[House Report 105-382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    105-382
_______________________________________________________________________


 
   AMENDING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO REPEAL THE 
EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT PUBLIC COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS BE OPEN 
                              TO ALL MEDIA

                                _______
                                

  November 5, 1997.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. Solomon, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                       [To accompany H. Res. 301]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Rules, to whom was referred the resolution 
(H. Res. 301) amending the Rules of the House of 
Representatives to repeal the exception to the requirement that 
public committee proceedings be open to all media, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the resolution be agreed to.

                       Purpose of the Resolution

    The purpose of H. Res. 301 is to amend the Rules of the 
House of Representatives to repeal the exception to the 
requirement that public committee proceedings be open to all 
media.

                       Summary of the Resolution

    H. Res. 301 repeals clause 3(f)(2) of House rule XI, and 
makes technical and conforming changes to the rule.

                        Committee Consideration

    H. Res. 298, Amending the Rules of the House of 
Representatives to repeal the rule allowing subpoenaed 
witnesses to choose not to be photographed at committee 
hearings, was introduced on October 30, 1997 by Representative 
Barr of Georgia and referred to the Committee on Rules.
    H. Res. 301, Amending the Rules of the House of 
Representatives to repeal the exception to the requirement that 
public committee proceedings be open to all media, was 
introduced on November 4, 1997 by Rules Committee Chairman 
Gerald Solomon and referred to the Committee on Rules.
    On Tuesday, November 4, the Rules Committee held a hearing 
on H. Res. 298 and received testimony from: The Honorable Bob 
Barr (R-GA); The Honorable John Dingell (D-MI); The Honorable 
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); Mr. Stan Brand, former House Counsel, 
U.S. House of Representatives; Mr. Peter Robinson, former 
Assistant Parliamentarian, U.S. House of Representatives; Mr. 
Charles Tiefer, Associate Professor of Law, University of 
Baltimore and former Solicitor and Deputy General Counsel, U.S. 
House of Representatives; Ms. Barbara Cochran, President, Radio 
and Television News Directors Association; and Mr. Tim Dillon, 
Chairman, Standing Committee of Press Photographers.
    On Wednesday, November 5, the Committee held a mark-up of 
the resolution. The Committee favorably reported H. Res. 301 by 
a 7-2 vote. During the mark-up, no amendments to H. Res. 301 
were agreed to.

                 Background and Need for the Resolution

    Our representative democracy is predicated on an informed 
and educated citizenry. The First Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States underscores our nation's commitment to the 
rights of free speech and the free press, two fundamental 
tenets of an open society.
    Since the birth of the Republic, the mechanics of governing 
and reporting on thegovernment have changed dramatically. From 
printing presses, to photography, to radio, to television and now, to 
cyberspace, the transmission of news has evolved to take advantage of 
rapidly changing technologies.
    As the ``People's House,'' the House of Representatives has 
from time to time reviewed its rules and procedures, in an 
attempt to keep pace with the advances of technology as it 
works to meet the interest of an informed populace.
    One of the milestones in this effort came more than two 
decades ago, when Congress responded to the changing nature of 
broadcast media in the U.S., and began allowing live coverage 
of committee proceedings.
    Prior to 1970, it was the practice of the House to not 
allow committee proceedings to be broadcast. This practice was 
based on a 1952 ruling by Speaker Sam Rayburn, in which Rayburn 
imposed a general ban on the broadcast of hearings because he 
could find no House rule explicitly allowing television 
coverage.
    In 1970, as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act 
(P.L. 91-510), the House established the so-called House 
broadcasting rule (which is now clause 3 of rule XI). The rule 
initially applied only to the broadcasting of committee 
hearings, but in 1974 it was expanded to authorize broadcast 
coverage of committee meetings as well.
    The change (of clause 3 of rule XI) was founded on the 
belief that live television and radio coverage would increase 
public understanding of Congress. The rule provided that the 
broadcast of open proceedings may be permitted by a majority 
vote of the committee in accordance with its written rules. As 
written in the 1970's and implemented for more than 20 years, 
this rule has afforded the opportunity for broadcast by audio, 
visual, and on-line media. The rule contemplated the ability to 
broadcast as a privilege, but not a right.
    In 1995, the House revised this rule as part of its opening 
day reforms (H. Res. 6, 104th Congress) to provide for greater 
openness of committee proceedings. Rule XI was revised to 
reflect more limited circumstances under which a committee 
could vote to close its proceedings and to make broadcast 
coverage a right rather than a privilege. Under the new rule, 
any meeting or hearing must be open to all media coverage if 
the session itself is open to the public. The text of the so-
called ``sunshine'' rule (clause 3(e) of rule XI) now reads:

        Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by any 
        committee or subcommittee of the House is open to the 
        public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by 
        television, radio, and still photography, except as 
        provided in paragraph (f)(2).

This change was designed to improve the credibility of Congress 
by making its proceedings more available to the public through 
the wildest possible media coverage.
    The House broadcasting rule contains an exception to the 
requirement that public committee proceedings be open to all 
media. The Committee on Rules believes this exception to be an 
anachronism.
    The exception provided in clause 3(f)(2) of rule XI 
pertains to the conferred right of a subpoenaed witness to 
terminate radio, television and still coverage of his or her 
testimony before a committee or subcommittee of the House. The 
rule reads as follows:

        No witness served with a subpoena by the committee 
        shall be required against his or her will to be 
        photographed at any hearing or to give evidence or 
        testimony while the broadcasting of that hearing, by 
        radio or television, is being conducted. At the request 
        of any such witness who does not wish to be subjected 
        to radio, television or still photography coverage, all 
        lenses shall be covered and all microphones used for 
        coverage turned off. This paragraph is supplementary to 
        clause 2(k)(5) of this rule, relating to the protection 
        of the rights of witnesses.

    The legislative history of this rule indicates that Members 
grappled with the rights of witnesses and with the public's 
need and right to know about proceedings in the Congress. Based 
on the practical experience of Members, and a concern for 
preserving decorum, a number of limitations were placed on the 
implementation of the broadcast rule, including: live broadcast 
coverage was to be uninterrupted and without commercial 
sponsorship; conduct of the hearing was to conform to 
acceptable standards of behavior; coverage by television was to 
be limited to four fixed cameras not obstructing committee 
proceedings; equipment was to be installed prior to the 
hearing; and lighting was to be at the lowest levels possible 
for adequate coverage. (House Report 91-1215, p. 33)
    Included with these practical limitations on broadcast 
coverage was clause 3(f)(2) of rule XI, stating that no 
subpoenaed witness shall be photographed or televised or 
broadcast against his will. This witness protection provision 
was addressed in the same context as limitations on the 
broadcast media during the development of the 1970 Act. Indeed, 
in the ``purpose and scope of the bill'' section of the report 
on the 1970 Reorganization Act, the Committee on Rules noted 
that broadcasting of committee hearings would be permitted, but 
only ``under stringent regulation.''
    In the report to accompany the 1970 Reorganization Act, the 
Committee on Rules did not elaborate on its reasons for 
including this absolute protection against photographing or 
televising a subpoenaed witness against his will when it wrote:

        Provision has been made for the protection of the 
        rights of witnesses who appear before committees under 
        subpoena. A witness who appears under subpoena may 
        request--and the committees must accede to the 
        request--that he not participate in televised or 
        broadcast coverage of the hearing and that he not be 
        photographed while he is a witness.

    This provision of rule XI does not require any journalist 
to leave the room during a committee proceeding in which it is 
invoked by a subpoenaed witness. In fact, all journalists, 
print or broadcast, may continue to attend the session and to 
take notes or make sketches. Inaddition, photographers with 
still and video cameras may photograph witnesses arriving and departing 
from the committee proceedings. The practical impact of the rule on the 
modern media has been to restrict the coverage provided by the 
broadcast media, without in any way restricting that of the print 
media.
    House rules provide several other witness protections and 
separate procedures to close committee meetings and hearings, 
which are found in clause 2 of rule XI. Clause 2(g)(1) of rule 
XI provides that meetings of committees will be open except 
when there is a majority vote with a full quorum present to 
close the meeting because of: national security information; 
sensitive law enforcement information; information that would 
tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person; or 
information that would violate any law or rule of the House. 
Clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI provides that hearings of House 
committees may be closed by a majority vote with a full quorum 
present for similar reasons, except in cases of hearings where 
it is asserted that testimony or evidence may tend to defame, 
degrade or incriminate any person under clause 2(k)(5) of rule 
XI. Finally, clause 2(k)(5) of rule XI provides that whenever 
it is asserted that testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, 
degrade, or incriminate any person, such testimony will be 
taken in closed session if the committee determines by a 
majority vote of those present, a requisite number being 
present, that the testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or 
incriminate any person.
    The protection for subpoenaed witness from photographic or 
broadcast coverage of their testimony provided by clause 
3(f)(2) has been invoked in approximately 14 instances in the 
years since its inception. Although no comprehensive list 
appears to exist, recent instances of the use of this rule 
include (chart compiled from data provided by the House Radio & 
TV Gallery, a House Memorandum in Opposition to CNN legal 
challenge to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XI, the Congressional 
Research Service and press accounts):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Date                                 Committee                           Witness             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 8, 1978...........................  Interstate & Foreign Commerce      Robert J. Iglesias, Former       
                                             Subcommittee on Oversight &        President Fuelco & VenFuel.     
                                             Investigations.                                                    
June 4, 1981..............................  Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on  William C. Roen, President       
                                             Oversight & Investigations.        Hollywood Needlecraft, Inc.     
                                            .................................  Daniel David, Vice President     
                                                                                Crown-Tex Corp.                 
                                            .................................  Joel Kanefsky, Treasurer A&B     
                                                                                Wiper Supply, Inc.              
                                            .................................  Edward S. Wright, President John 
                                                                                R. Lyman Co.                    
July 15, 1987 \1\.........................  House Select Committee to          Admiral John M. Poindexter.\1\   
                                             Investigate Covert Arms                                            
                                             Transactions with Iran (joint                                      
                                             hearing with Senate) \1\.                                          
January 23, 1986; January 29, 1986........  Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on   Barry Knox, Attorney.            
                                             Asian & Pacific Affairs.          Hector Tantoco, Manager Sanmar   
                                                                                Exporting Co.                   
                                                                               Victor Politis, Real Estate      
                                                                                Executive.                      
April 27 & 28, 1988.......................  Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on  Michael Milken, Financier.       
                                             Oversight & Investigations.                                        
September 11, 1989........................  Energy & Commerce Subcommittee     R.K. Patel, Senior Vice President
                                             Oversight & Investigations.        & Assistant Secretary, Par      
                                                                                Pharmaceutical, Inc.            
                                            .................................  Jay B. Patel, Former Director of 
                                                                                Quality Assurance, Par          
                                                                                Pharmaceutical, Inc.            
                                            .................................  Barry Geller, Vice President for 
                                                                                Regulatory Affairs, Par         
                                                                                Pharmaceutical, Inc.            
                                            .................................  Ashok Patel, Former Senior Vice  
                                                                                President & Secretary Regulatory
                                                                                Affairs, Par Pharmaceutical,    
                                                                                Inc.                            
                                            .................................  Dilip Shah, Former President Quad
                                                                                Pharmaceuticals, Inc.           
                                            .................................  Jan T. Sturm, Vice President for 
                                                                                Quality Assurance Quad          
                                                                                Pharmaceuticals Inc.            
                                            .................................  Steven Colton, Former Vice       
                                                                                President for Quality Assurance 
                                                                                Vitarine Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  
September 25, 1989; October 27, 1989......  Government Operations              Samuel Pierce, Former HUD        
                                             Subcommittee on Employment &       Secretary.                      
                                             Housing.                                                           
September 26, 1989........................  Government Operations              Lance Wilson, Former Assistant to
                                             Subcommittee on Employment &       HUD Secretary Pierce.           
                                             Housing.                                                           
November 2, 1989..........................  Small Business Subcommittee on     Michael Walerstein, President of 
                                             Regulation, Business Opportunity   Medical Marketing Services.     
                                             & Energy.                                                          
November 21, 1989.........................  Banking Committee................  Charles Keating, Former President
                                                                                of Lincoln Savings & Loan.      
February 5, 1990..........................  Government Operations              James Hammernick, Former HUD     
                                             Subcommittee on Employment &       Official.                       
                                             Housing.                                                           
March 9, 1990.............................  Government Operations              Paul Marguglio, Louise Marguglio,
                                             Subcommittee on Employment &       & Donald Pierri, Former         
                                             Housing.                           Executives of Passaic, New      
                                                                                Jersey Housing Authority.       
January 17, 1996..........................  Government Reform & Oversight      David Watkins, Former Assistant  
                                             Committee.                         to the President & Former       
                                                                                Director of White House Office  
                                                                                of Administration.              
October 9, 1997...........................  Government Reform & Oversight      Manlin Foung, Sister of Charlie  
                                             Committee.                         Trie.                           
                                                                               Joseph R. Langdon, & David Wang, 
                                                                                Friends of Charlie Trie.        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note.--The rule was not invoked because the Select Committee's rules specifically provide for the committee 
  to vote not to accede to a witness' request.                                                                  

    The merits of clause 3(f)(2) came under severe criticism 
during the 1989 Government Operations Committee hearings on 
allegations of scandal relating to the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD). When former HUD Secretary Samuel 
Pierce and an assistant invoked their right to reject 
photographic, radio or television coverage of their subpoenaed 
testimony, Employment & Housing Subcommittee Chairman Tom 
Lantos (D-CA) acceded to their demand but expressed his 
displeasure and his interest in repealing clause 3(f)(2) of 
House rule XI:

        The House Rule giving witnesses the right not to be 
        photographed and to refuse to present testimony during 
        television and radio broadcasting of this hearing was 
        adopted by the House of Representatives during the 
        notorious McCarthy hearings. Times have changed since 
        then. Both the House and the Senate now obviously allow 
        all media coverage of their proceedings. It is my 
        strong view that the Rule Mr. Pierce chooses to invoke 
        no longer serves the American people and their right to 
        know. Nor is the Rule required as a protection to any 
        witness * * * Let me express my very strong view that 
        the decision by Mr. Pierce to invoke this House Rule, 
        which is a very rare occurrence, is a disservice both 
        to him and to the American public * * * The American 
        people also have a right to see and hear Mr. Pierce 
        defend his tenure during the eight years that he was at 
        the helm at the Department of Housing and Urban 
        Development. (Hearing record, Employment & Housing 
        Subcommittee, Tuesday, September 26, 1989)

    [The Committee notes that clause 3(f)(2) of rule XI was 
established in 1970 by the Legislative Reorganization Act.]
    At an October 27, 1989 hearing of his subcommittee on the 
same matter, Chairman Lantos announced his introduction of H. 
Res. 253, which would have allowed a subpoenaed witness to have 
the cameras turned off, unless the committee, by a majority 
vote with a full quorum being present, voted to allow camera 
coverage of the testimony. H. Res. 253 was not acted upon 
during that or any subsequent Congress.
    On September 9, 1996, Terry Murphy, the chairman of the 
Executive Committee of Correspondents in the House Radio & 
Television Gallery, wrote to Rules Committee Chairman Gerald 
Solomon seeking a repeal of clause 3(f)(2) of rule XI. In a 
similar letter sent October 15, 1997 by Vic Ratner, the current 
chairman of the Executive Committee, the correspondents argued 
for repeal based on the need for coverage of House committee 
proceedings to be conducted in an ``open and fair manner.'' 
Both letters outlined a concern that the current rule ``appears 
biased against electronic media.'' In addition, both Mr. Murphy 
and Mr. Ratner concluded that the current rule affords only 
``marginal'' protection for witnesses because:

        [I]t is possible for any number of cameras to film a 
        witness leaving home, hotel or car, before a 
        congressional hearing. The witness can be filmed up to 
        the moment he or she testifies in public session. 
        Consequently a television camera that would not be 
        allowed to record a witness in a hearing room would be 
        able to record him or her arriving and departing the 
        committee room.

    Mr. Ratner, who points out the fact that the Senate has no 
similar rule, includes a third reason for repeal in his letter 
to Chairman Solomon, arguing that the rule is illogical given 
the newly implemented process whereby committees allow 
transcript services to plug into the public address system. He 
writes:

        [T]he public is denied the opportunity to hear the 
        witness speak his or her own testimony, and yet there 
        is a verbatim transcript available. This seems 
        illogical.

    In his 1988 book, ``Congressional Investigations: Law and 
Practice,'' John C. Grabow discusses briefly the legal 
perspective of the protection afforded by clause 3(f)(2) of 
House rule XI, noting:

        The question of what, if any, rights a witness has to 
        refuse to answer questions because of the presence of 
        television or other media in the absence of a specific 
        rule has received only limited judicial treatment. In a 
        1961 district court case, United States v. Hintz, the 
        court stated that it ``has no power to impose upon 
        Congress, or coordinate branch of government, either a 
        proscription against or a prescription for radio, 
        television, movies or photographs.''

    In a 1976 Committee Print of the Joint Committee on 
Congressional Operations entitled ``Leading Cases on 
Congressional Investigatory Power,'' the issue received a more 
detailed discussion:

          Two district courts have reached opposite conclusions 
        as to the duty of a witness to answer questions at a 
        televised hearing. One found a witness not guilty of 
        contempt on the ground that the witness was justified 
        in refusing to answer questions in the presence of 
        television cameras, newsreel cameras, news 
        photographers using flashbulbs, and radio microphones 
        in a crowded hearing room which, the Court thought, 
        necessarily distracts any witness to the point that he 
        might say today something that next week he will 
        realize was erroneous (United States v. Kleinman 1952).
          The other held that the conduct of congressional 
        hearings is within the purview of the Congress and that 
        the courts have no right to dictate either the 
        procedures for Congress to follow in performing its 
        functions or the composition and conduct of the persons 
        and paraphernalia admitted by Congress to its hearings. 
        There is a presumption that Congress, having ventured 
        to act pursuant to its constitutional authority and in 
        furtherance of its investigative functions, has 
        properly exercised that authority and properly 
        performed those functions (United States v. Hintz 
        1961).

    In the 105th Congress, several proposals for reform of this 
House rule have been introduced. H. Res. 275, introduced by 
Representative Ganske of Iowa would revise clause 3(f)(2) of 
rule XI to allow the committee, by majority vote, to overrule 
the witness in his or her request that photographic and 
broadcast coverage be terminated. H. Res. 298, introduced by 
Representative Barr of Georgia, would repeal clause (3)(f)(2) 
of rule XI.
    In presenting its rules changes for the 104th and the 105th 
Congresses, the Republican majority began an evolving process 
of reform geared toward enhancing the credibility of the 
institution by opening its proceedings to additional public 
scrutiny. Those changes made the proceedings of the House more 
accessible to the public and thus have had the effect of 
increasing the accountability of all members to the 
constituents they serve. The majority recognized through those 
efforts that reform would be an evolutionary process by which 
the Rules Committee would continue to fulfill its oversight 
function to assess the rules of the chamber and consider the 
need for further changes.
    The Committee on Rules believes that the repeal of clause 
3(f)(2) is a natural follow-through to the sunshine rules 
adopted by the House in recent years allowing broadcast 
coverage of open committee proceedings. It is the view of the 
Committee on Rules that the House should continue to adapt 
itself to the dictates of modern technology and the interest of 
the public in observing their government in action. The 
Committee therefore recommends repeal of this antiquated House 
rule.

      Matters Required Under the Rules of the House Committee Vote

    Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to accompany any bill or resolution of a public character, 
ordered to be reported, to include the total number of votes 
cast for and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to 
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, 
and the names of those members voting for and against. On 
November 5, 1997 the Committee ordered H. Res. 301, reported to 
the House, by a record vote of 7 to 2, a quorum being present.

Rules Committee Rollcall No. 75

    Date: November 5, 1997.
    Measure: H. Res. 301, Amending the Rules of the House of 
Representatives to repeal the exception to the requirement that 
the public committee proceedings be open to all media.
    Motion by: Mr. Goss.
    Summary of motion: That the Committee favorably report H. 
Res. 301 to the House, with the recommendation that the 
resolution be adopted.
    Results: Adopted 7-2.
    Vote by Members: Goss--Yea; Linder--Yea; Pryce--Yea; Diaz-
Balart--Yea; Hastings--Yea; Myrick--Yea; Moakley--Nay; Frost--
Nay; Solomon--Yea.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report 
that accompanies a measure providing new budget authority, new 
spending authority or changing revenues or tax expenditures to 
contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(l) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended and, when 
practicable with respect to estimates of new budget authority, 
a comparison of the total estimated funding level for the 
relevant program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under 
the current law. Clause 7(a) of rule XIII requires committees 
to include their own cost estimates in certain committee 
reports, which include, when practicable, a comparison of the 
total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or 
programs) with the appropriate levels under the current law.
    No cost estimate is required under this section because the 
resolution does not provide new budget authority, new spending 
authority, or new credit authority, nor does the resolution 
provide an increase or decrease in tax expenditures.

                 Congressional Budget Office Estimates

    Clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI requires each Committee to 
include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is 
timely submitted. No cost estimate was received from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

                           Oversight Findings

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no 
oversight findings.

 Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee on Government 
                          Reform and Oversight

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on rules 
received no such findings or recommendations from the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight.

                           Comparative Print

  Clause 4(d) of rule XI requires that, whenever the Committee 
on Rules reports a resolution amending or repealing the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the accompanying report must 
contain a comparative print showing the changes in existing 
rules proposed to be made by the resolution.
  Changes in existing Rules of the House of Representatives 
made by the resolution, as reported, are shown as follows 
(existing rules proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing rules in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

                 RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

          * * * * * * *

                                Rule XI

                   rules of procedure for committees

          * * * * * * *

                            Committee Rules

Adoption of written rules
  2. (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
Open meetings and hearings
  (g)(1) Each meeting for the transaction of business, 
including the markup of legislation, of each standing committee 
or subcommittee thereof (except the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct) shall be open to the public, including to 
radio, television, and still photography coverage[, except as 
provided by clause 3(f)(2)], except when the committee or 
subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, 
determines by roll call vote that all or part of the remainder 
of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public 
because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger 
national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement 
information, would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any 
person, or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the 
House: Provided, however, That no person other than members of 
the committee and such congressional staff and such 
departmental representatives as they may authorize shall be 
present at any business or markup session which has been closed 
to the public. This paragraph does not apply to open committee 
hearings which are provided for by clause 4(a)(1) of rule X or 
by subparagraph (2) of this paragraph.
          * * * * * * *

            Broadcasting of Committee Hearings and Meetings

  3. (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (e) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by any committee 
or subcommittee of the House is open to the public, those 
proceedings shall be open to coverage by television, radio, and 
still photography[, except as provided in paragraph (f)(2)]. A 
committee or subcommittee chairman may not limit the number of 
television or still cameras to fewer than two representatives 
from each medium (except for legitimate space or safety 
considerations, in which case pool coverage shall be 
authorized).
  (f) Each committee of the House shall adopt written rules to 
govern its implementation of this clause. Such rules shall 
include provisions to the following effect:
          (1) * * *
          [(2) No witness served with a subpoena by the 
        committee shall be required against his or her will to 
        be photographed at any hearing or to give evidence or 
        testimony while the broadcasting of that hearing, by 
        radio or television, is being conducted. At the request 
        of any such witness who does not wish to be subjected 
        to radio, television, or still photography coverage, 
        all lenses shall be covered and all microphones used 
        for coverage turned off. This subparagraph is 
        supplementary to clause 2(k)(5) of this rule, relating 
        to the protection of the rights of witnesses.]
          [(3)] (2) The allocation among the television media 
        of the positions of the number of television cameras 
        permitted by a committee or subcommittee chairman in a 
        hearing or meeting room shall be in accordance with 
        fair and equitable procedures devised by the Executive 
        Committee of the Radio and Television Correspondents' 
        Galleries.
          [(4)] (3) Television cameras shall be placed so as 
        not to obstruct in any way the space between any 
        witness giving evidence or testimony and any member of 
        the committee or the visibility of that witness and 
        that member to each other.
          [(5)] (4) Television cameras shall operate from fixed 
        positions but shall not be placed in positions which 
        obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing or 
        meeting by the other media.
          [(6)] (5) Equipment necessary for coverage by the 
        television and radio media shall not be installed in, 
        or removed from, the hearing or meeting room while the 
        committee is in session.
          [(7)] (6) Floodlights, spotlights, strobelights, and 
        flashguns shall not be used in providing any method of 
        coverage of the hearing or meeting, except that the 
        television media may install additional lighting in the 
        hearing or meeting room, without cost to the 
        Government, in order to raise the ambient lighting 
        level in the hearing or meeting room to the lowest 
        level necessary to provide adequate television coverage 
        of the hearing or meeting at the then current state of 
        the art of television coverage.
          [(8)] (7) In the allocation of the number of still 
        photographers permitted by a committee or subcommittee 
        chairman in a hearing or meeting room, preference shall 
        be given to photographers from Associated Press Photos 
        and United Press International Newspictures. If 
        requests are made by more of the media than will be 
        permitted by a committee or subcommittee chairman for 
        coverage of the hearing or meeting by still 
        photography, that coverage shall be made on the basis 
        of a fair and equitable pool arrangement devised by the 
        Standing Committee of Press Photographers.
          [(9)] (8) Photographers shall not position 
        themselves, at any time during the course of the 
        hearing or meeting, between the witness table and the 
        members of the committee.
          [(10)] (9) Photographers shall not place themselves 
        in positions which obstruct unnecessarily the coverage 
        of the hearing by the other media.
          [(11)] (10) Personnel providing coverage by the 
        television and radio media shall be then currently 
        accredited to the Radio and Television Correspondents' 
        Galleries.
          [(12)] (11) Personnel providing coverage by still 
        photography shall be then currently accredited to the 
        Press Photographers' Gallery.
          [(13)] (12) Personnel providing coverage by the 
        television and radio media and by still photography 
        shall conduct themselves and their coverage activities 
        in an orderly and unobtrusive manner.
          * * * * * * *

                       Views of Committee Members

    Clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI requires each committee to afford 
a two day opportunity for members of the committee to file 
additional, minority or dissenting views and to include the 
views in its report. Although this requirement does not apply 
to the Committee, the Committee always makes the maximum effort 
to provide its members with such an opportunity. The following 
views were submitted:

                             MINORITY VIEWS

    Clause 3(f)(2) of rule XI provides that ``No witness served 
with a subpoena by the committee shall be required against his 
or her will to be photographed at any hearing or to give 
evidence or testimony while the broadcasting of that hearing by 
radio or television * * *''. This provision is virtually the 
only guaranteed individual protection given to witnesses under 
House rules. The resolution which is supported by the Rules 
Committee majority completely repeals this critical safety 
valve that is available to protect subpoenaed witnesses. Those 
members, on both sides of the aisle, who instituted this 
protection as a result of the shame brought on the House in the 
McCarthy era, must be wondering if we have all lost our minds 
as we carelessly toss it aside.
    There is no need for such expeditious action on the 
measure. The hearing and the subsequent markup on what is a 
matter of original jurisdiction for the Rules Committee came up 
with very little advance notice, leaving little time for the 
preparation of a responsible hearing process to study the 
ramifications of the repeal of the rule.
    Regardless of one's views on this issue, the resolution is 
an extremely important matter that could deeply affect any 
individual who may be subpoenaed by a House Committee. It is 
terribly unfair to rush through a measure that takes away a 
witness right that has been in place since the 1950's and in 
House rules since 1970. There appears to be no justifiable 
reason why action on this House rules change must happen in 
this careless and hurried fashion. We would hope that the Rules 
Committee would have moved in a more deliberative manner and in 
order to give this proposal the kind of careful scrutiny that 
it deserves.
    This effort is not the first time that Committee Chairmen 
and members have been frustrated by witnesses invoking their 
protection under this rule. Attempts were made to repeal the 
provision. But wisely the House realized that the rule was 
indeed for the protection of individual rights and it remained 
in place. Representative Kanjorski (D-PA), in the 104th 
Congress, urged a witness to reconsider his use of clause 
3(f)(2) of rule XI. However, Mr. Kanjorski, in his testimony 
before the Rules Committee, stated that after the hearing he 
was glad that the rule was in place because ``this event helped 
me to recognize the balance between protecting an individual 
and the need for Congress, and the press, to obtain 
information.'' Another witness, former Chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, Representative John Dingell (D-MI), who has had vast 
experience in conducting Congressional investigations, stated 
that he had never found the committee's information gathering 
role or the role of the press in anyway compromised. He stated, 
``Let mebe clear about one thing. I favor government in 
sunshine. I would never encourage a witness to close a hearing to 
cameras. Bringing the public's attention to important issues is a key 
purpose of investigative hearings. Yet I also care about individual's 
rights. I find it ironic that the same Republican leadership that 
devoted weeks of hearings to various individual rights ranging from 
those of David Koresh at Waco, to taxpayers being harassed by the IRS, 
finds it so difficult to understand that an unrestrained Congress is 
very capable of using a heavy hand.''
    Witnesses coming before Congressional panels, particularly 
those whose presence is required through a subpoena, are 
afforded minimal rights and now, by virtue of the action of the 
Rules Committee majority, they stand to lose what very little 
they have. This protection for a subpoenaed witness came about 
in the early 1950's as a result of the notorious McCarthy era 
and the House Un-American Activities Committee. During that era 
of runaway investigations and House-sanctioned witch hunts, the 
rights of subpoenaed witnesses were shamelessly trampled upon. 
Callous treatment of witnesses was an everyday occurrence in 
that committee. A tragic incident led to the eventual 
implementation of this rule. In June 1957 the House Un-American 
Activities Committee opened hearings in San Francisco. A young 
cancer researcher named William K. Sherwood was subpoenaed to 
appear, on camera, before the committee. Two days before his 
scheduled appearance, he wrote a note expressing his ``fierce 
resentment of being televised'' and then jumped from his hotel 
window to his death. After that grim incident, cameras and live 
broadcast were banned from the committee hearings from 1957 to 
1970 when Congress enacted the Legislative Reorganization Act. 
Throughout the time when the House debated the manner in which 
broadcasting would be permitted in legislative proceedings, a 
bipartisan consensus developed which included a fundamental 
protection of the rights individuals who have been brought 
before a committee to testify against their will. It was 
understood that, though citizens may be compelled to appear 
before the committee, they were not similarly compelled to 
appear on television. The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act 
codified this long-standing consensus. That is the rule this 
resolution seeks to repeal.
    A hearing is supposed to be a forum for gathering 
information but instead is often used to intimidate and abuse 
witnesses, who are afforded no due process rights by the Rules 
of the House. Members often question witnesses in ways that 
would not even be allowed in a courtroom. But no one, certainly 
not the witness, can stop the process. Witnesses do not always 
have the opportunity to rebut statements made to them by 
members of the panel. They can't ``object'' to a question that 
is misleading or incriminating. They can be held in contempt if 
they refuse to answer any question, regardless of how 
inappropriate it may be. They may have a lawyer present, but 
that lawyer is virtually powerless to halt an unfair line of 
questioning. Members should not use their own personal beliefs 
and prejudices to intimidate, threaten or humiliate individuals 
who are required to appear before a Congressional committee. 
But, we have all seen instances where they do. To further 
subject these witnesses to unwanted and unwarranted television 
and radio coverage is a flagrant abuse of power by Congress. 
The protection provided in clause 3(f)(2) of rule XI is all 
that a witness can do to protect him or herself from such 
exploitation. Now even that small refuge is to be taken away 
leaving witnesses at the mercy of an often hostile panel.
    The proponents of this repeal say that they favor openness 
and sunshine. It is important to clarify that when a witness 
invokes clause 3(f)(2) of rule XI it does not close a hearing 
from press coverage. No reporter is thrown out of a hearing. It 
does not shut anyone out of a hearing. All records are public. 
All reporters can cover a hearing and go out and report on what 
has taken place. Many, many times when court cases and other 
public meetings are not televised, reporters themselves 
describe the testimony, the reaction of the witness, and other 
relevant activities that took place away from a camera or 
microphone.
    The proponents say they will leave in place a protection 
for witnesses in clause 2(k)(5) of rule XI. But this provision 
requires the committee to vote itself into executive session 
which completely excludes all print and broadcast press 
coverage, and--everyone else. Moreover, under clause 2(k)(7) 
``no evidence or testimony taken in executive session may be 
released or used in public sessions without the consent of the 
committee.'' So instead of supporting openness and sunshine, 
they are actually encouraging secrecy.
    Members of the House of Representatives, the people's 
house, are elected to represent each and every individual in 
his or her district. One of our most important duties is to 
make certain that the rights and protections given to these 
individuals are not compromised in any way. Citizens and others 
who are required by subpoena to appear before a Congressional 
committee do not deserve to have this one defense taken away. 
If we allow it to happen, we are abrogating our responsibility 
to those who sent us here. We will come to regret removing this 
vital check on the Congressional power to intrude on the lives 
of American citizens.

                                   John Moakley.
                                   Martin Frost.
                                   Tony P. Hall.
                                   Louise M. Slaughter.

                                
