(3) the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy;

(4) the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House Appropriations Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee;

(5) three Members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate, two of whom shall be members of the majority party and one of whom shall be a member of the minority party;

(6) three Members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker, two of whom shall be members of the majority party and one of whom shall be a member of the minority party.

(b) The joint committee shall select a chairman and a vice chairman from among its members.

(c) Vacancies in the membership of the joint committee shall not affect the power of the remaining members to execute the functions of the joint committee and shall be filled in the same manner as in the case of the original appointment. SEC. 103. (a) The joint committee shall have the following functions: (1) to make a continuing study of the foreign, domestic, and military policies of the United States with a view to determining whether and the extent to which such policies are being appropriately integrated in furtherance of the national security;

(2) to make a continuing study of the recommendations and activities of the National Security Council relating to such policies, with particular emphasis upon reviewing the goals, strategies, and alternatives of such foreign policy considered by the Council; and

(3) to make a continuing study of Government practices and recommendations with respect to the classification and declassification of documents, and to recommend certain procedures to be implemented for the classification and declassification of such material.

(b) The joint committee shall make reports from time to time (but not less than once each year) to the Senate and House of Representatives with respect to its studies. The reports shall contain such findings, statements, and recommendations as the joint committee considers appropriate.

SEC. 1104. (a) The joint committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized, in its discretion (1) to make expenditures, (2) to employ personnel, (3) to adopt rules respecting its organization and procedures, (4) to hold hearings, (5) to sit and act at any time or place, (6) to subpena witnesses and documents, (7) with the prior consent of the agency concerned, to use on a reimbursable basis the services of personnel, information, and facilities of any such agency, (8) to procure printing and binding, (9) to procure the temporary services (not in excess of one year) or intermittent services of individual consultants, or organizations thereof, and to provide assistance for the training of its professional staff, in the same manner and under the same conditions as a standing committee of the Senate may procure such services and provide such assistance under subsections (i) and (j), respectively, of section 202 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and (10) to take depositions and other testimony. No rule shall be adopted by the joint committee under clause (3) providing that a finding. statement, recommendation, or report may be made by other than a majority of the members of the joint committee then holding office.

(b) Subpenas may be issued over the signature of the chairman of the joint committee or by any member designated by him or the joint committee, and may be served by such person as may be designated by such chairman or member. The chairman of the joint committee or any member thereof may administer oaths to witnesses. The provisions of sections 102-104 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 192-194) shall apply in the case of any failure of any witness to comply with a subpena or to testify when summoned under authority of this section. (c) With the consent of any standing, select, or special committee of the Senate or House, or any subcommittee, the joint committee may utilize the services of any staff member of such House or Senate committee or subcommittee whenever the chairman of the joint committee determines that such services are necessary and appropriate.

(d) The expenses of the joint committee shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate from funds appropriated for the joint committee, upon voucher's signed by the chairman of the joint committee or by any member of the joint committee authorized by the chairman.

(e) Members of the joint committee, and its personnel, experts, and consultants, while traveling on official business for the joint committee within or outside the United States, may receive either the per diem allowance authorized to be paid to Members of the Congress or its employees, or their actual and necessary expenses if an itemized statement of such expenses is attached to the voucher.

Coverage of Congressional Hearings by Public Television

September 11, 1966: COMSAT Hearings before Senate Commerce Committee (90 minute summary in prime time).

January 30, 1967: Testimony of George F. Kennan before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (60 minute summary in prime time).

January 31, 1967: Testimony of Edwin O. Reischauer before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (60 minute summary in prime time).

February 20, 1967: Testimony of Henry Steele Commager before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (60 minute summary in prime time).

February 21, 1967: Testimony of General James Gavin (Ret.) before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (60 minute summary in prime time). April 11 through 14, 1967: Hearings on the Public Broadcasting Act before the Senate Commerce Committee (4-60 minute specials all in prime time).

April 25 through 27, 1967: Continuation of hearings on Public Broadcasting Act before the Senate Commerce Committee (3-60 minute specials all in prime time). March 11 and 12, 1968: Testimony of Secretary of State Dean Rusk before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (a 60 minute and a 90 minute special, each in prime time).

January 20, 1969: Confirmation hearings of Walter J. Hickel before the Senate Interior Committee (60 minute summary in prime time).

March 12, 1969: Hearings on Television Violence before the Senate Commerce Committee (60 minute summary in prime time).

March 14, 1969: Hearings on the ABM before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (60 minute summary in prime time).

March 27, 1969: Testimony of Secretary of State William P. Rogers before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (90 minute summary in prime time).

April 23. 1969: Hearings on the ABM before the Senate Armed Services Committee (60 minute summary in prime time).

May 14, 1969: Hearings on the ABM before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (60 minute summary in prime time).

April 17, 1972: Testimony of Secretary of State William P. Rogers before Senate Foreign Relations Committee (complete 3 hour program in prime time). April 18, 1972: Testimony of Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (2 hour summary in prime time).

March 28 through 30, 1973: Hearings on Public Television before the Senate Commerce Committee (71⁄2 hours total, all prime time).

September 7, 10, 11, and 14, 1973: Confirmation hearings of Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (12 hours total, all prime time).

November 1 and 5, 1973: Confirmation hearings of Gerald R. Ford as Vice President of the United States before the Senate Rules Committee (81⁄2 hours total, all prime time).

Watergate: Between May 17 and November 15, 1973 gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Senate Select Committee on Campaign Activities. Covered 51 of 53 days of testimony resulting in 246 hours, all in prime time.

May 9, 1974: Impeachment Hearing; House Judiciary Committee, Opening Session.

July 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30: Impeachment Debate; House Judiciary Committee. August 6: Public Television Hearings; Senate Commerce Subcommittee, chaired by Senator John Pastore.

29-801 0-74-App.- 13

Articles and Research on Broadcasting Congress

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Washington, D.C., February 7, 1974.

To: The Honorable Claude Pepper, Attention: Jim Southerland. From: Carol F. Casey, Analyst, Government and General Research Division, (Kenneth E. Gray, Division Chief).

Subject: Radio and Television Coverage of Congress.

In response to your request, I have compiled the following information: Presidential Television by Newton N. Minow, John Bartlow Martin and Lee Mitchell includes a history of the use of television and radio by Congress. Excerpts from Chapter 4 entitled "Congress, Court and Camera" are attached for your information.

Edward W. Chester in Radio, Television, and American Politics, reports an estimated 20 to 30 million persons viewed the Kefauver Committee hearings in 1951 and refers to Nielsen ratings in the New York City area showing that NBC live two day coverage of the Dean Rusk testimony on Vietnam to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March 1968 outdrew CBS entertainment programs aired at the same time."

The WNET coverage of Watergate drew a 7.6 Nielsen rating in New York City, the highest rating ever received by a public affairs program and second only to "Elizabeth R" in general programming."

CBS News estimates that each TV home viewed 30.1 hours of the Watergate hearings. A poll of 529 U.S. Households done by Chilton Research Associates for ABC between August 2-5, 1973 showed that:

36% watched the hearings from 1 to 4 days.

15% watched between 6 and 10 days.

34% watched more than 10 days.

15% had not watched at all.

Gallup polls over the years provide the following information:

(1) Have you heard or read about the congressional investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack?" (Dec. 28, 1945).

(3) Have you heard or read about the Congressional Committee's investigation of Hollywood? (Nov. 30, 1947).

(6) Have you heard or read anything about the hearings in Washington at which Generals MacArthur, Marshall and Bradley gave their views on what we should do about Korea?" (June 11, 1951).

Yes: 70%. No: 30%.

1 (Basic Books, New York, 1974).

2(Sheed and Ward, New York, 1969) page 76.

3Ibid., pages 165-166.

Broadcasting, Aug. 13, 1973, p. 15.

Samuel Sorad, CBS News, telephone conversation, Feb. 6, 1974.

Broadcasting, Aug. 13, 1973, n. 18.

7 Gallup. Dr. George H. The Gallup poll: Publle opinion 1935-1971, New York Random House. 1972: 551.

8 Ibid., p. 551. Ibid., p. 689. 10 Ibid., p. 979. 11 Ibid., p. 980. 12 Ibid., p. 988.

(Note: the table adds to more than 100% because some people gave more than one answer.)

(10) Have you heard or read anything about the congressional investigations of labor union (March 28, 1957).

Yes: 78% of all adults: 80% of union member families.

(11) Have you heard or read anything about the congressional investigation of labor unions?" (Sept. 25, 1957).

A chart also documents the Broadcast Coverage of Congressional Committees by National Public Radio for the period of July 1971-June 1972.

Actual viewer ratings of specific programs by Nielsen, Arbitron or other companies are generally done by contractual agreement with no provision for making the results public.

I hope this material will meet your needs. For further information, please contact me at 426-5821.

[The Rotarian, September 19451

BROADCAST CONGRESS?

A big "Yes" to the question, widely discussed in the U.S.A., and many com ments the debate-of-the-month.

YESSAYS CLAUDE D. PEPPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Its simplest and most Just powers from the commous definition, democracy is government "deriving its of the governed." "Consent," in my vocabulary, Implies understanding. Understanding implies knowledge. Most United States citizens have no opportunity to obtain a working knowledge of the methods of Congress. Few can visit Washington to learn for themselves. The rest have to depend on reports of Congressional proceedings in the press and on the radio which are fragmentary, edited, and only too often blased.

If all United States citizens could listen in on Congress, learn how it works, be able to evaluate the actual performance of their own representatives, and make Judgments based on such knowledge, we would have a much more Intelligent interchange of opinion between the people and their Congressmen, and consequently a more democratic legislature.

Therefore, I have introduced in the Senate a joint resolution authorizing commercial radio stations to broadcast all or part of the proceedings of Congress, and providing for complete transcriptions of the debates. Under the resolution

13 Ibid., p. 994.

14 Ibid., p. 1229. 15 Ibid., p. 1232.

18 Ibid., p. 1483.

17 Ibid., p. 1516.

18 Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Congress and Mass Communications: An Institutional Perspective (A study conducted for the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations), Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. 1974.

either the Senate or the House of Representatives would have the right to withhold proceedings from the air if it chose to.

Several critics have made the objection that Congress would find it difficult to compete with Bob Hope or Charlie McCarthy. The debates would not make "entertaining" broadcasts. The press and radio, winnowing the chaff to get at the legislative wheat, it is claimed, do an essential job of editing. Complete broadcasts, these critics say, would only bore the people, making them less, rather than more, responsive to their obligations as citizens.

In this criticism there are two separate attitudes with which no true democrat can agree. The first is that the people are so drugged with "horse operas" and "soap operas" and light and grand operas that they would not listen to the serious proceedings of government. I do not have so low an opinion of Americans. They are not drugged. They are awake, and they are watchful, as the last elections showed with unmistakable clarity. They know that the future of their security and well-being are under debate on the floors of the two houses of Congress, and they are deeply concerned. They have a right to hear that debate: and they would use that right.

The other attitude is that of certain newspapers which hold that they have the unrestricted right to "predigest" or "clean up" the debates of the national legislature. They do indeed have that right. But only too often it is used as if the blue pencil were wielded by a censor rather than an editor. Freedom of the press becomes a method of abridging the people's inalienable freedom to listen and to learn. Uncensored broadcasts would serve as a check on those newspapers which sometimes delete or distort the news in order to make it fit their own bias.

The possibility has been mentioned that the privilege of broadcasting might be misused by allowing the practice of "extending remarks" to carry over to radio. It is feared that Congressmen would take advantage of this loophole to "extend their remarks" by radio transcriptions, and would flood their local stations with an endless series of purely political speeches which never actually were spoken in the legislature.

However, the radio audience has a low tolerance level for such material. It can and undoubtedly would turn off its radios if too many speeches of this type were "extended" over the air by their local solons. The nuisance would obviously be self-eliminating.

On the other hand, there is supposed to be a danger that the extension of Congressional immunity from libel and slander suits to the air waves would encourage demagogues to step up their campaigns of personal slander and scurrility. But the problem here is much more basic than one of mere degree. Slander is slander, wherever spoken. That its utterers should be immune from suit on the floor of Congress is no less reprehensible than that they should be immune when the floor becomes a wave length.

Congressional immunity, however, serves a good purpose in other ways, and should not be eliminated merely because a few irresponsible Congressmen misuse the privilege. In the long run, it is more than likely that the broadcast of legislative debates would lead to gathering pressure from the people which would force a greater degree of temperateness in speech upon the offending rabble rousers. None of these objections has proved valid in previous experience with legislative broadcasts. The legislature of New Zealand, for example, has been on the air for more than eight years, and the results have been excellent. According to an article in The Empire Review, New Zealanders have developed "a largely unconscious, but very real, feeling that the actions of one's elected government should be open to public inspection." Captain Leon Weaver, of the United States Marines, commented in the Radio Daily: "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."

New York City's experience with the broadcasts of its Council's debates is well known. For two years these programs were among the most popular put on by the city's radio station, WNYC. Comment from the public was overwhelmingly favorable, and more than three-fourths of the letters received emphasized the very real educational value of the program. It was taken off the air, I am told, solely because some members of the City Council felt that the broadcasts damaged their political reputations.

Recently Nathan Straus, of New York's WMCA, has been dramatizing portions of the Congressional Record on the air. In a recent letter to me Mr. Straus stated: