페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

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

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 lave 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 ake 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 hat was discussed in the respective caucuses, and what you are seeing here on the floor of the House is not a completely spontaneous liscussion. 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 l-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.

Mr. Mr.

-. Has every member voted?
-. Mr. Speaker?

Representative Wright.
I would like to vote “no” on this question.

[ocr errors]

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 sustain 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.

-. The appeal is lost, the amendment is ruled not germane.

[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 placement should television coverage of Congress be realized.

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

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

kind of thiRome has includinthe cameriency to uld, some

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 iegislators. 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.

[ocr errors][merged small]

During these sessions bill files became confetti and were strewi about the legislative chambers creating a scene not unlike Times Square on New Years Eve. This is before my time and also before Senator Rome's time.

Many members of the legislature reportedly conducted last minute business in varying states of intoxication. These sessions were unruly. Some members were alleged to be completely oblivious to what was being passed into law.

Live coverage of adjournment night was provided for the first time in 1969. While legislation did move at a fast pace, the decorum was markedly improved over the preceding adjournment nights. There was no confetti. The relative order was symbolic of the improvement in decorum that has characterized all sessions since “the people's window was opened.

But more important is the knowledge that television has been a constructive force which has resulted in greater public understanding of the decisionmaking process that affects the public well-being.

Through television, each individual has been given the opportunity to hold his or her representatives accountable for their stewardships of the power to make laws.

You do not need me to tell you that government in general and some of its institutions in particular are held in low esteem by the American people. Opening the Halls of Congress to television coverage can help reverse this situation.

I would urge you to consider the possible reward of such coverage Not only would you promote a better awareness of Congress as an institution; not only would you establish a platform which would increase the effectiveness of your communication with the American people; but you will probably find that TV coverage will bring about some reforms which will actually improve the lawmaking process. Your substance, your effectiveness, your image can only improve.

In Connecticut, I think we can point to some real positive reforms that were brought about at least in part by our coverage.

I will leave it to the distinguished members of our legislature here today to comment further on that.

Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my testimony, and I turn it over to Mr. Ogle. [The prepared statement of S. Anders Yocom, Jr., follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF S. ANDERS Yocom, JR. 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 begin by showing you a short tape recorded just a few weeks ago in the House of Representatives at the Connecticut State Capitol.

I do not think it is necessary or particularly useful for you to have an under standing of the issue that was under discussion that day. What I hope you will derive from this tape is a sense of the “look” of the coverage and the interest potential.

One point that could easily be 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 aesthetically 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 f camera placement should television coverage of Congress be realized.

No one questions the fact that in its present state of technology with bulky ameras and bright lights, television introduces an artificial atmosphere to any nstitution or event that it is covering. Television lighting often makes a room ook abnormal (although sometimes more pleasing). The lights can be annoyingly

right, and they generate heat that can be bothersome in areas where there is Door air conditioning. (The legislative chambers have no air conditioning.) To he individual member of the General Assembly television coverage brings a fertain measure of discomfort.

But human beings (including legislators), being what they are, like to be in he 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 hey otherwise would, sometimes to the annoyance of the leadership and other pembers. Some argue that this human tendency can work to the advantage of the articulate, vociferous "showboater” among the membership and to the detrinent 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, he artificiality of the presence of the cameras is reduced. When the members Decome 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 1 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 opponents) want 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.

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. During these sessions bill files became confetti and were strewn about the legislative chambers creating a scene not unlike Times Square on New Years Eve. Many members of the legislature reportedly conducted last minute business in varying states of intoxication. These sessions were unruly. Some members were alleged to be completely oblivious to what was being passed into law.

Live coverage of adjournment night was provided for the first time in 1969. While legislation did move at a fast pace, the decorum was markedly improved over the preceding adjournment nights. There was no confetti. The relative order was symbolic of the improvement in decorum that has characterized all sessions since "the people's window" was opened.

But more important is the knowledge that television has been a constructive force which has resulted in greater public understanding of the decision making process that affects the public well-being. Through television, each individual

« 이전계속 »