I recognize, however, that this kind of coverage, although valuable and necessary, falls short of solving the problem as Congress and NBC see it. There is an overriding interest in projecting Congress to the public as an institution, as the executive branch seems to do so effectively. And that is a difficult order to fill.

Unlike the executive branch, Congress is bipartisan. Sometimes, on some issues, it is multipartisan. Although Congress as a whole represents the country in its great diversity, its individual Members reflect regional and social interests within their States or districts, that are often in conflict, not only with each other, but with the majority sentiment of the Senate and House.

This may be one of the joys of democratic government, but it can only be frustrating to anyone who tries to develop methods of public communication for the legislative branch to parallel the ones used by the executive branch.

In addition, while I believe progress can be made toward bringing the public a better understanding of the role of Congress as an institution, the problem cannot be solved overnight.

The incumbent President has come to his use of the media, particularly broadcasting, in the exercise of his office through a long process of development that began and has continued through many administrations. When that NBC artist was asked to leave the Senate so many years ago, President Roosevelt had already perfected the fireside chat. And as the Congressional Research Service study makes clear, each succeeding President has added to the Executive's use of television to express and advance administration positions.

As Mr. Jordan pointed out in his statement, there is an urgent need for adequate facilities in the Capitol for proper radio and television coverage, even under existing restrictions. The regulations and procedural requirements that hinder broadcast journalists from doing their jobs should be removed.

These are adjustments that could be made in the near future, with significant improvement in broadcast coverage of the Congress.

But far more important, Congress should immediately begin work on a plan to permit complete radio and television access to all sessions of the Senate and House. Basic to this major step is, of course, its acceptance in principle by the Senate and House membership.

Assuming that acceptance, there are several alternatives for following it through. One, it seems to me, is exemplified by the United Nations, which operates its own television service through facilities it installed when the U.N. complex was built.

The three major television networks have access to this service by a direct line feed for payment of an annual fee. The coverage itself it carried out by the radio and visual services division of the U.N. It is made available on both live and video taped bases. If Congress should install a comparable system, however, this should not preclude direct news coverage by broadcasters with their own equipment and on their own initiative.

Chairman METCALF. Mr. Goodman, you were here and heard my discussion with Senator Byrd about his concept of the closed circuit television; would that be analogous to the system you are thinking about with the United Nations?

Mr. GOODMAN. It could be, and it is a similar system. It is one that could be made to work. As I pointed out, our news division would prefer to have the right to go in there with their own cameras on a live network, or on a pool basis; but in the absence of that or in the rejection of that principle, it is possible such a system as this could be worked out.

Now, the closed circuit system you suggest is not exactly what the U.N. has, but a pool system.

Chairman METCALF. I am not a technologist at all, and I am just trying to inquire as to what the technology would be, and I am sure that your experts could do almost anything, so I think they could adapt themselves to that, could they not?

Mr. GOODMAN. I believe they could. What they have in the United Nations is the right of individuals to go in and take their own films or live pictures on the occasions they think it is warranted.

The least promising approach, I believe, is any suggestion that Congress tailor a prescribed number of sessions specifically for broadcast at prescribed times. This could create the impression of a staged, rather than a true, representation of the functioning of Congress, with the risk that the project would lose credibility.

And it would tend to undermine the principle I mentioned earlier and on which we seem to agree: that journalistic decisions should be left in the hands of the journalist.

Let me turn to a specific, recurrent matter: the question of formal expression by Congress of its position on policies and views formally presented on television and radio by the President. As responsible broadcasters, we have, when we judged the situation warranted, provided opportunities for Members of the Congress to speak in opposition to the President. But this has not solved the continuing problem of expressing the view of Congress as a coequal branch of government. No one has found a satisfactory answer to the question-"Who speaks for Congress?"-which happens to be the title of a section in the Congressional Research Service report to you.

I agree totally with the report in its conclusion that there is no short, simple formula for answering the question.

There is an approach which would help meet the problem, and I would like to advance it for your consideration. The proposal is that arrangements be made by whatever means Congress and the Executive find practical-for the President to appear before Congress periodically to respond to questions from its Members on his policies and activities. This is, as you know, a time-honored practice in Great Britain and other parliamentary democracies. Although it is clearly without precedent in this country, I believe it would provide an excellent way to demonstrate graphically to the public the respective, coequal roles of the executive and legislative bodies in governing the Nation.

Chairman METCALF. NOW, Mr. Goodman, don't you think that would be the kind of staged procedure that we want to avoid?

Mr. GOODMAN. I do not really believe it would. A press conference is not a staged affair, and this would be in a way the kind of thing that would be similar and supplementary to a press conference, but would

instead, having only a press conference, the questions would be put by Members of Congress.

Chairman METCALF. Members of Congress?

Mr. GOODMAN. Members of Congress.

Chairman METCALF. Congressman O'Hara is an advocate of a similar proposal, but I just wanted to have your response since you questioned the desirability of having a staged debate every Friday on major issues of that sort. I think ongoing coverage is much more important and much more significant.

Everybody would appear and get questions out as in a press conference, but it would not be a true picture of the Senate and the House of Representatives as an institution, ongoing every day, some Members participating in debate, others participating in committee

activities.

Mr. GOODMAN. It would, however, I believe, establish, as I have said, the fact of the coequality of the two branches of Government, and Í think you would get a different form of question, and therefore, a different reflection of the accountability of the Executive to the people. Chairman METCALF. We would be delighted to have President Nixon up here, and ask him a couple of questions.

Mr. GOODMAN. I am later proposing, it is probably not possible, and I am not suggesting that we put this into effect right away.

Chairman METCALF. I understand. Go right ahead.

Mr. GOODMAN. I think this would provide an equal opportunity for side-by-side presentation of the positions of the President and of the Congress before the electorate.

I realize that even if this proposal were found worthwhile, many difficulties—some of them very obvious-would have to be overcome. But it seems to me that the problem you are addressing is serious enough, in relation to the strength and durability of our system of government over the long run that substantial changes of this sort must be considered.

I believe such Presidential appearances-whether before the whole Congress or a joint, bipartisan committee or whatever group Congress should designate-televised live by one or more of the networks would make a profound contribution to the public's understanding of the relationship of the executive and legislative branches.

I also recognize the impracticality of adopting such a proposal during the tensions of today's political climate and I suggest it be considered for adoption beginning in our bicentennial year, 1976.

We do not have instant solutions, any more than Congress has, to a long-standing problem that has grown larger because of a series of social, political, and technological changes. But we feel that open discussion and continuing examination of the problem will lead to improvements. And the first step is to remove the unnecessary barriers that stand between Congress and the broadcast coverage of its newsworthy activities.

Chairman METCALF. Again, I want to express my appreciation and the appreciation of the committee for your appearance here, for your testimony, and for your analysis of some of the problems we are dealing with. I assure you we will continue to work together in trying to develop better opportunities for you to cover Congress as an institution, as part of the American system of government. Also, I am going

to direct the staff to meet with those people who represented you the other day, to try to bring together some of the rules changes that could be made without legislation and without waiting to deal with the more complex question of covering Senate and House proceedings. Perhaps we can make some progress by simply making some modest changes in our rules, and removing the obstacles you are talking about.

It seems to me that some of these rules are anachronisms, which have just happened, and nobody has ever actually made a strong enough effort to change them.

We have heard from Senator Byrd of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, who is part of the leadership, and then my own distinguished colleague, the majority leader of Montana, is also interested and concerned about freer access for the media.

That is on the Senate side.

Congressman Cleveland mentioned Congressman Bolling, who is interested on the House side. In any event, I will direct the staff to try to meet with Mr. Jordan and his colleagues, to attempt to list rules changes we can immediately adopt. I think in that way we can move forward without legislating changes.

If so, that contribution may help in this Congress. And I think it is important for you to continue to point out the fact that we have not provided adequate facilities for the radio and television reporters who are covering the sessions of Congress. Whether they are permitted to broadcast floor proceedings or not, we have not taken care of them in the press galleries, and certainly, while space is at a premium, I am sure we can make better provision for ABC, NBC, and all of the others covering the Congress.

Mr. GOODMAN. I think expanded facilities are very important.

Despite this building, I think you will find on the House side that they are also pushed for adequate space.

Chairman METCALF. I am sure that we all appreciate that.
Congressman Cleveland?

Representative CLEVELAND. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I read through your statement, Mr. Goodman, I am glad that when you did point with pride to the great variety and number of Congressmen who are allowed on your network, you went on to point out that that type of coverage is really not solving the problem we are talking about. Then you went on and made this point, and you made it very articulately, that unlike the executive branch, Congress is bipartisan and speaks with many voices.

Sometimes, on some issues, it is multipartisan. Although Congress as a whole represents the country in its great diversity, its individual Members reflect regional and social interests within their States or districts that are often in conflict, not only with each other, but with the majority sentiment of the Senate and House.

This may be one of the joys of democratic government, but it can only be frustrating to anyone who tries to develop methods of public communication for the legislative branch to parallel the ones used by the executive branch.

Chairman METCALF. Will you pardon me a moment? Will you yield? There is a vote in the Senate, one of those votes that Senator Byrd has expedited, so I must return there.

With your permission, Congressman Cleveland, I will turn the hearing over to you, but I would suggest after Mr. Goodman is through, we recess until 1:30 and then start with the other witnesses.

Will that be satisfactory?

Representative CLEVELAND. Very satisfactory, and it will be the first time, as a member of the minority, that I have had the opportunity to chair a hearing.

Chairman METCALF. I am delighted. Thank you very much, Mr. Goodman. I will certainly examine your further testimony. You have made a most significant contribution. I hope we can remove some of the obstacles you face in attempting to cover Congress.

Representative CLEVELAND. Before you answer my question, Mr. Goodman, you might want to comment on this someday, because frequently people ask me: "Why don't I ever see you in the chair of one of these committees; you have been down there 12 years, have you not made any progress? You cannot be much of a Congressman.

But the thing is that as members of the minority, we usually do not get through the bills we sponsor, and sitting in the chair is an accident. Whoever called that vote, I am very grateful he did.

Now, getting back to the question which I asked you to comment on. Your excellent statement, on pages 4 and 5, speaks about the joys of democratic government, the fact of diversity, and that we are not one monolithic, rubberstamp body as they often have in a one-body country. Then you say that is frustrating, and you stop there.

Mr. GOODMAN. I meant it is frustrating on the part of those of you examining such a problem, on the part of this committee, and on those of the leadership of Congress who come to us on occasion and say the President has been on the air.

Congress wants to reply. Who is Congress? That is the point I am trying to make.

It is difficult to establish who speaks for Congress. It is 535 people, and not one, and because not all Members of it are satisfied with the chosen Representatives when one is chosen.

Now, how difficult it is to get an agreement on anything on any group of men, whether they are Congressmen or not, that is what Ĩ meant by frustration.

Representative CLEVELAND. What we are trying to do in these hearings is to get away from the struggle of Congress versus the Executive, and one party versus the other in Congress. What we are trying to do is address the fact that, at this particular point in history, the Congress is held at the lowest esteem of any major institution in our national life. So we are having hearings on this subject, and although the point you make is relevant to that, I do not think it is central to it.

Some of us argue that it is our fault because of our procedures. But while we have you here, it does seem to me you might have some idea as to how the strength of the House with its diversity could be related to the people so they understand it, and they do not think we are squabbling among ourselves.

That is what we should be doing, not squabbling, but arguing. I am sorry to see you back off from that point.

Mr. GOODMAN. I have really not considered myself backing off of the point, but addressing the central point that seems to concern so many of you, is how can we balance the coverage between Congress and the executive branch.