Now, I do not suppose any Member of the Congress can be charged with being purposeful in damaging his own image to the people of his State or the district. We all do that. We try not to do it, but what I have a reference to here, I think we failed in speaking up for the institution of which we are a part, and in connection with which it is a high honor for each of us to have been elected by our own constituents as a part of that institution.

The Harris poll should be sufficient evidence, as I say, that Members are going to have to make a greater effort to defend not only our own image, but more importantly, the image of the institution of which we are a part; to defend Congress against unjustified attacks; and, if needed, upgrade our own facilities for communicating with the American people.

By upgrading our own facilities, I mean, first of all, expanding the congressional radio and television galleries. I am not familiar with the galleries on the House side, but the Senate galleries used by radio and television correspondents fall far short of being adequate. Chairman METCALF. They have certainly taken better care of themselves since you and I have left, have they not?

Senator ROBERT C. BYRD. I think they should be complimented on doing it.

Chairman METCALF. I do, too.

Senator ROBERT C. BYRD. As I walked down the halls I said to my staff man, how clean these corridors are, how impressive they are, how bright they are, and the committee rooms, they reflect a pride in the institution that I think ought to be reflected, and I think that that pride is an infectious pride in that the people who come here from the various States of this Union to meet their Representatives, and to appear at committee meetings, cannot help but be favorably impressed as they ought to be by the committee rooms in this building, which, by the way, were constructed, as you have pointed out, subsequent to our service on the House side, but the Senate galleries used by radio and television correspondents fall far short of being really adequate.

In fact, the cramped quarters out of which 526 correspondents are expected to operate have not been expanded since 1945, when only 104 broadcast journalists were accredited to cover Congress. Only incomplete statistics are available on the number of interviews conducted in the galleries, but those sketchy figures clearly show the need for expanding the facilities. In 1953, 196 interviews were conducted in the Senate Radio-TV Gallery. That number rose to 1,214 in 1962, and to 3,019 in 1967. Obviously, the possibility of increasing the space for the radio and television correspondents should be carefully considered.

Putting Congress recording studios to better use should also be considered. Those studios are the only means through which many Congressmen can reach the growing portion of their constituents that has come to depend primarily upon radio and television for news. It should be noted that, despite the accreditation of 526 correspondents in the congressional broadcast galleries, 96 percent of the country's television stations and 99 percent of its radio stations have no Washington correspondents. These stations depend, instead, on network coverage, which, by necessity, concentrates on national, rather than on local or regional issues.

29-801-7411

There is no question about the importance of Congressmen communicating more frequently with their constituents through media in their home States or districts; and neither is there any question that more attention must be paid to the facilities we have at our own disposal. What must be decided is how to closely oversee any expanded operations to assure that the facilities are used for legitimate communications purposes and not abused for the purpose of political gain. From reading the excellent background study prepared by this committee, along with the informative 2-page letter circulated prior to these hearings, I am pleased to note that this is an area in which the committee intends to become involved. I hope that, in examining the communications tools of Congress, the committee will keep in mind that the task before it is to improve the methods through which the legislative branch tells its story, and not to attempt to give Congress a competitive edge over the executive branch.

I think all of us agree that there is simply no way that the legisla tive branch is going to demand more media attention than the President. Even in 1860, when Congress established the Government Printing Office and thereby killed the "party press" system that gave the President unchecked power to mold public opinion, the Executive continued to speak with a stronger voice than did the legislators. In “The Mass Media and Modern Society," William L. Rivers writes that:

*** Even Henry Clay-daring, magnetic in debate, a thin, molten figure before a crowd and a man greatly gifted at exciting intense personal enthusiasm— could not fight through the network of newspaper animosity * *

Fortunately, none of us in Congress today faces widespread newspaper animosity. The problem confronting us is our own inability and/or reluctance to put forth the needed effort to fully explain the legislative branch to the American people. And that problem has been compounded by the changing nature of the media.

These issues which concern Congress are becoming more complex, and, therefore, need detailed explanations. Yet, at the same time, radio and television news-which depend on capsule summaries have become what Norman Swallow, in "factual television." refers to as, "the principal mass informers." Newspapers, too, seem to be adopting this capsule format, with columns that wrap up world or national news in a series of brief paragraphs. This trend could result in a public that has only a peripheral knowledge of issues on which they should be fully informed."

I believe there is a significant step that Congress can take to increase public understanding of what goes on in the House and Senatenamely, floor debates of Congress ought to be televised and broadcast.

On June 30, 1973, I introduced a resolution that would authorize the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to study the possibility of televising and broadcasting sessions of the Senate. I hope to hold hearings on that resolution during this session of Congress, but I, of course, welcome the suggestions I am certain will come from the hearings you are now conducting.

I not only congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this committee in conducting these important hearings, in this important vital area of communications, but I will, in return, welcome the suggestions from you and members of this committee.

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, televising Senate sessions is now prohibited under the blanket interpretation of rule 4 of the Rules for Regulation of the Senate Wing of the U.S. Capitol, section 83 in the Senate Manual.

When I introduced the resolution, I made a statement detailing the history of the debate over whether to televise Congress, and listing some of the objections that have been raised in the past.

Discussions of whether to allow the electronic media into the Chambers of the Senate and House date back to at least 1923, when President Calvin Coolidge's December 4 address to the opening of Congress was broadcast live. His state of the Union message 2 days later became the second broadcast to originate from Congress.

The debate began in earnest, however, in the years just prior to the enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. From 1939 through the first half of the 1940's, the AFL and the CIO spearheaded unsuccessful efforts to permit microphones in the Senate and House Chambers. And Jack H. Pollack's article entitled, "Shall We Broadcast Congress," which appeared in the February 17, 1945 issue of Liberty magazine, pointed out the success that New Zealand was having with broadcasts of its parliamentary sessions.

Those broadcasts began in 1937 and continue today.

It is noteworthy that although the 1946 act failed to allow radio and the then ebryonic television industry into the hearings did have some positive spinoff benefits. In 1947, the first televised session of a Senate hearing occurred, when Secretary of State George C. Marshall told the Foreign Relations Committee of his plan to rebuild Europe. And a year after, a gallery for radio and television reporters was established alongside the press gallery that has been in existence since 1859. Ever since 1950, when NBC's Robert McCormick conducted the first TV gallery interview with Senator William Langer of North Dakota, the television networks and independent stations have staffed the important proceedings of the Senate-but, along with their radio colleagues, TV newsmen have been barred from using the technology of their industry to bring firsthand reports of the floor debates.

The barring of radio and television coverage of Congress has resulted in an ironic situation-one in which millions of Americans were able to view the return of the POW's, but denied visual access to Senate votes on the Vietnam war; millions watched an American become the first man to walk on the Moon, but were unable to witness the Senate floor debates that preceded funding for the space program.

And in this Congress, where a struggle exists over spending authority, the President can use television to veto a bill in full view of the American population-he can take what conceivably could be a private act, and make it public. The subsequent Senate vote to override or sustain the veto, however, cannot be seen by the general publiconly by the 426 persons accommodated by the public gallery.

This is not to say, Mr. Chairman, that the arguments raised in the past against broadcasting and televising Senate sessions were totally without validity. Far from it. They were raised by conscientious lawmakers and observers who pointed out the potentially detrimental effects of allowing microphones and cameras in congressional Chambers. These objections, which have remained essentially the same from the 1940's to today, center in three main areas:

First, the equipment would interfere with the normal legislative

process.

Second, the majority of congressional sessions lack drama, and it, therefore, would be commercially infeasible for stations to carry them. Third, politicians would become "hams" once the microphones were opened and the kleig lights turned on.

What my resolution seeks to do, Mr. Chairman, is to allow the Rules Committee to determine whether these arguments are still valid—if they ever were- or whether they have been overcome by time.

Technological advances, even over the past decade, have been sig. nificant, making the equipment less cumbersome and bothersome. And with the advent of cable television, the apparent permanence of public television, and the growing interest of citizens in the activities of their government, the feasibility of such coverage might be increased.

As for politicians storming to the microphones and cameras, there is evidence that such moves would be adversely rewarded. For example, the same argument was used by opponents of New Zealand broadcasts in 1937. Yet, in a report 3 years later in the trade publication Radio Daily, Leon Weaver wrote:

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.

In any event, I feel certain that any permission that might possibly be granted to the radio and television industries to cover Congress would be accompanied by strict guidelines. To avoid the possibility of media-provoked theatrics-the focusing of the cameras on the vacant seats of the necessarily absent Senators, for instance-a system could be devised whereby Senate employees would operate the equipment, and the networks and other interested outlets could pick up the audio and visual feeds.

This is just one means of overcoming one of the fears that has been expressed previously. Hearings on my resolution could develop additional means of eliminating other obstacles that, in the past, have been placed in the path of our using the electronic media to bring the floor debates of the Senate closer to the people of the United States.

No one, I am sure, wants to see the Senate covered in the same hysterical and frenzied manner that political conventions are handled. And I am equally certain that everyone would agree that not every Senate session is worth beaming live to the American people.

However, I do think that today, when 99.8 percent of all American homes have radios and television sets, the time has come for a new look at the possibility of using the electronic media to bring the Senate and the people closer together.

That statement appears on page S 12651 of the June 30, 1973 Congressional Record, and I would like to make it a part of these hearings. I believe that opening the congressional Chambers to radio and television would heighten public understanding of, and interest in, the workings of Congress. And by increasing public understanding and interest in the legislative branch, Congress would be making a valuable contribution to our democratic system.

As Bernard Berelson noted in his "Democratic Theory and Public Opinion," which appeared in the fall 1952 issue of Public Opinion Quarterly:

Political democracy required a fairly strong and fairly continuous level of interest from a minority, and from a larger body of the citizenry a moderateto-mild and discontinuous interest, but with a stable readiness to respond in critical political situations. Political disinterest or apathy is not permitted, or at least not approved.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to say-and I think almost all Members of Congress would agree with me-that the adversary relationship that exists between Congress and the media has benefited the American people. I, for one, want to see that relationship remain adversary in nature. But I want very much to see media coverage of Congress increased. I stand ready to cooperate with, and support efforts to widen the channels of communication between Congress and the media, and thereby widen the channels of communications between Congress and the people.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your committee for holding hearings on this important subject. I thank you for allowing me to be heard here.

Mr. Chairman, I ask to have inserted in the record at this point, my statement made on the floor of the U.S. Senate on June 30, 1973, the day when I submitted the resolution to authorize the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to study the possibility of televising and broadcasting sessions of the Senate, certain excerpts from which I have read into the record.

Chairman METCALF. Without objection, your statement will be incorporated.

[The statement follows:]

[From the Congressional Record, June 30, 1973]

SENATE RESOLUTION 136-SUBMISSION OF A RESOLUTION RELATING TO
BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING OF SENATE PROCEEDINGS

(Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.)

THE SENATE AND THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I am today submitting a resolution that would authorize the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to study the possibility of televising and broadcasting sessions of the Senate.

Such activities are currently prohibited under the blanket interpretation of Rule 4 of the Rules for Regulation of the Senate Wing of the U.S. Capitolsection 83 in the Senate Manual-which prohibits the taking of pictures in the Senate Chamber.

Discussions of whether to allow the electronic media into the Chambers of the Senate and House date back to at least 1923, when President Calvin Coolidge's December 4 address to the opening of Congress was broadcast live. His state of the Union message 2 days later became the second broadcast to originate from Congress.

The debate began in earnest, however, in the years just prior to the enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. From 1939 through the first half of the 1940's, the AFL and the CIO spearheaded unsuccessful efforts to permit microphones in the Senate and House Chambers. And Jack H. Pollack's article entitled "Shall We Broadcast Congress," which appeared in the February 17, 1945, issue of Liberty magazine, pointed out the success that New Zealand was having with broadcasts of its parliamentary sessions. Those broadcasts began in 1937 and continue today.

It is noteworthy that although the 1946 act failed to allow radio and the thenembryonic television industry into the hearings did have some positive spinoff benefits. In 1947, the first televised session of a Senate hearing occurred, when Secretary of State George C. Marshall told the Foreign Relations Committee of his plan to rebuild Europe. And a year after that, a gallery for radio and televi