construction permits in the present law which has led to some of the abuses under this transfer section.

SECTION 11

This section amends section 311 of the present act which relates to the application of the antitrust laws of the United States. The present law contains two sections (sec. 311 and 313) which deal with this subject. Section 313 of the present act makes clear that all licensees under the Communications Act come within the provisions of the antitrust laws and that if any licensee is found guilty of a violation of antitrust laws the court may, as an additional penalty, also revoke the license of the person or group found guilty. Section 311 of the present law specifically directs the Commission to revoke any license. which the court has ordered to be revoked under the authority of section 313 and authorizes the Commission to revoke the license of a person found guilty of antitrust violation if the court itself has not ordered such revocation.

Licensees have consistently contended during various hearings before this committee that these two sections constitute an unfair discrimination against radio station licenses and that such a double penalty is not imposed upon other classes of business by any other statute. The committee is impressed, to a degree, with this argument and in place of the present sections 311 and 313 recommends the proposed new section 311, which makes clear that all licensees under the Communications Act are fully amenable to all antitrust laws and that they can be proceeded against for any antitrust violation.

SECTION 12

This section amends section 312 of the present act which deals with revocation of licenses. Under existing law a station license may be revoked for false statements either in the application, or in the statement of fact which may be required from time to time, which would warrant the Commission in refusing to grant a license on an original application; or for failure to operate substantially as set forth in the license; or for violation or failure to observe any of the restrictions or conditions of the act or of regulations of the Commission authorized by the act or a treaty ratified by the United States. It is clear, therefore, that revocation is the sole administrative penalty in the case of violations ranging from the most serious to the most minor and affecting those who may innocently violate regulations of the Commission on technical matters.

The committee feels that this is not a satisfactory situation for two reasons: The Commission is reluctant to revoke a license for a minor offense and therefore minor offenses may be committed almost with impunity; and there exists no clear distinction between types of offenses. It is felt, therefore, that some method of procedure short of revocation should be provided for minor or less serious violations. It is therefore provided that the Commission may issue cease-anddesist orders for such less serious violations. The revocation penalty remains in effect only for (1) violations of cease-and-desist orders, and (2) for those situations in which the Commission learns of facts or conditions after the granting of a license which would have warranted it in refusing to grant a license had it known those facts.

Revocation and cease-and-desist proceedings are, of course, subject to proper hearing procedures and are appealable to the courts. The burden of proof in all such proceedings is upon the Commission.

SECTION 13

This section amends section 313 of the present act, which deals with application of the antitrust laws and has been eliminated from the act as has been explained under section 11 of this bill. The proposed new section deals with modification of construction permits and licenses and amplifies the existing provisions of section 319 of the act dealing with construction permits.

The new language authorizes the Commission to modify a license or a construction permit when, in the judgment of the Commission, such modification will promote the public interest, convenience, or necessity, or the provisions of the Communications Act, or in order to more fully comply with the provisions of any treaty ratified by the United States. However, it is made clear that no order of modification will become final until the holder of the permit or license has been notified in writing of the action to be taken and the reason for it, and given a reasonable time to show cause in a public hearing why the order of modification should not be made. The bill specifies the procedure to be followed by the Commission in each case and, in the case of cease and desist and revocation proceedings, provides that the burden of proof for the modification sought shall be upon the Com

mission.

SECTION 14

This section is a revision of section 315 of the present act, dealing with the use of radio stations in political campaigns. The present law on this subject merely provides that if a broadcast station permits a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use the station, it must afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates and it authorizes the Commission to make rules and regulations on this subject. The grant of power to the Commission is so broad and the feelings engendered during political campaigns are so marked that the result has been unsatisfactory both to candidates and to radiostation licensees.

The existing law makes clear that the Commission has no authority to require a licensee to permit the use of his station for a political campaign. That prohibition is retained in the recommended new language but with the added requirement that if a licensee does permit use of his station for political-campaign broadcasts, certain conditions and obligations are imposed upon him to insure greater equality of opportunity and fairness of treatment.

In brief, these conditions and obligations are:

1. If a legally qualified candidate in any election is permitted to use a broadcast station, the station must afford equal opportunity to all other such candidates for the same office. This means that while a licensee is under no obligation of law to either sell time to a candidate or give a candidate free time, the licensee must, if he gives or sells time, treat every candidate for that same office substantially alike.

2. No licensee is required by law to give or sell time for discussion of public or political questions. However, if he does give or sell

time initially for such discussions, he must grant equal opportunities, in the aggregate, for the presentation of opposite views. For example, if a licensee makes available a half hour for such a discussion he must make available a half hour for the presentation of the total of all other views.

The committee believes it is important to point out that it was seriously impressed with testimony from radio station operators that unless some restrictions were placed on time made available for such discussions, stations would be snowed under with scores of demands for time which could jeopardize their entire program schedules; that attempting to give fair treatment and afford opportunity for public discussion of important questions might bring about a situation in which stations would be required to present a dozen different viewpoints on a single question. The committee believes that the requirement that only as much time be given for opposite views as was given in the first instance will prevent undue hardships for the licensee and still result in fairer treatment for those having views to present and to the listening public. The committee expresses the earnest hope that licensees will construe this provision liberally; that they will attempt sincerely to present to the best of their ability the fullest discussion, always remembering that they have, as licensees, in a democratic republic an important public duty to aid in the dissemination of varying viewpoints. It may be noted, incidentally, that the public welfare is better served when there is no tax on free speech, i. e., where the right to speak does not depend upon the financial ability of the would-be speaker.

3. Those who use a radio station for political discussion or for the discussion of other public questions, must furnish the licensee in writing the name of the speaker, the subject of the discussion, the capacity in which the speaker appears, how time for the broadcast was made available and, if paid for, by whom. The licensee of the station must make an announcement of this information at the beginning and at the conclusion of the broadcast except that when a public officer is the speaker the announcement required is limited to the information of what public office the speaker holds, whether the office is elective or appointive, and if appointive who made the appointment.

4. The flat prohibition against the licensee of any station exercising any censorship authority over any political or public question discussion is retained and emphasized. This means that the Commission cannot itself or by rule or regulation require the licensee to censor, alter, or in any manner affect or control the subject matter of any such broadcast and the licensee may not in his own discretion exercise any such censorship authority. A provision is added exempting the licensee from any civil or criminal action because of any broadcast made by others than the licensee or those under his control under the provisions of this section so that the legal responsibility will lie against the speaker.

The committee has defined the term "equal opportunities" in this section to make clear exactly what is intended in requiring fairness and equality of treatment in this field of broadcasting. The committee is aware that it cannot impose such hard and fast statutory standards as to make it impossible or even difficult for a licensee to conform to the requirements of the section. But at the same time it believes.

that the standards set should be clear enough to bring about a general uniformity of fair treatment for this type of discussion. The committee does not intend that one speaker be given free time while another who opposes his point of view be compelled to pay for time; neither does the committee regard as equal opportunity a situation where one speaker is granted time during the favorable early evening hours while another is granted time during early morning hours or late at night; neither does the committee regard as fair treatment within the meaning of this section a situation whereby one speaker is given time over a network of 100 stations, for example, while another expressing different views gets time over only a portion of such a network of stations with many of the network stations either failing to carry the program at all or rebroadcasting it at a much later hour. The committee does not intend to place broadcasters in a straitjacket but trusts that common sense and good judgment of licensees will be exercised in carrying out a policy of fair treatment so far as is possible. The testimony before the committee and the facts available to it clearly demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of licensees at the present time do attempt to maintain the proposed standards of fairness and equality now recommend to be written into law, and it is not believed that the recommended section will work any hardship upon licensees.

The final subsection makes emphatic and certain that the Commission has absolutely no authority, directly or indirectly, by suggestion or otherwise, to require a licensee to sell or give time, as the case may be, to candidates or for the discussion of public questions; this is designed to remove the Government agency from the arena of political controversy. But, once a licensee has sold time or made it available for the purposes of this section, the Commission has a specific duty to see that he carries out the provisions of the section in complete fairness and equity.

SECTION 15

This section amends section 326 of the present act, which deals with the question of censorship of radio communications by the Commission. The existing law makes clear that the Commission has absolutely no power of censorship over radio communications and that it cannot impose any regulation or condition which would interfere with the right of free speech by radio.

That prohibition is retained in identical language in the recommended new section. There is added to it the additional provision that, except where the act specifically declares otherwise, the licensee has the right and duty to personally determine both the character of the material in a program and the source of it. This added language is intended to and makes definitely clear that the licensee is the sole judge and arbiter of the material he broadcasts and that the Commission has no authority whatsoever over radio programs.

The contention has been made and seriously urged by certain members of the industry during the hearings on S. 1333, that the people of the United States, acting through their Congress and the regulatory agency, should have no authority, once a license is granted, to consider "programing" in determining whether a licensee has in fact operated a station in the public interest. The committee there

fore believes that it is important to make explicit in statutory law what is now believed to be implicit under existing law as a result of Commission procedure. For this reason a proviso has been added to this section which, in express terms, is intended to make certain that the Federal regulatory agency has the authority, notwithstanding any other provision in the Communications Act, to evaluate the overall operation of a radio station as the expiration of its 3-year license period in order to determine whether that operation has been in the public interest.

The proviso clause thus confirms the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in the Brinkley and Shuler cases in which it was held that the Commission is empowered to deny a renewal of license where a review of the station's past operation indicated that the licensee had not operated in the public interest. The committee is strongly of the opinion that a licensee should be required to make an accounting of his conduct to the Commission. The denial of this power would establish indeterminate licenses; moreover, there would be no authoritative check, other than public opinion, on the program responsibilities of licensees. While public opinion is a powerful force, it becomes, in fact, a weak reed upon which to lean in situations such as radio broadcasting where the licensee would be protected by law from having to accede to public opinion.

It has been suggested that a constitutional question is here presented involving free speech. The committee has no hesitancy in declaring that the administrative power heretofore affirmed by the Supreme Court and now made a part of statute law by this section is clearly within the constitutional limitations. The problems of administrative control of program standards presents no easy solution. The committee believes that the problems presented by this proviso clause were cogently discussed by the chairman (Senator White) during the hearings in the following statement:

One of the principal complaints against the Commission has been that it has interpreted the public interest in such manner as to discriminate between licensees. It has compelled licensees to vary, modify, or change program content or methods of doing business by withholding renewals, or by other methods without granting hearings and making specific charges or complaints. The Commission has no such power now, it was not intended to have such power and this bill would not grant it such power. But, as the regulatory agency, the Commission should have and does have the authority to grant or deny renewals of applications based on findings as to whether a licensee has operated in the public interest. So long as the licensee or applicant has a clear, definite, and orderly procedure to seek a final determination on the question in the courts, there can be no criticism of the regulatory function granted by the Congress.

The proposed language of this section does not take away the Commission's authority to make a finding whether or not a licensee has operated in the public interest; it is, in fact, affirmed. But it also makes clear that the Commission does not have the authority to tell a licensee directly or indirectly, what he can broadcast, or how he should run his day-by-day business.

This means that, while the Commission has no authority whatsoever over material to be broadcast it does have the explicit and positive authority to measure a licensee's general operation, including "programing," against the broad yardstick of public interest. If, in its judgment, the Commission determines that the over-all operation of a licensee has not been in the public interest it may refuse to renew such a license. Of course, such a determination is subject to all of the procedural standards in the act and are appealable to the courts.

S. Repts., 80-2, vol. 4- -43