sary to write a specific exemption into any legislation which would establish a national private monopoly in this field? Is there a problem in connection with the prohibition against the participation by American corporations in cartels?

(At this point, Senator Dirksen entered the hearing room.)

Senator KEFAUVER (continuing). (2) What are the prospects of domination of the satellite corporation by a single giant company, A.T. & T., and what effect would such domination have on domestic and overseas communications in general?

(3) In view of the anticompetitive effects of joint ventures, is it not unwise to have the Government not only tolerating such an organization, but, rather, establishing it?

(4) With the major stockholders being in the equipment manufacturing business, how will it be possible to maintain competition in the purchasing of equipment for the corporations? How can we prevent unfair practices against smaller suppliers of communications equipment?

(5) Will a private monopoly impede scientific advance in order to guard against obsolescence of equipment?

These and other serious antitrust and monopoly questions are involved in the establishment of a private monopoly in this field. At this time we don't know what type of system will be made operational, what many of its uses might be, what its value may be, and what plans other countries may have for cooperating in the establishment of a single worldwide system. Until we can answer some of these questions, I believe we should delay a final decision in establishing a private monopoly. Nothing will be lost and much might be gained by withholding this decision for the moment.

The Senator from Illinois, the ranking minority member, has arrived.

Senator Dirksen, we have Senator Yarborough here, and he wanted to testify briefly. The full committee meets shortly, and he has to leave this afternoon for Texas and will not be back until Monday. Is it satisfactory to you to file your statement and then discuss the matter later on?

Senator DIRKSEN. Oh, I think so.

I was raising some question of jurisdiction, Mr. Chairman, and the first part of this is a summary.

There is no particular point in reading all of this. I could just as well put it in the record.

Senator KEFAUVER. Let it be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:)

OPENING STATEMENT OF EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, ALEXANDER WILEY, ROMAN L. HRUSKA, U.S. SENATORS

SUMMARY OF POSITION

We question the jusisdiction of the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee to conduct hearings on S. 2650, S. 2814, and and S. 2890, known as the Communications Satellite Legislation, for the following reasons:

(1) The assistant parliamentarian advised us that a committee or subcommittee that has not had a Senate bill referred to it is not authorized under the rules of the Senate to submit a report on pending legislation to the U.S. Senate. (2) The U.S. Senate, by unanimous consent, referred S. 2650, S. 2814, and S. 2890 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, known as the Space Committee, and said committee has held 2 weeks of hearings.

(3) During the course of the Space Committee hearings Senator Estes Kefauver, chairman of the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee, testified at length and was given permission to raise any such issues as he desired on any antitrust implications that he deemed necessary and other Senators and Judge Loevinger were given the opportunity to ventilate the antitrust issues before the Space Committee or the Senate Commerce Committee. Several witnesses also discussed the issues in question.

(4) Said Senate bills have not been referred by the Senate to the Judiciary Committee and thereby not properly before a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

(5) The Senate Commerce Committee has joint jurisdiction with the Space Committee by agreement and it can hear whatever witnesses Senator Kefauver desires to call or any other such witnesses the Commerce Committee may deem necessary.

(6) In view of the above, it would be a waste of the taxpayers' money, manpower of the Senate and industry for the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee to hold additional hearings at this time and such hearings would prove fruitless and needless in view of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of this subcommittee could not formally be submitted to the Senate, because the said bills have not been referred to the subcommittee.

(7) By the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee conducting hearings without the bills being duly referred to it creates a bad precedent which would affect the dignity and the efficiency of committees in processing legislation expeditiously and effectively.

(8) By the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee grabbing unauthorized jurisdiction to hold these hearings would set a precedent whereby other subcommittees or full committees could assume jurisdiction over matters that had been referred to proper committees under the rules of the Senate.

(9) That the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee, by holding hearings on all legislation which may have some reference to antitrust matters without it being duly referred to the Judiciary Committee by the Senate and then to the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee by the Judiciary Committee, would cause this subcommittee to reach its arm into pending legislation which was not possibly contemplated by the rules.

(10) The chairman cites the reference of the drug bill to the Patent Subcommittee as a basis for his holding hearings, but he does it on a false premise, because the Patent Subcommittee did not grab jurisdiction but assumed it only when it was referred to the Patent Subcommittee by the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 9 to 2.

(11) If the Attorney General feels that there are matters of antitrust character in the above-mentioned bills, then he can submit his official recommendations by letter as is done by many agencies in reporting the agency's or department's position on a specific bill submitted to it for a report.

(12) Any pending legislation that may have antitrust matters contained therein can be brought on the floor of the Senate when the bill is before it as Senator Kefauver successfully did in the Agriculture Act of 1961.

STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, S. 2650, S. 2814, S. 2890, known as the Communications Satellite Legislation, were referred to the U.S. Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences (known as the Space Committee), which committee has held extensive hearings in which several U.S. Senators have testified, among whom the chairman of this subcommittee, Estes Kefauver, was one; agencies of the U.S. Government; representatives of industry affected; and several interested organizations. It is our understanding from the record of the hearings that if the bills are reported out of the Space Committee they will be referred to the Senate Commerce Committee for additional hearings. It is also our understanding that as of the date of the preparation of this opening statement the bills have not been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the parent committee of his subcommittee, and, therefore, we cannot understand how this subcommittee could properly have jurisdiction to hold hearings and report their findings to the U.S. Senate.

Mr. Chairman, we understand that you have raised before the hearings and have given the chairman, (Mr. Kerr), certain questions dealing with the antitrust and monopoly implications of these bills. You also raised an issue that certain

witnesses wished to appear, among whom were several Senators, and on page 593 of the transcript the chairman (Mr. Kerr) answered, as follows:

"If those Senators you named make a request of this committee to be heard, we will set aside a day next week to hear them. If they want to present the statement of any other witnesses, they may do so. The committee would have

to know. ***

"The CHAIRMAN. I will say to the Senator (Mr. Kefauver) that it would be entirely up to the committee. [As to Senator Morse appearing on the 13th.] As far as the chairman is concerned, if they want to be heard on the 13th, I will set the 13th aside for hearing any Senator who wants to be heard on this bill. *** "In view of the fact that this bill has to go to the Commerce Committee after it is acted on by this committee and then to the House in order for it to have any chance of being considered during this session of the Congress, and in view of the fact that these hearings have been widely publicized and now in the course of hearing for 2 weeks. I would say it is a little unusual on the next to the last day of the hearing to ask that the amount of time for the hearings be unduly extended.

"But if you desire it, we will set aside the 13th for the appearance of any Senator who wants to be heard.

"Senator KEFAUVER. I appreciate that. Would that be the morning of the 13th for any Senator, or for Judge Loevinger?

"The CHAIRMAN. No, sir; for any Senator.

"Senator KEFAUVER. Then how about statements?

"The CHAIRMAN. Any Senator who wants to introduce the statement of any other witness may do so.

"Senator KEFAUVER. If Judge Loevinger wanted to testify or Dr. Smythe"The CHAIRMAN. They would be permitted to file a statement. I would not want, in the absence of direction or otherwise by the committee, to get into extended hearings beyond this week.

"Senator KEFAUVER. We appreciate that *** I do not know whether Senator Magnuson's committee contemplates hearings or not. Perhaps the outside witnesses might have an opportunity to testifying there, if he does have hearings. "The CHAIRMAN. That would be entirely up to that committee."

Mr. Chairman, referring to page 605 of the transcript of record, the chairman of the Space Committee (Mr. Kerr) asked you to repeat the names of witnesses referred to previously and I quote, as follows:

"Senator KEFAUVER. Dr. Dallas W. Smythe.

"The CHAIRMAN. I thought it was Loevinger.

"Senator KEFAUVER. Judge Loevinger is the head of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.

"The CHAIRMAN. Let me say to the Senator the Justice Department is the first witness before the committee tomorrow morning.

"The committee asked the Justice Department to send over any witness or witnesses they desired to. His appearance will be entirely up to the Justice Department. If he is the one they want or if he is one of those they want to be heard, he will be heard by the committee tomorrow morning.

"Senator KEFAUVER. I understood Mr. Katzenbach was going to present the general testimony for the Justice Department.

"The particular point of Judge Loevinger's testimony that I was interested in was in connection with antitrust laws, the consortium that might result from some of these bills.

"The CHAIRMAN. I will say to the Senator that the committee asked the Justice Department to send whoever they wanted to. We did not attempt to tell them which one they should send. * * *

"If it is the desire of the Justice Department or Mr. Katzenbach, and/or any other witness or member of their staff that they want to be heard, the committee will be happy to hear them tomorrow.

"We do not presume to tell the departments of Government who they shall have come over and testify for them. *** if he is the one that they want to send or if he is one of those that they want to send, the committee will be very glad to have his testimony.

"Senator KEFAUVER. In other words, then, in addition to Mr. Katzenbach you would be willing to hear Judge Loevinger?

"The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear anyone else that the Justice Department wants to send.

"Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you."

Now, Senator Kefauver, it is very clear in the record that both you and Judge Loevinger and the Senators that you wish to testify were given all of the opportunity in the world by the Senate Space Committee to present the alleged antitrust and monopoly implications of the Communications Satellite Legislation. Senator Kefauver, your testimony began on page 592 of the transcript of hearings and continued to page 666, or approximately 74 pages not including the quotations from statements you had inserted thereto in the record. As we gathered from your testimony, you discussed some of the alleged antitrust and monopoly implications of these bills and you had ample opportunity to present your case before the Space Committee. You were also given the privilege of submitting the statements of Judge Loevinger and Dr. Smythe, and Judge Loevinger was given the privilege of appearing personally if the Department of Justice so wished him to do so.

Judge Loevinger is the head of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, but is still subject to the instructions of the Attorney General of the United States. Apparently the Attorney General did not see fit to include him among the Department of Justice witnesses who appeared the day following your testimony.

But, Chairman Kefauver, another major premise is the Senate rules. Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the U.S. Senate states:

"The following standing committees shall be appointed at the commencement of each Congress, with leave to report by bill or otherwise. [Emphasis ours.] "(a) Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to consist of 17 Senators, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:

"1. (Then it lists 17 subjects and continues on to p. 39 of the Standing Rules of the Senate wherein rule XXVI states, as follows :)

"Reference to committees; motions to discharge, and reports of committees to lie over

"1. When motions are made for reference of subject to a select committee, or to a standing committee, the question of reference to a standing committee shall be put first; and a motion simply to refer shall not be open to amendment, except to add instruction. (Jefferson's Manual, secs. XXVII, XXXIII.) [Emphasis ours.]

"2. All reports of committees and motions to discharge a committee from the consideration of a subject, and all subjects from which a committee shall be discharged, shall lie over 1 day for consideration, unless by unanimous consent the Senate shall otherwise direct. (Jefferson's Manual, sec. XXVII.)"

It is important to note here that these three bills were not referred to the Judiciary Committee but to the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences. As I noted previously, the Judiciary Committee has not had these bills reported to them and it only can be done by unanimous consent of the Senate. Since these bills are not before the Senate Judiciary Committee, they cannot be properly before a subcommittee of that parent committee.

Mr. Chairman, the Members of the Senate have always been most careful not to impair the dignity of the jurisdiction and the efficiency of a committee over legislation referred to it. That was the principal reason why the Senate Judiciary Committee referred S. 1552 to the Senate Patent Subcommittee because it has principal jurisdiction over patent matters and not the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee. That is the reason why the Senate voted down the motion to discharge the Senate Government Operations Committee on the Urban Affairs bill and place it immediately before the Senate body; and that is why over the years the Senate body has refused to discharge various committees and place a bill immediately before the Senate before that committee had an opportunity to fully deliberate the matter.

The Rules of the Senate regarding jurisdiction of committees is most important because that is the only way that the Senate can work effectively and expeditiously. To disregard the dignity of committees would begin the breakdown of the mechanism that makes the U.S. Senate the greatest deliberating body in the world. Mr. Chairman, if you and other Senators and those who wished to testify on the alleged antitrust and monopoly aspects of the communications satellite legislation were denied your day in court, you would still have your day in court on the Senate floor without hearings before the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee as you did in the Agriculture Act of 1961 where you presented your arguments-and effectively so-because the Senate agreed with you in one or two suggested amendments to the act.

Several years ago when a proposed pre-merger bill contained a provision to give jurisdiction to the Department of Justice over bank mergers, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, (Mr. Fulbright), wrote the subcommittee and advised them to strike that provision from the bill because it was a matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee and our subcommittee promptly deleted that portion of the premerger bill even though some may have felt that there were alleged antitrust and monopoly implications in the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I could give other instances of legislation pending before other committees and within jurisdiction of other committees in which alleged antitrust and monopoly implications may be involved, but if our Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee were to take jurisdiction of each and every such instance, we would practically take over the entire calendar of legislation before the U.S. Senate.

Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences stated that time is of the essence in this matter, but he still gave you your opportunity for a day in court, and if that opportunity was not fully exercised, you still have your opportunity to present Judge Loevinger or Dr. Smythe or anyone else's views in statements before the Senate Commerce Committee if they hold hearings, and, after that time, before the Senate body prior to a vote taken on any one of these three bills, whichever would be in the best interest of the country and the people.

Mr. Chairman, there is one quote from Mr. Kerr's statement that we would like to reiterate and one that we wish the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee would follow more religiously and that is where the chairman stated: "I would not want, in the absence of direction or otherwise by the committee, to get into extended hearings beyond this week."

We say this in all sincerity, Mr. Chairman, that there have been instances where the chairman and some instances the staff, has acted without direction from the subcommittee itself after a good roundtable discussion of the issue involved. Mr. Chairman, we believe we are setting a very bad precedent in conducting hearings on proposed legislation that the Senate by unanimous consent has sent to another committee and not our parent committee. We again state that your reference to the drug bill sustains our point of view and argument, because Senator McClellan did not grab legislative jurisdiction over patent provisions in S. 1552, but it was done by official action of the Judiciary Committee by a 9 to 2 vote. Mr. Chairman, if you will compare the two situations, you will find that there would have been far more reason for Senator McClellan to hold hearings on aspects of the drug bill than our subcommittee could possibly have to hold hearings on the communications satellite legislation.

Mr. Chairman, you noted in your letter to us that when the Attorney General appeared before the House Commerce Committee on H.R. 9696, he stated that the Department of Justice would have to study the issue of whether a congressional act permitting stockownership in one small group of international common carriers would constitute a change or a violation or an exemption from the existing antitrust laws. A hearing is not necessary to resolve that issue, That issue can be resolved by the views of the Attorney General when he submits his report on the proposed bills and especially so since several questions were raised by Congressman Dingle when the Attorney General appeared before the House Commerce Committee. There have been many congressional bills presented to the floor of the Senate where the Attorney General or representatives of the Department of Justice did not appear but their statements were submitted to the committee to which the bill was referred by the Senate.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question. There is no bill before this committee, as I understand it.

Senator KEFAUVER. We will, I take it, in the course of the discussion be talking about the provisions of the various bills and the compromise which I read about this morning, though I do not think it has been finally written up.

I think it might be well, later on, to place all these bills in the appendix so that we can refer to them.

(The bills referred to may be found beginning on p. 233.)