« 이전계속 »
Representative BROOKS. I wanted to comment on a couple of other brief matters, Mr. Chairman, if I might.
On your space evaluation, I assume you all share the interest in more space, and more equal utilization of the presently assigned space, both House and the Senate.
I am glad you like the House a little bit better, not much, but a little, and I am grateful for that.
I wish you would think of a possibility. You have made a rough suggestion as to how that space could be utilized, and maybe how you could get the newspaper people, and the radio people which you also represent, and the television people, and the periodicals, maybe to reach some sort of discussion point on it, that would be then presented to the House, to the House Administration Committee, to a real working solution.
Is that possible?
Representative BROOKS. First you ought to talk to your newspaper people, and others to see if they could reach some sort of accord on how to get it accomplished.
I say this as a way to get it down seriously. Mr. JORDAN. And then try to come up with some agreement to present to the administration ?
Representative Brooks. That is right, because the members undoubtedly, I would not want to be for a recommendation that is just going to create a big hassle, have you all fight with each other.
It might be enjoyable, you all enjoy it when we do it.
I suspect we would all get along up here if we were in the same quarters. * Representative BROOKs. You have not had a problem down there in this mix?
Mr. JORDAN. That is right.
Chairman METCALF. I think that would be a step for you that would be constructive.
Do you think the newspaper and the periodical people would who have more room, would yield to you if we made these changes ?
Mr. JORDAN. You mean would they voluntarily go and vote in favor of this merger?
Chairman METCALF. Yes. Mr. JORDAN. No; I am not certain at all they would, human nature being what it is.
Chairman METCALF. Well, now, I read in the papers, the Periodical Gallery, for instance, the Newspaper Gallery, that Mr. Strout participated in some public service broadcastMr. JORDAN. The Voice of America.
Chairman METCALF. Now, what would happen to the public broadcasters who get their appropriations from Congress, in your gallery, if you were to follow through on such a merger as that?
Mr. Luther Carter, who now works for Science Magazine, has been barred from the gallery because that magazine is a nonprofit organization
Mr. JORDAN. Because it is a nonprofit
berganizatialt. magazine maga
Chairman METCALF. Yes; you have to be working for a profit earning magazine, at least a magazine that tries to earn a profit.
Some of the magazines do not these days.
Mr. SMALL. The rules differ somewhat. If it were a ban on nonprofit organizations, the news departments of the three networks would all be banned.
Chairman METCALF. I doubt that.
What I am talking about is some of the strange rules for the galleries. If you enforce them as far as network television is concerned, would we shut out the radio people that are broadcasting this hearing? Would we shut out Public Service Broadcasting that is financed partly by appropriations from Congress?
Mr. JORDAN. Not in the radio-TV gallery. Chairman METCALF. You do not have any rules of that sort ? Mr. SMALL. Our rules consist of, you must earn the majority of your income in broadcasting, but both Public Broadcasting and the Voice of America have membership in our gallery
Mr. JORDAN. I must for the record say that the Voice of America does not. Public Broadcasting does.
Chairman METCALF. The Voice of America is permitted and welcome to participate? Mr. JORDAN. Public Broadcasting is welcome to participate.
The Voice of America is welcome and able to participate, but the Voice of America does not have membership in the radio and TV galleries, because the rules do preclude membership to anyone whose principal income comes from the U.S. Government.
Chairman METCALF. Mr. Strout's personal income came from the Christian Science Monitor, and what did he pick up, a few dollars for his broadcast appearance.
Mr. JORDAN. That is a different gallery, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to say that the limited experience I have had with television coverage, and the major radio networks when they did cover the things I had anything to do with, have always been courteous and helpful, and I will say this, they have always checked in, and they did not want to put their lights in the way, they were not arrogant, they were not difficult.
They set the lights up, they can set them up on either side.
If you insisted on putting them over there, you would have to move the working press to the other side, but they have always been reasonable and tried to obstruct as little as possible the committee room and tried not to interfere with the hearing, but you still have to face the fact it does create a problem due to the state of the art, and even when they are all happy, and they are helpful, and you say sure, come on in, the committee wants you, that is fine, you can be on that side or this side.
It does still create some problems, if everybody is happy, and everybody is tolerant, and they are getting along, it still creates problems, and if the industry can eliminate some of those problems, it will be a lot easier for Congress to set up the kind of power that you need and to have permanent plugs for the radio people.
We have a pretty good power system in the Rayburn Building, for example, but that can be done elsewhere.
Now, that is just about all I have to say. You might want to comment on that.
Chairman METCALF. I wish you would all comment, and then I am going to recognize Mr. Giaimo.
First, let us hear a comment from the panel, and then of course I will recognize Mr. Cleveland.
Mr. Lynch, do you have anything to say?
Really, we recognize, all Bill Small said is that we recognize the extra added factors, physical factors any time we go into covering these hearings, and it does vary a great deal from room to room, it varies a great deal as you so well know in the amount of coverage, the number of people who are there, and I just think that the better examples can be used and escalated so we can reduce some of the inconveniences.
It is more difficult to do it in a building which is already created, in rooms which have already been constructed without this in mind.
That makes it more difficult. I just feel that we can do better,
Mr. JORDAN. There is an interesting development occurring right now. There is going to be constructed at some time in the near future an addition to this building.
We already are in consultation with the architects who are drawing up the plans for the additions to the New Senate Office Building, and there will be included in that building a big committee hearing room, and this is the first hearing room that we have had a part in the planning of, and if and when that committee hearing room comes into being, and we go in there and televise the hearing, if then you have trouble with the lights, and if it is disruptive, then we are to blame.
Chairman METCALF. Don't you have a room in the Senate Office Building to use for broadcasts and television services ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes; we have a space on the ground floor of this building that we use as our headquarters for film crews. My point about this new addition is that this is a hearing room.
Chairman METCALF. My point was that the only facility you have is not in the Capitol.
You do have a facility in this building for filming interviews with Senators or in preparing for documentary programs?
Mr. LYNCH. Yes, sir; there is in this building an annex to the Senate radio-TV gallery.
I would point out though that the experience has shown us that you have to be next to the floor to do it.
You cannot really operate from over here. We can stage film crews here, we can put them there until we have something for them to do.
They wait here for assignment, but that is one way of alleviating the pathetic conditions over in the Senate building itself.
Chairman METCALF. Do you have similar facilities in the House of Representatives? Mr. Lynch. Yes, sir. Chairman METCALF. A remote area that
Mr. Lynch. Yes, sir; but again, nothing beats the proximity to the floor.
Chairman METCALF. Your point is you do not have adequate facilities inmediately off the floor, which you need for instantaneous coverage ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, sir.
Representative GIAIMO. I want to go back to something that was said, to be certain I understood it right and that it was accurately stated, and that was that there was no anchoring permitted at the Watergate hearings.
Mr. Davis. No broadcasting from within the room.
Representative GIAIMO. I understand National Public Radio anchored the Watergate hearings, and they were the only ones to do so, and I am informed that the only prohibition was against interruption of the hearings themselves.
Mr. JORDAN. I believe all radio networks broadcast at one time or another the proceedings, but I do not think anyone
Representative GIAIMO. It is my understanding that there was no prohibition against anchoring.
Mr. SMALL. You could broadcast from the room while they were in recess, but not while in session.
Representative GIAIMO. I wish you would check that. Mr. Davis. They were very strict about the rule as far as we were concerned.
We could do some broadcasting, but we could only do it during a recess.
Once the gavel went down, you could not do anything until there was recess for lunch or adjournment for the day.
Mr. JORDAN. I suppose you could say yes, you could anchor the Watergate hearing, but as Mr. Davis said, you were not allowed to broadcast from that room while the sessions were going on, so if you were to anchor, you would have to do your anchoring during the recess.
It would be possible that way, I guess.
Mr. JORDAN. To both. We all did our anchoring as Mr. Davis said outside the room, for most of us, outside the building downtown.
Chairman METCALF. Congressman Cleveland ?
By way of comment, I want to call to the panel's attention that this book I referred to this morning, "We Propose: A Modern Congress," has a chapter by then Congressman Ellsworth, in which he spoke for television and radio coverage of the House and Senate floor procedures. He introduced legislation, and several of the rest of us did, and I remember that in two or three sessions of Congress I introduced that legislation, and we really did not receive much support.
I got a little ink in my own district, and that is where it counts, but we received no particular assistance from any of the major networks, and I just think the record should show that.
You people certainly feel slighted, but there was no real substantial support for the legislation that was pending in 1966, in 1968. Now, there is one other point; this is a technical matter.
There was some thought-and this committee has originated the thought—that we might at some time help the Members with closed circuit television so that either a Member who is in his office attending to some business, or his legislative or administrative assistant can follow the floor proceedings. If we had closed circuit television, which
would go to the Members' offices and other spots perhaps in the House or Senate Office Buildings, is this the type of thing that you could have a takeout of and use for your purposes?
In other words, if this television was showing who was speaking, and following the affairs on the floor of the House, is this something you could take a copy of, is this technically feasible? Mr. JORDAN. Technically it is certainly feasible.
Representative CLEVELAND. And then you would do your own editing.
I wanted to know if we did go to closed circuit television, whether you people, having access to this, could take out what you thought was newsworthy for your use.
Mr. SMALL. What you suggest poses a number of problems.
Representative CLEVELAND. I am not suggesting. I am asking you a question.
I am saying there is a suggestion that we might have closed circuit television, so some Members and their staff could follow what is on the floor."
We have already taken the first step on an experimental basis. We have had a teletype system whereby we have been kept up to date in our offices minute by minute on the procedures on the floor of the House.
For obvious reasons, if you are in a committee like this, or if you are in the office talking to constituents, and if you have to go to the floor quickly for a vote, this helps you.
I am not making the suggestion this could be the answer. I am simply asking you the technical question: If we did have closed circuit television of the floor proceedings, could you take from that whatever you wanted for your purposes? Mr. SMALL. Technically, yes, but it creates a number of problems.
To begin with, each of us have contracts which we honor faithfully with craft unions that do just that kind of work.
This would create labor relations problems for us if we were accepting a feed from technicians hired by the Congress.
Second, it has been our experience that people engaged in closedcircuit television do not have quite the eye for television picture that an experienced cameraman would.
Representative CLEVELAND. You mean they would not have the foresight to catch Mr. Brooks scratching his nose?
Chairman METCALF. Or Democrats failing to applaud some of the statements the President of the United States made
Mr. SMALL. Lastly, I think of great concern to all of us, that people who have the power to turn the camera on also have the power to turn if off, so we have fought for many years, for example, at the White House, any attempts, and there have been a number in the last three administrations since I have been in Washington, any attempts to do our filming for us, and just provide us with handout film.
Representative CLEVELAND. Again you are reading something into my question that was never there in the first place.
We are not trying to tell you you have to take this.
I am just simply asking you if we had closed circuit television, and if you had pern. ission to use it, could you use it?