The proceedings of the United States senate are being broadcast to the nation on television for the first time, not that we have operated in secret until now. Millions of americans have set in the galleries and observed Senate Debates during their visits to washington. But today, they can witness the proceedings in their own homes. We might say that the nation is tuning in late. Woodrow wilson said that the informing function of congress should be preferred to its legislative function. Today, as the u. S. Senate comes out of the communications dark ages, we create another historic moment in the relationship between congress and Technological Advancement in communications through radio and televisi. That was june 2, 1986, 30 years ago this month, the and the occasion was the first day of permanent television of the United States senate. We would use the opportunity of the 30th anniversary to look back at the senate and how it is changed in the era of television. We have two guests that have been with the senate for 40 years and their careers there, now retired and spanned the age of the television before senate and after, so they are ideally suited to help us understand how the institution adapted to the coming of Television Cameras. Alan frumin is a Senate Parliamentarian emeritus and doesnt mention, he spent 40 years in the Parliamentarian Office rising to the chief parliamentarian position. Thank you for being with us. Mr. Frumin i am delighted to be here. Don ritchie has set down at our table many times. Historian emeritus, again, 40 years in the United States senate and served as the chief historian of 2009 two 2016 and has written a number of books. Nice to see you and thank you for being with us. Mr. Ritchie thank you. The senate had been debating this idea of opening itself to cameras for some time. The house proceeded it in 1979. What took them so long to say yes . The constitution does not require the senate to do its business in public. Dayhouse had a gallery at one because they were all running for reelection. The house is really primed when television came became available. The senate is very different in the last numbers speakers just because long as they want for any occasion and they were more reluctant. It took several years to persuade the senators to go along. As soon as the broadcast media he evolved way back in 1924, some senators have the idea that putting it onto the airwaves be a great idea. What happened to the early efforts . Mr. Ritchie they have a huge microphone they were going to put into the chamber. They had an experiment on how well he was going to work. The technology was not there at the time, but as a result, members were very cautious about communicating or it numbers like to communicate to the public so whenever there is a new form of technology, often members there want to try it but there are the traditionalist that say the institution would never be the same if you brought in new equipment. One name that we be familiar is hefner. Began hese television was a member. He thought it would be a good idea to televise the proceedings. What were his contributions . He was gone from the senate by the time i arrive. Since he is the only individual who traveled from the senate and the house, that he was willing to leave the more traditionally bound institution, an institution that was much more reluctant to adopt a 20th Century Communication opportunities, that he was happy to move over to the house side, a body that was much more attuned to the popular will of the people. Somebody more willing to open that the doorded would more likely be open on the house side. I am not surprised that he traveled in that direction sense that was his attitude. A good number of the senators were against opening the doors to the cameras. Why is that . Mr. Frumin why is that . The senate is by design a reflective body. It is designed to slow things down. It is designed for contemplation, compromise. Senators number of the who have been around for a long time felt that those characteristics were not necessarily footage and i. Photogenic and that the very nature of the body might be compromised when the cameras started to roll. In 1977, the senate experimented with onetime special event coverage. The 1974 swearingin of Elson Rockefeller and then in 1978, a debate over the panama canal treaty. What was behind the shortterm experiments . Mr. Ritchie we are getting ready to impeach Richard Nixon and they did not know he was going to resign so the senate prepared for an impeachment trial. Looking over the wreckage of 1868 when they impeached andrew johnson, they realize that was the first time they handed out tickets to the galleries because everyone wanted to be there you cannot really impeach a president and not allow the American Public to watch it, so they agree to bring Television Cameras and for the president s impeachment trial at that summer he resigned. The cameras were still there in december of 1974 when Nelson Rockefeller was sworn in so that was the first event in the Senate Chamber. They immediately took the cameras out so there was no more television. And then in the late 1970s, the panama canal treaty was being debated and it was a very big issue at the time, huge amount of interest. The senate allowed National Public radio to come in and broadcast. I remember sitting in the staff gallery, right at the front was Linda Rick Meyer who was doing the playbyplay and introducing who was speaking at the time. They had senators who were speaking but nobody knew who the voices were some she would do a little introduction and then setting next to her was the woman doing sketches of the senators so they could have sketches of the evening news. Hat was very primitive after the 1980 election, republicans gained control of the senate and howard baker became the majority leader and he was so interested in televising the senate that it became first revolution he introduced as majority leader. Can you speak to the initial cameras . F bringing an mr. Ritchie he liked new technology. And they needed somebody to be the face of the party. Senator baker would have been a perfect person to present his partys agenda at the time. Reagan had just become president. That had beentors running for the last 26 years louisianator from l said it was a terrible idea, that they would not get anything done. And who knows, they will be speaking tomorrow, so you had the resistance. Senator byrd was initially one of those that was a traditionalist, institutionalist and he just did not know what the impact is going to be. I remember at that time, they sent some staff around the world to talk to parliaments that had and they went to the israeli convention that was being televised to see how it went and one of the members took him aside and said, whatever you do, do not let the cameras into your chamber because once they come in, you will never get them out. Standpoint,ocedural what was the process for the decisionmaking on cameras . Was it always having to be introduced by the majority leader . Didnt need anything more in a simple majority vote . Can you talk about the process of getting it done . Mr. Frumin 20 go back to howard baker. You mentioned when he became majority leader in 1981 he led the charge in favor of television. He loved technology. He was a camera bug and loved showing off his cameras. Interested much answer in computers as well, a handson technogeek. He want to television in the senate and of course, he had to fight with resistance on both sides of the aisle. It was left to his successor, senator dole to navigate those waters, as majority leader with senator byrd, the minority leader at the time. , more inre reluctant favor of the old senate. Dole readily embraced his predecessor bakers interest and respect for technology. They did go back and forth, and the parliamentarian at the time went back and forth, being in honest broker between the two leaders and try to satisfy their wishes that the newly Televised Senate were to occur, it would be more streamlined and there are a number of changes that were discussed and most of them were left by the wayside, the cutting room floor. The one major change that was made, major procedural concession was to take the post that had beenurs added to the rules in 1979 to reduce at 100 hours to a more manageable number. ,t the time, the two leaders what was the most number of hours used in a post closure filibuster since the rule change occurred in 1979 . 100 hours were available. They went back to the office and did some research, what is the most amount of time that has been used . And we discovered that 30 hours had been used by mark hatfield, filibustering an attempt to reinstitute the draft and that was the longest amount of time that had been used in a post closure filibuster. Said,ent back to them and 30 hours . And it has remained 30 hours since then. 1986 was when this first discussion accelerated and senator robert byrd of West Virginia is really key. He said he was in institutionalist. Can you tell us of any back story on why he changed his mind . Mr. Ritchie a number of senators were concerned that house members were more recognizable than senators were because people were watching on cspan but they cannot see the senate. Senator byrd was not a Gray Television watcher. Apparently, he did not have and one ofelevision the stories i heard was that he was traveling back to West Virginia to give a speech and he was staying in a hotel that had satellitetv and he watched the house of representatives on television and he was rather stunned because he thought they were just showing clips and he did not realize it was gaveltogavel and he was very impressed with what he saw. He began to think about what the senate would be like and begin to adjust to that. I think that combination plus the younger members coming to him and saying, look, when al gore got elected in 1984 he was the very first representative on tv in the house and now he is in the senate and not on television, so you get this pressure from the younger members to the senior members saying, time for us to modernize. The first to speak on the floor of the house of representatives when it went on camera, very technology oriented. He was one of the first senators to speak in 1986 as well, so he was pushing senator byrd. We have a bit of a story we have been telling over the years about senator byrd come up out of the eccentric home he was introduced in his home state of West Virginia as speaker of the mane of big white hair and was concerned the senate was being left in the dust. Can you verify the story . Mr. Ritchie i have heard that, too but i do not know what the what invading factor was. He still needed votes. Mentioned, there were a number of oldline senators basically saying to them, stay out of the way as we move forward. How did he get to yes . Mr. Frumin he was good at changing minds and once his mind was changed he could be very persuasive. Again, i think he realized and convinced his caucus that this was inevitable. And that in order for the senate to function, that this body conceived in the late 18th century needed to adapt to the 20th century, that it cannot simply remain hidden from the public. You asked about the vote necessary. All the solutions in the senate require a simple majority for adoption. Those that amend the standing rules of the senate require a higher number of foreclosure. Four cloture. That is more difficult to attain. With questions on the general rules it is 2 3. New they need to this number. Senator byrd can be very persuasive and centered all on his side of the aisle was very persuasive. When the votes happened, they decided on a twostep process, one with the june 2 date. They vision that is a trial period. Mr. Ritchie a month later, they would see if it really changed things and give them a chance to step back, but within the month everybody liked it so much, everybody was on camera and had changed had not changed the institution. It would have been very hard at that point to pull the plug. There are only a handful of senators better still in the body that were there in 1986. When i looked at the list one of them that surprised me is senator Chuck Grassley voted dgainst the initial trial an the permanent. He is very camera friendly. People were afraid if you gave senators Unlimited Television time they would take it and that nothing would get done. There is a sense about grandstand. The senate talks about workhorses and show horses. He spends time in the committees and get this gets things done. There are some people that spend more of their time in front of the cameras and microphones instead of committees and there was real concern that this would change the nature of the senate overtime. I think, pretty quickly on the realized they were used to tv cameras. They were in the committee rooms, the home state and was not that big of a difference to have it in the chamber. Glenn senator was john who went to the floor that day when the cameras first arrived doing a bit of display about how he thought the senate which change, makeup, cameras, resurgence of blue shirts and ties and in fact, did you see that in the chamber . Where people changing their attire and how they came to the senate floor on their arrival . Yes. Rumin i think senators realize this was a time for them to look their best. This was not a question about showing up for an interview somewhere. This is where they went to work on a daily basis and the cameras would be there in the cameras would be on them if they wish that to be the case, and so it was important that they look their best so i believe it was not proliferation of blue shirts and red ties back then, and i think to a certain extent, that remains the case. Senator glenn may have made light of the incoming area of Senate Television but he was not short of the truth. Does it ever close its session . Mr. Ritchie they can have an they can have a closed session if it is of executive nature. Nowadays, dont they moved down to the Old Senate Chambers . Mr. Frumin first of all, let me correct some nomenclature. Executive sessions are trees and nominations. The doors are open. For legislative and executive business. The proper term is closed session and the standing rules permit the doors to be closed for any purpose. Senator to make a motion to close the doors and another senator to second in and with that, the doors close. They do that in frequently. R. Frumin it is infrequent this is usually done in advance when the senators have notified the leadership why it is that they ask the doors to be close. Out, they go down to the hall of the Old Senate Chamber which is a more suitable venue for confidential business to be conducted. Senator grassley was one of the senators who voted against it and is still on the senate. Another of those was Mitch Mcconnell. He voted against the initial trial but later voted yes to make them permanent. He talked about with vast in an interview at his office recently. Lets watch. On june 2, the senate will be marking the 30th anniversary of his permanently televised sessions. There have been a couple to experiments over the years with special events, that on june 2, 1986 it became gaveltogavel coverage. Do you remember the discussions leading up to it and how contentious they were . Sen. Mcconnell i do. I remember thinking it would be a big mistake and voting against it, but i have to confess, i was the one that made the mistake. It has been extremely important. The senate televised and have cspan do that and i am sure i have made a number of mistakes in my political career by voting against having cspan televised the senate was one of them. Weree institutionalist worried the senate would change as a result of the cameras. That is what held it up for those many years. Howard baker, your predecessor it was the first piece of legislation he put in as leader but at the doctoral go anywhere for years because of the concern. Has the senate actually changed . Were the warriors correct worriers correct . Sen. Mcconnell i think our debates are a lot more civil than you would have during a reelection senate campaign. We have a civil environment and that there are a lot of intelligent people that are doing what they think is in the best interest of the country. Senate had to make any accommodations for cameras . Have you changed the rules or procedures for the Television Audience . Sen. Mcconnell you know, i do not know the answer to that but if there has been some it has been pretty moderate. There has been social media, people clipping pieces of Senate Debate and sending it out. How is that change your job . Sen. Mcconnell social media is important. There is some question about it. It does not change how i do my job but i think it certainly does involve a lot more people in what is going on. There is nothing bad about that. Mys frustration biggest frustration is of course, most coverage that we do are the things that we disagree on rather than the accomplishments that we achieve on a weekly basis for the American People. People who watch the senate calls and there are some time to time discussions on whether or not that process works in the Television Age. What is your response . Sen. Mcconnell we are having discussions about how to go forward. In the senate, everything is done on unanimous consent, so anyone senators can keep you from moving forward. We use quorum calls as fillers while we are trying to discuss going forward. I am sure it is boring for the viewer and i do not know from the cspan point of view how you deal with quorum calls, but it is not true that nothing is happening during a quorum call. If you were to change anything about Television Coverage of the senate, is there anything you would change . Sen. Mcconnell i do not have any suggestions to make on that. I think it is great that cspan covers the senate and it is an important part of keeping