great many people that the committee has agreed to give an opportunity to testify this afternoon, the chairman has requested that I open the hearing at this point and proceed with the witnesses. The chairman and Mr. Holt will be here as quickly as they possibly can. The first witness scheduled for this afternoon is Mr. J. Arthur Lewis. Is Mr. Lewis present?

(No response.)

If Mr. Lewis isn't here, is Dr. Merkley present from the board of education?

(No response.)

Is Mr. Bob Hassler here?

Mr. HASSLER. Yes.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Hassler will you come forward, sir. The committee understands that you would like to tell us something and we will be very happy to hear you. Will you proceed in your own words, sir.

Will you please identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENT OF BUD HASSLER, MEMBER, LOCAL 47, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS

Mr. HASSLER. Thank you. I believe that a grassroots musician should be heard from. You have heard from the royalty. It is pertinent, I believe, that someone who can make his income tax on the short form be heard.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. If you can figure out your income tax, I think you qualify as a good witness. Go right ahead.

Mr. HASSLER. Of course I am not an orator and, for the sake of brevity and to cover all the points I would like to cover, I have written them down.

Honorable members of the committee, my name is Damon Bud Hassler, member of the American Federation of Musicians for 35 years. At present I play in the orchestra at Roseland Roof in downtown Los Angeles. While I have always earned my living as a professional instrumentalist, I have never had any radio, TV, or motion. picture jobs, nor have I ever benefitted from the musicians national trust fund. These remarks have been prepared solely by me without consultation from any source and represent only my own convictions. as a performing musician. I have never held any union office.

In order to intelligently appraise the present controversy it is necessary to examine the background and the development of the moral and legal position of the international executive board of the American Federation of Musicians, the governing body.

In the late 1920's when the specter of mechanically recorded motion pictures threatened to empty all the theaters of live musicians, there was a great clamor from musicians the country over for action by our national president to stop this monster, even to refuse to give the original performances.

The late Joe Weber, at that time our national president, was forced to make a speaking tour of the leading locals in the country presenting the attitude and the policy of the international executive board toward this problem. He stated that under Federal law we could not as a union refuse to perform for talking pictures. That would be retard

ing the development of an industry, and Federal injuctions would be granted at once to prevent any such action on our part.

Another point he made clear was the trend of theaters, radio stations, and hotels to band together in chains under centralized authority and ownership and on a nationwide basis. Local union officials discovered that the local theater manager had no power himself to bargain directly. He took orders from a central authority a thousand miles away.

A local radio station manager could push a button and instantly bring Izzie Jones from Chicago or Paul Whiteman from New York. The autonomy that the individual locals enjoyed became a millstone around their necks. It was clearly necessary that the national organization be given jurisdiction over these fields that had become national in scope, and that authority of which the studio men complain so loudly is precisely the same authority that has protected their jobs from underbidding by other locals through the years.

As time went on and commercial recording in all fields turned in millions upon millions in profits to the great corporations and musicians' wages and jobs grew slimmer and slimmer, it was James Petrillo who advanced the idea that these fabulous profits should be forced to share in some measure with the musicians they idled. It was largely on this platform that he was elected to the national presidency, and it is to this cause that he has clearly devoted himself

ever since.

Let me here discuss the present moral position of the international executive board. The relation of the musician to the recording industry is entirely different from the relationship of other workers who have been technologically displaced. The Frigidaire is not dependent upon the muscles of the iceman, nor is a Cadillac dependent on the strong back of a horse. These advances can truly be called progress. But the recording industry is dependent in direct ratio to the ability of musicians who made the industry possible. So when the recording industry impairs the health and even threatens to destroy one of our great arts, a large segment of our national culture that the machine era originally made possible, that, gentlemen, is not progress but retrogression.

To what extent, then, has the recording industry affected the health of the music profession?

In the 1920's all the thousands of theaters the country over employed orchestras. In the big cities many had orchestras up to 50 and 60 men. But now for years theater employment has been practically nonexistent. In 1954 the 7 major studios in Hollywood employed exactly 303 full-time musicians.

The total wages paid musicians in 1954 to put sound track on film was a little over $4 million, far less than 1 percent of the gross cost of filmmaking.

In the 1920's when radio was young, musicians found considerable employment in local radio staff orchestras. With the rise of the networks local staff orchestras disappeared, and today there are no musicians whatever on any of the 2,500 purely local stations.

Network employment in 1954, according to American Federation of Musicians figures, totaled roughly $13 million in wages to musicians mostly in Hollywood and New York-this amount by an industry

whose revenue is in the hundreds of millions and their programs heavily saturated with music. In the TV industry, although I have no figures, the story is exactly the same.

An excellent summation of the musicians' plight appeared in Time magazine May 7, 1936. Although more music is being heard by the public than ever before, musicians' jobs have declined at this rate according to this authoritative survey. Reckoned in man-years, in 1930 there were 99,000 years, in 1940, 70,000 years, in 1954 there were only 59,000 years, and TV is causing a further deterioration of the situation.

Which employers in all other industries are constantly increasing wages and benefits to their employees and more and more recognition of their social and moral responsibilities to those employees, even now to the point of a guaranteed annual wage and all of this adding greatly to the general prosperity, the multi-million-dollar employers of the motion picture, radio, and TV industry steadfastly refuse to recognize even 1 cent or moral responsibility to a great culture upon which they have become largely parasitic.

One tiny concession that the musicians have gained is in the field of disk records and transcriptions, the tools of the disk jockey's trade. During 1941 and early 1942 the American Federation of Musicians abstained from making records. In effect this could be called a strike, and the federation finally forced the record companies to contribute a small amount per record specifically designated as a compensating measure to offset the displacement of musicians. The record companies paid roughly $3 million to the national trust fund in 1954 from total sales of over a quarter of a billion dollars. These funds are expended at prevailing scales for free public performances of music of all types. This serves a dual purpose. It keeps alive the spark of live music and alleviates unemployment, not too impressive but the national trust fund was hailed by the International Labor Office Conference in Geneva in 1951 as the first major success by any labor organization in combating technological unemployment.

Musicians view the national trust fund as a potential means of fulfilling a great void in our union structure. By the very nature of the music business, very few of us enjoy the fringe benefits that most unions enjoy-holidays with pay, vacations, hospitalization, retirement benefits. Only a few locals have a 6-day week, let alone a 5-day week. The national trust fund, which is only in its infancy, could conceivably be developed to fulfill this void.

That the national trust fund is on sound moral ground and a bulwark against the extinction of the musical art no one can deny.

When the federation properly asks a small percentage payment into the national trust fund for the production of TV film, the employers have seized upon an excellent opportunity to divide our ranks. The total cost of music for these TV productions is only a minor factor in gross production cost and 5 percent of that cost to the national trust fund is certainly insignificant. The moral responsibility to music of these parasitic employers is certainly many times greater than the small percentage the federation asks, but they either refuse to accept this responsibility outright or tell us that the cost would be too great. So they tell us that they will simply reuse music we have already recorded rather than contribute to the national trust fund. They do this very thing on a large scale anyway at their own pleasure

and profit. But with this fraudulent pretext they have succeeded in convincing some members of the Los Angeles local that they are actu.ally losing employment.

Before this committee has appeared a witness who assumes to be president of the Los Angeles local and purporting to represent the interests of all muscians but who actually parrots this crude and obviously spurious argument of the employers. It is exactly comparable to Walter Reuther telling the auto workers that in his opinion General Motors has no moral responsibility to pay any fringe benefits and, anyway, it would make the cost of cars too high.

Let us examine the charge of dictatorship by President Petrillo and the international executive board which has been hurled about in the press and probably to this committee. This premise infers that President Petrillo is coercively acting against the wishes of the greatmajority of the musicians whom he represents. Nothing could be further from the truth. The American Federation of Musicians is completely democratic in the American tradition. [Laughter from the audience.] The annual convention is our final authority. It is composed of delegates who are democratically elected by the various locals. Delegates can be and frequently are instructed by their memberships to introduce resolutions and to oppose others. They elect the officers and members of the international executive board, who are responsible to the convention and who themselves are mostly presidents of locals and as such must be sensitive to the wishes of their memberships.

If Mr. Petrillo were to stand before the convention next month and announce that he favors the abandonment of the national trust fund and returning all recording and TV percentages to the musicians who originally made these recordings, you would see democracy at work in a hurry. He would be immediately supplanted as national president and replaced by someone who would protect the national trust fund. The argument that Mr. Petrillo and the international executive board are dictators is disproven by the convention each June. It is simply a spurious contention by those few musicians who build their mansions with stones torn from their brothers' homes. [Laughter from the audience.]

As the economic plight of the musician worsens month by month and with it weakens one of the great cultures, the Congress must eventually be called upon to consider the problem. Direct Federal subsidies, as is the practice in many foreign countries, is both distasteful and unnecessary in prosperous America. A reversal of the application of the 20 percent cabaret tax law, that now protects the jukebox and penalizes the musician, would at once provide thousands of jobs. It is sound business for the tax collector to allow live orchestras who do pay income tax to be free of the 20 percent tax and pass the 20 percent tax on to the jukeboxers was pay no income tax. Radio stations operate on immensely valuable channels owned by the public, for which they pay nothing. The Federal Communications Act requires these stations to act "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity." By no stretch of the imagination is it in the public interest for these parasites to destroy the art of music which occupies over half of their program time.

A broadening of our copyright laws to permit some form of performance copyright should be studied, and appropriate tax on the reuse of recorded music for commercial purposes.

All these and other measures must be left to the judgment of the Congress and more expert minds than mine, but the musician has a right to share in the general prosperity. For many the depression never ended.

I thank you very much, gentlemen, for your time.

Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Hassler, are you familiar with article 1, section 1 of the bylaws of your organization?

Mr. HASSLER. Yes; I certainly am.

Mr. LANDRUM. Do you believe in all that it says in that article?

Mr. HASSLER. You mean am I in favor of retaining those provisions in which we have given Mr. Petrillo the power to suspend the constitution?

Mr. LANDRUM. Yes.

Mr. HASSLER. Let's look at the situation this way: That authority of course was not given to Mr. Petrillo. It was given to his predecessor, Mr. Weber.

Mr. LANDRUM. I didn't ask about who had the authority or to whom it was given. I asked if you were in favor of it.

Mr. HASSLER. I am in favor of its retention. The question is, has Mr. Petrillo abused this power.

Mr. LANDRUM. No; that is not the question I asked you. I am not talking about Mr. Petrillo. If you were in Mr. Petrillo's position would you want this?

Mr. HASSLER. The power is at times necessary; yes. The last time it was used it was necessary.

Mr. LANDRUM. You would want it if you were president?

Mr. HASSLER. If another world war should come along we would have to put it back if we take it out.

Mr. LANDRUM. Would you want this in the bylaws if you were president?

Mr. HASSLER. It definitely belongs there. The last time it was used it belonged there.

Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Hassler, would you want this provision if you were president?

Mr. HASSLER. I don't imagine there would be any use for me to have it, but if a war came along I would need it again because travel restrictions would keep the national board from meeting and would keep the convention from meeting. The last time president Petrillo used that clause it was completely necessary. He used it to suspend the dues of members going into the Armed Forces.

Mr. LANDRUM. That is beside my question. One more time: Yes or no?

Mr. HASSLER. Yes.

Mr. LANDRUM. If you were president would you want it?

Mr. HASSLER. I think it is quite proper.

Mr. LANDRUM. Yes or no; would you?

Mr. HASSLER. Yes.

Mr. LANDRUM. Do you have any questions, Mr. Roosevelt?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes; Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hassler, can you tell me how the delegates are elected to the convention?