the late Speaker Sam Rayburn had to cables, lights, heat, and so forth, with which I certainly agree, can be overcome. We need to determine whether television coverage can be compatible with dignity and decorum in our proceedings.

Representative PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, another one of the objections that is constantly made, and one of the fears that is entertained by people who love the House and the Senate, is that it would afford an opportunity for showboating, for spectacular performance, demagoguery, or whatever you want to call it, but my recommendation is that the way this matter should be begun, at least, would be to allow the radio and television authority, the people, to set up their own facilities, of course, under the supervision and with the approval of appropriate committees of the House and Senate, and they would determine, just like the newspaper reporters or their editors back home, they determine what is printed.

The radio and television would determine what is covered, and if a fellow is making a show of himself in order to get some spectacular attention in the country, they would exercise their editorial prerogative and the radio and TV constantly exercise those, and he would just not appear, and so I would suggest the way this matter should be begun, first we should have a joint committee.

Perhaps this committee would be the ideal one to do it, a joint committee representing the Congress, to confer with the appropriate committee of radio and television, with a view to working out the most effective and the most practical and desirable means by which the coverage of the House and the Senate deliberations should be carried by those two media.

As I said, it would be up to them. There might come a time that we found abuse, that we found they were only putting the Democrats on, only putting the Republicans on, and not giving fair coverage.

The committee that would have constant supervision over the matter would have an opportunity to protest to the appropriate committee of the media involved, and bring to their attention the appearance of discrimination, that they were practicing, and you would have them understand we aren't going to tolerate that.

You have a certain amount of editorial discretion but you must not willfully tend to discriminate against any party or any individual for that matter, but that would be the right way to begin in my opinion.

Now, many of the media of the radio and television authorities have applied to our Senate and House authorities, and of all times, when it is most desirable to get greater coverage in this country for the House and the Senate, it is now that we have public television.

Now, let us take the situation as it now exists, my previous distinguished colleague who spoke here was talking about letting Congress make news, and as the distinguished chairman pointed out, it is very difficult to make news here, to get it reported in the country, back home, or anywhere else in the country.

We all know that today to a very large degree, in order to get any kind of a fair image or reflection of what we are trying to do here as Representatives of our people is by our own newsletter and our own contacts with the media back home, and advertisements and the like.

There ought to be a fair portrayal to the country of what the Congress is doing, and it would seem to me that it would be desirable

for the appropriate committee to give an opportunity to the media to give the coverage that they think the various events the Senate and the House are entitled to receive.

May I say, it has been determined, for example, in Austria, all proceedings in the chamber are recorded on videotape and the official broadcasting agency selects appropriate excerpts for TV and radio broadcasts.

Such excerpts appear regularly in the evening on television, on the news program. The same is true in Denmark, and Norway, and Finland.

Now, just what is going on in the various committees of the Senate and the House everyday, the bills that are introduced, for example, there could be far more time and attention devoted to what we are doing.

It may not be too spectacular, but a lot of people would like to know what happens to the committees every day, what bills are reported out, and the various things going on on the floor, a little bit better than they could get in a 15 minute or a half hour news broadcast, or from a national commentator reporting on whatever is newsworthy in that brief 30 minutes or hour time.

I know at home in Miami we have channel 2, which is the public broadcasting station, and they are more and more frequently carrying legislative activities and things of that character. At least let it be offered.

Now, the second thing is that we should have a better staffing to help the radio and TV people to know what we are doing in committee, and on the floor and otherwise, as Representatives in the Congress.

The executive, most if not all of the executive departments have extensive information facilities. It does not have to be merely a propaganda facility.

It ought to be a facility to help them call attention to what is more important, or maybe what they should consider and the like, so first I would say a committee of the Congress, no doubt this would be the ideal committee, meeting with a committee of the media, radio and television to determine whether they might be given access to the floor, House and Senate, under the circumstances that would not be objectionable and permit them an opportunity selectively to broadcast to the country what is done.

The second thing is better staffing in order to give them greater assistance in performing the duty of informing the people of the country of what is being done for them by their Representatives in the Congress of the United States.

Now, the next thing is the Congress as an institution in the use of the media, and its relationship to the Executive. We know it would seem, if you just read the Constitution, and we know that Congress is charged with the responsibility of making the laws, that that would be of equal importance to the people of the country, with that function of the Federal Government for execution of the law, but, of course, the prerogative, the prestige, that is, the Presidency, has grown to such an enormous proportion, taken on such king-like image, that it commands the public spectrum, it commands the front page of every paper when the President has a cough, a sneeze, it is reported in the newspaper that the President's house is in jeopardy because it is reported he

sneezed today, and if he sneezes the second time, it would begin to make the stock market change up or down as the case may be, and so here we are, 435 in one branch and another 100 in the other, sprawled all over the Capitol, nobody speaking exactly the same for everybody on everything, and the like, and our feeble efforts to try to represent our people back home, knowing that we are trying to do something to make laws, we have a very difficult task in doing that and it would seem to me if we have to preserve the balance which I think is essential to the equilibrium of this Republic, to the vitality of this Republic, if we are to preserve anything like it, have an equality of balance, the legislative and the executive, we have got to provide better opportunities and better facilities by which we can be heard.

We must give our people a chance to react.

That leads to the next question, how do we do it.

The Executive, all he does is ask for time and he gets it. The President did not make the law that gives him the right to have the license to use the airways of this country.

Congress enacted that legislation. We gave him that power, the opportunity, the authority, yet as it is within the media, we have seen a very commendable exercise, and I think desirable on the part of CBS, and I do not know whether others are doing it or not, but now in recent times we have been given the opportunity to respond when the President comes on. Still the enormous impact of 20, 30 million people hearing the President, he comes over there and speaks to a joint session, and we are all sitting out there, he is the eloquent speaker to the 30, 40 million people listening.

How can we have an opportunity to make reservations about some of these recommendations he makes, question some of the statements that the President makes or the like.

In other words, how can we have equality of access to the public ear and understanding so that they may make a better judgment as to what is in their interest.

We should, of course, have the same right that the Executive has. I mean Congress as an institution should have such right.

It is just as important when the lawmaking authority wishes to tell the people about the lawmaking process, as when the Executive authority wishes to tell them of his contributions, aside from being Commander in Chief, that is to execute and to take care that the laws of the land have been faithfully executed.

We must establish by legislation that which will give us the equality of access. I am not at all sure that we should have preferred access.

I think we are entitled to say, not just wait until the President makes a speech, and then say we want the right to reply, when we think we have something to say to the country, tell the media we want to be heard. If the President wants to reply, let him reply, let us give him a hearing, but we ought to have equal access to the media.

I realize, Mr. Chairman, all of these things have some drawback, there is some question about it, but I think the time has come for this committee to make strong recommendations about this matter that will give first, equality of access to the proceedings of the Congress, to all the media, radio and TV, the same as the press.

If we are going to let the press be in the galleries, let the radio and the TV be in the galleries, then if we need to modify our own rules to

be consistent with the performance of their duties, by the media, we can do that, but I think we must leave it to them. They will know when to turn off and when to turn on, but I would certainly like to see us in some way enjoy more coverage.

Perhaps we could make funds available to public television facilities of the country, so that they at least would more often carry the things that we do. I think the people of this country would find it highly desirable.

I think you are making progress toward the protection of our democratic processes, and I think this will have much to do with keeping the people of this country better informed, so they in turn can keep a better check on what we are doing as Representatives.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman METCALF. Thank you, Representative Pepper. We certainly thank you for your leadership as a pioneer in this area, which we as latecomers are exploring.

Sometimes we have to stake out a certain area, and then it takes decades before we see any results. I am glad you appeared today. Your usual eloquence and your knowledge of this subject have certainly helped us.

Mr. Brooks?

Representative BROOKS. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for coming, and I appreciate your leadership. I wish I had been here in 1944 to help, instead of where I was, in the South Pacific.

Chairman METCALF. I wish the same.

Congressman Cleveland?

Representative CLEVELAND. Congressman Pepper, you referred to the Congress as the maker of the laws, and the Executive as the executor of the laws, and of course this is a true statement, but should we not be mindful of the fact that the Congress also has, as you know, a very important but often neglected oversight responsibility to be sure that the laws, after we pass them and as they are being executed by the Executive, are indeed being executed as the Congress hoped they would be? And you not hope that if we should get more attention from the media, if we improved our exercise of the oversight function, it would help the public understand we just do not pass the program and then leave it for the President, that we have a continuing responsibility, and if we aquitted ourselves better in that area, we might inspire greater confidence?

Representative PEPPER. I would certainly agree, not only in this area, but in other areas, we should do a much better job in the exercise of our jurisdictions.

Representative CLEVELAND. One other point I would like to make, you were very persuasive in your argument about the public's right to know, and you were very persuasive in your suggestions that the electronic media be allowed to cover our sessions in the House, and I agree with you. But don't you think it should also be borne in mind. that you cannot order them to cover us, there is no way we can insist they cover us? Unless the Congress improves its performance, and makes through procedural changes-our performance more understandable, even if we let the electronic media have access to the floor of

the House, to cover our debates and procedures, the media certainly is not going to cover much. Because, I am sure you will have to agree with me, there are long hours, at least long minutes, sometimes, that are almost meaningless to the average member of the public, and to many Members of the body itself.

We get into procedural wrangles, and so we are going to have to improve our procedures and our performance to make our actions meaningful to the public so the media will cover them.

Do you follow my point?

Representative PEPPER. I do. Mr. Anderson touched on that subject, I think very desirably. We had a reorganization of Congress in 1946. Another in 1968.

We have made many meaningful procedural changes in the House in the last 3 or 4 years. We must do much more.

Chairman METCALF. Senator Monroney's Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress was still active in 1968, and eventually we enacted the Legislative Reorganization Act in 1970.

Representative PEPPER. That was an enormous progress that was

made.

Now, in the House, as my distinguished colleagues here from the House will recall, in the last 2 years, we have made very significant steps forward in making the House more effective as a legislative body, having recorded votes, the committee as a whole, for example, in doing away with secrecy in the deliberations of the committees."

I am on the Rules Committee. Every time we had to vote on a bill, everybody would move that we go into executive session, and after the new rule came in, you had to have a record vote before you went into executive.

Now they say we heard the hearings, why do we have to go into executive sessions? We hardly ever go into executive session now. Representative CLEVELAND. Congressman Pepper, you are on the Rules Committee, and sometimes you give us a closed rule.

Representative PEPPER. Under great limitations.

Representative CLEVELAND. Sometimes you give a closed rule, and then we have a long debate on the floor of the House about why we cannot put up this amendment and that amendment as they do over in the Senate?

Representative PEPPER. We have limited it now. You have to give notice at least 4 days in the Congressional Record, and the chairman will abide by the closed rule, and you have a right to be heard, and they are now more careful, and maybe the authority should not exist, but it is done less frequently than before.

Representative CLEVELAND. Sometimes our procedures are difficult for the general public to understand, and I do not want to get into an argument for or against closed rules.

Representative PEPPER. One of the best ways to accelerate the procedure is for the people to know those that are bad, those retarding to the enactment of good legislation.

Let the public know the significant ways that the media can

Representative CLEVELAND. I think you missed the point I am trying to make. I agree with you. Everybody agrees that the public has a right to know, and it will help the public to know.