페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, televising Senate sessions is now rohibited under the blanket interpretation of rule 4 of the Rules for Regulation of the Senate Wing of the U.S. Capitol, section 83 in the jenate Manual.

When I introduced the resolution, I made a statement detailing the istory of the debate over whether to televise Congress, and listing some of the objections that have been raised in the past.

Discussions of whether to allow the electronic media into the Chambers of the Senate and House date back to at least 1923, when Presilent Calvin Coolidge's December 4 address to the opening of Congress was broadcast live. His state of the Union message 2 days later became che second broadcast to originate from Congress.

The debate began in earnest, however, in the years just prior to the enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. From 1939 through the first half of the 1940's, the AFL and the CIO spearheaded unsuccessful efforts to permit microphones in the Senate and House Chambers. And Jack H. Pollack's article entitled, “Shall We Broadcast Congress," which appeared in the February 17, 1945 issue of Liberty magazine, pointed out the success that New Zealand was having with broadcasts of its parliamentary sessions.

Those broadcasts began in 1937 and continue today.

It is noteworthy that although the 1946 act failed to allow radio and the then ebryonic television industry into the hearings did have some positive spinoff benefits. In 1947, the first televised session of a Senate hearing occurred, when Secretary of State George C. Marshall told the Foreign Relations Committee of his plan to rebuild Europe. And a year after, a gallery for radio and television reporters was established alongside the press gallery that has been in existence since 1859.

Ever since 1950, when NBC's Robert McCormick conducted the first TV gallery interview with Senator William Langer of North Dakota, the television networks and independent stations have staffed the important proceedings of the Senate-but, along with their radio colleagues, TV newsmen have been barred from using the technology of their industry to bring firsthand reports of the floor debates.

The barring of radio and television coverage of Congress has resulted in an ironic situation-one in which millions of Americans were able to view the return of the POW's, but denied visual access to Senate votes on the Vietnam war; millions watched an American become the first man to walk on the Moon, but were unable to witness the Senate floor debates that preceded funding for the space program.

And in this Congress, where a struggle exists over spending authority, the President can use television to veto a bill in full view of the American population-he can take what conceivably could be a private act, and make it public. The subsequent Senate vote to override or sustain the veto, however, cannot be seen by the general publiconly by the 426 persons accommodated by the public gallery.

This is not to say, Mr. Chairman, that the arguments raised in the past against broadcasting and televising Senate sessions were totally without validity. Far from it. They were raised by conscientious law.. makers and observers who pointed out the potentially detrimental effects of allowing microphones and cameras in congressional Chambers.

These objections, which have remained essentially the same from the 1940's to today, center in three main areas:

First, the equipment would interfere with the normal legislative process.

Second, the majority of congressional sessions lack drama, and it, therefore, would be commercially infeasible for stations to carry them.

Third, politicians would become "hams” once the microphones were opened and the kleig lights turned on.

What my resolution seeks to do, Mr. Chairman, is to allow the Rules Committee to determine whether these arguments are still valid-if they ever were-or whether they have been overcome by time,

Technological advances, even over the past decade, have been sig. nificant, making the equipment less cumbersome and bothersome. And with the advent of cable television, the apparent permanence of public television, and the growing interest of citizens in the activities of their government, the feasibility of such coverage might be increased.

As for politicians storming to the microphones and cameras, there is evidence that such moves would be adversely rewarded. For example, the same argument was used by opponents of New Zealand broadcasts in 1937. Yet, in a report 3 years later in the trade publication Radio Daily, Leon Weaver wrote:

Windbags who took a lot of time to say nothing brilliantly have been defeated, and members who fumbled and stumbled but who did have something to say have been reelected.

In any event, I feel certain that any permission that might possibly be granted to the radio and television industries to cover Congress would be accompanied by strict guidelines. To avoid the possibility of media-provoked theatrics—the focusing of the cameras on the vacant seats of the necessarily absent Senators, for instance-a system could be devised whereby Senate employees would operate the equipment, and the networks and other interested outlets could pick up the audio and visual feeds.

This is just one means of overcoming one of the fears that has been expressed previously. Hearings on my resolution could develop additional means of eliminating other obstacles that, in the past, have been placed in the path of our using the electronic media to bring the floor debates of the Senate closer to the people of the United States.

No one, I am sure, wants to see the Senate covered in the same hysterical and frenzied manner that political conventions are handled. And I am equally certain that everyone would agree that not every Senate session is worth beaming live to the American people.

However, I do think that today, when 99.8 percent of all American homes have radios and television sets, the time has come for a new look at the possibility of using the electronic media to bring the Senate and the people closer together.

That statement appears on page S 12651 of the June 30, 1973 Congressional Record, and I would like to make it a part of these hearings.

I believe that opening the congressional Chambers to radio and television would heighten public understanding of, and interest in, the workings of Congress. And by increasing public understanding and interest in the legislative branch, Congress would be making a valuable contribution to our democratic system.

As Bernard Berelson noted in his “Democratic Theory and Public Opinion," which appeared in the fall 1952 issue of Public Opinion Quarterly:

Political democracy required a fairly strong and fairly continuous level of interest from a minority, and from a larger body of the citizenry a moderateto-mild and discontinuous interest, but with a stable readiness to respond in critical political situations. Political disinterest or apathy is not permitted, or at least not approved.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to say—and I think almost all Members of Congress would agree with me that the adversary relationship that exists between Congress and the media has benefited the American people. I, for one, want to see that relationship remain adversary in nature. But I want very much to see media coverage of Congress increased. I stand ready to cooperate with, and support efforts to widen the channels of communication between Congress and the media, and thereby widen the channels of communications between Congress and the people.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your committee for holding hearings on this important subject. I thank you for allowing me to be heard here.

Mr. Chairman, I ask to have inserted in the record at this point, my statement made on the floor of the U.S. Senate on June 30, 1973, the day when I submitted the resolution to authorize the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to study the possibility of televising and broadcasting sessions of the Senate, certain excerpts from which I have read into the record.

Chairman METCALF. Without objection, your statement will be incorporated.

[The statement follows:)

[From the Congressional Record, June 30, 1973]

SENATE RESOLUTION 136—-SUBMISSION OF A RESOLUTION RELATING TO

BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING OF SENATE PROCEEDINGS

(Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.)

THE SENATE AND THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I am today submitting a resolution that would authorize the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to study the possibility of televising and broadcasting sessions of the Senate.

Such activities are currently prohibited under the blanket interpretation of Rule 4 of the Rules for Regulation of the Senate Wing of the U.S. Capitolsection 83 in the Senate Manual—which prohibits the taking of pictures in the Senate Chamber.

Discussions of whether to allow the electronic media into the Chambers of the Senate and House date back to at least 1923, when President Calvin Coolidge's December 4 address to the opening of Congress was broadcast live. His state of the Union message 2 days later became the second broadcast to originate from Congress.

The debate began in earnest, however, in the years just prior to the enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. From 1939 through the first half of the 1940's, the AFL and the CIO spearheaded unsuccessful efforts to permit microphones in the Senate and House Chambers. And Jack H. Pollack's article entitled "Shall We Broadcast Congress," which appeared in the February 17, 1945, issue of Liberty magazine, pointed out the success that New Zealand was having with broadcasts of its parliamentary sessions. Those broadcasts began in 1937 and continue today.

It is noteworthy that although the 1946 act failed to allow radio and the thenembryonic television industry into the hearings did have some positive spinoff benefits. In 1947, the first televised session of a Senate hearing occurred, when Secretary of State George C. Marshall told the Foreign Relations Committee of his plan to rebuild Europe. And a year after that, a gallery for radio and televi

sion reporters was established alongside the press gallery that has been in existence since 1859.

Ever since 1950, when NBC's Robert McCormick conducted the first TV gallery interview with Senator William Langer of North Dakota, the television networks and independent stations have staffed the important proceedings of the Senatebut, along with their radio colleagues, TV newsmen have been barred from using the technology of their industry to bring first-hand reports of the floor debates.

The barring of radio and television coverage of Congress has resulted in an ironic situation-one in which millions of Americans were able to view the return of the POW's, but denied visual access to Senate votes on the Vietnam war; millions watched an American become the first man to walk on the moon, but were unable to witness the Senate Floor debates that preceded funding for the space program,

And in this Congress, where a struggle exists over spending authority, the President can use television to veto a bill in full view of the American population-he can take what conceivably could be a private act, and make it public. The subsequent Senate vote to override or sustain the veto, however, cannot be seen by the general public-only by the 426 persons accommodated by the public gallery.

This is not to say, Mr. President, that the arguments raised in the past against broadcasting and televising Senate sessions were totally without validity. Far from it. They were raised by conscientious lawmakers and observers who pointed out the potentially detrimental effects of allowing microphones and cameras in congressional chambers.

These objections, which have remained essentially the same from the 1940's to today, center in three main areas:

First. The equipment would interfere with the normal legislative process.

Second. The majority of congressional sessions lack drama, and it, therefore, would be commercially infeasible for stations to carry them.

Third. Politicians would become "bams” once the microphones were opened and the kleig lights turned on.

What my resolution seeks to do, Mr. President, is to allow the Rules Com. mittee to determine whether these arguments are still valid-if they ever were or whether they have been overcome by time.

Technological advances, even over the past decade, have been significant, making the equipment less cumbersome and bothersome. And with the advent of cable television, the apparent permanence of public television, and the growing interest of citizens in the activities of their Government, the feasibility of such coverage might be increased.

As for politicians storming to the microphones and cameras, there is evidence that such moves would be adversely rewarded. For example, the same argument was used by opponents of New Zealand broadcasts in 1937. Yet, in a report 3 years later in the trade publication Radio Daily, Leon Weaver wrote:

"Windbags who took a lot of time to say nothing brilliantly have been defeated, and members who fumbled and stumbled but who did have something to say have been reelected."

In any event, I feel certain that any permission that might possibly be granted to the radio and television industries to cover Congress would be accompanied by strict guidelines. To avoid the possibility of media-provoked theatrics—the focusing of the cameras on the vacant seats of the necessarily absent Senators, for instance-a system could be devised whereby Senate employees would operate the equipment, and the networks and other interested outlets could pick up the audio and visual feeds. This is just one means of overcoming one of the fears that has been expressed previously. Hearings on my resolution could develop additional means of eliminating other obstacles that, in the past, have been placed in the path of our using the electronic media to bring the floor debates of the Senate closer to the people of the United States.

No one, I am sure, wants to see the Senate covered in the same hysterical and frenzied manner that political conventions are handled. And I am equally certain that everyone would agree that not every Senate session is worth beaming live to the American people.

However, I do think that today, when 99.8 percent of all American homes have radios and television sets, the time has come for a new look at the possibility of using the electronic media to bring the Senate and the people closer together,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

B, BES. 136 Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration, or any duly authorIzed subcommittee thereof, is authorized under sections 134 (a) and 136 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and in accordance with its jurisdiction specified by rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, to make a full and a complete study and investigation with respect to the broadcasting and telecasting (including closed circuit telecasting) of proceedings of the Senate.

SEC. 2. The Committee shall report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date the results of its study and investigation, together with such recommendations as it considers appropriate.

Chairman METCALF. In a moment I am going to recognize Congressman Cleveland, and I would like to come back to some other questions.

I just want to say that Congressman Cleveland, not only in this hearing, but in all of the activities of the Joint Committee, has been one of the most helpful, one of the most scholarly, and one of the most conscientious in attendance. He has worked hard with the committee, with me, and with Representative Brooks over the years that we've had with the Joint Committee, since we enacted the Legislative Reorganization Act in 1970.

Senator Byrd, we're meeting today in the Rayburn Office Building, and if you will recall, one of the reasons that Speaker Rayburn was so adamant about broadcasting sessions of the Senate and the House of Representatives was because of the fact that the decorum and the dignity of the House was disturbed by the lights and the cables and those things that bother all of us.

As a result of our hearings the other day, somebody said to me, look, you people who are in the Congress, and Senator Byrd, you are one of the most important with the Rules Committee and as deputy majority leader, you people who run the Congress can make some rules and some regulations on lights, where the microphones are, and then this man said, the technology, and he used the same example you have, that we have developed, that we have today, we can walk on the Moon.

So, when you hold the hearings, I want to appear and make that statement again, that if we make the rules so that we can maintain dignity and decorum, and won't have lights in our eyes, and cables to stumble over, then radio and television can come up with their technologists.

I am going to come back to you, but I want to recognize Congressman Cleveland.

Representative CLEVELAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator, I appreciate your taking the time and trouble to give us the benefit of your testimony.

I can't help but comment on at least one aspect of it. In the third paragraph, you give us a-I believe you use the word "litany”-a glowing account of the large number of bills that have passed the Senate, and this is certainly a yardstick as to the quantity of our endeavors. You made a pretty impressive point, but I've been disturbed during my congressional tenure that we're doing so little with oversight, and quality.

We pass bills, and then let them float out there. Agencies are set up downtown in Washington over which we have no control, and I think some people in this country feel that there may be too many

« 이전계속 »