Broadcasting Telecasting (Jul-Sep 1960)

had considered broken program and advertising contracts that would result from suspension. ■ Duplicative. Rep. John Bennett (R-Mich.) said either the suspensions or fines would be adequate for FCC sanctions, but both would be more than necessary. ■ Confers excessive power on the FCC. Rep. Ken Hechler (D-W.Va.) felt it would give the FCC power to intimidate stations because of the variablity of the maximum and minimum suspensions or fines that may be imposed. Rep. Robert Hemphill (D-S.C.) thought it would lead to bureaucracy in government. ■ Permits the FCC to impose censorship indirectly on station programming— Rep. J. Edgar Chenoweth (RColo.). ■ Set a precedent for other governmental agencies to ask for similar powers, especially the forfeiture provisions— Rep. George Meader (RMich.). ■ Excessive. Rep. Jonas proposed $200 instead of $1,000 forfeitures in an amendment which was defeated. ■ Deprives a licensee, in forfeiture cases, of show cause processes as in cease and desist orders, and forces him directly into court — where issues "will be very narrow"— without notice, without hearing and without opportunity to "interpose a defense" — Rep. Jonas. ■ Inhibits growth of small businesses (forfeiture) by imposing a fine on a small station licensee "for each day he contests and challenges" the FCC order, plus cost of litigation. — Rep. Meader. Rep. Avery's amendments to confine suspension and forfeiture sanctions to offenses committed deliberately, knowingly or negligently would remove objections to the two provisions. He acknowledged other agencies might ask for similar sanctions, but said congressmen would "cross those bridges when we come to them." Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said the provisions will deprive no licensee of due process; that they are subject to "full and complete judicial review at every point"; and that it would be impossible for the FCC to act arbitrarily or capriciously even if it so wished. Rep. Harris said the forfeitures provision was added to the bill so the FCC could impose that instead of a suspension where it saw fit, thus offering an alternative to taking a station off the air. The provisions not only assure that licensees carry out their responsibility, but affords them protection and proper procedure, he said. Deletion of the forfeiture provision would make the penalty more severe for the station, he said. Harms Stations ■ Rep. Bennett, in opposing the bill, said the absence of provisions for network regulation penalizes the stations for the sins of the networks. Noting the oversight subcommittee recommended licensing of networks, he said the networks dominate tv programming, yet are not held re How Harris' payola strategy hit a snag Rep. Oren Harris' stratagem for getting his multiple payola and other amendments to the Communications Act enacted without a hearing on the Senate side ran into trouble last week because of his insistence on license suspension and forfeiture features. His House Commerce Committee's decision a few weeks ago to junk Rep. Harris' own bill (HR 11340) and graft its provision, in redrafted form, onto a Senate bill Rep. Harris Suspension and forfeiture . . . (S 1898) the House group has been sitting on since it passed the Senate last year was made in the hope the Senate would agree to the House amendments, including a virtual rewriting of an FCC pre-grant procedure designed and approved by the Senate to replace the McFarland Letter and protest provisions of the Communications Act. Whether Rep. Harris' plan might have worked became conjectural last week. The Senate Commerce Committee, apparently well briefed on the controversial nature of the suspensions and forfeitures, met Wednesday morning, the day after the House passage of the bill. The Senate group knew Senate and House leaders were at that moment in the process of deciding whether to recess at the end of last week and come back after the national political conventions to finish uncompleted legislation or to adjourn until next January. The Senate committee decided it ought to hold hearings on the suspensions and forfeitures if Congress were to return in August. It planned to meet again the next day (Thursday) when congressional intentions about an extended session would be known. If it had been decided that Congress would adjourn instead of returning in August, the committee then planned to face the problem of whether to insist on hearings (and thus kill the bill), ask for Senate agreement on the House amendments or suggest a Senate-House conference to iron out differences. Shortly after the Senate committee adjourned its Wednesday morning meeting the plan to return in August was announced and the committee was relieved of making that decision. Chairman John O. Pastore (D-R.I.) of the committee's Communications Subcommittee thereupon promptly announced that hearings would begin in early or midAugust on the penalty provisions. Sen. Pastore . . . calls for a hearing BROADCASTING, July 4, 1960 59