about this problem, we should recognize that there is a tendency to shift the blame.

I could not help but think in your very telling testimony about the fact that while most of the media was concentrating on hearings about a problem, there was very little media at hearings that attempted to cope with solutions to the problems.

On the other hand, in the House at least, I get back to my point about the fact that there are so many committees addressing the energy problem, in the whole Congress about 17. So in fairness to the media, I suppose you could say with so many committees addressing the problem, and with so many of them meeting at the same time, that perhaps to address the problem we have to get back to some of the nuts and bolts of the performance aspects of it, and more rigidly address our hearings so that some of the major problems being addressed are not being addressed elsewhere at the same time.

Senator MUSKIE. I agree with that, particularly in regard to the energy problem. I think we ought to reorganize ourselves to concentrate our efforts and our attention on that problem in its overall dimension.

I hope we move in that direction. I could not agree with you more. Incidentally, there is another problem tied to your first question as well. At the same time we are subject to the above criticism, the most prevalent criticism of the public is that we drag our feet so much. It is an interesting dilemma. But I think that with respect to the energy crisis, the basic reason for the declining confidence in Congress is the fear we are not on top of the problem, that we are dragging our feet, and that we cannot seem to make any decisions.

Representative BROOKS. That is a good point, but I suppose we then have a duty to remind the public that maybe the solution to the problem is perhaps it is there again a problem of communication. I would like to have your comment on the following point. We are proposing more access to the media, especially television, to the Congress.

In this regard, do you not think we have to distinguish and do this quite carefully between coverage of individual Members of the Senate or the House, and the Senate and the Congress as an institution?

This is tough, but I would like to have your comment on it. Senator MUSKIE. I should have made that point, because we have to avoid the appearance of establishing our own propaganda machine. That is a real danger.

That is why I emphasize the need for including both Houses. This must be an information outlet, and not a propaganda outlet.

Representative BROOKS. I would like to have your comment on one other point. I think those polls, you had taken for your Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations have been very significant, and we owe you a debt of gratitude for having done it.

You recall that there is a lack of confidence of institutions, I wonder if you would comment on the fact that in the last three sessions, that 96 percent of the incumbents were elected.

It would appear to be there on the surface some contradiction between the polls, that expressed dissatisfaction and the statistics that 96 percent of the incumbents seeking reelection were reelected.

Would you like to comment on that?

Senator MUSKIE. You have to put that fact in the context of the overall study that every institution in our society has similarly lost confidence, and that the only two that have gained confidence since 1966 are the writing press and television press. All others have dropped.

This includes churches, as Congressman Giaimo pointed out. It includes lawyers and doctors. Even though doctors still have a confidence rating of more than 50 percent, they have dropped from 75. It includes every institution.

What the public is reacting to is the failure of its institutions to have relevance to daily problems.

It includes the Congress, but I do not think the polls indicate that the Congress has fallen at a faster rate, or is distinguishable for any particular reason.

The poll identifies as the chief criticism of politicians of all parties the feeling that they make promises they never keep.

This has prompted me to say over and over again since last fall that the elections ahead are going to find all incumbents vulnerable, whoever they are.

We have all overpromised, whether we be Members of Congress or lawyers or doctors or trash collectors.

Representative BROOKS. I concur with that view, and as I say, it is difficult for the politician not to overpromise, and you know of the problems.

Senator MUSKIE. Sometimes I think that is the only way to get yourself heard by a reporter.

Representative BROOKS. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time you have given me. I was very taken with your remarks on page 6 of your statement, when you introduced Mr. Harris, Lou Harris.

You spoke about the restoration of confidence of Congress and other institutions, and I was very taken with the remark that said to restore thit, it would take a change of manners, not laws, on both sides. I just na wanted to stress that and compliment you on that remark, because part of the problem as I see it is that we promise the people if we pass this law or that law or this law, that there will be a solution, and I guess hat we have to recognize that in some areas the law will not be the solution, and certainly the one we are dealing with today.

Thank you very much.

Senator MUSKIE. I wonder if I might offer further statistics out of the study that might be useful.

The poll discloses some statistics indicating that the actual contact between citizens and government at all levels is discouragingly low. What I did not add is that among those who have had contact with the Government, in the sense of going to it for help, the proportion of those who feel that they were treated decently is encouragingly hhigh.

I do not know what that proves. For instance, with respect to the Federal level, 11 percent of the citizenry had gone to the Government with a problem. A high percentage of those, 75 percent, felt they were treated well. This positive response indicates again the importance of communication and broadening our contact and exposure.

I felt this might be a useful addition.

Chairman METCALF. Your statement will be amended to include

that.

Congressman Giaimo?

Representative GIAIMO. Senator Muskie, I want to thank you for your obviously well-prepared and thorough study of this matter. I know you have been concerned about it for a long time.

As a practical matter, let me just get your thoughts.

How do we, for example, use television to educate the public as to what Congress is doing and at the same time not bore them to death? As you know, many of our hearings-our appropriation hearings on the House side-are rather dry. The media must be used properly and I just wonder how we could do that.

Of course, I understood you to say that full floor coverage of debates would be key debates; but other than that, as you well know, most of the work on the floor of the Senate or the House is not that controversial in the sense. It is similar to courtroom trials. If you get great conflict in a trial, it is interesting to the public, but the average everyday trial of the lawsuit is rather dull, except to the lawyers and the judge and perhaps the jury.

I wonder if you could comment on your thoughts on a practical matter as to how we could utilize the great media of television, which would be so effective to the Congress in some practical ways?

Senator MUSKIE. Perhaps, in answering your question, I will raise more questions than answers, but let me think out loud about it.

First of all, in order to do the job well, we have to have access. That might come through commercial television, although I cannot conceive of commercial television doing this on any such regular basis. On the other hand public television, as it is now constituted, is very receptive in trying to do regular public service programs.

At this point I am sure it would be a question of Congress initiating the use of television, in some fashion for its own purposes.

On the question of what means we use, we should be flexible. We would have to program the coverage through all parties in the Congress. They would all be identified, and the issues that are going to emerge in the course of a year would be brought out in advance. We could try to program the issues with the assistance of the commit'tee chairmen, in order to obtain exposure at the decisionmaking points in the process.

If a subcommittee markup is the point at which an issue first surfaces, you could schedule your open sessions there. If this is known in advance, I think the members would lend themselves and their time to it, so that you could have a real confrontation and debate.

You could do the same at the full committee level, or for floor debates. Yesterday in the Senate was an ideal time to have done it, when public attention could have been focused on an important issue. The time was controlled in any case, and the floor managers could have arranged the control of this time in order to have a flow of debate that would have been of interest. So I think it is possible to do it.

The public television people have been toying with techniques for getting public attention and interest aroused.

I was on "Firing Line" just the other day. There was a good audience because the host is very provocative, he has a sharp mind, and he promotes his witnesses into a similar response. Thus you have something that the public is interested in. I agree with you, that if you get the coverage at the point of confrontation, or to use a better word, at the point at which decisions are being made, and alternatives are being debated, I think you will find the public interested. I also think you can anticipate in advance the key issues.

You would not want to cover all votes in the Senate last year, but the key ones would be easy to identify, even in advance.

Representative GIAIMO. You made comments in your statement to the fact that although we have many committee meetings that are public, in many instances they are not covered by the press or TV. Of course, this is a fault, in my opinion, of the media that should have been covering them. But also I would deduce you are of the opinion that all of our committee meetings-except in those instances, say, of national security or for reasons of that type-should be open and available to the press and the TV to cover.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes. At one time I had the same reservations that I think most Members of Congress had, that it would inhibit the process, discourage debate, submerge new ideas, and so on.

I have not found those fears materialized. I would say we should open up all the meetings.

Representative GIAIMO. You are aware that we still have instances of closed hearings and markups and certainly conference committee reports, particularly in the House. In our own appropriations committee, every one of our subcommittee and full committee markups are closed, even though in my opinion there is absolutely no justification for it. I, too, used to think that you could cooperate more efficiently or effectively in the absence of the media, but it seems to me s that in the process of trying to restore confidence and getting more effectiveness out of the members, except in instances where national security might require a secret meeting, we are better off if the public is able to observe this.

Senator MUSKIE. I agree, and as I said, I think we have more privacy by opening up the meetings than we did when we closed them.

Representative GIAIMO. By opening them, at the very least, there is a threat to the membership, let us say, that the media may walk in on them in the midst of their deliberations or lack of deliberations. Senator MUSKIE. I think all of the evidence to date is that it is a healthy chance, Congressman. I happen to be sold on it.

Chairman METCALF. Thank you very much.

Mr. Brooks?

Representative BROOKS. Just a comment following on your dialog with Congressman Giaimo.

The experience we had, at least in one of my committees, with the open public markup sessions, raised at least one problem which would I have to be addressed, and I think it could be addressed quite easily. It could be addressed by a change in our rules, but there are some Members who feel because it is open, and the press and public are there, they have to expound at some length on almost every issue that comes up, so you do have a time problem, at least on one or two occa

sions, where it becomes quite difficult to cope with. I think this problem could be handled by a change in the rules which we now have for closed sessions, but this is not an insurmountable problem, and eventually could be taken care of by a change in the rules, but we did have that problem, and I think you can recognize it. When you have a public hearing, then every member of the committee, and Congress you know, some people feel a compulsion to expound on sometimes even the most minor issue.

Senator MUSKIE. We did not find that tendency. I concede it could be a problem, but I think you have to get used to it. It takes care of itself.

Representative BROOKS. Maybe it is just the House that has that problem.

Senator MUSKIE. That is not the usual tradition, Congressman. Maybe you are more frustrated in the House because you do not have the floor as often as we do.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity.

Chairman METCALF. Thank you. I congratulate you on your statement. I am grateful for your appearance here. You have set a good example and a high tone for the conduct of these hearings, and you have raised some of the questions we may wish to make recommendations on after we have heard from the media and the press, and the academic community. Thank you very much.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much.

Chairman METCALF. The next witness is Congressman Van Deerlin. We are delighted to have him here to testify about a matter which is of great concern to him. And while he is getting ready, I want to comment that this hearing is being carried by National Public Radio, and that the people are listening to our comments, and the microphones are live.

Congressman Van Deerlin, it is a privilege to have you testify before this committee. I see you have a prepared statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Representative VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During this interval, while the room is being cleared [Laughter.] Chairman METCALF. There are dozens of people still standing back there.

Representative VAN DEERLIN. Sandwiched between giants like Muskie and Mondale, I will try to be mercifully brief.

I hope that the dialog that preceded my testimony, regarding live electronic coverage of both committee sessions in floor debates in the House and the Senate, did not suggest that we in Congress would play a determining role in what issues are covered, and what issues are left uncovered.

In my view, we should give the press free access, and then just lay off. Instead of telling the media what they should do, we should make it easier for them to do what they want to do, and what they think is of interest to the public and in the public interest.

It will not do to try playing "big brother" to the newsmen and women assigned to the Hill.