age of the Connecticut General Assembly as we could possibly afford. It is now a part of our expected service to the public.

The legislators are involved in the people's business, so are wethat's what we are all about, and we feel we are working together to create an informed public, so necessary for our survival.

Now, I would like to introduce Mr. S. Anders Yocom, Jr., vice president and program manager for Connecticut Public Television.

Mr. Yocom joined CPTV when it first went on the air in 1962. He was the assigned producer for CPTV's earliest coverage of the Connecticut General Assembly in 1964 and produced all coverage through the 1971 session. As program manager, he now supervises those who are continuing this coverage.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Yocom will continue.

STATEMENT OF S. ANDERS YOCOM, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, CONNECTICUT EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION CORP.

Mr. Yocoм. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Representative CLEVELAND. You may continue, Mr. Yocom.

Mr. YoCOм. Members of the committee, I am honored to be here with you today to share our experience in televising the Connecticut Legislature. I speak to you in the hope that Congress will soon open its doors to television coverage, which in my opinion will be a positive step in bringing about better government.

I would like to deviate from my prepared testimony slightly. I have a video tape to show you, and I am not sure if you have seen any examples of this kind of television, but I have brought this tape. It is a sample of the coverage of the Connecticut Legislature, and if I may, I would like to give you some background, so when the debate begins, you will understand what was in progress.

The general assembly was in special session June 23. 1971, when this tape was made. They had been up to that time unable to pass a fiscal package which was due to take effect a week later on July 1.

As we pick up the debate, the Democrats, in the majority then, were in the process of enacting a revenue bill.

One of the Republican amendments would have established a requirement that all public welfare recipients be required to reside in Connecticut for a year before being entitled to receive benefits.

The speaker of the house ruled that the amendment was not germane, and that it was out of order.

The Republicans challenged this rule.

There are several things I hope you will see as you watch this. I will comment later on such things as camera placement, the fact that a procedural debate can be interesting, and I think can be educational and rewarding to the viewers. Essentially I hope you will derive a feeling for the image of what it actually looks like to cover a legislative body on television.

So what you are about to see is the debate on this procedural matter. and we see the house majority leader rising to support the ruling of the speaker, which I explained was the Republican amendment which was ruled not germane.

Could we have the tape please?

VIDEO TAPE OF CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SPECIAL SESSION, JUNE 23, 1971

Mr. The subject of this bill is the raising of revenues for the State of Connecticut. The subject of the amendment, at it was explained and as I have seen it on other occasions, is to place a requirement upon individuals who might become eligible to receive certain benefits under the welfare programs, not at all the same purpose, not at all the same bill.

I happen to feel rather strongly about the matter and the content of the particular amendment, as is well known to the gentleman and some others in this House. However, I feel that we must adhere to our rules and, particularly on this occasion in this special session, this amendment cannot come before us, and it is for that reason that I made the point of order and I think that the ruling of the Chair was quite correct on that basis.

Mr. Mr. Speaker, we I think all appreciate the fact that this is a matter of some concern to many members of this House and many people in the State of Connecticut.

And in spite of the fact that just a few weeks ago the majority leader voted, spoke in favor of this particular amendment, was a cosponsor of this amendment, he now finds it in the course of our special session, such amendment certainly goes to the very heart of our revenue and financial picture in this State is by some magic of parliamentary procedure now not germane.

I think it is germane, Mr. Speaker, and I think that there is sound and logical legal basis for this particular amendment. I would refer you, sir, to section 402 of Masons, paragraph 2, which says, and I quote, "To determine whether or not amendment-whether an amendment is germane, the question to be answered is whether the question is relevant, appropriate, and in a natural and logical sequence to the subject matter of the original proposal."

I submit, Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us fulfills all of those three requirements to the hilt. In addition, under paragraph 3, to rebut the argument of the majority leader, "To be germane, the amendment is required only to relate to the same subject. It may entirely change the effect of the motion or measure and still be germane to the subject."

Mr. Speaker, the amendment is clearly germane to the financial picture of this State, and anyone who does not agree can vote against the ruling, the appeal of the ruling of the Chair and conclude this matter for this session. I happen to think that the particular amendment before us is of sufficient importance to the financial well-being of this State that not only should it be declared germane, it ought to be passed by an overwhelming vote, as it was just three short weeks

Mr. Speaker?

Mr. [Presiding Officer]. For remarks on the appeal of the ruling of the Chair, the gentleman from the 52nd.

Mr. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Chair. In so stating, Mr. Speaker, I too supported this original amendment when it passed the House, and had it been offered on the appropriations

bill that we have just previously passed, I would have supported it because we are talking about an expenditure, we are not talking about income.

The bill that is in front of us today is the tax program for the State of Connecticut, it is income, not expenditure. I do not think it is germane on this bill, Mr. Speaker, and therefore regretfully I will have to vote against the amendment and vote to sustain the Chair. Mr. Let me announce the rollcall.

*

*

*

*

Commentary. Once again, we remind you that we are about to take a rollcall vote appealing a ruling by the Chair dealing with a welfare residency requirement of one year, a Republican amendment, at least an amendment being offered by Representative Bingham, of Stamford and, as we discussed with you earlier, this was a strategy that was discussed in the respective caucuses, and what you are seeing here on the floor of the House is not a completely spontaneous discussion.

Andy, you have a couple of other points?

I just wanted to mention that the Governor has gone home so there will be no further statements from him today, since there can't be any final legislative action.

Also I spoke with Majority Leader Caldwell, and he says that the Senate will convene tomorrow at 2-rather at noon, and he hopes by 2 o'clock all the members will be there.

Back to the floor.

Mr. -. Revenue for the next fiscal year of the State of Connecticut includes Federal reimbursements for welfare payments in the State of Connecticut. That is income to our State during the next fiscal period. Whether or not the State of Connecticut has a residency requirement has a direct effect upon the amount of money expended by the State welfare department and consequently upon the amount of money received as income from the Federal Government under the Federal welfare laws, therefore I believe it is strictly germane to the revenue raising measure and would ask the House to join in a bipartisan measure in overruling the Chair and amending this bill with a meaningful piece of legislation that will establish a 1-year residency for welfare recipients in the State of Connecticut. Mr. [Presiding Officer]. Members, please be seated, the aisles be cleared.

Commentary. Frank, I just simply want to comment for the benefit of the thousands of youngsters who tuned in for "Mr. Rogers,' once again, we are having to preempt it for tonight because of this important debate going on.

Mr. The journal will indicate that the representative was present and wishes to be recorded in the negative. The machine will be locked and the clerk will take the tally.

Commentary. In this particular vote, a "no" vote is a vote to sus tain the Chair, and it appears that the Chair has been sustained, which means that the amendment having to do with the welfare residency requirement will be ruled not germane.

*

Mr.

The number voting, 168-necessary to sustain the appeal of the ruling of the Chair, 85, those voting yea 77, nay 91, absent and not voting 9.

Mr. germane.

The appeal is lost, the amendment is ruled not

[This concludes the videotape of the Connecticut General Assembly.]

That is how it looked in the Connecticut House of Representatives in 1971.

There are several things I wanted to call to your attention about that tape. One is that especially in a period of intense legislative activity as there was, we report news.

We do not hesitate to do commentary and analysis where called for. I was asked by Senator Rome to call attention to the points made on that tape in the commentary having to do with the senate meeting at noon, but actually not convening until some hours after that. That was the practice up until Senator Rome became majority leader, and he made a point of reminding me before he came to testify here, that the senate does now meet on time.

They announce in advance when they will meet, and they do meet, and they do take up their business in an orderly fashion.

One point that could be easily overlooked, but which is illustrated by that tape, is the placement of cameras. Our leadership has been very cooperative in allowing placement of cameras on the floors of each house.

This kind of access has real benefit to all concerned, as it provides the most esthetically pleasing and efficient communication between legislator and viewer. One should always have the opportunity to look directly into the eye of another when engaged in conversation-not at the tops of heads. This seems like a small point, but I wanted to make it while the image from the Connecticut House of Representatives is still in your mind.

I hope you will be liberal in your approval of camera placemen should television coverage of Congress be realized.

No one questions the fact that in its present state of technology wit bulky cameras and bright lights, television introduces an artifici atmosphere to any institution or event that it is covering.

Television lighting often makes a room look abnormal-alt hous sometimes more pleasing. The lights can be annoyingly bright, an they generate heat that can be bothersome in areas where there is po air-conditioning. The legislative chambers have no air-conditionin To the individual member of the general assembly television covera brings a certain measure of discomfort.

I would add, again deviating from my prepared testimony, this kind of thing was being greatly reduced by advances in technology, as Senator Rome has already alluded.

But human beings-including legislators-being what they are, like to be in the camera's eye. In the camera's presence some members of the general assembly have had a tendency to speak from the floor longer and more often than they otherwise would, sometimes to the annoyance of the leadership and other members.

Some argue that this human tendency can work to the advantage of the articulate, vociferous "showboater" among the membership and to the detriment of those who are outwardly quiet, but perhaps thoughtful and persuasive behind the scenes.

Some argue that the camera is intimidating to a few naturally shy legislators. However, with each day, with each debate covered by television, the artificiality of the presence of the cameras is reduced.

When the members become aware that their speeches do not always show up on the air; when the leadership and peer pressure began to work on those who abuse their speaking privileges for the sake of being on television; when members begin to understand the way TV can make an unprepared or insincere speaker look exactly that way, the cameras become more and more like the furnishings and assumed a silent, positive effect.

A small step taken by CPTV at the request of the leadership was the removal of the tally lights which indicate which camera is recording at any given time. This accommodation was designed to remove the incentive to perform while the camera was on.

Given sufficient television coverage over an extended period of time, the individuals who are the subject of the coverage begin to come. across as they really are. Insincerity has a way of showing through on television. Yet, sincere, well-informed members are portrayed accurately. Most importantly, the members become humanized-that is animated persons, not printed or spoken portraits of persons whose integrity is subject to interpretation by third parties.

The legislator who has an important message to bring to the public knows that he usually can gain unfiltered access to the public through interviews and/or statements from the floor. Television can and does transmit exactly what the individual legislator-and his opponentswant the people to hear, without the interpretation of an intermediate human being who may with all due integrity function as an interpreter for another medium.

Because of television's positive potential and demonstrated effect, the members of the general assembly have been very cooperative in dealing with CPTV staff and in tolerating minor annoyances such as bright light and heat, now improved by technology as I mentioned. To veteran students of the legislative process in Connecticut, the most visible change in the process attributable to television is the change in decorum. This has been especially evident on adjournment night. Many long-time observers recall adjournment night as a time for revelry and merriment which began prior to actual adjournment and continued on afterward into the night.

29-801-74-15