GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, ST. LOUIS, Mo., May 23, 1961. The board of directors of the Missouri Broadcasters Association wishes to express its deep concern regarding FCC Reorganization Plan No. 2. We believe this plan would inevitably lead to harmful concentration of power in the hands of one man and would usurp powers usually reserved for Congress. This plan is against the interests of a free broadcasting industry in a free society. The Missouri Broadcasters Association represents management of more than 90 radio and television stations in the State. Thank you for your efforts in this regard. ROBERT HYLAND, President, Missouri Broadcasters Association. Hon. ROBERT S. KERR, KRMG, INC., Tulsa, Okla., May 25, 1961. U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR KERR: We request your opposition to Reorganization Plan No. 2, applying to the Federal Communications Commission, which will automatically become effective June 27th unless the Congress intervenes. The reorganization plan would greatly enhance the powers of the Chairman, and correspondingly diminish those of the other six Commissioners. One-man domination is especially dangerous in the field of broadcasting, where freedom of thought and expression are essential to the preservation of our institutions. The plan would further make the Federal Communications Commission more responsive to the executive branch, lessen its responsibility to the Congress, and reduce its independence. Largely because the plan would destroy certain important procedural safeguards established in the first instance by the Congress and refined by years of practical experience, the Federal Communications Bar Association is opposing the plan. The association has filed a formal statement with the House Government Operations Committee. The National Association of Broadcasters, representing more than 2,700 stations, has likewise filed a statement opposing the plan, with the Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization of the House Committee on Government Operations. Entirely apart from the merits of the reorganization plan, we submit that the Congress should study it with due deliberation. The affected parties should have ample time to study the plan, prepare testimony, and present such testimony to the appropriate committees of Congress. The 60-day period contemplated in the plan does not allow thoughtful consideration of the plan. Because time is of the essence, we would appreciate prompt action and an early reply. Sincerely, FRANK S. LANE, General Manager. RADIO STATION KTTR, Hon. STUART SYMINGTON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SYMINGTON: This letter is in reference to Mr. James M. Landis's Reorganization Plan No. 2 which covers the proposed revamping of the Federal Communications Commission. It is my understanding that this reorganization plan devised by Mr. Landis actually will become law, 60 days from its date of delivery, which was April 27, 1961, unless it is vetoed by a majority of either house. I am very much opposed to the provision of the Landis plan which would (as I understand it) place the FCC Chairman above the other six Commissioners, thus relegating them to positions of diminished authority, while giving the FCC Chairman, effectively, one-man control of the Commission. On Tuesday, May 9, 1961, the new Chairman of the FCC delivered an address before the 39th annual meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters. This was Chairman Minow's first public appearance as head of the FCC. In this speech, he was somewhat critical of the broadcasting industry (certainly, this is his right and privilege), but in continuing his remarks about ways and means of improving the industry, he is reported to have used the personal pronoun "I" a total of 105 times. Yet, he is supposed to be one out of a total of seven equal Commissioners. Should he not have properly considered the views and authority of the other six members of the Commission and at least have used the pronoun "we"? Perhaps, Senator Symington, you think me to be picking at motes and ignoring beams, but the electronic communications media of our Nation should continue to be governed by a Commission made up of seven or more Commissioners with equal authority. No one man should ever be permitted to become a radio-TV czar. Therefore, I sincerely request that you initiate a veto action against the Landis Reorganization Plan No. 2, which involves the Federal Communications Commission. With best personal regards, I am, LUTHER W. MARTIN, General Manager, Show-Me Broadcasting Co. BRINKLEY, ARK., May 16, 1961. Senator JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Proposed President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 covering the FCC is extremely unfavorable to broadcasting. This would give virtual one-man control of a governmental agency. Urgently request your support of veto of this bill. Senator JOHN SPARKMAN, W. H. MAYO, Radio Station KBRI. CULLMAN BROADCASTING Co., DEAR SIR: We hereby respectfully request that you vote to reject Reorganization Plan No. 2. This plan, instead of increasing the efficiency of the Federal Communications Commission as proposed, in our opinion will place in the hands of the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, dictatorial powers and make "errand boys" out of the other Commissioners. Furthermore, we feel that there are certain changes that need to be made in the Federal Communications Commission; however, we feel it is the prerogative of Congress to make these changes and that such changes should not be done by executive order. Cordially yours, HUDSON C. MILLAR, Jr., President. Hon. PRESCOTT BUSH, NEW LONDON, CONN., May 22 1961. U.S. Senate, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are opposed to the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1961 for the Federal Communications Commission because it grants too much power to the Chairman of the Commission, permits the delegation too much authority, seriously limits the right to oral arguments and to decisions on important matters by the full Commission. Senator JOHN MCCLELLAN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GERALD J. MOREY, MALVERN, ARK., May 18, 1961. DEAR MR. MCCLELLAN: It's my strong feeling that proposed Reorganization Plan No. 2, concerning the Federal Communications Commission, would not be in the best interests—and, in fact could be very detrimental-to broadcasting. As I see it, too much power and control would be placed in the hands of one individual, the Chairman, who already holds enough power over a mass communications industry. Therefore, I respectfully urge you to veto, cast a vote against, Reorganization Plan No. 2. Thanks very much. Senator JOHN SPARKMAN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. KBOK-MALVERN BROADCASTING CO. BOONEVILLE, MISS., May 19, 1961. DEAR SENATOR: I want to voice my objection to President Kennedy's Reorganization Plan No. 2, wherein he attempts to control the broadcasting industry by executive rule. The recent threat by Mr. Newton Minow, Chairman of the FCC, that broadcasters would lose their license if their program performance was not in accord with what he and other commissioners determine to be good for the public, is very disturbing. The processes before the Commission are already so complicated that broadcasters must employ expensive legal counsel in Washington to transact business with this Government agency. It is the feeling of the broadcasters of our State that the regulatory agencies should remain responsible only to Congress. I hope you will lend your assistance and influence in stopping further Government control of the broadcasting industry. Yours very truly, SKYLINE RADIO NETWORK, The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dixon, will you identify yourself for the record, please? STATEMENT OF PAUL RAND DIXON, CHAIRMAN; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN WHEELOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; VICTOR BUFFINGTON, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE CHAIRMAN; AND JAMES M. HENDERSON, GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Mr. DIXON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Paul Rand Dixon, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have with you some members of your staff? Mr. DIXON. I do, sir. To my left is Mr. John Wheelock, Executive Director, and Mr. James M. Henderson, the General Counsel. Mr. Victor Buffington, the special legal assistant to me as Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Very good. You have a prepared statement? Mr. DIXON. I do, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to place it in the record? Mr. DIXON. I would be very happy to. The CHAIRMAN. It will be printed in the record in full at this point. (The prepared statement of Mr. Dixon is as follows:) STATEMENT OF PAUL RAND DIXON, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION I appear today at the request of this committee to present the Commission's views on Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1961, which the President submitted to the Congress on May 9, 1961. Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1961 would (1) provide the Federal Trade Commission with additional authority to delegate functions and (2) transfer from the Commission to the Chairman the authority to assign personnel to perform the functions which the Commission might delegate. The President, in transmitting the plan to the Congress, said it "provides for greater flexibility in the handling of the business before the Commission, permitting its disposition at different levels so as better to promote its efficient dispatch." The Commission favors the plan and recommends that it be allowed to become effective. The Commission is well aware that delay in the disposition of matters is one of the most serious problems it has. The President, in his special message on regulatory agencies to the Congress on April 13, 1961, stressed the necessity for reducing excessive delays in the regulatory agencies and suggested a wider range of delegations as one means for reducing delay. The workload of the Commission is greater today than ever before in its history. For the information of this committee, we have prepared tabulations which show the tremendous increase in the workload of the Commission even during the past 5 years. At the end of the fiscal year 1956, there were 213 formal matters, that is matters in which the Commission had issued its complaint, pending in the Commission. At the end of the fiscal year 1960, there were more than twice this number-449-pending cases, and at April 30 this year there were 522 cases pending. In 1956, the Commission issued 181 orders of which 173 were orders to cease and desist. In 1960, it issued 372 orders of which 354 were orders to cease and desist. The ever-increasing workload of the Commission is not surprising. Rather, it is to be expected with the tremendous growth in our national economy. When the Commission was created in 1914, and for many years thereafter, it was no real burden on the Commission for it to concern itself with purely administrative matters. It has been little more than 10 years since the full Commission actually passed on each personnel action. The 1949 Hoover Commission Task Force Report on Regulatory Agencies pointed out that the "Commissioners consider administrative details such as the routing of ordinary correspondence, the organization of work in the stenographers pool, minor personnel problems, manifold details in the handling of legal documents." Reorganization Plan No. 8 of 1950 provided for a permanent Chairman and for the transfer of certain functions from the Commission to the Chairman. Since that time the Commission has not had to concern itself with matters of the kind just mentioned, but it still performs functions which could be delegated. I have been Chairman of the Commission just over 2 months. A substantial portion of my time, as well as that of others at the Commission, during this time, has been devoted to a study of the Commission's operations to determine what could and should be done to expedite the handling of its work. Plans have been drafted and approved by the Commission for a reorganization of the Commission's staff and the reorganization will be made effective as soon as certain details can be worked out. The primary objective of the reorganization is to eliminate undue delay in the handling of all matters. Among other things, the responsibility for and control over the handling of each case, from its inception to final disposition, will be centered in one organizational unit. Also, there will be established in the General Counsel's office a special division to handle matters settled by consent of the parties. At present this is part of the hearing examiners' responsibilities. In addition to expediting the disposition of cases settled by consent, this change will enable the hearing examiners to devote their time to hearings in contested cases. The Commission's Administrative Procedure and Rules Committee, which was recently reconstituted, is studying proposals to revise the Commission's rules of practice for adjudicative proceedings, the purpose being to eliminate unnecessary reviews and other causes of delay. We have not yet determined what delegations should be made in implementing the planned reorganization, or which of those delegations the Commission may desire to make can be made under existing authority. The authority provided by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1961 is needed to remove any doubt as to what delegations the Commission can make. For example, section 6(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act empowers the Commission to require corporations to furnish specified information and provides that the required reports "shall be filed with the Commission within such reasonable period as the Commission may prescribe, unless additional time be granted in any case by the Commission." [Emphasis supplied.] The Commission uses this authority extensively in its investigational work and there are numerous occasions where an extension of the time for the filing of the required report is necessary. At present, there is uncertainty as to whether the Commission can lawfully delegate the authority to extend the time within which the required information may be submitted. The Commission believes that the authority to make delegations of the kind contemplated by the plan should be made clear. The additional functions which would be transferred from the Commission to the Chairman under section 2 of the proposed plan are those with respect to the assignment of personnel to perform the functions which might be delegated by the Commission under section 1 of the plan. This authority is a necessary adjunct to the authority to delegate functions which would be provided by section 1 of the plan. Neither the Chairman nor the Commissioners understand that Reorganization Plan No. 4 contemplates any diminution in the status, duties, or independence of individual Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission. Commissioner Anderson states that he opposes Reorganization Plan No. 4. I will hand up his separate statement setting forth his views. Commissioner Secrest wishes it said on his behalf that in connection with H.R. 4800, 86th Congress, he stated that he felt a legal time limit of 3 years should be placed on the term of a Chairman of the Commission and that he continues to hold that view. Commissioner Kern likewise has previously voiced and still believes in the doctrine of a limitation upon the term of any Chairman and in consequence states that he does not subscribe to any further increasing of the powers of the Chairman, which in his view (regardless of present understandings to the contrary) may result in a further erosion of the authority and independence of the individual Commissioners. With the exceptions noted, the Commission believes that Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1961 would contribute substantially to a solution of the serious problem of delay in the handling of its business. |