of a statement, but I do worry about this new technology, how it is going to replace representative government, replace leaders who ought to step up and be leaders.

Mr. Dreier. That brings into play a question just along that line that I would like to pose to you. It is an ongoing one around here.

Mr. Hall. To me.

Mr. Dreier. I know how you feel about it because we feel similarly. That is, people have said, gosh, you know, we have these voting cards, and why is it that we cannot sit here in this committee rather than rushing downstairs to cast a vote to approve the Journal for the last day's proceedings? Or why is it that we have to even come into Washington? Why shouldn't we simply sit in a town meeting, or when a vote is called, cast our vote from our district offices? I am virulently opposed to that because I believe very strongly that the personal interaction that Tony and I have and other Members have in dealing with issues, before there is a vote that is taking place on the floor of Congress is important. At that time I am personally returning 20 telephone calls face-to-face with colleagues of mine who have called about an issue or people whom I want to call myself.

I actually am able to shake their hand and sit and talk with them, which gets to the question of civility or a lack of it, which we have spent a lot of time talking about in this subcommittee. Many people say the fact that we have air travel, which Tony raised in his opening comment, the fact that people go home all the time, the fact that we have this technology and the potential to have, you know, voting that would not be on the floor of the Congress is something that I think has played a role in diminishing the level of civility that existed in the past.

We are fortunate in this committee. This is one of the smallest committees in the Congress, with a total of 13 Members, and while this is the most partisan committee in the Congress, we all do get along very well. And I think that it is the personal interaction that we have that plays a role in that.

So, I suspect you do agree with me on most of that. Do you all have any thoughts on this argument of having us not even come together on the floor of Congress when we cast our votes?

Mr. Tenner. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, you pointed to it. It is such an extremely important thing, I think this should be one of the first ideas that Congress puts on line, how important personal interaction is for Congress. In other words, I think that Congress shouldn't be reluctant at all to convey to the on-line public, some of whom don't understand the role of personal contact, just why it is important for you.

Mr. Dreier. Maybe some of them have never had personal contact with anyone except on line.

Mr. Tenner. Well, exactly. At the same time, it was anything, given a number of cases of what anthropologists have called the polychronic use of time; that is, there have been some studies that show that people have become more and more used to doing more than one thing at once. Absorbing more than one message at once, just processing a lot of situations in parallel. And there are other societies where this had been more common. For example, it is more common in France than it is, say, in Germany or in the United States for various reasons.

And so I think that the -- there is nothing wrong with that in itself, but people, I think, there are a lot of people who probably are not comfortable with the polychronic business, and so it would also be important as Congress develops its own systems for them to be flexible enough so that somebody who does not really want to work that way, and is an effective legislator doesn't have to work that way in order to get work done.

Mr. Dreier. Any of the rest of you have any thoughts?

Ms. Jenkins. I think, yes, as one of the panelists here that seems to be an advocate of all this technology, I also want to say that I think there is a lot of hype and sexiness around technology. And it is a tool. Just like any tool, it is important to use it properly. And so, I want to say what I really stand for is the use of this technology to help constituents get information. And that, to me is really the primary focus. And that is the appropriate use of it as a tool.

Mr. Weinstein. The Congress is always going to require secrecy and deliberation, both formally and informally within the different party conferences or elsewhere. We saw earlier this year the famous case came before the -- I guess it is going to be coming before the Ethics Committee at some point in which a new technology was used to listen into some conversations between certain Members of the House, and I think that there is always going to be that kind of danger when you do not have face-to-face communications no matter how secure you can develop computer systems. So it is very important that the House continue to meet in session and that Members vote on the floor face-to-face.

Ms. Jenkins. I would also like to mention that about 2 years ago I met with Representative Kasich and he was an advocate of something that is quite opposite from what you suggested. He said if I could use technology to vote from my district, it would enable me to spend more time with the people that I represent. So there is a flip side. I think both are important. In fact, he suggested flipping the amount of time that he spent in his district with the amount of time that he now spends in Washington.

Mr. Dreier. So my response to that would be that Congress doesn't need to meet as frequently as it does, and Senator Howard Baker used to advocate a part-time Congress, and there have been many people who have been advocates of that. So if there is a concern about the need to spend more time among the people who sent us here, we should -- when we are deliberating, focusing on these public policy questions, do it from here using all that input that we have been able to glean from our constituents. But I think that it could be somewhat dangerous to have that kind of decision-making there.

We look to our colleagues for expertise. We look to our constituents for expertise. We look to representatives of diverse interests here in Washington and from other parts of the country. And then I think that there is a lot to be said for sitting back, taking a deep breath, and pondering. And that is very difficult in a town hall meeting. And I know that what I have just said is very unpopular, but I think it is very important, if we look at what the framers envisioned for us. We have talked about lots of other things, but he hasn't said that. I will bring it up to him the next time we have lunch.

Are there any comments that you all would like to make? We have gone through a wide range of issues. I have thrown out a lot of my thoughts on this.

Mr. Safdar. If I could close with a theme, the educated voter is the engineer of a healthy democracy. I think if the Rules Committee and this subcommittee goes forward with that theme in mind that the point is to educate voters in order to facilitate the engine of democracy without changing the structure itself, I think it will be very impressive here.

Mr. Dreier. It is very interesting that you raise that, because legislation that I just introduced a couple of weeks ago deals with a very specific issue, campaign finance reform. And there are a wide range of proposals out there about how we should impose limits on campaign contributions, eliminate the ability of some to make contributions, and eliminating political action committees, along with a wide range of other things.

The thrust of what I introduced, and I call it the Voter Empowerment Act, is more information and more knowledge of who is using those First Amendment rights and contributing to a particular candidate. My legislation requires within 24 hours that the list of those contributions be on line so that the voter is able to say, gosh, David Dreier has gotten a contribution from some organization and then I can decide whether or not he is being influenced by that based on his action and his vote. And then voters can make that determination as to whether or not they accept or oppose that idea.

So, the thrust of what you have just said, empowering people with as much knowledge and information as possible, is, I think, a very worthwhile thing for us.

Any other comments?

Mr. Weinstein. Empowering people shouldn't simply be the job of Congress. It also is the job of the executive branch. And one of the most important reforms I think that the executive branch can undertake, it is something that Congressman Pete Sessions has been working on, has been to create a Web site easily searchable that would list all the recipients of Federal grants and Federal contracts. This is $250 billion a year in spending that is given out, $700 million a day, and oftentimes constituents and Members of Congress have no idea where this money is going. And it would be an important research tool for scholars as well for journalists and for Members of Congress who would then improve their oversight of the executive branch spending.

Mr. Dreier. Dr. Tenner?

Mr. Tenner. I would just, as a bit of a cautionary note to both the idea of distributing information about grants and about contributions, I would just question how many people really would be in a position to identify and evaluate most of the information that they would receive that way.

For example, I think it is very good to have it available. I commend you for proposing it, but I am just saying that if I looked at, let's say, a list of groups contributing to a candidate and I see Citizens for a Brighter Environment, who are these people? What is their real goal? Who is behind this?

Mr. Dreier. The idea is that that would be underlined and you would click that and be able to find out more information about it.

Mr. Tenner. Sure, and I think --

Mr. Dreier. And also getting this information to the media is important and I think that the New York Times can do a full piece which is made available on line about Citizens for a Better Environment.

Mr. Tenner. I think there you are pointing to the real benefit of it, that it can be material for journalists and others who have the time and the background to interpret it. I think that is terrific. I am not questioning that at all. I am just sounding a cautionary note about the ability of -- my own ability, and the ability of most people who are not familiar with the players, to take the raw data, and to interpret it.

The same thing would be true, for example, of lists of grants. I have dealt, when I was in publishing, I dealt a lot with grants for scientific research, and I know that in the past some people of very high quality work have had grants that were ridiculed because the titles seemed a bit remote or a bit silly and they were very serious. There are other people that have grants that seem to be very impressive, things that seem to be solid, but that from my own sources I had reason to believe were questionable.

So, again, this gets back to my whole point about the role of background information. And maybe it is just that I have less information. I am less knowledgeable than most of the other people in this room about these issues. But perhaps my own limitations, there might be of some value in Congress' serving other constituents who also might not be as well informed. Thank you.

Mr. Dreier. That is a very good point.

The most appropriate closing for me, following my word of thanks to all of you, is to say that within a very short period of time, the transcript of this entire hearing will be on our Web site for everyone to see. So with that, I want to thank all of you. I appreciate your being here, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on this issue. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]