TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN C. STENNIS, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Senator STENNIS. I want to especially thank the chairman, the committee, first, for considering this general subject matter, because I think we are at the crossroads from a congressional standpoint with reference to our procedures along this line in the future, and I am glad you are studying the question. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear today as a proponent of Senate Concurrent Resolution 86, submitted by Senator Olin Johnston of South Carolina for himself and for me. I am fully and firmly convinced that the Congress should not permit televising or showing by motion-picture camera of its official proceedings, including the proceedings of its committees and subcommittees. Let me make it clear in the beginning that I think the televising and showing by motion-picture camera of news and happenings serves a very fine purpose, and that those engaged in this enterprise do a very fine work. As individuals and as a group, they are very fine citizens rendering a splendid service to the public, and are an enterprising business. I do not wish to penalize them nor discriminate against them. My firm belief is that, with congressional hearings being televised, we create a condition and an atmosphere which makes it impossible for the committee members, the witnesses, and the staff members, to function at their best. The only proper basis for a congressional investigation is to determine the facts upon which legislation should be based, or to determine how existing legislation is being adminis tered. This is not a judicial proceeding but it is semijudicial in character. It is supposed to be conducted in a serious vein and solely for the purposes in mind. Testimony as given should ordinarily be seriously considered by members of the committee, and the answers of the witnesses should be a serious attempt to present the facts. Ordinarily, this pattern is followed in most of our congressional hearings; but when the television cameras are turned on, the entire atmosphere of the proceedings changes. The witnesses, the staff members, and the members of the committee and others involved are conscious of the fact that their words, their expressions, and their mannerisms are being viewed by millions of people. It is impossible to concentrate on the subject matter. In selfdefense, the participants have to become actors. At times there is competition for the limelight. The director of the camera determines who and what shall be featured. The immediate result is a distinct lowering of the quality of the hearing. The public gets a distorted view and impression of the entire proceedings. The public infers that all hearings and all congressional proceedings are similar to the one viewed. We all like to see a good show. Usually someone connected with the hearings tries to make a good show; and, so, the hearings actually become a show. Some may be entertained, but the impression as a whole is very bad, indeed, and degrades the Congress in the eyes of the people. Members of Congress who have nothing to do with the particular hearings are nevertheless judged by what was seen on the television screen. Of course, I have no objection to any individual Senator appearing on as many television programs as he may desire, and I do not seek to restrain him within the least in his views or his dramatic talent. He is then appearing as an individual Senator. When he takes part in an official proceeding of a subcommittee or a committee, he represents and involves the entire Senate. My position is founded on a few basic concepts of human nature and on a few basic concepts of our form of government. One of the foundation stones of representative government is that those chosen to represent the people shall be free to discuss the facts, exchange ideas, and endeavor to reach conclusions that finally evolve into policies. But the purpose is largely defeated if every difference is aired before all segments of the public. Confusion is compounded. I do not advocate that all hearings should be closed. Except for reasonable executive sessions, the hearings should, of course, be open to the public and to the press. I believe in the principle of freedom of the press and do not believe that our form of government could long exist without it. But when we dramatize these proceedings, we defeat their primary purposes and we leave the people more confused than enlightened. I repeat, congressional hearings should be conducted in an atmosphere that tends to promote sound judgment, calm reasoning, and logical conclusions. We can point to the distinguished services rendered by the late Senator Clyde Hoey, of North Carolina, who served as chairman of the Permanent Investigating Subcommittee of the Senate for 4 years. His hearings were a model of decorum and were conducted with proper dispatch in a calm atmosphere of reason and logic. There was confidence throughout the Congress and the Nation in the findings and recommendations of the chairman and his subcommittee. We can well pattern our basic approach to this important subject along the lines that he laid down. It was my privilege, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, to attend every session of the Senate Armed Services-Foreign Relations Committee meetings during the General MacArthur hearings in 1951. And, Mr. Chairman, our country then was still at war in Korea. The national elections were approaching. Feelings and interest were high. There was a proposal to televise these hearings which failed by only a few votes on the Senate floor. Had this move been successful, our people would have been torn apart, confused and divided in opinion, in a manner dangerous to the welfare of the Nation. This one incident alone graphically points to the need of a firm, standing rule on the subject. I want to emphasize that point, Mr. Chairman. I am asking you to pass a rule of the Senate on this subject matter, and I think that we absolutely must have a rule that applies in all cases. Now it is left to the subcommittee or to a committee, and all too frequently maybe to just the chairman of a subcommittee as to just what will be done on this important subject. I think there ought to be a uniform rule throughout both Houses of Congress as to all committees and all subcommittees. I, personally, think that a uniform rule should, under the circumstances I have indicated, prohibit the televising of these official proceedings. I think the Congress, and particularly the Senate, is on trial concerning this serious question. We should not delay the matter any longer. We should put our house in order. Otherwise, congressional hearings will fall into such disrepute that the Congress will no longer have the respect and confidence of the people. Every single Member of the Congress is involved and will be affected by this decision. As a part of this entire problem, we are confronted with the regrettable fact that there has been at least one instance of a congressional committee permitting the hearings to be televised and sponsored by a private concern. I am sure that this is a very practical problem for the broadcasting companies, but at the same time it puts a commercial stamp on an official proceeding, something that should not be permitted under any circumstances, and which is very unfair to the competitors of the sponsor. This is a simple but serious matter. It should be decided while there is no pending investigation that attracts great attention. Let us meet the issue squarely and firmly by keeping the congressional hearings on a plane that will serve sound legislative purposes and eliminate the shows. As a Member of the Senate, I want to express my appreciation for this committee's consideration of this entire problem, and I trust that, after an exhaustive study of all angles of the question, you will make definite, firm recommendations to the Senate in line with the provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution 86. I want to add this additional special point with emphasis, Mr. Chairman. It seems with every problem that comes before the Congress, someone says, "We've got to do this," or, "We've got to do that, in view of what international public opinion may be." Personally, I get tired of that being urged as a reason for passing bills or adopting policy; but I do think that in this period of change and reappraisal and reassessment, in which we are living, that legislative bodies, as we know them, are on trial throughout the world. I think that is true in Asia. I think it is true in Europe, South America, and throughout the world. Legislative bodies as such are on trial. Now, in the United States, and thank God for it, the legislative branch of the Government is a time-tested, proven instrumentality of service to the people under constitutional government, but at the same time I think that in these times of change we are on trial, we must be more circumspect perhaps than ordinarily. We are on trial before our own people, and I think that we must be very careful that we put our house in order, that we keep it in order, and that we keep these proceedings at least on a semijudicial plane, semijudicial level. The CHAIRMAN. Senator, let me just interpose this question: Do you think perhaps this new medium, television, which you referred to primarily in your statement, is something so new that when the Congress once adopted, say, a system whereby it could televise, if it so desired, depending upon a committee's action, that eventually the public and the Members of the Congress would become adjusted to it, and it would become a part of the public hearings, just as the press here today has become a traditional part of all public hearings of Congress? In other words, my question is, Is it not possible that television is so new that we will eventually adjust to it, and what do you think the public's reaction would be whereby we have open hearings where the press is here, and still photographers, and yet the public can't see what our Congress is doing in the committees, in hearings which are open to the public? Senator STENNIS. Right. It is a very timely question. It is one I have thought about a great deal. Now, I think as far as the public understanding of the situation is concerned, if the Congress concludes it is best for sound legislative processes not to televise and thus preclude this show element, then I think the people will pretty generally follow the judgment of the Congress when this thing is explained to them; that when such a step was explained to them, they would accept that verdict of their representatives. So, I think that is the decision for us to make, and, of course, we would have to justify the decision, as we would any other decision we make; but I think we could justify it on the ground it is more conducive to sound legislation processes. Now, on the other angle of your question about becoming accustomed to it; I think we are already accustomed pretty much to the mechanics of it. I think they have developed it with such skill and with such rapidity that it is no longer a novelty to us or to the ones who are putting it on or to those who are receiving it. So, that is more solidified, but the processes of human nature being what they are-I say here my position is based upon some elements of human nature-I think you will still have the actor and others with you that will tend to make the show. The CHAIRMAN. Senator, of course, you have referred to the show element several times in your statement. Senator STENNIS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. But would there be any difference in the show element on a television program from the show element in committees? Now, my memory goes back, for example, to a regular hearing of a congressional committee, where somebody put a midget on the lap of J. P. Morgan. Senator STENNIS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Wasn't that a show in a public hearing such as we have here this afternoon? In other words, haven't you always had the show element, even in committees? Senator STENNIS. You have had it in part. The CHAIRMAN. What is there you can do about that? Senator STENNIS. You have had it in part, but this marvelous instrumentality accentuates it and spreads it. Now, during some of these hearings, I don't know how much the members of the committee got out over the country, but there were times when the people were amazed and could hardly believe what they were seeing. 49144-54-pt. 5—2 As I say, this matter ought to be decided without reference to any particular hearing or any particular investigation. The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you your opinion on this: What is your personal opinion on an inaudible recording of a hearing? Do you have any objection to that? Senator STENNIS. What kind of recording? The CHAIRMAN. In other words, I don't know whether this hearing is being recorded or not, but we do have hearings wherein everything that is said is recorded on a tape or a film. There is no picture, but just a recording of the hearing. What is your opinion of that? Senator STENNIS. I notice they record those and play them back on radio. Is that what you are referring to? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator STENNIS. I have no objection to that. My mind doesn't exclude those as being particularly objectionable. It is the pictureshow idea that carries the showmanship to which I object, and I feel sure, from my point of view and my attempt to consider matters, that it is far better to have the other atmosphere, the other approach; and I say that in great deference to these television companies which do such a marvelous job. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Senator STENNIS. Yes. Thank you very much. I am very glad to have been here, indeed. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for appearing. Mr. Downer, will you be sworn to testify? Mr. DOWNER. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, I am accompanied by Mr. Francis J. McNamara, the director of the un-American activities committee and the American sovereignty campaign of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who may also want to supplement my statement, so you may wish to swear us both at the same time. The CHAIRMAN. All right, gentlemen, will you be sworn to testify? Do you swear the testimony given in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. DOWNER. I do. Mr. MCNAMARA. I do. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a prepared statement, Mr. Downer, that you have submitted to this committee? Mr. DowNER. Mr. Chairman, I did not have an opportunity to prepare a written statement. The CHAIRMAN. I ask each of the witnesses that, Mr. Downer, because we are here to consider a code of fair procedure for congressional hearings, and the Legislative Reorganization Act provides that no witness is to appear unless his prepared statement is presented in advance, and we have made it 24 hours here to try to get compliance with that rule, which just goes to show how hard it is to enforce the rules we have already. I ask all the witnesses that question. So, you may proceed, then, in your own fashion. Mr. DOWNER. I understand that, Mr. Chairman, and I plead guilty to an infraction of the rules. The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir. Mr. DOWNER. And place myself on the mercy of the committee. |