to a competitor was that of "diversification of control of the media of communication." That is, the owner of WHDH-TV also owned a standard (AM) radio station, an FM radio station and a daily newspaper in the same city (Boston) as that in which it operated its television station. The competing applicant owned no other broadcasting station or newspaper. In making its award to the competitor the Commission said: A new voice [will] be brought to the Boston community as compared with the continuing service of WHDH-TV. We believe that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is in the public interest. The public interest is served by promoting a diversity of sources of information and the Communications Act charges the Commission with promoting that diversity. One of the most serious consequences of the present bill will be that it strips the Commission of an effective tool for carrying out that policy. Only 17 days after it decided the WHDH case the FCC reached a result seemingly irreconcilable with it in the case of John Poole Broadcasting Company. In John Poole, the Commission approved the transfer of two Los Angeles radio stations, one standard (AM) and one FM, to Bonneville International Corporation. The transferee in turn was owned by the Mormon Church, which owned four TV stations in the Far West, four standard (AM) radio stations, six FM stations, an international short wave station and a principal daily newspaper in Salt Lake City. In addition it owned a possibly influential interest in the Times Mirror Company, the major "media giant" of Southern California, and the Commission did not trouble to find out how influential in controlling the corporation that interest was. The way in which the John Poole case was different from WHDH was that it involved the transfer of a license. By a 1952 amendment to the Communications Act the FCC was deprived of power to consider competing applications when a license was being transferred from one owner to another-just as the present bill will so deprive the FCC at the time of license renewal. There was no competing application for either of the Los Angeles licenses in the John Poole case and the Commission could only (1) approve the application or (2) require the stations to stay in the hands of an owner who had demonstrated his desire to sell out. Not only could the FCC not help "a new voice [to] be brought to the [Los Angeles] community," it felt that it could not keep from reducing the number of voices presently heard in the Far West. In the same way passage of the present bill will take away from the Commission its most effective tool for encouraging a larger and more diverse number of voices to be heard in every community. By eliminating competition for licenses it will leave the Commission with but two choices when facing the renewal of a license held by a media giant. It will have either (1) to renew the license despite misgivings about concentrated control or (2) let the channel become dark and silent while waiting for new applicants to come forward. It will not be able to know whether a better applicant can be found. In combination with the bar against competition in transfer proceedings, the bill will drive us toward accepting ever greater concentrations of control over our media of communications. For a self-governing people, intent on dealing with problems in a democratic manner-that is, by freely discussing and debating them-such concentration is fraught with enormous danger. III Third, there is already an enormous concentration of control over the major channels in our large population centers-especially over the VHF television channels. There are many large cities-Washington is one of them-in which no VHF broadcasting station is owned by an independent. The networks and the conglomerates have of course made a contribution when they have developed these important channels. But the Communications Act never promised a license in perpetuity as a reward for that contribution. And for any media giant with but a modest kitty to finance equipment purchases and programming it is impossible to say that this bill does not grant a license in perpetuity. The Communications Act assumes that the public will enjoy the best broadcasting available to choose from at the beginning of each three-year period. No one can say that the best today will also be the best three years from now. But the present bill will exclude new faces, new sources and new ideas from most of the major markets. One group of important new faces the present bill will exclude is that of black Americans. Representing more than 10% of our population, Negro broadcasters at present own almost no stations. It is obvious that such underrepresentation leaves Negro Americans with many unsatisfied needs. It denies them even representative participation in decisions that affect their lives. It is less obvious, but profoundly true, that this underrepresentation is harmful to white Americans as well. The inevitable effect of the present bill is nearly to freeze the status quo as regards such underrepresentation. By the same token the bill freezes out every other underrepresented class in American society. And this is not to mention the freeze it places upon the prospects for public broadcasting ever to acquire VHF channels in any of the large number of communities where it now has none. Thus, the prospects for station ownership by independents-especially VHF television station ownership in our major cities becomes remote if the present bill is adopted. That fact is tragic enough; it approaches disaster when one contemplates the number of underrepresented groups in America from whom these independent broadcasters might come. IV Fourth, an important policy of the Communications Act and of the FCC will be defeated by the adoption of this bill. That policy favors the local ownership and management of the broadcasting stations in each state and in each community, and the fair distribution of channels among them. It is expressed in Section 307 of the Communications Act which provides: (b) In considering applications for licenses, and modifications and renewals thereof, when and insofar as there is demand for the same, the Commission shall make such distribution of licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the several States and communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service to each of the same. The Act assumes that Duluth, Minnesota, or Cleveland, Ohio, will ultimately be better served by independent broadcasting companies, owned by people who live in those cities, than by a conglomerate or a network that is headquartered elsewhere. Each community needs its own voice, its own outlet for self-expression. In the original assignment of channels, the FCC (and its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission) took this factor into account. But the constant transfer of channels by sale and corporate merger has gradually shifted the control of local stations to distant owners. Very few of the VHF television licenses now outstanding, for instance, are held by the person or corporation to which they were originally awarded. The only power the FCC has to weigh the factor of local ownership significantly in its decisions arises when it is considering competing applicatons. For the larger population centers, important contests will be barred by the present bill. Thus, if the present bill is adopted, the trend toward increasing concentrations of control will continue without check. And increasingly these concentrations will move ownership out of the communities in which most Americans live and into the corporate headquarters of distant conglomerates. V Finally, we oppose the adoption of S. 2004 because it will tend to defeat the purposes of Title III of the Communications Act, the portion of that Act which regulates broadcasting. The first words of that title, expressing its purposes, provide a summation of our objections to this bill : It is the purpose of this chapter, among other things, to maintain control of the United States over all the channels of interstate and foreign radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license. The bill before this Committee will take from the Commission its most effective tool for trying to "maintain control of the United States over all the channels of interstate and foreign radio transmission." That tool is competition for licenses. In place of individual choices which permit the public in each community to enjoy the best that is offered them, the present bill will reduce the Commission to rule-making and arbitrary standards will determine whether the community shall be saddled with the same broadcasting diet for each successive three-year period. If adopted, this bill will make it no longer possible to say that an FCC license has granted "the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof" to the persons or corporations licensed. Wherever money is available for meeting minimal standards and hiring lawyers to advise on those minimums, licenses will become automatically renewable. The American people will have settled for mediocrity in the use of this vital resource, instead of insisting upon the best. It is in this sense that S. 2004 has been aptly characterized as a giveaway of an American natural resource-perhaps, for the people of a democracy, our most valuable natural resource. Senator PASTORE. Reverend Parker. Before Reverend Parker speaks, I have a list of witnesses. I have a David Poling. Is he here? Mr. POLING. Yes. Senator PASTORE. I have a David L. Batzka. Is he here? Senator PASTORE. Is there anyone else here to testify today? The reason why I have asked is because we have a very important vote coming up at 11:30, and then that will be succeeded by another vote within a matter of 40 minutes, and then, of course, we get ourselves into the noontime period. I have read all these statements, and I want them placed in the record. And I do not want to deny any person any amount of time that he feels is necessary to state his case. But there has been a tremendous amount of repetition, pro and con, favorable and against the bill, and it is all in the record. Naturally, the witness does not know that because he has not been here to hear all the testimony. Insofar as Reverend Parker is concerned, you pretty much might go I guess the whole distance up to 11:30, am I right? Reverend PARKER. Yes, sir. Senator PASTORE. Because I know of your intense interest in the Jackson, Miss. case, and I would like to hear you out completely on it. How about the other two witnesses? Could you return at 2 o'clock? Mr. BATZKA. Yes. Senator PASTORE. How long will you be? Mr. POLING. I will need 15 minutes. Senator PASTORE. You see, we have the tax reform bill on the floor, and there is going to be a succession of votes. I want to accommodate everyone who has had to travel to get here. Mr. BATZKA. Because I came from Indianapolis. Senator PASTORE. We will hear you at 2 o'clock. I think we ought to reserve all the time now until 11:30 to Reverend Parker. STATEMENT OF REV. EVERETT C. PARKER, UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION, NEW YORK CITY Reverend PARKER. Thank you very much, sir. I will cut down as far as I can. I would like to put the entire testimony plus appendixes into the record. Senator PASTORE. All of the written statements will go into the record. Reverend PARKER. My name is Everett C. Parker. I am director of the office of communication of the United Church of Christ. I am also chairman of the Broadcasting and Film Commission of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., but I do not speak for that body here. The United Church of Christ has a membership in excess of 2 million. The church was formed in 1957 through union of two historic Protestant denominations, the Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church. The office of communication is charged by the constitution of the United Church to conduct a ministry in mass communication in behalf of the church. Under this we do a great deal of educational work. We do programing, and I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you are familiar with one of our programs, "Congressional Comment," which is on 918 stations daily, and which gives any Senator or Representative an opportunity to speak on foreign policy. Senator PASTORE. You do a fine job. Reverend PARKER. We are very proud of that program. The board of directors of the office of communication has disapproved S. 2004. I report this fact for record purposes only. I am appearing here today solely as a private citizen. I do not speak for the United Church of Christ. I do not represent the office of communication of which I am director. The record should show my private status clearly, because a few days after the office of communication publicly expressed its opposition to S. 2004 and asked for the opportunity to testify before this committee, the United Church of Christ received a warning letter from the Acting District Director of Internal Revenue in New York City. This letter pointed out that contacting a legislative body or supporting or opposing legislation might jeopardize the taxexempt status of the United Church. An identical letter was sent to the National Council of Churches, the only other religious body that had expressed opposition to S. 2004 and asked for time to testify before this committee. Senator PASTORE. Say that again, please. Reverend PARKER. I say an identical letter was sent to the National Council of Churches on the same day. Senator PASTORE. From the Internal Revenue? Reverend PARKER. From the Acting Director of the Internal Revenue in New York. Senator PASTORE. Saying that if you came here as a representative Reverend PARKER. No, sir. It pointed out if we contacted a legislative body the letters are here in my testimony- that we would be jeopardizing our tax-exempt status. We made a careful investigation at the time, and we could not find any other religious organization that received such a letter. We replied and we had some correspondence with the Director in New York, but in spite of the fact that our attorneys have advised the office of communication that my appearance here will not result in loss of the exempt status of the United Church of Christ, we have chosen to accept the warning of the New York representatives of the Internal Revenue Service at face value and to forego the opportunity to testify here officially. However, I will be deeply grateful if this committee, in the course of its investigation into the interests of the broadcasting industry, will also determine by what means the attention of the Internal Revenue Service was directed to the United Church of Christ and the National Council of Churches at the particular time and under the particular circumstances. Senator PASTORE. I instruct Mr. Zapple to get into it. Reverend PARKER. I appreciate it. (Pursuant to Senator Pastore's instruction the matter was taken up with the Internal Revenue Service and the following letter was received from the Service:) U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Hon. JOHN O. PASTORE, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PASTORE: Last week Mr. Zapple of your office called us about a letter sent to the United Church of Christ in the U.S.A. by the Acting District Director of Internal Revenue in New York (Manhattan). That letter, dated August 8, 1969, was mentioned by Reverend Everett C. Parker in his testimony before your Subcommittee on Communications on December 3, 1969. Referring to it is a "warning" letter, Reverend Parker states that "it pointed out that contacting a legislative body or supporting or opposing legislation might jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the United Church." A letter similar to that sent the United Church of Christ on August 8 was sent to a number of religious and other organizations who appeared to be engaged in lobbying and other political activities regarding various current legislative proposals. Whenever questionable activities are brought to our attention (through news media, published material, or complaints by Members of Congress or by others) we feel that our District Offices render a service to an exempt organization by advising it of the complaint and calling its attention to the law on the subject. Section 501 (c) (3) of the Code, which provides for the exemption of religious, charitable, educational, etc., organizations, contains the limitation that no substantial part of the activities of such organizations is carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation. Whether an organization is engaged in any particular year in substantial attempts to influence is a question of fact to be determined from all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. We appreciate your interest in this matter. Sincerely, RANDOLPH W. THROWER, 1 Senator PASTORE. I do not call this lobbying at all. This idea that you appeared publicly as a representative of a lawful institution that is chartered under the law and that does serve a religious purpose and you come here and you cite your own opinion of pending legislation, whether it is for or against, I do not see that as lobbying. As a matter of fact, you do not have to register as a lobbyist to come here. Reverend PARKER. No, sir. The reason we are concerned Senator PASTORE. As a matter of fact, we could even subpena you to come here and testify. Reverend PARKER. And I have never testified. In the 15 years of life of the office of education, we have never testified before a congressional committee. The thing that concerned us greatly was that the letter from the Director said that he had read the paper that religious organizations were engaging in lobbying before Congress. You can see the letter. Well, to continue, the office of communication is concerned with the public interest in broadcasting. It believes that the American system of broadcasting depends upon active participation of its three partners, the public, the broadcaster, and the Government. With this in mind. the office of communication has worked to acquaint representative |