standing that the proponents of this legislation would require no more than one morning to present their case.

The colleagues who share my concern in this matter and who have indicated their strong interest that hearings be held include the Honorable Carl Albert, Lenor Sullivan, Ed Edmondson, Spark Matsunaga, Richard Fulton and Robert Kastenmeier. Each of these colleagues feels as I do that there are compelling reasons for conducting brief hearings before adjournment.

The first of these is the likelihood that the Senate will act on an amended version of S. 1312, Senator Hayden's "Newspaper Preservation Act," in this session. Since this is Senator Hayden's last term in office, and since he has been the principal sponsor of this legislation, we feel it is important that the House establish some record on his proposal in this session.

A second and more compelling reason is that the preservation of editorial competition in many cities throughout the United States is in real jeopardy today because of the doubt and confusion generated by anti-trust litigation and the failure of the Congress to resolve some of the problems brought to light and, in fact, exacerbated by that litigation. Because of the action brought by the Justice Department against the Tucson newspapers, and the decision there by Judge Walsh declaring the joint newspaper arrangement to be a per se violation of the anti-trust laws, similar joint newspaper arrangements in twenty-one other cities operate under the shadow, indeed the threat of federal interference. This cannot help but inhibit these newspapers in their day-to-day operation and in their planning for the future.

Similarly, in those few cities where fully competing newspapers still exist, and where there is a continuing possibility of merger with subsequent loss of one of the editorial voices, the Tucson decision would seriously inhibit any thought of turning to a joint operating arrangement as the means of reducing operating costs while maintaining editorial competition.

It is one thing for the United States to defend the interests of the people against the effects of monopoly; it is another to destroy competition where it exists through a failure to recognize important distinctions. It is my feeling, and I think it is the feeling of my colleagues, that failure of the Congress to move into this field of editorial versus business competition in the newspaper field may result in the needless and untimely loss of editorial competition in a number of cities in the next two or three years. Studies by a number of the publishers participating in joint newspaper operating arrangements have proven that, if they are forced to separate their commercial functions, only one of the two newspapers in each city will survive. We cannot afford any further diminution in the number of such editorial voices, for, as Judge Learned Hand said of the press: "It serves one of the most vital of all general interests, the dissemination of news from as many different sources and with as many different facets and colors as is possible."

I am well aware of your past interest in the problems of a free and flourishing press in the United States, including your committee hearings of a few years ago. It is my feeling that enactment of legislation along these lines would be consistent with the philosophy which you have often expressed and in harmony with such legislation as the Celler-Kefauver Act.

As you know, a number of bills dealing with this problem have been introduced in the House during the 90th Congress. Extensive hearings were held in the Senate on S. 1312. Recognizing a number of deficiencies in the original language, including particularly language dealing with the merger problem. Senator Hayden has secured a committee print of an amended version of S. 1312, a copy of which is enclosed. In attempting to work with our colleagues in the Senate, I believe that a number of my colleague in the House intend to join in introducing bills identical to S. 1312 as amended within the next few days. Your consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

MORRIS K. UDALL.

90гH CONGRESS 2D SESSION

H. R. 19123

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 31, 1968

Mr. EDMONDSON (for himself, Mr. STEED, Mr. BELCHER, Mr. KASTENMEIER, and Mr. MATSUNAGA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

1

A BILL

To exempt from the antitrust laws certain joint newspaper operating arrangements.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Newspaper

4 Preservation Act".

5

6

DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEC. 2. In the public interest of maintaining the his7 toric independence of the newspaper press in all parts of the 8 United States, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of 9 the United States to preserve the publication of newspapers 10 in any city, community, or metropolitan area where a joint

2

1 operating arrangement has been or may be entered into

5

(1) The term "antitrust law" means the Federal Trade 6 Commission Act and each statute defined by section 4 thereof (15 U.S.C. 44) as "Antitrust Acts" and all amendments to 8 such Act and such statutes and any other Acts in pari materia. (2) The term "joint newspaper operating arrangement"

9

10

means any contract, agreement, joint venture (whether or not 11 incorporated), or other arrangement entered into by two or 12 more newspaper owners for the publication of two or more 13 newspaper publications, pursuant to which joint or common 14 production facilities are established or operated and joint or 15 unified action is taken or agreed to be taken with respect to 16 any one or more of the following: printing; time, method, and 17 field of publication; allocation of production facilities; dis18 tribution; advertising solicitation; circulation solicitation; 19 business department; establishment of advertising rates; 20 establishment of circulation rates and revenue distribution.

21

(3) The term "newspaper owner" means any person 22 who owns or controls directly, or indirectly through separate

2 23

or subsidiary corporations, one or more newspaper publica

24 tions.

25

(4) The term "newspaper publication" means a publica

3

1 tion produced on newsprint paper which is published in one

2

or more issues weekly, and in which a substantial portion of

3 the content is devoted to the dissemination of news and edi

4 torial opinion.

5

(5) The term "failing newspaper" means a newspaper

6 publication which, regardless of its ownership or affiliations, 7 appears unlikely to remain or become a financially sound 8 publication.

9 (6) The term "person" means any individual, and any

10

11

12

partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity existing under or authorized by the law of the United States,

any State or possession of the United States, the District of 13 Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any foreign

16

17

ANTITRUST EXEMPTION

SEC. 4. (a) It shall not be unlawful under any anti

trust law for any person to propose, enter into, perform, 18 enforce, renew, or amend any joint newspaper operating

19

arrangement if, at the time at which such arrangement is or

20 was first entered into, not more than one of the newspaper

222

21

23

24

25

publications involved in the performance of such arrangement

was a publication other than a failing newspaper.

(b) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to

exempt from any antitrust law any predatory pricing, any predatory practice, or any other conduct in the otherwise

;

4

1 lawful operations of a joint newspaper operating arrange

2 ment which would be unlawful under any antitrust law if

3

4

engaged in by a single entity. Except as provided in this Act,

no joint newspaper operating arrangement or any party 5 thereto shall be exempt from any antitrust law.

7 SEC. 5. (a) Any civil action in any district court of 8 the United States in which a final judgment or decree has 9 been entered, under which a joint newspaper operating

10

agreement has been held to be unlawful under any antitrust 11 law shall be reopened and reconsidered upon application 12 made to such court within ninety days after the date of enactment of this Act by any party to the contract, agreement, or arrangement by which such joint operating agreement was placed in effect, whether or not such party was a

13

15

16

party to such action. Upon the filing of any such application 17 with respect to any such action, any final judgment or decree 18 theretofore entered therein shall be vacated by the court. The 19 provisions of section 4 shall apply to the determination of 20 such action by such court upon such reconsideration.

21

(b) The provisions of section 4 shall apply to the deter22 mination of any civil or criminal action pending in any 23 district court of the United States on the date of enactment 24 of this Act which it is alleged that any such joint operating 25 agreement is unlawful under any antitrust law.