June 2, 1970
Page 17837
EQUAL TIME FOR EQUAL PARTNERS
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, within the last year or so Senators have become increasingly concerned with the growth of Presidential power at the expense of the other, constitutionally coequal branches of our Government. That concern was expressed in the national commitments resolution, adopted by the Senate last year by the vote of 70 to 16. Despite that overwhelming vote and an unassailable constitutional basis, the national commitments resolution has had no discernible effect upon the Executive and, as a result, we are compelled to grapple with the issue once again, now under more urgent and agitated circumstances. The initiation of a constitutionally unauthorized, Presidential war in Cambodia has brought the issue to a crisis, compelling the Congress to act in defense of its constitutional war powers. That is the principal significance of the Cooper-Church amendment and of other pending legislative proposals.
Unfortunately, the Congress is at a great disadvantage in the war powers debate, as it is in discussing most issues, because the Executive has a near monopoly on effective access to the public attention. The President can command a national television audience to hear his views on controversial matters at prime time, on short notice, at whatever length he chooses, and at no expense to the Federal Government or to his party. Other constitutional officeholders are compelled to rely on highly selective newspaper articles and television news spots, which at most will convey bits and snatches of their points of view, usually selected in such a way as to create an impression of cranky carping at an heroic and beleaguered President.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Arkansas is making a most important speech on a subject that is of increasing concern to many Americans. I have had an opportunity to read the Senator's speech in advance of its delivery this morning. It places the emphasis on a most valid premise – not on the question of equal time as between the major political parties – but on the impact that television has on the checks and balances that were contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. On the important national issues, it is important that more than the Presidential view be presented to the country. The institution of Congress was intended by the constitutional founders to play at least an equal role in setting the policy of our Government.
With the use of television by the executive branch almost exclusively, there exists no truly national dialog on the critical issues of our times.
If the Senator would pardon my reference to a later paragraph in his speech where he makes this point so very well, I read:
There is nothing in the Constitution which says that, of all elected officials, the President alone shall have the right to communicate with the American people. That privilege was a gift of modern technology, coming in an age when chronic war and crisis were already inflating the powers of the President.
That is a most important point. The critical issues of our times deserve a thoughtful national dialog. They do not lend themselves to easy and summary conclusion. Issues that deserve national attention usually are not one-sided questions. Actually most questions have more than two sides – which I think highlights the need of presenting the full spectrum of viewpoints on controversial questions, especially on those issues which have a capacity for dividing the country. The Nation should be permitted to understand not only the Presidential point of view on controversial national issues but also any prevailing and substantial point of view of elected members of the legislative branch.
Before the full development of television as the primary means of national communication on public issues, there was a tendency on the part of citizens, especially in the field of foreign policy and national security, to assume that the President, and perhaps key Members of Congress, were settling these issues and shaping the country's policies in a manner consistent with the constitutional process of checks and balances. Today, because of the direct exposure of our citizens to these vital national and international questions on television, the people rightfully believe they should be informed fully on these issues in order to have sufficient knowledge and information to form these judgments for themselves. That being the case, it seems to me that the television and radio media have a great responsibility for taking the initiative to insure that what the people hear and what they are told and the information they are given has, indeed, a broad and deep basis for the people to form their own judgments.
I think that technological fact of modern life highlights the institutional point which the Senator is making so very well in his speech this morning.
As the Senator knows, somewhat accidentally I was appointed by the majority leader as chairman of an ad hoc committee, of which the two other members are Senator JACKSON and Senator PROXMIRE, to develop approaches to this problem. I want to say to the Senator from Arkansas, and to the Senate through means of this comment, that what we are concerned about is not simply the division of time between the two political parties for partisan purposes, but about the proper role of the Congress as an institution established by the Constitution to contribute to the determination of national policy jointly with the President. The President and the Congress share the responsibility of assuring that each citizen be afforded a true dialog on the national issues.
I want to take this opportunity to compliment the Senator on what I believe is a very important speech, and to assure him that our subcommittee is working in the same direction.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thank the Senator for his comment, and I am glad to know that they are working on it.
The problem for a Senator or Senate committee is not simply one of being heard. Anything that has the color of scandal, accusation, or prediction will command eager attention from the media.
What you cannot easily interest them in is an idea, or a carefully exposited point of view, or an unfamiliar perspective, or a reasoned rebuttal to a highly controversial Presidential statement. In recent weeks, for example, the Foreign Relations Committee has heard thoughtful and significant statements on the war by eminent businessmen, political and military leaders, and theologians, but, owing to the lack of interest of the media, these proceedings have remained a well-kept secret between the witnesses and the members of the committee.
This morning we had the chairman of the board of one of the greatest industrial concerns in the world, the International Business Machines Corp., which does business in more than 100 countries, who gave extremely pertinent testimony, but I doubt that there will be anything in the press about it, or on the television, other than perhaps a short minute, or half minute or 40 seconds excerpt.
Why this is so is beyond my understanding. All I do know is that the only reliable way of getting the media to swallow an idea is by candy coating it with a prediction or accusation.