There is a great deal of coverage of Congress. The problem of course

comes

Representative CLEVELAND. Excuse me. I admit there is plenty of coverage of the Congress and the bills we pass, and the statements of the different Congressmen, but again I am getting back to the first request we made in our letter to you concerning the institution of Congress.

Mr. TAYLOR. I will get to that, sir.

Our answer to that is the best possible way to deal with the problem of the American people's understanding of the Congress as an institution is to open the floor, is to open the committee hearings, and to the major source of news the American people have, mainly the broadcast

news.

I can think of no better way to convey this, and at the same not distort the institution of the Congress.

Representative CLEVELAND. Are you prepared to give us your recommendation if we do open-as you know, committees where much of the important work is done, are now open-if we open the floor of the Senate or the House to the electronic media, are you prepared to give us your suggestion as to the operating rules or guidelines under which this should be done?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think that first of all we ought to agree on the principle that it is desirable to be done.

The technical aspects of how it will be done ought then to be turned over to the people who are more expert than I on that subject.

The Stewart report makes several suggestions in this vein. I think it would be wrong to think in terms of gavel-to-gavel coverage, but it does seem to me perhaps some kind of pilot light arrangement, or some kind of pooling arrangement, could be worked out so that important moments in debate and important moments in hearings, could be recorded for the American people.

It is important from my point of view, as we move to redress the situation, that the true nature of the Congress with its plurality of voices, with its multiplicity of voices, not be distorted.

I think we accomplish very little if we create in the American mind the thought there was a unanimity of opinion in the Congress, when I believe the framers of the Constitution wanted to emphasize the plurality, the multiplicity of voices.

This is why it seems to us that the ability to look at the actual functioning and working of all that disagreement, of all that process of adjustment, is the healthiest thing that could be done at the present time.

Representative CLEVELAND. Don't you agree that there is a role and a newsworthy role for at least some attention being given to the functioning, good, bad, or indifferent-and many of us feel it is mostly bad and sometimes indifferent-the actual functioning of Congress as an institution? For example, take the Supreme Court. Everyone understands that that is an institution that decides decisively. but the role of Congress is not quite as simple as that. I think it would be newsworthy if after you have done one of your celebrated exposés, you followed up on it, and did a story on how much mail this engendered in the congressional and senatorial offices, and how this was handled, and how the Members responded and followed through.

Because part of the loss in confidence by the people is that they feel we are not responsive, and many times when one of your blockbuster special programs comes out, the mail it generates has to be handled, and has to be answered. But you see the point I am making. There is a difference between publicizing Congressmen or Senators as individuals, and publicizing the role of Congress, the function that we are meant to be performing that we are addressing.

Mr. TAYLOR. I do see the point. The point, I believe, has to do with television performing an educational role, as to the place of Congress within the governmental system.

Do I read that correctly, Congressman?

Representative CLEVELAND. I do not think so. I think we have responsibilities ourselves in that. I think it is more a question of taking those aspects of our functions as an institution that are truly and interestingly newsworthy.

Mr. TAYLOR. Which aspects specifically would you have in mind? Representative CLEVELAND. Well, as I said, I do not know if it was your network or one of the others, but they got up in an airplane and circled around and showed a lot of tanker ships presumably hovering offshore waiting for prices to go up before they came into port and fleeced the American public.

True or false, we will not go into that, but this generates an enormous amount of mail to the Senators and Congressmen, and I think it would be newsworthy to know how that was handled, what it does to an office, and I think it would also be newsworthy to perhaps report on some of the followup information that we obtained as a result of those inquiries.

Again, this is the function of the institution, the institutional function of Congress as a representative body.

You people occasionally do your thing and then you leave it, but it does not stop there.

As you pointed out, more people rely on electronic media for news than ever before.

In fact, more than half the country does. So when you create one of these situations, I think it would be newsworthy to at least sometimes follow up and see what some of the results were, and whether or not the reporters were correct, or what the answers were if they were not correct. But this is not to publicize Congressman Cleveland or Senator Metcalf; this is the role of Congressmen and Senators within the framework of the U.S. Congress as an institution.

Mr. TAYLOR. I understand completely, Congressman Cleveland.

I am happy to have that suggestion, and we certainly will review it. I do know in our interviews of Congressmen and Senators that discussions of the things they do and the mail they receive are often a part of the interviews.

I am not aware of a specific programing effort where that particular aspect of a Congressman's or of a Senator's activities has been minutely explored. We are attempting, as I think you know, on our children's programs to give in a way which is comprehensible to our young watchers, an idea of the functions of the various portions of the Government, but I do appreciate your making the point, and I will consider it carefully.

29-801-74- -7

Representative CLEVELAND. Do you also understand that this is central to these hearings?

We are not here to complain to you, because you have not covered this event or that Congressman or that person. There was a suggestion reflected in your remarks that there has been some effort to dictate to you.

That is not the issue, the coverage either of events or individuals. The real thrust of these hearings, and we tried to frame it in that letter which was addressed to you, is how you can help us, and how we can help ourselves restore more confidence in Congress as an institution.

Mr. TAYLOR. I think the problem, Congressman, is that it is a little deceptive to talk about an institution of this kind as if it were a unity, because by its very nature, it is a sum of many, many diverse parts. One can certainly talk about the generalized function, kind of things the Constitution set up for the Congress to do.

One can talk about the methods of operating of Congressmen, particularly as they try to discern the attitudes of their constituents, things of that kind.

I think that can be done. The very nature of the enterprise, the very nature of the institution, however, is that it is very, very difficult to describe because it is made up of so many forces and so many diverse parts.

This is why we have said, and I think we are attempting to be directly responsive to the purposes of these hearings, that the respect for the Congress, we believe, will increase when in fact that diverse multiplicity is understood.

The Executive is very easy to understand; it is focused on one man. What now needs to be understood is that a Congress, which has equal vote in the governmental framework, is divided among hundreds of voices. That needs to be conveyed, and no better way can that be conveyed than to let those multiplicity of voices speak directly. Let the multiplicity of voices speak in terms of the normal workings of the Congress.

Representative CLEVELAND. Well, I certainly have to agree that the multiplicity of voices is part of the problem, but nobody can change that. But getting back to Congress as an institution, there are some things that can and should be done.

For example, you may not consider it newsworthy, but I think it is newsworthy that we have more than 17 committees and subcommittees of the House and Senate at work on the problems of energy.

Maybe you need 7, but you do not need 17. I consider that worthy of comment, and if it was commented on, I think it might be helpful. As you probably know, we have a committee in the House, Mr. Bolling's committee, which is attempting to address this matter of multiple jurisdiction of committees. I still think there is something to be done in this area, without dictating to you. I think there is a misconception, at least, reflected in your remarks as to what we are trying to get at.

It is not how many Congressmen and Senators are put on. It is how much have you told the American people about the institution of Congress. That was more the thrust of our inquiry. I will not belabor the point anymore, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the interesting statement, Mr. Taylor, and I thank you for sharing your views with us.

Chairman METCALF. Thank you very much, Congressman Cleveland. You have clarified some of the purposes of the hearing and some of the objectives that we are trying to achieve.

Mr. Taylor, I had hoped that we could have Senator Fulbright here to testify. But he is holding hearings on very important matters of public interest, and cannot appear.

The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 was handled in an unusual fashion. I served with Senator Monroney on a special joint committee for a study of the Congress, and then Senator Monroney did not survive an election. Eventually the House passed a bill along lines of the recommendations of the Joint Study Committee. So when the House-passed bill came over to the Senate, it was not sent to committee, and because I was the only remaining member of Senator Monroney's committee on the majority side, I was given the responsibility of trying to pass a Legislative Reorganization Act without committee support or committee action.

I mention this, because I am familiar with the provisions of that act. We provided that committees in either the House or the Senate could permit television or radio coverage of their hearings. The act states that whenever any hearing conducted by any committee of the House is open to the public, that committee may permit, by majority vote, coverage by radio and television broadcast, and still photography, under such written rules as the committee may adopt, in accordance with the purposes, provisions, and requirements of the clause.

So we have now a provision for opening up congressional committees. What we are concerned about here is provision for opening up and giving you the opportunity to broadcast or to make selective broadcasts of Senate and House sessions.

Several of the Members of Congress who appeared yesterday referred to Speaker Rayburn. Congressman Brooks and I came to Congress at the same time, and we were very close and loyal friends of Speaker Rayburn. We acquiesced in his refusal to let television and radio into the committees, because broadcasting seemed to us to destroy the dignity and the decorum of our proceedings.

I refer to the lights blazing in the eyes of witnesses, microphones and cables, and so forth.

However, we are inquiring today if you do not have equipment that would eliminate that sort of problem, and if we could have broadcast coverage without disturbing committee action and floor action?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think the answer to that, Senator, is unequivocably "Yes."

Technology has come a long way since that time. My colleague, Bill Small, for some years was in charge of our Washington bureau, and he will be discussing that issue in some detail. The nature of lighting, the nature of cameras, the nature of audio pickups is such now that it seems to me that we can give you assurance that such proceedings could be covered and be virtually unobtrusive, without destroying the dignity of the occasion, and the effectiveness of the occasion.

Chairman METCALF. Now, suppose we would make a recommendation and go to the Architect of the Capitol, and suggest that committee rooms, the Senate Chamber, and the House Chamber be rewired

and restructured for special lighting facilities that would not be disturbing to the Members. Would CBS be willing to participate in a pool for the use of such facilities?

Mr. TAYLOR. That of course is one of the possibilities, Senator. I think that one of the best ways, if I might be presumptuous to make recommendations in this area

Chairman METCALF. This is what you are here for.
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes: I understand.

The technical aspects as to how that would be done, the facilities that ought to be set up, and the provision for the financing of such facilities, and so on, those are the things which really, once the committee has decided this is the direction in which it wishes to proceed, these are things which I think could be worked out very rapidly.

If our colleagues concur, and if it was the sense of this committee and other committees that a pooling arrangement was proper, of course we would be willing to do that, and would be quite agreeable to participate in that kind of thing.

The problem that we are attempting to address ourselves to, which I think needs very considerable thought at the technical level is, yes; let us open the doors. The opening of the doors of the Congress fully is, I think, the best possible way to talk to the American people about the important role of the Congress as an institution.

As to how that ought to be done, whether it ought to be pooling, whether it ought to be rotation, the involvement of the networks, the involvement of the Congress itself, those are things which I think ought to be considered subsequently and perhaps a subcommittee at a technical level can speak to it.

Speaking for CBS, however, I certainly would be willing to participate fully in any joint effort in which it was mutually agreed upon, was a desirable thing to accomplish.

Chairman METCALF. I know you are going to be an advocate for CBS, one network. But don't you think that in broadcasting committee activities of the House and the Senate, and floor activities, if this were permitted, we should require some sort of a pooling arrangement, and not let all of the networks and broadcasters in with different cameras?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; it does seem to me that is proper. There is no question that some kind of arrangement would have to be worked out. My only suggestion that once a decision is made, technical details can be worked out rather rapidly.

It is not clearly in anyone's interest to have a multiplicity of equipment during the more routine matters, although I would make one caveat, sir. That is, it seems to me, there are moments or extraor dinary newsworthiness when each of the broadcast news organizations ought to be permitted to have its own equipment and its own cameras, very much like in the coverage of the Watergate hearings. Chairman METCALF. Or coverage of a state of the Union message? Mr. TAYLOR. Something of that kind, because it seems to me one of the things we wish to avoid is the homogenization of the approaches of the networks in terms of coverage of these events.

There is something to be said for the differing views of the people. in charge, and perhaps the American people are benefited by getting