with as many cameras as there is room for. We are not told “just three" or "just five or four." That is full coverage. Over here because of the legislative realities that you have mentioned steadily, what we are proposing is, we will hold it down in order to help you get the bill through in order to help us cover the House. If you were to say full coverage you would have no limit at all on the number. A hearing with Secretary Laird and Secretary Rogers on the ABM, a live hearing, my recollection was that there were maybe five of the heavy video tape cameras in the room with platforms, in the big caucus room. Now, they were upon elevated steps so that you can shoot down. Now, that takes over a whole hearing room. That is full, uninhibited coverage. We are not asking for that here because we understand you couldn't get that out of this subcommittee or through your full committee.

Mr. BOLLING. We are actually talking about a partial coverage of the House and House committees as opposed to a full coverage of the Senate and Senate committees ?

Mr. MUDD. That is right. Partial restriction on equipment, yes, sir. This would not inhibit the network coverage of it but it would severely limit all our other members, Time, Life, Westinghouse, Capitol Cities, Collingwood, all those independent agencies that I mentioned that like to zero in on one Member and another.

A witness from a hometown, he would be boxed out. We are asking two extra seats to accommodate them.

Mr. BOLLING. I don't ask you to comment on this because it would be unfair. It seems to me my thinking has arrived at the point where if we had to substantially alter our hearing rooms, and so on, to provide facilities for full coverage that that would be the road to take if we are going to get into this. As I say, I don't ask you to comment on it.

Mr. MUDD. That would be another House office building?

Mr. BOLLING. I don't think it would have to be that, but there would probably be a lot of room in a hearing room like this for a small hearing. I am not really in favor of committing myself to another House office building quite yet.

Mr. MUDD. In this hearing room there would be, if you had five machines over there along that line of chairs, that would give the cameras an angle at the committee table and a side angle at the witness. You wouldn't want them up there because they would bother you. You wouldn't put them back here because then you couldn't see the witnesses. There would be lights all over the room.

They wouldn't be bad lights but they would be lights. They would be over in the corner, a box with 16 outlets that the trade independents can plug into, and you would use the existing sound system in the room. There is no getting around it, it is not going to be like it is in here now with the soft light. It will be different.

You probably won't always like the way we cover your hearings. We do the best that we can. To have it any other way, I think, would be more dangerous than the present system.

As someone mentioned, it is a matter of good faith in the Congress and television. We don't always do well, but neither do you, and it is our job to report when you don't.

Mr. LATTA. We have something in common.

Mr. MUDD. Just a brief remark, Mr. Latta. They mentioned 3 days this year on live hearings. You do understand that with the live and the film we are covering an average of 12 hearings a week by film.

That is, each network is doing that, but it is just three hearings this year that we have gone out live into everybody's television set. Last

year

Mr. LATTA. Two?

Mr. MUDD. Dean Rusk before the Foreign Relations Committee. The year before, seven. Those were live pickups from the Senate TV gallery during the debate and voting on the Dodd censure. In 1966, 15 days of hearings. That was the Rusk-McNamara-George Keenan Foreign Relations hearings; 15 days.

Remember in the winter of 1966, February and March, I think it

was.

Mr. LATTA. If I may

Mr. MUDD. Those were covered by film, too.

Mr. LATTA. If I may just comment. I seems like in the past all you have been doing is going to Foreign Relations Committee hearings. With the Senate, with the live coverage. Armed Services. I think the people of the country are more interested in what goes on down there

Mr. MUDD. You understand that the Foreign Relations Committee embarked in that period on a, what they regarded as an educational campaign and asked for live television. They were using the media.

Mr. LATTA. You had the right, as I understand it, under the Senate Rules, to go in other committee hearings to see what is going on, let the people see.

Mr. MUDD. I don't know

Mr. LATTA. Two days of live coverage in 1968 does not speak well for the industry or the Senate. One of the two fell down. There was not enough interest in the Senate in 1968 to demand more than 2 days. They shouldn't have allowed

Mr. MUDD. Can you recall some Senate hearings that should have been?

Mr. LATTA. Not offhand.

Mr. MUDD. Where does the blame lie?

Mr. LATTA. Maybe on the Senate. Somebody is to blame.

Mr. MUDD. The point is, citing those statistics on live coverage is not to say that we are not able to do it or interested in doing it, but the cost of it is extraordinary, and because it is, it takes a nationally important hearing to bring in this amount of equipment and this much support from this three-network pool.

Mr. LATTA. Here, as I understand it, you are asking the House to give you that privilege, that right, and then after you get it you are going to spend 2 days or 3 days or 7 days?

Mr. MUDD. No, sir. We are not asking. You are confusing the live

Mr. LATTA. I am not confusing that. I am talking about live coverage. Mr. MUDD. We are asking the right for film coverage which is the indispensable television tool on the Hill-not the live camera.

Mr. LATTA. You don't want live coverage in the House, is that what you are saying?

Mr. MUDD. I am not saying that. If it is restricted to live, you will get very little live. If left to the commitee chairman for live, that is up to him and we have to respond accordingly. If you permit on a daily basis film coverage with 35 camera positions, you will get, I think, a respectable coverage of the House and we can fulfill our obligations and I think that you will be not displeased.

Mr. LATTA. I am interested in the people of the country and their right to know. If we open up in the House and come up with 2 days' coverage on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House in 1970, they are going to say there wasn't any other committee down there doing anything.

Mr. MUDD. That situation, Mr. Latta, that

Mr. LATTA. This is a hypothetical situation?

Mr. MUDD. No; it is not, because it is a statistic. It is 2 days or 3 days this year. That assumes nothing else, no newscast at 6:30 by Brinkley or Cronkite is doing anything else other than the live hearings during the day. It is not that if we go live for 2 days we ignore the rest of the Congress. That is not the limit of television coverage of the Senate. It is 2 days of live hearings.

You have Mansfield here and a press conference there and hearing with film somewhere else and a witness somewhere else. That is not the limit of it.

Mr. LATTA. One further thing while you are here. I listen to your program. I will put that in the record.

Mr. MUDD. Don't delete it from the record.

Mr. LATTA. Let me bring up this thing that I brought up earlier about putting on the chairman of a committee. I think that in the past that we have given a one-sided view too often as the committee feeling. In this country we do have some minorities and we have a minority here in the Congress that perhaps the ranking member ought to be able to go on and tell what his position is.

Mr. MUDD. I heard your comment about that. I take it you mean Senator Fulbright?

Mr. LATTA. Not only him but other people who, say, contacted Chairman Patman for a comment. I believe that I would be the last one here to say that he speaks for all members of his committee. He might give the wrong opinion to the American people of what the position of his committee is.

Mr. MUDD. Of course, in the way of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which probably gave rise to your comment, the conservatives on that committee, if I may say so, didn't come to those hearings. Some of them have a very bad attendance record. We filmed and taped and broadcast the comments of those who were there. There were critics there. Fulbright happens to be chairman and Mr. Sisk happens to be chairman here, and any chairman dominates the hearing. That is the way it is, I think.

Maybe I am wrong. I am not sure. Suppose the ranking member of the committee never said anything or made any news?

Mr. LATTA. Still might have the position?

Mr. MUDD. Well, if he didn't enunciate it, we couldn't cover it; could we?

Mr. LATTA. Take these spot announcements or spot time when you put these people on. The chairman will be telling of his position and it might not reflect the feeling of the committee. This is a point that I wish you would think about. Maybe you think that you are doing the right thing, but I do not. As a member of the minority, I think we ought to be heard a little more.

Mr. MUDD. During the Republican Congress the chairman-
Mr. LATTA. That has been a long time.

Mr. MUDD. We are not responsible for that.

Mr. SISK. The gentleman from Missouri, I believe, has a question. Mr. BOLLING. I feel compelled to make a comment, again not asking for comment.

I think it would be posing an absolutely impossible task on anybody in any media to see to it that all points of view got equal time. For example, I have been in Congress for over 20 years and most of the time that I have been in Congress, although I have been a member of the majority party, I felt very much like a minority. I just think it would be absolutely impossible to expect the media to give equal time to every point of view. I don't see how anybody could judge it.

Mr. MUDD. You try consciously to act for all points of view. It does happen, as you know, that some or all the differing points of view are held by men of unequal stature. What you look for is the significant point of view from the man who has some influence in the House. You are limited as to how much of a hearing you can put on and you are looking for the man on the committee you know to be powerful and know to sway votes, know there is a change in position.

These are the things that you look for. It is impossible if I am assigned three and a half minutes to cover this hearing, really to account for everybody's point of view and each nuance. What you look for

Mr. LATTA. You are not taking my remarks to mean that I suggested that you try to give everybody's point of view time on the air? Mr. MUDD. No; I was responding to Mr. Bolling.

Mr. LATTA. You have a minority and majority opinion usually on these committees. Still it might not divide along party lines. For instance, in Banking and Currency it does not.

Mr. MUDD. The minority and the majority wouldn't be united, either; would they?

Mr. LATTA. Right.

much

Mr. SISK. If there is nothing else, Roger, we appreciate very your statement and we appreciate your outlining some of the mechanics and some of the problems. I think it was well brought out.

We will take that into consideration in attempting to see what we can do.

Mr. MUDD. Thank you very much.

Mr. SISK. Before I call the next witness, I might say to the members of the committee we have two more witnesses scheduled this morning, Mr. Warren, Mutual Broadcasting, and Mr. Tames, New York Times. I would like to go ahead until such time as we get a quorum call. Is that all right?

We will try to proceed as long as we can and hope that we can finish.

Mr. WARREN? Did we lose Mr. Warren?

Then Mr. George Tames of the New York Times, chairman of the Standing Committee of Press Photographers.

He is not here either.

That, then, concludes for the purposes of this hearing the witnesses, unless these gentlemen at a later time desire to be heard from. If they should, the commtitee will attempt to make time available. With that, the committee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1969

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in the caucus room, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. B. F. Sisk (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Sisk, Bolling, and Smith.

Also present: Laurie C. Battle, committee counsel; Robert D. Hynes, Jr., minority counsel; Walter Kravitz, Library of Congress, specialist in American Government; Gordon E. Nelson, administrative assistant to Representative Sisk; Wes Barthelmes, administrative assistant to Representative Bolling; and Miss Jonna L. Cullen, staff member.

Mr. SISK. The committee will come to order.

The Subcommittee on Legislative Reorganization of the Committee on Rules is continuing its hearings with reference to the committee print which has been made available to the members.

We have several members this morning who wish to make statements with reference to the committee print.

I believe Mr. Anderson is not able to be here this morning. So, Mr. Cleveland, we are very glad to see you with us this morning. We welcome you to make any statements you would like to make with reference to the work of the committee-good, bad, or otherwise.

We do appreciate having you, Jim, and we do appreciate your interest in this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. CLEVELAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. CLEVELAND. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee, Mr. Chairman. I am heartened by the fact that apparently we once again have a reform bill that is well on its way to the floor of the House. I think it is common knowledge and I am sure I do not have to tell the committee that although the hearing room today is not exactly crowded, and although it has been said, and I believe truly, that congressional reform doesn't have a very large and articulate constituency, we all know that people are losing confidence in their Government throughout the country and certainly Government has not performed its role in changing to meet the changing times.

My own credentials to speak to the committee are, briefly stated, as follows: I served as chairman of a Republican Task Force on Con