Two days later Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana delivered a rebuttal on behalf of the Democratie majority in Congress. This address also was telecast live, but the press devoted few column-inches to it.

Mr. Mansfield could not have been surprised. He had previously asserted that, "It is time for Congress to determine who really should decide what is a fair input by a co-equal branch of government into the perceptions of the American electorate. ... With the revolution of communications in this country, the whole notion of the separation of powers has been significantly diminished by the inordinate input that the executive branch, through the president and the Cabinet officers, has on television."

Public opinion surveys taken by the Louis Harris and Gallup organizations over the years indicate a majority of Americans believes Congress is doing a mediocre job. Some Americans are not entirely sure what Congress is. Twenty percent of respondents to a recent Harris survey said they thought that the national legislature consisted of the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Many of Congress' communications problems are beyond its control. The president and vice-president are the only two federal officials elected by nationwide popular vote.

On the other hand, senators represent single states, and congressmen individual districts within a given state. Furthermore, Congress is divided along party lines. Who, then, can speak for Congress?

The legislative branch needs to burnish its image. Televising the Watergate hearings may have helped. It has been proposed that certain proceedings on the House and Senate floors be televised. The problem is that congressional debates and floor votes rarely provide any drama.

Other proposals envision a congressional information service in the Library of Congress, instructional films to improve the quality of teaching about Congress, and establishment of a Congressional Broadcasting System.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman METCALF. Thank you very much, Congressman Cleveland, for your helpful introduction to the purpose of these hearings, and as I said earlier, your complete statement will be included in the record. [The prepared statement of Representative James C. Cleveland follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JAMES C. CLEVELAND

I hope that out of these very important hearings at least one basic principle will emerge with renewed force. It is this:

The best way for Congress to improve its public image is to improve its public performance.

Communications is a medium. It transmits. It cannot consistently manufacture facts, nor can it, for long, distort or suppress them-at least in a free society with a free and competitive press.

A former Congressional employee who later served as President Johnson's press secretary, summed it up well, "No matter how sympathetically that function [informing the public] is performed, a foolish act will appear foolish, an unpopular act will arouse antagonism, and an act in conflict with previous actions will appear contradictory."

This is not meant to suggest the Congress and the President, or the Executive Branch, share equal access to the media, or that communications facilities are equally available to both institutions, or that the relatively more complex and diffuse procedures of the Congress are as readily comprehended and communicated as those of the Executive. The Joint Committee background study makes it clear that there are significant imbalances in these and related aspects. Moreover, the Executive Branch's superior ability to communicate its views could weaken—and, indeed, has weakened-the co-equal position of the Legislative Branch and jeopardize the balance which secures our liberties as a people.

FIRST THINGS FIRST: SUBSTANCE

What I do suggest is that the substance of what is communicated is more important than the techniques of communication. Full-time, multi-media coverage of Congressional committee meetings and floor sessions employing the most advanced technology available will do less to change the public's perceptions of

the role of Congress or enhance its respect for our work than would a number of badly needed reforms in our methods and procedures-and I say this as one who believes that broader use of television in Congress, under certain circumstances, could greatly improve public understanding of this institution.

Ultimately, of course, the quality of our product depends primarily on the capacity and will of the men and women who serve here-though this factor is necessarily beyond the scope of these hearings, and of our competence.

But assuming an adequate level of quality in our membership, the way we organize and conduct our legislative and representational activities become crucial-both to our performance and to the communication of that performance. In fact, the principal obstacles to effective communications are, in large measure, the very same obstacles to a more effective legislative performance the diffusion of authority among 535 Members, a cumbersome and overly complex committee structure, a lack of central leadership, an absence of planning and coordination, among others.

CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE: CONTRASTS

To a certain extent, these limitations are inherent in the very nature of Congress and the legislative process. As opposed to the Executive Branch, with its hierarchical structure and its focus of authority in a powerful and highly visible President, the Congress is a pluralistic institution. The Executive speaks, in theory at least, with one voice. Congress speaks through many.

The implications of these differences in terms of meaningful communications are substantial. Let me illustrate by referring to the number one public issue of the day-the energy crisis.

Whatever one may think of the Administration's energy policy, it is transmitted to the press, generally, from a single source the President or his delegate and as the final product of a system of planning and coordination. From a media viewpoint, the process is relatively simple and straightforward, manageable and easily communicated.

The Congressional policy-making process stands in sharp contrast. Just this week, for example, both the House and Senate will debate different major energy bills, and a total of 17 committees and subcommittees will be considering energyrelated matters-in no apparent order of priority, with considerable duplication, and without much planning or coordination.

The logistical difficulties are obvious. Where should the media focus their attention? Who can speak authoritatively about either the substance or the prospects of the legislation? How can such wide diversity be organized for orderly presentation to a vast audience?

Again, I emphasize that some of these difficulties are insurmountable-perhaps necessarily and properly so. For much of the strength and endurance of this institution resides in its differences, its diversity, its openness of debate. Consequently, technical improvements in communications-as useful as they may be cannot be relied on to overcome the limitations which are an essential part of the system. Conversely, however, reform of those outmoded procedures which merely confuse and impede communication, together with innovations which could clarify the Congressional role, can serve both our purposes: better performance and better public understanding.

The two must go together.

REFORM: THE ROAD TO PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

It is especially urgent that Congress move in this direction now. Recent surveys, including those described in the background study, demonstrate that our governmental and political institutions have fallen drastically in public regard. Congress, in particular, suffers from this lack of confidence. As the country's most directly representative body, it is cause for deep concern that most people do not understand the role of Congress in our Constitutional system nor do they fathom the way this institution functions. Despite this-or perhaps because of it-seven out of ten respondents in the latest Harris survey rate Congress' performance poorly, an all-time record low.

The need for improving the quality of Congressional performance can hardly be overstated, as I indicated in my testimony on campaign reform last October before the Elections Subcommittee of the Committee on House Administration. What the public may tend to interpret as the result of improper influence stem

ming from big-money contributions may simply reflect our inability to do our jobs because of self-imposed constraints.

Representative government requires the informed consent of the governed. In turn, informed consent presupposes a free and meaningful flow of news from and about the Congress. To achieve better understanding of its activities by the public through coverage by the news media, Congress must both facilitate more perceptive coverage procedurally and assure such coverage through better performance.

Certainly procedural reforms directly focused on communications are in order. In this connection, I have supported TV and radio coverage of floor action since 1966. But I think it is significant to note that this was one of an entire series of procedural and substantive reforms put forth by the House Republican Task Force on Congressional Reform and Minority Staffing, which I had the honor to chair.

That is why I hope these hearings-and our witnesses-will address these broader issues. More specifically, I hope the hearings will serve to test this hypothesis: that Congress functions as an institution-and can be seen and understood as a viable institution-only to the extent that it acts in a systematic and purposeful fashion.

In this view, Congress is most fully an institution when it enacts-or defeatslegislation, as the end result of study and debate, accommodation and decision. Congress also functions institutionally when it exercises effective oversight, investigating Executive Branch deficiencies and departures from statutory intent-a vital and often overlooked activity. It is no exaggeration to state that the oversight function, if rigorously pursued, can be in some cases as important or even more important than initial passage of a major Federal program. At such times, Congress can be comprehended, and its action analyzed and communicated meaningfully.

But the final passage of a bill or a successful investigation are only parts of the legislative drama. The rest of the performance must also be comprehensibleboth to achieve quality and to communicate effectively.

PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE

Reform can achieve this objective. The restructuring of committees, for example, can reduce overlapping jurisdictions, clarify responsibility, improve oversight, and encourage more rational planning-all of which would heighten the visibility of committee work and make it more accessible to the media, as well as produce a higher quality legislative product.

Similarly, reform of the way Congress handles the budget can, for the first time, permit Congress to make rational decisions on overall expenditures and revenues and assess their total impact on the economy-and at the same time let the people, through the media, view the process and understand what takes place and why.

Other innovations may be feasible, too. A bi-partisan Council of Congressional Leaders, for instance, could contribute badly needed coordination between the two houses in scheduling legislation, determining priorities, and interpreting and defending Congressional action once legislation has been passed.

More frequent joint meetings of House and Senate committees could save time, reduce conflict, speed up the legislative process, and also increase the likelihood of better press coverage.

During floor debate on major bills, following disposition of amendments in Committee of the Whole, and before voting on final passage or recommittal motions, a brief period of a half hour or so might be reserved for summing up the issues and arguments by leading proponents and opponents-an exercise that would pull together for members and media alike the main lines of complex legislation and reestablish the context of the decision about to be made.

A central, computer-based scheduling facility for committee meetings would not only reduce conflicts for committee members but could make life a little less hectic and complicated for Congressional correspondents as well.

A greater respect for our institutional role as members of a legislative body, as distinct from promotion of our individual political fortunes-a needed sense of restraint-would serve to lower the tumult and permit better focus on the constructive and fact-finding activities of Congress.

Less directly, but very much to the point, such advances as better staffing, equity for minority members, staff training opportunities, improved information resources, and a host of other internal reforms-and the Joint Committee's

excellent background study suggests others would help make the legislative process more viable and hence more visible, and without the sacrifices of values and traditions which give the Congress its distinctive character.

Viable, because of the improved content and better management these changes would bring to legislation and oversight.

And visible because of the better definition they would give to the situations in which policy determinations are made in other words, the institutional focal points on which media coverage of Congress could concentrate.

SUMMARY: REFORM, PERFORMANCE, COMMUNICATION

My position can be summarized quite briefly. To carry out its responsibilities as representatives of the people, Congress and its activities require public understanding and effective communication. But effective communication depends on quality performance. Superior performance, in turn, can be achieved only by adopting reforms which enable Congress to function more efficiently, more purposefully, more responsively. Finally, it is this kind of reform, combined with improved communications facilities and techniques, which will increase Congressional visibility and enable the news media to report Congressional activities more fully and accurately.

These, of course, are only a few of the considerations that are involved in the very broad area our committee is studying-but I consider them vital ones. I look forward to the light our expert witnesses can shed on these questions. I hope they will use the opportunity to question our assumptions, to challenge proposed reforms as well as existing procedures, and to assess the implications of change in communication technique and legislative procedure not only for the media and the Congress but for the American people on whose informed participation our system relies. To paraphrase a once familiar statement, what's good for Congress, the institution, is good for the country.

Chairman METCALF. We will now hear from Congressman Giaimo. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT N. GIAIMO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Representative GIAIMO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be extremely brief, as I do want to hear Senator Muskie. I want to commend you, however, for holding these hearings, I think they are very timely. This is a start, in my opinion, in a reexamination by the Congress toward finding its own defects, to determine why it has fallen in such disrepute with the public.

I believe we have to educate the public to better understand the operations and the functions of the Congress. I believe these hearings will be a step in that direction. At the same time, it will bring greater awareness, not only by the public but by the Congressmen and Senators, as to the need to reorganize many of the activities of Congress and to implement some of the reforms which are so very much needed in order for this great institution, the first branch of Government, to regain the confidence and trust of the American people which it must have in order to properly function.

There is no question that the problem is in institutions; it is not just the Congress. But the press has made a great "to do" about the low percentage of confidence placed in Congress by the American people. It is interesting to know that, along with Congress, many of our other institutions enjoy a very low confidence level on the part of the public.

On page 8 our staff study indicates the executive branch at 19 percent, organized labor at 20 percent, organized religion at 40 percent, the military at 40 percent. Organized religion is at 36 percent, actually. The press is 30 percent, major companies in the United States, 29 percent. So there is a general loss of confidence by the American people in

the major basic institutions of this Government and of this Nation. We have got to do everything possible to restore that confidence, because obviously we have all learned so well this year if not beforethat without the basic trust and confidence of the people, the United States and its institutions cannot do an effective job. Congress has much to do to reorganize, reform itself, and take on the activities which will ultimately restore to it the lost confidence of the American people. I commend you again, Mr. Chairman, for calling these hearings.

Chairman METCALF. Thank you very much, Congressman Giaimo. I want to call attention to the staff study that Congressman Giaimo referred to. It is available, it presents background information for these hearings, and it is available to anyone that wants it.

Congressman O'Hara, who has taken a great deal of interest in this subject matter, will appear as a witness later, so his statement will be incorporated at that time.

Unless there are other opening statements, we will proceed with the first witness. Senator Muskie's Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations studied some of these matters, and discovered that, while record numbers of citizens distrust government today, and while they are cynical about the performance of their elected officials, the same citizens do support the basic constitutional system under which we live, and believe the government can be made to work. These citizens also admit that they lack the information that is required to help them understand the workings of government.

So I am pleased that we are going to have as our first witness, Senator Muskie, who will report on some of the problems we intend to discuss. I welcome, on behalf of the committee, Senator Muskie, to open these hearings.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate the chairman and the members of the committee for taking this initiative.

This subject has been very well introduced already by the statements of the members of the committee. I expect that finding new insights, new perspectives, and new ideas in this whole field is going to be something like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack, but I think that through repetition and public exposure to the problem, we can begin to develop some concrete directions in which to move.

The chairman has been kind enough to refer to the Lou Harris survey that my subcommittee commissioned. Of course that survey, which is very voluminous, is available to this committee, so I will not undertake to go into it extensively, but I think there are some insights contained in that survey that have particular relevance to the thrust of this committee's work.

May I say first, that if the strength of the democracy depends in the best of times on the degree to which its people are well informed, certainly the axiom carries even greater force today. When public confidence in the leadership of all institutions, and especially Government, has reached an alltime low, while the complexity of the Nation's problems reaches an alltime high, communications between the American people and their leaders should be better than ever before.

29-801-74——2