Now, of course in our statement we mention one example, taken from our own experience, of the character of thing that might happen as a consequence of the execution of one of these regulations, and express some apprehension about any conclusiveness of the statements and claims and allegations, pro and con, and think it should be made more concrete before any action is taken that might jeopardize the public service rendered by network broadcasting.

Senator MCFARLAND (presiding). Your statement will be made a part of our record.

Mr. HEFFRON. I thank you kindly.

My name is Edward J. Heffron, and I am executive secretary of the National Council of Catholic Men, with permanent headquarters at 1312 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D. C. The National Council of Catholic Men is the men's branch of the lay organizations department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. It was established in 1920 by the bishops of the United States to stimulate, coordinate, and represent Catholic laymen's activities in the United States. It is governed by a board of 15 laymen representative of all parts of the country, whose authority I have to present this

statement.

The council maintains, as one of its departments, a Catholic radio bureau, which both initiates radio programs of its own and provides assistance to the producers of local Catholic programs.

We have a program each Sunday evening on the red network of the National Broadcasting Co.-the Catholic hour-which is now in its twelfth year. We have had occasional programs on all of the other national networks. And we produce electrical transcriptions which we have had on as many as 400 stations, network and non-network, commercial and noncommercial, in all of the 48 States, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, the Canal Zone, and Canada.

Having had experience with both network and nonnetwork programs, we feel that we are in a position to judge of their effectiveness. There is no doubt in our mind that network broadcasts like the Catholic hour, which last year attracted an audience mail of 224,908 pieces, afford a very effective public service.. We should regard it as a great calamity if meritorious Nation-wide sustaining programs were to be destroyed or even impaired, and we urge this committee to give the fullest and closest attention to the probable effect of the proposed regulations on public-service network programs, and, as far as possible, to have concrete evidence produced on this point.

We give one example of what we mean: Several years ago the Catholics in a certain community besought their local N. B. C. red network outlet to carry Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen's addresses in the Catholic hour. The station management responded that they were very sorry indeed, but the period from 6 to 6:30 p. m. on Sundays the time of the Catholic hour-was committed to a commercial program of the Mutual Broadcasting System.

In the ligt of this example we suggest that the committee consider whether the abolition of the exclusivity clause might not mean that some of the stations affiliated, say, with N. B. C., would carry

326010-41-39

i

all of the N. B. C. commercial programs and then, in the time, or even in some of the time, during which N. B. C. provided worth while public service programs, would pass them up to the C. B. S. or M. B. S. commercials.

We realize that the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" requirement of the Communications Act of 1934 covers, or should cover, this situation, nevertheless, although this requirement has been in the statutes since 1927, numerous radio stations and one of the three national network companies give no regular sustaining time whatever for religious broadcasts. In our view, the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" certainly comprehends religion. That a network or station may be willing to sell time for religious broadcasts helps the situation not at all. To refuse time to religion is had enough because it is a negative disservice of the public interest, convenience, and necessity; but to sell time to religion is probably worse, as an affirmative disservice, because it assures the restriction of the public radio forum to three kinds of religious bodies: (1) the few who are so well-to-do as to have money left over after meeting all their other needs; (2) the few who, while they have not enough money to cover all their needs, are willing to divert to radio some of the money needed for charitable and spiritual works; and (3) the few who are willing to commercialize their religious programs with various sales devices or outright appeals for funds.

Commercial programs came late in radio; and we doubt that it was ever intended that they should do more than pay for the cost of rendering a general service to the public, the real owners of the radio specture, plus a reasonable incentive in the way of interest and profit. Certainly it was never intended that broadcasters should charge for the time they devote to public-service programs. The obligation is upon broadcasters to provide service to the public; any responsible agency that offers the broadcasters a good cultural, educational, or religious program, is helping them to discharge their public service obligation and should certainly not be required to pay for the privilege of giving its assistance in achieving the very sine qua non, under the law, of the station's continued

existence.

We, who maintain strongly that there is an important social aspect to all business and property rights, do not ignore the importance of the question as to whether broadcasters are engaging in restrictive practices that, in other businesses, would be regarded as monopolistic and antisocial. But broadcasting is sui generis, neither a private business in the ordinary sense nor a public utility. It is a public service business, and, as such, should be appraised on the basis of its direct public service and not alone on the basis of its observance of standards of competition applicable to other types of business, important as these stadards are, because they also, though indirectly, relate to the public service.

All of the evidence adduced prior to the preparation of this statement, on this question of the effect of the new regulations on network public-service programs, has consisted of more or less unsupported assertions and conjectures by the advocates of the opposing points of view. It seems to us there should be better evidence than this available, pro and con.

In summation, we do not feel that we have any sufficient way of predicting what the over-all effect of these regulations would be in practice; but we feel that the Commission should be able to find out, with a pretty high degree of accuracy. We think it is their duty to do so, and to have a sound basis for the assurance that whatever regulations they finally put in execution will not destroy or impair publicservice network broadcasts. Since the matter is now under consideration by a committee of the United States Congress, the creator of the Commission, we hope that this committee will not only see to it that that assurance is being given that it is properly implemented and capable of being backed up.

(Thereupon Mr. Heffron left the committee table.)

Senator MCFARLAND (presiding). We will next hear Mrs. Wiley.

STATEMENT OF MRS. HARVEY W. WILEY, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mrs. WILEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to submit for the record a resolution which was passed recently at our golden jubilee convention at Atlantic City. We represent about 14,600 clubs and 2,000,000 women in the United States.

Shall I just submit this statement and the resolution?

Senator MCFARLAND (presiding). Yes; if you please.

Senator BONE. May I inquire, is the resolution for or against the adoption of the resolution this committee is now considering?

Mrs. WILEY. The resoluton presented here asks for a further study and investigation by a congressional committee of the problems facing the broadcasting industry.

Senator BONE. You mean by a committee of the Senate of the United States?

Mrs. WILEY. Yes, sir.

Senator BONE. Well, then, I take it your organization supports the resolution we are now considering.

Mrs. WILEY. Yes; it does.

Senator MCFARLAND (presiding). Your statement and the accompanying resolution will be made a part of the record.

Mrs. WILEY. It is as follows:

The membership of the General Federation of Women's Clubs represents a substantial element of the American public and of the radio audience of this country. The federation has radio chairmen in each of its State federations, and a national chairman, all of whom take a special and lively interest in cultural and informative broadcasting, and who have presented, over a period of years, a number of excellent radio programs of interest to women. The women of the General Federation are grateful to the radio chains and stations for their splendid cooperation. They do not wish to see the aid which the broadcasters have given to the work of their clubs interrupted or jeopardized in any way. They believe that the phenomenal growth of radio broadcasting has given rise to problems which require solution. They believe that the law governing radio broadcasting, enacted 14 years ago, needs to be clarified in the light of present-day conditions.

Under these circumstances, it was the consensus of opinion of the members of the General Federation, assembled for the golden jubilee convention of the lubs at Atlantic City in May of this year, that a congressional study and Investigation of the problems confronting radio broadcasting is necessary at

this time "in order to preserve the freedom of radio for the best interests of democracy."

Whereas the system of radio broadcasting extant in the United States is the most democratic in the world and is the greatest medium for the preserva. tion of democracy, bringing freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas and information directly into the homes of millions of citizens; and

Whereas American radio through its public-service programs had contributed tremendously to culture and education, not only in the homes of this great Nation, but throughout the world and as a vehicle for entertainment has served to maintain high morale in these times of stress; Therefore be it

Resolved, That in order to preserve the freedom of radio for the best interests of democracy, the General Federation of Women's Clubs approves and advocates further congressional study and investigation of the problems facing the broadcasting system in this country, and be it further

Resolved, That the General Federation of Women's Clubs be instructed to send a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Committees of the United States Senate and House of Representatives and to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

(Thereupon Mrs. Wiley left the committee table.)

[The following additional statements and letters were submitted to the committee for inclusion in the record.]

Hon. BURTON K. WHEELER,

ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL ADVERTISERS INC.,
New York City, May 29, 1941.

Chairman, Interstate Commerce Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR WHEELER: We are writing you in connection with S. Res. 113 which we understand is now before your committee and which would, in part, have the effect of postponing the regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission on May 2, 1941.

The Association of National Advertisers is composed of manufacturers who use advertising as an aid to selling. It numbers among its members most of the users of network broadcasting, both large and small, users whose programs have made possible the advertising revenue which has permitted the present system of network broadcasting to entertain, inform, and educate the American public to a degree unequaled in countries operating under a different system.

This association believes that passage of Senate Resolution 113 would be in the best interests of those concerned with advertising and more particularly of those who use network advertising as an aid to selling.

Most national advertisers have made contractual commitments some time in advance for radio time and for expensive radio talent. Many of them have planned and are carrying out elaborate collateral advertising and merchandising plans in which their radio programs are inextricably woven. The sudden pro

mulgation of regulations 3.101 through 3.108 has thrown the whole matter into a state of confusion embodying such questions as what stations they may use and at what price and what type of program and hence what radio talent they can employ. You will understand, of course, that there must be stability to make any advertising medium worth using at all. The impact of such drastic changes in such a short space of time would, in our judgment, seriously threaten the stability of broadcasting and therefore its value and usefulness to national advertisers. Therefore it seems eminently just to allow adequate opportunity to examine the far-reaching effects of such regulations.

We do not feel that the postponement of the regulations will be in any way against the public interest. Nor do we object in any way to a study of the whole radio situation by your committee or a subcommittee thereof. On the contrary we believe the best interests of the listening public, the broadcasting industry and the national advertisers, will be served by such a fair and impartial investigation.

Therefore, we respectfully urge the passage of S. Res. 113.

Respectfully yours,

PAUL B. WEST, President.

MEMORANDUM OF THE RADIO COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ON THE REPORT ON CHAIN BROADCASTING

(Issued by the Federal Communications Commission, Commission Order No. 37, Docket No. 5060, May 1941)

The committee has considered the report on chain broadcasting issued by the Federal Communications Commission and is making this preliminary statement in view of the proposed hearings on the report before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce which we understand will commence its sessions on June 2.

This committee is interested primarily in freedom of speech and it issues this preliminary memorandum because of the conviction that diversity is fundamental to freedom of speech on the air. We intend to study and scrutinize further the report of the Commission. This memorandum is not to be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of the Federal Communications Commission's report on chain broadcasting or of the regulations issued therein. We wish to present at this time, however, to the Senate committee the following observations which we trust may be of help to it, particularly because of the shocking inadequacy of public discussion and of free and fair comment on the Commission's report in the press and radio of the Nation.

Our concern with the report on chain broadcasting is in no way related to those portions of it which have to do with return on capital invested or the interrelationships between broadcasting licenses on the one hand and patents, the manufacture of instruments, the control of talent, etc., on the other. While these features indicating monopolistic tendencies may well have a bearing on the subject of free thought, they have a less direct impact than the sections of the report which in terms relate to the freedom of the spread of ideas over the air in the United States.

There are only a limited number of wave lengths available for standard broadcasting purposes. Thus, by reason of scientific necessity, there must be a limitation on the number of individuals or corporations who can enjoy the high privilege of holding licenses for the radio stations which are, in effect, the toll bridges for the spread of ideas to the American people. It is the task of the Federal Communications Commission to allocate the available wave lengths according to the dictates of public interest, convenience, and necessity.

We are making no comment or criticism as to the merits or demerits of the persons who now dominate these toll bridges. From our point of view, we must assume that they are as wise and fair as could be selected by any other method. We start only with our fundamental belief in the need for diversity over the air waves. We believe in diversity of control in station management so that diversity in point of view and standards of entertainment can be available to the radio audience, so that the programs presented are composite products of many diverse minds. For this reason we would oppose Government domination of broadcasting at least as strongly as any other concentration of control over the air waves.

We are here concerned with that part of the report which deals directly with the problem of obtaining greater diversity. In our opinion the report is the first heartening sign that the Federal Communications Commission has at least become aware of the various devices which have been used by broadcasting licensees to concentrate the control of what goes over the air in few minds. This throttling of diversity has been accomplished primarily by contractual arrangements between networks and individual radio stations.

There are four major national networks: The red and blue networks of the National Broadcasting Co., the Columbia Broadcasting System, and the network of the Mutual Broadcasting System. Under the conditions that exist now as to ownership of stations and terms of affiliation between networks and stations, it would be next to impossible for any other network to become established, and more and more the individual stations are abdicating their selective functions to the chains. The abuses leading to this concentration of control which form the crux of the Commission's report from our point of view and which are prohibited by the regulations issued under the report are as follows: 1. Networks require their affiliates to contract not to carry the programs of any other network. This means, for example, that if there were a locality