with the Congressional delegation from Montana to inform them of some of the things that are happening in Montana that they have a great and abiding interest in. In turn I want to find out from them some of the things that are happening here in Washington which have impact on Montana, so that I might report to the people on my broadcast stations.

I did not come into the broadcast business from another endeavor, but rather stepped out of college and into broadcasting, working for nothing for three months and then at $200 a month for a year and a half. I got into ownership by taking over busted radio properties, and then through myself and some other fine young people, being successful in making them a partial success. We've done it with borrowed money, and this is another reason why Senate Bill 2004 must be passed.

A banker will loan me money based on my performance in the past, in servicing the debt that I have incurred. He will loan me money on my proven record of performance in broadcasting. He will not loan me money if every 3 years I am running the gauntlet of license piracy because a flaw in the current radio act and rules and regulations exists.

Most of my debt with bankers and equipment companies now range from one to five years in term. I can tell you it takes a long and really efficient year, seven days a week, to make a business go sufficiently well to retire debt on that term. Frankly, I could not do it if it were not for cash being generated from other investments.

What am I to do? Am I to continue to put more money into broadcasting and take an ever-decreasing return or non-existent return? Must I continue to run a substantial economic risk and then face the blade of the guillotine at renewal time? Our small organization and our people in it are reorganized in our industry as being above average in performance and business acumen, and yet, if we cannot make a viable business, then how is this industry to continue?

I do not exaggerate when I candidly state that as much of my time as a broadcaster today is required in analyzing whether my actions will have the approbation of the Federal agency as I can reasonably devote to the exercise of my public service role in the community my stations serve.

Broadcast programming demands creativity for public acceptance. It is not generally understood or appreciated that a single quarter-hour television program may require the intense effort of several people over a prolonged period to produce it. It is extremely difficult for small market operations, with limited staffs, to meet the continuing demands of creativity, while at the same time dispatching a mounting administrative work-load being thrust upon us.

On June 10, 1968, Montana's first new television station in twelve years went on the air in Kalispell. You know Northwestern Montana as locale of Glacier National Park and as site of the Hungry Horse Dam and the new Libby Dam on the Kootenai River. It is a breath-takingly beautiful area of lakes and rivers and massive mountains, but it is an area of sparse population and widely-separated valley communities. Kalispell had a local television station ten years ago, but it was forced to "go dark" due to saturation of the market by out-of-state television signals imported by a CATV system. The citizens of Northwestern Montana were without local, free television service for a decade because of cable television.

Giving the people of this mountainous region local television service required an investment of $350,000 for a transmitter on a 7,000 foot mountain, studios in downtown Kalispell, tower, antenna, cameras, microwave and the full facilities for local program origination. Now, I do not have that kind of equity and I had to go to the bank with my hat in my hand and borrow the funds necessary to equip and staff the station. Today's high interest rates make such a bank visit a traumatic experience. KCFW-TV serves a total of only 25,000 television homes in a four-county area. Sources of income are quite limited. I cannot hope to get my investment back in the three-year period for which the Commission licensed the station. During its initial year of operation, the station had a substantial deficit. But it was important to me to give the citizens of Northwestern Montana local television service. For the first time in history, they see two local half-hour newscasts daily, featuring film, videotape and live coverage of local news events. They know what's transpiring in their state capital. KCFW-TV is supporting Kalispell's new junior college which is experiencing a rough financial start. Senator Mansfield, in his forthcoming bid for re-election, will be able for the first time to reach constituents in Northwestern Montana on local television. The Kalispell, Columbia Falls, Whitefish and Libby Chambers of Commerce are delighted with our station's efforts to increase Canadian trade and cultural ex

change. Students of Flathead County High School saw their athletic teams in action on local television for the first time last Fall, when the Braves played the Spartans in Missoula, and Montana's icy roads prevented parents from making the 150-mile drive to attend the contests.

Yet, almost before the ink is dry on the bank loan, the real estate contract and the station equipment ordered, we must re-apply for license renewal of our Kalispell station. And, unless S. 2004 is adopted, when we do so, our total unrecovered investment, our borrowed capital, our equipment, our studio facilities, our staff, could be jeopardized by cross-filing by individuals or groups with no prior broadcast experience, no track records, but with a portfolio of promises about performance. Local cable interests contributed to closure of a station in the community once. They may try again.

Despite the blanket indictments leveled by broadcasting's critics, the record reveals very few, if any, license revocations for failure to serve the public interest. Failure to maintain calibrated signal strength, yes. Faulty engineering, yes. Failure to comply with FCC administrative and reporting procedures, yes. But flagrant violation of the public will, no!

In small market broadcasting, everyone knows the station announcers, engineers, manager and cameramen. It is a warm, people-to-people relationship between broadcaster and community. Our stations are well identified and, because we are a known force for social, economic and political discussion, we must be responsive to the public. We must rub shoulders daily with our neighbors. We cannot otherwise fulfill our public service responsibilities, for the people in small communities exert a strong influence upon our judgments and decisions. I refer not just to Montana, but to Topeka, Medford, Cheyenne, Alamogordo, Twin Falls, Great Bend, Tyler and Bismarck and to scores of other towns and rural areas served by conscientious broadcasters. They ventured into the communications field with borrowed capital. With limited sources of income, they must plan-long range-to replace expensive equipment with even more expensive newer models. They must commit themselves to syndicated film libraries extending over a long period of time. They must consider employee profit sharing plans based on ten or more years of vestment. Their entire broadcast operations must be conducted on the premise that they will be serving the public for an extended period of time, rather than being preempted due to a policy which permits them to become a doctrinaire casualty of a Federal agency. They cannot afford to build now toward returns which a cross-filing applicant will reap at license renewal time.

Earlier this month, one of our station managers learned of an art class being conducted on the shores of Flatland Lake under auspices of the University of Montana. A talented French artist, who resides in New York City, has been working with Flathead Indian children in the 6 to 16 age group, encouraging them to express themselves in oils and water colors. The results of her training were remarkable and the canvases produced show remarkable latent talent. Some may be subjects of UNESCO Christmas cards this season. Our television station in Missoula produced a half-hour videotape documentary featuring the artist, her native American charges, and their paintings. The master tape was given by our station to the University and it was forwarded to the Rockefeller Foundation, which requested permission to see it with the view to authorizing a grant to the University of Montana Art Department to further encourage Indian art.

I cite this single example of program initiative only to illustrate that small market broadcasters conscientiously seek out new ways to serve their public. My Missoula station produced 104 documentary and special event programs during 1967 and 1968, and we didn't begin to get back our full investment of time, effort, travel or equipment cost. It's our obligation to do so and our efforts are largely ignored by the Jack Goulds, Cleveland Amorys and Lewis Shayons. Are such efforts to be jeopardized by strike applications filed when we seek license renewals? If so, who judges the panel of judges? Presently, we are judged by citizens of our communities.

We, who own and operate radio and television stations in small markets, are keenly aware of our responsibilities and extremely sensitive to our publics. No industry, I venture, engages in quite so much self-analysis, participates in more industry meetings, nor responds quite so readily to constructive criticism as do small market broadcast station owners and management. There are few or no secrets. Broadcasting is life in a glass house every action is visible and audible. Conscientious effort is rewarded and encouraged in the American

home, church and school. Should it not also be treated approvingly when the broadcaster applies for license renewal without threat of reprisal or rebuke? Broadcasters, and particularly small market broadcasters, feel that a saturation point has been reached by those who appear to derive satisfaction and notoriety from flailing radio and television in print and from every convenient platform. These critics seldom miss an opportunity, particularly if there is a byline credit, to badger broadcasting. It is not enough, they appear to feel, that broadcasting is subject to daily official manifestos and regulations so stringent as to approach Japanese thought-control. They issue public statements in news columns, intellectual magazines and from every convenient pulpit which ridicule, chastise and bludgeon the broadcaster to the point that one wonders if this great medium has done anything right in its half century of service to America.

There is mounting evidence to validate the interpretation that censorship of our broadcast media has arrived, despite official protestations to the contrary. The broadcasters rules now spell out in minute detail what products may be advertised, what degree of station ownership shall prevail and what constitutes balanced program fare.

The broadcaster does not need daily trips to the woodshed for punishment of imagined wrongs. The measure of his responsibiilties are generously provided by his viewing and listening audience, his local civic organizations, his ministerial association, his PTA groups, his women's clubs, his Campfire and Boy Scout groups, his veterans and labor organizations, his advertisers and, yes, by his wife and children. Americans are candid in expressing their opinions which they do so openly. They are just as candid in switching channels or frequencies if programming displeases them. There is an innate distaste and revulsion in America against any sort of censorship. The broadcaster knows full well his obligations to be responsive to the needs of the people he serves. It is a sevenday-a-week, 365-days-a-year, responsibility which broadcasters welcome and dispatch as no other industry in America assumes. Nor is it a responsibility which any licensee can delegate to any outside authority. It is his job and his job alone to so structure his programming, offer diverse views, support worthy projects, seek out public opinion and provide viewers and listeners with their primary source of news, entertainment and information. It is this continuing service which makes our established broadcasting system so valuable in America today. My Missoula television station produced and broadcast during 1968 more than 100 full-length programs, documentaries, at-the-scene remote programs, forums, and other local program fare were produced by a small but talented news and production staff. On the basis of this performance, the Greater Montana Foundation, whose purpose is to encourage the best possible broadcast service for Montana citizens, awarded KGVO-TV top honors as Television Station of the Year in Montana, as well as first place for Television Program of the Year. This annual competition among Montana radio and television stations is very keen and scores of entries are submitted which, following the annual judging, are placed on permanent file at the Montana Historical Society Library in Helena so the public may have a record of broadcasting. This is a private broadcasting effort— not one required by official direction.

Broadcasters do not seek hero status. Our reward is derived from informing, serving and entertaining the public. To do so, 18 to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, requires the highest degree of creativity, resourcefulness and sensitivity to public needs and desires. But we must know our life expectancy to be of maximum public service. The license renewal function must not be a guillotine exercise.

All broadcasters have long sought a longer licensing period. The three-year licensing cycle and the increased load of administrative work now required to prepare license renewal forms is a particularly difficult problem for small market broadcasters. For emphasis, I would like to repeat that. The three-year licensing cycle and the increased load of administrative work now required to prepare license renewal forms is a particularly difficult problem for small market broadcasters.

Our staffs are small and we do not have access to, nor can we afford, expensive counsel. In small markets, it is generally the station owner or manager, his Chief Engineer and his Program Director who must personally prepare the exhaustive license renewal forms for filing. Senator Metcalf freely admitted to a group of Montana broadcasters recently that, on the basis of his own experience, he never could understand the broadcast license form and personally appreciated the vast amount of time and effort which must be devoted, every three years, to its preparation.

To date, the Commission has turned a deaf ear to the broadcasters' request for a five-year licensing period. In fairness, some members of the Commission have favored the lightening of this load both in the interests of the broadcaster and of the Commission itself. There is proposed legislation before Congress to grant a longer license term and we who operate small market stations and who must go through this trial every three years earnestly believe it will be in the public interest if the proposed legislation is enacted into law. A longer term would give broadcasters more time to be of greater service to the public.

We who operate our broadcast stations conscientiously simply cannot comprehend why certain officials seek to make it extremely difficult for station owners to renew their licenses. They appear to wish to compound our problems by encouraging any citizen or group to cross-file for licenses at renewal time. They would do this with no genuine knowledge concerning qualifications of those whom they encourage to cross-file. In so doing, they make a sham of the very numerous and restrictive regulations to which broadcasters must adhere under penalty of fine and forfeiture. I applaud this Committee's expressed view that such actions simply stimulate and foment trouble and penalize the licensee who is trying to do a conscientious public service job.

The Communications Act, the maze of regulations adopted by the Commission, the NAB Code, and the broadcaster's own self-interest provide the responsible station and its management with ample guidelines for public responsiveness to dutiful discharge of a licensee's commitments. And, regardless of all of these, the public itself is the final judge of broadcast performance. It is meet and right, therefor, that the Communications Act not be rewritten by Commission edict. Responsible broadcasters, in seeking license renewals in good faith, must not be penalized by the Commission considering opposing applications for the same operating license if the present license-holder has discharged his obligations in the public interest, convenience and necessity.

Broadcasters would hope, rather, that the Commission expend more effort to provide broadcasters with timely relief from the excessive restrictions which presently shackle them. A longer licensing period. Authority to operate isolated transmitters by automation with sophisticated modern telemetry devices which relieve the broadcaster from the costly necessity of maintaining licensed technicians on duty 24 hours a day to read meters twice hourly. Must we adhere to out-dated technical personnel regulations when the Apollo program has conclusively demonstrated that transmitters can be remotely controlled on satellites and on the moon? Why not comparatively unsophisticated transmitters on a mountain? The elimination of innocuous code wheels from translators which are used in no other country in in the world! Applying rules, regulations and the same accounting and reporting procedures to CATV systems with equal force as such rules are applied to broadcasters. Allowing, if you please, broadcasters to operate the same number of channels in a community as a CATV system is permitted for program originations!

Gentlemen of the Committee, small market broadcasters throughout America, whose lives have been dedicated to the highest kind of public service in providing their communities with responsible electronic communication, are counting heavily upon fair play and justice prevailing in the passage of S. 2004. There is too much vivid evidence in the daily logs of broadcast performance, reflecting sensitivity to public needs and ideals, to controvert the self-seeking efforts of those who would defeat this proposed legislation. The very comparison by analysis of what broadcasters have done, are doing and will continue to do to move their communities and their states forward, with what dissidents are doing in their negative efforts to undermine our established broadcast structure, should convince the Committee and the Senate that S. 2004 must pass.

Responsible broadcasters everywhere believe that broadcasting has only just begun to realize its potential in service to mankind. This mood prevails at the station level, in our state and national broadcaster association meetings and in the studies and experiments which we underwrite. Surely it is evident that community involvement, sensitive stewardship and imaginative programming to reflect community needs and ideals-a course which the vast majority of responsible broadcasters follow-is preferable to the shock treatment of penalty, pressure, punishment and revocation of licenses which some would apply to our media simply because broadcasting is accessible and regulated.

Please accept my apologies for straying from the point of my testimony, but I could not allow to pass the opportunity to address myself to you on other areas of concern in small market broadcasting.

If I am to continue to get financing to keep my businesses going, if I am to continue to be able to attract people to broadcasting, if the operation of small market broadcasting is to continue as an effective means of communication, then I urgently solicit your support of S. 2004. I fervently hope that you, the committee, give Senate Bill 2004 a "Do pass" recommendation and that the Senate in turn quickly gives favorable approval to this long needed amendment to the Communications Act of 1934.

In behalf of small market broadcasters, I express my gratitude for this opportunity to appear and to testify before the committee.

Senator PASTORE. We will recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon the committee was recessed at 12:20 p.m., to reconvene at 2 p.m., this same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator PASTORE. Our first witness is Charles Moore.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES CLINE MOORE, HAIZLIP, RING, O'DONNELL & MOORE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles Cline Moore. I am an attorney at law practicing in San Francisco, Calif. I specialize in antitrust litigation. I have come here today to voice my opposition to S. 2004 for the reason that I believe that enactment of this legislation would perpetuate and increase the presently existing concentration of control of the media of mass communications in the United States.

My interest in this legislation stems not only from my personal belief that this legislation would abridge the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution by depriving the public of access to the mass media, but also for the reason that enactment of this legislation would effectively preclude public participation in license renewal proceedings.

I have some experience in these matters. I am the attorney for Albert Kihn and Blanche Streeter, who are complainants in the KRON-TV and KRON-FM, San Francisco, Calif., license renewal applications presently pending before the Federal Communications Commission in docket No. 18500 before the Commission. These license renewal applications of the Chronicle Broadcasting Co. are presently scheduled for hearing commencing January 8, 1970.

There has been no competing license application filed by any party. KRON-TV and KRON-FM are owned and operated as a subsidiary of the Chronicle Publishing Co., which publishes the only morning newspaper of general circulation in the San Francisco, Calif., metropolitan area, and which is a party to an illegal newspaper operating agreement with the Hearst Corp., doing business as the San Francisco Examiner.

An identical joint operating agreement was proscribed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131 (1969).

Chronicle and Hearst's response to this decision has been to exercise its political clout to attempt to force passage of the misnamed Newspaper Preservation Act. I am also the attorney for the plaintiffs in four pending civil antitrust actions against the Chronicle and Hearst interests arising out of the joint newspaper operating agreement. One