[Documents submitted by Congressman Pepper appear in the Appendix on p. 638.]

Chairman METCALF. Congressman McClory, a good friend, has notified me he is unable to be here.

He has a statement, and it will be incorporated into the record. And now I am delighted to have as our next witness, another good friend, one of the distinguished Members of the U.S. Senate, Bill Brock, who is also a former Member of the House. Senator Brock and I have worked very closely in trying to get budgetary reform legislation enacted and we have worked together on other congressional activities.

There is no Member of the Senate who is more respected than Bill Brock, and we are delighted to have you here as the final witness at today's hearing.

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL BROCK, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Senator BROCK. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief if I may.

I would like to thank you for taking the initiative and holding these hearings, which are of enormous importance to all of us, and for your continuing interest and your leadership.

I think before I address the remarks I have with me, I would just like to followup with a couple of comments that were made by the previous witness, and to some of the questions, and particularly to Mr. Cleveland, with regard to exercise of the rules function.

Chairman METCALF. Please do. You have waited very patiently. Senator BROCK. I was interested in the exchange. My distinguished colleague from New Hampshire raised some valid points when he said the Congress, in effect, has to earn recognition by exercising its oversight responsibilities, and I could not agree more.

I might point out that I was somewhat disappointed in the House, in striking from the budget reform bill the strongest oversight section from the bill.

I hope that we are able to hold that in the Senate side.

I also was interested in the Senator's, Senator Pepper's remarks, now a Congressman, in which he said perhaps we should take some effort to guarantee equal, and maybe even preferential access on the part of the Congress to the national media.

I am really not sure that I can accept that. I am most interested in the television coverage of the Congress, of the committees, in the sessions of Congress, but maybe it is my traditional, conservative upbringing, I conjure up all kinds of dangerous visions when I hear the possibility of guaranteeing equal or preferential access to the free airwaves of this country, and that bothers me somewhat.

I am not sure that is what he meant, but it is something that we should be very cautious with in protecting the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, and I might point out-that we have access to our constituents through the use of the frank, which others do not have.

Mr. Chairman, no one could read the latest polls-more particularly the Louis Harris survey on public attitudes regarding Government

29-801-74- 6

which was prepared for our Government Operations Committeewithout being concerned by the manner in which Congress perceived by the American people. This country operates on faith, and to the extent that public confidence is eroded, so too is our capacity for selfgovernment.

I noted the testimony of Prof. Bertram Gross of the City University of New York, in which he said, "Historically, the Congress is the country's great public forum. But who listens?

"And how-as the mass media now operates can the great mass of the American people follow what is going on in Congress?"

Representative BROOKS. Did you say the President does not have the franking privilege?

Senator BROCK. I have never seen direct constituent mail from the President on a mass basis.

Maybe he has it. I do not know if he ever exercises it.

Representative BROOKS. Not only does the President have it, but he has it after he goes out of office, and his wife does, and last week I got a frank letter from Mrs. Johnson.

Senator BROCK. They are able to respond. I do not know if they can initiate.

From my own point of view, perhaps the most important step that can and should be taken is to open up the Congress to full public view. Time and again in the Harris survey individuals pointed out how frustrated they were with the inability to find out what was going on, what their Representatives were or were not doing.

We made an excellent step forward with the passage of the change in rules last fall which emanated from the bill that Lawton Chiles and I and others cosponsored to open up committee markup sessions. That bill represented a good step forward, but much remains to be done in this area.

Given the current perception of Congress by the people of this country, it is not difficult to understand that suspicion which exists when people do not know what is going on. That can be partially remedied by more open sessions.

Second, I think it is important that we address ourselves to the problem of communication. Generally, the mass media do an excellent job of covering Congress in national publications or those which are nationally recognized and have the staff to devote to this effort.

The problem is far more difficult for those of a regional or local nature. This problem cannot be addressed by television which is so structured in its time availability. Full and adequate coverage can only be maintained if all resources are utilized.

As I said, I am most interested in full and adequate coverage.

Perhaps one vehicle would be the establishment of an office of the Congress to perform a service function for all elements of the media. For example, daily and weekly summaries could be of use to libraries, educational institutions, and smaller radio and newspaper facilities.

Such an office could perform a response service on inquiry from such institutions, as well as provide an access for the larger units of the national media to sources of information which might not otherwise be available.

Mr. Chairman, I have no magic answer to the problem, but I do feel it is one of great urgency. People today find little that is encouraging about Congress.

While I do on occasion share that sense of frustration, I am also aware of the enormous sense of dedication which pervades this institution. We need to do a better job of communication, and I believe we can. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. Chairman METCALF. Senator Brock, I am very grateful to you for your appearance.

You are one of the leaders in opening up Government Operations Committee markup sessions. We were able to correct an unfortunate provision in the Legislative Reorganization Act as a result of the work and leadership of yourself, Senator Chiles, and others. I am delighted that you came here this afternoon, and pointed out some of these problems.

I agree that my colleagues, with whom I have been associated in the years that I have been in Congress, have been men of dedication and purpose, but often have been misunderstood. One problem is that the great big issues are covered by superb magazine and newspaper writers, and by television, while other important but less dramatic issues are ignored.

I do not think surface mining was very well covered during markup in committee. The matter of strip mining is of great importance to this whole country, and the lack of coverage of such issues is what we are concerned about.

You know, Senator, I think some of our colleagues underrate the Congress. I have heard it argued that televising some of our sessions will cause some people to showboat.

I disagree. I think if we had continuous coverage of the Congress, I think you might cut out a little showboating. I think you might focus our debates more on the issues, and I think it would be beneficial to our process.

Congressman Brooks?

Representative BROOKS. Senator, we are delighted to see you here again, and I recall our pleasant association when you were a Member of the House of Representatives. I congratulate you on your change of status.

Senator BROCK. I do not know which way I moved, but I treasure my years in the House greatly.

Chairman METCALF. Congressman Brooks and I came together to the House. I do not know if he made a wiser decision than I.

Senator BROCK. It is a question of what is the upper body sometimes. Representative BROOKS. What I wanted to do was comment briefly on your awareness of the summaries' usefulness to libraries, smaller radio and newspaper facilities. It is also useful to the Members of Congress, and as you undoubtedly know, this committee instituted and put out, maintained, and operated a very concise summary for the benefit of the Senate and the House, operated both separately for a period of time and were very well received. The Rules Committee of the Senate, whether or not they want to do it on a permanent basis, I do not know, but it is being considered.

I fully share your feeling that such a summary would be of considerable value, not only to the Members, but to educational institutions, and to radio, newspaper facilities, libraries, people who are interested in what goes on in Congress. It would be a concise, readable, and accurate analysis of what actually happened without having to read through the rather voluminous and sometimes tedious pages of the Congressional Record. I hope you will convey your interest to the House Administration Committee, and to the Senate Rules Committee, because both of those bodies, with a minimum expenditure of money, because we proved this could be done with a very small staff on a minimum budget, and have it available in the Members' offices by 30 to 45 minutes after the House closed.

It would be worth doing. The only thing, and as a conservative concerned about money matters, like most of us who try to pay our grocery bills are now, the only problem is it requires for maximum utilization a terminal in each office, so that on say a 10-to-15-minute-lag basis, you have in your office an analysis of what is going on in the Senate for the use of your staff and yourself, the same in the House.

This will cost some money, but I think it would pay itself out in better informed Members of both bodies, and I would certainly appreciate your encouragement of both those groups, certainly the Senate Rules Committee.

I think there is a great future for that.

Senator BROCK. Congressman, I appreciate that statement.

I completely agree with you. You know, sometimes I wonder if we are not penny wise and pound foolish up here.

We spend all that time debating $100,000 for an appropriation, and 5 minutes debating national defense with $60 billion in it, and if we are going to be responsive to our constituents, we have to have access to adequate information sources, and this kind of information source is crucial to us.

We have been working for a long time, some of us in the Senate and in the House, to achieve a data-retrievable system.

The House is ahead of the Senate in this matter, but I hope we will catch up.

It would be enormously productive for us to be able to have access to those sources of information, and I shall do the best I can to support that.

Representative BROOKS. I might say, for the record, that this has been one of the most nonpartisan issues that this committee has ever handled, and not only you have worked on it, and you are aware of it; but on our committee, particularly Congressman Cleveland has been an active leader and a worker in the efforts to get this summary put together, to function, the organization to function adequately, and to be considered by the House Administration Committee. I want to publicly say that we owe you a lot of gratitude for your determined effort in that field.

Chairman METCALF. On that note, we will recognize Congressman Cleveland.

Representative CLEVELAND. I thank you very much for your kind words, and I hope we can get this summary perfected in the House. It is in the House Administration Committee, and we are working on it now. But I want to warn you, Congressman Brooks and Senator

Metcalf, as soon as we do perfect this summary of what we have done, I want to carry this matter a step further. While it is all very well to tell the people of the country what we have done to them, I think we have also got to have a little scheduling and a little advance notice, so that before we do it to them, some of these people have fair notice.

That is right around the corner. The scheduling of the House which is the function of the Democratic leadership leaves a good deal to be desired. I am saying this as a fact of my own time, and we will come back to that.

Representative BROOKS. Jim, when your conscience is clear, you have only good thoughts up your sleeve. Surely the people will not object. Senator BROCK. May I say amen, I hope you are successful.

Representative CLEVELAND. Senator Brock, I welcome you to these hearings.

I worked with you some years ago, and I have followed your career in the Senate with pleasure.

Senator, in my opening statement, I suggested among other reforms that perhaps a half hour could be reserved just before a vote—an important vote for a summation by the proponents and the opponents of a particular proposal. I wonder if you could comment on whether or not that could be helpful, not only to Members who might not have been there for the full deliberations, but for the public, particularly if we do follow the proposals to have the electronic media come into the Senate and the House Chambers.

Senator BROCK. I think it would be enormously helpful.

I would point out we have one particular problem in the Senate that you do not have in the House, and that is in the sense of scheduling

votes.

Under the circumstances, we do not have a time certain quite often for voting, unless it is by unanimous consent, and consequently it is more difficult to achieve that, but whatever the time is, I think it would be of great value to reserve at least a half hour if not a good deal more time on occasion of major issues for a summary of the alternative positions that we have to choose from.

I think it would be of benefit to the Congress and of benefit to the American people, and particularly if we are successful in our effort to get coverage, that is the thing that should be covered, that is where you reach the knob of the debate, and I think it would be helpful. Chairman METCALF. Thank you very much, Congressman Cleveland. Congressman Giaimo?

Representative GIAIMO. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to thank Senator Brock for giving us the benefit of his thoughts.

Senator BROCK. I do not think there is any more important issue facing the country, including Watergate, energy, the economy, everything else, given the current state of the public confidence, there is nothing more important than reforming the Congress, this institution. of the people, and I appreciate your effort in this regard.

Chairman METCALF. Let me concur with the statements of my colleagues, that we are indebted to you for your concern and your interest as demonstrated by opening up committee activities, and in appearing before the Rules Committee on various matters of reform. Some