he worked for the U.S. Civil Service Commission. Mr. Coffey joined the Association of Public Radio Stations after working at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as director of Planning and Evaluation. He is a graduate of the University of West Virginia with a masters degree in Business Administration and postgraduate work in the field of law.

WILLIAM GIORDA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COMMUNICATION

CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

William Giorda is the assistant director of the communication center at the University of Texas in Austin and is the manager of the Longhorn Radio Network of public radio stations and radio station KUT-FM. He has degrees in business administration and broadcasting from the University of Tulsa and was an Overseas Fellow in Australia sponsored by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Mr. Giorda has been active in public broadcasting for 16 years in Texas and Oklahoma, including the recent coverage of the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas State constitutional convention. He was elected to the board of directors of the Association of Public Radio Stations in 1973 and serves as chairman of the nominating committee and secretary to the board.

STATEMENT OF LEE FRISCHKNECHT, PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO

Mr. FRISCHKNECHT. I am Lee Frischknecht, president of National Public Radio, and I am here to urge Congress to improve its communication with the public. We at NPR believe one major way to accomplish this is to open the House and Senate Chambers to direct broadcast coverage.

We are confident that this can be done in ways satisfactory to both Congress and the media. In addition to thus improving the public's access to Congress, we believe Congress can establish practices that would improve congressional access to the public. The ability of Congress to achieve more balance with the executive branch in reaching the people depends largely on Congress improving its ability to package its message in ways that would appeal to the public.

Finally, as part of an effort to improve its communications in general, Congress should establish a professional information staff to serve the media and to advise congressional leaders on how to satisfy the demands of effective public communication.

Let me elaborate on each of these points.

First, National Public Radio agrees with the general position held by others testifying here that the opening of Senate and House Chambers to broadcast coverage would be a good thing for the Nation.

We at NPR are committed to the democratic principle and believe that a fundamental part of that principle is that an informed public is vital to the proper functioning of a democracy. A major characteristic of a free society is that it is an open society and that its public business is conducted openly.

We do not share the fears that opening the two Chambers to broadcasting coverage would hamper the legislative process. Admittedly, some Members, like some reporters at broadcast press conferences, misuse this opportunity. But we believe the sense of responsibility on the part of the Members and the rules and procedures of the two Houses will minimize that problem. We also believe that present procedures in Congress will permit the Members to consider issues of national

security with appropriate privacy even if the floor proceedings of the two Chambers were opened to broadcasting.

And we believe that the complexities of debate and procedures can be made clear and comprehensive to the audience without curbing the efficiency and effectiveness of the parliamentary process.

On the other hand, the ban on broadcasting floor action may well result in a distorted understanding of what Congress is doing. We fear that those who get their news mainly from broadcast media have an idea that all that Members of Congress do is question witnesses at hearings and give interviews on the Capitol steps. The delayed reports by broadcast reporters about actions taken on the floor cannot match the impact of direct broadcasts of the action or even of interviews with Members outside the Chambers. The radio and television audience has difficulty making the connection between the hearings they see or hear and any legislation that results from those hearings. In our view, this is a serious flaw in the public's understanding of the legislative process.

As far as the public understanding of Government is concerned, our experience at National Public Radio persuades us of the correctness of the findings by the Subcommittee of Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Governmental Operations, to the effect that many Americans do not clearly understand the operations of the Federal Government, although they have a definite interest in learning more about it.

This brings me to some more specific and direct reasons why we at National Public Radio are strongly in favor of opening the Chambers to broadcast coverage.

The mission that shapes NPR's coverage of news and public affairs is to provide information that has impact on the lives of our listeners. We have found that this kind of information is eagerly received by our audience. Since the agenda of Congress is made up of the concerns of society, what could have more meaning to the listeners across the land than to witness the deliberations on legislation affecting their lives.

National Public Radio has sought to transmit this kind of information from the beginning. Our first broadcasts in April 1971 consisted of live coverage of hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Since then, a great deal of our programing has been live coverage of congressional hearings. The letters we receive convince us that the audience is eager for such coverage and, further, that they make good use of it. And we understand that our coverage has generated mail to Members-from constituents sometimes seeking further information, sometimes offering to provide information, but nearly always proving that the broadcasts increase the public understanding and appreciation of the proceedings. And it is on such understanding that the success of the American system stands.

Let me elaborate on my earlier remark that we believe the complexities of the legislative process can be made clear and interesting. I would like to cite two examples of NPR programing that persuade us of this.

One is a long-range project-that of presenting the biography of a bill—of following a piece of legislation from its introduction through the complete legislative process until it is either enacted or defeated. In this case, we chose the subject of no-fault automobile insurance.

Since last year, and continuing through this year we have covered every aspect of the process. We have reported on the various bills introduced, interviewed the sponsors, the proponents and the opponents, the witnesses, the lobbyists and numerous members of the staffs of the committees involved and of the Congress itself. We have examined the process and the substance of the legislation in a very thorough and interesting way. We have frequently broadcast the committee hearings live, we have compared the Federal legislation with what various States have done, we have drawn on experts around the country, we have examined the politics involved. We believe our overall coverage will amount to the most comprehensive-and at the same time a very interesting kind of coverage ever given to the Federal legislative process by a broadcast organization.

A second example is not nearly so comprehensive but is just as informative for the public. A few weeks ago we broadcast a markup session live-in this case, it was a session of the House Judiciary Committee—and it dealt with a subject very much in the news: the specifications for an impeachment inquiry.

This provided a fascinating look into one of the most creative and significant functions of Congress. It was more than public education. It was news in the most fundamental sense-it had impact on the listener, it was timely, and it was interesting.

Such experiences as these are strong evidence of the ability of the broadcast media to cover even the most complex activities of Congress, without disrupting or hampering the Members in the execution of their duties.

Let me comment on the fear that broadcast coverage would be overly disruptive. These concerns arise largely because of the powerful lights required for televised coverage of the proceedings. We in radio do not present a problem in this regard since our coverage is very unobstrusive. But even the presence of television equipment would not be disruptive if the Chambers were opened permanently to broadcasting and permanent arrangements were made for placing and housing the equipment. The experience of the United Nations and other bodies whose proceedings are regularly broadcast shows clearly that fears of such disruption are unjustified.

The question of just how to provide coverage of the two Chambers can be answered in various ways. Our experience persuades us that a quasi-public corporation sufficiently safeguarded from political pressures can assure a fair and professional service.

We suggest that this committee and Congress give serious consideration to establishing such a corporation to manage a television and radio service that would provide broadcast coverage available to the media at a fair and reasonable cost. The staff of such a corporation should consist of professional news and technical personnel, and should be guided by professional criteria. The broadcast media could select from the service provided by the corporation as they desired. I turn now to the matter of improving congressional access to the media. In the first place, the opening of the House and Senate Chambers to broadcast coverage will, in itself, give Congress a much larger measure of access than it now enjoys. Beyond that, there are at least two kinds of access to be developed :

(1) Responding to Presidential statements and actions on matters of concern to Congress, and

(2) Presenting reports to the Nation on programs and actions of Congress.

An important objective in responding to the President is for Congress to develop some way to respond in an effective and relevant way. The current practice of requesting equal time and selecting spokesmen is unclear and is not conducive to good communication.

Even worse is the fact that the responses often make poor use of broadcasting techniques. We suggest that you try to develop a clear system for requesting time and selecting spokesmen, and that you see that those spokesmen get the kind of professional guidance and assistance that enable them to present their message in an interesting way. We think regular reports to the Nation by the congressional leadership could be a workable and interesting broadcasting venture. The key times for such presentations might be at the beginning of sessions, the beginning of major recesses, and at the end of sessions. Both majority and minority positions should be presented. The presentations could be in a panel or debate format. You might even consider some way to let listeners call in to ask questions. That might be difficult for the Members involved but it certainly would help attract the audience. All of this would require the services of a professional staff. Such staff would serve both Members of Congress and the representatives of the media. For the Members, it would provide the expertise in presenting such responses and reports I've mentioned. For the media, it would provide a clearinghouse for the mass of information generated on Capitol Hill. Such a staff might well be attached to the majority and minority caucus or conference, in order to work closely with the leadership.

I have touched only briefly on some suggestions for improving congressional communications with the public. You are receiving many ideas and proposals. We at National Public Radio urge you to take advantage of the opportunity to establish practices that will contribute to a better public understanding of what Congress is all about. That better understanding will lead to more public support for Congress as an institution and for the system of which it is a part. Thank

you.

Representative CLEVELAND. Thank you very much.

What do you do, for example, if the House bells ring right now? Both Mr. Dellenback and I would have to leave, the Senator is not back, and this hearing would be suspended. Do you cut it off there, or do you put a commentator on?

Mr. FRISCHKNECHT. We have a man in the room. These proceedings are being broadcast nationally by Public Radio; these two gentlemen here on your right are prepared to cover those situations when they do happen.

Representative CLEVELAND. Do they come in with comment?
Mr. FRISCHKNECHT. Yes, they do.

Representative DELLENBACK. May I ask a question? The comment is confined, is it, to the time when the hearings are not actually in process, or does the comment, like sports comments, take place interlaced over the air?

Mr. FRISCHKNECHT. There is no comment during the proceedings. It is only when the sessions are stopped, for whatever reason, does the comment resume from our reporters, and in that period of time, the

material prerecorded to specifically cover those situations, are transmitted, or interviews are conducted live to help put the hearings into perspective.

Representative DELLENBACK. Thank you.

Mr. FRISCHKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I have a list which I would like to give to the committee, of the hearings we have done in the last few years, and this breaks up the 700 hours in covering a very wide variety of the committee hearings in both the House and the Senate. We will be here tomorrow on the amnesty legislation hearings. The letters we receive from our audience convinces us that they are in fact eager to receive such coverage.

Representative CLEVELAND. They will be made a part of the record. [The material referred to appears in the Appendix on p. 463.] Representative CLEVELAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Frisch

knecht.

We would now like to hear from Mr. Coffey.

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW B. COFFEY, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC RADIO STATIONS

Mr. COFFEY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations. I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate in these hearings on behalf of the noncommercial public radio stations.

Before addressing your specific questions, let me provide some background on noncommercial public radio stations. There are 147 fullservice public radio stations in the United States. All but 26 of them are FM stations. One hundred are university operated, 14 are school board operated, 25 are community operated, and 8 are operated by State or local government agencies.

These public radio stations know that 80 percent of the population turns to radio for information and news. That makes most public radio stations very public information oriented in covering both local and national affairs.

As the chairman pointed out on February 21, these stations have a different value orientation from commercial broadcasting. Public radio stations look at the listener as the programer who makes his listening selections by tuning across the dial. In most communities of size, that means the listener has 30 to 40 stations from which to choose. There is an interest by radio in attracting the listener with a consistent sound and format. This is based on the way people use radio in their daily lives; for example, while driving in their car—or rather, waiting in gasoline station lines-working around the house or office, and in general, while pursuing other activities. People don't have to watch their radio.

There is a keen and growing interest among the noncommercial public radio stations in becoming the sound of government at work. In fiscal 1972, 65 stations reported some coverage of State and local government meetings. In fiscal 1973 that number increased to 86. Mr. Chairman, I do have a list of those 86 stations which I would like to submit for the record. It is a brief 2-page list.

[The above-mentioned list appears in the Appendix on p. 470.] Representative CLEVELAND. It will be made a part of the record at the conclusion of your statement.