I felt this might be a useful addition.

Chairman METCALF. Your statement will be amended to include

that.

Congressman Giaimo?

Representative GIAIMO. Senator Muskie, I want to thank you for your obviously well-prepared and thorough study of this matter. I know you have been concerned about it for a long time.

As a practical matter, let me just get your thoughts.

How do we, for example, use television to educate the public as to what Congress is doing and at the same time not bore them to death? As you know, many of our hearings our appropriation hearings on the House side are rather dry. The media must be used properly and I just wonder how we could do that.

Of course, I understood you to say that full floor coverage of debates would be key debates; but other than that, as you well know, most of the work on the floor of the Senate or the House is not that controversial in the sense. It is similar to courtroom trials. If you get great conflict in a trial, it is interesting to the public, but the average everyday trial of the lawsuit is rather dull, except to the lawyers and the judge and perhaps the jury.

I wonder if you could comment on your thoughts on a practical matter as to how we could utilize the great media of television, which would be so effective to the Congress in some practical ways?

Senator MUSKIE. Perhaps, in answering your question, I will raise more questions than answers, but let me think out loud about it.

First of all, in order to do the job well, we have to have access. That might come through commercial television, although I cannot conceive of commercial television doing this on any such regular basis. On the other hand public television, as it is now constituted, is very receptive in trying to do regular public service programs.

At this point I am sure it would be a question of Congress initiating the use of television, in some fashion for its own purposes.

On the question of what means we use, we should be flexible. We would have to program the coverage through all parties in the Congress. They would all be identified, and the issues that are going to emerge in the course of a year would be brought out in advance. We could try to program the issues with the assistance of the committee chairmen, in order to obtain exposure at the decisionmaking points in the process.

If a subcommittee markup is the point at which an issue first surfaces, you could schedule your open sessions there. If this is known in advance, I think the members would lend themselves and their time to it, so that you could have a real confrontation and debate.

You could do the same at the full committee level, or for floor debates. Yesterday in the Senate was an ideal time to have done it, when public attention could have been focused on an important issue. The time was controlled in any case, and the floor managers could have arranged the control of this time in order to have a flow of debate that would have been of interest. So I think it is possible to do it.

The public television people have been toying with techniques for getting public attention and interest aroused.

I was on "Firing Line" just the other day. There was a good audience because the host is very provocative, he has a sharp mind, and he promotes his witnesses into a similar response. Thus you have something that the public is interested in. I agree with you, that if you get the coverage at the point of confrontation, or to use a better word, at the point at which decisions are being made, and alternatives are being debated, I think you will find the public interested. I also think you can anticipate in advance the key issues.

You would not want to cover all votes in the Senate last year, but the key ones would be easy to identify, even in advance.

Representative GIAIMO. You made comments in your statement to the fact that although we have many committee meetings that are public, in many instances they are not covered by the press or TV. Of course, this is a fault, in my opinion, of the media that should have been covering them. But also I would deduce you are of the opinion that all of our committee meetings-except in those instances, say, of national security or for reasons of that type-should be open and available to the press and the TV to cover.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes. At one time I had the same reservations that I think most Members of Congress had, that it would inhibit the process, discourage debate, submerge new ideas, and so on.

I have not found those fears materialized. I would say we should open up all the meetings.

Representative GIAIMO. You are aware that we still have instances of closed hearings and markups and certainly conference committee reports, particularly in the House. In our own appropriations committee, every one of our subcommittee and full committee markups are closed, even though in my opinion there is absolutely no justification for it. I, too, used to think that you could cooperate more efficiently or effectively in the absence of the media, but it seems to me that in the process of trying to restore confidence and getting more effectiveness out of the members, except in instances where national security might require a secret meeting, we are better off if the public is able to observe this.

Senator MUSKIE. I agree, and as I said, I think we have more privacy by opening up the meetings than we did when we closed them.

Representative GIAIMO. By opening them, at the very least, there is a threat to the membership, let us say, that the media may walk in on them in the midst of their deliberations or lack of deliberations. Senator MUSKIE. I think all of the evidence to date is that it is a healthy chance, Congressman. I happen to be sold on it.

Chairman METCALF. Thank you very much.

Mr. Brooks?

Representative BROOKS. Just a comment following on your dialog with Congressman Giaimo.

The experience we had, at least in one of my committees, with the open public markup sessions, raised at least one problem which would have to be addressed, and I think it could be addressed quite easily. It could be addressed by a change in our rules, but there are some Members who feel because it is open, and the press and public are there, they have to expound at some length on almost every issue that comes up, so you do have a time problem, at least on one or two occa

sions, where it becomes quite difficult to cope with. I think this problem could be handled by a change in the rules which we now have for closed sessions, but this is not an insurmountable problem, and eventually could be taken care of by a change in the rules, but we did have that problem, and I think you can recognize it. When you have a public hearing, then every member of the committee, and Congress you know, some people feel a compulsion to expound on sometimes even the most minor issue.

Senator MUSKIE. We did not find that tendency. I concede it could be a problem, but I think you have to get used to it. It takes care of itself.

Representative BROOKS. Maybe it is just the House that has that problem.

Senator MUSKIE. That is not the usual tradition, Congressman. Maybe you are more frustrated in the House because you do not have the floor as often as we do.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity.

Chairman METCALF. Thank you. I congratulate you on your statement. I am grateful for your appearance here. You have set a good example and a high tone for the conduct of these hearings, and you have raised some of the questions we may wish to make recommendations on after we have heard from the media and the press, and the academic community. Thank you very much.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much.

Chairman METCALF. The next witness is Congressman Van Deerlin. We are delighted to have him here to testify about a matter which is of great concern to him. And while he is getting ready, I want to comment that this hearing is being carried by National Public Radio, and that the people are listening to our comments, and the microphones are live.

Congressman Van Deerlin, it is a privilege to have you testify before this committee. I see you have a prepared statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Representative VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During this interval, while the room is being cleared- -[Laughter.] Chairman METCALF. There are dozens of people still standing back there.

Representative VAN DEERLIN. Sandwiched between giants like Muskie and Mondale, I will try to be mercifully brief.

I hope that the dialog that preceded my testimony, regarding live electronic coverage of both committee sessions in floor debates in the House and the Senate, did not suggest that we in Congress would play a determining role in what issues are covered, and what issues are left uncovered.

In my view, we should give the press free access, and then just lay off. Instead of telling the media what they should do, we should make it easier for them to do what they want to do, and what they think. is of interest to the public and in the public interest.

It will not do to try playing "big brother" to the newsmen and women assigned to the Hill.

They would be onto our gambit in a second if we tried to give them unsolicited guidance-and besides which, seems to me to border on the unconstitutional.

In reading an excellent study on Congress and Mass Communications which was prepared for these hearings by the Library of Congress, I was very interested to learn that long before my time in Washington, way back in 1947, the opening session of the House that year was open to television cameras the session itself, not just the swearing-in, which is common practice. Interestingly enough, while it was a first, it, was also a last, as far as the intervening 27 years have been concerned.

Film and TV cameras have never been permitted in either Chamber to cover a regular congressional session, and in too many cases, newsmen are restricted by their physical surroundings, as well as by our own archaic rules.

Broadcast newsmen in the Senate, I understand, are still performing their chores in precisely the same gallery surroundings they enjoyed in 1945, at a time television was still in the experimental stage, and in a few or no homes in the country.

I feel strongly that if the enterprising reporters on Capitol Hill are given sufficient latitude as well as adequate working space, our communications problems will largely take care of themselves. I would accompany my advice with a caveat that inasmuch as I came to Congress from 10 years in broadcasting following a print media career, I probably have some conflict of interest. I tend to look at these things more as a reporter and editor than as a Member of Congress. But I can tell you, with considerable experience now in each, I would feel far safer with Congress being covered freely by a press that included some transparent scalawags than I would under any system which finds government looking over the shoulder of a news editor, writer, or broadcaster.

I have a statement which is somewhat more elongated than what I have shared with you, Mr. Chairman, but I will leave that for bedside reading.

Chairman METCALF. Thank you. We have already made a standing rule that there will be permission to extend remarks. The summaries that will be presented will be included in the record, and statements in their entirety will also be included.

You do come to this committee with a good deal of experience and background, in the very area that we are trying to explore. What customs and rules in the Senate and House do you believe inhibited the news media?

Representative VAN DEERLIN. On our side there is no question that until very recently our policies were established by the late Sam Rayburn, one of the most honored and revered figures in the entire history of Congress. He served as Speaker of the House longer than any other man. However, Mr. Rayburn was not a product of the electronic

age.

I am sure that he was troubled by the lights and the extensive cables that marked early efforts for television coverage in committee rooms. It was surely a disruptive influence, and in the early days at least, could very well affect a witness, both as to his manner under the

lights, on the cameras, and perhaps to his ability to testify logically and effectively.

If this were so, then this was well worth considering at the time. Television is no longer obtrusive, and it need not be. The sophistication of cameras and the rest of the gear is now sufficiently well advanced that television can be almost as unobtrusive as pencil and pad reporters in the room.

Chairman METCALF. Well, as I look around me at the members of this committee, who have been leaders in trying to open up committee meetings and executive sessions to the public, I think that most of us have tried to do just what you suggest. And now these meetings are going to be open, and we are going to have markup sessions in the open, and representatives of the press are invited. Or if someone wants to broadcast or televise such meetings they are welcome to do so. However, I think that many of us feel that no one takes advantage of these opportunities.

I do not know how we can get coverage of some of the other important stories, other than just the very big stories, which are superbly covered in this city. People in Montana, for example, which does not have a single newspaper reporter assigned here, should have an opportunity to read about committee activities that are of particular concern to them.

Representative VAN DEERLIN. On our side, Mr. Chairman, the unfortunate, in this very Congress, has been that after we adopted the rules providing for open sessions, unless they are closed by a majority vote of the committee members, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, on Post Office and Civil Service, and Merchant Marine and Fisheriesall of these have been wide open.

Unfortunately, matters dealing with these peoples' money-the Appropriations Committee on which Mr. Giaimo serves, and committees like Ways and Means, which determines who is going to pay what taxes these are the committees that have been locked up against the general public. Mr. Giaimo is one of the spirits on the Appropriations Committee who would have it otherwise.

Representative GIAIMO. Who would have what otherwise?
Chairman METCALF. You would open up the meetings.

Representative GIAIMO. Absolutely, but I have been getting my head bloodily bashed last year and the year before. All of our hearings-of our markup hearings are closed, and there is absolutely no justification for this.

Representative VAN DEERLIN. The point I was making, Mr. Giaimo, was that our unimportant committees are wide open, and those that raise or spend the people's money are closed, and it seems to me the Chairman's comment that the media have not availed themselves of the opportunities for full reporting could be traced on our tendency to make the important stories unavailable, and to open up the debates on issues which pass by 380 to 0.

Chairman METCALF. Mr. Cleveland?

Representative CLEVELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to welcome my colleague, Mr. Van Deerlin.

I have often thought at the beginning of a new session when we have the President deliver the state of the Union message-and the cameras