Whereas Members of Congress and congressional staff need greater interaction with constituents; Whereas constituents deserve better access to their Member of Congress; Whereas there are time restraints and high costs associated with constituent travel to Washington, DC, to meet with their Congressman; Whereas there are 535 Members of Congress who travel consistently between their district and Washington, DC; Whereas Members of Congress currently do most of their work from Washington, DC, and travel to their districts, some traveling significant distances; Whereas many congressional staffers do not spend time in the district for which they were hired to work, and are less in touch with the needs of constituents; Whereas the current constraints of Congress demand that Members of Congress are physically in Washington, DC, to conduct the duties of their job, which includes but is not limited to debating, voting, and participating in hearings; Whereas there are recent advances in technology that would make a virtual Congress possible, such as: electronic voting, video conferencing, secure telephones and Internet connections, and biometric cyber security; Whereas there are security concerns associated with the entire Congress being physically located in a single place; Whereas concerns were raised after 9/11 about the possibility of future terrorist attacks on the Nation’s Capitol and the safety of the Members of Congress; Whereas government operating costs are far too high, and new, innovative savings must be found; Whereas there are recent advances in technology that would make a virtual Congress possible, such as electronic voting, video conferencing, and secure telephones and Internet connections; Whereas the security challenges of convening government officials in one specific place; Whereas the need to find new ways to save taxpayer money by decreasing the operating cost of government; and Whereas the need for Members of Congress to maintain greater accountability to their constituents: Now, therefore, be it